New Ofsted report cards will create more anxiety on leaders with already “concerningly high” stress levels, a wellbeing impact report commissioned by the watchdog has warned.
The inspectorate commissioned Sinéad Mc Brearty, CEO of the charity Education Support, to carry out the review as part of its proposed report card reforms. The report was published today.
The report warned that the “baseline stress level of school and college leaders is concerningly high”.
The revised framework “does not reduce the pressure on leaders to achieve a desirable outcome. The consequence of not meeting the expected standards of the revised framework will remain high stakes in nature.”.
It also raised concerns that the transition from a “known quantity” framework to something unknown “creates additional anxiety about ‘getting it right’.
“The more granular judgments received by providers are unlikely to be uniformly ‘good’. This will be very stressful for many leaders.”
Leader anxiety and stress will “in many (though not all) cases, spillover and increase pressure on staff teams to perform well in inspection”.
The revised framework “will require leaders to evidence impact across a larger number of evaluation areas, which may drive new forms of bureaucracy and data collection in schools and colleges”.
For example, the SENCo role in schools is “at risk of increased stress under the revised framework. The framework may leave these roles feeling personally exposed and responsible for inspection outcomes.”
Here are the report’s main recommendations…
1. Reduce isolation felt by heads
The report said Ofsted must “explore and implement changes to reduce the isolation and individual responsibility felt by headteachers and principals”.
It warned that “too often” leaders are “seen as solely culpable for a disappointing outcome.
“In truth, no school or college operates below par due to one individual. The schemes of delegation may vary from one setting to another, but a constellation of leadership actors is collectively responsible for where a setting is on its quality journey.”
The report said inspection “should no longer be used as a tool for individual performance management”, noting that there “obviously are reasons for headteachers or principals to lose their jobs, but inspection should no longer be one of them”.
“In making this change, Ofsted will reduce and remove one of the key planks of the high stakes of inspection.”
Ofsted said: “We name headteachers and the chair of governors or trustees and the chief executive of the multi-academy trust…on report cards. Introducing an optional ‘nominee’ role for all remits should ease the inspection process and help reduce the demands placed on providers.”
2. Invest in wellbeing and development of inspectors
The report said this would involve addressing the workload of HMIs “in a meaningful way”, and ensuring they have access to “high quality professional learning and peer support”.
The wellbeing of many within the education profession is “significantly compromised, and they often are not aware of that themselves.
“A stressed and overloaded HMI workforce interacting with a stressed and overloaded education workforce presents clear and avoidable risks. Ofsted can mitigate those risks by ensuring that its inspectors are well-resourced and able to do their best work sensitively.”
Ofsted said: “We will add an extra inspector to inspection teams for schools for the first day to boost inspection capacity and support inspection teams. By shortening inspection days, we will reduce inspectors’ workload and by improving the opportunities for dialogue. We have developed a comprehensive package of training for inspectors.”
3. Introduce ‘unequivocal mechanism’ for complaints independence
The report found Ofsted’s complaints process “is widely seen as a significant block to trust.
Stakeholders “do not accept that recent changes have made a material difference, and do not believe that the process can be trusted until it is more independence in it is secured”.
The report said reform “may involve the invitation of an independent observer to join internal case reviews of complaints, or use of an independent sampling process.
“However it is achieved, more independence in the complaints process will support greater trust in Ofsted.”
Ofsted said: “We are improving communication with complainants: investigating officers offer direct conversations to better understand their concerns. We have set up complaints panels with external sector representatives, who review whether complaints are handled fairly. We are continuing to work closely with the DfE on how we can introduce further independence into the complaints process.”
4. Develop protocol for responding to distress
The report called on Ofsted to develop a “clear protocol for responding to individuals in acute distress or at risk of suicide.
Ofsted has “already made a range of changes to improve the support available to educators during inspection”, the report acknowledged.
But “further work is now required to ensure a positive and consistent approach to all individuals who manifest distress or raise self-harm or suicide.
“Ofsted ought to work with sector stakeholders to think through how best to respond across a range of circumstances, e.g. how to respond when it becomes clear that there is relationship breakdown between the educator at risk and the individual identified as formally holding a duty of care towards them.”
Ofsted said: “We introduced measures to respond to individuals in distress. This included a policy allowing inspectors to pause an inspection if they have concerns about an individual’s wellbeing. We also embedded mental health awareness in all inspector training. We will update that training regularly.”
5. Monitor ‘unintended consequences’ of framework
The review found the revised framework was “perceived to be, at best, at least as demanding as the current model. Most stakeholders expect inspection to be more demanding and stressful”.
Leaders “highlighted their concern that a move away from ‘best fit’ judgments to the report card would increase their sense of jeopardy in a live inspection”.
Stakeholders were also “worried about the way in which the framework rollout would affect communities.
“Those in the first wave of inspections face the risk of looking less attractive to parents and carers due to the scorecard (compared to a school down the road that is still rated ‘good’) and this could have a significant impact on school and college rolls.”
They also worried that Ofsted’s definition of inclusion would “affect selection at the point of entry to a school”, and leave those that seek to be fully inclusive “with an ever more challenging intake”.
The report told Ofsted to “monitor the unintended consequences of the revised framework highlighted in this report and take action to address issues arising quickly”.
Ofsted said: “In autumn, we will invite a random sample of providers to take part in ‘exit interviews’. These interviews will supplement the standard post-inspection survey and give us deeper insight into the impact of the changes. We will also start holding ‘roundtable’ meetings with sector representatives to gather qualitative feedback on the impact of the reforms in real time. We have also commissioned an independent evaluation of the renewed framework.”
Other recommendations for Ofsted include…
- Carefully monitor and be prepared to revise the amount of inspector time that can be allocated to contested inspections
- Develop a plan to address the particularly low level of trust in Ofsted among primary schools
Recommendations for government include
- Act to resolve the negative wellbeing impacts of high stakes inspection
- Promote universal wellbeing interventions for the as a key strategy to reduce suicide risk
- Increase the personal support available for leaders who receive a poor inspection outcome
- Develop a sustainable, long-term approach to accountability in England
Your thoughts