Abstract
In December 2023 a UK Government Inquiry concluded that Ofsted, the English inspection regime, had ‘contributed’ to the death of a Headteacher, Ruth Perry, who had committed suicide whilst awaiting publication of an inspection report. The headteacher's suicide brought to the forefront of public discourse concerns about Ofsted and its effects, particularly on senior leaders. This paper examines the findings of a recent English research project entitled ‘Beyond Ofsted’ which aimed to gather a wide range of views from stakeholders on both the current inspection system and potential alternatives. Part of the data gathering included a survey of over 6000 teachers of 746 were headteachers. One of the main themes in the data was the particular effect of inspection on headteachers, in terms of preparation, anticipation and the experience itself. Our respondents reported on their unique position in terms of inspection, shouldering the responsibility for the school and the community, and the consequent fear of failure. They described the crunch points and the inevitable rise in workload and stress, which for some had negative effects on well-being and caused some to leave. They suggested that any future changes to inspection should include a more supportive and less high-stakes system.
Introduction
In December 2023 a UK Government Inquiry concluded that Ofsted, the English inspection regime, had ‘contributed’ to the death of a Headteacher, Ruth Perry, who had committed suicide whilst awaiting publication of an inspection report downgrading her previously ‘outstanding’ school to ‘requires improvement’ (Clarke, 2023). The headteacher's suicide brought to the forefront of public discourse concerns about Ofsted and its effects, particularly on senior leaders.
External inspection is not just an English phenomenon, though it could be argued that the inspection regime Ofsted is at the more punitive end of the spectrum. The US-based National Center on Education and the Economy (Rothman, 2018) provides a useful summary of inspection systems and notes that the Standing International Conference on Inspectorates, ‘formed in 1995 to provide support for the inspectorates in Europe, now includes 36 nations and regions’ (p. 1). Faubert (2009: 11) states that ‘the majority of OECD countries schools are regularly inspected’ and lists Australia, Belgium, the Czech Republic, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey. The difference for England lies in the experience and consequences of inspection; inspection in England is a high-stakes enterprise, or as Tian and Diamond (2024) describe ‘punitive and performative’, and this is not necessarily true elsewhere. This is primarily to do with the function and consequences of inspections, and where they fit on a trust/accountability scale. Faubert (2009: 13) summarises: some countries (among them Austria, Iceland, and Denmark) do not place sanctions upon low-performing schools and do not make reports public. In New Zealand, the Netherlands, and England, by contrast, reports are made public, ‘inspection is intensified at institutions with problems’ and the funding bodies can withdraw support (the Netherlands) or even close schools (the UK) when schools fail to reach targets in a timely fashion
In England, the 1992 Education Act established a framework for school inspections to oversee a system of inspections of schools. There have since been several iterations of inspection framework with the most recent being in 2019. Following the Inquiry into Ruth Perry's death, Ofsted announced several changes in a revised handbook (Ofsted, 2024b), and has just launched a consultation on a new framework for 2025 (Ofsted, 2025). The research for this paper took place under the 2019 framework, but we will indicate the pertinent changes since our research where relevant.
