Heads who can't teach
Comment:
3 average rating | Comments (42)
Last Updated:
8 July, 2011
Section:
Features
Does putting non-teachers in charge of schools harm the profession?
Melissa Hipkins is proud of the fact that the other candidates thought there was nothing out of the ordinary. Throughout the two-day residential course, none of her fellow aspiring heads worked out her secret. “No one guessed I wasn’t a teacher,” she says.
Already an assistant head and now with the National Professional Qualification for Headship (NPQH) under her belt, she has set her sights on the next step up. “I’ve been making some pretty fundamental decisions in my current post and I see a headship as an extension of that.”
Putting non-teachers in charge of schools is an idea that has gained ground in recent years. The theory goes that it will bring in management expertise from outside education at a time when schools are run more like businesses than ever before.
It also seems to have official sanction. A Government-commissioned study into school leadership by PricewaterhouseCoopers, a consultancy firm, concluded that where schools had created a chief executive position, “there should be no barrier to an individual without qualified teacher status (QTS) taking on that leadership role”.
The report suggested that splitting the tasks of administrative head and head of teaching and learning would make the job of school leader more feasible, as well as enabling the senior teacher to focus on their role as lead practitioner. But it also acknowledged that there was considerable opposition to the idea of a non-teacher running a school, and that “professional credibility with the teaching workforce is paramount”.
The policy has not got off to the best start. The country’s first non- teaching head of a state school, Peter Noble at the Richard Rose Foundation in Cumbria, quit earlier this term just five months into the job after the emergence of serious problems at one of the foundation’s two schools. One of the criticisms levelled at Mr Noble, who had been drafted in after a career as a health service manager, was that he did not have the right experience to run a school.
But while events at Richard Rose may have been a setback to the push for non-teacher heads, it has not quashed it altogether. Indeed, it has been buoyed by the appointment of non-teachers in school leadership teams, itself a consequence of local management of schools, the policy introduced in the Eighties to give heads greater control over their budgets. Faced with the requirement to oversee budgets of several million pounds, many heads responded by appointing specialists with financial expertise as bursars or business managers.
This was how Ms Hipkins ended up in school. After a career in industry, she was appointed bursar at Lawrence Sheriff School in Rugby in 1995. She is now assistant head in charge of business and finance. For her, the Richard Rose case exposed not shortcomings in the policy, but in how it was put into practice. “Parachuting someone in from another organisation is fraught with problems,” she says. “You need school experience to understand the nuances and the psyche of teachers, parents and kids.”
This is echoed by John Dunford, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, who backs the idea of non-teaching heads, but only after they have served in a school’s leadership team.
Ms Hipkins recognises that if she ever did become a head, it would have to be in conjunction with a director of teaching and learning. But she believes it could happen. “I would love to think it was a possibility,” she says. She has taken an MBA in educational leadership, where again she was the only non-teacher, and a course for aspiring heads run by the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust, as well as the NPQH.
On all of those courses, she says she had as much experience as any other candidate in all fields except one. “The only area I was lacking was teaching and learning,” she says. “You need an array of skills, and teaching and learning is one facet in a huge commercial enterprise. Why not pull skills other than teaching and learning to the fore?”
The National College for School Leadership, which took over running the NPQH in 2000, does not record how many candidates have QTS, although it estimates that of the 32,000 people who have taken the qualification since 1997, only one to two per cent were not qualified teachers. The bulk of these are thought to be teachers in the independent sector, where QTS is not required to teach, and the number with NPQH who have no teaching experience is likely to be small.
A combination of local management of schools and the expansion in the deployment of teaching assistants has seen a rapid rise in the number of support staff in schools.
Since 2000, the number of full-time equivalent support staff in state- funded schools in England has increased by almost 250 per cent. Over the same period, the ratio of teachers to support staff in maintained schools has fallen from 3:1 to 1.4:1. The drive towards extended schools, with schools offering community services beyond education, will increase this trend.
Peter Kent, Ms Hipkins’ headteacher at Lawrence Sheriff, says promoting his bursar to assistant head was an acknowledgement of the role support staff play in schools now. “It is about parity of esteem,” he says. It also recognises the broader role she plays in the school than just looking after the finances. As well as assemblies and playground duties, she mentors pupils and is called upon to deal with behaviour issues.
While Mr Kent says schools need to have people with teaching experience in leadership teams, he believes they benefit from having a non-teacher’s point of view at a senior level. “I don’t agree with the idea that you can’t contribute to a school unless you have been a teacher,” he adds.
He says he has no hesitation in recommending his assistant for headship, although Ms Hipkins says deputy head would be her next step.
