| Session | ||
26 SES 09 A: The Role of Inspection and Superintendents in Educational Leadership
Paper Session
| ||
| Presentations | ||
26. Educational Leadership
Paper Embracing Complexity: Rethinking Education Inspection in England University of Birmingham, United Kingdom Presenting Author:In England, the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (OfSTED) introduced a new Education Inspection Framework in 2019. Consequently, 3000 previously exempt 'Outstanding' schools are re-inspected from 2021 to 2025. In January 2023, Ruth Perry, a primary school headteacher, committed suicide following her school's downgrade from ‘Outstanding’ to ‘Inadequate’. Headteachers’ and teachers’ unions criticised OfSTED's judgments and their detrimental impact on people’s mental health. Eventually, Perry's school was re-inspected and upgraded to 'Good.' An inquest tied Perry's suicide partly to the initial inspection. A Coroner urged OfSTED to provide a detailed response and timetable, outlining the actions taken or planned to prevent future deaths. In response, OfSTED organised emergency training for inspectors to identify signs of stress and anxiety among school staff and leaders, indicating a belated acknowledgement of inspection-induced fear. Amid the ongoing debates about OfSTED’s fitness for purpose and effectiveness, this paper employs complexity theory to examine why OfSTED has evolved into a rigid, powerful regime and how to lead meaningful changes if we envision a more humane, just and reliable inspection system. This paper answers three research questions: (1) What constitutes a complex inspection system in England? (2) How do the underlying power dynamics lock the education inspection system in? (3) How to strategize for a new education inspection system? Through the lens of complexity theory, educational inspection operates as an open system in which various agents—inspectors, schools, parents, teachers’ unions, education policymakers and implementers—exchange information and engage in self-organised interactions, independent of external control (Turner & Baker, 2019). Some interactions adhere to established rules outlined in the Education Act 2005, inspection frameworks and handbooks, while others evolve organically, adapting to the dynamic environment. Over time, the system displays new properties that cannot be derived from its original components. This phenomenon is referred to as emergence (Morrison, 2008; Turner & Baker, 2019). For instance, despite being instructed not to undertake specific preparations, schools have learned to purchase and exchange information about specific inspectors’ personalities and their preferred data collection methods, aiming to appease inspectors and secure favourable inspection results (Author, 2023). This exchange of information and resources among agents has given rise to a new consultancy market selling inspection solutions. Meanwhile, agents use imperfect knowledge to make choices and decisions. They co-evolve with the system, potentially adapting their agendas, beliefs and preferences over time. For example, after researchers discovered that Her/His Majesty’s Inspectors (HMIs) (full-time OfSTED employees) appeared harsher than OfSTED Inspectors (OIs) (freelancing inspectors paid a day rate) in assessing schools, both groups consciously adjusted their judgments in the opposite direction, inadvertently creating new forms of bias (Bokhove et al., 2023; Jerrim et al., 2023a). Another study indicates that schools employing OIs are more likely to receive an ‘Outstanding’ or ‘Good’ rating and significantly less likely to receive an ‘Inadequate’ or ‘Requires improvement’ result (Jerrim et al., 2023b). These findings can influence school recruitment strategies and teachers’ professional development plans. In summary, education inspection in England represents a complex system wherein interdependent agents exchange information and resources in a self-organised manner. These agents learn, adapt and co-evolve with the system, utilising information acquired from and feeding new information into the system (Davis, 2008). Initial conditions, history and the sequence of events have established a path, impacting the future development of the system (Boulton et al., 2015). Given these inherent characteristics, addressing challenges faced by the current inspection system necessitates complexity thinking. Superficial changes—such as removing a few problematic inspectors, altering inspection frameworks or increasing inspector training—will prove inadequate if we leave the underlying power dynamics unexamined (Biesta, 2010). Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This theoretical paper employs a critical lens to examine secondary data from the following sources. Firstly, it reviews articles on complexity theory and complexity thinking, applying them to illustrate the constituents of the complex education inspection system. Furthermore, underpinned by the theoretical framework, it explains why OfSTED has grown more powerful over the past three decades and how they employed complexity reduction (Biesta, 2010) and self-revitalisation (Boulton et al., 2015) approaches to lock the system in and block challenges from other agents. Secondly, this paper reviews the most recent research publications on the effectiveness of OfSTED to debunk some long-standing beliefs held by OfSTED and the public. For instance, the 2023 Working in Schools report revealed correlations between inspections and teachers’ reduced involvement in decision-making, less control over working hours, weaker support from line managers and increased difficulty in taking time off (Felstead et al., 2023). Another report highlighted the limited range of subjects assessed during the two-day inspection, casting doubt on OfSTED’s judgment regarding the overall breadth and balance of the curriculum (Walker, 2023b). According to ParentKind’s (2023) survey results, 39.34% of parents do not read schools’ OfSTED reports and 59.04% do not find these reports useful. Additionally, a student-led project on reviewing inspection practices concluded that “OfSTED as an entity does more harm than good” (Shahbaz & Perez, 2023, para. 5). Thirdly, this paper examines and compares inspection frameworks and policies from Scotland (Education Scotland, 2023) and Wales (Estyn, 2023) with those of England, providing valuable lessons and potential pathways for OfSTED. Key differences can be found in the high- or low-stakes nature of inspections, the inspection cycle and sampling approach, the role of school self-evaluation, the relationship between inspectors and school practitioners, the composition of inspection teams, the format of inspection results and the post-inspection follow-up activities. Lastly, after obtaining permission from the survey initiator, the author analysed over 3000 entries about teachers’ OfSTED inspection experiences collected via a Twitter survey. With the protection of anonymity, this survey presents an authentic picture of how school teachers and leaders perceive inspections, contrasting with their performativity during high-stakes inspections. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Complexity theory suggests there are multiple pathways leading to the future. Some agents may prefer a more gradual approach to improving the current inspection system. Other agents who have experienced more adverse effects may advocate for a radical revolution of the system or even its abolition. The value of complexity thinking lies “between finding what works and yet catalysing innovation and change, between intention and responsiveness” (Boulton et al., 2015, p. 167). To lead and strategize for a new inspection system, change agents can consider the following recommendations. Firstly, reducing the high-stakes nature of inspections by replacing the one-word headline grading with an informative report. The grading scale, being a reductionist tool, oversimplifies complex educational activities, thereby distorting the educational progress it aims to monitor (Donaldson, 2018). Secondly, utilising school self-evaluation as a starting point to customise the inspection process, foster professional dialogues and facilitate cross-pollination of ideas. Importantly, both inspectors and school practitioners should unlearn the decades-old practice of using school self-evaluation as a compliance tool. Thirdly, separating schools’ compliance with legal requirements from their improvement capacity. The former requires school leaders’ immediate responses and follow-up checks. In contrast, underperforming schools, often due to inadequate resources and capacity, should be afforded an opportunity to internally address these issues and undergo re-inspection before OfSTED publishes the results to the public. Fourthly, paying switching costs while incentivising early change adopters. Transitioning a complex system into a new era demands considerable switching costs—such as financial, temporal, procedural, cognitive, psychological and relational costs. It is crucial to allocate contingency costs to offset unforeseen risks (Wigmore, 2019). Early change adopters play a pivotal role by sharing successful stories and encouraging others to join the change process. Their engagement should be incentivised through free training, public recognition and early access to resources and networks. References Biesta, G. (2010). Five Theses on Complexity Reduction and its Politics. In Complexity Theory and the Politics of Education (pp. 5–13). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789460912405_003 Boulton, J., Allen, P. M., & Bowman, C. (2015). Embracing Complexity: Strategic Perspectives for an Age of Turbulence. Oxford University Press. Davis, B. (2008). Complexity and Education: Vital simultaneities. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(1), 50–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00402.x Donaldson, G. (2018). A Learning Inspectorate: Independent review of Estyn. Education Scotland. (2022). Evaluating quality and improvement in Scottish education. https://education.gov.scot/inspection-and-review/what-we-do-and-how-we-do-it/standards-and-evaluation-framework/01-evaluating-quality-and-improvement-in-scottish-education/ Estyn. (2023b). Inspection explained. https://www.estyn.gov.wales/inspection-process/inspection-explained Fazackerley, A. (2023, May 1). Teachers asked to chip in £1 each for legal case against Ofsted. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/may/01/teachers-asked-to-chip-in-1-each-for-legal-case-against-ofsted Felstead, A., Green, F., & Huxley, K. (2023). Working in Schools: Job quality of educational professionals before and after the pandemic. National Education Union. https://neu.org.uk/latest/library/working-schools Jerrim, J., Sims, S., & Bokhove, C. (2023a). How do Ofsted inspection judgements vary between OIs and HMIs? IOE Blog. https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/ioe/2023/02/07/how-do-ofsted-inspection-judgements-vary-between-ois-and-hmis/ Jerrim, J., Sims, S., & Bokhove, C. (2023b, October 20). Do schools that employ an Ofsted inspector get better inspection grades? [FFT Education Datalab]. https://ffteducationdatalab.org.uk/2023/10/do-schools-that-employ-an-ofsted-inspector-get-better-inspection-grades/, https://ffteducationdatalab.org.uk/2023/10/do-schools-that-employ-an-ofsted-inspector-get-better-inspection-grades/ Morrison, K. (2008). Educational Philosophy and the Challenge of Complexity Theory. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00394.x Ofsted Experiences (Responses). (2023). [dataset]. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DaHKr1kGaku5fssX592hp2UW47uXTUQMZ-gc-tlE0Rc/edit?usp=embed_facebook Parentkind. (2023). School inspections Parent poll. Parentkind. https://www.parentkind.org.uk/assets/resources/School-inspections-parent-poll-summary-July-2023.pdf? link_id=1&can_id=06fef4c3c848aa868e8f96fa74f693e3&source=email-beyond-ofsted-update-2&email_referrer=email_2012316&email_subject=beyond-ofsted-latest-update Shahbaz, H., & Perez, G. (2023, June 22). Hungry for change. National Education Union. https://neu.org.uk/latest/blogs/hungry-change Turner, J. R., & Baker, R. M. (2019). Complexity Theory: An Overview with Potential Applications for the Social Sciences. Systems, 7(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems7010004 Walker, A. (2023b, July 18). Ofsted reveals most common subjects for deep dives. Schools Week. https://schoolsweek.co.uk/ofsted-reveals-most-common-subjects-for-inspection-deep-dives/ Walker, A. (2023d, December 15). Ofsted: Inside its emergency training for inspectors. Schools Week. https://schoolsweek.co.uk/ofsted-inside-the-emergency-inspector-training/ Wigmore, I. (2019). What is contingency budget (cost contingency)? WhatIs.Com. https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/contingency 26. Educational Leadership
Paper Cooperation Between the Superintendent and the Principal to Improve Principals' Working Situation. 1Centre for Principal Development, Umea University, Umea, Sweden; 2Department of Psychology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden; 3Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden Presenting Author:In Sweden, as in many countries, the work of school principals has become increasingly complex due to both changed political prioritisations and the societal developments in general (e.g., digitalisation, segregation, and changes in the demographical composition of students). Principals often experience conflicts in their role as they are facing strong expectations being accountable for students results, responsible for the staff in combination with extensive administrative tasks. While the Swedish Education Act highlights the autonomy of school principals in matters of school organization, finances, and improvement initiatives, it simultaneously underscores the Local Education Authorities' (LEAs) responsibility for school outcomes and ensuring equity. This duality introduces ambiguity and illustrates the challenges faced by actors within local school organizations (Adolfsson & Alvunger 2020). Initiatives from the LEA and superintendent are experienced as administrative by the principals and perceived as interfering with daily work and contributing to an overload of duties. More communication involving long-term visions, frames and interpretations of directives and research are needed in relation to the local context (Norqvist & Ärlestig 2020) We have in previous