Introduction
In September 2024 Ofsted announced that it would retire single‑word judgements from September 2025, and replace them with report cards using a five‑point grading scale.
The change has been welcomed as a landmark shift: no longer will a school be summarily labelled “Outstanding” or “Inadequate.”
The move reflects a recognition that educational quality is multi‑dimensional and cannot be captured by a single grade.
Yet the culture of metrics persists. Exam scores, attendance figures and narrow accountability measures still dominate public discourse and shape institutional behaviour.
If only academic attainment is measured, then teacher effort and systemic investment will continue to prioritise test results while squeezing out the very attributes – wellbeing, resilience, creativity, agency – that we profess to value.
This piece argues that deeper change requires redefining what we measure, not merely how we report.
It situates the Ofsted reform within the wider educational landscape, identifies blind spots in current policy and practice, and proposes concrete ways that schools and policymakers can bring invisible growth to light.
The Changing Educational Landscape
A Converging Consensus for Transformation
The Times Education Commission, among other initiatives, argues that education must evolve beyond literacy and numeracy to embrace critical thinking, creativity, adaptability and problem‑solving.
As early as 2022, the Commission gathered voices from politicians, business leaders and educators.
Speakers such as Bear Grylls emphasised that the assessment system is too narrow and must reward life skills like resilience.
The Commission noted that curriculum innovation is essential not merely to impart knowledge but to cultivate the character and competence needed for a volatile future.
This narrative has only become more urgent after the pandemic. Rising anxiety, absenteeism and demand for counselling services reveal the fragility of young people’s mental health.
An independent study commissioned by the Department for Education in May 2025 found that mental ill health is a causal factor in student absence; poor mental health strongly predicts authorised absences.
In response, the UK government has announced a national rollout of Mental Health Support Teams: by March 2026 six in ten pupils will have access to such support, with all pupils covered by 2029/30.
These teams offer early‑stage interventions, from group sessions to build resilience to one‑to‑one strategies for managing anxiety, and aim to tackle the root causes of poor attendance and behaviour.
Internationally, education systems echo similar themes. Jurisdictions from Finland to Singapore are experimenting with curricula that foreground social‑emotional learning, digital literacy and interdisciplinary inquiry.
The consensus is clear: knowledge alone is insufficient. Learners must develop agency, resilience, empathy and critical thinking to thrive.
Policy Reform and Wellbeing Imperatives
The Ofsted reforms are part of this broader movement.
In addition to replacing headline grades, the 2025 framework introduces an explicit “inclusion” evaluation area.
Inspectors will assess whether schools identify and support disadvantaged pupils, those with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) and those known to social care.
The inclusion grade sits alongside traditional areas such as curriculum, teaching and behaviour, signalling that equity and support for vulnerable learners are now central to accountability.
Wellbeing and workload are also elevated. Feedback from Ofsted’s Big Listen and subsequent consultation highlighted concerns about the stress generated by high‑stakes inspections and long days.
In response, Ofsted promises not to expand the workload burden; to add an extra inspector so that leaders can collaborate rather than scramble; and to cap inspection hours to reduce stress. Inspectors will evaluate whether schools support the wellbeing of leaders and staff, and provision will exist to pause inspections if leaders’ wellbeing is at risk.
Nonetheless, the independent wellbeing impact assessment commissioned by Ofsted and published in July 2025 underscores the enduring risks. It concludes that the high stakes associated with inspection are a key contributor to negative wellbeing outcomes and that lower‑stakes accountability would significantly reduce stress.
Stakeholders, including teachers and union representatives, report that ambiguity, public shaming and disproportionate consequences exacerbate anxiety. In short, the reforms mitigate but do not eliminate the pressure of accountability. They are a first step, not a panacea.
Blind Spots: The Unmeasured Dimensions of Learning
Complexity of Human Development
While policy evolves, one fundamental reality remains: education is about human development, not only intellectual attainment.
A child’s ability to learn is shaped by their sense of belonging, capacity for emotional regulation, and confidence in the face of setbacks.
No spreadsheet records the courage it takes for an anxious student to participate in class. Yet these qualities – resilience, agency, aspiration, empathy – are as predictive of long‑term success as literacy or numeracy.
Aggregate measures obscure individual journeys. School performance tables, national progress measures and league rankings treat pupils as data points.
But learning is nonlinear.
High Stakes and Wellbeing
The blind spot is exacerbated by the high‑stakes nature of accountability.
Teachers and leaders know that their careers can hinge on inspection outcomes. The independent wellbeing assessment notes that the combination of inspection and its consequences is experienced as a single high‑stakes event.
