As the professional body for teachers, we have been raising concerns about the high-stakes nature of the English accountability system and its impact on teacher and leader wellbeing for a while. In 2022, our members identified reforming the high-stakes accountability system, including specific preparation for inspection, as their top priority to improve their wellbeing. We therefore welcome the opportunity to comment on Ofsted’s new proposed inspection framework. Here we present the main points covered in our response.

Whilst some of the proposals outlined in the consultation are welcomed, for example, the focus on inclusion, concerns remain about the inherent high-stakes nature of the current accountability system and the fact that this won’t be addressed by the new framework.

Members are also concerned about the effects these proposals could have on the pupils they teach, and on the teaching profession.

Approach taken to this consultation

As the professional body for teachers, teacher voice sits at the heart of what we do and so it is only natural that it also formed the core of our consultation response. We held five online roundtables to gather teachers’ and leaders’ feedback on the new report cards, the approach to inspections and the focus areas of inclusion, curriculum and attendance. We also held individual interviews with headteachers and teachers whose schools have recently been inspected to gather their feedback on any changes they have perceived in comparison to previous inspections. This was so we could gather feedback on what was working well in the current approach and what requires further attention as part of this reform. Finally, we gathered feedback through an online survey which focused particularly on potential unintended consequences of the new inspection framework and complemented this evidence with insights from our own and others’ research.

Unintended consequences

Whilst school inspections are an important aspect of the accountability system and have been found to have a positive impact on standardised test results (especially in mathematics), self-evaluation and school management processes (Hofer et al., 2020), they can also lead to substantial stress for teachers and school leaders. 68% of English teachers report feeling accountability-related stress, compared to just 45% of a cross-country average (Jerrim and Sims, 2022). ‘Emotional contagion’, ie teachers feeling more stressed about accountability if their colleagues are stressed, also appears to play a role (Jerrim and Sims, 2022).

Unintended adverse inspection effects are also well documented in the research literature (Ehren et al., 2016; Hofer et al., 2020; Klerks, 2013; Nelson and Ehren, 2014; Penninckx and Vanhoof, 2015). Adverse inspection effects are particularly common in the context of high-stakes inspections, as they are common in the English system, because teachers may feel that they have little to no room for innovative teaching and curriculum when standards have to be achieved, which in turn negatively impacts their motivation and instructional quality (Hofer et al., 2020).

Given these findings, we were pleased to see the inclusion of unintended consequences as part of the consultation and were keen to discuss potential adverse effects as part of our member consultation. I have summarised our findings in this blog post and we will share more detailed insights in follow-up blogs.

Based on members’ responses, we have identified the following potential unintended consequences of the framework:

The problem of breadth

• Inconsistent and biased inspections due to lack of distinction between different grades on report cards.
• ‘Watering down’ of current curriculum focus due to the large number of focus areas, potentially reversing some of the excellent curriculum development work that has been going on in many schools over the past years.
• Putting smaller schools and those with fewer specialist staff at a disadvantage due to the large number of focus areas.

Narrow definition of inclusion

• A limiting view of inclusion, focusing only on students with SEND and those from deprived backgrounds but excluding students with other protected characteristics.
• ‘Tickbox’ approaches to inclusion instead of truly inclusive approaches to education.
• No positive impact on inclusion despite best intentions due to continued focus on national achievement data and outcomes over process.
• Encouraging ‘attendance on site at all costs’ over approaches to attendance and schooling that may be more suitable for children with complex needs and penalising schools with more students with such complex needs as a result.

Negative impacts on disadvantage

• The focus on outcomes favouring schools operating in less deprived communities and rewarding context over school improvement initiatives.
• Continuing to penalise schools for failings of the wider social care system.

Teacher and leader workload and wellbeing

• Negative implications on teacher and leader workload due to evidence collection across a large number of focus areas.
• Failing to address the negative impact inspections are having on school leaders’ mental health and wellbeing due to the continued high-stakes nature of inspections.

Limiting school improvement

• School improvement priorities being driven by the framework instead of schools’ priorities and contexts due to the continued high-stakes nature of the accountability system.
• ‘Exemplary’ case studies encouraging ‘copy/paste’ approaches to school development instead of context-specific, personalised school improvement work.
• Potentially curbing the emerging focus on evidence-informed practice in schools as the framework rarely mentions a requirement for schools to use research to inform their practice or to develop teachers’ and leaders’ research engagement skills.

