Ofsted will not decouple the attendance and behaviour judgment areas and will instead introduce subheads for each in its report cards.

But a union boss has claimed it will make it “more confusing” and some schools will “continue to be punished”.

Martyn Oliver, the chief inspector, previously said he was “bothered” by the merging of attendance and behaviour and that it was something he was “watching”.

But Lee Owston, the watchdog’s national director for education, told the Schools and Academies Show this week the two areas were “intrinsically linked” and would not be separated.

“We do present two separate paragraphs [beneath ‘attendance and behaviour’] … and when parents read the report card, it’s clear what the nuances are,” he said.

Adding subheads will ‘make things clearer’

Ofsted planned to “add subheadings beneath the grade to make that even clearer” from September. But this would not be backdated for the hundreds of schools already inspected.

“Poor behaviour affects all pupils. The vast majority who follow the rules shouldn’t have their learning affected by one or two disruptive pupils … poor attendance, like poor behaviour, is also disruptive.”

Pepe Di’Iasio, the general secretary of the leaders’ union ASCL, said failure to decouple the two areas “means schools with strong behaviour but contextual attendance challenges will continue to be punished”.

“Introducing separate subheadings, but keeping one overall judgment, arguably makes things more confusing by giving the appearance that these are distinct evaluation areas.

“We do not think this is clear for parents and it certainly is not working well for schools. Ofsted needs to admit that there are major problems with the framework that cannot be solved with these kind of cosmetic changes.”

Paul Whiteman, general secretary of school leaders’ union NAHT, said it was “good that Ofsted recognises grading attendance and behaviour within the same judgement is flawed”.

“But creating separate paragraphs within the same overarching graded structure does not address that fundamental flaw.

“Separate paragraphs won’t solve the problem when it’s the overall grade that gets published and that determines whether or not you are subject to additional monitoring.”

The inspectorate will tweak its education inspection framework annually.

Changes to be published in June

Owston confirmed this year’s changes will be published in June, before they are rolled out in September.

Some leaders feel their grade has been dragged down by issues affecting just one area.

Others feel it unfairly penalises more inclusive schools, or those in deprived areas where attendance may be lower.

To achieve the middle ‘expected standard’ grade for attendance and behaviour, overall attendance must be “broadly in line with national averages or show an improving trend over time”, according to Ofsted’s inspection toolkit.

Recent analysis of about 650 school report cards by the leaders’ union NAHT suggested schools with above-average disadvantage or an above-average proportion of pupils with SEND were more likely to be graded ‘needs attention’ for the judgment area.

Owston also said grades for attendance and behaviour “are far more positive than you might assume or have heard”.

He said “about one in 10” schools received ‘needs attention’ for that judgment area, adding that this grade “isn’t a fail”.

Ofsted to ‘clarify what evidence we consider’

Ofsted is due to publish its own analysis alongside management information next month.

Owston said the changes announced in June would also include “clarifying exactly what evidence we do consider for the achievement evaluation area”.

He said the evidence used by inspectors would not change.

ASCL, the NAHT and school leaders have raised concerns about Ofsted’s use of words such as “broadly” and “typically” in the inspection toolkit and how they were interpreted by inspectors.

Asked by Schools Week whether Ofsted planned to clarify what these words meant, Owston said: “We will be looking at our training to inspectors… [and] give examples of what ‘typically’ actually means in terms of an IDSR (inspection data summary report) and the broader evidence we collect around achievement.”

Owston also addressed concerns about school context not being taken into account, and claims that schools in less advantaged areas “are being compared bluntly to national averages”.

“That’s not true,” he said. “We recognise that pupils have different starting points, and we’re looking for them to progress from there.

“The expected standard refers to being typically broadly in line with national averages. But that does not mean that schools who are one percentage point below the national average are going to automatically be graded as ‘needs attention’.”

He said it was “not as simple as having a challenging context or not”, and that while inspectors factored in context, it “should never predetermine a grade”.