This context invites risk‑averse behaviour: focusing on what can be measured quickly to minimise criticism. Leaders may shelve longer‑term initiatives to nurture agency or creativity because such work cannot be guaranteed to influence grades in the short term.
Stakeholders interviewed for the wellbeing assessment highlighted pressure, public shaming, unrealistic timeframes and ambiguous criteria as contributors to stress. They questioned whether wellbeing can be genuinely addressed within a high‑stakes accountability system, suggesting that a paradigm shift is needed. Without structures to recognise intangible growth, reforms risk being cosmetic rather than transformative.
Bridging Rhetoric and Reality: LEAP
If commissioners and policymakers call for resilience, agency and aspiration, educators need tools that allow these qualities to become visible and teachable.
Evolve’s LEAP thinking structure and Evolve Development Tracker (EDT) are designed precisely for this purpose.
They are not add‑ons to a crowded curriculum but mechanisms to align practice with policy aspirations.
LEAP provides a structured framework for reflection and decision‑making.
Students, guided by an in-school mentor, learn to examine their choices, evaluate outcomes, adapt strategies and recognise progress. The mentor helps the student to demystify resilience and agency by breaking them into observable steps.
This structure prompts self‑awareness, fosters metacognition and encourages ownership of learning.
It integrates seamlessly with subject teaching: after completing a project, for example, pupils can reflect on how they responded to challenges, what they might do differently and which strategies allowed them to persevere – in a structured way with their mentor.
EDT, the Evolve Development Tracker, complements LEAP by capturing dimensions of learning that traditional assessments miss. It allows schools to record observations of wellbeing, aspiration, confidence and emotional regulation, alongside academic performance.
Over time, EDT generates a holistic profile of each child’s development. This information can inform interventions, guide mentoring and celebrate progress that would otherwise remain invisible.
In an accountability context, EDT provides evidence for inspectors that a school’s work to support social‑emotional learning is systematic and effective.
A Narrative Illustration: Making the Invisible Visible
Consider a pupil – let us call her “Sofia.”
By Year 8, Sofia’s grades place her near the bottom of her cohort. She is frequently absent, avoids eye contact and rarely completes homework. Teachers mark her as disengaged.
The standard metrics tell a story of underachievement. Yet they miss the complexity of her experience.
Sofia lives in a single‑parent household with socioeconomic pressures that require her to care for younger siblings. Anxiety weighs heavily on her. She seldom eats breakfast and often arrives at school with little sleep.
In this context, the act of showing up is itself an achievement. Over time, a pastoral mentor works with Sofia through LEAP.
As she cycles through the programme, Sofia begins to articulate aspirations: she wants to work in health care to help others as she has been helped.
Her progress is recorded using the EDT: decreased absenteeism, increased participation, growing confidence.
Teachers note that she volunteers answers in class, helps peers, and attempts homework even when she struggles. These milestones might not produce an immediate jump in test scores, but they represent the building blocks of long‑term success.
Over time, Sofia manages anxiety better, attends school regularly, and invests more into learning.
When such growth is recorded and celebrated, pupils like Sofia are seen and supported rather than written off.
Implications for Policy and Practice
Rethinking Measurement
The Ofsted reforms create space for more nuanced reporting, but they do not automatically lead to holistic practice.
Measures of wellbeing, resilience and agency should be integrated into accountability frameworks. The introduction of an inclusion evaluation area acknowledges this need, but further work is required to operationalise it.
LEAP and EDT offer ready‑made frameworks for this.
Conclusion: Valuing What Makes Us Human
Ofsted’s shift away from single‑word judgments signifies a recognition that education is too complex to be summarised in a single headline. Yet reforms to reporting will fall short if they do not change what is measured and valued. Education must move beyond the exam hall into the full complexity of human development.
Resilience is as consequential as recall; aspiration drives attainment as much as ability; wellbeing underpins every act of learning.
The challenge is not to abandon standards or rigour but to achieve completeness.
Programmes like LEAP demonstrate that agency, aspiration and wellbeing can be taught, observed and evidenced.
They align practice with policy aspirations and give educators a framework to support the whole child.
If commissioners, governments and schools are serious about preparing young people for an uncertain future, then they must learn to value – and measure – what makes us human.
Until they do, the greatest educational outcomes will remain hidden in plain sight, invisible to systems designed to help children flourish.
If your school, trust, or organisation is ready to move beyond rhetoric and start measuring what matters, we would love to continue the conversation.
Book a call with the Evolve team to explore how LEAP can help you align practice with policy ambitions – and, most importantly, bring invisible growth to light.
