Ofsted’s leaked commentary about how schools respond when they are under financial pressure certainly ruffled some feathers and caused a few folks to wade in with condemnation. Such outrage was perhaps premature given that they didn’t have access to the piece of work in full.

This morning the report is finally published in full, so it’s now time to comment.

Up to now, Ofsted has routinely stayed out of the fray when it comes to school funding, perhaps fearing such an intervention would unleash all sorts of political consequences.

Now, though, with her comments that schools are “under significant financial pressure”, we can be in no doubt what chief inspector Amanda Spielman thinks about school funding. We know that she worries that it is insufficient. And, further, she worries that this is having a negative impact on young people.

School leaders have been warning for years that they are being forced to make desperate decisions due to funding pressures. The Breaking Point funding survey, published by the NAHT school leaders’ union, where I am general secretary, found that a horrifying 65 per cent of school leaders said that cutbacks have already had a negative impact on the performance of their school.

I disagree with the chief inspector’s assertion that schools have made poor choices about funding, when other, better decisions were possible.

School leaders do not “squander” money. They are infinitely resourceful at getting the most out of every penny. They have to be, because the school funding picture in the UK is anything but plentiful.

The report highlights a toxic combination of problems for school leaders wrestling with their finances: funding cuts, rising costs, and instability and uncertainty around future costs and income. Under such circumstances there are no “good” choices left. 

Schools have faced 8 per cent real-terms cuts since 2010. It is only school leaders’ effective financial control that have kept schools afloat during this time.

System-wide, school leaders have demonstrated their good judgement time after time. Their good judgement has shielded many staff and pupils from the worst effects of the cuts, often at great personal cost to themselves.

If we want to guarantee great, ongoing professional development for teachers, a settled workforce neither too worn out nor too inexperienced to make a difference, and better outcomes for pupils regardless of their circumstances, the answer is not just about more financial acumen on the part of school leaders.

Where I agree with the chief inspector is that cuts will have a detrimental effect on the quality of education. Teachers and leaders have kept a system under strain afloat but now face burn out. Blame for the decisions they have had to make to balance the books does not rest with them but with those in control of funding.

The only solution is adequate funding.

Some of the chief inspector’s narrative may be clumsy and feel brutal considering the pressure leaders have been under, but let’s see this report for what it is: the clearest indication yet that current and future levels of funding are insufficient and that the government will need to do much better if it is to credibly claim to have put education at the top of its agenda.

The chief inspector’s comments are impossible for the government to ignore.

This report joins the volumes of evidence about insufficient funding already in play.

This could be a useful tipping point.

So close to the Budget, it will be difficult for the new chancellor to talk about ‘record levels of school funding’ when the government’s own school inspectorate reports that forty-two per cent of primary leaders and forty-eight per cent of secondary leaders say that their schools will be in debt by the end of the 2019-20 budget year.

My message to school leaders? Have confidence in your own powers to make good decisions to mitigate the impact of insufficient government spending.

My message to the government? Take this report seriously. Headline boasts will been seen as hollow when schools continue to struggle to balance the books. 

My message to Ofsted? It’s an invitation to discuss their future on school funding. As we’ve said before, any verdict about the health of the whole school system is incomplete without a judgement about whether schools are sufficiently funded for the work they do. But the inspectorate must refrain from bold criticisms that fail to reflect the bigger picture and the complex and desperate circumstances of some schools. Let’s work together on making an accurate judgement about that at a school level.

The inspectorate is under fire, the 2019 framework is facing serious challenge, a matter the NAHT executive committee will discuss again soon. The confidence the profession has in inspection is low. This is no time to trade insults and headlines. It’s time to change the narrative from high-stakes cold criticism to useful diagnostics that reflect the success of the profession and encourage improvement.

NAHT’s work in this field speaks for itself. We’re ready to hold these discussions with Ofsted and with the government. All we ask is that they come out of their well-dug trenches and join us. 

Paul Whiteman is the general secretary of the NAHT school leaders’ union. He tweets @PaulWhiteman6