The 2019 Framework brought in a new focus on Quality of Education, judged behaviour and personal development separately, introduced two-day inspections for ‘good’ graded provisions, brought in a longer initial phone-call and removed the use of internal data. Under Section 8 ‘short inspection’ schools are given two days’ notice, but inspectors are on site for only one day. There is a 90-min phone call between the lead inspector and the school before the inspection begins. However, ‘Ofsted may conduct inspections without notice. When this happens, the lead inspector will normally telephone the school about 15 min before arriving on site’ (Ofsted, 2019). According to the House of Commons Inquiry into Inspection, which was set up in the aftermath of Ruth Perry's suicide, this notice period causes specific problems for headteachers and senior leaders: Much of the evidence we heard suggested that the short notice period causes practical problems for schools and adds to the stress on school leaders and school governors…the notice period is causing ‘enormous operational difficulties in schools’, as school leaders were worried about being away at meetings or school trips when an inspection was announced, and that heads were ‘carrying a grab bag full of Ofsted documents with them’ in order to be prepared for the introductory telephone call with Ofsted (HOC, 2024: 14)
There then follows a 2-day inspection involving ‘deep-dives’, ‘work scrutiny’, lesson observations and meetings with stakeholders. Inspectors hold regular meetings with headteachers (at least 3 times per day), and then report back the outcomes at the end of the visit. At the time of Ruth Perry's suicide, headteachers had to keep the outcome confidential, but following the government inquiry which recommended a number of changes headteachers are now allowed to share the news with other stakeholders. Another important change is that the single word judgement has been removed. Previously under the 2019 Inspection Framework (Ofsted, 2019) schools were awarded an outcome summed up as ‘outstanding’, ‘good’, ‘requires improvement’ and ‘inadequate’. If any key judgement was inadequate and/or safeguarding was ineffective, Ofsted would place the school in a formal category of concern. ‘Serious Weaknesses’ or ‘Special Measures’ which could result in a school being removed from local authority control with consequential impact on the existing leadership and governance of the school, with headteachers and senior teams being removed and schools closing/merging. The Guardian (McIntyre and Weale, 2019) reported that in the three years up to 2019 ‘314 schools were forcibly removed from local authority control after being rated inadequate by Ofsted’. This was to the House of Commons Inquiry one of the reasons why inspections were perceived as a high-stakes event. The intervention measures linked to the single-word grades are putting further stress on schools by creating a ‘high-stakes’ system of inspections. In particular, there is an overwhelming fear among headteachers of losing their job following a negative inspection outcome’ (HOC, 2024: 4)
The events surrounding Ruth Perry's death highlighted the effects that preparation for and the experience of inspections has on headteachers. During inspections the pressure intensifies as headteachers are held accountable for the performance of their school and can face dismissal if there is a negative outcome. This paper examines data from a research project ‘Beyond Ofsted’ (2023), an Inquiry commissioned by the National Education Union, the largest teaching union in the UK. One of the main themes of the data was the particular impact of inspection on headteachers, which this paper will explore, and we also discuss their views on how inspection could be made better, a timely voice in this period of reform.
Inspection and leadership in England
Teachers’ and headteachers working lives are being increasingly affected by the rise in the neo-liberal performative-accountability culture in schools as, internationally, schools are increasingly preoccupied with policies of achievement, particularly test results (Perryman, 2022). This global rise in accountability policies (Lingard et al., 2017; Teltemann and Jude, 2019; Webb, 2005) is a seemingly inevitable part of the neo-liberal education project and this has led many schools to adopt a results-driven approach, with a plethora of policies and strategies aimed at improving results (Hardy and Lewis, 2019; Holloway and Brass, 2018). This is evidenced by what is commonly referred to as ‘box-ticking’, as teachers’ work is increasingly directed towards assessment, exams, progress measures and preparation for review and inspection, and away from the more individualistic and creative aspects of the job (Bradbury and Roberts-Holmes, 2017). Schools become ‘a marvellous machine’ (Foucault, 1977: 202) in the quest for constant improvement (Page, 2017). These strategies, and their constancy, impact negatively on teachers’ and headteachers’ autonomy, creativity and consequently on well-being and retention (Perryman and Calvert, 2019). In England the problem is exacerbated by the surveillance of these performative-accountability policies by the inspection service Ofsted, which, research suggests, impacts negatively on the health and well-being of staff (Bousted, 2022).
A low trust/ high accountability culture can particularly affect the agency of headteachers, as Evans (2001: 151) explains: ‘at the same time as heads are being trained for leadership and vision and a mission for the school, they are simultaneously in receipt of education policies that are extremely instrumental and interrupt their own agency as head’. In England, Ofsted is seen as placing a particular pressure on headteachers. Page (2017: 5) writes ‘with Ofsted giving almost no notice of inspection, headteachers commit to continual Ofsted-readiness within their schools, a perpetual state of inspection anxiety that aims for good-or-outstanding practice throughout every day, every week and every year’. Ball et al. (2012) found that senior management employed techniques such as ‘learning walks’, training and observation to improve teaching and learning and ensure a state of perpetual inspection-readiness. Under earlier inspection regimes schools were given notice of inspection which it was argued led to a fabricated performance which Ball (2001: 16) says were ‘versions of an organisation (or person) which does not exist – they are not ‘outside the truth’ but neither do they render simply true or direct accounts – they are produced purposely ‘to be accountable’’(2001: 216). However, once this was changed to two days’ notice for a much shorter inspection the effect for many schools was that they were in a permanent state of inspection readiness. Allen and Sims (2018: 94) see this as a turning point: Where once the inspection team's job was to spend a week unearthing evidence on school practice, now the inspection is so fleetingly short that all inspectors can really do is check the headteacher has sufficient written evidence to support their own self-evaluation form. Headteachers therefore developed a cascade of school policies on curriculum assessment marking and so on to mirror what they thought Ofsted would be looking for.
