The terrors of performativity: a problem outwith the international sector?
A recent paper by Rachel Harding and Andrew Clapham of Nottingham Trent University in the UK examines submissions to a parliamentary inquiry about the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted). It makes for harrowing reading. As a trigger warning, the paper discusses suicide and suicidal ideation in relation to experiences with the government inspectorate in England and Wales. Yet anyone who works in education across the world should read it. It illuminates deep structural issues within high‑stakes accountability systems and explores how inspection affects behaviour, anxiety, mental health and professional integrity.
For those of us whose careers have largely unfolded in international school contexts, it can be tempting to feel somewhat insulated from such concerns. We should note, of course, that some international schools in England and Wales, as well as others around the world, do operate under similar forms of government‑mandated inspection. However, even where they do not, the broader themes in Harding and Clapham’s analysis remain highly relevant.
In the international school sector, accountability processes are often framed as more collaborative. Accreditation models, such as those of the Council of International Schools (CIS) or the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC), as well as programme authorisation through the International Baccalaureate Organisation (IBO), tend to be positioned as formative and developmental. Visiting team members frequently reassure school staff that they are not “inspectors with a capital I”! Their role is to accompany the institution on a journey of reflection and growth rather than to pass definitive judgement.
Nevertheless, Harding and Clapham’s findings should give all educational leaders pause. The harms they describe arise from systems that prioritise performativity over professionalism. Even within international education, similar pressures can emerge from sources such as marketisation, heightened sensitivity to parental or community expectations, and increasingly corporate governance structures. When these factors result in top‑down approaches to improvement, reconciling accountability with professional integrity becomes ever more difficult.
Harding and Clapham describe a “double bind” in which teachers must choose between meeting high‑stakes accountability demands and doing what they know to be right for their students. This dilemma is not confined to any one system or jurisdiction. Wherever educators feel trapped between mistaken or short-sighted institutional requirements and educational integrity, the potential for harm mirrors that revealed in their research.
As leaders, our responsibility is to ensure that accountability serves learning rather than distorts it. The question we must continually return to is simple yet profound: what is right for the students? From that starting point, we must ask how best to support teachers as professionals, empowering them to make principled, evidence‑informed decisions in their classrooms.
Harding and Clapham’s contribution is both warning and guide. It calls on those of us involved in educational leadership to examine how our systems influence behaviour, wellbeing and purpose. True partnership in education is built not on surveillance but on trust, respect and the shared conviction that the ultimate measure of accountability is the thriving of young people.
See also: Harding, R. and Clapham, A. (2026). Ofsted experiences: performing inspection and suicidal ideations. Journal of Education Policy. Available here.