Failure to manage teachers’ workload and wellbeing effectively is likely to have an adverse impact on the inspection outcome.

Guidance on ungraded inspections states that inspectors will consider the extent to which leaders engage realistically and constructively with staff and take account of the main pressures on them; whether staff are free from bullying and harassment; and whether leaders and staff understand the limitations of assessment and use it in a way that will avoid creating unnecessary burden.

Where the lead inspector has concerns about any of these things, it could suggest that the inspection needs to be deemed a graded inspection. [1]

In graded inspections, a school cannot be graded ‘outstanding’ and may not be judged ‘good’ if it is not taking appropriate action to identify and address staff workload and wellbeing. [2] 

Ofsted will use its quality assurance and evaluation processes to monitor how staff wellbeing is picked up in inspections. [3]

The Health and Safety Executive’s (HSE’s) Stress Management Standards will help schools to identify and address the issues that impact adversely on workload and wellbeing. We strongly recommend that schools adopt the standards. [4]

School leaders should familiarise themselves with the standards and contact the NASUWT for further advice and support about implementing the standards in their school.

Teachers and school leaders should contact the NASUWT for advice if their workload is unmanageable and the school or multi-academy trust (MAT) is failing to address their workload and wellbeing.

Footnotes
[1] School inspection handbook, paragraph 156
[2] SIH, paragraphs 458 and 459
[3] Ofsted (July 2019), Teacher well-being at work in schools and further education providers
[4] Available at www.hse.gov.uk/stress/standards (accessed 8 April 2024)

Inspectors will judge the workload and wellbeing of all staff. However, they will take account of evidence which shows, for example, that occupational wellbeing is highest among senior leaders and lowest among teachers. [1]

Ofsted also notes that teachers and school leaders report very heavy workloads and that this impacts on work/life balance and on retention. [2]

In an ungraded inspection, if the lead inspector has serious concerns about workload, the inspection will be deemed to be a graded inspection. [3]

Schools need to ensure that they identify and address the workload of all staff. This includes looking at arrangements for assessment, data collection and analysis, and planning and preparation.

The Health and Safety Executive’s (HSE’s) Stress Management Standards will help schools to identify and address the issues that impact adversely on workload and wellbeing. The NASUWT strongly recommends that schools adopt the standards. [4]

School leaders should familiarise themselves with the standards and contact the NASUWT for further advice and support about implementing the standards in their school.

Teachers and school leaders should contact the NASUWT for advice if their workload is unmanageable and the school or MAT is failing to address the issue.

Footnotes
[1] Ofsted, Teacher wellbeing at work, pages 17-21
[2] Ofsted, Teacher wellbeing at work, pages 24-28
[3] SIH, paragraph 426
[4] Available at www.hse.gov.uk/stress/standards. (Accessed 8 April 2024)

Ofsted says that inspections that have already started may be paused in exceptional circumstances. This could include pausing an inspection because of concerns relating to welfare of the headteacher or another member of staff. [1]

Ofsted has produced guidance about the circumstances where an inspection which has already started can be paused. [2] While the lead inspector will normally initiate the pause, the headteacher or the responsible body can also ask that the inspection be paused.

Footnotes
[1] SIH, paragraph 127
[2] Pausing state-funded school inspections: Ofsted’s policy for pausing state-funded schools. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/pausing-state-funded-school-inspections.

Deep dives are not subject inspections. The term refers to the methodology that inspectors use during inspection. Inspectors will usually undertake deep dives of four to six subjects and use evidence from the deep dives to form hypotheses that will be tested in order to make more general judgements about the whole curriculum and the quality of teaching and learning across the school.

Inspectors will seek to identify what is common across subjects and what is different. They will be interested in how the school is implementing the curriculum and how that contributes to the quality of education.

Inspectors also use evidence from deep dives to form judgements about personal development, behaviour and attitudes and leadership and management.

However, inspection reports may identify a subject or subjects as having weaknesses (or strengths), meaning that the subject lead or teacher(s) of the subject(s) could be vulnerable. In such instances, teachers should contact their NASUWT Representative for advice and support.

Inspectors will want to speak to the person who is responsible for organising the content and sequencing of the curriculum subject that they are focusing on. This may mean that inspectors should speak to a senior leader rather than the person nominated as the subject lead.

