麻豆淫院

remains high. With the 2025 education inspection framework (EIF), Ofsted is under considerable pressure to evidence an improved awareness of teachers’ wellbeing. Perhaps consequently, the 2025 demands that inspectors . Although not defined in Ofsted documentation, ‘teacher wellbeing’ is a involving issues of individual job satisfaction and relations with others in school.

We downloaded a sample of 200 school inspection reports published under the 2025 EIF and analysed them using . Some emergent issues from our sample are set out below.^[1]

1. Workload and wellbeing are frequently collapsed together

There appears to be a binomial relationship between workload and wellbeing in school inspection reports published under EIF 2025:

‘Overall, staff feel very well supported by leaders with regard to their workload and wellbeing.’

URN 100975; Secondary

‘Many staff feel that leaders are approachable and considerate of their workload and wellbeing.’

URN 136147; Secondary

This pairing has also been identified in , and carries the implication that ‘workload’ is a primary contributing factor to ‘wellbeing’. Although has been identified as a , it is not the only contributor. It has also been suggested that wellbeing has . When wellbeing is recognised as a complex construct, it is clear that there is more to supporting teacher wellbeing than a focus on workload.

2. School leaders are responsible for staff wellbeing

Analysing occurrences of the phrase ‘staff wellbeing’ across the report sample indicates that Ofsted attributes the main responsibility for staff wellbeing to school leaders, rather than seeing it as a between staff and students which is framed by the wider political system within which the school operates:

‘Leaders’ engagement with staff wellbeing reflects a clear commitment to sustainable improvement.’

URN 108410, Secondary

‘Leaders place staff wellbeing and workload at the forefront of their work.’

URN 121041, Primary

‘There is a lack of recognition of the complex and sustained role that high-stakes inspection practices play in shaping the nature of teachers’ workload and wellbeing.’

The responsibilisation of school leaders for teacher wellbeing glosses over a more complex picture where high-stakes accountability systems, and associated Ofsted inspections, are known drivers of intensified workload and (see also Jerrim & Sims, 2021). Although Ofsted inspectors are advised of their duty to be mindful of teacher wellbeing, there is a lack of recognition of the complex and sustained role that high-stakes inspection practices play in shaping the nature of teachers’ workload and wellbeing.

3. Appearing well is important during an Ofsted inspection

These findings have theoretical implications. Ofsted’s developing interest in teachers’ wellbeing potentially represents an evolution of inspection foci, beyond teaching and learning, to encompass the surveillance of teachers’ emotional behaviours. Our concern with this development is that – over time – it may result in teachers moderating their emotions during inspections, in order to prevent the school from receiving an unsatisfactory assessment. This has the potential to place an additional workload upon teachers, asking that they undertake ‘emotional labour’ – defined as labour which ‘requires one to induce or suppress feeling’ (Hochschild, 1983, p. 7).

This addition to teachers’ workload may not be obvious – it is not an extra pile of books, or a new spreadsheet to fill in. However, this new work of undertaking emotional labour is, arguably, more insidious – it is a requirement to perform being well, even if one is not. Research has long recognised that high-stakes accountability associated with school inspections results in the ‘fabrication’ of certain professional behaviours, in order to appease the inspectorate and ensure a satisfactory inspection outcome (Perryman, 2009). Our concern is that recently, this demand for fabrication has been intensified through a mission creep which positions Ofsted not only as the arbiter of quality teaching, but as an assessor of teachers’ emotional states.

Our preliminary findings here are limited and warrant further investigation. They are based on a sample of 200 reports and have not been triangulated with data gathered from teachers themselves. However, they indicate areas of potential concern that Ofsted could choose to attend to during this first year of the 2025 EIF.

[1] Ethical approval for the study was granted by the University of Glasgow (CossREC 400250235).

References

Hochschild, A. (1983). The managed heart. University of California Press.

Jerrim, J., & Sims, S. (2021). When is high workload bad for teacher wellbeing? Accounting for the non-linear contribution of specific teaching tasks. Teaching and Teacher Education, 105, Article 103395.   

Perryman, J. (2009). Inspection and the fabrication of professional and performative processes. Journal of Education Policy, 24(5), 611–631.

Artificial intelligence declaration: The authors used Sketch Engine to conduct linguistic analysis for this blog post. Sketch Engine uses integrated AI features as standard; for more information see .  The authors take full responsibility for the accuracy and originality of this publication and complied with the terms of 麻豆淫院’s AI statement.