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.