But, as the Government study acknowledges, there is considerable resistance to the idea of non-teacher heads within the profession. John Bangs, head of education at the National Union of Teachers, recognises there is an argument for staff without QTS having senior positions in schools, but says this should not extend to headship. Instead, he argues that the Government should follow Wales and bring in a requirement that all heads in England have QTS. “The core business of schools is pedagogy and you need somebody in charge who understands that,” he says. “You have to show pedagogic leadership and you can only do that if you have experience in the classroom, and you only have that if you have been a teacher.” He believes events at Richard Rose will dampen enthusiasm for the idea in Government circles.
Tony Callaghan, a retired head and former national executive member on the NASUWT, the teaching union, opposes the idea of anyone without a teaching qualification taking charge of schools. Mr Callaghan, who last year formed the Teachers in Classrooms group to lobby against the perceived threat to teaching by the wider use of non-teaching staff, rejects the idea that management expertise in the commercial sector is automatically transferable to schools.
“To understand how a school operates you need to have some classroom experience,” he says. “You need to know what it is like to teach a group of 15-year-olds, and unless you understand what that is about how can you lead that organisation?”
For Mr Callaghan, while managers from the private sector may not make a mess of running a school, their appointment would signal a sea change in the way education is perceived. “It will dilute the profession and soon you won’t need to bother with a teaching qualification,” he says.
David Hopkins, emeritus professor at the Institute of Education in London, is co-author of a report on school leadership for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. He says while the Richard Rose experience is not a good omen, it does not disprove the thesis that managers from outside education could make good school leaders.
He sees an argument for people with corporate experience being drafted in as chief executives of school federations, as long as they are supported by good instructional leaders. “It is horses for courses, and how far their skills are complementary.” But he believes it is important to distinguish the different factors in decision-making in schools and in businesses. “Sometimes you have to make educational decisions that are not ones you would make if you were running an organisation for profit,” he says.
Professor Hopkins says the “fantastic success” of the bursar movement demonstrates the contribution non-teachers can make to schools.
Geoff Barton, the head of King Edward VI School in Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, says it is inevitable that support staff looking for promotion will see the management team as the next step. Mr Barton, who appointed his business manager Derek Tye to the four-strong leadership team three years ago, heads a staff of 175, of whom 80 are teachers.
“It seems odd to suggest the leadership of a large organisation should be drawn from less than half the staff,” he says.
Mr Tye, who joined King Edward VI after 27 years in banking, sees part of his role as offering a non-teacher point of view.
“Teachers tend to approach something from a teaching perspective, whereas I tend to ask: ‘Why are we doing this?’ I try to make sure we take into account the impact on all the staff, not just the teachers.”
He says while the view that a head should be a teacher is quite entrenched, schools are also now sizeable businesses - King Edward VI has an annual turnover of Pounds 6 million - and the prospect of a non-teacher head is far from unthinkable. “Five years down the road, I could well see a governing body making that decision,” he says.
After a career in local government, Graeme Hornsby joined Lutterworth College, Leicestershire, in 1989 as a bursar in the early days of the local management of schools initiative. Now assistant principal responsible for business management, he says schools are good at getting the right mix of skills among teachers in leadership teams, but the same does not always apply when it comes to non-teaching staff. All the same, he believes it is only a matter of time before more non-teacher heads are appointed.
“It will happen, although I don’t think the time is right for it yet.” He sees an expectation that the head will have been a teacher as the chief stumbling block, and the need to have the respect of teachers. “There is a question of credibility,” he adds.
A head without QTS would need strong support from the leading teaching professional in the school, he says. And, like Ms Hipkins, he cautions against parachuting in managers with no experience of education. “You have to have good knowledge of teaching and learning to lead a large organisation whose prime focus is teaching and learning,” he says.
An argument used in favour of non-teaching school leaders is the shortage of heads. According to a report published earlier this year by Education Data Surveys, part of TSL Education, about one quarter of secondary head vacancies, and almost one-in-four at primary level, had to be re- advertised. This trend is expected to worsen with an increase in retirements forecast among heads over the next two years.
However, from next month, the Government has stipulated that all new heads will have to have NPQH, which could restrict the field to those already working in schools. Few organisations, says John Howson, director of Education Data Surveys, would be willing to allow their managers to take time off to study for a qualification that will take them into a different profession.
Internal appointments, from within a school’s existing support staff, could have financial advantages. Support staff are not entitled to be paid on the same scale as teachers, and are often on considerably lower salaries.
“The economics stack up pretty well, although it is not all about finance,” says David Ellis, who appointed Naomi Robinson, a former teaching assistant, as a head of year at York High School two years ago.