epidemiological (Persson, et al., 2021a) and interview studies (Leo et al., 2020) observed that the work conditions of school principals often are overlooked, forgotten, or simply not prioritized by politicians and the superintendents, which are the school principals’ superiors. For example, in a survey that had a nationwide reach, and which entailed more than 2000 school principals and assistant principals, we observed that the principals rated a supportive management as the least supportive factor in comparison with four other factors (i.e., cooperating coworkers, supportive management colleagues, supportive private life and supportive organisational structures) (Persson et al., 2021a). In addition, and when data was broken down further, we observed that only 17% of the school principals and assistant principals agreed with the statements that assessed their trust that superiors had a genuine interest in their job and when needed would help them solving work environment problems for the co-workers (Persson et al., 2021b). Furthermore, when interviewed, the principals explained that the superintendent was the link between the school board (i.e., the political level) and the principals. They also reported that they sometimes experienced opposite expectations from the superintendent and the local school management that caused them to feel that the “gas” and the “break” was applied simultaneously (Leo et al., 2020). There seems to be disconnect between school principals and their superiors that hinders effective cooperation and management. Presumably, dealing with this disconnect will create knowledge that may unlock unused capacity and make the governance of schools more effective and in the end improve student outcomes. Research on the LEA level give insight of the sometimes challenging relationship between superintendents and principals (Honig & Rainey, 2019; Hakansson & Adolfsson, 2022). However, few (if any) studies have adopted a dual perspective by interviewing both school principals and their immediate superiors within the same organisation to capture their unique perspectives on the same issue. Hence, to gain insight and to improve our understanding of this understudied relation, we decided to conduct an interview study that simultaneously addressed both the school principals and the superintendent’s perspective. Thus, the overall objective of the present study was to identify circumstances that were perceived as facilitating the cooperation between school principals and their immediate supervisors. Specifically, we aimed to answer the following research questions: Research questions 1. How do school principals and the school principals’ closest managers (often superintendent) describe their collaboration and work relationship? 2. What opportunities and/or potential pathways for improving their collaboration and work relationship are proposed by school principals and their closest managers (often superintendent)? Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used In total, we examined eight organizations (seven municipalities and one independent school) in which we interviewed eight school principals and their associated superintendents (N=16). The informants comprised nine females (six principals and three superintendents) and seven males (two principals and five superintendents). The eight organizations were situated in both small municipalities (i.e., less than 4000 inhabitants) and large municipalities (i.e., more than 200.000 inhabitants). The organizations and informants came from various geographical regions from all over Sweden and the schools showed a lot of variation as regards both students and their parents’ socio-economic backgrounds. The informants were identified as presumably working in well-functioning organizations that had a focus on the principals’ work environment (i.e., positive examples). The selection of organizations was driven by suggestions from worker unions (six organizations) and by self-referrals (two organizations) that responded to our request for help identifying positive examples during a large national conference. Thus, the organizations and schools were selected by reputation from others, or from having an own understanding as working in a functioning school. The first contact occurred via the superintendent who were asked to select suitable school principals with at least three years of work experience in the same school. The data was collected via individual interviews on zoom and lasted about one hour. There were always two interviewers (one led the interview and the other observed and asked supplementary questions when needed). The sound files were transcribed verbatim and subsequently subject to a content analysis using the Nvivo 14 software. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Cooperation between the principal's closest manager and the principal The preliminary analyses suggest that both school principals and their closest managers think that the quality of communication and having a good dialogue is important. The principals want easy and quick access to their superiors to get advice and feedback on urgent matters. The preferred main channel for communication is phone complemented by digital platforms. Only a few of the superintendents visit the schools on a regular basis. The structures for the formal meetings with the superintendent and all principals in the local organization differ a lot from some hours online to one full day a week. It is also common to mix shorter meetings online with information and longer physical meetings when there is a need for discussions concerning educational development, policy, budget etc. Opportunities and potential pathways for improving collaboration Division of responsibilities at the leadership level is a key to reduce role conflicts. In most cases administrative tasks, responsibility for facilities, and physical work environment are delegated to others giving principals more time and energy to focus educational leadership. The support is different in the organisations, however principals talk about a mind shift in HR-, and economic departments in favour of seeing teaching and learning as the core of the organization where feeding data to the HR- and economical systems used to be the main priority. Local support and a direct contact between the principal and an expert at the LEA are seen as success factors. The importance of having colleagues at leadership level as support is crucial. Some of the principals work in leadership teams and the ones who are alone at their school have close relations with colleagues in other schools. References Adolfsson, C.-H. & Alvunger, D. (2020). Power dynamics and policy actions in the changing landscape of local school governance, Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 128-142, doi: 10.1080/20020317.2020.1745621. Honig, M. & Rainey, L. (2019). Supporting principal supervisors: what really matters?, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 57 No. 5, pp. 445-462, doi: 10.1108/JEA-05-2019-0089 Leo, U., Persson, R., Arvidsson, I., & Håkansson, C. (2020). External Expectations and Well-Being, Fundamental and Forgotten Perspectives in School Leadership: A Study on New Leadership Roles, Trust and Accountability. In L. Moos, E. Nihlfors, & J. M. Paulsen (Eds.), Re-centering the Critical Potential of Nordic School Leadership Research: Fundamental, but often forgotten perspectives (pp. 209-229). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55027-1_12 Norqvist, L. & Ärlestig, H. (2021). Systems thinking in school organizations – perspectives from various leadership levels. Journal of educational administration. 59(1), pp.77–93. Persson, R., Leo, U., Arvidsson, I., Nilsson, K., Osterberg, K., & Hakansson, C. (2021a). Supportive and demanding managerial circumstances and associations with excellent workability: a cross-sectional study of Swedish school principals. Bmc Psychology, 9(1). https://doi.org/ARTN 10910.1186/s40359-021-00608-4 Persson, R., Leo, U., Arvidsson, I., Nilsson, K., Österberg, K., Oudin, A., & Håkansson, C. (2021b). Svenska skolledares arbetsmiljö och hälsa: En lägesbeskrivning med förslag på vägar till förbättringar av arbetsmiljön. [Swedish school leaders' work environment and health: A description with suggestions for ways to improve the work environment]. (4). (AMM Rapport 4/2021, Issue. A.-o. M. Syd. 26. Educational Leadership
Paper The Effect of External Inspection on Headteachers in England UCL Institute of Education, United Kingdom Presenting Author:Accountability and its negative effects on teachers’ working lives and retention is internationally recognised as a problem in education (Buchanan, 2015; Holloway, Sørensen, & Verger, 2017; Teltemann & Jude, 2019), with school evaluation and inspection being a particular issue. Teachers’ working lives are being increasingly affected by the rise in the neo-liberal performativity / accountability culture in schools, as internationally, schools are increasingly preoccupied with policies of achievement, particularly test results. This has led many schools to adopt a results-driven approach, with a plethora of strategies aimed at improving results. This is evidenced by what is commonly referred to as ‘box-ticking’, as teachers’ work is increasingly directed towards assessment, exams, progress measures and preparation for review and inspection, and away from the more individualistic and creative aspects of the job (Perryman 2022). A performative accountability culture can particularly affect the agency of headteachers, as Evans (2001:151) explains: ‘At the same time as heads are being trained for leadership and vision and a mission