Leadership and Governance

What is the context?
Since the publication of the CAR in autumn 2025, there have been a plethora of accountability measures that have been highlighted for change in all key stages. Accountability measures can drive leadership decisions and choices that need to be made within the constraints of limited budgets. This is exacerbated by the national teacher recruitment crisis which can mean that there are shortages in key subjects. As a consequence, schools are in danger of being held accountable for issues that are beyond their control which means that it is imperative that the government gives schools and colleges enough time to respond to these changes to enable them to measure institutions fairly across the sector. 

In a very short period of time the following changes have been announced; EYFSP becoming an accountability measure; changes to KS2 testing (GPS); the introduction of literacy and numeracy tests in KS3; KS4 changes headline accountability measures (removal of EBacc) and changes to A8 and P8; KS5 introduction of V levels and changes to English and maths re-sits. 

In addition, the DFE is also launching school profiles to include wider information fields for parents / carers. There is a fear that these will end up becoming accountability measures through the back door e.g. the number of students attending enrichment activities. 

All of these changes increase workload for leaders at a time when the wellbeing index has indicated that school leader wellbeing is at an all-time low. The 2025 TWIX survey results show that 86% of school leaders are stressed and that 26% are considering leaving their post because of concerns over their wellbeing. The constantly shifting sands of accountability for leaders only adds to this issue. 

ASCL position: ​ASCL calls on the Department for Education to slow down the pace of change to the accountability system. Schools and colleges need to be given enough time and the necessary resources to make the necessary changes to ensure that any new system is fair for all educational institutions. The new school profiles need to share existing information without creating additional workload and new accountability measures for schools. The Department must commit to a full review of the current accountability landscape and undertake an impact analysis of all types of provision during the implementation of its white paper.

Why are we saying this?
Changes to accountability measures create additional workload for school leaders and this comes at a time when wellbeing is at an all-time low for this section of the profession. There is a danger of implementation overload for leaders and this is compounded by a lack of resources to adequately run schools effectively and efficiently. 




 

What is the context? 
The renewed Ofsted Inspection Framework was released in September 2025 and inspections began in November of the same year. Initially this was for volunteer schools but routine inspections re-commenced in December 2025. ASCL Council committed to gathering evidence of the validity, reliability and impact on leaders’ wellbeing of the renewed framework.

ASCL has considered a range of evidence and produced a paper that outlines the strengths of the renewed framework but also highlights areas for concern. More importantly it offers solutions to Ofsted so that inspections can continue to provide the rigour that is needed by the wider education system whilst eliminating some of the problems that have arisen since its inception. 

ASCL position: ASCL formally ratifies the recommendations suggested by the task and finish group in their paper on improvements to the 2025 renewed EIF, principally that Ofsted:

1. Clarify how data is used to inform outcomes, in particular the use of IDSR and attendance data. 
2. Clarify the "secure fit" methodology and the accompanying toolkit (particularly where it explicitly references national data) and improve communication to the public around how "exacting" the grades are. 
3. Give much more consideration to school leader and student well-being (commission an independent review) and ensure that there is an independent process for complaints.  
4. De-couple attendance and behaviour as current gradings are providing misleading information about schools to parents.

Why are we saying this? 
ASCL is concerned by various elements of the renewed framework which are leading to increased workload and anxiety for school leaders.  Initial inspection outcomes show that schools previously graded as good and outstanding are now under pressure of not meeting the expected standard. Ofsted has ‘raised the bar’ of inspection without fully explaining this to the wider community that surround schools. This in turn puts increased pressure on school leaders and increases anxiety owing to unrealistic expectations when comparing outcomes under very different frameworks. 
 

What is the context? 
Ofsted produced a draft of their latest framework in early 2025 following on from the ‘Big Listen’ the previous year. Ofsted invited comments on the draft before publishing the full renewed framework in September 2025. Many school leaders and institutions that represent them (including ASCL) made suggestions for improvements that were not subsequently incorporated into the finalised framework. 

Ofsted published a document in September 2025 that outlined the response to the consultation but did not give full details of the concerns raised by the profession. ASCL felt that this document had not given proper consideration to many of the points raised in opposition to certain elements of the draft framework. Leadership organisations put in a FOI request to get the full details of the consultation but this was not forthcoming. 
ASCL is a member of the Improving Education Together (IET) Board, chaired by the Secretary of State. The terms of reference of IET state that IET members should work with government to ‘co-create the design and implementation of policy’. IET members expressed concern that the design of the renewed framework, Ofsted toolkits and report card were not co-created in the spirit of the partnership.

