Safeguarding Under the Spotlight What the new Ofsted framework is telling us

There has been a shift in what Ofsted inspections of safeguarding look like, and it is a significant one.

What inspectors look for and what separates a “met” and “not met” judgement might not be what people would expect, in fact, there are instances where a school can be judged as “met” but still have serious weaknesses which the inspectors identified and challenge. Therefore, it is important to have a better understanding on how the current framework has changed, what would lead to a “met” or “not met” judgement, as well as the nuances between school types to better prepare for upcoming inspections.

What the New Inspection Framework Means for Safeguarding Judgements

Safeguarding has moved from compliance to culture.

There was a time when inspections felt more like a checklist, where inspectors would look at things like whether policies were in place or if trainings had been delivered; while they still matter, they are no longer sufficient on their own. Under the current framework, safeguarding is evaluated as a strict binary outcome: a school's arrangements are judged either as "met" or "not met."

Inspectors are now asking questions to uncover what the lived experience of safeguarding is in the school. The framework makes it clear that inspectors are evaluating whether leaders have established an open and positive safeguarding culture, and if that culture is embedded across the whole school. The key thing is that it is not about documents, it is about what happens every day in every interaction.

Testing the Lived Experience

In practice, it is no longer just about showing evidence that systems exist but being able to demonstrate that those systems work. Inspectors will talk to staff, pupils, leaders, and governors, and they will look at records including the SCR. This means that DSLs must have oversight of all these things, as Ofsted will be checking for consistency between them all.

Another important shift is the emphasis on vigilance. The framework explicitly calls for maintaining an “it could happen here” attitude as the lens through which inspectors view everything. They expect schools to recognise that safeguarding risks can occur both at school and at home, online and offline, and contextual safeguarding concerns must be considered as well. It is about active awareness, not passive compliance.

Multi-Agency Accountability and Staff Consistency

Alongside that is a much stronger focus on multi-agency working. Inspectors want to see that schools are not operating in isolation but are instead engaging effectively with safeguarding partners by making timely referrals, sharing information appropriately, and escalating when needed. It is no longer enough to say that external agencies are difficult to contact or slow to respond. Inspectors want to see exactly how leaders navigate those external challenges to continue advocating for their pupils.

Crucially, this external diligence must match internal staff confidence and absolute consistency across the school. There must be a shared understanding that safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility, not just the job of the DSL, which is why inspectors will directly ask random staff what they would do if they had a concern and expect clear, unhesitating answers. This is further verified through pupil voice, where inspectors will ask children if they feel safe and what happens when they report concerns, searching for consistent confirmation that students know they will be listened to by any adult in the building.

The High Stakes of the Limiting Judgement

And finally, there is the point that most people will already be aware of but cannot avoid: safeguarding is a limiting judgement. If it is judged as “not met”, it completely caps the rest of the inspection outcomes, and the school will automatically be placed into a category of concern for requiring urgent improvement. It sits right behind everything, shifting the entire process from a review of what is written down to an audit of how safety happens, consistently, over time.

To achieve a secure judgement, our client schools have told us that inspectors focus heavily on talking to leaders about what they are seeing in real-time, rather than reviewing files in an office. This means that senior leaders are spending the majority of the inspection in classrooms alongside the inspectors, where they can provide an immediate, live narrative that inspectors can then cross-reference and triangulate with pupil, staff, and governor voice.

What Does “Met” Look Like in Practice?

According to the framework, the “met” judgement, is achieved when effective safeguarding systems are backed by an open culture where safety is treated as everyone’s responsibility. In these settings, pupils are kept safe and feel safe, staff remain vigilant and act appropriately, and leaders maintain clear strategic oversight while actively learning from incidents.

But what does this culture look like on a normal school day? Ultimately, you see absolute consistency. Staff do not hesitate when they have a concern, they know exactly what to do and do it without delay. Records are clear, detailed, and show a logical sequence of actions, while the safeguarding team remains highly visible and trusted by pupils, staff, and parents alike. Pupils know who they can turn to, and they genuinely believe they will be listened to. Furthermore, leaders understand their safeguarding systems deeply. They can clearly explain why decisions were made, how risks were assessed, and what the actual impact of those mitigations has been. They are not just overseeing safeguarding from a distance, they are actively shaping and improving it by continually learning and sharing that knowledge with staff and pupils.