As Grek and Lindgren (2015: 132) comment ‘Ofsted…has a much more aggressive, ‘watchdog’ attitude towards schools and its mode of doing inspection is characterised by increased levels of anxiety, stress, uncertainty and at times even paranoia’. This is supported throughout the media, for example Barton (2015) wrote an article in the Times Educational Supplement reporting on letters from headteachers who were ‘emotionally hollowed out by a bad inspection’ with an ‘inescapable sense of guilt, their shame, their feelings of having let down their students, staff, parents, governors, community and – gut-wrenchingly – their own families’. As Waters and McKee (2023: 1) remark, in an opinion piece in the British Medical Journal, ‘in the UK we do not even know with certainty how many teachers have killed themselves in circumstances linked to Ofsted inspections, but we are aware of at least eight others’.
Even in the year following the Inquiry in which Ofsted had committed to a more humane approach, according to the Headrest (Headrest, 2024a), a support network for headteachers We are still receiving calls where it is apparent to us that not all school inspectors have displayed due regard to Ofsted's attempts to encourage a more empathetic and caring approach. Indeed, in recent months we have talked with individuals who we believe were at genuine risk of either ending their own life or doing themselves significant self-harm. It is not overstating the case to say we had calls from many school leaders whose wellbeing was damaged by the adverse influence of Ofsted. This included some for whom their physical and/or mental health was ravaged to such a degree they were leaving the profession. In a few instances we talked to callers who admitted they had contemplated serious self-harm, including, in a few instances, suicide (Headrest, 2024b: 6)
This paper goes on to explore some of the issues faced by headteachers in terms of inspection, including their accounts of the experience of inspection itself, and their opinions on positive change.
Methodology
The data informing this paper was generated during an inquiry whose aim was to gather a wide range of views on both the current inspection system and potential alternatives. It took a mixed methods approach, involving a large-scale survey of teachers and school leaders, supplemented by focus groups with teachers, parents/carers, governors, and headteachers. This paper is based on data from the survey alone so details of the other methods are not discussed here but can be found in the Report (Perryman et al., 2023).
The survey design drew on the key differences in inspection identified in the international comparison work undertaken by the research team, other surveys about inspection (including Ofsted's own survey) and the frames of reference for the inquiry. Using the online platform Qualtrics, the survey was distributed via a link on the project website, by emails from NEU, on social media, and to the research team and Advisory Board's contacts. The survey was open between 23rd of March and 26th of May 2023, in the immediate period after media coverage of Ruth Perry's death (the release was delayed in response to this tragedy). There were seven sections with a total of seventy questions. In all statement sections there was a balance between positive and negative assertions to address any potential respondent bias. The survey itself can be viewed in the Report (Perryman et al., 2023).
The survey attracted 8443 enquirers. Of these 6708 consented to take part of whom 79% identified as being a member of the NEU, suggesting that the survey had reached other parts of the sector. The sample had a balance of types of school (48% in a LA maintained school, 36% in an academy as part of a MAT), current (82%) and retired teachers (18%). Of those currently in teaching, 12% were headteachers, 13% senior leaders, 18% middle leaders, 25% classroom teachers with additional responsibilities, 28% classroom teachers and 4% support staff. More demographic information is available in the appendix of the Report. Descriptive and inferential analyses were carried out using Qualtrics inbuilt tool set, utilising the relate function to explore differences between groups. This function performed Chi and ANOVA analyses producing a p value and an effect size. The inclusion of open questions resulted in over 500,000 words of written responses. These were analysed thematically, based on the key aims of the inquiry and the emerging concerns of the Chair and EAB. Given the considerable number of written responses these were subdivided using Qualtrics according to phase, level of employment, the most recent Ofsted grade and the overall experience of inspection.
