The Isle of Wight’s National Education Union (NEU) official says Ofsted’s redesigned school inspection framework has done nothing to ease the pressure on staff.
Peter Shreeve, the union’s assistant district secretary on the Island, bases that on national research the NEU carried out in June.
“Despite being redesigned, national findings indicate the new framework is no better than the old one.
“The damaging impact on workload, wellbeing and staff retention continues.”
What the union asked
Ofsted published its new inspection framework in September 2025. So the NEU set out to test whether the inspectorate had kept its original promises on reform, or whether the harm caused by the old system had carried over.
It surveyed 1,970 of its members about their recent inspections and what they expected from the ones still to come, and compared the grades Ofsted has published under the old and new frameworks to see how the new system works in practice.
Workload in schools awaiting inspection
Mr Shreeve said,
“National findings note where schools were awaiting inspection 92 per cent reported increased workload.”
And he thinks Island schools feel it too.
“Surely, this pattern of ‘permanent readiness’ mirrors the Island experience, especially in schools with recent leadership turnover, MAT conversion pressures and the ever-present threat of staff restructure and school closures.”
Pressures on Island schools
Mr Shreeve pointed to what Island schools already contend with.
“Consider the Isle of Wight’s education pressures: small-school fragility, high deprivation pockets, recruitment challenges, greater SEND and EHCP numbers as well as intense accountability scrutiny.”
Call to drop national average comparisons
The union has put forward changes it wants Ofsted to make.
“The NEU has made recommendations.
“The key recommendation perhaps – Ofsted should stop using national average comparisons to determine final grades for achievement, attendance and behaviour.”
Mr Shreeve said the comparisons work against schools serving poorer communities.
“Average comparisons do not reflect contextual disadvantage, they create perverse incentives, pushing schools to chase headline scores rather than focus on curriculum quality or pupil progress.
“They risk systematically disadvantaging schools in deprived areas, even when those schools are doing excellent work.”