While these core expectations are universal, it is important to briefly distinguish between state and independent schools, because how safeguarding is frame is different. In state schools, inspectors are looking at compliance with statutory guidance alongside the effectiveness of practice, with the SCR, safer recruitment checks, and links with local safeguarding partners serving as key elements. In independent schools, there is an additional layer where safeguarding is tied directly to the Independent School Standards, meaning the weaknesses in safeguarding can quickly become compliance issues and the consequences of gaps can look different across sectors. What is important for everyone is that a “met” judgement requires both cultural strength and technical accuracy, one without the other would likely be insufficient.

Can a School Achieve "Met" with Areas Needing Urgent Improvement?

This is where the picture becomes more complex and, frankly, more interesting. To better understand this nuance, Judicium’s safeguarding team completed a review of approximately 1,900 Ofsted reports from inspections completed since November 2025.

In particular, we focused on the 226 schools (12% of reports reviewed) where safeguarding was “met” but areas of safeguarding were rated as “need attention” or “urgent improvement.” From these reports, some very consistent themes emerged.

Attendance (73%)

Our previous sofa session focusing on attendance highlighted repeated references to persistent absence, particularly for vulnerable groups. While leaders could often show that they had a system in place, these systems were frequently not applied consistently or failed to achieve a sustained impact. This included situations where the proportion of persistently absent students (including those who were disadvantaged) was too high, or when concerns were not escalated in a timely way. In other cases, leaders were not analysing patterns closely enough to identify risks early.

This is important because attendance is increasingly seen through a safeguarding lens. If a child is not in school, the school cannot be assured of their safety. That connection is now very clearly embedded in inspection thinking. If attendance is an area of concern for your school/trust, or you would like more advice or support (including attendance audits), you can check out our safeguarding service, or get in touch with our team for more details..

Governance (34%)

Inspectors frequently noted that governors did not have a sufficiently detailed understanding of safeguarding, or that they were not providing robust challenges. There was often an over-reliance on information provided by leaders, without independent verification or deeper questioning. In addition, many governors lacked an understanding of important responsibilities, such as their statutory duty regarding equality and their role in raising attendance.

While these do not necessarily tip safeguarding into “not met”, they raise serious concerns about the sustainability and robustness of the system.

Personal Development (31%)

Pupils could often demonstrate a basic awareness of issues such as equality, relationships, or online safety; however, their understanding was frequently superficial, with a limited ability to apply what they had learned or explain it in depth.

While leaders intended for pupils to learn about a range of faiths, cultures, and the fundamental British values, these aspects of the curriculum were not always given sufficient priority. As a result, pupils lacked a secure understanding of diversity and the importance of respect for others. This meant that, despite meeting expected standards, they were not as well prepared for life beyond school as they could be.

Behaviour (21%)

Inspectors described behaviour as generally calm but noted inconsistencies where low-level disruption was not addressed consistently. Pupils reported that bullying is dealt with, but not always effectively or promptly.

There were also instances where behaviour was not consistently positive across the school, or where routines to support pupils were inconsistently implemented. While these factors do not necessarily mean children are unsafe, they do suggest that the safeguarding culture is not fully embedded.

Record-keeping

These were rarely catastrophic failures, but rather quality issues. Records often lacked sufficient detail or failed to clearly demonstrate follow-up actions, such as how decisions were made or whether outcomes were reviewed. For example, when records of incidents lacked clarity, it hindered leaders’ ability to identify trends, making it harder for them to respond swiftly and effectively. Individually, these issues may seem minor, but collectively, they suggest a system that is not as strong as it should be.

The High Stakes of the Limiting Judgement

And finally, there is the point that most people will already be aware of but cannot avoid: safeguarding is a limiting judgement. If it is judged as “not met”, it completely caps the rest of the inspection outcomes, and the school will automatically be placed into a category of concern for requiring urgent improvement. It sits right behind everything, shifting the entire process from a review of what is written down to an audit of how safety happens, consistently, over time.

The Key Message: A “met” judgement means that safeguarding is effective overall, but it does not mean that everything is strong. There may still be areas where practice is inconsistent, underdeveloped, or in need of improvement.

What Does a “Not Met” Judgement Look Like?

According to our research, 21 schools received a judgement of “not met”, which is just over 1% of all completed reviews. It is reassuring that an overwhelming majority of inspections resulted in “met” judgements, and that when safeguarding is judged as “not met”, the issues are significantly more serious.

