The findings of ISI : how to challenge an ISI report

Over recent years there has been a significant increase in independent schools challenging the findings of the Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI). This may be in part due to the societal shift, as a result of the Black Lives Matter, Me Too and Everyone’s Invited movements, to a more rigorous approach on the part of ISI which is leaving some schools not meeting requisite standards under the Independent School Standard Regulations (ISSRs) and beyond. A non-compliant finding can be extremely damaging for a school and can have a number of consequences, from reputational damage to an impact on any sponsorship licences. This article deals with the options open to schools who find themselves facing a non-compliant finding or with concerns in respect of the inspection process. Do schools simply have to accept ISI’s conclusions and try and deal with them on the ground? What steps does a school have to take to challenge ISI’s findings? Is it truly worth the time and effort or do ISI always get the final say?

The inspection regime

By way of reminder, ISI is formally approved by the Secretary of State for Education to inspect independent schools which are members of associations affiliated to the Independent Schools Council. While the Department for Education registers independent schools, sets the ISSRs and acts when schools do not meet the ISSRs, it is ISI who carries out the inspections which determine whether or not the relevant independent schools meet those standards.

In September 2023, ISI introduced a new inspection framework1 (which replaced the previous framework published in 2016) and a new inspection handbook2. The framework sets out ISI’s principles and method of inspection. In other words, it sets out the approach ISI takes and how ISI inspections evaluate and report on the quality of provision in independent schools. The handbook, on the other hand, lays out for inspectors the methodology of inspections – with its publication intending to aid everyone’s understanding of ISI’s approach to quality assurance and inspections.

ISI inspections focus on evaluating all aspects of education (with a renewed focus on pupils’ wellbeing, which is made apparent through the new documentation). The report will focus on the extent to which the school meets the ISSRs and any other relevant standards (such as those which relate to boarding, early years and safeguarding). Every report will also include at least a single recommended next step and where one or more of the relevant standards are not met, the report will include areas for action.

There are four types of inspection – routine inspections, material change inspections, additional inspections and progress monitoring visits, with routine inspections being the most common. Where a school has not met the required standards during a routine inspection, a progress monitoring visit will be scheduled to allow ISI to reinspect and consider any improvements implemented.

The new complaints policy

A revised complaints policy3 was introduced at the beginning of this academic year, following a period of consultation. The complaints policy is a three-stage process: stage one (informal), stage two (formal) and stage 3 (referral to an independent adjudicator). If the school has any concerns during the inspection (for example, in relation to the conduct of the inspector or the wellbeing of its staff during the inspection), the school is expected to raise them during the inspection itself. The new policy brings several opportunities to discuss concerns with ISI directly over the phone, and has tried to streamline the complaints process by introducing online forms at every stage (prior to this, a cover letter was required). ISI has stressed that complaints must relate to one of three things – the conduct of the inspectors, the inspection process and the evaluations reached. Stage 1 may be invoked within four working days after the end of the inspection (so the school must be alive to any concerns at this time) and stage 2 will come into play upon receipt of the draft report (which is normally where key concerns come to light).

In our experience, schools do not wish just to challenge non-compliant findings but also where the drafting of the report is inaccurate and does not reflect the school’s offerings, even where they have been found to be compliant. The complaints process is the same, but it is important to note that raising such points can result in ISI amending wording in a way which is even less desirable than the original draft, therefore it is important to be clear as to how the drafting would ideally be amended.

It should be noted that while a complaints process is ongoing, a clock is ticking in the background in respect of the publication of the draft report. Invoking the complaints process doesn’t stop that clock (although it should be said that ISI cannot publish the report until it has provided an outcome to a stage 2 complaint). A school may request a deferral of publication from the DfE once it reaches stage 3 – the independent adjudicator stage. There is no guarantee that the DfE will grant a deferral. However, in our experience, they often do agree to do so.

Once in receipt of ISI’s response to a stage 2 complaint, a school can escalate their concerns to stage 3, where an independent adjudicator will review whether ISI handled the complaint in accordance with its complaints policy and whether it reached a reasonable decision in response to the complaint. Their decision is final and the only option then left open to a school is judicial review – a type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action taken.

On a more positive note, ISI’s Annual Report 2023/244 suggests that 89.5% of schools it inspected in the 2023/24 period met all the required standards.

So what are the main issues that schools are tripping up on? The Report provides that the majority of unmet standards related to the welfare, health and safety of pupils. The Report helpfully provides some examples of situations that inspectors came across, which includes where “safeguarding arrangements did not follow relevant statutory guidance” which often lead to school leaders not “effectively implement[ing] their written risk assessment policy or tak[ing] appropriate action to reduce risks that were identified.” The Report also notes examples of where safeguarding records were not collated or monitored effectively, as well as circumstances where leaders had a limited understanding of the safer recruitment checks.

It is key to note that ISI has already updated the complaints policy on one occasion since it was introduced in September 2024 and we understand that more amendments are likely, given the feedback some schools have received from ISI as part of the complaints process. It is therefore important that schools refer to the most up-to-date version and keep an eye out for further changes going forward.

Practical steps

Throughout the inspection process, it is very important for senior leaders and other staff involved to take notes of their communications with the inspection team and to raise any concerns they have during the inspection there and then.

If an issue is uncovered by an inspector, eg incomplete safeguarding records, we would strongly recommend that the school seeks legal advice in terms of how to seek to remedy the issue at the time with a view to mitigating risk when it comes to the inspection’s findings.

Schools should ensure their staff and governors are appropriately prepared to answer any questions posed by ISI and ensure that they are confident in terms of practice and procedures across the board.

When the draft report is received, it is important to review it carefully and ensure any conclusions are supported by evidence (which will become key where a standard has not been met and it is not entirely clear as to why, or something different was communicated by the inspector at the time).

In terms of any complaint, it is vital to concentrate on the strongest legal arguments (which may not be the issue that the school feels most aggrieved about).

Schools should be aware of the broader context of being found to be non-complaint and the impact it could have not just on reputation, but also on any student sponsorship licence and seek appropriate advice, including in respect of your communications to key stakeholders once the report is published.

Finally, it is important to consider your communications with ISI as, whatever happens, the school will have an ongoing relationship with them going forward, therefore correspondence needs to remain constructive.

This article was originally published in the Independent School Magazine, click here to read.

This publication is a general summary of the law. It should not replace legal advice tailored to your specific circumstances.

© Farrer & Co LLP, May 2025