Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Secondary education

Connect with other parents whose children are starting secondary school on this forum.

Nearly a third of secondary heads quit within 3 years

8 replies

noblegiraffe · 07/05/2018 12:28

Nearly a third of secondary heads, and one in five primary heads quit within 3 years, most likely following an unfavourable Ofsted.

This seems pretty terrible. Who will be left to run our schools at this rate?

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/05/05/almost-third-headteachers-now-leave-within-three-years-official/

OP posts:
BigSandyBalls2015 · 07/05/2018 12:31

Ours has been there about 20 years!

RandomMess · 07/05/2018 12:48

Can't blame tbh, the financial pressures, Ofsted pressures, the parents...

Clavinova · 07/05/2018 13:31

I know an ex-headteacher who is now a CEO but involved with leading the same school:

^One possible explanation for lower retention rates in larger MATs could be if more headteachers move from a school-based role to a central role within the MAT. The School Workforce Census does not include central roles, so such a move would be counted as not retained in headship in our measure. We have been informed by one MAT, for example, that its chief executive and director of secondary schools are both ex-headteachers from inside the trust. The MAT has also appointed headteachers from outside of the trust into its central team – these moves would not be counted as retained in headship in the SWC analysis. However, models will differ across MATs – we have been informed by another that its directors fulfil their central responsibilities on a part-time basis, whilst maintaining responsibility for their own schools (they would therefore be retained as a headteacher in the SWC analysis).
Another hypothesis is that larger MATs are those with stronger central teams and models of school improvement, who act more quickly to remove headteachers that they identify as under-performing^

noblegiraffe · 07/05/2018 14:36

It mentions that in the article “The vast array of lucrative career options available to former heads such as education consultants or chief executives of academy chains has also contributed to the rise, experts have said.”

But we still need people to run our schools!

OP posts:
cantkeepawayforever · 07/05/2018 14:57

It mentions, as a throwaway fact, that "lower retention rates were common among schools with poor Ofsted ratings".

Well yes, of course.

It is one thing to take over, or simply remain long term as the head of, a smoothly running, Outstanding school - no Ofsted, almost certainly a relatively low % of PP and SEN children, almost certainly supportive parents who will have carefully positioned themselves in catchment or got the entry tickets [exam, church attendance, feeder school] for the school, high staff morale, stable or rising rolls so at least stable funding.

It is quite another to be brought in to 'turn a failing school round' - to come in after yet another RI / SM Ofsted, to face falling rolls and falling funding, demoralised staff (with those who teach shortage subjects having already voted with their feet and left), a high percentage of deprived / anti-education / low attaining children, almost certainly a socio-economically deprived intake (given the statistical link between %PP and low Ofsted ratings), a high proportion of parents who either don't care or desperately wish their children could go elsewhere, a local reputation as 'the sink school'. And, in many cases, Ofsted due again in a year, looking for substantial improvements. Risk of being taken over by a / another MAT rerquiring endless political negotiating. Constant visits from 'experts' - MAT management or LA.

Is it any wonder that the second type of head leaves either after the first Ofsted, maybe the second, if they're very tough, the third within 3 years? How many go on to other headships / these 'highly paid jobs', and how many spend time recovering, or not recovering, from stress-induced mental illness / are dead?

Until we properly support new heads going into challenging schools - by significantly delaying Ofsted inspections, by providing consistent, long term extra funding, by constant counselling support, by providing a group of supportive local peers who have been there, who can help without judging - of course heads going into such schools will leave, fall ill, or die, within a very small number of years.

cantkeepawayforever · 07/05/2018 14:59

Suicide and mental illness rates in heads and ex-heads, analysed by Ofsted grade of the school they last managed, would be - certainly from the sample I know of personally - instructive but deeply scary.

noblegiraffe · 07/05/2018 18:56

Related to that, cant, this news story from last year is pretty horrifying. MATs sacking heads for spurious reasons then gagging them from talking about their experiences.

www.theguardian.com/education/2017/oct/24/disappeared-headteacher-sacked-academy-dismissal

The story mentions that 1 in 10 Kent schools started the term without a headteacher Shock

Also I’m reminded of Tom Sherrington who was successful in a nice cushy grammar school, moved to a challenging comprehensive (68% PP) then after a poor Ofsted had to leave the school, then left the profession and is now a consultant. He could still be a head if he stayed in the cushy school - where is the incentive to take on a challenging school?

OP posts:
cantkeepawayforever · 07/05/2018 19:10

The story mentions that 1 in 10 Kent schools started the term without a headteacher

My guess that the vast majority, if not all, of those in the secondary sector would be the secondary moderns / non grammars...

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread