Nearly nine in ten headteachers support exploring strike action over Ofsted’s new report card system. They understand something crucial: grading based on a two-day snapshot is unfair, reductive, and harmful. Now they need to apply that understanding to the children in their care.
The NAHT held its largest meeting since the pandemic, and the message was clear: “These plans simply do not have the support of the profession and should not go ahead in their current state.”
NAHT president Angi Gibson explained why: “This framework not only continues with grading but extends it. It will be impossible for inspectors to judge schools definitively across so many areas during what is simply a two-day snapshot. It risks unfair judgments which mislead parents while also piling workload onto schools.”
Headteachers call the system a threat to “the health and wellbeing of school leaders and teachers.” Professor Julia Walters warns that the new plans “still put school leaders at risk of public shaming.”
Unfair judgments. Two-day snapshots. Public shaming. Harm to wellbeing.
Now ask yourself: isn’t this exactly what we do to children?
Throughout their early life, children receive reports that reduce complex human beings to letters or numbers. We judge their progress based on snapshots – tests, one-off assessments – and wonder why so many young people feel anxious or disconnected from learning.
If grading schools in this way is humiliating and harmful to adults, why do we accept it for children?
But the problem runs deeper. Headteachers are right that you cannot judge a school definitively during a two-day inspection. What is yet to be acknowledged is that the entire assessment model, for schools and for children, is fundamentally incompatible with real transformation.
You cannot transform through judgment. You transform through relationships.
At Class 13, we are embedding practitioners within schools, not for two days, but for years. We build trust with teachers, observe authentic classroom dynamics, and support critical reflection rather than performative excellence. This is how real change happens: through sustained commitment, not snapshots.
Our practitioners spend weeks building trust before formal training begins. We observe teachers’ reality: the daily frustrations, the termly inconsistencies, the ever changing structural pressures and the wins along the way! Being embedded for years rather than days means we can support incremental change rather than cosmetic improvements.
The new Ofsted model and student grading share the same fatal flaw: both optimize for performance over genuine growth.
Real accountability is community-based, not externally imposed.
Ofsted’s report card claims to create accountability through external judgment. But when inspectors parachute in for two days, they’re not accountable to the school community. They don’t live with the consequences of their judgments.
In our pilot schools, we’re building accountability with parents, teachers, and young people using our four equity principles: affirming people’s full humanity; nurturing critical thinking; cultivating community, and fostering democracy. Towards a place where a parent can say “this practice doesn’t affirm my child’s full humanity,” holding the school accountable to its stated values. This is infinitely more powerful than external grades and it models for young people what genuine accountability looks like.
The logic is backwards for schools and for children.
Do you remember the label that stuck with you: “struggling,” “below average,” “needs improvement”? The shame of being called out in front of the class?
Headteachers argue it’s impossible to judge schools definitively during a two-day snapshot. They warn about public shaming and threats to wellbeing. They’re right.
But we claim a 60-minute exam or phonics screening can measure a child’s understanding. We label children as “exceeding,” “meeting,” or “below” expectations, often publicly, in front of their peers, then act surprised when this damages their mental health. Children experience their first statutory assessment at the age of 5.
The public shaming headteachers fear from Ofsted? We do it to young people constantly. Report cards shared with families. Test scores discussed in parent consultations. Achievement data displayed on classroom walls. And unlike headteachers, children can’t strike against the system judging them.
Ofsted’s inspection model serves a political function, not an educational one. It creates competition rather than collaboration. It punishes schools serving marginalised communities. And it keeps teachers too stressed to build collective power. The same is true of grading children: it serves sorting, not growth.
Headteachers are right to resist. But they must go further.
This moment offers an opportunity for headteachers to connect their own experience of harmful assessment to the experiences of young people in their care. To recognise that their fight against Ofsted’s report cards is the same fight children have been waging for generations.
Real transformation means more than defending ourselves from a harmful system while allowing that same system to harm children in similar ways. It means building schools where assessment serves learning, for adults and young people alike. Where relationships matter more than rankings. Where growth is understood as complex, non-linear, and deeply human.
The headteachers considering strike action over Ofsted’s report card understand something crucial: when a system prioritises grading over growth, it harms everyone within it.
Now it’s time to apply that understanding to the children in their care.
We are the system. And we can choose to change it, not just for ourselves, but for the young people whose futures depend on it.
