A little while ago, I visited a very impressive secondary in white working-class East London. Something its head said stuck with me. “You don’t want to be ‘outstanding’,” he said. “They ask you to do all sorts of extra things if you get ‘outstanding’.”
What my new friend - let’s call him Nigel - was talking about was the risk he associated with putting his head above the parapet and becoming a system leader. It seemed odd at the time. But it wasn’t, really. And here’s why.
This thoughtful and charismatic leader was deeply worried that working with other schools would leave him exposed, that he would be drawn away from his main job and that, as a result, he would be punished.
The reason? He couldn’t be sure what he’d be getting himself into. With Ofsted, regional school commissioners and their shadow inspections, floor targets and coasting measures, the landscape was, at best, unclear and, at worst, shambolic. Fear of football manager syndrome was everywhere.
Nigel was articulating a massive problem in former education secretary Michael Gove’s embryonic school system: that it wasn’t a system. Having successfully disassembled the local authority model of school oversight, nothing coherent had been put in its place.
‘Loose wiring’ in the education system
This, then, was the starting point for the radical reforms set out by education secretary Damian Hinds last week: simplifying the rules of the so-called school-led self-improving system. Hinds wants Nigel to happily take on a school in need of his leadership and insight.
Thus, we have plans for just one simple data benchmark - likely to be a floor target based on progress. Ofsted will inspect, RSCs will only broker academisation (and no longer inspect or advise schools) and the Department for Education will fund, foster and plan school improvement services. The coasting category will be scrapped and only schools in deep trouble will face mandatory punitive measures.
It is a recognition that without simple, easily grasped rules - such as in any team sport - you are unlikely to witness creative, collaborative play. It is a bid to fix what Policy Exchange’s John David Blake calls the system’s loose wiring.
So far, so sensible. The lack of sufficient school improvement support and sponsors (in the right places) and the development of a culture of fear are the twin problems that have bedevilled schools as they recover from Gove’s radical surgery.
There are many unanswered questions, however. Is there sufficient potential for school improvement support? Will multi-academy trusts and leaders be able to provide the number of sponsors needed? Despite Hinds’ reforms, there will still be huge reputational and financial risk associated with taking on the trickiest schools.
Even with a simplified progress-based accountability measure, headteachers and MATs will still be dependent on one set of results. Or is the government planning something in this area, too? Most importantly, with the system clarified, its major players will be exposed. Are they up to it?
Take Ofsted. It has seen off the RSCs and won back its position of primacy. But under Hinds’ plans, even more will rest on the validity of its judgements. These need to be reliable and fair, and, as a starting point, the inspectorate should stop disproportionately hammering schools in deprived areas.
It’s no mean achievement to have cooked up a set of reforms that would likely have been applauded by Gove and that were applauded at last week’s NAHT heads’ union conference. They should also help to reduce the workload epidemic and ease the teacher retention crisis.
But, as ever, with neat bureaucratic solutions, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. And that pudding looks a lot like Ofsted crumble.
Ed Dorrell is head of content at Tes. He tweets @Ed_Dorrell
