Admiration for this headteacher for putting children first

[MillyDLA]

www.theguardian.com/education/2016/apr/15/primary-school-head-durham-quits-profession-tory-academy-policy?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Facebook

Well done to him for speaking out.

He coukd be getting out before he becomes ill. Many teachers are.

We can only speculate but it is very difficult to champion change when you have no belief in the changes benefitting children or really being about raising standards. The proposed changes disregard the skill of the teaching profession and make it really difficult to continue to be motivated. The thought of running an academy school without qualified teachers would be enough to make any HT resign. Just how is improvement likely?

What I don't understand about your position on this is that you agree that if someone can't give 100% then they should leave, but (as I understand it) you don't agree that his reason is a valid reason to not be able to give 100%.

Having read the letter, that's not quite what he said though. He didn't make the link between the proposed legislation and his capability. I agree that if he is unable to do his job effectively due to his personal opinions of the changes being made, then he should go.

If he is saying "because I don't agree with the changes, I can't lead this school effectively" then he is the only person that can say that; no one else knows how he feels and whether that is true or not.

But, by leaving, he leaves the school, and the DCs, open to leadership by someone who does agree with the changes and embraces them fully. I may be wrong, but I'm not sure that is the point that the OP was trying to make. Had he remained, he could have worked within the changes. As it is, his successor could well promote the very agenda he is unable to support. That's good for the DCs if you agree with the changes, but not good for the DCs if you don't.

If, as mrz has suggested, recruitment of a new HT is difficult/impossible, then the school may be forced to consider sponsored Academisation earlier than they otherwise would do, in order to secure stable leadership. Again, whether you think that is best for the DCs depends on where you stand on the Academisation agenda.

As an aside, his assertion that he'd not even considered resignation until the Budget last month is startling. There are very few teachers, even HT, who could walk away from their career with such a short period of consideration.

Fortunately acadamisation is highly unlikely to be forced upon the school regardless of whether a head can be employed fir September the beauty of having a strong effective LEA

mrz. I didn't say forced Academisation.

Irrespective of how strong the LA is, the Gov Board has to provide effective professional leadership somehow, the LA can't provide a virtual HT indefinitely.

If they can't recruit, then federation or other formal collaboration arrangements may be inevitable.

How do you "work within the changes" of a system you fundamentally disagree with, pretty?

Ian Duncan-Smith couldn't manage it, could he?

rhonda. If you can't, you can't. It's a very personal decision.

But, this HT deciding to leave because he can't, is balanced by the knowledge that by leaving, the school and DCs may well be exposed to the impact of the changes far sooner than they would have been had he remained - through either the recruitment of a new HT, or the consequences of a HT being unable to be recruited.

The LEA has and does provide a peripatetic head in these situations pretty

pretty

You make it clear you believe this HT is at fault for acting out of principle, rather than it being the government froartment for education for threatening every school with academisation, whether they want or need it.

mrz Yes, most LAs do (I know them as virtual HTs) - but not indefinitely.

A school I've been working with recently has been through 3 HT recruitment rounds in the last 3 years - all unsuccessful. They have had part time and full time virtual HTs in that time (not the same one for the whole three years, as the LA has deployed their virtual HTs where their skills are best utilised) - and understandably, stability has been affected and the confidence of staff and parents has been affected. Not to mention, of course, the OFSTED judgement of leadership and management, which is very unlikely to be Good if there is not a substantive HT in post and no prospect of one being recruited.

They have now, reluctantly, and against the wishes of parents, begun the process of Federation with another local school, with a view to making both HT posts redundant and appointing an Executive HT across the two schools. The new Federation is expected to subsequently join the Diocesian MAT.

If, as is apparent in some areas, recruitment is difficult, then the peripatetic service offered by the LA acts as a stopgap - it can't be a permanent solution.

As a pupil I had a peripatetic head for my last year of primary and as a parent my children had a peripatetic head for 4 terms ...long enough to find a suitable candidate but of course the schools senior management team coukd run the school as a interim solution.

In no way are they virtual perhaps temporary would be a better description

You make it clear you believe this HT is at fault for acting out of principle, rather than it being the government froartment for education for threatening every school with academisation, whether they want or need it.

Not at all - it's the OP I'm in disagreement with, who states that this HT has put the children first by standing up for his principles. If the HTs agenda is to avoid exposing the DCs to the impact of the changes, then by resigning, he has increased the risk of that happening.

I have no opinion one way or another about what he has done - but it cannot be argued that his actions have somehow furthered his own objectives.

but of course the schools senior management team coukd run the school as a interim solution.

Assuming that the SLT remain in post, of course.

Man I'm glad I got out last year. This thread sums it up. Teachers are expected to put up and shut up for the sake of the children. The good of the children is used constantly by senior management to bully teachers into working longer and harder. Go on strike about terms and conditions - get slated by parents for damaging education. Take a principled stand because you just can't hack the hideous, toxic environment education has become- criticised again.

I admire him, and it is important be a use the government are trying to paint this as lazy, crap teachers leaving. He is a good, well respected head. His very public resignation makes a statement about the continuing crisis that the government are ignoring.

huckleberry. he didn't publicise his resignation. A parent tweeted the letter he sent to parents which went viral.

If the HTs agenda is to avoid exposing the DCs to the impact of the changes, then by resigning, he has increased the risk of that happening.

I didn't realise that's what he said in his letter.

I didn't realise that's what he said in his letter.

It isn't. It's what the OP has inferred from it.

I don't think she did infer that. Her OP says "for putting the children first", not "to avoid exposing the children to the impact of the changes".

mrz
"Fortunately acadamisation is highly unlikely to be forced upon the school regardless of whether a head can be employed fir September the beauty of having a strong effective LEA"

But the government is forcing academisation on this school and any that are is the same situation.

This school will become an academy.

Not until 2020 and the BBC are reporting that might not happen

I really hope it won't happen.

I've posted on other threads about the wonderful school I work in and how well it's doing in challenging circumstances without being an academy.

(And if course it would be bliss to see that inane grin wiped off Nicky Morgan's face).

Pretty

You talk of the significant difficulties in recruiting HT's. Surely that is indicative of the mess our education system is in.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36064176

mrz

Even if this 'wiggle room' comes to pass those judged to be coasting or failing will still be forced to become academies.

With secondary schools the new GCSE grading system is set up for this to happen.
Grade boundaries not announced till the marks are in.
Marking on a bell curve so that only certain percentages of pupils can pass to their target grades.
A move to an exam only system that ignores the needs of 20% of the pupils.
Forcing schools to go down a route that pushes academic ability even if the pupils are not academic.
Not making any provision for pupils that are not academic.
reducing SEN funding to the bare minimum, including removing SEN funding form those that had it under the old system but not under the new.
Putting a strangle hold on funding so areas in the school have to be cut. (TA's, Arts, Technology, Drama).
That is not even considering the rise in pupils that are EAL.