Build Back Bolder: Five Choices All School Leaders Can Make

It’s clearly springtime and maybe for the first time in 12 months there is hope in the air. As our classrooms fill up again, we are all starting to ask the question, with the same air of slight confusion, that King George III asks in Hamilton, “what comes next….do you have a clue what happens now?”.

Joe Biden’s successful campaign slogan was “Build Back Better”. So catchy was it, that Boris Johnson borrowed it for some of his press conferences. In education, sadly there are some who seem to have little interest in building back better. It seems ministers just want to find their way back to exactly where we were, doubling down on more academisation, more EBacc, more phonics screening and how on earth they might restore their pernicious Progress 8 calculation. Ofsted seems unable to think beyond how soon can graded inspections return. Clearer-thinking leaders reject a return to the status quo, seeking to go beyond “catch up”, and instead talking about reconnection, renewal and how we can build a better system.

So… what comes next…do you have a clue what happens now?

At an individual school level, I don’t worry about the answer. We have a generation of school leaders who, over the last 12 months, have proved to be resilient, ingenious, creative and brave. Schools are in the best possible hands and our young people will be just fine. As a system though, it is less clear and less certain. Having respond in the most extraordinary ways throughout this crisis, we should be confident, and we should be bold.

And while we can rail against all of the tone-deaf messaging from outside – the return of graded Ofsted inspections, restoring progress 8, bringing back league table, the pay freezes, and all of the other things we know will drive more people from the profession, but sit outside our control – now is a time to look at what we, as leaders, can control. This is a moment to remember that not everything that is bad in the system is done to us; much of it comes from the choices school leaders make and the behaviour we choose.

So here are five choices we can all make; five things that if we all did, the school system post-pandemic would be fundamentally different to the one we operated in before the world had heard of Covid-19.

Stop playing the zero-sum game

League tables, as an indicator of school and student performance, are badly flawed. Progress 8, the measure on which secondary schools are still judged and on which knighthoods have been awarded and careers lost, is one big zero-sum game in which for every winner, there has to be a loser. Its fixed points (and comparable outcomes) mean we can never show whether schools are improving collectively. But worse than that, we all know that it advantages schools in particular areas and disadvantages others; it makes school leadership in many isolated coastal communities cripplingly difficult and masks important stuff like the fact that when context is taken into account, schools in Yorkshire and the Humber are the second highest performing in England. This measure should now be so discredited that the DfE daren’t ever utter its name again; so why isn’t it?

Because so many schools still chase it and laud it over others when they do well. How often do schools who shout about the measure on their websites explain what it really means? Do any schools ever caveat their data with honesty? How many say, “this is great, but please understand the context of our school has made this more achievable than a school on the coast or in Barnsley?”. When I was a Headteacher I never did. I wish I had.

Almost every piece of sharp and unethical practice in the system comes down to choosing to play the game. Some school leaders coined the phrase “anchor students” – those who will drag down the school’s league table position. Some school leaders have then gone on to off-roll such students, moving them into inappropriate provision. Some school leaders have encouraged parents to “educate” their child at home to avoid an exclusion that would appear on the school’s data. Leaders who have bent the rules of the game have damaged thousands of young people and made the lives of school leaders who want to do the right thing impossibly difficult at times.

Progress 8, as a measure is rubbish, but it is we, as school leaders, who have perpetuated the myth that it means something. And it is school leaders who can decide today that we are stopping. Stop chasing the measure and start being honest about what it really is.

Care as much about the young people in the school down the road as we do about the young people in our schools

So much of what is wrong in our system comes from competition. We are set up to compete with other schools in our zero-sum accountability system; we compete for new students; we compete for funding and specialist designations through competitive bidding. It is a system based on the principles of the free market – that competition drives quality and the threat of the dire consequences of “losing” in league tables or with Ofsted motivates schools to get better.

Maybe it does and maybe it doesn’t. What it most certainly has done is encourage leaders to seek to gain advantage over other schools. Think about that for a second. And now replace the word “school” with “other children”. When we compete with other schools, we seek to gain advantage over other children.

Now think how different schools could be if all school leaders cared as much about children in the school down the road as we do about our own.

Remove every barrier to good teaching

For our schools to get better and for our young people to thrive post-Covid, we need great teachers; lots and lots of great teachers. In fact, we need one in every single classroom in the country, in every single lesson. It would be more effective than catch up programmes and summer schools and messing around with term dates. Just lots of great teachers.

The problem we have is that there are still too many things in schools that get in in way of great teaching and we ask teachers to do too many things that have no impact on improving students’ outcomes. There is no better time than right now for every school leader in the country to look again at everything we do and everything that wastes time or gets in the way of great teaching. Some of the things that should be abandoned include: performance related pay; performance development systems that have more than one target; onerous marking policies; unclear behaviour systems; teachers doing their own detentions; written lesson plans; mocksteds; all staff emails and anything “for Ofsted”.

The best way to start is to talk to staff and invite them to suggest anything they want to abandon. They if their suggestions don’t genuinely improve outcomes then do some spring cleaning and chuck them out.

Stop asking people to choose between being a good teacher and a good parent

We all know that workload has been, and continues to be, one of the biggest problems in our schools. Too many teachers still leave the profession because work becomes all-encompassing and forces them to choose between work and family. And for those who stay, too many still feel conflicted and guilty, making the daily choice between feeling like a terrible teacher or a terrible parent – and often ending up feeling like both.

If the price of a school’s Year 11 students getting good results is that their teachers’ own children don’t see mum or dad on a single Sunday afternoon for a year, then the price is simply too high. We have to find a better way and schools will never have a great teacher in every classroom if the experience of our teachers is a perpetual battle between work and home.

Accept that we are the change we seek

This one is straight from Obama. If we want things to change, it has to be this generation of school leaders that does it. We have shown during the pandemic that our schools are full of the most extraordinary, innovative, creative and determined people. The last 12 months have seen civic leadership at its best.

It is time for us to be the ones who build back bolder.

Ethical Leadership: I Like It. What Is It?

I am a huge fan of the artist Anthony Burrill and have just treated myself to this new print to hang in my office. It makes me smile and for me it captures the spirit of the brilliant trust team I have the privilege of working with. It can be read two ways though; as an articulation of an adventurous and open-minded spirit (which is what my team certainly has in abundance!) or as a naïve acceptance of anything that looks shiny, new and exciting. The former has enormous potential for good; the latter is one of the curses of English education.

One of the shiniest and most exciting new things in education is ethical leadership. ASCL, the NGA and many others have rightly identified the promotion of an ethical framework for school leadership as one of the most pressing and significant issues for the system. I have spoken about it at a number of events recently and am always greeted with smiles, nods and general agreement that this is a good thing.

We like it. What is it?

And herein lies the difficulty. I have never met anyone who describes themselves as an unethical school leader and yet we all recognise unethical behaviour. Whenever I stand in front of Year 7 students in a hall on the first day in September, I say that they may not know all the school rules yet but they all know the difference between good behaviour and bad behaviour. Similarly, in school leadership, we all know that some things are wrong no matter what.

For example, it must always be wrong to encourage a family to “educate” their child at home rather than recording an exclusion, it must always be wrong to register a student somewhere else to improve a league table position, it must always be wrong to enter an entire cohort of students for a meaningless qualification to inflate the open bucket. And while not everything is black and white, in a world of comparable outcomes, it is difficult to defend leadership behaviour that undermines other school leaders who are desperately trying to do the right thing.

For my trust, ethical leadership is about doing what we know is right; trusting our colleagues professionally; being kind and brave; behaving in ways that specifically reduce fear and anxiety in our schools and reminding ourselves always that we are here to serve others. We have re-written our leadership standards around an ethical framework and clearly articulate the behaviours leaders must show. We recruit around these standards and leadership development is about supporting leaders to get even better. This isn’t some soft and woolly nice to have; it is the most important facet of creating schools that great teachers want to work in. After all, the worst kept secret in English education is that teachers don’t want to stick around in a toxic culture where fear has replaced trust.

One of our leadership competencies: Trust

The critical importance of ethical leadership though, goes way beyond the behaviour and decision making of individual school leaders and leadership teams. It has to underpin the entirety of a school or trust’s operations; what it seeks to achieve; how it measures itself and, in the case of a trust, how it grows. Because although little in education is ever truly black and white, two distinct approaches have emerged. In one approach the focus is on results above performance; rapid growth; systems that ensure compliance and a culture of high anxiety and low trust, high accountability but low autonomy. It is one of the great shames of recent years that this model has been courted, lauded, held up to be copied and the myth that any school can be “transformed” in two terms has perpetuated. Meanwhile, leaders and teachers are leaving the profession in record numbers.

Trust development framework: Our trustees are clear they want our schools to operate in the green box

There is another way. There are lots of great leaders in academies, maintained schools and trusts who lead in a different way. The focus is on performance before results; growth is deliberate and not for its own sake; systems are about improvement not compliance; the culture is of low anxiety and high trust; accountability is just as high but here autonomy is too. Leaders in these schools are driven by a strong sense of moral purpose and have the wisdom to understand the central importance of vibrant work cultures in retaining teachers in the profession. They also have the courage to lead in this way and to care about young people and staff in other leaders’ schools, despite the fact that the accountability system – particularly the comparable nature of league tables – makes it excruciatingly difficult at times.

I like it. It is ethical system leadership. Shall we start talking about that?

Being a Second-Generation MAT CEO

Whenever I talk to any group of people, I tend to start with an apology for being the CEO of a MAT! Really, I’m just a history and politics teacher who has found himself doing a job that he wasn’t trained for and didn’t exist when he started teaching. And in recent years, it has become a job with all the social standing of an investment banker in 2008!

I am one of the first group of leaders who have taken on leadership of an already established trust. Unlike first-generation CEOs, we didn’t set the system up and so we are not working without a blueprint. We have inherited a system which has the capacity to do great things and also to do enormous damage; a system in which good leadership can influence more lives for the better and poor leadership can do greater harm. We have great examples to follow from the first generation of MAT CEOs, like Stephen Tierney in Blackpool, but we also have warnings of what can go wrong, like WCAT, Bright Tribe and the hubris, greed and ego of some in the sector.

In recent years, I have been in endless meetings with a countless number of people and groups discussing the ideal MAT model. I’ve discussed chains and hubs, top slice and GAG pooling, school improvement based around subjects, phase or theme. I’ve talked about Curriculum Led Financial planning, which morphed into Integrated Curriculum Financial Planning. I’ve even put my foot in it talking to a group of CEOs explaining why I can’t understand any CEO appointing a Director of School Improvement rather than doing it themselves, only to find one of them had done exactly that! There are lots of ways of structuring a trust and no evidence that there is a single good way or a single bad way.

In the next few years, the school system in general and the MAT system in particular faces real questions about its sustainability: financially and in terms of workforce. We all know we have been asked to do far more with far less and that there is little prospect of significant financial improvement in the near future. However, for me, the looming crisis of more children and fewer teachers is the biggest threat we face.

Challenge 1: Fewer teachers and more pupils
Challenge 2: The departure of teachers in years two to five

It is not for second generation CEOs to set up the system; it is for us to find the solutions to sustain the system and we won’t do that unless we ensure our school cultures draw people in rather than drive them away. Although there may not be a single good way or bad way to structure a trust, when it comes to leadership behaviour, there really is a straight choice between good and bad. Over the last few years, almost every bad news story about a MAT – whether it is financial; a lack of transparency; poor student outcomes; off-rolling or a trust that over-reached – can be traced back to the poor behaviour of leaders. And there is little doubt in my mind that toxic school cultures (in both academies and maintained schools) have driven people from the profession. It is far more than workload; it is not being trusted as a professional, it is feeling under surveillance and it is being held accountable in arbitrary ways that fail any test of common sense.

“More than anything my role is about building a culture. A culture that is ethical, focused and informed” – Stephen Tierney

Being a First-Generation CEO, Ambition School Leadership, April 2018

ASCL, the NGA and others are doing great work on ethical leadership. In our trust we had already re-written our leadership standards around ethical behaviour and our first guiding principle is “always doing what is right”. Doing what is right means always acting with integrity, in the interests of others and being honest, open and transparent. This underpins the culture of our schools as does “an assumption of professional trust and the belief that everyone seeks to do a good job”. All of the structural stuff is important of course; no group of schools can thrive without being on top of KPIs, ICFP, proportion of income spent on staffing, pupil:teacher ratio, the risk register, the school improvement model and so on. But over the next few years, there is no greater challenge than spreading thriving, exciting, decent school cultures right across the system. And that can only happen if we all commit to doing what is right – always.