Are we at risk of losing aspiring headteachers?

After 25 years working in education, I understand something of the pressure, anticipation and sheer intensity that can surround Ofsted inspections, but one of the most telling contributions from the recent National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) survey comes from a deputy aspiring to be a head who, following the inspection experience said: “I will now never go for headship.” 

The NAHT survey provides us with some real world experiences of the new Ofsted framework, introduced a year ago, which was intended to reduce the strain and workload caused by the inspection process. Many school leaders say it has made things worse, with almost two-thirds of school leaders polled saying it is much more intense than the previous framework.

The findings are difficult to ignore, with 52% of heads saying that their inspection experience had made them consider leaving their role earlier than planned, while 86% reported struggling with their mental health and wellbeing during inspection. A primary school chief executive said: “I’m very tired of the high stakes, the stress, the worry that comes from the whole process. It’s on a different level.”

We quite rightly talk about retaining experienced headteachers, as we don’t want to lose their significant institutional knowledge, well developed relationships and leadership capability. And we know that headteachers carry enormous responsibility, often absorbing pressures that aren't immediately visible to everyone around them. But what about the people watching them? Deputies and assistant heads see the pressure their heads carry and are quietly making decisions about whether that is a life and a career they want for themselves. If talented, aspiring leaders increasingly look at headship and see disproportionate accountability, personal risk and an unacceptable impact on family life or wellbeing, succession planning becomes much harder.

The question here is what this tells us about the ‘health’ of the system around school leaders. Undoubtedly, high levels of accountability are crucial, and children, families, staff and communities should expect high standards, with inspections having a part to play here, but robust accountability should strengthen organisations, not inadvertently weaken them. From an organisational development perspective, we know that systems that are designed to improve performance can often create behaviours that work against their intended purpose, so for example, when accountability feels exceptionally ‘high stakes’, organisations respond, often with more energy going into assurance, evidence, preparation and managing risk, all increasing anxiety and, it could be argued, all rational responses to the environment around them. Leadership capacity, culture, psychological safety, workload and succession are not peripheral people issues but part of an infrastructure that enables good education to happen.

So, organisational ‘health’ matters, and although schools and trusts can’t control every aspect of the external environment, they can think carefully about what conditions make talented people want to step forward and whether leadership roles are sustainable.

Many schools and academy trusts are already thinking differently about how they attract, develop and support future headteachers. That includes being much clearer about the support that comes with headship, from executive coaching and peer networks to protected development time. For aspiring heads, a staged pathway into leadership can provide experience of inspection, governance, finance, safeguarding and difficult decision-making before they take on ultimate accountability. Stretch opportunities can also help bridge the gap, whether leading a major school improvement priority, presenting to trustees, managing a budget, working across several schools or formally deputising for a headteacher. Trust-wide mentoring, aspiring-head cohorts and action-learning sets could strengthen this further, creating a leadership pipeline in which people feel prepared and supported to step up, rather than daunted by the prospect.

Ofsted itself acknowledges concerns about workload and wellbeing and says it is working with the Secretary of State to reduce pressure while retaining the focus on children's interests. The Department for Education has similarly said accountability should be collaborative, fair and proportionate. Ofsted has this week released inspection data from the first full year of the new framework revealing some clear patterns, particularly around disadvantage, achievement and inclusion showing the relationship between context and inspection outcomes. In its analysis of the data, Schools Week suggests that school context matters in that schools with higher levels of disadvantage, particularly when combined with SEND, are significantly less likely to achieve the expected standard for achievement and attendance/behaviour. [Read further: Schools Week] 

Inspection will always involve challenge, and external accountability matters, but a healthy accountability system should ultimately increase an organisation's capacity to strengthen and improve not deplete it and be simply relieved that the process is over.

Succession planning is about identifying who could fill someone's shoes if they left tomorrow, but a more deliberate approach in how this happens is needed, to ensure that those future talented, aspirational and energetic leaders actually want to step into those shoes.