for the school, they are simultaneously in receipt of education policies that are extremely instrumental and interrupt their own agency as head’. In England, the inspection regime Ofsted is seen as placing a particular pressure on Headteachers. Page (2017:5) writes ‘with Ofsted giving almost no notice of inspection, head teachers commit to continual Ofsted-readiness within their schools, a perpetual state of inspection anxiety that aims for good-or-outstanding practice throughout every day, every week and every year’. Ball et al (2012) found that senior management employed techniques such as ‘learning walks’, training and observation to improve teaching and learning and ensure a state of perpetual inspection-readiness. This shows how inspection creates ‘a marvellous machine’ (Foucault, 1977:202) in the quest for constant improvement. Courtney agrees, particularly with the effects on leadership; ‘Compliance is woven so tightly into the regime’s fabric that head teachers are unaware that performance ‘on the day’ is thereby replaced by a longer-lasting and more deeply affecting fabrication. Thus rather than being controlled and disciplined externally, senior leaders and teachers position themselves in particular ways to change their behaviour and practices in order to ‘fit’ the system, and adapt to changing policy contexts such as changing inspection frameworks’ which is ‘the self working on the self, the self shaping its own conduct’ (Gillies, 2013:79). These studies relate to the effect of Ofsted on Headteacher agency between inspections, but during inspections the pressure intensifies as they are held accountable for the performance of their school and can face dismissal if there is a negative outcome. Leaders of smaller schools, who may be more isolated, are particularly vulnerable and more frequently seek support (Headrest, 2023). In December 2023 a government inquiry concluded that Ofsted had ‘contributed’ to the death of a Headteacher, Ruth Perry, who had committed suicide whilst awaiting publication of an inspection report downgrading her previously ‘outstanding’ school to ‘requires improvement’ (Clarke, 2023). This paper examines data from a recent research project ‘Beyond Ofsted’ (2023). This was an Inquiry commissioned by the National Education Union. The scope of the Inquiry centred around answering the key question of what a better inspection system in England could look like. Underlying this, we wanted to find out what the principles that make a good inspection system are, and how these translate into inspection processes and practice. One of the main themes of the data was the particular impact of inspection on Headteachers, which this paper will explore, with our reserch question being 'What is the effect of inspection on headteachers in England'. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used To answer the central questions, the Inquiry needed to understand key changes to school inspection in England over time; strengths and weaknesses of the current approach; how inspection operates at school level; and the impact on the culture and ways of working of a school. To inform an alternative, the Inquiry sought to identify the factors within the inspection system that contribute to its strengths and weaknesses, and the changes needed to address the negative or ‘unintended consequences’ identified. In terms of scope, the Inquiry primarily looked at inspection in primary and secondary schools in England, and the extent to which these differed. It also explored the specific impacts of inspection on schools serving the most disadvantaged pupils. The international literature was explored, to gather evidence on how inspection systems operate in other countries. The review of international systems examined how inspection systems in high performing education nations operate differently from England, the role of accountability and school improvement in these models, and how any positive outcomes from different models could be used to inform an alternative approach to inspection in England. The Inquiry engaged closely with the education profession, asking questions about the principles they think are needed to underpin a better inspection system, and potential solutions they see as being effective in tackling the problems they identify. It also explored how parents/carers and governors interact with the current inspection system; how they feel about, and understand, school inspection; and what they want to see changed. We took a mixed methods approach, involving a large-scale survey of teachers and school leaders, supplemented by focus groups with teachers, parents/carers, governors, and 5 with headteachers. The aim was to gather a wide range of views on both the current system and potential alternatives. The survey had over 6,000 responses and produced both quantitative and qualitative data. Headteachers made up 15% of our sample. Descriptive and inferential analyses of the quantitative data were carried out using Qualtrics inbuilt tool set, utilising the relate function to explore differences between groups. This function performed Chi and ANOVA analyses producing a p value and an effect size. The inclusion of open questions resulted in over 500,000 words of written responses. These were analysed thematically, based on the key aims of the inquiry. The twelve focus groups were analysed in a similar manner. