THE RESPONSE OF THE NATIONAL UNION OF TEACHERS
TO THE NATIONAL COLLEGE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP/
DCSF NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR SCHOOL LEADERS
CONSULTATION
March 2009
INTRODUCTION
1.
The National Union of Teachers (NUT) welcomes the opportunity to respond to
the National College for School Leadership (NCSL) and DSCF consultation on
the National Standards for school leaders.
2.
The stated aim of designing Standards which will “withstand the test of time” is
welcome. It is important that the Standards are designed with longevity in mind,
so that those at whom they are targeted are enabled to become familiar with
them and internalise them as part of their regular practice, rather than consult
them only when absolutely necessary. By omitting references to current policy
initiatives, which has been a feature of the other Professional Standards for
Teachers, the School Leader Standards should encourage teachers to exercise
leadership appropriate to their particular school context, rather than focus on
compliance with and delivery of external policy directives.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE STANDARDS
3.
The consultation document says that the Standards are “applicable to all school
leaders”. Section 5 provides examples of roles which are intended to be covered
by them, including head teachers, other members of the Leadership Group,
persons other than teachers with whole school leadership responsibilities such as
business managers and site managers, and also teachers with leadership and
management responsibilities, including subject co-ordinators and those who hold
Teaching and Learning Responsibility points.
4.
This wide range of roles to which the Standards might be applicable is the
fundamental problem with their construction. It is simply too broad to provide a
sense of how each of the individual Standards might be applied to each of these
roles or what effective performance against the Standards would look like for
those undertaking such diverse roles. There is insufficient progression suggested
by the draft text to make them useful, for example, in terms of strategic
leadership. Further examples are provided in the commentary on the individual
Standards below.
5.
Although the consultation document says that head teachers are responsible for
ensuring that “individual school leaders are clear about which standards apply to
their role and responsibilities”, the rest of the text which accompanies the
Standards does not emphasis this clearly enough. It is inevitable that many will
interpret the Standards as a complete set of behaviours and competencies to be
demonstrated, even though it goes far beyond their own contractual
106737269
Created: 18 February 2009/KDR
18 February 2009
responsibilities, as all of the other Standards for teachers are constructed in this
way. There is no ability to choose which of the Post-Threshold or Excellent
Teacher Standards, for example, should apply to any individual. For this reason,
the final version of the Standards must be far more explicit about the relevance of
individual items within the Standards to specific roles and responsibilities.
6.
There is also a pressing need to clarify the relationship between the School
Leader Standards and both the Headteacher Standards and the Professional
Standards Framework. In terms of the Headteacher Standards, it is unclear
whether the intention is to replace the current version with the new School Leader
Standards, which would appear to be likely if they are to be used as the basis for
National Professional Qualification for Headship assessment, or whether the two
would co-exist and head teachers would have two similar but separate sets of
Standards against which to demonstrate their performance.
7.
Equally, many teachers who have leadership and management responsibilities
are outside the formal leadership structure of their school, such as primary school
subject-coordinators and would therefore be subject to both these Standards and
the relevant Standards in the Framework. Indeed, it could be argued that all
teachers exercise some leadership functions and that the Professional Standards
address these adequately already. All of these strands need to be drawn together
to create one coherent framework for the profession, rather than create a
separate add-on to the current Framework.
8.
The relationship between the Standards and head teachers’ and teachers’
contractual obligations remains unaddressed, despite the statement in the
consultation document that they “do not replace the provisions of the STPCD with
regard to teachers’ and headteachers’ legal rights and contractual entitlements”.
The Standards are not a statutory requirement on head teachers or teachers yet
focus on matters which are properly contractual issues, such as accountability,
management of personnel and involvement with the wider community. The
Standards must be consistent with contractual obligations but not add to them.
They should refer to contracts of employment where appropriate and clearly
indicate where any aspect of the Standards goes beyond these. This is vital if
the Standards are to be used by governing bodies for performance management
purposes, as it would not be acceptable, or feasible, for head teachers or
teachers to be assessed against ‘aspirational’ standards
9.