ASCL position: ASCL was disappointed with Ofsted’s decision to resume inspections under the renewed framework in autumn 2025, despite significant evidence to suggest that elements of it need to be amended or piloted further. During this process, Ofsted failed to fully listen to the concerns of the school and college leaders that it inspects which has further undermined trust in the inspectorate and failed to adequately address issues raised in the Big Listen and in the consultation. ASCL urges Ofsted to work more collaboratively with the sector in the future, especially on writing a new framework for trust inspections.

Why are we saying this? 
It’s important for ASCL and Ofsted to have a strong working relationship together, and for us as a trade union to provide supportive and rigorous challenge to the inspectorate. Ofsted needs to ensure that it is rigorous in its approach to shining a spotlight on poor practice and helping to raise standards. However, if the impact of inspection is driving good school leaders out of the profession due to increased workload and anxiety, then it is having the opposite effect of that which it was designed to perform and is in danger of causing a lowering of standards over the long term. Ofsted needs to listen to school leaders about their inspection frameworks and work with the profession to improve standards across the country. 

ASCL supports the introduction of trust inspections, led by Ofsted, and look forward to working constructively with Ofsted on the design and implementation of this new framework.

What is the context? 
The government has included, in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, a new duty for primary schools to secure a breakfast club that is at least 30 minutes in duration, includes food, and is free and open to all pupils. 

ASCL fully supports the government’s desire to tackle child poverty, to break down barriers to opportunity in schools, and to support working parents by ensuring they have access to high-quality childcare. We also recognise the role that breakfast clubs in primary schools can play in supporting these ambitions.

However, we have significant concerns about this proposal. These are as follows: 

1. Making this a duty, rather than something which schools can choose to do, represents a worrying shift from schools being considered places of education, to places of childcare. 
2. This will present significant logistical challenges for some schools, including around staffing and physical space. This includes the difficulty of predicting how many pupils will attend the breakfast club each day, if it is open to all children and provided free of charge, which in turn makes planning appropriate and safe staffing extremely difficult. 
3. If breakfast clubs are not adequately funded by the government, schools will have to subsidise this provision themselves, stretching already challenging budgets to breaking point. This also risks disrupting existing wrapround care. 
4. The impact of this policy will fall disproportionately on school leaders in primary schools, as they will need to plan and oversee this provision and would likely need to be on-site for safeguarding reasons. Essentially this therefore amounts to a 30-minute statutory extension of the primary school day, with no consultation. 
5. There is no evidence that this proposal will attract those children who would most benefit from it.

ASCL position: We suggest the government amends the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to reduce the degree of detail in the clause relating to breakfast clubs. Instead, the Bill should state that primary schools should have a duty to follow statutory guidance on breakfast clubs. This would enable current and future governments to learn how this policy can be effectively implemented on the ground, and adjust the detail in secondary legislation or statutory guidance accordingly. 

Why are we saying this? 
We believe that this amendment would prevent the government from being tied down to a particular model of breakfast club delivery, which may prove problematic on implementation. It would give them time to learn from the current breakfast club early adopters programme, and space to reflect this learning in subsequent secondary legislation or guidance. 

This would help to alleviate some of the concerns among primary leaders that this policy, as currently envisaged, could prove impossible to implement and counterproductive, while still ensuring all primary schools are required to provide breakfast club provision. 

 

What is the context? 
ASCL has called for several years for changes to how schools and colleges are inspected and held to account. We have advocated a move away from single-phrase judgements and towards an approach based on report cards. In June 2024 we published a discussion paper, setting out our thoughts on how such a model might work. In summary, this suggested an approach which would:

• be based on a new, slim set of statutory standards, which all state schools would be expected to meet or exceed
• employ inspection and other regulatory activities intelligently to judge whether or not schools are meeting these standards, based on an appropriate set of proxies
• include an intelligent approach to improvement and intervention which trusts schools which meet the standards to implement their own approach to continual improvement, but employs appropriate mechanisms to ensure those which don’t are supported to do so

We remain committed to robust accountability for schools and colleges, and to ensuring parents receive clear information. We also remain committed to a report card-based model. However, we are deeply concerned about aspects of the proposals in the DfE and Ofsted parallel consultations on Improving the way Ofsted inspects education and School accountability reform, published in January. 