The framework sets out that safeguarding is likely to be “not met” when there are serious or widespread failures that leave pupils unsafe, when leaders have not taken sufficient action to address weaknesses, or when systems do not function effectively in practice.

“Not met” judgements rarely come from a single issue, they tend to arise from a combination of weaknesses, with the common starting point being a weak safeguarding culture. This includes issues like staff being unclear about procedures, concerns not consistently reported, or leaders not responding effectively. There may also be a lack of openness or a reluctance to challenge. In fact, leadership and governance is mentioned as a weakness in 91% of those reports for schools where safeguarding was “not met”.

Weaknesses in training for staff were present in two-thirds of these reports, highlighting instances where staff did not have up-to-date safeguarding training, or could not apply their training in practice. They did not recognise signs of abuse or did not understand how to escalate concerns, leading to pupils experiencing inconsistent responses from staff.

Concerns around record-keeping also appeared in more than half of those reports, pointing to situations where records were incomplete, poorly organised, or inaccessible, and information was not shared effectively.

Safer recruitment represents another area of weakness. Failures such as missing background checks, gaps in the single central record, or a general inability to evidence compliance are taken very seriously by Ofsted inspectors.

Beyond administrative failures, physical safety hazards were also identified. These ranged from structural risks, including blocked fire escapes and broken window restrictors, to poor risk assessments and neglected maintenance. Ultimately, these compounding administrative and physical deficiencies demonstrate a systemic lack of attention to basic safeguarding, placing pupils’ safety and welfare at direct risk.

What Is Appropriate Oversight and What Does It Mean?

Appropriate oversight means having individual risk assessments in place for pupils who are attending alternative provision or are on a reduced timetable. Risk assessments need to consider times when pupils are not in school and their travel to and from their setting. For Judicium’s safeguarding clients, risk assessment templates are available to support you in ensuring you are compliant with expectations.

Perhaps the most important thing to consider here are cases where the pupils themselves report saying they feel unsafe or do not believe their concerns would be taken seriously. At the end of the day, pupil voice is a very strong indicator whether safeguarding is working as it should.

Key Takeaways

• Safeguarding is About Culture
  Policies and procedures matter, but what really matters is what people do when something happens. Leaders need to feel confident that staff respond to concerns immediately and that pupils feel confident sharing what’s worrying them.
• Attendance is Safeguarding
  We can’t treat it as a separate issue. Leaders need to demonstrate that they understand attendance patterns, act quickly to address barriers to attendance, and that their strategies are having an impact.
• Governance Matters More Than Ever
  Governors need to understand safeguarding, not just at a surface level, but in enough depth to provide meaningful challenge and support. They need to know what questions to ask and how to interpret the answers. You can check out Judicium's safeguarding and strategic challenge for governors here. 
• Record-Keeping Needs to be Purposeful
  Records should not just document what happened. They should tell the story of how the school responded to a concern about a child, what decisions were made and why, and what the outcome was. They should be clear, detailed, and accessible.
• Training Must Lead to Change
  It is not enough to deliver training sessions for staff. Leaders need to be confident that training influences practice – that staff recognise concerns more quickly, respond more consistently, and make better decisions as a result.

How Judicium Can Help...

Judicium offers comprehensive safeguarding audits designed to test every dimension of your school or trust’s provision before an inspector arrives. Our experts will deep dive into your safeguarding culture by gathering staff and governor views, evaluating leadership structures, and conducting spot-checks on record-keeping and safer recruitment practices.

Our audits are thorough and provide schools with reassurance that they have the measure in place to keep pupils and staff safe. Judicium clients will also have access to Jedu and its wide range of templates, from governor visit frameworks and spot-check tools to policy templates.

You can find information regarding our Safeguarding services here.

If you would like to talk to someone about some support for your school or trust, do not hesitate to call us on 0345 548 7000 or email enquiries@Judicium.com

You can follow us on X: @JudiciumSG   @JudiciumEDU

© This content is the exclusive property of Judicium Education. The works are intended to provide an overview of the sofa session you attend and/or to be a learning aid to assist you and your school. However, any redistribution or reproduction of part or all of the contents in any form is prohibited. You may not, except with our express written permission, distribute or exploit the content. Failure to follow this guidance may result in Judicium either preventing you with access to our sessions and/or follow up content.