New Ofsted report cards will create more anxiety for leaders with already “concerningly high” stress levels, a wellbeing impact report commissioned by the watchdog has warned. commissioned Sin茅ad Mc Brearty, CEO of the charity Education Support, to . The report was published today. The report warned that the 鈥渂aseline stress level of school and college leaders is concerningly high鈥. Sin茅ad Mc Brearty The revised framework 鈥渄oes not reduce the pressure on leaders to achieve a desirable outcome. The consequence of not meeting the expected standards of the revised framework will remain high stakes in nature.鈥. It also raised concerns that the transition from a 鈥渒nown quantity鈥 framework to something unknown 鈥渃reates additional anxiety about 鈥榞etting it right鈥. 鈥淭he more granular judgments received by providers are unlikely to be uniformly 鈥榞ood鈥. This will be very stressful for many leaders.鈥 Leader anxiety and stress will 鈥渋n many (though not all) cases, spillover and increase pressure on staff teams to perform well in inspection鈥. The revised framework 鈥渨ill require leaders to evidence impact across a larger number of evaluation areas, which may drive new forms of bureaucracy and data collection in schools and colleges”. For example, the SENCo role in schools is “at risk of increased stress under the revised framework. The framework may leave these roles feeling personally exposed and responsible for inspection outcomes.” Here are the report’s main recommendations… 1. Reduce isolation felt by heads The report said Ofsted must 鈥渆xplore and implement changes to reduce the isolation and individual responsibility felt by headteachers and principals鈥. It warned that 鈥渢oo often鈥 leaders are 鈥渟een as solely culpable for a disappointing outcome. 鈥淚n truth, no school or college operates below par due to one individual. The schemes of delegation may vary from one setting to another, but a constellation of leadership actors is collectively responsible for where a setting is on its quality journey.鈥 The report said inspection 鈥渟hould no longer be used as a tool for individual performance management鈥, noting that there 鈥渙bviously are reasons for headteachers or principals to lose their jobs, but inspection should no longer be one of them鈥. 鈥淚n making this change, Ofsted will reduce and remove one of the key planks of the high stakes of inspection.鈥 Ofsted said: 鈥淲e name headteachers and the chair of governors or trustees and the chief executive of the multi-academy trust鈥n report cards. Introducing an optional ‘nominee’ role for all remits should ease the inspection process and help reduce the demands placed on providers.鈥 2. Invest in wellbeing and development of inspectors The report said this would involve addressing the workload of HMIs 鈥渋n a meaningful way鈥, and ensuring they have access to 鈥渉igh quality professional learning and peer support鈥. The wellbeing of many within the education profession is 鈥渟ignificantly compromised, and they often are not aware of that themselves. 鈥淎 stressed and overloaded HMI workforce interacting with a stressed and overloaded education workforce presents clear and avoidable risks. Ofsted can mitigate those risks by ensuring that its inspectors are well-resourced and able to do their best work sensitively.鈥 Ofsted said: 鈥淲e will add an extra inspector to inspection teams for schools for the first day to boost inspection capacity and support inspection teams. By shortening inspection days, we will reduce inspectors鈥 workload and by improving the opportunities for dialogue. We have developed a comprehensive package of training for inspectors.鈥 3. Introduce 鈥榰nequivocal mechanism鈥 for complaints independence The report found Ofsted鈥檚 complaints process 鈥渋s widely seen as a significant block to trust. Stakeholders 鈥渄o not accept that recent changes have made a material difference, and do not believe that the process can be trusted until it is more independence in it is secured鈥. The report said reform 鈥渕ay involve the invitation of an independent observer to join internal case reviews of complaints, or use of an independent sampling process. 鈥淗owever it is achieved, more independence in the complaints process will support greater trust in Ofsted.鈥 Ofsted said: 鈥淲e are improving communication with complainants: investigating officers offer direct conversations to better understand their concerns. We have set up complaints panels with external sector representatives, who review whether complaints are handled fairly. We are continuing to work closely with the DfE on how we can introduce further independence into the complaints process.鈥 4. Develop protocol for responding to distress The report called on Ofsted to develop a 鈥渃lear protocol for responding to individuals in acute distress or at risk of suicide. Ofsted has 鈥渁lready made a range of changes to improve the support available to educators during inspection鈥, the report acknowledged. But 鈥渇urther work is now required to ensure a positive and consistent approach to all individuals who manifest distress or raise self-harm or suicide. 鈥淥fsted ought to work with sector stakeholders to think through how best to respond across a range of circumstances, e.g. how to respond when it becomes clear that there is relationship breakdown between the educator at risk and the individual identified as formally holding a duty of care towards them.鈥 Ofsted said: 鈥淲e introduced measures to respond to individuals in distress. This included a policy allowing inspectors to pause an inspection if they have concerns about an individual鈥檚 wellbeing. We also embedded mental health awareness in all inspector training. We will update that training regularly.鈥 5. Monitor 鈥榰nintended consequences鈥 of framework The review found the revised framework was 鈥減erceived to be, at best, at least as demanding as the current model. Most stakeholders expect inspection to be more demanding and stressful鈥. Leaders 鈥渉ighlighted their concern that a move away from 鈥榖est fit鈥 judgments to the report card would increase their sense of jeopardy in a live inspection鈥. Stakeholders were also 鈥渨orried about the way in which the framework rollout would affect communities. 鈥淭hose in the first wave of inspections face the risk of looking less attractive to parents and carers due to the scorecard (compared to a school down the road that is still rated 鈥榞ood鈥) and this could have a significant impact on school and college rolls.鈥 They also worried that Ofsted鈥檚 definition of inclusion would 鈥渁ffect selection at the point of entry to a school鈥, and leave those that seek to be fully inclusive 鈥渨ith an ever more challenging intake鈥. The report told Ofsted to 鈥渕onitor the unintended consequences of the revised framework highlighted in this report and take action to address issues arising quickly鈥. Ofsted said: 鈥淚n autumn, we will invite a random sample of providers to take part in 鈥榚xit interviews鈥. These interviews will supplement the standard post-inspection survey and give us deeper insight into the impact of the changes. We will also start holding 鈥榬oundtable鈥 meetings with sector representatives to gather qualitative feedback on the impact of the reforms in real time. We have also commissioned an independent evaluation of the renewed framework.鈥 Other recommendations for Ofsted include鈥 Carefully monitor and be prepared to revise the amount of inspector time that can be allocated to contested inspections Develop a plan to address the particularly low level of trust in Ofsted among primary schools Recommendations for government include Act to resolve the negative wellbeing impacts of high stakes inspection Promote universal wellbeing interventions for the as a key strategy to reduce suicide risk Increase the personal support available for leaders who receive a poor inspection outcome Develop a sustainable, long-term approach to accountability in England