As a petition is launched to abolish Ofsted, it may seem that we have reached an important watershed. 

But would the demise of the inspectorate in its current form be enough to prevent the unproductive stress and excessive workload that currently weigh down school leaders and teachers - not least the self-evaluation aspect of inspections that was brought in with the 2005 Education Act?

Specifically, that legislation contained details of the new Ofsted framework that, at its heart, would create a more open culture of self-evaluation.

This was sold as a positive - but in reality, it has meant offloading a substantial element of the inspectorate’s remit onto school leaders.

This in turn brought teachers more than ever into the firing line of “internal inspections” characterised by the top-down practice of one-off monitoring weeks (snapshots), where books and lessons are scrutinised to ensure compliance with school policies and data is evaluated to determine whether sufficient progress is being made by all pupils.

Playing it safe

This is all carried out through the lens of a potential Ofsted inspection, meaning the consequences of non-compliance are so severe (ie, the prospect of poor Ofsted ratings) that staff play safe and innovation is most likely to be stultified. 

Leaders and teachers are likely to be more defensive, constantly seeking out chinks in their armour and ways to patch these before an inspector calls - and tensions between leadership and teaching staff can easily arise as senior staff become “inspectors” within their schools. 

This can create a sense of constant surveillance and excessive workload to produce the often “gold-plated” marking, data and planning - something that leads to 66 per cent of all teachers and 77 per cent of secondary teachers spending over half their time on tasks other than teaching.

None of this has been helped by the move to short-notice inspections that have put schools into a state of constant alert and thus endless self-inspection has become the dominant activity.

The workload impact

For example, following the Ofsted fashion for learning walks and drop-ins, which is seen as exemplifying the lack of trust in teachers, reveals many senior leaders’ faith in the accuracy of such limited sampling - even as they criticise this process when carried out by Ofsted itself.

Finally, as workload becomes ever more challenging, schools now have to contend with every slight change in Ofsted’s priorities, which impacts this self-scrutiny. 

Most recently, deep dives into curriculum areas have placed greater pressure on subject leaders to show intent, implementation and impact. 

The three Is are all-embracing, and ever-increasing amounts of administration time are needed to generate Ofsted-friendly statements of intent and keep on top of curriculum maps, to practise deep dives to seek out areas of weakness in implementation and show positive impact on pupil progress for each aspect of each subject - all yet more high-stakes work for already beleaguered staff to do.

Poor return on Ofsted inspections

After all this stress, work and endless monitoring, perhaps the most sickening realisation for everyone caught up in this process is that for all the care lavished on self-inspection, they receive very little in return that is as detailed or constructive. 

Ofsted reports have become increasingly bland and are far less informative in 2023 than in earlier incarnations; heads are less likely to trust that judgments on their schools are accurate and have little faith in the fairness and accessibility of the appeals system.

Yet schools, as we have seen, are replicating much of this in an effort to ensure conformity with a system they feel they have no choice but to adhere to due to the hugely damaging consequences of failing an inspection.

Teacher and headteacher unions, the Chartered College of Teaching and numerous subject associations have long been calling for radical change, arguing this situation is not sustainable. 

Be the change we want

They are right of course. But if change is to be a reality, then the mirror must be held up not just to the official external inspection body, but to the leadership in schools, multi-academy trusts and local authorities. 

As some courageous heads are opening up about the adverse health problems caused by Ofsted stress, all leaders need to confront their own part in self-inspection and advocate more educational, professional self-evaluative practice.  

The architects of the 2005 Act originally granted latitude to schools, envisaging that inspection would be done with rather than to schools. It was a noble aim, perhaps, but one that was immediately weighted down by the pressure of Ofsted.

Put it this way - if self-evaluation was truly the gift of schools, would the sector have chosen to carry it out in the same manner in which Ofsted carries out its inspections?

Yvonne Williams has been a head of English for 22 years and is chair of the National Association for the Teaching of English’s post-16 and higher education working group