Despite extensive engagement with both DfE and Ofsted over the autumn term, we are extremely disappointed that the model being proposed is very different from the approach our members would like to see. This has the potential to be even more problematic than the system it would replace. 

Our main concerns relate to the proposed five-point scale and to the timescale on which these changes as being implemented, as follows:  

• The inclusion of the two categories above ‘secure’ will do nothing to reduce the current pressures of accountability. Instead they will perpetuate a sense that nothing schools and colleges do is good enough. 
• This does nothing to recognise the findings of the inquest into Ruth Perry’s death or the recommendations of the Gilbert report. It will exacerbate the current recruitment and retention crisis and undermine the government’s ambition for high and rising standards. 
• We do not believe it will be possible for inspectors to reliably and validly distinguish between performance on a five-point scale. The toolkits project a false sense of rigour, but fall apart on closer inspection. This will lead to inconsistency, compromising the whole approach and destroying confidence in the system. In particular, the definitions of ‘secure’ and ‘strong’, as set out in the toolkits, often feel indistinguishable. 
• The five-point scale will inevitably lead to a granular ranking of schools, as it will enable commentators to add up a school’s ratings across different areas of focus to create an overall score, which can then be compared with other schools. We recognise that this is not the government or Ofsted’s intention, but it is an inevitable outcome. 
• The proposed approach to ‘exemplary’ is particularly problematic. Who will sit on the proposed panel to judge whether or not an aspect of a school’s performance is exemplary, how will they make those judgements, and what transparency will there be around this?
• The timescale on which these proposals are being considered and implemented is far too short. There is too little time for Ofsted and the DfE to consider responses to the consultation and adapt their proposals accordingly, or for school and college leaders to prepare for their implementation. Furthermore, the fact that Ofsted is piloting its preferred approach in parallel with the consultation reinforces the view that the sector is being presented with a fait accompli. 

ASCL position: ASCL calls on the government and Ofsted to listen deeply to the responses to their current consultations on inspection and accountability reform. We ask them to commit to fundamentally rethinking aspects of their current proposals if those responses, as we expect, reflect the concern and anger already being expressed by school and college leaders about these proposed reforms. 

This rethink must include: 

• a replacement for the five-point scale with a much simpler approach, based around whether or not schools and colleges are meeting expected standards  
• a clearer and more consistent approach to support and, where necessary, intervention, for schools and colleges which are not meeting those standards

As we have previously made clear, we would be prepared for the current interim approach to inspection to continue for longer than is currently proposed, to give DfE and Ofsted the time they need to get this right. 

Why are we saying this? 
ASCL aims to be clear, transparent and constructive in our engagement with government and other stakeholders. We will, of course, be responding to both the Ofsted and DfE consultations in full. Given our members’ strength of feeling on aspects of these proposals, however, and given the speed at which they may be implemented, we want to raise these concerns now, to ensure ministers and the inspectorate are fully aware of them, and to give both DfE and Ofsted as much time as possible to consider how they might act on them. 

ASCL Council’s discussions so far have mainly focused on the proposals in the Ofsted consultation, though they also relate to how the report card would be used in accountability. Council will meet again shortly to discuss the DfE consultation in more detail. We will include any additional views and suggestions arising from that discussion in our response to the consultation. 
 

What is the context? 
The government has confirmed that it will replace current accountability tools with a new ‘school report card’, which will be introduced and used to hold schools to account from September 2025.

ASCL has advocated for a ‘report card’, ‘accountability dashboard’ or ‘balanced scorecard’ since 2021, in our Blueprint for a Fairer Education System. We are therefore extremely pleased that this approach is now being taken. 

However, we are concerned about the speed at which this work is happening. As of October 2024, no detailed proposals on what school report cards will look like, or how the evidence to populate them will be gathered, have been presented to the sector. 

The previous government committed to a series of workload protocols, to reduce the workload and stress of school and college leaders, teachers and support staff. These protocols included not introducing major changes to accountability without a full years’ notice, and not making changes to assessment or accountability mid-year.

The government and Ofsted have suggested that a report card, and an accompanying new Ofsted inspection framework, will be consulted on in early 2025.

ASCL is currently in discussion with the government over the establishment of a new partnership between government, unions and employers. Accountability has been identified as one of three initial areas of focus for this partnership. 