This paper reports on data from headteachers. Each quotation in the paper is from a different participant but we have only labelled them according to sector, role and most recent inspection grade for ease of reading. The research was approved by the UCL Institute of Education Research Ethics Committee. All names have been changed, and identifying features removed from all quotes. Survey responses were anonymous, with email addresses for interviews kept separately from the rest of the data on a secure system. All participants gave informed consent.
Findings
The current or most recent rating of the headteachers’ schools were 82% good or outstanding (60% and 22% respectively), which is broadly in line with the national figures in 2023 of 89% good or outstanding (73% and 16%) (Hodge, 2024). The data presented in this section then is from a group of people who are considered to be successful within the system, but despite this over half of them (55%) reported that their experience of inspection was a negative one. 79% were of the view that Ofsted inspections are not a valid way of holding schools to account, 81% said that inspections undermine the ability of leaders to focus efforts on what was best for the school, 88% agreed that Ofsted are not a force for improvement, 80% said that Ofsted is an unsustainable and harmful burden and 74% that inspections stifle creativity and innovation.
Leading inspection
However, in some responses about inspection headteachers were more positive than their colleagues in less senior roles. In response to the question ‘during the inspection I felt I could voice my concerns’
Some headteachers reported that they felt in a privileged position during the inspection, able to participate fully and to influence the process and the outcome As headteacher I was directly involved in much of the process and had valuable professional discussions with the inspection team throughout (HT, primary, good) Being in a senior position when I disagreed with the inspectors comments I fought my corner, showed further evidence to support my case and he was open to listen. However other members of staff would not have had the confidence or experience to do this and came away feeling frustrated and not listened to (HT, primary, outstanding)
Many of It is absolute dread, waiting for the phone call. We constantly prepare in case we ‘say the wrong thing’ or have missed something urgent or essential. No sleep before the inspection and total stress during it (HT, primary, good) Immediate nausea and high anxiety, blood pressure through the roof. Having to try to maintain a calm persona for team morale. A million thoughts circulating – is everyone in school tomorrow? What will they want to deep dive? If we have any say, who do I put forward? Who needs briefing and what? Will I remember everything for the 90 min phone call – am I doing justice to everything we have worked on? (HT, primary, good) The 3-h phone call was horrendous. The stress is unimaginable as is the constant wait for Wednesday afternoon (HT, primary, good) When the inspectors were giving us our grading (initially good but raised during quality control) I felt responsible for us not getting outstanding. I know the other senior leaders felt the same (HT, primary, outstanding) There is so much pressure on the headteacher. To be able to remember and justify everything and then to hear the feedback with no idea what it is going to be in a room full of governors (HT, primary, outstanding).
Crunch points aside, there was of course an increase in workload for headteachers with the need to be with the inspectors constantly Teachers are under scrutiny while they teach and during Subject Leader discussions but the headteacher spends almost all of each day with the inspectors – often in their office and can only escape when going to the loo (HT, primary, good) As a headteacher, a lot of my time was taken up with the inspection so none of my ‘normal’ work got done. Meetings held back-to-back, often around diverse topics were exceptionally draining and a saturation point is reached where you can just no longer find words. (HT, primary, good) I felt somewhat removed from the inspection as I couldn’t be in the room whilst the inspector was talking to staff/children (HT, primary, good) As head, I felt like I was less involved in some aspects and ended up supporting staff, checking in on them. It was frustrating (HT, secondary, good) As headteacher, I expected to play a key role in the inspection. However, the lead inspector was not willing to allow joint observations or allow me to attend subject leader interviews (despite the school having a team approach to subject leadership) (HT, primary, RI) As the headteacher, I was involved in the initial conversation, but then it was over to subject leaders, and I felt that the team are very dismissive of both myself and my deputy, who were aiming to support our subject leaders. Even when conversations around whether or not judgements, at that point, seemed fair, any disagreements or immediately counter argued against with evidence (HT, primary, good)
The weight of responsibility
For many of Only my name on the report, only my career on the line, only my family who carry the consequences, only my life that is affected by a short, shallow process (HT, primary, good) The judgement sits with you and your name is on the report. If it doesn't go well it can be career ending even if the process has been flawed with no right to appeal or complain about what may have been used (HT, secondary, outstanding). I am the Head Teacher. It is my name on the report. This could have ended my career. No one else in school has that burden (HT, primary, good) As the I felt that I would let my community down if we did not get the outstanding, after our previous, ‘This school is good but could be outstanding’ judgement (HT, primary, outstanding).
