Remove the unnecessary high-risk element of headship

Taking on a headship has become a gamble, says Russell Hobby. It’s time the government brought the level of risk back under control...

Risk is a large part of school leadership. And it is putting good people off taking on the top job. Headship is perceived as increasingly risky and some elements of that risk are seen to be outside of the individual’s control. You can’t do much (legitimately) about fluctuations in your cohort of students, yet you are expected to deliver a steady upward trend of results. You don’t know when your next inspection will take place, which team of inspectors will show up or what their particular focus will be. Nor do you know what exciting new policies the government will introduce next, often at short notice or even retrospectively! Not only is the future hard to predict but the significance of past events can also change – perhaps a sudden rise in floor standards, a new test or the redefinition of ‘coasting schools’ will disrupt your plans. Behind all this accountability lies the weight of moral responsibility: are all of my children safe in school and at home? What if I have missed some vital sign? Schools have to shoulder the responsibility for an ever-growing number of risks on behalf of their students, with protection from extremism and radicalisation being just the latest.

The mounting number of risks, and the high stakes associated with so many of them, cause some to pause on the brink of headship and think again. If your career can be ended at short notice, and your family harmed, it is a big decision to make, even when you are confident in your abilities. It is particularly sad that these risks are greatest in our most challenging schools, making it even harder to recruit leaders.

What is to be done? Well, a certain amount of risk is inevitable in a senior job. It goes hand in hand with impact and importance. School leaders are more than prepared to shoulder some legitimate risk, but too many random factors becomes disturbing.

Certain actions by the leader can minimise risk. Due diligence before taking on a school – to find the skeletons in the closet – is essential. Building relationships with stakeholders is also critical. Headship is like standing on a four-legged stool: when you have the confidence of governors, employers, parents and staff you can weather many blips. Remove one leg and it gets wobbly, but you can still stand. Remove two or more and you’re in trouble. Headship is, to some extent, a political role and, like any chief executive, it is part of the task to build and maintain the confidence of external parties through communications, transparency and integrity.

But there is also much the government can and should do to ensure the risk of headship is manageable. It is not appropriate to judge schools, especially the smaller ones, on a single year’s results. There are often too many stakeholders with a finger in the pie, and sometimes these stakeholders interact in unhelpful ways. It is all very well for Ofsted to give a school three years to get out of the ‘requires improvement’ category, for example, but the local authority (which is also held to account by Ofsted) often intervenes in just two. And governors, who are in turn under pressure from the LA, may not even wait this long before getting involved. What starts as reasonable becomes punitive as accountability amplifies accountability.

It has to be said that Ofsted is a major part of the risk of headship. It needs to improve its quality control to eliminate the rogue inspectors and ensure greater consistency, but it also needs to get smarter on timings. If heads are trying to turn around a failing school, they need a good run at the job, especially as things often get worse before they get better. They need either a very early inspection, or one several years down the line. This would be an extremely easy thing for Ofsted to get right, and it would make a big difference.

Risk and consequence are an inevitable part of such a critically important job as headship. The decisions made by heads are difficult and they matter. For many, that sense of proportionate risk adds to the satisfaction and challenge of the job. But arbitrary and disproportionate risk is another matter. It adds no value to leaders or their students and the government must bring it back under control to avert a growing recruitment crisis.

About the author

Russell Hobby is general secretary of the NAHT, which represents more than 29,000 school leaders in early years, primary, secondary and special schools. It uses its voice at the highest levels of government to influence policy for the benefit of all leaders and learners.