The Gilbert Review: 12 reasons why it must be acted upon

The 2024 Independent Learning Review, produced by former HMCI Dame Christine Gilbert, is a cogent document. It is perceptive, direct, and does not shy away from the difficult issues. 

As a result, Headrest very much welcomes this review; thanks Dame Christine Gilbert for the forensic and diligent approach she has adopted; and hopes that the review will get the meaningful and open-minded response from Ofsted that its measured observations and recommendations deserve. 

As a group primarily concerned with Headteacher well-being we have focused in this response on the parts of the review pertaining to the well-being of school leaders and the educational provisions they lead. 

We are pleased to be able to state that the number and frequency of calls we have received expressing concerns about Ofsted have reduced in recent months. This would suggest that the mental health training Ofsted inspectors have received has enhanced inspectorial sensitivity to the well-being of school leaders and their staff teams. 

However, there does remain a crucial caveat, and that we have in the last six months still received calls where we have been fearful that a Ruth Perry type tragedy could be repeated. 

In such circumstances it is not our role to query the inspection outcome. It is though perfectly reasonable for us to question if the inspectorate, and key others, are sufficiently attuned to the mental health needs of the inspected. 

It is our firm belief that currently, more needs to be done to equip inspectors with the skillset to effectively respond to the most extreme cases of mental health risk they might encounter during inspection. 

With this caveat to the fore we strongly believe that Ofsted, and other agencies, cannot afford to disregard or sidestep the recommendations of the Gilbert Review.  

In the remainder of this response we are going to focus on twelve quotes from the Dame Christine Gilbert Review that are related to well-being issues. 

Quote One 

“There is now general acceptance across the education sector, supported by many of the public, that this is a watershed moment for Ofsted and school inspection that must lead to reform.” (p.1)  

There are positive signs that Ofsted has within its recent actions, and in response to “the Big Listen” feedback, started the journey of reform. These include the following: 

• The increased inspector training focus on school leader and staff well-being
• The removal of the one/two-word judgement of a school
• The period of grace where there is a safeguarding concern

• Policy changes on pausing inspections
• Clarifications on deferral of inspections
• Changes to who can be present on calls and at meetings
• Adjustments on sharing provisional inspection outcomes
• Changes to the expectations of inspectors’ conduct
• The action arising from the Big Listen that has led to a clarity that calls alerting schools to an imminent inspection will only be received on a Monday
• The proposed move to phase-appropriate frameworks
• An increased focus on a school’s effectiveness in adopting inclusive approaches

Headrest welcomes several of these developments. These include reducing some of the stress of being in the Ofsted window; recognising the unsuitability of a one framework fits all approach; and the more compassionate approach to enabling school leaders to share an Ofsted outcome with significant others. 

These were key stressors identified in our 2024 Headteacher Wellbeing Annual Report. 

Quote Two  

“The strong and significant reaction included many personal responses to a deeply sad tragedy, but it also shone a light on a climate of fear and frustration which had been building for years. The climate had the consequence of weakening trust in Ofsted, which was increasingly seen by many as defensive and unwilling to respond constructively to criticism. It also had an impact on leader and staff well-being in schools, and thereby contributed to the recruitment and retention crisis evident across the sector.” (p.1)  

The stark reality was that even prior to the Ruth Perry tragedy the warning signs that Ofsted was having a dangerously detrimental impact on the well-being, mental health, and morale of the teaching profession were incontrovertible. 

The decision to go straight into graded inspections in the immediate aftermath of Covid showed a tin-eared insensitivity that undoubtedly led many school leaders, and their staff, to feel that the inspectorate lacked empathy and compassion at a time when they were metaphorically on their knees. 

Some of the Headrest calls we received on crass and/or disrespectful inspector behaviour at this time were heart rending. The damage done to the reputation of Ofsted at this time was, in our view, immense. 

During this period unions, well-being support groups, school governors, and a host of others alerted Ofsted to their concerns. There is thus no doubt that the inspectorate was informed of the need for greater sensitivity to the well-being of school leaders and their staff teams at this time. 

Indeed, in December 2021 we ended a letter to Ofsted with the following concern: “….The current situation with graded inspections is unsustainable. We believe it is only a matter of time before a school leader, burnt out by the pressure of leading a school through a global pandemic, has either a serious physical or mental health fatality triggered by Ofsted’s heavy handedness. Will it take a death, a dramatic increase in signed off staff, or a major retention crisis as colleagues walk away, for Ofsted to realise they are pushing colleagues beyond acceptable limits?”  

When we first wrote in October 2021, we felt the situation was becoming serious; it is now grave. (Headrest Letter to Ofsted – December 2021)

Quote Three 

“Reform is needed to develop an approach to accountability that lessens the unnecessary pressures associated with inspection and supports school leaders in shaping development that improve the lives of children and learners.” (p.2)  

There are positive signs of a greater regard for school leader well-being within some of Ofsted’s more recent actions. We very much hope these proposed actions are the start of a journey to move away from an overly punitive and, in some instances, toxic inspectorial system. 

