No improvement

Posted on 24/06/2026

Former HMI Colin Richards outlines the findings of new research into the damaging impact of the revised Ofsted framework.

The revised Ofsted inspection framework has failed in its aim to improve the well-being of heads and their staff, according to an independent survey of 100 schools to experience the new regime, published on June 22.

Two former senior HMIs, together with three eminent academics, asked head teachers whose schools had recently been inspected to share their experiences. The results are clearly at odds with Ofsted’s claim that the new framework is performing well, is helping to reduce pressure and stress on school leaders, and is a major improvement on the previous one.

Of those responding to the questionnaire, almost 70 per cent expressed negative views on Ofsted’s impact on head teachers’ well-being. Eight heads stated that they had decided to retire before another Ofsted inspection.

Other findings included:

• Nearly two-thirds (64 per cent) did not believe the new Ofsted framework was an improvement.
• More than a third (34 per cent) did not feel that their ratings were fair.
• Close on one in three (29 per cent) did not see the advice from inspectors as valuable.
• Only 30 per cent agreed that the inspection had positively impacted their institution.
• Over half (52 per cent) of the respondents did not think the inspection had had a positive impact on their career.

Two of the authors – Frank Coffield, Emeritus Professor UCL, and Emeritus Professor Peter Tymms of Durham University – argue that: ‘This report presents detailed evidence of the urgent need for change to the present inspection system in England’.

Frank Norris MBE, a former senior HMI, and Professor Christine Pascal, two of the other authors, stress that: ‘The main reason for the changes to the process was to improve the wellbeing of school staff being inspected, following the tragic death of Ruth Perry. But our research worryingly reveals that those being inspected still feel vulnerable and unsupported’.

A further author, Professor Colin Richards, said: ‘In her learning review following the shocking events at Caversham Primary School, where the Ofsted inspection was identified as a contributory factor in the headteacher, Ruth Perry, taking her own life, Dame Christine Gilbert strongly recommended the administration of post-inspection school surveys should be commissioned from, and published by, a third-party independent organisation. However, Ofsted has not taken up that recommendation. So we have.

‘Because our research is fully independent, the respondents are likely to be more genuine and forthright than any responses made in response to Ofsted’s own post-inspection research’.

The researchers gave the heads an opportunity to express their thoughts about their recent inspection. Here are some comments included in the report. ‘The toll on heads is high. My team are resilient and committed but my deputy, who has been teaching for over 20 years, returned on the second morning and said, “I can see why Ruth Perry did what she did”.’ (Jules, primary). He was not alone: ‘The inspection caused both mental and physical distress to the entire senior team. People were very ill during the Christmas break, a month after the inspection’. (Jordan, primary). Frankie (primary) thought similarly: ‘Ofsted remains a massive source of stress to heads. A poor Ofsted inspection, or the anticipation of one, still ends careers. Plus ça change’.

The report highlights six issues in need of urgent attention. These include the need for a fully independent complaints system, for independent evidence of the impact of the new Ofsted framework, and for Ofsted to undertake thorough improvements to its approach to inspection and in particular to the way the stress of inspection can be reduced.

The report’s authors close their report thus:

‘Our findings are at variance with statements made by some senior figures at Ofsted. They have recently expressed confidence in the new framework, claiming that it is performing well without any significant problems and is a major improvement on their previous models. We disagree’. [1]

[1]The research and report were produced by: Frank Coffield, Emeritus Professor, UCL, Institute of Education, London University; Frank Norris MBE, FCCT former Senior HMI; Chris Pascal Professor, OBE, Centre for Research in Early Childhood; Colin Richards, former Senior HMI and Emeritus Professor University of Cumbria; and Peter Tymms, Emeritus Professor, Durham University.