Expectations of a curriculum or subject lead in a large secondary school will be different from those in primary schools and/or small schools. Ofsted says that inspectors need to be mindful of individual circumstances and context. However, inspectors will expect a subject lead to have an overview of that subject across the school. In the case of primary schools, this would be from early years through to Year 6.

If a subject lead is not a subject specialist, inspectors will be looking for evidence that senior leaders are supporting the subject lead to fulfil the role.

Ofsted says that inspectors need to be mindful of individual circumstances. Inspectors should also ask a curriculum or subject lead about the support that senior leadership is providing to enable them to fulfil their role.

Teachers must be given appropriate time to undertake curriculum and subject leadership responsibilities. Teachers taking on additional responsibilities for the curriculum must receive a Teaching and Learning Responsibility (TLR) payment or be on the leadership pay range. See the NASUWT’s advice on the payment of Teaching and Learning Responsibilities.

Inspectors will consider teachers’ workload and are likely to make a negative judgement about leadership and management if workload issues are not identified and managed well.

Teachers and NASUWT Representatives should contact the NASUWT if their school is not implementing the advice or if they believe that inspectors have unrealistic expectations of subject or curriculum leads.

Ofsted says that staff may always be accompanied by another appropriate person when speaking to inspectors. [1] This may be helpful if a teacher or leader is relatively inexperienced or is worried about meeting the inspector.

However, Ofsted also stress that it is important that staff are able to express their views freely to inspectors. [2] Therefore, it is important to ensure that the decision about whether another person accompanies the member of staff is made by the person who is meeting the inspector. It is also important that the member of staff identifies who the appropriate person will be.

Footnotes
[1] SIH, paragraph 266
[2] SIH, paragraph 265

Ofsted recognises that a subject or curriculum lead in a primary school may wear a number of hats and be responsible for a number of areas.

Ofsted says that a subject lead is not expected to develop expertise in multiple areas or be a subject specialist. Ofsted says that inspectors will be interested in how staff across the school work together to determine the content of the curriculum. Also, schools might make use of schemes of work developed by subject specialists or other schools.

Ofsted expect the subject lead to have an overview of the subject across all phases of the school, including early years through to KS2 as appropriate. In the case of early years, this might actually mean looking at how the early years curriculum provides the foundations for the subject in KS1 and beyond.

Inspectors will be looking for evidence that a subject lead who is not a subject specialist is being supported by senior leaders to fulfil the role.

Ofsted’s webinar, EIF Inspection in primary schools, addresses the issue in more detail.

Teachers and NASUWT Representatives should contact the NASUWT if their school is not implementing the advice or if they believe that inspectors have unrealistic expectations of subject or curriculum leads.

Inspections of the quality of education involve three elements: top level view, deep dive, and bringing things together.

Deep dives will focus on a number of subjects. Inspectors will gather a range of evidence about the subjects. This includes evidence from school leaders, curriculum and subject leaders, teachers and pupils.

Inspectors will visit lessons, but will not judge the quality of teaching of the teachers they see. Instead, their focus will be on the bigger picture and how, for instance, what is being taught in a lesson fits into the sequence of lessons.

Inspectors may ask teachers about subject content and sequencing.

Inspectors will be interested in teachers’ and leaders’ understanding of the whole curriculum. Therefore, they might ask teachers if they are aware of what the pupils were taught in the subject last year and what is planned to happen next.

Inspectors will be interested in how assessment is used to support teaching and learning.

Inspectors will be interested in how teachers are supported and developed, particularly teachers who are teaching a subject outside their area of expertise.

Inspectors will examine and draw together evidence collected from deep dives to form hypotheses that can be tested more generally across the school curriculum. Inspectors will look for patterns and evidence of practice that may be systemic.

Inspectors will make a judgement about the entire curriculum and not just the deep-dive subjects and/or the years observed.

This influences how inspectors will feed back to teachers and leaders. Inspectors may provide informal feedback when they visit lessons, but are likely to provide more formal feedback to teachers and leaders as a group. This is likely to be to a department or education phase. Feedback should address bigger picture issues such as planning and sequencing of lessons and subject content.