ASCL position:
It is essential that the government takes the time needed to properly consult on, develop and implement its proposed new approach to accountability and inspection, based on report cards.

ASCL would be prepared for this new approach to be introduced later than the currently proposed date of September 2025 if this is necessary to get it right.

In the meantime, we would welcome the opportunity to discuss ongoing adaptations to the current interim approach.

Why are we saying this?
This is a rare and important opportunity to fundamentally rethink and improve the way in which schools and colleges are held to account. It is essential the outcome of this work leads to a much better system. 

Such a significant change will require extensive and meaningful consultation; a considered response from government; design work; testing; implementation; a comprehensive communication strategy with school and college leaders, parents and other stakeholders; and sufficient time for schools and colleges to prepare for the implementation of the new approach.

We are concerned that, if the new approach is only to be consulted on in early 2025, then this leaves limited time to implement this process by September. We would therefore be prepared to support the government and Ofsted in taking longer to consult on, develop and implement this new approach in order to get it right. 

We are conscious that the new partnership between government, unions and employers, which will have accountability reform as a key area of focus, has not yet been formally ratified. If the partnership is to represent meaningful co-construction, then this group will need time to feed into the thinking and design of the report cards.

We recognise that the consequence of this position may be that the current ‘transition year’ is extended beyond September 2025. While we are clear that the current system must be replaced, we recognise the significant changes that Ofsted has made since January 2024, including the removal of the single-phrase overall effectiveness judgement, and as a result we would be prepared to support the government and Ofsted in a decision to extend the interim period while the new system is developed. However, we think that further changes could be made in the interim period to support school and college leaders’ wellbeing and workload, particularly if it were to be extended beyond the original year. 
 

What is the context? 
The government has confirmed that it will replace current accountability tools with a new ‘school report card’, which will be introduced and used to hold schools to account from September 2025.

To feed into this work, Ofsted is currently working on a new inspection framework, which we anticipate will form some, but not all, of the report card. This is due for consultation in early 2025, for introduction in September 2025.

ASCL has advocated for a ‘report card’, ‘accountability dashboard’ or ‘balanced scorecard’ since 2021, in our Blueprint for a Fairer Education System. In our 2024 discussion paper on this topic, we suggested that a report card should be based around a set of standards, set by government through legislation and agreed with the sector.

ASCL position: The proposed school report cards should be based around an agreed set of standards, set by the government through legislation, in consultation with the sector.

Ofsted should inspect against these standards to feed into certain elements of the report card.  

Why are we saying this?
Under previous governments and Ofsted frameworks there was sometimes a disconnect between the statutory expectations on schools and colleges and inspection criteria. This created confusion and unnecessary workload in the system.

Instead, we think that there should be a slim set of standards that all schools and colleges are expected to meet, and that accountability measures and reporting should be against these standards, without creating additional expectations.

We believe it is right that the democratically elected government should set these standards. Many of these standards already exist, for example in the National Curriculum or in Keeping Children Safe in Education. 

Ofsted has a statutory role in designing a framework which will report on the quality of education, and in notifying the Secretary of State of any schools causing concern. It is our view that Ofsted can fulfil this statutory obligation by developing a framework to inspect schools and colleges against these statutory standards, which are defined by the DfE, in partnership with the sector, and approved by Parliament.

ASCL believes that this approach to accountability and inspection would significantly reduce the workload and pressure on school and college leaders, as inspection would solely focus on whether or not schools are compliant with the standards, without offering a value judgement. This would still provide rich information for parents, while reducing the burden and high-stakes nature of accountability on schools and colleges.

The standards that form the report card would likely include elements that can be automatically populated (such as attendance and national assessment data), alongside information which would need to come from inspection (such as the extent to which schools implement a broad and balanced national curriculum with fidelity).

We therefore think that the standards should be defined and approved through legislation, before the report card or inspection framework are designed.

The DfE already uses a similar approach to regulation and inspection in the independent sector, where the Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI) inspects against a small but detailed set of standards, set out by the government in legislation. 

Going forward, any future frameworks must not place additional burdens or expectations on schools and colleges through the handbook or inspection activity, beyond those expectations defined by statutory guidance.
 

What is the context?

ASCL believes that: 

• inspection should be constructive, not punitive
• inspection activity should be based on professional dialogue
• inspection outcomes must be reliable and valid in order to carry the trust of the profession and other stakeholders
• inspection frameworks, and their implementation, must be transparent
• significant changes to inspection should only be introduced following a thorough pilot, and a detailed impact analysis

We welcomed the updated Education Inspection Framework (EIF) in 2019, particularly its focus on the curriculum and the quality of education, rather than historical data.