While other heads of year at the school devote a third of their timetable to their pastoral role, Ms Robinson has no teaching commitments. The result is the school gets a full-time head of year for £27,000, instead of the near-£40,000 for a teacher who only spends a third of their time doing the job.
“We get a full week of pastoral care significantly cheaper than if we were employing somebody on a teaching salary,” Mr Ellis says. So far the only adverse reaction he has received has been from teachers who felt this could close off an avenue for advancement. But Mr Ellis says all vacancies are filled on the basis of the best person for the job, rather than cost grounds.
Although schools may benefit from the influx of non-teachers, this should not extend to heads, according to Alan Smithers, director of the centre for education and employment research at Buckingham University.
He says there is no evidence that commercial management skills are sufficient to run a school. The fact that those schools that essentially are businesses - independent schools - have not rushed to appoint heads with a non-education background suggests it is an idea better on paper than in practice. “Schools are organisations about learning and you need somebody in charge who is steeped in teaching and learning,” says Professor Smithers. “Schools are more complex than they once were and they could draw in people from outside, but that should essentially be in support roles.”
Although Mr Barton champions the contribution support staff can make, he draws back from supporting the idea of non-teacher heads. “I can’t imagine having someone who is not a teaching head, but that may depend on different contexts,” he says.
Ms Hipkins recognises there are considerable obstacles if she is to achieve her ambition. “Of course there is prejudice, and of course people say you haven’t got the experience of training to be in the classroom, but I think it will happen,” she says.
There may be setbacks along the way, but all the signs are that she is right, and that Richard Rose will not be a one-off. But the test will be not whether non-teachers can be chosen as headteachers, but whether pupils enjoy a better education as a result.
Comment (42)
I have been in too many badly run schools not to be open to the notion of a head of school who is not a teacher. Not only does it free the head of teaching and learning to concentrate on his/her skill area, it also provides leadership which may be more open to working across other agencies, essential to the modern school. Schools are community resources, and have huge potential to provide services in addition to teaching and learning. What schools need are good managers, not more people who have been good teachers.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
13:53
6 March, 2009
JeannieMackenzie
Completely disagree with Jmac above. I wonder if she is a Headteacher?
Headteachers lead from the chalkface, not the boardroom. If you haven't confronted a class of bolshy teenagers, how can you pontificate on school management. Many unqualified teacher managers have failed as school leaders. On what experience, personal or otherwise do you base your comments ?
You must substantiate a comment like that.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
20:20
6 March, 2009
tonycallaghan
It would be all very well if the job of managing a school was like any other management job. But, teaching isn't like running a branch of Sainsburys. In teaching, Heads have to make judgements about the teaching standards in their schools, and to do that they have to understand the difference between good teaching and poor teaching. They have to be able to judge the performance of highly professional individuals who have many years of classroom experience. We can all use an Ofsted tick-list but ticking boxes doesn't make a lesson any good. I fail to see how you can have any credibility in judging teaching staff if you have done little teaching yourself. It demeans the staff you are in charge of to imply that you are qualified to judge their performance. I imagine somebody will pop up to say that the Head could delegate the task of judging others. If you have to delegate one of the most important elements of your job how can you really claim to be fit to do that job?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
22:14
6 March, 2009
Billybong
Ms Hipkins are you arrogant? You want to lead an organisation where you do not understand the product?! No CEO, Director, or business owner would dare such a thing.
Maybe the product doesn't matter? Maybe to you it's just beans in a tin.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rating:
0:50
7 March, 2009
deleted556
Well I agree. I spent a number of years in administration and still combine teaching with a part time job in industry. The HEADteacher seldom teaches and only then " safebet" classes where his or her own discipline policies or authority wont be challenged. Many Heads are off site most of the time or attending public sector committee meetings and networking.I am totally in favour of handing the leadership of schools over to non head teachers and perhaps then we will get a better and more realistic employment structure for teachers who are actually TEACHERS. For instance, I am amazed that schools do not enjoy the benefits of Personnel Managers - as per industry - one personnel manager could be attached to a cluster of schools. A more effective management of personnel and not the infantilisation of staff headteachers often indulge in would lead to decreased union activity, and less croneyism. This is just one area in which I would reform schools. I would privatise many.Also, great savings could be made. Why pay 40K and above to those who are on teaching payscale but not teaching? It makes no sense. It is like paying a doctor not to practise medicine. Half the time Headteachers rely on a fallible network of croneys to "inform" on staff and this leads to non-representative work places and a weakening of the profession. So yes to management reform and yes to paying older staff more instead of bringing in "young thing" staff fresh from college, who have served perhaps only a two year apprenticeship in the classroom before they realise that their bread is better buttered if they get onto the management scale. At present we have a teaching profession which rewards people for getting out of the classroom.I have recently considered abandoning the State sector because I perceive a better model in the Private Sector where Heads are in effect business managers driven by the simple business principle that you have to have something to market and that customers have to be recruited, maintained and satisfied. We need to abandon the public sector "safe job for life" notion and this needs to start at the top. Like many teachers I have particular horror stories to tell of management teams or individuals whom the taxpayers are retaining.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
12:58
7 March, 2009
stellacampis
There are plenty of CEOs and Directors who move between one sector and another; eg different branches of retail or manufacturing. Noone would claim that they had to have worked on the till or the shop floor to be able to run the business effectively, would they? They apply principles of management to the business, while allowing the production managers to take responsibility for the specifics of the product. The parallels are obvious. It
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
21:48
7 March, 2009
galadriel.