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The research conducted for the Inquiry took place in the weeks and months after Ruth Perry’s death and it is perhaps unsurprising that concerns about this issue are foremost in the data and throughout the report. One of questions we asked was if participants thought that their role in school affected how they experienced inspection, and 70% agreed that it did. Headteachers reported they felt under huge amounts of pressure, with comments such as ‘your career hangs in the balance’ and reporting being in tears and even resigning. One summed it up saying ‘The Ofsted inspection was brutal (despite the good overcome), staff were in tears. In 26 years of education this was the worst two days in my career. I felt like giving up the job. It has impacted on my wellbeing and family life’. These effects of inspection should not be tolerated by the profession. As part of the Inquiry we conducted a review of global inspection systems which indicated that alternative systems are possible (Ehren et al 2010, Hwa, 2020, NCEE, 2021, OECD, 2015 Zheng and Thomas, 2022). Seven countries in Europe do not even have any formal external inspection system (European Education Culture Executive Agency et al., 2016). There are a diverse set of inspection regimens in place internationally, ranging from none to those conducted at a distance with limited consequences to those that are intrusive and high stakes, but none more so than in England. (Grek & Lindgren, 2015) This is potentially a time of change for inspection. With a UK election in 2024 it is possible that reform may be on the agenda and it is hoped that this paper will contribute to the discussion on how changes can be made, and contribute to international policy debates on inspection, evaluation and accountability References Ball, S., Braun, A., & Maguire, M. (2012). How Schools Do Policy. London: Routledge. Beyond Ofsted Inquiry Inquiry (2023). Final Report of the Inquiry. https://beyondofsted.org.uk/ Buchanan, R. (2015). Teacher identity and agency in an era of accountability. Teachers and Teaching, 21(6), 700-719. doi:10.1080/13540602.2015.1044329 Clarke, V. (2023). Ruth Perry: Ofsted must act following head's suicide - coroner. BBC. European Education Culture Executive Agency, Eurydice, De Coster, I., Birch, P., Czort, S., Delhaxhe, A., & Colclough, O. (2016). Assuring quality in education: policies and approaches to school evaluation in Europe: Publications Office. Evans, L. (2001). Developing Teachers in a Performance Culture - is performance pay the answer? In D. Gleeson & C. Husbands (Eds.), The Performing School: Managing Teaching and Learning in a Performance Culture. London: Routledge. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Harmondsworth: Penguin. Gillies, D. (2013). Educational Leadership and Michel Foucault London: Routledge. Grek, S., & Lindgren, J. (Eds.). (2015). Governing by Inspection. Abingdon: Routledge. Headrest. (2023). Annual Headteacher Wellbeing Report. Retrieved from https://www.headrestuk.co.uk/blog/headteacher-wellbeing-report-2023 Holloway, J., Sørensen, T. B., & Verger, A. (2017). Global perspectives on high-stakes teacher accountability policies: An introduction. education policy analysis archives, 25. doi:10.14507/epaa.25.3325 Hwa, Y.-Y. 2020. Contrasting approaches, comparable approaches? How macro-level trust influences teacher accountability in Finland and Singapore. In: Ehren, M. & Baxter, J. (eds.) Trust, Accountability and Capacity in Education System Reform London: Routledge. OECD 2015. Education at a Glance 2015. Page, D. (2017). The surveillance of teachers and the simulation of teaching. Journal of Education Policy, 32(1), 1-13. doi:10.1080/02680939.2016.1209566 Perryman, J. (2022). Teacher retention in an age of Performative Accountability: Target Culture and the Discourse of Disappointment. London: Routledge Teltemann, J., & Jude, N. (2019). Assessments and accountability in secondary education: International trends. Research in Comparative & International Education, 14, 249-271. Zheng, H. & Thomas, S. 2022. The challenges of school inspection practice in demonstrating and improving education quality: stakeholder perceptions in China. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 34, 391-422. | ||