Despite historically the further education and skills (FES) sector has been positioned at a lower hierarchical level in comparison with schools and universities (Coffield, 2017), the FES sector is crucial for delivering the skills and social justice agendas and contributing to economic productivity (James-Relly et al., 2021). Consequently, there has been a paucity of academic research in the field. This is particularly the case for research on the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted), England’s external accountability body. who inspects colleges and other providers’ performance and quality of their education. In 2019 Ofsted implemented a new Education Inspection Framework (EIF), intending to improve colleges quality. Referencing ‘change management theory’: ‘We expect inspection to contribute to changes in behaviour. As a result, we expect children and learners to receive a higher quality of education and be better prepared for their next steps. Ofsted expects the long-term benefits of the EIF to improve learner success, improve overall effectiveness, and develop a shared concept of quality.’ (Ofsted, 2023).

Current reviews of the impact of inspections in the school sector have stressed the need for reform, as negative effects on teacher wellbeing, school improvement, student academic performance and stakeholders’ distrust have been documented. The effects on the FES sector have been less widely studied (Munoz-Chereau et al., 2024). It is therefore crucial to study the impacts, strengths and weaknesses of Ofsted inspections in the FES to ensure that it is a force for good in the sector.

Despite Ofsted being a unique inspection body to England, it has influenced many governance models implemented worldwide, ranging from Bahrain to Chile (Munoz-Chereau et al. 2022). Focusing on the UK, Ofsted shares both similarities and differences with inspection regimes from the devolved nations. Focusing on school inspections across the four nations of the UK, Munoz-Chereau et al. (2021) found that although the four nations’ inspections aimed to deliver public accountability/assurance and report to different stakeholders (i.e. parents), their approaches differed. More precisely, in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland school self-evaluation was widely promoted. Additionally, the Inspectorate of Education in Netherlands combines a supervisory and a supporting role, assisting VET providers to improve education and training quality (Cedefop, 2023). In contrast England’s inspection regime has been deemed restrictive in allowing colleges to respond to their internal challenges (Forrest, 2015), with Mayor et al. (2024) in their interviews with college stakeholders, reporting that ‘participants expressed apprehension that inspections, rather than being supportive, tend to impose restrictive measures’ (p.14).

We conducted a systematic search of the academic literature and found scarcity of academic research exploring the impact of Ofsted inspection in FES. From the 14 studies found, all of them raised concerns about the negative effects that Ofsted inspections are having in the sector. Focusing on the three previous systematic reviews on Ofsted school inspections that draw on dozens of studies, these are reporting mostly adverse impacts at the school level regarding student academic outcomes, teaching practices and behaviours, and school culture. It seems that negative consequences are more prominently reported in the academic literature than the benefits (Munoz-Chereau et al., 2024). Studying the impacts of Ofsted and the strengths and weaknesses of the EIF in FES is timely, as recently the inspectorate has come under increased scrutiny. The main research question of this paper is: What are the impacts of Ofsted inspection in the FES sector in England? Specifically we focus on:

• What are the strengths of Ofsted’s EIF in the FES sector in England?
• What are the weaknesses of Ofsted’s EIF in the FES sector?
• How do FES stakeholders experience Ofsted inspections?