The Gilbert Review offers prescient recommendations that we hope will be fully adopted by Ofsted. In our view this is not the time for meaningful reform to be spurned. It is surely in the best interests of all that inspections are more humane, collaborative, and constructive. Indeed, we hope this will be deemed a moral imperative for both Ofsted and central government.

Quote Four 

“The review heard from many sources that the growing fear of inspection was intensified by the previous government’s decision to issue an academy order for a maintained school that is judged inadequate (or sometimes requires improvement twice in a row) or to remove a school from its trust if it was already in one. It is worth noting that the then HMCI, Amanda Spielman, argued strongly against this decision but she failed to dissuade the government. (p.4)   

Headrest can confirm that the fear outlined above was a frequent element of calls expressing concern about Ofsted. The linking of inspection outcomes with a politically driven agenda to issue academy orders was, in our view, ill judged. 

It also led, on occasions, to panic decision making in some local authorities and trusts. This saw some school leaders scapegoated and dismissed as a means of demonstrating to regional directors that robust action was being taken. 

The cliff edge of two requiring improvements was a feature in several calls we received. Often school leaders in these circumstances felt unsupported and, on occasions, bullied into resignation. 

We hope the new government will recognise that this approach became too “high stakes” and is not a modus operandi to pursue in the future. 

Quote Five

“It is important that the changes following the Big Listen are implemented in ways that show explicitly how staff have been listened to. The ‘upward communication’ that has been enabled by the Big Listen needs to be built into Ofsted’s culture and future ways of working. (p.11)  

As a team Headrest, like many others, were concerned that within the “Big Listen” Ofsted avoided asking some of the toughest but most pertinent questions. However, “the Big Listen” was a positive advance that enabled those who were inspected to offer a viewpoint on key issues around school inspection and accountability. 

We very much welcome the recommendation in the Gilbert Review that further opportunities for “upward communication” should be part of Ofsted’s “future ways of working”. We do have reservations that the Ofsted response to this Gilbert Review recommendation does not directly refer to future plans or intentions to further develop “upward communication” beyond “the Big Listen”. 

It also does not appear to clearly embrace the principle of an “open dialogue” with all key stakeholders. 

Ofsted states: “….As part of our broader commitment to improving the organisation’s culture, we engaged directly with hundreds of our staff through the Big Listen. We have published our internal Big Listen, sharing staff feedback and outlining our actions. Through this, we want to show to both our staff and the public our dedication to maintaining an open dialogue with all Ofsted staff.”

 Quote Six 

“Where appropriate, they [Inspectors] need to be able to admit to inevitable human error when it occurs. It is important that inspectors (and all staff up to and including HMCI) are never placed beyond human fallibility, moving away from the discourse that ‘inspectors are never wrong’.” (p.12)  

There is not an organisation in the world that does not make mistakes. On occasions we receive calls from school leaders exasperated that in reporting concerns to Ofsted there appears to be an institutional mindset that starts with the assumption cited in the above quote that “inspectors are never wrong”. 

This was often accompanied by what some colleagues deemed a presumption that any complaint is merely the protestations of an individual or school that did not get the outcome they desired. It strikes us as imperative that those receiving complaints at Ofsted are mindful of this perception and respond to complaints with no pre-conceptions. 

Complaint management is difficult for any organisation and even more so within what has become a high stakes inspection process. At the moment there is a sense from a significant number of our callers that Ofsted could do better at open mindedly investigating whether they may organisationally have erred.  

Quote Seven 

“This review therefore recommends that rather than being managed by Ofsted itself, the administration of post-inspection school surveys is commissioned from a third-party independent organisation, with surveys returned directly to that.” (p.15)  

Some calls we receive are from school leaders who either feel that the approach of Ofsted to a complaint has been sub-standard or, alternatively, that there is no point in raising the matter because a complaint to Ofsted rarely ever changes anything. 

There is a sense that rather like Post Office staff registering a complaint over the much-reported flaws in the Horizons system they too will be subject to a national organisation closing ranks and adopting self-protecting obfuscation. 

Whether this is a fair assumption or not it is a viewpoint held by many of our callers. Headrest very much welcomes the Gilbert Review recommendation that post-inspection surveys should be returned directly to an independent organisation. 

We believe inserting a layer of demonstrable independence into the process will enhance the authenticity of the feedback Ofsted receives. We are concerned that Ofsted has declined to fully accept this recommendation at this time. 