However, the implementation of the EIF has been flawed. Too many school and college leaders feel that the framework allows for overly subjective judgements to be made, that the quality of inspection teams is too variable, and that inspection activity sometimes goes beyond that set out in the handbook.

ASCL is concerned that Ofsted is losing the trust of the profession. Moreover, Ofsted’s public response to these challenges has not always been as helpful or constructive as it could have been.

In January 2023 ASCL published a discussion paper on the future of inspection, and spent the subsequent five months sharing and exploring the proposals in this paper with members, stakeholders and other experts. 

In June 2023, Ofsted announced a number of changes to inspection activity and to the 2023 handbook, and a consultation on its complaints process. While these changes are welcome, we do not believe they go anywhere near far enough, and urge both the outgoing and incoming Chief Inspector to consider more significant reform, as set out below. 

ASCL position: ASCL formally ratifies the recommendations in our Future of Inspection discussion paper, updating what we said about safeguarding to: 

“Safeguarding compliance should be annually audited. A school’s culture of safeguarding should continue to form part of inspection activity.”

Our recommendations on inspection are therefore as follows: 

1. Ofsted should immediately remove the overall effectiveness judgement.
2. Ofsted should remove all graded judgements in future frameworks.
3. Ofsted should tell schools and colleges in which academic year they will be inspected.
4. Ofsted should publish its inspector (OI) training and associated materials.
5. Ofsted should undertake an immediate review of how pupil voice is used during inspection.
6. The handbook and reporting should be updated to better reflect the role of trusts in school improvement.
7. Future inspection frameworks should continue to focus on the quality of education, with the national curriculum as the only document which sets out the government’s curriculum requirements or expectations.
8. Ofsted should publish new ‘standards’ rather than graded criteria.
9. The government should introduce a new ‘accountability dashboard’ or ‘balanced scorecard’, which should form the core of the inspection process and be the sole dashboard for accountability.
10. Ofsted and the DfE should introduce tighter and more transparent commissioning of support for schools or colleges which need it.
11. Ofsted should produce more nuanced inspection reports, which better reflect a school or college’s ethos and culture.
12. Ofsted should produce separate handbooks, frameworks and standards for different phases, and require lead inspectors to have relevant leadership experience of the phase they are inspecting. 
13. Safeguarding compliance should be annually audited. A school’s culture of safeguarding should continue to form part of inspection activity.
14. Trusts and groups of schools should be quality assured, with any approach to trust inspection thoroughly piloted ahead of implementation. 

Why are we saying this? 
We believe that fundamental changes must be made to the inspection system to ensure it is fit for purpose, and can regain the trust of leaders, teachers and parents. The proposals above would, in our view, set the inspectorate in the right direction to do this. 

 

What is the context? 
Last school year, only 17% of Ofsted complaints were upheld or partially upheld. ASCL members have expressed concern that so few complaints are upheld, and about a perceived lack of transparency and independence throughout the process.

Currently, schools and colleges have the opportunity to comment on the draft report, to complain online once they have received the final report, and finally to ask for an ‘internal review’. All of this is managed by Ofsted itself.

Only after these channels are exhausted can schools and colleges refer their case to the Independent Complaints Adjudication Service for Ofsted (ICASO). Even then, ICASO are unable to change the outcome of a complaint, and can merely make a recommendation back to Ofsted.

ASCL position: ASCL believes that Ofsted’s current complaints process is not fit for purpose. The system must be fair, transparent, and have the authority to require judgements to be revised where inspections are proven to have been flawed.

Why are we are saying this?
The current process is time-consuming and costly for schools and colleges. ASCL members have significant concerns about the transparency of the process: where complaints are not upheld, it is not always clear why. Furthermore, even in some cases where Ofsted acknowledges misconduct of inspection teams, complaints remain not upheld.

We also have concerns about Ofsted ‘marking its own homework’. The final stage of complaints – the ICASO – does not have the regulatory power to overturn a judgement or change the outcome of a complaint. Only Ofsted can do this.

ASCL would welcome a more transparent process, which may or may not be led by the inspectorate. 

We are also concerned about the inconsistency of inspection judgements, which compounds this problem. This position statement should therefore be read alongside our February 2023 position statement on inconsistency in inspection. 

