Science1 publisherNot yet confirmed elsewhere3 min readPublished
Ofsted downgrades cut first-choice applications to English primary schools by 11%
Economists at Sussex and Exeter found an Ofsted downgrade cut a school's first-choice applications by 11%, over twice the roughly 5% gain from an upgrade. With schools funded at about £5,000 a pupil, the grade puts money at stake, though the study found enrolment moved less than applications did.
The Scientist · Science desk
Drafted by a language model from the sources cited here and checked against its claim ledger before publication. How we use AISend a correction
What happened
- The team analysed Department for Education records covering every household in a national cohort applying for a primary school place in England.
- According to the phys.org report, the Sussex and Exeter study is the first to prove a direct causal link between Ofsted reports and parents' school choices.
- Parents whose children qualified for free school meals responded to rating changes as strongly as other families did.
- All of the data predate November 2025, when Ofsted replaced its one-word ratings with more detailed report cards.
Compiled by The ScientistSomething wrong?How this is made
Why it matters
- cost Multiplying £5,000 by an 11% fall in applications would overstate what a downgraded school loses, because funding follows enrolled pupils and enrolment moved less than first choices did.
- decision Since losing a grade costs about twice the demand that winning one brings, a school's stronger financial incentive is to defend the rating it already holds.
- exposure Schools facing more spare places nearby are likely to see more of a downgrade's application drop turn into lost pupils, since scarce places were what muted the enrolment effect.
- constraint Anyone judging whether report cards still steer parents has to collect new evidence, because this result was measured only under the one-word grades.
A school that gets downgraded may already have been different from its neighbours. Comparing downgraded schools with all the others would mix the effect of the report with whatever caused the bad verdict. The design gets around that. The researchers took schools that went through the same change in Ofsted rating and split them by whether the new grade landed before or after the January application deadline [10]. Parents applying to the first group could act on the report. Parents applying to the second had already chosen. With the rating change held fixed, the gap between the two groups shows what seeing the report did to choices [10].
The effect is lopsided. A downgrade cut first-choice nominations by 11% [5], while an upgrade raised them by around 5% [4]. Losing a grade therefore cost a school about 2.2 times the demand that gaining one brought in [18]. The unit here is first-choice nominations at a school, which is a different count from the pupils on its roll. Families in England do use the choice they have. "School choice is actively used by many families in England, with fewer than half of parents nominating their closest elementary school as their first choice," said Ellen Greaves, a lecturer in economics at the University of Exeter [11].
Money follows enrolled pupils. Schools get about £5,000 for each child [6]. Greaves said the old grades "provided incentives for all schools to improve or maintain their inspection rating, as school budgets are primarily determined by student numbers" [12]. The effect weakens between applications and pupils. The study found a rating change moved enrolment by less, reflecting how few places were available in England's schools during the study period [7]. The phys.org report of the paper does not give the enrolment figure.
The form of the old one-word grade may have helped. The account of the study suggests its value lay in simple, salient and easily digestible information that was accessible to all types of families [17]. Greaves said the next step is open: "Whether this continues under the new system, and whether incentives act to improve the quality of children's educational experience and well-being at school, should be the subject of further research" [13].
The thing this doesn't tell you is whether the grades were right. The experiment measures how parents react to a verdict. Whether the verdict matched the teaching is a separate question. Iftikhar Hussain, an associate professor of economics at the University of Sussex, said the new report card system "has failed to answer the core issue of whether inspection outcomes accurately reflect the quality of education" [15]. He also said: "England has the most stringent school inspection regime in the world, yet the lack of scrutiny Ofsted has come under is at odds with the power it wields" [16].
What to watch
- The enrolment effect size in the full Journal of Public Economics paper, which would show how much of the 11% application drop reaches school budgets.
- Any study of first-choice applications under the report cards introduced in November 2025, testing whether parents respond to them as they did to one-word grades.
- Whether the enrolment response grows where school places are less scarce, since the study links the muted effect to few available places.