United Kingdom Ofsted’s new inspection framework: Lessons for Australia’s NQF

The Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) is the independent inspectorate and regulator for early years, schools and further education in England. As a non-ministerial department reporting directly to the UK Parliament, Ofsted plays a central role in monitoring the quality and compliance of education and care services.

Within the early years sector, Ofsted:

• Registers and regulates services under the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) statutory framework
• Conducts regular inspections to evaluate quality of care, curriculum delivery, leadership and compliance
• Publishes inspection outcomes using a publicly accessible rating system, including narrative summaries

Ofsted’s role is broadly comparable to that of state and territory regulatory authorities in Australia under the National Quality Framework (NQF). While the Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA) provides national leadership, guidance and oversight, it does not directly inspect services. Instead, assessment and rating (A&R) is undertaken by authorised officers appointed by each jurisdiction.

Ofsted is set to introduce a renewed inspection framework from November 2025. This reform, shaped by sector feedback through the “Big Listen” consultation, is designed to rebuild trust, improve transparency and better reflect the complexity of quality provision. It includes a new grading scale, an emphasis on inclusion, and a more collaborative inspection process.

In contrast, Australia’s NQF, implemented nationally since 2012, remains grounded in the National Quality Standard (NQS), which comprises seven Quality Areas. Services are assessed and rated by authorised officers against a four-tiered scale: Significant Improvement Required, Working Towards NQS, Meeting NQS, and Exceeding NQS.

Ofsted’s updated grading system introduces five levels: Urgent improvement, Needs attention, Expected standard, Strong standard, and Exceptional. The key change is the move from a “best fit” to a “secure fit” model—services must meet all criteria in a grade level to achieve that rating. “Needs attention” is explicitly framed as an advisory status, not a failure.

By comparison, the NQF uses fewer rating categories. A service is considered to be Meeting NQS only if all elements across all seven Quality Areas are met. To be rated Exceeding NQS, services must also demonstrate embedded practice, visible benefits to children, and a culture of continuous improvement.

A major feature of Ofsted’s reform is the centralisation of inclusion. For the first time, all inspections will include a standalone inclusion evaluation area. Inspectors will track the experiences of children with additional needs or those known to social services through case sampling, rather than relying on pre-prepared documentation.

The NQF integrates inclusion throughout its quality areas, particularly in Educational Program and Practice, and Collaborative Partnerships with Families and Communities. However, it does not use case sampling as a formal method during inspections.

Ofsted’s new approach promotes shared planning and professional dialogue. Pre-inspection planning calls will be longer and co-constructive, with reflection meetings held during the inspection process. The aim is to reduce defensiveness and build trust between providers and inspectors.

The NQF’s Assessment and Rating process, while evidence-based and consultative, is more formalised. Providers submit documentation such as the Quality Improvement Plan and are observed and interviewed during site visits. While opportunities exist for clarification, the process is largely linear and fixed.

Ofsted is replacing “deep dives” with context-driven learning walks, a more holistic and flexible way to understand daily practice. These walks are tailored to each service’s priorities and context, agreed in advance through collaborative planning.

The NQF has long relied on observations, but these are not typically co-planned with services. The Ofsted reform signals a move toward greater co-agency in the inspection process.

Ofsted’s redesigned inspection report cards will feature both a headline rating and narrative summaries of strengths and areas for development. This dual approach is designed to give parents and carers a richer understanding of service quality.

Australia’s NQF also publishes assessment and rating outcomes, including Quality Area ratings. However, recent criticism about parallel risk flagging systems not being disclosed publicly suggests room to improve transparency.

Ofsted’s reform foregrounds improvement. The “Needs attention” grade functions as a constructive alert rather than a punitive label. Similarly, the inclusion of well-being evaluations for staff and leaders aims to shift inspection from judgement to genuine support.

Australia’s NQF includes continuous improvement as a core principle, with services required to maintain and revise their Quality Improvement Plan. However, follow-up visits and reassessment timelines vary, and structured post-inspection support is less formalised.

Both the Ofsted framework and Australia’s NQF seek to uphold high standards, ensure accountability, and drive continuous quality improvement. Where Ofsted’s reform introduces greater flexibility, inclusion tracking, and professional dialogue, Australia’s system provides a strong foundation of national consistency, regulatory independence, and sector-wide expectations.

As England prepares to implement its new framework, Australian policymakers and sector leaders may find value in examining these developments, not as a template, but as a provocation for further reflection on how quality is defined, assessed and supported in early childhood education and care.

Ofsted outlines its renewed inspection approach in this video explainer: Ofsted’s New Inspection Framework.