Without sufficient clarification of how individual aspects of the School Leadership
Standards would apply to such teachers, the expectations placed upon them
could therefore go far beyond their contractual obligations. The NUT would
suggest, given the difficulties of determining expectations against individual
Standards as illustrated later in this submission, that consideration should be
given to revising the Standards for Subject Leaders, which used to be part of the
Professional Standards Framework. These would be far more relevant and useful
to the majority of teachers who have been classified as “school leaders” in this
consultation.
10.
Whilst respecting the principle of giving autonomy to head teachers to determine
how the Standards are covered by the whole school team, a clear steer must be
given by the guidance accompanying the Standards about what would be
appropriate at different levels of leadership.
106737269
Created: 18 February 2009/KDR
18 February 2009
PURPOSE OF THE STANDARDS
11.
The NUT’s concern about how the Standards would be applied across different
leadership roles is particularly relevant given their proposed use for performance
management purposes. Whilst some of the Standards are clearly drawn from the
Core Standards for teachers, others are far more demanding and would require
opportunities to demonstrate performance against them, which not all those
designated as “school leaders” by the consultation might have. In addition,
others are clearly aspirational or extremely subjective, such as the Standards
relating to personal attitudes, values or characteristics, so that it would be difficult
to ensure equity of application and judgement against them within and between
schools. Consideration is also needed about whether these Standards represent
‘threshold’ or ‘excellent’ performance, as currently these is no sense of a
continuum or progression of performance implied by the Standards. This is
clearly not appropriate for performance management, especially when it may be
linked to pay progression.
12.
It is disappointing that the NCSL and DSCF do not believe that one of the
purposes of the Standards should be to inform school leaders’ professional
development. This has been a cornerstone of previous incarnations of the
Headteacher and other Professional Standards and should also be integral to the
performance management process. Indeed, there are very limited references to
the importance of CPD within the Standards themselves. This omission should be
addressed in the final version, with an emphasis on using the Standards to
identify one’s own professional development priorities as well as to plan career
progression. This would also suggest that NCSL should use the Standards as the
basis for its other leadership development programmes, not just for NPQH, to
develop a continuum of CPD which meets the needs of school leaders at all
levels.
STRUCTURE AND ORGANISATION OF THE STANDARDS
13.
The proposed Standards are far more concise and user-friendly than the current
Headteacher Standards. The five leadership areas under which the Standards
are organised are more easily recognisable as aspects of school leaders’ daily
practice than the six areas used for the Headteacher Standards and represent a
welcome retreat from the “business speak” which has characterised much of the
NCSL’s literature on leadership. For example, “leading strategically” is a more
accurate description than “future shaping” of what effective school leaders need
to do and “leading the organisation”, rather than “managing the organisation”
would appear to be an indicator of how the perennial issue of the right balance
between leadership and management could be achieved.
14.
The lack of a corresponding area to that contained in the current Headteacher
Standards, “securing accountability”, is particularly welcome. Although
accountability is a central feature of school leadership, the draft Standards have
taken the right approach by integrating references to accountability within the
main text of the Standards, rather than elevate it to a stand-alone area which
stands separate to all other aspects of school leadership.
106737269
Created: 18 February 2009/KDR
18 February 2009
15.
It is disappointing, however, that the current area “developing self and working
with others” in the Headteacher Standards has been transformed into “leading
people”. Not only does this remove the emphasis on collegiality and team
working, it also means that professional development is not represented at all in
the headings for the School Leader Standards. Consideration should be given to
redressing this in the final version of the Standards and also to the title given to
the final area, “leading in the community”. Although this represents some
improvement on the current “strengthening community” in the Headteacher
Standards, the emphasis is still on a one-sided relationship between school and
community. The title should give more of a sense of the necessity of collaboration
or working in partnership with the community and, for that to be a true
partnership, it will not always be the case that schools take a leading role in every
circumstance.
16.
The introduction to the final document should be clear that the order in which the
Standards appear is not intended to be hierarchical and that prioritisation of the
Standards is a matter for the head teacher and governing body, in consultation
with the individual where this is not the head teacher, to decide.
PROFESSIONAL ATTRIBUTES
17.
