Ofsted’s renewed framework has failed to put school leader wellbeing at its heart, increasing workload and stress at a time when the profession can least afford it, says Andy Jordan.

Inspections: Urgent improvement needed

Ofsted’s renewed inspection framework was launched in September 2025 and, now that the first wave of inspections has taken place, many leaders across the education sector are drawing the same conclusion. While there are aspects that represent a step forward from previous regimes, much of the new approach still needs attention.

Many have already explored technical adjustments that could strengthen the framework, but this article focuses on the issue that requires urgent improvement if Ofsted is to regain the confidence of school leaders: wellbeing. Quite simply, leader wellbeing should have been central to the renewed framework, yet early evidence suggests it has been marginalised.

The renewed framework emerged from the much-publicised Big Listen, which followed promises of meaningful change after the tragic death of headteacher Ruth Perry. In its press release on 8 September 2025, Ofsted set out five key highlights and claimed it would introduce a “new inspection methodology to reduce the workload for you and your teams”. For many leaders, this promise now rings hollow.

Feedback from early inspections is strikingly consistent. Workload has not reduced. In many cases, it has increased. School leaders report that preparation demands are at least as intense, if not worse, than before, undermining claims that the framework supports wellbeing.

A rushed reform

Several factors have contributed to this pressure, not least the speed at which the renewed framework was introduced. Inspector training materials were not released in time to support schools preparing for inspection, and the same was true of the School Monitoring Operating Guide for Inspectors (tinyurl.com/2c3p9rx4). Any significant reform requires time for careful implementation, yet insufficient allowance was made for leaders to understand and embed the changes. Headteachers and senior teams have had to absorb hundreds of pages of documentation at pace, while simultaneously updating self-evaluation frameworks and development plans.

This work is not optional. Lead inspectors have been instructed to ask headteachers how they evaluate their provision against the new five-point scale in each area. Answering such questions with confidence requires a thorough audit against the revised criteria. This inevitably creates additional workload, regardless of assurances to the contrary. The repeated assertion that there would be “no additional workload for Ofsted” feels disconnected from the lived reality in schools.

The handling of the redesigned Inspection Data Summary Report (IDSR) compounded these pressures. Draft materials were not shared alongside the toolkit and operating guide, a misstep that could easily have been avoided. During pilot inspections, some leaders had not seen the version of the IDSR being used by inspectors in meetings. Schools volunteered for inspection in good faith, based on established data sets, only to discover that a revamped IDSR had been published with new statistical analyses retrospectively applied to previous years. This lack of transparency was unsettling and unfair, generating significant anxiety for leaders already under strain.

If Ofsted genuinely wants to be a force for improvement, it must recognise that sustainable leadership is a prerequisite for sustainable standards. Without decisive action, the renewed framework risks repeating the mistakes of the past, further eroding confidence and morale.

Wellbeing under strain

Ofsted has emphasised that inspectors are expected to be off site by 5pm, a change that many leaders welcome. However, this marks the beginning, not the end, of the working day for senior teams.

Leaders report spending hours finalising inspection timetables, grappling with the complexities of staff cover and logistics. This work often continues late into the evening before inspection and between inspection days. While senior leaders accept that inspections are demanding, the new methodology is drawing key staff away from daily operational roles, disrupting the smooth running of schools.

This raises a serious question about the validity of inspection judgements. If leaders and teachers are diverted from their normal work, can inspectors truly see the school as it usually operates? For some, the cumulative effect has been bruising.

Leaders have described feeling exhausted and battered by the process, with several privately admitting they are considering leaving their roles before facing another inspection cycle. If a regulatory system contributes to experienced professionals contemplating departure, it warrants urgent scrutiny.

These concerns sit alongside troubling findings from the 2025 Teacher Wellbeing Index (see www.ascl.org.uk/BlogTWIX2025). The survey reported that 86% of school leaders experience stress, while 81% describe severe time poverty. Inspection was identified as a significant contributing factor. Most concerning for Ofsted was the conclusion that inspections, and their impact on staff wellbeing, remain a major source of anxiety. This evidence should give the inspectorate pause for thought.

There are some positive signs. Reports suggest that inspectors are adopting a more collaborative tone, and regular reflection meetings during inspections have been welcomed for keeping leaders informed. These improvements matter. Yet, judged against Ofsted’s own standards, they are insufficient. Wellbeing and workload should have been foundational to the renewed framework, not peripheral considerations. Using Ofsted’s secure fit model, it is hard to conclude that the ‘expected standard’ has been met. When it comes to leader wellbeing, the judgement can only be ‘urgent improvement’.

Listen again

What is needed now is not cosmetic adjustment, but a genuine reset grounded in trust and realism. Ofsted should pause, listen again, and work alongside leaders to redesign processes that recognise the finite capacity of those running schools.

This could include phased implementation of changes, earlier publication of all inspection materials, and a clear commitment that no new requirement will be retrospectively applied. Crucially, wellbeing impact assessments should be built into every policy decision, with transparent reporting on how leader workload has been considered and mitigated.

External accountability matters, but it cannot come at the expense of the people who hold schools together. A system that aspires to improvement must model the values it expects from others, including care, fairness, and professional respect. School leaders are not resistant to scrutiny; they are resistant to being worn down by a poorly designed and implemented inspection system.

---

Andy Jordan
ASCL Inspection and Accountability Specialist
@ascl-uk.bsky.social

---

Tell us:

If your school has recently been inspected under the new framework, then we would be interested to hear from you. Write to tellus@ascl.org.uk

Designed with IMPACT

© 2026 Association of School and College Leaders | Valid XHTML | Contact us