"Requires Attention." Schools with high FSM are far more likely to sit under that label in the new Ofsted framework, especially the Achievement section. Daft thing is, it already has our attention. It always will. Poverty requires attention. Hunger requires attention. Trauma requires attention. A judgement that ignores all of that - and then penalises the people giving their lives to the cause? That requires attention too.

Punishing schools for the challenges facing our children and communities is just callous. I won't stand for it.

School leaders are facing relentless pressure right now. Attendance challenges.
A growing SEND crisis.
Safeguarding cases that are more complex than ever.
Funding that never quite meets the need.
Staff recruitment and retention becoming harder each year. Schools are increasingly being asked to hold together the social fabric of their communities. And rightly, we are accountable. We should be. But there is a question the system needs to start asking. Schools have a duty of care to staff.
Employers have a duty of care to employees. So what duty of care exists for school leaders operating within a high-stakes accountability system? The debate following the tragic death of Ruth Perry forced the profession to confront something uncomfortable - the pressure attached to inspection outcomes can be immense. This isn’t about avoiding accountability or lowering standards. It’s about recognising that school leaders are human. Right now, many heads are carrying extraordinary responsibility for issues that stretch far beyond the school gates, while still being judged through a system overseen by Ofsted that can have life-changing consequences. A strong school system needs accountability. But it also needs leaders who feel supported, trusted and able to sustain the role. Because if we continue to ignore the human cost of the job, we risk losing the very people the system depends on. And I suspect many school leaders would quietly say the same thing: Enough is enough.