Apart from the sense of responsibility for the final outcome (and the effects on the school and the community) one of the key stressors for headteachers was supporting and helping staff both in preparation for inspection, and during the inspection itself. Part of this is the need to shield and alleviate the stress caused to other staff (HT primary, good) As a head I have always felt the weight of responsibility during an inspection, however I have never felt it so heavily as in our most recent one. The staff were also displaying signs of stress. Some cried during the inspection and several came to see me because they were worried they might get something wrong and let me/ their colleagues down (HT, primary, outstanding) My teachers were shaking, nervous and stressed out. One burst into tears when the inspector asked her a question. Primary school teachers teach children – they’re not trained to be interrogated and certainly aren’t paid enough to put up with such criticism (HT, primary, RI) As headteacher of a very small school, I have many hats. All of the interviews (with the exception of the two deep dives in music and RE) were conducted with me alone. I did the 90minute phone call alone and all meetings alone with the team. This was very isolating and though the team were one of the best I have experienced, the stress was enormous and there was a significant impact on my well-being (HT, primary, RI). As the head of a tiny school, I am the only SLT, as well as teaching for part of the time and being a subject lead. As such I was wearing too many hats during the inspection and did not feel the frame made appropriate consideration of this (HT, primary, good)
Stress and workload
Unsurprisingly perhaps, 92% of headteachers reported experiencing higher levels of personal stress (the most amongst any group), with 92% claiming increased workload, which was in line with other groups. My stress levels were through the roof and at one point I felt like I was having a panic attack (HT, primary, outstanding). Impact on my role as My most recent inspection was not too bad – it was a marked contrast to the previous one which was brutal, made me very mentally unwell to the point of feeling suicidal and almost made me give up my career. Despite a better experience this time around, I will be sure to retire before Ofsted come back. They are too damaging (HT primary, good). I retired early, because the constant pressure and worry about getting “the call” was having an adverse effect on my health and wellbeing (former HT primary, good) Being a head and senior leader is tough enough and this is resulting in many leaving on top of the challenges. I have loved my career and role but feel this recent pressure has been a tipping point (HT secondary, outstanding). I decided to retire early as a consequence. I was hardly sleeping constantly in fear of an inspection process that was too stringent, too arbitrary, too narrow and demanding for a primary school. My staff were exhausted and I was having to place greater demands upon them that I morally could no longer do, so I resigned (former HT, primary, good) I took early retirement after my fourth inspection! Says it all really, there wasn't going to be a fifth for me. The whole process was exhausting, unnecessary and provided no new information to move us forward (former HT primary, outstanding)
Accountability and agency
Despite the experiences detailed above most headteachers acknowledged that some sort of system of accountability needed to be in place. I do believe schools should be held externally accountable and I also believe that sanctions should be imposed if a school does not improve over time (a short period of time for more serious concerns) (HT primary, good) The high stakes accountability for Heads is not matched in any other profession. Take proper account of The spectre of OFSTED hangs over all schools like a thundercloud. It influences every decision no matter how much you’d like to think you’d not let it. (HT, primary, good) So ultimately you do end up doing things just for Ofsted and it's a real distraction from running the school and driving improvement (HT secondary good) In my school we relentlessly strive to make marginal gains improvement. We challenge our thinking, implement innovative strategies in order to have positive impact on the children that we teach. I can honestly say that the Ofsted agenda interferes with this work rather than enhances it (HT primary outstanding) I want out of education. I am so tired of being inspected, having to justify, explain and fill in forms, providing evidence for everything we do. It seems that if we don’t have a record or a piece of paper to prove something then we are not trusted as professionals. (HT, primary, good)
Solutions
We asked a series of specific questions on how inspections should be carried out in terms of frequency, focus, evidence and outcome, and invited open text responses on the best design for a new system.