The Ceo's and co who move between sectors generally in my experience are working to their own career agenda and many (but not all) of these folk are too self-serving to risk being put in charge of school populations. But like anything else, it depends on the individual and having the right match of skills and experiences to well-considered specifications. Of course it's unrealistic at this early stage to expect current practice to be close to desired reality.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
22:16
7 March, 2009
AndieRae
the matter of discussion is far graver than the superficial point of a head being a non-teacher, it is about the demise of raison d'etre of education in civilised society.
since when has education of children in society become a business oriented to profit making. the foundations of society include education, among other necessities such as a legal system, health system et al. these services are pillars of society that is founded on being civilised and humane.
what is happening to our government, our electors, this country? are we blind, is the need for profit, for greed, to make money at the expense of the human (not to be confused with work produced by human), at the expense of mankind, risen above all priorities of civilised and humane society. in the words of my friend and colleague, David J Hunt, this is the Businefication and Disneyfication of Education. Shame on the ministry of education (or what ever new name happens to be in fashion), shame on the civil servants who have lost out on classics and intellect, shame on us for allowing this to happen, as for poiticians, don't waste the pathos, these creatures are leeches on higher form of life, amoebic, spineless, gormless detritus.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
22:48
7 March, 2009
princephilip
You are all missing the point. In a shop you don't need to have worked at the tills to manage people who do work at the tills. Their ability is self-evident through statistics such as the number of customers they serve each day, the number of of complaints you get about them and the amount of money missing from their till at the end of the shift. It's a simple job with simple outcomes against which performance can be measured. So it is with much of industry. I know, I've been there and everyone has "measurable" targets.
In a school, Headteachers are responsible for upholding standards. To do this, a system has been invented where they go into classrooms and make judgements about professional people doing a complex job. What I'm saying is that anybody can stand there with an Ofsted ticklist and check off whether things got done. These moronic tick-lists are designed for people who haven't taught in umpteen years and allow them to believe that they are making judgements about standards. They are of no real use or benefit (Ofsted and the tick-lists). It takes someone who really knows what they are doing to identify whether it was a good lesson or not, and whether the pupils learned anything. Sometimes you can have an outstanding lesson where objectives didn't appear on the board!!! It's true.
My question is simple. How do you uphold (and improve) standards when you don't actually know what has to be done to achieve those standards? Do you really think that a Headteacher should be paid £80,000 and more for ticking boxes?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
8:34
8 March, 2009
Billybong
I would say it is absolutely offensive as a teacher, to have someone in SMT who has never taught. You cannot possibly empathise or relate to teacher's day by day experiences in the classroom. Without empathy, you cannot lead in a constructive, person centred manner, only in a bullying, disconnected way, that many seem to do.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
12:05
8 March, 2009
GardenFaery
Teachers who can't head, hands up, and why not. Its a bit scary I know but the ground has been lost so, at least, lead a rear guard.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
15:19
8 March, 2009
armandine2
Great...I have applied to the army and fully expect to lead a battalion on active deployment in Afghanistan...Don't worry I am trained as Educational Visits Co-ordinator and been to outdoor bound centres (we were residential for 5 nights!), I was even in Scouts so I understand uniforms...I have a model assertive discipline policy ready and have a first aid qualification in case anyone makes a mistake (won't be me, I am too experienced in management and leadership for that)...I have also led community cohesion, so I fully expect to implement a range of exciting strategies to improve stability in the region, including a themed day around Polish culture (it worked at my last place). Arrogant! Me! No! I have a lot to offer!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
19:25
8 March, 2009
momid
Why is experience of teaching so essential in good leadership and management? A teacher only has experience of his/her subject. There is a world of difference teaching PE and maths, for example, across all key stages.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
21:33
8 March, 2009
PamLloyd
The arrogance of the likes of Ms. hipkins is simply staggering. Whilst there are clear elements of financial management in school. The role of a head isnThe arrogance of the likes of Ms. hipkins is simply staggering. Whilst there are clear elements of financial management in school. The role of a head isn't merely making sure the books balance. Managing the educational provision of a school for the children who attend that school just cannot be carried out effectively by someone who has never been infront of a class and does not know about children. the process of attending school does not qualify a bursar or other similar person to manage a school.
