A policy written to stop inspections from destroying people is, by the account of the people it inspects, doing the destroying more efficiently than before. That is the claim England’s headteachers’ union has now put directly to the education secretary, Lucy Powell.
The National Association of Head Teachers says it has given Powell “countless examples” of harm among its members since Ofsted’s new inspection framework came into force a year ago. The framework replaced the old headline judgments — outstanding through to inadequate — with a more detailed system grading schools across six or more evaluation areas, fulfilling a Labour manifesto pledge made after the death of Reading headteacher Ruth Perry. The union argues the added granularity mostly adds ways to land a bad mark: more graded areas means more chances for at least one of them to come back low.
The testimony, and the staff it takes with it
Amanda Hulme, headteacher of Claypool primary school in Bolton, called a recent inspection “the most stressful experience of my career.” She did not describe it abstractly: “It was definitely damaging to my health and really quite distressing. I couldn’t sleep and it led to my blood pressure and pulse rate increasing.” She said colleagues no longer want to pursue headship and another teacher is considering leaving the profession entirely, and that she might retire early to avoid facing another inspection.
The union’s general secretary, Paul Whiteman, said the new format leaves school leaders and teachers “anxious, overwhelmed and demoralised” before and after inspections, and that it “poses a real and present danger to the wellbeing and mental health of school leaders and teachers, possibly even a risk to life.” NAHT also reports “harrowing” accounts from members, including a headteacher who needed professional counselling after an inspection, and leaders and staff breaking down in tears during the process.
The safeguards installed after Perry’s death have not registered as safeguards. Inspectors received extra training and must now ask school leaders about their wellbeing during visits; members told the union the questions “seem purely perfunctory.” Perry’s sister, Julia Waters, said this month that at least a dozen teachers have contacted her describing themselves as left “feeling suicidal” by inspections, and she has written to the prime minister about it.
Where the evidence runs out
Ofsted’s response is that it has heard from “many school leaders that inspection now feels much more collaborative and constructive,” and that it will publish independent research giving an impartial view of how the new system is working. Powell said she takes headteacher wellbeing “incredibly seriously” and that accountability must continue, but in a form “much more supportive and understanding” of the job. The union’s ask is narrower than abolition: keep inspecting, but stop issuing grades until the regime has been reviewed.
Two days later, the Guardian’s letters page made the underlying evidentiary problem explicit. Dr Iftikhar Hussain of the University of Sussex, who contributed to the parliamentary consultation on Ofsted, noted that England has arguably the most stringent school-inspection regime in the world and that basic questions about it remain unanswered — whether inspection outcomes actually reflect the quality of education, and whether children gain more from enrolling at a school inspectors rate highly. Former HM inspectors Colin Richards and Frank Norris argued the regime has lost school leaders’ confidence in its direction, its procedures and, “in particular, its ability to inspect schools without causing undue harm to the health and wellbeing of headteachers and staff.”
Pete Crockett, a volunteer with the school-leader wellbeing helpline Headrest, described the pattern his organisation encounters: headteachers whom mental health professionals considered suicide risks following the inspection process, leaders whose physical or mental health was seriously damaged, leaders who passed inspection and then took early retirement rather than repeat the experience, and leaders facing serious personal circumstances whose requests to defer were refused. “Whatever the administrative requirements of an inspection system, there must surely be circumstances in which compassion and humanity take precedence over process,” he wrote. “Accountability without humanity serves neither school leaders nor the children whose education depends on them.”
The most compact summary of the state of things came from a reader in Peterborough, Toby Wood: “It’s a sad and shocking indictment of our school-inspection system when an article about Ofsted ends with the Samaritans’ phone number.”