Right of Reply

In a recent blog I referred to the new HMCI's reported (and pretty well substantiated) comments. Interpret these how you will.

In the interests of equity readers might be intersted in the DfE's response to the blog. It is repeated verbatim here:-

You refer to comments that Sir Michael Wilshaw, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector has made about school leadership. The press and media can be selective in what they use from interviews and in the way that they present things. I believe that Sir Michael was referring to the proportion of schools inspected in which leadership and management was judged less than good, rather than specifically referring to headteachers. What is important in considering Sir Michael’s comments is the underlying message he was making, which was that strong school leaders do not shy away from the difficult decisions that need to be made to bring about improvement in poor performing schools. I would, however, recommend that you seek clarification from Sir Michael on the comments that you attribute to him.

As you suggest the majority of our school leaders are doing a good or outstanding job. That is why at the heart of the Department's approach is a determination to free up head teachers to get on with what really matters and for the best to foster improvements in schools that may be struggling or want to improve aspects of their provision.

We are doing this in a number of ways; through the opportunity to become an academy, the removal of unnecessary bureaucracy and reductions to the amount of guidance that lands on head teachers’ desks. We want good head teachers to focus on what brought them into the profession in the first place and concentrate on leading the teaching and development of their pupils. 

All parents want to be able to send their child to a good or outstanding school and schools themselves aspire to be good or outstanding. Ofsted’s evidence shows that around a third of schools did not achieve good or outstanding at their last inspection. And some 3,000 schools have been just ‘satisfactory’ for their last two inspections. That is not good enough and that is why we strongly welcome Sir Michael Wilshaw’s plans to look again at Ofsted’s approach to awarding judgements and its proposals for early targeting of schools that require improvement.

We are determined to tackle those schools that should be doing better whether it’s those that fall below the floor standards or are coasting. We are aware that such a focus can, unfortunately, obscure the fact which we readily acknowledge, that the majority of schools and school leaders are doing a good or outstanding job, often in demanding circumstances. But that should not outweigh the need to tackle under performance and to foster improvement where it is needed for the benefit of the country and, above all, for our children and young people.

It is up to schools' governing bodies to manage the performance of head teachers. In the case of maintained schools, the performance of head teachers, like that of other teachers, is managed according to the provisions of the relevant regulations. New regulations are due to come into force in September 2012. Governing bodies will, as now, have a duty to appoint an external adviser for the purposes of providing them with advice and support in relation to the appraisal of the head teacher and must consult the external adviser when setting the head teacher’s objectives and assessing their performance. Maintained schools are also required to have procedures for dealing with lack of capability on the part of staff at the school, including the head teacher.
 





Have a suitably informed day.

When headship palls

I do know what it's like to lead a failing school out of special measures, and I understand completely that those staff who do not 'get it' may not have a place in the school's future. But I am appalled and saddened at HM Chief Inspector's latest charge, that 5000 headteachers are no good. A non-teaching friend said to me this morning, 'people don't want to be heads, do they?'  Is it any wonder, with leadership like this?

Of course, there are some headteachers who probably need to move on. I was recently part of a team of colleagues supporting a school where we identified all manner of improvements that were needed urgently. We made suggestions, wrote reports but were met by a blank silence and we are very aware of the price being paid by the children at that school for the headteacher's blind recalcitrance.  Is this a perversion of the 'hero head' that HMCI proclaims as the answer to school's woes. Leadership is a team business and the trouble with hero heads (or whatever the perverted opposite may be) is that they can lead without opening their ears and minds to their colleagues.  But this is the exception, not a 5000 strong rule.


In the most recently published 'Primary Headship eBulletin' (Optimus Education), I wrote about sensitive leadership, not one where low morale meant 'you are doing something right'. as HMCI had suggested in his last harangue. To my surprise I was deluged with emails from headteachers, some from outstanding schools, who did not believe in management by belligerence but by compassion. Compassionate leadership does not mean weakness and it is high time Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools recognised that there is room for a range of leadership styles, not just his.

Frank Knowles HMI once told me, 'behaviour can be sorted out quite quickly; standards take a lot longer'. One presumes that is still true. Some of our heads are truly heroes; and many of them are turning the educational equivalent of a super-tanker. They are, for the most part, good, successful leaders and they deserve to be treated with greater respect.