The ten generic professional attributes which are designed to underpin the
Standards are unremarkable in themselves and a number are drawn from the
Core Standards for teachers. The issue is, how would these be used within the
context of teacher accountability and performance management, as the majority
could not be measured or assessed in any objective way. For example, how
could one demonstrate “commitment and dedication to social justice, equality and
excellence”, however much one believed in these? Equally, the ability to
“embrace risk and innovation” would be determined by both the level of
leadership held and the context of the school in which one worked. Those
employed in schools which were under pressure to meet floor targets would be
far less likely to be able to achieve this, because of external pressures from local
authority, National Strategy or external advisors, than those in high performing
schools.
18.
The problem with any list of this nature is that it cannot ever be comprehensive
and there is the danger, therefore, that attributes which do not appear in the list
are considered unimportant or unnecessary. Two attributes, for example, are
implicit in the Standards yet do not appear on this list, creativity and contextual
and cultural competence. Both attributes have been identified by NCSL research
as important for effective leadership, especially in challenging circumstances, yet
were omitted from the consultation version. This would support the case for the
professional attributes to be woven into the Standards as the professional values
have been, rather than appear as a stand-alone list.
KEY AREAS OF THE NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP
a.
Leading Strategically
19.
The knowledge, understanding and skills under this heading demonstrate the
need for greater differentiation between which aspects relate only to head
teachers and which to other levels of school leadership. Knowledge and
106737269
Created: 18 February 2009/KDR
18 February 2009
understanding about “models of effective leadership and organisational
structures” and “strategic planning processes, tools and techniques” would not be
prerequisites for those with middle-level school leadership roles, nor would be the
ability to “work strategically with governing body”. Knowledge about
“developments in education at local, national level” is an appropriate expectation
for all those engaged in school leadership roles, but at “global level” would
appear to be unrealistic as a common expectation, even at the highest level of
leadership.
20.
The inclusion of “political acumen” within the skills list is welcome, as are those
relating to strategic and analytic thinking, creativity and using research to improve
practice. These give a clear indication that there is no blue print for successful
leadership and that school leaders must be able to develop strategies which
address the needs of their particular school and community through intelligent
analysis of the relevant factors, rather than follow national or local directives. The
education service needs critical, questioning, reflective leaders who have a sound
philosophical and intellectual framework within which to operate.
21.
As the Standards are generic, it is important that they focus on the ability of head
teachers and teachers to use their professional judgement to apply them in
different contexts and to translate their application from one context to another.
This has proved particularly essential for head teachers, who have been
successful in one school but have subsequently found it difficult to make the
same kind of impact in a different school.
b.
Leading Teaching and Learning
22.
The focus on teaching and learning within the Standards is welcome, as it
underlines the centrality of this aspect to the successful performance of the
school leader role at all levels. The NUT has expressed consistently a view that
school leaders should, primarily, focus their energy and activity on being the lead
professional/senior practitioner. Although the implementation of this role will be
influenced by factors such as school size, the top priority for school leaders
should be the improvement of teaching and learning and the development of
staff. The NUT believes that the skills, understandings, knowledge and attitudes
needed to fulfil such a role should be given priority in the Standards and in the
education, training and professional development programmes offered by the
NCSL, including that which is designed for head teachers.
23.
The accompanying guidance would need to indicate how this area was relevant
to non-teaching members of the school leadership team such as business
managers, otherwise it is in danger of being seen as irrelevant to them.
Knowledge and understanding about the curriculum, pedagogy, ICT and other
learning resources etc would be extremely relevant in terms of those with
responsibilities for school budgets or site management for example.
24.
Some of the skills set out in this section of the Standards are written in terms
which are open to interpretation, such as “achieve the best possible learning
outcomes for all” or “develop and use effective assessment and moderation
systems”. Not only are assessment and moderation arrangements tightly
prescribed nationally, but “effective” and “best” are subjective terms which do not
sit well within a performance management context.
106737269
Created: 18 February 2009/KDR
18 February 2009
c.
Leading the Organisation
25.
This section, in contrast to the previous area, contains a number of aspects which
should rightly be the domain of non-teaching, rather than teaching, school
leaders, such as “development and access to school buildings and facilities” and
“strategic financial planning, budget management and principles of best value”.
The guidance accompanying the Standards will again be crucial in ensuring that
schools are clear that such activities should not be an expected part of a head
teacher’s or other teaching school leader’s role but are more appropriately part of
support functions.