Quote Eight 

“While acknowledging the importance of pupil voice, the ASCL expressed concerns that too great an emphasis is often placed on the views of a small group of pupils. Similarly, Ruth Perry’s family pointed to the dangers of inspectors responding to vexatious complaints from very small numbers of parents. Headteachers raised these issues numerous times with the review. The importance of always triangulating evidence cannot be underestimated.” (p.15/16)  

The concerns cited in this quote have often been shared with us. We have had colleagues relate to us incidents where sweeping and hard-hitting inspection judgements have been made on what appears to be the flimsiest of evidence and, on some occasions, in spite of substantial alternative information disproving them. 

We therefore totally concur with the final sentence of the above quote. 

Quote Nine 

“The change of approach on safeguarding has been particularly important and followed engagement with the sector. The changes included a return visit within three months for schools with safeguarding judged as ineffective, as well as a much clearer definition of the requirements around safeguarding. This work has also led to plans to be more proactive in supporting schools with this area of work, including the development of a single central record compliance checklist for schools.” (p.16)  

Headrest very much welcomes the more measured and supportive approach around the inspecting of Safeguarding. We appreciate that Ofsted’s priority must always be to keep children safe. 

However, the recalibration to an approach that does not put a school into an immediate inadequate judgement on safeguarding issues that can be swiftly resolved is welcome.   

Quote Ten 

“This review recommends that Ofsted continues to focus on improving the complaints procedure. There should be a focus on embedding an element of independent external oversight with the power to re-open inspection judgements. (p.17)  

We note the Ofsted response to the Gilbert Review does not fully support this recommendation. Headrest recognises that positive moves have been made by Ofsted to improve their complaints process with a new helpline, access to talk to an investigating officer, and providing an earlier opportunity to complain to an independent authority. 

We are disappointed that the proposal of “independent external oversight” within the complaints procedure does not yet seem to have been accepted. This strikes us as a missed opportunity.  

Quote Eleven 

“The review recommends that the work to roll out mental health training in 2024 be built on and expanded with more sophisticated training, regularly refreshed. This training should be very specifically designed to reflect the unique power dynamic of inspection, with specific models and tools to support inspectors to build appropriate relationships during inspection.” (P.24)   

On page 23 of the Gilbert Review the respected well-being organisation “Education Support” provides some excellent input on what mental health training for inspectors should cover. 

We do not see within Ofsted’s response a confirmation that they will cover the areas this source of expertise has suggested. It strikes us in general that there is scope for more clarity to be provided to school-based staff, and their governing bodies, on exactly what mental health training Ofsted intends to deliver to its inspectors in the future. 

As an organisation often dealing with distressed school leaders we would welcome reassurance that clear protocols/guidelines are issued to all inspectors on how to respond to a situation where it is apparent serious mental health concerns, or a suicide risk, might exist.  

Quote Twelve 

“As part of its planning for a school report card, the government should initiate a debate about the essential elements of the wider public accountability system, of which Ofsted is a part.” (p.34)  

The acknowledgement within the Gilbert Review that the school accountability system needs a wider examination is a welcome one.  We make this case through the voices of many other school leaders in our new book, Beyond Belief due to be published early next year. 

At Headrest we very much recognise that schools must be held to account. Our concern has always been that there is a need to break free of a system where the stakes have become too high; the human cost, on occasions, too great; and the process one that Is feared rather than seen as a positive force for school improvement. 

Closing thoughts

In Headrest’s view the Dame Christine Gilbert Review highlights the reality that the methodology and the culture surrounding how schools are held to account needs to change. 

We very much hope that the recommendations she makes will, even in areas where Ofsted have some initial reservations, be fully accepted. 

Headrest believes that to secure a more humane, constructive, and effective school accountability system change cannot be timorous. There is, in our view, a need for the inspectorate to be brave enough to cast off organisational fear. 

The leadership of Ofsted needs to rise to this challenge by being prepared to rigorously dismantle the discredited or damaging elements of its practice. 

It would be fair to say we do retain a fear, we hope unjustified, that the inspectorate may cling to too many of its past organisational habitudes that we know have done harm to the well-being and mental health of school leaders and their staff. 

The danger if that were to occur is encapsulated in the following Henry Ford quote “….If you always do what you have always done you will always have what you always got.”  We strongly believe that what is needed at this watershed moment is an in-depth review and overhaul of the school accountability system. 

This requires both courageous and visionary political and inspectorial leadership. It also requires a preparedness to embrace the level of change that is required. The reward for successfully doing this would be the school inspectorate regaining the respect and trust of those it oversees. 

It would also result in an inspection and accountability system that acknowledges more effectively the duty of care to school leaders and their staff teams. 

Headrest therefore very much concurs with the following observation on “high stakes” accountability from the opening page of the Gilbert review: 

“There is a need to rebalance this accountability model. We need one that not only gives account at school level, without many of the current pressures, but also supports improvements to the system by contributing to leaders’, teachers’ and schools’ professionalism. This should be more supportive of their work and result in greater ownership of the accountability system.” (p.1)