Why Scrapping Deep Dives Could Make Inspections Harder
There is a strange irony in the way inspection reform plays out in England. We often chase the perfect system and, in doing so, risk discarding something that was good enough to support the sector in meaningful ways. Deep dives were never flawless. Anyone who experienced one with a non-specialist inspector, or in a team that was too small or too rushed, will know that. But for all their imperfections, the deep dive methodology was the backbone that held the EIF together. Now that it has been removed, we are left with a framework that no longer has the methodology it was designed to work with.
This should worry us.
The EIF was built on triangulation. Without deep dives, that structure is gone.
Deep dives were introduced to make the EIF’s focus on curriculum, pedagogy and impact workable. They gave inspectors a way to move beyond surface impressions. If a lesson visit raised a question about sequencing, this could be checked against pupil books. If a subject leader spoke confidently about their curriculum, inspectors could check what pupils later said about what they had learned. A potential concern about assessment or feedback could be tested across multiple classes.
This ability to triangulate evidence mattered. Without it, inspectors are left with isolated snapshots that are much harder to validate. Snapshot observations, brief conversations and a skim of documentation cannot offer the same opportunity to connect what is planned, what is taught and what is learned.
In the absence of triangulation, something else fills the gap. Speed. Data. A pressure to make sense of a school without the time or structure to do so. And, inevitably, a greater burden on leaders to produce evidence rather than explain it.
Deep dives were difficult, but they were often transformative
The story that rarely gets spoken outloud is just how many subject leaders found deep dives to be some of the best professional development they ever received. The chance to spend a morning unpicking the curriculum with a knowledgeable inspector could be genuinely developmental. For many middle leaders, this was the closest they ever came to structured training in subject leadership and quality assurance.
Deep dives also shifted the status of subject leadership. They made clear that the engine room of school quality sits in the departments, in the teachers and leaders who shape the curriculum and pedagogy day to day. Schools invested more in subject expertise, in coherent schemes of work, in resourcing subjects beyond English and maths, because any subject could be looked at and the quality of the whole school could be understood through it.
The national subject reports underline this impact. We saw improvements in breadth and substance that stand in stark contrast to earlier years, particularly the period criticised in Key Stage 3: The Wasted Years. Deep dives were not the only reason for this change, but they gave schools a clear rationale to protect what matters in curriculum design.
Deep dives were not perfect, but what replaces them is weaker
It is worth being honest about the problems. Small schools found the method demanding, especially when leaders wore multiple hats. Some inspectors lacked the specialism needed for valid conversations. Some teams were too small to give enough time. And none of this is to pretend that deep dives were welcome. They were stressful, high stakes and sometimes inconsistent.
But these were problems of implementation. They were solvable through training, consistent expectations and continued development of subject knowledge. They were not inherent flaws that required the method to be abandoned.
What is happening in inspections now is not simply a reform. It is the removal of a methodology without providing an equivalent. The risk is that the EIF remains in name, but the structure that underpinned it has gone. We are left with a framework that expects evidence of curriculum quality but no longer has a mechanism to see it properly.
Leaders now face greater pressure to provide evidence
The shift away from deep dives means the burden of proof moves. Inspectors will no longer have a structured way to see curriculum in action, so leaders will feel compelled to present it instead. This opens the door to more paperwork, more pre-inspection preparation and more anxiety about what will, or will not, be seen.
The danger is a return to fragmented inspection practice. Single lesson observations, isolated book looks, brief corridor conversations. Judgements drawn together at pace and under pressure. This is exactly the system the EIF was designed to move us away from.
What leaders can do next
If triangulation within inspection has weakened, triangulation within schools must strengthen. Leaders worried about the loss of deep dives can take practical steps to protect the quality of education from the unintended consequences of reform.
1. Continue to use deep dive methodology internally
Deep dives were never intended to be subject inspections. They were a way to understand school-wide quality. Schools can keep using this method for their own quality assurance. A structured look at curriculum, teaching and work can give leaders far richer insight than top-down monitoring or isolated learning walks.
2. Protect subject leadership
Middle leaders remain critical to quality. Schools should continue to invest time in curriculum development, collaborative planning and subject knowledge, regardless of whether inspectors will look at it in the same way.
3. Reduce pre-inspection paperwork
Create simple, clear documents that explain curriculum intention and organisation. Do not try to predict everything inspectors may ask for. Focus on clarity and coherence.
4. Strengthen internal accountability in humane ways
Quality assurance should mirror the best of deep dives. It should be conversational, rooted in evidence and oriented towards improvement rather than judgement.
5. Rebuild confidence in the curriculum
Even without deep dives, the principles of the EIF remain sound. A coherent curriculum, well taught and well sequenced, is still the most reliable foundation for strong outcomes.
We may miss deep dives more than we expect
Deep dives were stressful. They were imperfect. They sometimes fell short of what schools deserved. But they were also the thing that made the EIF coherent. They allowed inspectors to see the complexity of teaching and learning without reducing it to a single datapoint. They elevated subject leadership. They improved the breadth and quality of curriculum across the system.
In trying to fix what was imperfect, we may have removed something that was doing more good than harm. In the coming months, as leaders feel the pressure to present more and prove more, I suspect many will look back with a newfound appreciation for what deep dives enabled.
And perhaps the lesson here is that, in policy as in schools, good is often better than perfect.