We therefore call on Ofsted to make the following changes to the proposed inspection framework:

Improve clarity and focus

• Review wording in report cards across all focus areas to improve clarity and ensure consistency during inspections. As part of this process, consider whether the 5-point scale is fit for purpose and allows clear enough distinction between different categories.
• Develop phase-specific exemplification materials to explain different grading categories.
• Review the number of focus areas to be inspected. Fewer focus areas would enable in-depth professional conversations between school teams and inspectors, and help to ensure a two-day inspection does not become superficial. Consider moving the inspection of ‘safeguarding’ out of Ofsted’s remit. This would allow an independent body to carry out more frequent safeguarding inspections while Ofsted inspections focus on school improvement.
• Consider providing a shorter, parent-facing report card alongside a more comprehensive school-facing report card to improve clarity and focus.
• Revisit the definition of inclusion to make it more all-encompassing.

Address bias

• Monitor inspections for inconsistency and bias.
• Review inspector training in order to ensure consistent, fair and unbiased approaches to inspections.
• Reconsider how inspectors are matched to schools in order to ensure real understanding of a school’s context.

Focus on process, not (just) outcomes in order to recognise that schools do not operate in a vacuum

• Recognise and address that, despite best intentions, the current framework does not encourage a truly inclusive approach to education across settings due to its focus on outcomes instead of strategies put in place by schools.
• Review guidance and inspector training to ensure focus on strategies schools are putting in place to support and challenge pupils, alongside outcomes. This will enable professional conversations that recognise schools’ efforts and the limitations imposed by the wider system, communities and contexts they operate in.
• Clarify how exactly a school’s context is going to be taken into account as part of inspections.

Set an expectation for evidence-informed school cultures as a lever for school improvement

• Set an expectation for evidence-informed CPD approaches and content starting from the ‘secure’ level.
• Train inspectors adequately to ensure a nuanced understanding of ‘high-quality’ evidence use and context-specific implementation.
• Ensure that reporting properly recognises school leaders’ professional judgement in context-specific evidence implementation instead of top-down approaches.

Recognise the high pressure exerted by the accountability system on school leaders and that these changes do not go far enough to address them

• Recognise that the high-stakes nature of the accountability system continues to negatively affect school leaders’ mental health and well-being and that, for many, the changes proposed here do not go far enough to address this issue.
• Recognise the impact Ofsted has on driving what happens in schools and actively counter perceptions that schools should be guided by Ofsted’s priorities.
• Continue to develop the collegial, constructive and productive approach to inspections that some have experienced during inspections in recent months.
• Consider the implications the new framework has for schools with fewer specialist staff available to develop each of the focus areas.

References

Ehren MCM, Jones K and Perryman J (2016) Side effects of school inspection: motivations and contexts for strategic responses. In: Ehren MCM (Ed.) Methods and Modalities of Effective School Inspections. Accountability and Educational Improvement. Cham, Germany: Springer, pp. 87–109.

Hofer SI, Holzberger D and Reiss K (2020) Evaluating school inspection effectiveness: A systematic research synthesis on 30 years of international research. Studies in Educational Evaluation 65: 100864.

Jerrim J and Sims S (2022) School accountability and teacher stress: international evidence from the OECD TALIS study. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 34(1): 5–32.

Klerks MC (2012) The effect of school inspections: a systematic review. Wageningen, The Netherlands: ORD, June 2012. Available at http://schoolinspections.eu/impact/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/12/ORD-paper-2012-Review-Effect-School-Inspections-MKLERKS.pdf (accessed 25 April 2025).

Nelson R and Ehren MCM (2014) Review and synthesis of evidence on the (mechanisms of) impact of school inspections. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Dutch Inspectorate of Education. Available at: http://schoolinspections.eu/impact/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2014/02/Review-and-synthesis-of-evidence-on-the-mechanisms-of-impact-of-school-inspections.pdf (accessed 25 April 2025).
Penninckx M, Vanhoof J, De Maeyer S et al. (2016). Explaining effects and side effects of school inspections: A path analysis. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 27(3): 333–347.