I know of a bursar who was appointed to her postonon on the SLT by her friend the heateacher. She is paid at a highjer rate than any of teh non SLT teachers. She gained the NPQH. She even tried to do lesson observations until that was stopped by staff action. She is secretive, never consults about her decisions with the result that they do not work properly. She denied that there was any money available in school finances when there was a six figure sum. Much of the money was clawed back by the authority so this small school lost a considerable amount. She has had thousands of pounds spent on her training, and will do so this next year too, but teachers are now being told that their training will be reduced.
Havi
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
0:39
9 March, 2009
sslaphead
I read, with some interest, the above comments. Some talk of arrogance and others are supportive of an individual who is keen to develop to a higher level of leadership. On a personal note, I have been a School Business Manager at a large high school for the last 4 years. As part of this role I am a fully integrated member of the SLT, something that would make my role very difficult if I was not. I have extremely important strategic responsibilities which go far beyond that of finance and whilst I do not profess to being a classroom practitioner that does not mean I could not manage or lead them, ensuring the highest standards are achieved. The notion that only a teacher can cope with unruly teenagers is frankly insulting, I am called on a regular basis to resolve issues that have erupted in classrooms and elsewhere on the site and does my non QTS status make me less equipped to deal with it, I think not.I do sympathise though with the thought of an individual coming in fresh to lead a school. It takes time to understand the finer details, the education jargon and to fully appreciate how standards can be raised. This can only be done in a school where opportunities beyond the office are available. I too wish to aspire to higher levels but not after completing an
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
10:20
9 March, 2009
RussellDalt
Mr Dalt, it's not insulting it's a fact. The majority of secondary heads could not control a class of teenagers. They have been out of the classroom for so long, the kids would have them for breakfast....... fact not insult.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
11:20
9 March, 2009
tonycallaghan
Making judgements about the quality of teaching when you are not a qualified teacher yourself? Lay Ofsted inspectors did this for years.....and the Unions allowed it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
11:23
9 March, 2009
sheila.thornton
Well Sheila, the unions were idiots to do so, and i said so as an exec member of nasuwt. Most of the current bunch of OFSTED inspectors could not control a class of secondary students either. if you cannot teach, become an inspector. Where's the off in ofsted.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
15:17
9 March, 2009
tonycallaghan
The idea of being inspected and judged by someone who has never studied education fills me with dread. OFSTED is a government initiative and as such we have to play the game. But to appoint an unqualified head by choice and have them judge my teaching makes me shudder. What kind of professional discussion would be possible with someone who has no education or experience in the field? I have a first class BEd Hons, have 16 years experience (5 years as an AST ) and I am now a deputy Headteacher. Reflective practice, good subject knowledge and pedagogy are essential. Discussing these issues with non -teachers is almost impossible and I wonder how much Ms Hipkins feels she could contribute to such a conversation.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
18:23
9 March, 2009
winnie77
Surely another issue surrounding this is the removal of yet another progression route for teachers?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
20:22
9 March, 2009
tomdanman
Schools are complex places. The 'product' are children, who themselves are the most precious commodity of their parents. We are not dealing with a factory churning out cars here, it is a million times more complicated than that. The Head is the person who must LEAD the staff. Anybody with the sense to be able to add up and take away can balance the books of a school. Schools don't look to hide billions in off-shore accounts, neither do they 'fiddle' millions in expenses. They get a budget and they spend it. Having done the job of Bursar when ours ran away due to 'stress'..I have to say it was a pretty simple task...I would venture to say that you don't actually need to have any accountancy experience. My sister-in-law has just been appointed as the Bursar of a primary school....she has a few GCSEs and her only job to date is as a secretary. Hence there is no issue is managing a budget if you are from outside the education environment. However, the Head has to lead the staff in what is the cornerstone of any school..teaching and learning. How is it possible for anybody who has never been in a classroom to make judgments about those who work within it? Mr Dalt, do you really think that any teacher worth their salt would listen to word that you said about their abilities as a teacher. Your comments mirror those parents who love to lecture teachers about thir failings. It seems that to be an expert on teachers, you have had to have been to school.
Sorting out an issue that has erupted is fine..I agree that many people couldn't do that..they don't have the confidence. However, my caretaker does it, my TAs do it my admin staff do it and even my dinner ladies do it, but that's because they work in the school and know the pupils. I challenge anybody who thinks that they know what is it to be a teacher to teach the same class of unruly 15 year olds for a year and see what that feels like.