In terms of the timing, 70% of our respondents thought that inspections should occur regularly and in a set and predictable time-frame, with a further 30% suggesting it should be in response to an identified risk. Regular inspections (no gaps of 15 years) clear understanding & expectation of when inspection likely to take place, respect and professionalism (HT primary, good) An agreed and suitable time for the inspection within a given timeframe – so people don’t miss important personal events or medical appointments (HT primary, outstanding) More time for the organisation of the whole process once alerted of an inspection – schools are very busy, have set routines, are well organised and senior leaders have many important tasks every day – to drop it all and try to fit in so much admin and organisation for a visit the next day is unrealistic and unreasonable (HT primary, good) the overall culture and experience of all stakeholders. Are each of them learning, thriving and developing in healthy, sustainable ways? The key curriculum priorities should be learning how to learn, responsible stewardship of the planet, self-knowledge and relationships (former HT primary, outstanding) develop local inspection support based on school improvement, and appropriate lead-in time, not just the next day. Quality inspectors who seek the best in the school, doing ‘with’ not ‘to’. Experts – so if you work in Alternative Provision you get someone with strong knowledge (HT secondary, outstanding).
The issue of support within context was a recurring theme; We should stop comparing schools and start looking at the local context of each school and supporting them in what is right for their students. (HT secondary, RI) A supportive challenge model which focuses on school improvement. A model which values different approaches to school leadership based on school context and best practice research (HT primary, outstanding) Identification of strengths and what the school does well, as well as any areas for improvement – resulting in a supportive plan in place to ensure school proactively engages in the agenda. This would be followed up by the same inspector (change their role title to something less pompous) so they know the journey the school has been on (HT primary, good) Prioritise identification of strengths, agree areas for further development but leave the grades as they make it too high stakes and stressful. More of a partnership so school leaders don’t feel like it is a ‘done to’ process where they have no power or voice and the inspectors’ word is final (HT primary, RI) Genuine dialogue between schools and inspectors – schools should be able to Identify their own strengths and weaknesses and prepare an improvement plan and the inspection should focus on whether the inspector agrees with this, rather than following a strict schedule that might not deliver what that school really needs to serve its stakeholders best (HT primary, good)
Once inspection is over 45% of our respondents thought that a report should be produced for use by the school and stakeholders only, however 36% still wanted to see a publicly available report.
Discussion
The main issues for
It is difficult to see what can be done about the inspection problem without significant reform. In the wake of the Inquiry into Ruth Perry's suicide, Ofsted launched a survey called ‘The Big Listen’ designed to elicit views from the education profession, parents, governors and other stakeholders. Two former government inspectors criticised this as asking questions that did not allow scope for sufficient critique. They wrote ‘its purpose seems to be to get endorsement of its current intentions and policies rather than invite critique. In particular, it does not allow respondents to judge how successful Ofsted has been in fulfilling those intentions, nor does it provide a clear steer in terms of a preferred approach’ the Big Listen did not ask whether single word judgements should be abolished, did not ask whether Ofsted was fit for purpose, whether respondents believed inspections were carried out in a way that was consistent from place to place, whether schools judged as Good or Outstanding gave an accurate indication of the school's overall quality and whether a moratorium on routine inspections should occur until a fundamental review had taken place (
Richards and Norris, 2024b
)
The revised handbook (Ofsted, 2024b) included an end to single-word judgements and the pausing of the publication of reports over safeguarding. The impact of these changes has yet to be evaluated, but for many they did not go far enough. Paul Whiteman, general secretary of the National Association for Headteachers said that the organisation was clear that ‘the system itself is broken and unfit – fundamental reform is needed, particularly if the government is to achieve its goals of improving teacher and leader retention and resetting the relationship with the profession’ (Whiteman, 2024).
As part of the Inquiry, we conducted a review of global inspection systems which indicated that alternative systems are possible (Ehren and Visscher, 2010; Hwa, 2020; NCEE, 2021; OECD, 2015; Zheng and Thomas, 2022). Seven countries in Europe do not even have any formal external inspection system (European Education Culture Executive Agency et al., 2015). From an accountability perspective, these countries rely on monitoring student results, assessing local authorities, and evaluating individual teachers to ensure quality. What is also the case is that in all the countries that were part of the review, schools were either obliged or encouraged to engage in self-evaluation as a mechanism for improvement.
As our review found out, self-evaluation is the basis of many other top PISA performing nations. China has developed a combination of regular general inspections alongside targeted and thematic inspections. These are used to produce a report on the school's performance which is not made public, but the school is expected to act on the report and is given support to implement its findings (Zheng, 2020). In Singapore teachers are subject to inspection every five years to validate a self-evaluation, but again no overall grade is given and support will be given to the school to achieve the changes recommended by the inspection (Ng, 2020). For the Estonian teacher, inspection by an external body is now uncommon as it has moved to a risk-based approach, only deployed when a school is identified as underperforming against national criteria (particularly low examination results, high numbers of pupils leaving) or if a complaint is made about the school (Greatbatch and Tate, 2019). In Japan, structured inspections are conducted, but these are used to support the self-evaluation that the school is expected to produce every year (NCEE, 2021). South Korea has a non-punitive system orientated toward supporting schools in identifying issues, ways of addressing their shortcomings and the means of putting these changes into practice. There is no targeting of underperforming schools and self-assessment is key to the process of evaluation (OECD, 2010). Canada has a regional rather than national inspection system, as does Poland, and Finland has no inspection system at all. Here trust is placed in the school to monitor the effectiveness of their teachers and for teachers to embody the practice of continuous professional development (Hwa, 2020).
Our review found that school inspection is a diverse set of practices and that this variation cannot be linked to outcomes, given the diversity of practices within the top PISA countries. It is not possible to adopt a particular country's method of inspection as there is little detail on how these practices are implemented at the micro level of the school. What can be done is to make decisions about the kind of system that would reduce stress on teachers and headteachers, raise the quality of education, provide the government with evidence that money is being well spent and finally give parents the information they might want to have about the school they are sending their child to.
Conclusion
The data presented in this paper represents the views of headteachers from the survey which was conducted as a part of the Beyond Ofsted Inquiry. Despite 82% of the respondents being in schools rated ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’, many of them expressed negative views about their experience of inspection with workload and increased stress being particular problems, leading some of them to leave or consider leaving. Unsurprisingly then, 72% of
During the writing of this paper, Ofsted launched a consultation into a set of proposals for a new framework to be launched in 2025. The main changes proposed included the introduction of a report card, the separation of safeguarding from the main judgements and different ‘toolkits’ for different parts of the sector. The new report card and its 5-point Likert scale have aroused considerable controversy. Under the proposed system, schools, nurseries, and colleges would be assessed in eight distinct categories using a five-point scale, from ‘causing concern’ to ‘exemplary’. Additionally, there would be a separate judgment specifically on whether safeguarding standards are being met. Ofsted argue that this removes the pressure of the ‘single grade judgement’ and gives more information to parents and other stakeholders. However, the ASCL has said that ‘moving to a five-point scale would leave “leaders in a worse position than they are now” and “undermine trust in the inspection process”’ (Whittaker, 2025). It argued that increasing the number of sub-categories would worsen workload and stress. Julia Walters, Ruth Perry's sister, commented that ‘this proposal appears to have fed those single-word judgments through an online thesaurus. Other elements of the report card design are ill thought through and potentially dangerous’ (Adams and Walker, 2025).
It is difficult to see how any of these changes will improve the issues raised by headteachers in this paper. The NAHT conducted a snap poll of its members and 92% were against the proposals, the leadership arguing the proposals showed ‘a “complete disregard” for the workload of school leaders’ (Turner, 2024). The Headteacher well-being organisation Headrest (Mccullen and Price-Grimshaw, 2025) called the proposed changes ‘lip service’ and thought that the proposals made things worse saying ‘what concerns us most is the potential of the new framework to place headteachers under more pressure than ever before’.
At the time of writing, it is unclear which of the suggested proposals will be adopted, and what the new Ofsted Inspection Framework 2025 will look like. However, without fundamental change it is clear that headteachers will continue to struggle. It is hoped that this paper will contribute to the ongoing debate.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the National Education Union for their funding of the Beyond Ofsted Inquiry which led to this research; and to our fellow Inquiry Board members and the Chair, Lord Jim Knight, for their support in conducting and discussing the research. The views expressed here are our own and not those of the NEU.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Ethical considerations
This article gained ethical approval from the UCL Institute of Education Research Ethics Committee. Approval Number REC 1740.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by the National Education Union.
Participant consent
Participant consent was in writing.