Inspectors should not provide feedback about individual teachers or individual teaching.

Lesson visits are not about evaluating individual teachers or their teaching and lessons will not be graded. Inspectors will use the evidence gathered from lesson visits to form a rounded view about the quality of education in the school. [1]

Teachers cannot refuse to participate in visits. However, the NASUWT advises school leaders to seek to agree with teachers in advance of inspection a position on joint inspection.

Footnote
[1] SIH, paragraphs 257 and 258

Inspectors will make use of nationally published data relating to examinations and assessments where this is available. They will use outcomes data for 2022 cautiously and will only use 2021/22 data to inform discussions. [1]

Inspectors will not use teacher, or centre, assessed grades from 2020 and 2021 to assess curriculum impact. [2]

Inspectors will not look at internal assessment data, including performance and pupil-tracking information. However, inspectors may ask teachers and leaders about how they use such information. Inspectors will be interested in looking at how this data is used to inform decisions about the curriculum, teaching and learning. [3]

Schools are free to establish their own approach to assessment and inspectors will not expect to see a particular system of assessment in place. However, school leaders should ensure that they have a clear rationale for why data is collected, when it is collected, and how the data is used. In particular, they should be clear that that assessment data is not generated purely for the purposes of presenting information to inspectors. Schools should monitor the impact of assessment arrangements on teachers’ workload and wellbeing.

School leaders should ensure that their school’s approach to marking, data management and planning is consistent with the recommendations of the Teacher Workload Advisory Group report, Making Data Work.

The NASUWT has issued guidance to protect members from inappropriate marking, assessment and feedback policies.

Footnotes
[1] SIH, paragraph 238
[2] SIH, paragraph 248
[3] SIH, paragraph 244

Ofsted says that schools choosing more than two or three data collection points a year should have a clear reasoning for what interpretations and actions are informed by the frequency of collection. This needs to take account of the time taken to set assessments, collate, analyse and interpret the data and the time taken to act on the findings.

Ofsted says that inspectors should report if a school’s system for data collection is disproportionate, inefficient or unsustainable for staff.

Teachers should only be observed in accordance with the provisions agreed in their performance management planning statement/appraisal report.

A headteacher has a duty to evaluate the standards of teaching and learning and may use ‘drop-ins’ to inform their monitoring of the quality of learning. However, if the headteacher focuses on the teacher or makes notes on the teacher’s performance or uses the visit for any other purpose, the visit would be classed as a lesson observation.

Ofsted states that schools do not need to do anything in order to prepare for inspection. However, Ofsted also acknowledges that developing and embedding an effective curriculum takes time and a school may be part way through the process of adopting or redeveloping a curriculum. 

Inspectors will evaluate curriculum intent favourably if leaders have an accurate and evaluative understanding of current curriculum practice and have identified appropriate next steps to improve curriculum quality and develop expertise across the school.

The former Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector (HMCI) made it clear that schools should not undertake mock inspections or undertake preparation for inspection. She identifies ‘mocksteds’ as a waste of money, burdensome and unnecessary. [1]

The NASUWT is aware that some local authorities undertake mock inspections of their schools and that some schools employ consultants to conduct ‘mocksteds’. These are inappropriate and unnecessary.

School leaders should also note that local authority representatives and consultants may be drawing on out-of-date information about the inspection process. Ofsted has amended the inspection process substantially and provides regular training for inspectors to ensure that they are aware of the latest inspection arrangements and priorities. Therefore, there is a significant risk that those conducting mock inspections will provide misleading and inappropriate advice.

School leaders and NASUWT Representatives should contact the NASUWT for advice if their school participates in a mock inspection or they are under pressure to do so.

Footnote
[1] Amanda Spielman speech to ASCL annual conference, 10 March 2017. Available from: www.gov.uk/government/speeches/amanda-spielmans-speech-at-the-ascl-annual-conference (accessed 8 April 2024)

The NASUWT urges schools to be very careful about using consultants. We strongly recommend that schools do NOT use consultants to:

• produce statements of curriculum intent. Ofsted states that intent is nothing new and that schools do not need to write new statements, adapt websites or restructure staffing to cover intent. [1] This is a process that school leaders should work through over time. It is not something that can be bought ‘off the shelf’;

• identify the questions that inspectors will ask under the new inspection arrangements. Schools should use the guidance provided by Ofsted in the inspection handbooks and focus on the broad issues and themes of inspection rather than adopting a tick-list approach. A tick-list approach is likely to generate workload and have limited impact;

• undertake mock inspections. Mock inspections are unnecessary and add to workload. Inspectors will consider staff workload and wellbeing and could make a negative judgement of leadership and management if the school uses consultants in this way.

