For years, teachers have been complaining about workload, and for most of those years, the blame for much of that workload has been firmly placed at the door of Ofsted and the Department for Education. Changes to the curriculum, changes to the inspection framework, crazy expectations of marking, data collection and planning could all be linked back to one “best practice” comment or another, and so it seemed that central bodies were always guilty.

I haven’t always agreed with that: I think school leaders are often as much to blame for teachers’ workload as any external agency - particularly since Ofsted has used its mythbuster documents to undo some of the damage it had previously done. But I have also doubted in the past how far the department would go in acting to reduce workload.

Last week, the department went a good way to putting my doubts to rest when it accepted in full the recommendations of the workload advisory group led by Professor Becky Allen. The report is clear about some of the challenges schools face because of previous DfE and Ofsted action - and the department’s response seems willing to accept its part in the blame game. And we should give it credit for that.

Now it needs leaders in schools, trusts, local authorities and within the department itself - including its regional schools commissioners and their teams - to act on the report and provide space for schools to reduce workload in a meaningful way.

Some of the recommendations echo comments and decisions made in the past: the final nail hammered into the coffin of Year 7 resits for example. Others are rather more of a departure. The department is clear that it won’t expect data from most schools at any other point other than the statutory key stage tests - and, importantly, that it expects the same from local authorities. It also seems quite an admission to concede that “increasing assessment frequency is not inherently likely to improve outcomes for schools”. At last!

Still some way to go

It’s not all great to read - particularly as a headteacher. I would love to see the back of the nonsense of reporting on the pupil premium and sport premium funding, as though somehow by writing a report I will have more impact. But there’s no clarity on this, just an offer to conduct some research this term. There’s not long left to achieve that, so time will tell.

When it comes to appraisal, the department has also accepted the recommendation that targets shouldn’t be based on teacher-generated assessments, and shouldn’t be solely focused on narrow data groups. That will probably require a shift in thinking across the sector in how appraisal can be used more effectively - but it’s a welcome shift.

It seems that there is much to welcome both from the report and the response from the DfE. But one elephant remains conspicuously in the corner of the proverbial room: Ofsted.

It’s welcome news that the department recognises things need to change, but unless the inspectorate clearly echoes similar messages, schools will be reluctant to make significant changes. After all, it’s Ofsted who can change school leaders’ careers.

The report asks Ofsted to be proactive in reporting where school leaders are asking too much in terms of data collection. Now, if that starts to happen, we might really see a shift in terms of reducing workload for teachers. But it remains to be seen whether Ofsted will be so bold - or whether it will accept the recommendations of the report at all. If not, then it seems little will change.

Michael Tidd is headteacher at Medmerry Primary School in West Sussex. He tweets @MichaelT1979