Ofsted Leadership and Governance | Evidence, Workload & Oversight

What the area covers

Strategic direction — whether leaders have an accurate view of the school and priorities that follow from it.
Self-evaluation quality, which under this framework means honesty rather than presentation.
Staff workload and wellbeing, and what leaders have actually done about it.
Professional development and whether it connects to identified need.
Governance — whether governors and trustees hold leaders to account with evidence, and can demonstrate challenge.
Statutory compliance, including safeguarding, published information and duties.

Self-evaluation under secure fit

The change from best fit to secure fit alters what a good self-evaluation looks like. Previously, a SEF built a case: here is the overall picture, here is why it most resembles this descriptor.

Under secure fit that structure is counterproductive. If every standard within a grade must be met, then the useful self-evaluation identifies the standards not met and says what is being done. A document that showcases strengths reads, to an inspector working through a toolkit, as a document that has not engaged with the toolkit.

This is genuinely uncomfortable for leaders accustomed to presenting a school well. It is also, in practice, easier — a list of known gaps with actions against them is quicker to write than a persuasive narrative, and it survives scrutiny better.

Workload is now evidence

Ofsted's own reform followed sustained criticism about the effect of inspection on school leaders, and the framework gives more prominence to staff wellbeing and workload. An inspector may reasonably ask what leaders have done, and “we care about workload” is not an answer.

What counts as evidence:

Specific practices stopped, with dates. Marking policy changes, data drop reductions, meeting cancellations.
Staff survey results over time, including the uncomfortable ones.
Retention and absence data for staff, not just pupils.
Where technology reduced administrative burden, evidence of what it replaced.

That last point deserves an honest note. Technology frequently adds workload rather than removing it, particularly when a new system runs alongside the old one rather than replacing it. A school adopting any platform should be able to name what it stopped doing. If nothing stopped, workload went up.

Governance

Governors and trustees need to demonstrate challenge, not just oversight. The evidential test is whether minutes show questions that were difficult and answers that were followed up — not whether a report was received.

Three practical points:

Governors need the same data leaders have, in a form they can interrogate. A termly PDF summary invites acceptance rather than challenge.
They need to understand the new grading structure, including that old and new grades are not comparable. See report cards.
Challenge should be traceable. A question asked in November should have a visible answer by February.

For multi-academy trusts

Trusts face this area repeatedly across schools, and consistency between them becomes a trust-level question. Larger MATs have consistently reported inconsistency between inspections as a source of frustration; Ofsted has acknowledged this and introduced quality assurance and moderation measures aimed at it.

From the trust side, the defensible position is that schools are being held to the same internal standard, evidenced the same way, with divergence identified by the trust before an inspector finds it. See multi-academy trusts.

How Edves supports this area

Self-evaluation structured by evaluation area, with the weakest criterion in each surfaced rather than buried.
Governor and trustee dashboards with the same underlying data leaders see, filterable rather than static.
CPD records linked to identified need and to observation findings — see teacher development and CPD.
Workload evidence — what the platform replaced, and time recovered in result processing, reporting and communication.
Trust-level consistency reporting across schools on the same measures.
Audit trails on records, which is what turns a compliance claim into a demonstrable one.

Frequently asked

What does the Ofsted leadership and governance area cover?

Strategic direction and the accuracy of leaders' view of the school, self-evaluation quality, staff workload and wellbeing, professional development, governance challenge and accountability, and statutory compliance including safeguarding and published information.

How should self-evaluation change under secure fit?

It should identify the standards not yet met and what is being done, rather than building a persuasive case around strengths. If every standard within a grade must be met, a document showcasing best practice reads as one that has not engaged with the toolkit.

What counts as evidence that leaders manage workload?

Specific practices stopped with dates — marking policy changes, fewer data drops, cancelled meetings — staff survey results over time including uncomfortable ones, staff retention and absence data, and evidence of what any new technology replaced rather than added to.

What does good governance evidence look like?

Minutes showing difficult questions and followed-up answers, not just reports received. Governors need the same data leaders have in an interrogable form, an understanding of the new grading structure, and a traceable line from challenge to response.

How do multi-academy trusts approach this area?

By holding schools to the same internal standard, evidenced the same way, and identifying divergence between schools before an inspector does. Ofsted has acknowledged inconsistency concerns raised by larger trusts and introduced quality assurance and moderation measures.

Leadership and governance