We heard at the end of September that teacher resignations in England are significantly higher than the international average.
Around 7% of teachers in England resigned in 2024-25, compared with an OECD average of around 4%. We've also known for a long time that teachers work longer weeks than average when compared to similarly qualified professionals in other industries (and this study backs that up).
There are plenty of documented reasons why someone might decide to leave education, for example:
Pay
Workload
Pupil behaviour
Changing expectations
But in light of the developments we've seen throughout October, we should perhaps circle back to to the pressures created by school accountability. In her recent conversation with Ceri Jones, CEO of Inspires MAT, Juniper Education's CEO, Sarah Barton, explained how schools absolutely need accountability, but that it needs to be done the right way.
Just over a week after those resignation figures were reported, we had some rather uncomfortable findings about the experience of Ofsted's renewed inspection framework. An independent evaluation commissioned by Ofsted and published on the Department for Education's website found that 88% of schools surveyed reported at least some negative impact on staff mental wellbeing following inspection, with almost half reporting a fair amount or a lot.
It also found that:
Half of schools also disagreed that the workload associated with inspection was manageable
42% said their overall inspection workload was worse under the renewed framework
26% of the schools surveyed actually said the workload associated with the inspection process had improved
The final point suggests that something is moving in the right direction in there, but a lot seemingly isn't. These are only interim findings, but they raise an obvious question: if changes intended to improve the inspection experience are still leaving so many schools reporting difficulties with workload and wellbeing, what's happening?
The outcomes are fair, but the process is brutal according to school governors. And if we're serious about understanding why teachers and leaders are leaving education (in higher numbers than in other countries), we should probably think about the process just as much as the outcome.
Crisis of Confidence?
The response from school leaders suggests these concerns are becoming increasingly difficult to dismiss:
On 9 October, the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) passed a formal vote of no confidence in Ofsted's leadership, calling for inspections to be paused while the system is reviewed. The union also warned that inspection-related stress and anxiety could lead school leaders to leave their posts.
By 16 October, the NAHT and National Education Union had also passed votes of no confidence in Ofsted's leadership
Ofsted, though, has recognised that improvements are needed and announced plans to pilot a new Independent Complaints Review Service, giving schools greater independent oversight when challenging how complaints have been handled. The service will be able to recommend that decisions are reconsidered and, where appropriate, that a new inspection takes place.
The problem for education professionals, though, is if a school has already endured considerable stress and potentially suffered damage to staff wellbeing, how much can an improved complaints process really put right afterwards?
And this is particularly relevant given what's coming next. We recently heard that Ofsted's proposed inspections of multi-academy trusts are unlikely to begin until 2028, with the framework still being developed. Speaking at the Confederation of School Trusts annual conference, Ofsted representatives emphasised the importance of collaboration, professional expertise and minimising unnecessary burdens.
Trust leaders, meanwhile, questioned how a single framework could reflect the diversity of schools within different trusts and whether inspectors would have the necessary experience to make consistent judgements.
This might be perhaps a natural opportunity to learn from what's happening with school inspections.
Trust-level accountability could help identify effective practice and strengthen improvement across schools. But some concerns persist:
Could it also create another layer of expectations, reporting and preparation?
And if we're already concerned about the pressure on individual schools, how do we make sure those pressures aren't multiplied as accountability extends further across the system?
In our latest JoinIn podcast, Dave Smith, Director of Procurement at Osborne Co-operative Academy Trust, discussed how effective procurement at trust level can help schools make better use of their budgets, generate savings and direct more investment towards the areas where it will make the greatest difference.
It's a good example of the potential benefits of working collectively. But it also reminded me of a question I explored in my previous blog: the idea that teachers would seemingly prefer not to work in them... because even among teachers already working in trusts, the preference for local authority schools remained.
There's an interesting paradox here: trusts can deliver efficiencies, share expertise and create opportunities that individual schools might struggle to achieve alone, yet those organisational benefits don't necessarily translate into a more positive experience for teachers.
So how do we close that gap? If a trust saves money through better procurement, could some of that investment be directed towards reducing workload, strengthening support and giving teachers more time to teach? Dave Smith seemed to think so.
And as trust-level inspections approach, how do we ensure that accountability recognises the value trusts create for their schools without introducing additional demands that undermine those benefits?
To be fair, Ofsted's own evaluation contains encouraging findings. Across the different types of education providers surveyed, two-thirdssaid inspections were more collaborative now than under previous frameworks, and many recognised improvements in how inspectors approached their work.
I don't think anyone would seriously argue that schools shouldn't be accountable for the education they provide. Parents deserve confidence, pupils deserve high standards and schools should be supported to improve.
But have we reached a point where the pressure associated with demonstrating those standards sometimes risks getting in the way of the work itself?
The data suggests so.
A headteacher or trust leader knows that an inspection judgement can have significant consequences, so naturally they want to be prepared. That might mean more monitoring, more data collection, more documentation or more frequent checks on what's happening in classrooms. Some of that will undoubtedly be valuable, and good leaders need reliable information to make decisions.
I know from experience though that some of the pressure experienced by teachers can come from the accumulation of perfectly understandable decisions made further up the accountability chain. Each additional request might seem reasonable on its own, but together they can take time and energy away from teaching, supporting pupils and developing professionally.
It's also why I think we should be looking at how better-connected systems can ease some of that burden.
At Juniper Education, our JoinUp approach is about bringing information together so that the right people have access to the right information at the right time.
If teachers and leaders can find what they need more easily, rather than spending time moving between disconnected systems, compiling reports or repeatedly gathering evidence, there's an opportunity to reduce unnecessary administration.
If trusts can combine that approach with smarter procurement and investment in the areas that matter most to staff, perhaps some of the benefits of being part of a larger organisation could become more tangible in the classroom.
This all brings us back to where we started:
At the end of September, we learned that teachers in England were resigning at a considerably higher rate than the international average.
Since then, we've seen independent research raising concerns about inspection-related workload and wellbeing, governors describing distressing experiences, three major unions expressing no confidence in Ofsted's leadership, changes to the complaints process and questions about how a new system of trust inspections should operate.
None of this proves that Ofsted is causing teachers to leave, and I wouldn't suggest there's a single explanation for such a complex problem.
But I do think it gives us good reason to examine how accountability pressures travel through the education system. As Owen Jenkins, CEO of Broad Horizons Education Trust, told us: education policy filtering down from government and Ofsted to trusts, to school leaders (and ultimately classroom teachers) is always 'additive', and it raises a broader question about how we judge the success of our education system.
We can measure attainment, evaluate school performance, identify efficiencies and demonstrate improvement, but are we giving enough consideration to the experience of the people responsible for delivering it all?
We'd love to hear your thoughts. Join in the conversation on LinkedIn.