I have worked in industry and in schools. There is no doubt that the teachers with which I have worked are far more highly skilled than my colleagues in the business world. They also work far harder and under greater pressures. I am currently a Deputy Head with a 50% teaching load, which I love. Teaching is a highly skilled profession and teachers don't want some chap with an MBA and a sharp suit telling them how to do they job.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
20:42
9 March, 2009
davidgaj
Clearly from some comments here we have some teachers who have very little expertise in management, electing to criticise that area without any personal appropriate grounding in that area.
It simply is not a balanced argument to say, "Many unqualified teacher managers have failed as school leaders", or "Do you really think that a HT should be paid £80K for ticking boxes".
Of course it would be a VERY POOR manager who glibly, "..... ticks boxes ...", whether from a teaching background, or from elsewhere.
I imagine (for I cannot yet substantiate the claim), that there are in fact "Many" qualified-teacher managers who have failed as school leaders [see other current TES-article], while the population of failed unqualified teacher managers is statistically insignificant or from a population too small to warrant confident analysis.
One needs to draw together considered argument from areas of expertise, and not generalise the exception.
Yes, teachers should be actively-supported in classroom roles by management, indeed particularly so when the manager has a background of practical teaching (and I have personal snap-shot experience of failures here).
One should look forward to ANY GOOD manager supporting good classroom practice; do not fear this, but look forward to positive practical interaction.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rating:
22:02
9 March, 2009
benfalat
I would be very interested in seeing how a manager leads a school who has not been a teacher. It is something that I have thought about before as I know so many people that have leadership roles and poor managment skills.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rating:
22:33
9 March, 2009
John Donnelly
There are heads with teaching experience who have made a complete mess of running their schools because they have no idea how to manage finances or people. How is this better than an experienced manager who is capable of coming in and assessing the situation? I am a fully qualified and experienced teacher now - I used to be a management consultant and every project involved understanding a new business with skilled employees. I didn't need to DO their jobs, just understand them and APPRECIATE their skill, dedication and needs. I often found my external perspective helpful as long as I only changed things for a good reason. Jargon-happy jump-on-the-bandwagon teaching heads are every bit as bad as external managers who have no regard for the particular requirements of education.
Judge each head individually - you can't generalise on this matter.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
9:02
10 March, 2009
barmybunny
I am frankly appalled by the notion that a person who has not experienced the teaching environment can take over the running of a school. Unfortunately, the markets have been target driven for eons and this has now become the stick by which schools are beaten in order to raise standards. How often are schools warned that ' If you don't achieve such and such results you will be closed and re-opened as an Academy!' We have an abundance of examples where 'executives' have mis-managed companies and seen them go to the wall. Perhaps this is another government initiative to speed up the Academy programme. Put people in charge of an educational establishment (who have no experence of this sector) allow them to run it in the same target-driven frenzy that has had enormous detrimental effect on our economic well-being and allow them to take charge of our children. The future looks bleak!!!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
9:32
10 March, 2009
grahamsw
Clearly the person at the top should be a caring, visionary leader who will take other with them. These traits are not exclusive to teachers.
They should have a team approach to what is a complex role. Schools are no longer just places where just teaching and learning take place, for instance they have industry links, children's services & police often on site and a whole array of other 'suppliers' to enable the pupils to have a safe and inclusive provision.
The sad thing is how many teachers who aspire to headship lose something along the way making poor heads with a complete lack of judgement. They are usually surrounded by 'cronies' and are extremely poor value for money. I know this is a model which is not exclusive to teaching, however we are in a changing world In the end every person (pupils and staff) in and attached to a school want to feel part of the organisation. Within that they want praising for a job well done. As long as teaching remains people centred you need people in the system from top to bottom who care.
Where this happens you have harmony and progress. Where it does not you have chaos. Where do you work?
Having Investors in People is not the answer. Being investors in people is.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
9:57
10 March, 2009
chrisgozzard
Would you give your car keys to someone who does not have a driving licence?Answer: NOHTs revel in not teaching. Same with SMT. If all HTs and GBs dropped dead tomorrow nothing would change- everything is decided by HMG.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
12:34
10 March, 2009
Smirk
whatever happened to teamwork?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
19:33
10 March, 2009
HSE
2 members of the SLT are non-teachers and are effective in their management roles, both of which are linked to inclusion and therefore centre of the needs of the students, not the staff. So long as you bear that in mind, it works better than having teachers in the same role as teachers may have a tendency to emphathise too much with staff when it is the needs of the students that someone has to hold paramount.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
23:51
10 March, 2009
lynxeyes
"teachers may have a tendency to emphathise too much with staff" - if only! Which planet are you visiting from?
