Commenting as Ofsted publishes their response to a consultation on changes to education inspection, alongside an independent wellbeing impact assessment of the revised framework, Paul Whiteman, general secretary of school leaders' union NAHT, said:

“It is abundantly clear that Ofsted’s new approach to inspection poses a direct risk to the health and wellbeing of school leaders. By not only persisting with grading, but extending it across a larger number of areas, Ofsted is perpetuating a high-stakes punitive regime which risks serious harm to school leaders and teachers with career-defining consequences.

“The inspectorate had the opportunity to really listen to the profession - instead it has determined to stick to a model that was overwhelming rejected when unveiled earlier this year.

“While we have achieved a number of hard-won concessions, such as a reduction in the number of separate areas being graded and a limit to the number of hours an inspector can be in school for, the fundamental problems we identified at the start of the year remain.

“The independent wellbeing impact assessment is frankly damning. It speaks of an inspectorate that has completely lost the trust of the profession, that has failed to properly listen to teachers and leaders, and whose own inspectors have low morale. Most importantly, it finds the revised framework ‘does not reduce the pressure on leaders to achieve a desirable outcome’.  Given these findings, it is remarkable Ofsted plans to press ahead with its plans this term.

“Ofsted has simply ignored many areas of the impact assessment, including suggestions to slow-down the roll-out of the framework and reconsider the exemplary standard, while doing nowhere near enough to heed the call for genuine independence in handling complaints.

“Small-scale parental polling and focus groups have been used to justify forcing through a model of inspection that Ofsted had already predetermined was its preferred one. Grading might appear clear for parents, but to try and judge schools definitively across so many areas during what is simply a two-day snapshot, seriously risks them being given unfair and misleading judgements.

“Rather than listen to the very real concerns put forward by NAHT and others in the profession, the inspectorate has sought to portray those who disagree with their proposals as being ‘anti-accountability’. This is as insulting as it is wrong and parents will see right through it.

“What happens next will be key. To be clear, given the findings of the independent wellbeing impact assessment, NAHT believes these proposals should not go ahead in their current state. To do so would be to continue to put the wellbeing and safety of school staff at risk.

“As a bare minimum, there now must be a clear commitment to independently monitor and evaluate the impact of any new approach. The risks of not doing so are simply too high.”