We talk a lot in education about high expectations - and rightly so. But we also need to recognise that high expectations do not equate to the same expectations.

This is the challenge that the sector faces when we start talking about ways of evaluating school impact on pupil outcomes, especially as we drive inclusion across the system and open specialist provisions within mainstream schools.

Because while the ambition of the government’s schools White Paper is welcome and rightly puts children and young people at the centre of change, Ofsted has chosen to use national average outcomes as a tool to evaluate “achievement”.

This will cause significant challenge for schools across a range of contexts.

Different measures of school success

Because while it is important to reaffirm that we should hold the highest expectations for all learners - and that is not a controversial position - having the highest expectations for all learners does not mean that anything less than the national average requires attention.

By saying this, I am not suggesting lowering what is expected for all learners: when the issue is presented in this binary manner, it disempowers and it condemns. It also condescends.

I lead a trust consisting of mainstream primary schools and all-through special schools. We have the highest expectations for all children and young people but they are not the same expectations.

We have a curriculum that meets the needs of all learners, from those who are at a pre-intentional stage to those who will leave us at 19. Wherever a child or young person is in our trust, they will access the curriculum at an appropriate level and have the highest expectations placed on them.

But some will not meet an age-related expectation by the end of key stage 2 or beyond. That is not an appropriate expectation and would lead to an inappropriate provision and a damaging lack of recognition of the significant progress made by many learners.

Problematic Ofsted judgements

Indeed, we are increasingly seeing our mainstream primaries meeting the needs of greater numbers of children with very complex needs, similar to the learning needs of those children and young people in our special schools.

These children and young people are integral to our school communities and we are stronger as a result of our diversity.

But the reality is that as this proportion of mainstream pupils who have very complex needs grows, comparison of school effectiveness against overall national average outcomes becomes increasingly problematic.

This is because the pupil population is not evenly distributed across schools according to need, and therefore individual schools that have a higher proportion of children with particular needs will always fair unfavourably.

More nuance in the system

A more inclusive system - which the government wants us to become - also requires a nuanced accountability framework that incentivises inclusion and celebrates the learning of all children and young people.

It should be sophisticated and agile enough to work with context, so that provision is appropriate for children and young people and delivers the very best outcomes. This frames context as a reality and not an excuse.

The accountability system has to challenge and understand, and it also has to incentivise “ambitious leadership and governance that embed inclusion”.

Therefore, the accountability system has to value the achievement of all pupils. It also has to understand that for many children and young people, measurement against age-related expectations fails to do this.

John Camp is CEO of the Compass Partnership of Schools, a multi-academy trust with 15 schools in Essex and London