To answer the research questions we conducted a Parallel Mixed Methods Design (PMMD) (Creswell and Creswell, 2017). The PMMD study integrated a survey and semi-structured interviews. Firstly general further education institutions in England that were inspected from 2019 onwards were invited to take part in the survey. Stakeholders were college employers including: those training to teach; tutors, lecturers; or teachers with additional responsibilities; middle managers; vice/deputy principals; and principals. We collected quantitative data regarding stakeholders’ views on Ofsted EIF inspections. The survey was oriented to better understand their perspectives about the perceived positive and negative effects of the Ofsted EIF on different outcomes, such as student outcomes, workload and wellbeing. It combined multiple choice and Likert scale questions to identify the level to which respondents agree with statements, with open-ended questions allowing respondents to elaborate their thinking. Given the small sample size (N; 35), descriptive statistical analysis were conducted. Following this, 18 semi-structured interviews gained deeper insights into stakeholders’ experiences with Ofsted EIF in different contexts. The aim of the qualitative semi-structured interviews was to understand the lived experiences of stakeholders. Interviewees were sampled from the survey respondents, other networks and through personal contacts. For the interviews we selected a criterion-based or purposive sample (Patton, 2014) by inviting survey participants to take part in the interview from FE colleges graded by Ofsted between 1 (outstanding) and 4 (inadequate), making sure that participants working in colleges and providers graded as both below and above ‘Good’ graded inspections were included. The interviews were conducted via Teams and Zoom, audio recorded, and transcribed verbatim for the analysis. We analysed the interviews by taking an inductive approach to build an interpretation based on constant comparisons between the different participants. The procedure consisted in breaking down the transcriptions into smaller pieces of information and comparing the pieces for similarities and differences before regrouping them under emerging themes and categories (Silverman, 2016). We coded the data using an Excel spreadsheet. BERA Ethics Guidelines (2024) were followed and the project received the Ethical Approval of UCL. All participants involved in the research were required to read the study’s information sheet and sign the consent form to understand the purpose, significance, benefits, and confidentiality of the research before proceeding to the survey and/or interview. They provided informed consent and were assured that their responses would remain anonymous at the individual and institutional level.

FES stakeholders are well positioned to comment on the impacts of Ofsted inspections on themselves as individuals and on the sector. They underscored that Ofsted inspections can have some positive impact on both their colleges and themselves, including working as a stamp of approval or quality assurance; a confidence booster; and as a marketing strategy to attract future students and their parents. However, in line with the academic literature on the sector and schools, stakeholders also raised concerns about the negative impacts that Ofsted inspections are having in the sector, particularly on their workload; wellbeing; staff retention; performativity; innovation and improvement; and empowerment. Hence, when considering the positive and negative impacts together, it is clear that stakeholders are raising concerns regarding the extent to which the Ofsted strategy (2022), as an intelligent, responsible, and proportionate force for improvement, is being implemented, particularly in those colleges and providers working in more disadvantaged contexts. The research also captured participants’ suggestions for improvements to ensure that Ofsted plays a positive and meaningful role in colleges and society. These included policy and practice recommendations oriented to reducing the high-stakes nature of inspections, and making inspections more developmental and supportive. Overall, the study provides a novel contribution to the academic field of inspections in FES in England in particular, and external systems of educational improvement, quality assurance and accountability in general which can provide lessons to countries beyond Europe.

Cedefop and Refernet (2023). Inspection framework: Netherlands. Timeline of VET policies in Europe. [online tool] https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/tools/timeline-vet-policies-europe/search/28438 Coffield, F. (2017) Will the Leopard Change its Spots? A new model of inspection for Ofsted, London: UCL. Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2017) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications. Forrest, C. (2015) Inspection and improvement in three further education colleges, Research in PostCompulsory Education, 20 (3), 296-314. DOI:10.1080/13596748.2015.1063273 James Relly, S., Robson, J., Emms, K., Laczik, A., Randhawa, A. et al. (2021). Drivers of technical excellence in the skills economy. London: WSUK. Maylor, H., Smith, V. & Tully, P. (2024) Further Education and Skills: Changing Systems of Change. https://www. et-foundation.co.uk/further-education-and-skills-changing-systems-of-change Munoz-Chereau, B. & Ehren, M. (2021) Inspection Across the UK: how the four nations intend to contribute to school improvement. Edge Foundation. Munoz-Chereau, B., González, Á., & Meyers, C. V. (2022). How are the ‘losers’ of the school accountability system constructed in Chile, the USA and England? Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 52(7), 1125-1144. Munoz-Chereau, B., Burgoyne, M., Emms, K. and Laczik, A. (2024). Ofsted inspection in the general further education and skills sector in England. London: The Edge Foundation. Ofsted (2022) Ofsted 5 year strategy: 2022-2027. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ofstedstrategy-2022-to-2027 Ofsted (2023a). Further education and skills inspection handbook. https://www.gov.uk/government/ publications/further-education-and-skills-inspection-handbook-eif/further-education-and-skillshandbook-for-september-2023 Patton, M. Q. (2014) Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage publications. Silverman, D. (2016) Introducing qualitative research. Qualitative research, 3 (3), 14-25.