Ofsted and inclusion: Sample answers

by Matt Bromley

The story so far…

Those who know my work or are regular readers of this blog will be aware that the fuel that lights my fire is inclusion. In all I do, my objective is ensuring every child gets a fair chance in school and in later life. The key is equity: doing more for those who start with less or who face additional barriers to achievement. Most of my books and articles, training courses and conference speeches, and school improvement work are in pursuit of this goal.

Schools operate on an unlevel playing field and we educators can’t level the playing field alone because it requires political will and society at large to change. But we can do more to identify the children who are kicking the ball uphill and then help them reach the goal. We can buy them better football boots, give them expert coaching to better control the ball, and perhaps take the ball from them and kick it a few yards uphill ourselves.

I therefore welcomed Ofsted’s focus on inclusion in the 2025 framework and agreed with the inspectorate that, if schools are getting it right for their most disadvantaged learners, they’re likely to be getting it right for everyone else.

In this series of blogs, I’m offering my advice to inclusion leaders on how to articulate the impact of their actions during an Ofsted inspection.

In part one of this series, I explored 8 key themes that inspectors are likely to investigate during the inclusion meeting and on learning walks. Those themes were:

1. Strategic leadership of disadvantage

2. Identification of barriers

3. How funding decisions were made

4. Impact, impact, impact

5. Achievement

6. Attendance

7. Behaviour

8. Participation and belonging

Last time, in part two, I explored the role that case studies might play, what evidence it would be prudent to have to readily to hand, and what questions inspectors are likely to ask.

This time, in the third and final part of this series, I’ll provide you with some sample answers to the questions inspectors are most likely to ask you during the inclusion meeting…

The questions below are representative. They reflect the types of professional conversations inspectors are expected to have. Of course, I can’t guarantee which questions you will actually be asked and I can’t comment on your context. But I can offer this: the strongest answers in any context are concise, evidence-rich, and focused on impact rather than simply lists of activities.

As I said last time, the best answers don’t deliver dry data; rather, they focus on real examples that show: the identified barrier; the chosen intervention; how the impact of the intervention was monitored and any adjustments made based on the outcome of this; the eventual outcome of the intervention; and the next steps you plan to take.

1. Tell me about your disadvantaged pupils.

Sample answer

Our disadvantaged cohort currently comprises X% of the school. We avoid treating them as a single group. We analyse outcomes by year group, prior attainment, SEND, attendance, gender, and other contextual factors because barriers differ significantly between pupils.

Our current analysis identifies three main priorities:

improving attendance for a small group of persistently absent pupils,
strengthening reading and vocabulary, particularly in Year X / Key Stage Y,
increasing participation in wider opportunities and leadership (read more here)

Those priorities drive our strategy and resource allocation.

2. What are the biggest barriers in your school?

Avoid generic answers like: “Low aspirations.” Instead explain your evidence.

Sample answer

We identify barriers through attendance analysis, assessment information, staff referrals, pupil voice, parent discussions, and pastoral records.

This year our principal barriers are:

weaker literacy on entry
attendance for a relatively small group
financial barriers affecting access to enrichment
anxiety affecting engagement for some pupils

These are reviewed termly because the barriers change.

3. How did you identify those barriers?

Inspectors want evidence.

Sample answer

We triangulate several sources rather than relying on attainment alone. We use:

assessment information
attendance data
behaviour patterns
safeguarding information
reading assessments
pupil voice
family conversations
teacher professional judgement

That gives us a much fuller understanding of disadvantage.

4. How is your Pupil Premium strategy developed?

Sample answer

Our strategy begins with diagnosis rather than spend. We analyse need, review internal evidence, consider wider evidence such as the Education Endowment Foundation guidance, evaluate previous impact, and then prioritise actions with measurable success criteria. Funding follows priorities rather than the other way round.

5. Why did you choose these interventions?

Sample answer

Every intervention has a clearly identified barrier and intended outcome. For example, our reading programme addresses identified literacy gaps. Attendance mentoring targets pupils whose attendance analysis suggests personalised support will be most effective. Where evidence indicates limited impact, we adapt or discontinue provision.

6. How do teachers support disadvantaged pupils in everyday lessons?

Inspectors want to hear “quality first teaching” but this needs to be specific, not vague – and they want to know how you’re improving classroom teaching through targeted CPD.

Sample answer

The greatest investment is in classroom practice. Teachers use assessment to identify misconceptions, adapt explanations, pre-teach vocabulary where appropriate, scaffold learning carefully, and maintain high expectations. Targeted interventions supplement – not replace – high-quality teaching.

7. How do you know your strategy is working?

This is one of the most important questions. Pupil Premium funding is taxpayers’ money and demonstrating both value and quality for money is key to proving a good return for the public purse.

Sample answer

We monitor impact termly using multiple measures. These include:

attainment
progress
attendance
behaviour
reading ages
participation
pupil voice
case studies

Where intended outcomes are not being achieved, we adjust our approach.

8. Give me an example of something that has had real impact.

Sample answer

Our attendance mentoring programme focused on 18 pupils with persistent absence. Average attendance improved from 84% to 91%. Persistent absence reduced significantly within that group, and teachers reported improved engagement alongside fewer safeguarding concerns.

9. Tell me about something that has not worked.

This is often where inspectors judge leadership maturity.

Sample answer

Last year we funded an after-school intervention programme. Attendance at sessions was inconsistent and progress data showed limited additional impact. We therefore stopped the programme and redirected funding towards in-school structured support where participation and outcomes have been stronger.

10. How do governors challenge your work?

Sample answer

Governors receive regular reports focused on impact rather than activity. They routinely ask:

Why have gaps changed?
Which interventions provide best value?
What evidence supports continued investment?

That challenge has strengthened our evaluation.

In addition, we have a link governor for Pupil Premium who meets with me every half term and is instrumental in supporting and challenging my actions. They are involved in decision-making about spend, and in monitoring the impact of that spend.