 

What is the context? 
In 2019 Ofsted published its Education Inspection Framework (EIF), with a greater focus on the curriculum and quality of education. ASCL welcomed the new framework, and this focus, and still believe that the EIF has many strengths.

Routine inspections were suspended between March 2020 and September 2021 due to the pandemic. During that period, the government removed the exemption for outstanding schools and colleges to be inspected. Ofsted has been given £24 million to boost inspections, ensuring that all schools and colleges will be inspected between 2021 and 2025.

ASCL members have reported inconsistencies in the implementation of the EIF by inspection teams. This is deeply concerning, and undermines trust in the inspectorate.

Research published in February 2023 by UCL further indicates that inspection judgements are not reliable, and points to evidence that female inspectors are more likely to arrive at low judgements than male inspectors. This brings into question both the reliability and validity of the EIF’s implementation. 

ASCL position: ASCL welcomed the Education Inspection Framework (EIF) in 2019, particularly its focus on curriculum and the quality of education. However, ASCL members’ experience is that the EIF is not being applied consistently by inspectors. This risks judgements being unreliable, with significant ramifications for schools and colleges, and for the validity of the inspectorate itself. Ofsted needs to take urgent steps to improve the consistency of the inspection process to ensure fairness and transparency for all schools and colleges.

Why are we are saying this?
ASCL is disappointed that this position statement is required, as we broadly welcome the principles and thinking behind the EIF. 

However, it has become apparent that the EIF is not working as intended. A degree of subjectivity was inevitable – indeed welcome – to avoid inspection becoming a ‘tick box’ approach. But it has become clear that there is too much inconsistency in arriving at judgements.

ASCL is also concerned about the appropriateness of the EIF for small schools, standalone primary schools and special schools. The ‘deep dive’ methodology favours schools and colleges with large curriculum teams, with teachers with specialist knowledge of the discipline.

We are also concerned about evidence from ASCL members of inspection going beyond the Ofsted handbook. Schools and colleges should only be inspected under the published guidance, which in itself allows for professional judgements to be made.

We have previously expressed our position that Ofsted should publish all training materials it gives to inspectors for the sake of transparency, and that inspectors should not be expecting to see anything beyond the content set out in the national curriculum for maintained schools.
These concerns are compounded by the high-stakes nature of inspection. We think that this could be mitigated by the immediate removal of the overall effectiveness judgement, as recommended in our 2023 discussion paper The future of inspection. 
 

What is the context? 
The 2022 Schools White Paper Opportunity for All sets out the government’s ambition for all schools to be in a strong multi-academy trust (MAT), or to have plans to join or form one, by 2030. In order to achieve this ambition, the government promises to deliver:

• a fully trust-led system with a single regulatory approach, which will drive up standards, through the growth of strong trusts and the establishment of new ones, including trusts established by local authorities
• a clear role for every part of the school system, with local authorities empowered to champion the interests of children and a new collaborative standard requiring trusts to work constructively with all other partners
• Education Investment Areas to increase funding and support to areas in most need, plus extra funding in priority areas facing the most entrenched challenges

The Schools Bill currently making its way through Parliament includes proposed new legislation to enable the government to achieve this vision, although it doesn’t include any measures which would enable the government to require most schools which aren’t currently in MATs to join one by the 2030 deadline. 

ASCL position: ASCL agrees with the benefits of schools and colleges working in strong collaborative groups, which was a key recommendation of our 2021 Blueprint for a Fairer Education System.
 
These groups of schools and colleges need to sit within a carefully designed local infrastructure. It is crucial that every school and college is able to join a group which will effectively support and challenge it, and that groups of schools and colleges work together across a local area.
 
The government needs to work collaboratively, through its Regional Directors, with all school, college and trust leaders in each region to co-construct a coherent, effective infrastructure which will ensure every child and young person receives a high-quality education.

Why are we are saying this?
Our Blueprint recommends that there should be opportunities and support for all schools and colleges to be part of a strong, sustainable group, but is clear that, in our view, there continues to be a role for different forms of strong legal partnership, and that schools should be encouraged rather than required to join such groups. 

What is crucial is that, if the government wishes to see all schools in MATs, it works with school, college and trust leaders to co-create local landscapes which are coherent and effective, and have the full support of leaders and communities. The newly designated Regional Directors will play an essential role in helping to shape that landscape, but they must draw deeply on local expertise in designing the sustainable system and infrastructure needed to provide appropriate support and challenge to all schools and colleges.  
 