26.
The references in this section to a healthy school and “working environment
which takes account of workload and work-life balance” and to “managing
industrial relations” are welcome. The NUT has criticised the Headteacher
Standards previously for failing to reflect one of the key areas of school
leadership, which can determine the effectiveness or otherwise of leadership.
27.
A number of the skills including in this area already appear elsewhere in the
Standards. “Seek expertise and advice from within and outside the school” is
similar to “use of external support and expertise” and “capitalise on appropriate
sources of external support and expertise” in “Leading Teaching and Learning”.
There are also several different references to technology within the five areas
which could be rationalised in the final version of the Standards to avoid
duplication.
d.
Leading People
28.
This area of the Standards is the first to mention professional development.
Whilst its emphasis on the facilitation and encouragement of CPD for others is
welcome, there would appear to be further scope to strengthen responsibility for
one’s own professional development needs other than “receive and act on
feedback to build on strengths and improve personal performance”. It could also
include a reference to supporting and mentoring colleagues at senior levels. An
NUT survey 1 showed support from colleagues was the most significant factor in
encouraging teachers’ desire for promotion into headship, for example, and that
the encouragement given to individuals currently depends largely upon the
characteristics of the individual head teacher.
29.
The NUT has held the view consistently that “people skills” associated with
establishing professional relationships, meaningful consultation, effective
communication, negotiating skills, delegation, motivating adults and inclusive
decision making are central to the attributes that are associated with successful
school leaders. It is most commonly the absence of such skills which teachers
and other members of school communities highlight when they are asked why a
certain person proved to be a poor manager or ineffective leader.
30.
The NUT welcomes, therefore, the importance placed on such skills in this
section. There are some personal qualities or attributes, however, which run
across all of the Standards and are central to successful headship.
These
1
The Future of School Leadership, NUT, 2006.
106737269
Created: 18 February 2009/KDR
18 February 2009
include honesty, a sense of justice, humour and the ability to apply the necessary
knowledge at the right tone and in the right manner. If the separate list of
attributes is retained in the final version of the document, consideration should be
given to the inclusion of these.
31.
This area is perhaps one of the two which illustrate best the need for the
Standards to have built in progression or differentiation. Whilst the knowledge,
understanding and skills identified are all relevant to school leaders, the level at
which individuals operate is crucial to determining what level of performance
against them could be expected, such as those related to “support and
development systems for individuals and teams” or “motivate, develop, empower
and sustain individuals and teams”. This issue must certainly be addressed in the
final version of the Standards.
e.
Leading in the Community
32.
This is the second area which exemplifies the problem of creating one set of
Standards which are applicable to all levels of school leadership. Notwithstanding
the significant issue of how far these Standards may be in conflict with the
contractual obligations of school leaders at all levels and the danger that they
could be used to encourage the perception that they are legitimately part of every
school leader’s role, there is also the issue of the extent to which the majority of
school leaders other than head teachers or those with designated responsibilities
for community or partnership working would have the opportunity to demonstrate
many of these. Examples include “engage the community in systematic
evaluation of the school’s work and act on outcomes”, “engage in school-toschool collaboration and contribute to leadership in the wider education system”
and “broker and commission services”. Conversely, simply having knowledge and
understanding of multi-agency work would appear to be a low expectation for a
serving head teacher.
33.
This remains, however, a huge remit for head teachers in particular and a lack of
distinction is made in these Standards between head teachers’ contractual
accountability, general accountability for the school community and collective
accountability for the wider community.
34.
The examples cited above might also present difficulties for head teachers and
other school leaders in small schools, where there may be insufficient capacity to
engage in extensive partnership or support work with other schools. There is also
a tension between “establish and engage in partnerships, including working with
multi-agency teams” and “collaborate and work within and across the
community”. As noted earlier in this submission, there is a strong emphasis on
leading such work, rather than in being an active partner, which may include
other agencies taking the lead in some circumstances. The Standards’ implicit
encouragement of school leaders to direct such work will not contribute to
addressing the commonly recognised problems of inter-agency working.
106737269
Created: 18 February 2009/KDR
18 February 2009