NASUWT Representatives should contact the NASUWT for advice if their school has support needs related to the new inspection arrangements.

Footnote
[1] See the Ofsted blog about curriculum intent: https://educationinspection.blog.gov.uk/2019/07/01/busting-the-intent-myth (accessed 8 April 2024)

Ofsted will expect schools to demonstrate that they have taken steps to secure external support and that concerns have been raised with appropriate authorities when support is not provided or is delayed. Ofsted will expect the school to be doing its best to support the pupil.

School leaders, special educational needs co-ordinators (SENCOs) and NASUWT Representatives should contact the NASUWT if they believe that inspectors have not taken appropriate account of the lack of external support.

Ofsted requires inspectors to weave SEND into every inspection.

This means that inspectors must establish the context for SEND provision in the school and the ambitions for pupils with SEND. Inspectors must consider whether the curriculum is implemented appropriately for pupils with SEND and how well they are involved in school life.

Inspectors will want to understand how decisions about provision for pupils with SEND are made and how the school plans for and meets the needs of pupils with SEND. They are likely to pay particular attention to how leaders make decisions about the curriculum and how they ensure that teachers are supported and enabled to meet the needs of pupils with SEND.

Ofsted has told inspectors that some deep-dive samples should include pupils with SEND and that inspectors should have copies of those pupils’ Education, Health and Care (EHC) plans and SEN support plans. It is important that staff do not undertake specific preparation for inspection. This means that a school may provide an inspector with information about its arrangements for provision mapping or copies of pupil-profile documents as appropriate.

Inspectors will want to speak to the SENCO during the inspection. Inspectors should take account of the position of the SENCO within the school. The expectations of a SENCO who is a senior leader should be different from that of a teacher who has a TLR.

If an inspector does not seek the information, SENCOs should explain to the inspector where they sit within the school hierarchy. This will be particularly important if the SENCO is not a member of the senior leadership team.

Inspectors should consider the workload of the SENCO, including how senior leaders support the SENCO to fulfil their role. This is extremely important because SENCOs are likely to be under pressure if external services fail to provide support or use bureaucracy to ration or control access to provision. This information is also important because it may be shared with inspectors carrying out SEND area inspections and so help to draw attention to issues across an area and beyond.

The SEND Code of Practice states that: ‘the SENCO has an important role to play with the headteacher and governing body in determining the strategic development of SEN policy and provision in the school. They will be most effective in that role if they are part of the school leadership team.’ [1]

The NASUWT strongly recommends that schools follow the advice in the Code of Practice.

SENCOs must be given appropriate time to undertake their role. They must also be paid on the leadership scale or receive a TLR.

SENCOs should contact the NASUWT for advice if their school uses the changes to inspection to impose greater demands on them.

SENCOs should also contact the NASUWT if they believe that inspectors have failed to take appropriate account of their role and position within the school.

Footnote
[1] DfE (January 2015), SEND Code of Practice, paragraph 6.87

Ofsted recognises that every school is likely to experience some low-level disruption and incidents of bullying or harassment may occur in any school. Inspectors will look for patterns and seek to establish whether issues are systemic. Inspectors will want to see that incidents are dealt with promptly and that appropriate action is taken to ensure that issues do not escalate.

Inspectors will look for evidence that the school takes appropriate action to protect staff and pupils, particularly those who are more vulnerable. The critical points are that the school must be able to demonstrate that:

• low-level disruption and incidents of bullying, harassment and discrimination are not tolerated;

• appropriate action is taken to address incidents and prevent them from escalating; and

• staff and pupils are protected.

Inspectors will pay particular attention to how a school identifies addresses and works to prevent sexual harassment, sexual abuse and sexual violence.