Every teacher has a responsibility towards inclusion. Staff benefit from being supported by someone who knows what the job is like: pupils benefit from being taught by staff whose own needs are being looked after.
Undoubtedly, there are inadequate HTs around. The solution to that, is to have proper training for them and proper monitoring of their performance. Some HTs spend too much time hiding in their office rather than being out and about and putting their experience into practice, and those HTs do undermine the argument for a qualified teacher filling their role. However, I don't think you improve the quality of management by bringing in someone who doesn't have the teaching knowledge or experience in the first place!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
4:08
11 March, 2009
didactophobe
The leadership of teaching and learning quite rightly remains the most important aspect of leadership in a school and even as a reasonably experienced SBM is not one I would contemplate taking on without significant classroom and pastoral experience and training. I do not know enough about the nature of the work to lead it effectively. As for Ofsted, well I've had some interesting debates with Ofsted inspectors trying to judge if we provide good value for money. Perhaps their background did not equip them to do this effectively?
We do however need to recognise that there are many other leadership aspects in our schools that are beyond this and whilst they include balancing the books and even strategic financial planning their are many others too. Workforce development for example. As someone posted above, why do we persist without good quality HR provision in so many schools when private sector organisations with similar numbers of employees would not contemplate operating without specialist HR expertise.
The debate should not be about the title, background or qualifications of the person leading our school. It should be about how the leadership team as a whole can ensure that the leadership covers the wide range of functions and does so effectively. The role of 'head teacher' is more like that of CEO now and many heads need more support than they currently get to be more effective. As schools expand into extended services and federations the leadership functions and demands will grow wider but need to keep learning as the main focus.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
10:34
11 March, 2009
bhoy
Leadership.
Rubbish. That is Investors in People clap-trap.
A really effective Head should be apointed from within the school so that he or she really knows the school from the inside.
Most HTs are appointed from without not within. Fresh blood and all that rubbish.
Would you give your car keys to someone without a driving licence?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
20:14
11 March, 2009
Smirk
I've been using a hose today to clean my car. So i must be qualified to be a firefighter.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
20:54
11 March, 2009
tonycallaghan
From the comments posted, it is absolutely clear that, in the main, those with significant teaching experience are of the opinion that leading a school requires experience of the classroom. Those who aren't and have never been teachers have an innate confidence in their own abilities and believe they can run a school without knowing anything about teaching. There's only one question left. Are the teachers going to fight this one or are they going to turn over and go back to sleep?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
22:10
11 March, 2009
Billybong
I would just like to support Tony Callaghan's comments. I think that much of what he says about head teachers who have never taught can be said about head teachers who no longer teach. It's ironic now that we no longer talk of headmasters or headmistresses we use the term head teacher when so few of them ever teach. As far as I am concerned they carry less credibility when they stop teaching. As with inspectors there is often the nagging feeling that they could not get out of the classroom quick enough.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
13:01
12 March, 2009
ronnie71
I would suggest there is a much more elegant solution to "Should the Head be a teacher or not":
It is my opinion that headship has become excessively divorced from teaching over the last decade or so: very few heads still actually teach; this was very different in the 1970s.
As I see it, an elegant solution may be had with Einsteinian simplicity: a school has two people in "directorate-level" positions: an educational director [a "proper" Headteacher who is also still allowed to spend some time in the classroom] and a business manager.
I held management roles in business before entering the teaching profession; I have been teaching for around seven years: it strikes me that good managers do not always make good teachers, and that good teachers, passionate about their subject, are not always the best business managers. The level of admin and bureaucracy forced upon today's academic headteachers is very much a square-peg, round-hole situation; perhaps one of the reasons why so few teachers want the promotion, despite the pay hike! Separating-out the educational and business directorships seems the obvious and sensible way forward.
I believe the Headteacher should be just that; a model of excellence in the profession. The Business Manager, on the other hand, should be no less a pillar of strength in their area of expertise.
Ignaz Bösendorfer made fine pianos; Franz Liszt wrote fine music; each knew where his area of specialism finished, and that of the other began.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
14:40
12 March, 2009
Basso_Profundo
princephilip write: "what is happening to our government, our electors, this country? are we blind, is the need for profit, for greed, to make money at the expense of the human (not to be confused with work produced by human), at the expense of mankind, risen above all priorities of civilised and humane society."
Have we learnt nothing from the global corporate collapse of the banking sector?