What is the context? The DfE published their Early Career Framework (ECF) in January 2019. The framework underpins an entitlement to a fully funded two-year package of structured training and support for early career teachers.

The DfE has previously committed to the following for the national rollout in Autumn 2021:

• funding and guaranteeing 5% off-timetable in the second year of teaching for all early career teachers 
• early career teachers continuing to have a 10% timetable reduction in their first year of induction
• creating high quality, freely available ECF curricula and training materials
• establishing full ECF training programmes
• funding time for mentors to support early career teachers
• fully funding mentor training

ASCL’s position: ASCL supports the intention behind the new statutory induction arrangements, and believes that additional, quality, support for Early Career Teachers is crucial, not only for their own personal development but, to help ensure that they are retained in the profession.
 
We believe that the new Early Career Framework offers a good level of support for Early Career Teachers.
 
However, in order for the benefits to be realised, we remain of the view that the role of the mentors is fundamental to the success of the programme and that therefore the time required for their training, time off timetable and associated back fill costs must be fully funded, regardless of the delivery route.

Why are we saying it? Whilst we are supportive of the intention behind the new statutory arrangements, the commitments made during the development of the Early Career Framework around fully funding all mentors’ time and training must be provided. It cannot be the case that some schools incur additional costs dependent on the delivery route, particularly if this is not of their choosing, when other schools receive full funding.
 

What is the context? Dealing with the coronavirus pandemic is one of the greatest challenges any of us has ever faced. The situation has been fast-moving, unpredictable, and extremely high stakes. Both government and school and college leaders have had to make decisions at speed, and based on incomplete and shifting evidence. 

While we recognise that the Department for Education has made attempts to engage with ASCL and other stakeholders during this period, we are concerned that this engagement has too often felt rushed, piecemeal and tokenistic.

School and college leaders are also increasingly angry and frustrated that announcements with major implications for schools and colleges are briefed to the media before being communicated to the profession. This leaves leaders in an extremely difficult position, with parents and communities wanting to know how schools and colleges plan to respond to an announcement of which they have had no prior warning. 

ASCL position:
ASCL urges the government to: 

1. liaise properly with key stakeholders about any major policies and proposals, initiating genuine discussions around different options rather than simply seeking last-minute comments on the government’s preferred approach; and
2. communicate their plans to school and college leaders in a timely manner, in advance of briefing the media. 

Why are we saying this? We believe that government will make better decisions if it consults properly with the people who understand deeply what the implications of those decisions will be, and who will be responsible for implementing them. We also believe that school and college leaders will be better able to carry out those plans, and to reassure their communities about them, if they have been both involved in their creation and informed in a timely manner about their communication. 

 

What is the context? Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn announced in a speech in April 2019 that a Labour government would scrap the current primary national curriculum assessments, commonly known as SATs, including those taken at the end of Key Stage 2. 

Instead, Labour plans to bring forward proposals for a new system that would separate the assessment of schools from the assessment of children, understand the learning needs of each child, and encourage a broad curriculum aimed at a rounded education.

ASCL position: ASCL believes that high stakes test-based accountability has impacted negatively on primary education and requires review.

Assessments should inform planning in order to prepare children more effectively for the next phase of their education.   

Why are we saying it? The government’s recent steps to remove the most toxic examples of high-stakes accountability – the floor and coasting standards – are welcome. However, ASCL believe the government should review the negative effects of primary testing on children. These assessments should, we believe, from part of a more rounded set of indicators of school performance and effectiveness. 

Performance data should be used more intelligently to prepare all children for each step of their educational journey, supporting schools in attaining the very best outcomes for young people. 
 

What is the context? Governments implement performance measures in order to incentivise behaviours in schools that they believe are desirable. However, as schools and their leaders are held to account largely by those measures, including through publication in performance tables, perverse incentives and behaviours inevitably result from an over-focus on a narrow set of measures.  

ASCL position: ASCL believes that any data presented on a school’s performance should include a rounded set of indicators and, furthermore, that no single headline measure should dominate.

Why are we saying it? The government has taken steps recently to remove the most toxic examples of high-stakes accountability – the floor and coasting measures. This welcome development needs to be further built upon to lead to performance data being presented and used in a more intelligent, nuanced and comprehensible way.