Inspectors will look for evidence of a whole-school approach, including an effective behaviour policy, pastoral support and a carefully planned sex and health education curriculum.

In an ungraded inspection, if the lead inspector has serious concerns about the bullying and harassment of staff, the inspection will be deemed to be a graded inspection. [1]

Footnote
[1] SIH, paragraph 426

Keeping Children Safe in Education guidance [1] states that all members of school staff should be aware of the systems within their institution which support safeguarding, including the child protection policy, the staff behaviour policy, and the role of the designated safeguarding lead. However, this does not mean that the school should have a separate staff behaviour policy or staff code of conduct.

Inspectors will want to know how the school has ensured that staff know what is expected of them and may ask to see how this is covered. However, they should not give the impression that this needs to be a single policy document or in the form of a code of conduct.

School leaders should contact the NASUWT if an inspector requests the staff behaviour policy to be provided in a particular format.

Footnote
[1] Department for Education Keeping Children Safe in Education: Statutory guidance for schools and colleges. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/keeping-children-safe-in-education--2. (Accessed 8 April 2024)

Ofsted inspects safeguarding as part of the leadership and management judgement. This includes ensuring that the school maintains a Single Central Record of the safeguarding checks that they carry out and looking for evidence that the school complies with the requirements set out in Keeping Children Safe in Education. [1] Inspectors are particularly interested in looking at whether the school has a culture of safeguarding. [2]

Ofsted does not have any particular expectations with regard to site security or using digital platforms to monitor pupils’ internet use. [3]

Footnotes
[1] SIH, paragraphs 32 to 34
[2] SIH, paragraphs 377 and 381-386
[3] SIH, paragraph 34

Paragraph 221 of Keeping Children Safe in Education suggests that schools should consider conducting an online search of candidates who have been shortlisted for a post. However, this is not a requirement and inspectors will not look at whether online searches have been conducted.

The NASUWT advises schools not to undertake online searches of shortlisted candidates, including outsourcing to companies to undertake the task. The process increases the risk of bias and discrimination and of candidates’ human rights being infringed.

For further information, see our advice Keeping Children Safe in Education.

If the school is judged ‘inadequate’ solely due to safeguarding, then Ofsted will return within three months for an early monitoring inspection.

If inspectors are satisfied that safeguarding is now effective, the monitoring inspection will be regarded a graded inspection and the ‘serious weaknesses’ designation removed. [1]

A school that is judged inadequate solely due to safeguarding will be subject to an academy order. However, if the school is judged to be good or outstanding following the monitoring inspection, they can apply to the Secretary of State to have the academy order revoked. [2]

Footnotes
[1] Ofsted School Monitoring Handbook: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/school-inspection-handbook-eif/school-monitoring-handbook-for-september-2023 (Accessed 8 April 2024)
[2] Ofsted School Monitoring Handbook, paragraph 39

The NASUWT urges teachers and school leaders to complete the Ofsted online staff questionnaire. The questionnaire provides a means for teachers to highlight how well the school is supporting them and to provide evidence about issues such as those relating to workload, behaviour and support.

Ofsted will not release inspectors’ notes or other inspection evidence to a third party and uses the exemptions that apply under the Freedom of Information Act to justify this position.

Inspectors will treat information provided through the staff survey as confidential. However, there may be some circumstances where inspectors need to act on the information provided, e.g. where there are safeguarding concerns or where there is evidence of serious bullying and harassment.

While inspectors will not disclose who provided the information, it may sometimes be possible to establish that an individual or group of individuals will have raised an issue or concern. In such instances, it is vital that teachers and leaders contact the NASUWT for advice and support.

Inspectors will use evidence from the staff survey alongside other evidence gathered during inspection. The evidence will be used to gain a rounded picture of what is happening in the school.

The staff survey will be an important means for gathering evidence about workload and wellbeing. For instance, it may provide pointers to issues and to good practice which inspectors can follow up and explore in other inspection activities such as deep dives and discussions with staff, leaders and managers.

We urge staff to complete the staff survey. It should be noted that the staff survey is likely to be the main means for alerting inspectors to issues about workload, wellbeing, and the harassment and bullying of staff.

An inspection can take place at any point from five school days after pupils first attend in the autumn term.