This "everything is a business" attitude which lay at the core of all that was the most rotten in Thatcherism has decayed and disintegrated before our eyes, yet those who have seen its decomposition still seem to sing a cappella, in the manner of some last-remaining supporters of the losing team after a football match, refusing to believe their side's fate.
The only experts we seem to have left in our society are lawyers and Health and Safety bureaucrats - and I'm not overly confident in the first of those.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
14:53
12 March, 2009
Basso_Profundo
The Headteacher absolutely has to have clout with the kids and parents. This is the most important rule of school leadership. Everything other function can be delegated to able managers eg business management. No amount of successful business experience will make you a good school leader if the kids do not recognise you as the figure making clear expected standards, and the last line of discipline.
It may be possible to be this kind of leader without having taught, but the Head should have experience of the pedagogical and classroom management process.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
15:03
12 March, 2009
simbridge
I have read with some interest and shock at some of the comments that have been written above. Some come across as defensive and some plainly offensive. I have been in the education sector now for five years, my background is commercial but I have worked in the secondary sector in a challenging comprehensive in a deprivation area for over three years. I am a member of the SLT and I lead the support services sector of the school. In addition to finance, premises and health and safety I am also responsible for the extended schools agenda, transition and management of two curriculum subjects. I have a strong pastoral involvement and take my turn in the isolation room, on call out and manning SLT detentions. Cover for teaching colleagues is also something that we as an SLT do and I am no exception. I was a member of the team who bought the school out of special measures and in two years turned the achievement from 23% to 61% A-C
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
12:40
13 March, 2009
MJDSOT
Fred Goodwin tried to run a massive bank without banking experience or qualifications - look at the result.
Non-teaching Heads would only make sense if society decided that the main purpose of schools was something other than teaching ......
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
21:13
13 March, 2009
xl5
Schools should be kept safe from the ego-maniacs who occupy the seats at the top-table of most large private-sector companies. Schools (and parents and kids) need self-effacing heads who work in the background making sure every aspect of the life of the school is healthy and effective; not self-serving targets-freaks who use everything they can to demonstrate their own supposed greatness. This is all a terribly unfortunate by-product of the brutal competition-ethic which has been brought into state educatioin - heads must now compete to show they are better than other heads. If they all did this by making sure their schools were excellent in every way (but without alienating their staff in the process) then it might be a good think; but what seems ever more prevalent is the same combination of bullying and management-by-targets which has already blighted so many large companies (trust me, I've spent 20+ years working for many of them).
Non-teaching heads. Sounds like "non-swimming fish". Once again, seeing this latest scheme for siphoning cash out of govt and into the bank accounts of the pushy and managerially-inclined, I find myself wondering whether there really are aliens amongst us - they look like us, and appear to be of the same species, but are actually psychopathic aliens intent on subjugating the human race. Their weapons - clipboards, statistics, and an unwavering belief in their own supremacy; their foot-soldiers - accountants and civil servants; their supreme commanders - govt ministers.
By the way - I know a foolproof method of establishing whether non-teaching heads really will be common in about 10 to 15 years' time. In my final year at uni in 1981, a number of my peers were advised by the milk-round process (by which jobs, particularly in public service, are "advertised" - ie provided on a conveyor-belt to the "right sort") that there would soon be massive demand for non-clinical NHS management. This was years before the Thatcherite dismembering of the NHS, with Trusts, budgets, internal markets etc. But clearly somebody had been tipped the wink (and clearly, society was not expected to object once the policy would have light let in on it). So - anybody whose young ones are in their final year and looking for a job come September ? Ask them whether they are being told of the latest wheeze (non-teaching Schools Management). If so ..... then we know what's coming !
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
21:38
13 March, 2009
xl5
See the link to the article headed "No QTS, no headship? Schools accused of shunning 'outsiders'" at the top of this page to see the sort of person who could apply and possibly obtain a headship. That article concerns an individual called Julie White-Zamler who is seeking a headship position in a State school.
Why does JWZ not seek a headship in the private sector? Her limited experience of schools has been in the private sector, in the small independent school called Cranford House where her former colleagues and the governors have, no doubt, very fond memories of her. Her two children are still at the school. (Was this part of her redundancy package?) The fees for her course at the esteemed and clearly hard-to-get-onto NPQH course was paid by her former school. (Was this part of her redundancy package?) JWZ is clearly not against the private sector on grounds of principle. So why is she not trying for a headship in the independent, private sector? Surely her reputation in the independent sector will go before her? And, in order to be a teacher in the private sector, one does not need to be a qualified teacher. So, again, why is she targeting the State sector? Any reference from Cranford House will, no doubt, be carefully drafted to say what a wonderful asset she was at the school.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
22:36
8 July, 2011
cranfordhouseschool