The law prescribes that the maximum period between inspections under Section 5 of the Education Act should be five years. However, the Covid-19 pandemic means that for schools whose most recent graded or ungraded inspection was before 4 May 2021 the period is extended to up to seven years.

There are a number of factors that will influence when a school will next be inspected. Paragraphs 35 to 40 of the School inspection handbook provide a guide to when a school might next be inspected.

Ofsted has also produced a blog on inspection timings. [1]

Footnote
[1] https://educationinspection.blog.gov.uk/2023/06/12/when-will-my-school-be-inspected/ (accessed 8 April 2024)

A member of staff, including the headteacher, must not be expected or asked to come into school if inspection takes place on a day when they do not normally work, for example, because they work part time or are doing a job share.

However, if a member of staff does work, they should be paid for the additional time that they are in school.

Although individuals should not be identified in an inspection report, it may be possible to identify an individual. School leaders and NASUWT Representatives should contact the NASUWT if the report contains an inappropriate reference.

Ofsted uses risk assessment to ensure that its approach to inspection is proportionate and to prioritise inspections where it believes it will have the greatest impact. Risk assessments are used to determine which good and outstanding schools will receive an ungraded inspection and which will receive a graded inspection.

Ofsted uses a broad range of indicators to assess risk, including national data from the DfE, including progress, attainment, attendance and exclusion data; school workforce census data; the views of parents on Parent View; qualifying complaints that have been referred to Ofsted; pupil mobility data; and statutory warning notices.

Further information about the risk assessment process is set out in the School inspection handbook [1] and in guidance on the risk assessment process. [2]

Footnotes
[1] SIH, paragraphs 64-67
[2] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/risk-assessment-methodology-for-maintain-schools-and-academies (accessed 8 April 2024)

If a school is judged to be inadequate for overall effectiveness, Ofsted will need to determine whether the school is providing an acceptable standard of education.

A school will be failing to provide an acceptable standard of education if either the quality of education or the personal development judgements are graded as inadequate.

If a school is judged inadequate for overall effectiveness but that neither the quality of education nor personal development judgements are judged inadequate, inspectors will conclude that the school is providing an acceptable standard of education.

If inspectors conclude that the school is not providing an acceptable standard of education, i.e. the school is judged inadequate for overall effectiveness and inadequate for quality of education or/and personal development, inspectors will then need to consider whether managers and governors demonstrate the capacity to improve the school.

If they are judged to have the capacity to improve the school, the school will be judged as having serious weaknesses. If managers and governors are judged not to have the capacity to improve the school, the school will be judged to require special measures.

The School inspection handbook provides further information about how judgements are made. [1]

Footnote
[1] SIH, paragraphs 186-191

An urgent inspection is an inspection that is carried out when significant concerns have been raised about the school. This may be the result of a ‘qualifying complaint’ or where other information, such as that gathered as part of an Ofsted risk assessment, suggests that there are concerns about the safety of pupils or when information suggests that there has been a serious breakdown in leadership and management or a decline in standards.

Urgent inspections are often carried out at no notice and focus on the issue or issues causing concern. Part 4 of the School inspection handbook explains the arrangements for urgent inspections. [1]

Footnote
[1] SIH, Part 4, paragraphs 470-504

Maintained schools and PRUs that are judged to be causing concern will be subject to an academy order. [1] The Secretary of State has the power to terminate the funding agreement of an academy that is judged inadequate and the academy may be re-brokered to another trust. [2] Schools that receive consecutive judgements of ‘requires improvement’ may be subject to an academy order or to being re-brokered. [3]

Schools that are subject to an academy order and then receive an inspection judgement of good or outstanding before they convert can apply to the Secretary of State to have the order revoked. [4]

School leaders and teachers working in a school that is subject to an academy order or an academy that is being re-brokered may be vulnerable and should contact the NASUWT immediately for advice and support.

Footnotes
[1] SIH, paragraph 193
[2] SIH, paragraph 193
[3] DfE (January 2024) Schools causing concern: Guidance on intervention https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/659d064e614fa20014f3aa63/Schools_causing_concern_guidance.pdf
[4] DfE (January 2024) Schools causing concern: Guidance on intervention