School improvement seems straightforward…
Raise expectations, tighten behaviour, improve teaching, track the data and hold people to account…
But is it that simple?
This model sounds obvious, and it’s not that these strategies are wrong – in fact, most are necessary. However, there is something important to remember – we are working with a community of people. In most cases, it isn’t as simple as ‘pull the right levers and outcomes improve’. This is why improvement strategies can look impressive for a year or two, but the long-term reality is very different.
Why this matters now
The Curriculum and Assessment Review aims to create a system that delivers “excellence for all”, and SEND reform promises earlier, fairer, more consistent support. Genuine school improvement is vital if, collectively, we are to turn national ambition into local reality.
Leaders who get things done
One of the key elements of implementation of any policy is effective leadership – we need leaders who get things done. Daniel Goleman’s Leadership That Gets Results offers a useful lesson. He identifies six leadership styles:
- Pacesetting – sets high standards for performance
- Coercive – demands compliance
- Authoritative – mobilises people towards a vision
- Affiliative – creates harmony and builds emotional bonds
- Democratic – forges consensus through participation
- Coaching – develops people for the future
He makes the point (which is sometimes missed) that effective leaders do not have one style. Instead, they use several, choosing the right approach at the right time.
Leaders who default to the first two of these styles sound impressive. Pacesetting leaders talk about pace, standards, and leading by example. Similarly, the coercive style looks decisive, talks about ‘no excuses’ and describe how they always get things done. In the short term, in certain circumstances (for example, a school that is really struggling), these approaches can help ‘turn things around’. However, in the long term they can exhaust people. They can secure compliance, but rarely secure commitment.
Goleman found that the impact of the last four styles on this list (Authoritative, Affiliative, Democratic and Coaching) had generally positive impacts on the long-term on the climate and success of an organisation. Unfortunately, leaders who talk about bringing people with them, describing emotional safety and considering relationships can sound far less compelling and dynamic than other leaders. However, in the long term, these are the people who empower their colleagues, build effective organisations and actually get things done over the longer term.
Hill, Mellon, Laker and Goddard’s research into UK school leaders makes a similar point. They describe five types of school leader:
- Surgeons – cut quickly to reinvest in raising exam results
- Soldiers – tighten finances and systems
- Accountants – grow income, without necessarily reinvesting this in front-line services
- Philosophers – debate values and educational strategies
- Architects – redesign systems, build capacity and transform the community it serves.
Of these, only Architects create lasting improvement. This is often still evident long after they have left the school.
The same researchers advise against bringing in a ‘Super Head’ – a turnaround leader. When in post, things often look impressive, but as soon as they leave there are often financial and educational costs in putting things right.
When school improvement isn’t improvement
There is of course the uncomfortable truth – not all school improvement is genuine improvement.
There are many historic anecdotes about schools improving its headline results by narrowing the curriculum. These schools then struggled to embed the wider curriculum effectively when this fell under the spotlight, despite the national curriculum having been in place for 5 years or more. This can skew headline outcomes for a school but lead to children leaving with fewer options than they may have otherwise had.
There are school leaders who chose qualifications that were perceived as easier for children to pass. However, not all these qualifications had value. This looks great for the school, less so for the children who leave it.
FFT Education Datalab recently reported on SEND ‘magnet schools’. The flip side of this that some children, including those with greater needs, are (anecdotally) discouraged from attending their local school, because ‘their needs will be met better elsewhere’. This leads to perceived improvement through ‘curating the cohort’, rather than actually making anything better.
These are all just examples of ‘smoke and mirrors’ improvement. Nothing much is better from a child’s point of view. They give the illusion of improvement with little effort.
Why does this happen?
Genuine, authentic school improvement takes time, investment and patience to implement well. However, authentic school improvement works. It makes a positive difference to the lives of young people.
This is especially relevant to pupils with SEND. The suggested reforms ask mainstream schools to become more inclusive, while leaders are managing rising complexity, stretched budgets and workforce pressure.
Inclusion is not just a poster on the wall. Instead, it is meaningful support for pupils, training for teachers, better communication with parents, careful curriculum design, and access to specialist support when needed. This builds staff confidence and parental trust and improves pupils’ experiences. This also requires significant investment, without which, “inclusive practice” becomes just another phrase in a strategy document. It needs to become the lived experience for pupils everywhere, helping them to stay in education, achieve meaningful qualifications and be ready for a life beyond school.
The same is true of curriculum reform. A better curriculum is not simply a better curriculum plan or intent document. It requires teachers who understand both the curriculum, and how to teach it so that they can implement it well. It requires assessment that helps pupils improve. It requires leaders who protect time for the learning that matters.
So, what does authentic school improvement look like?
Firstly, it requires effective leadership – authoritative, not authoritarian. As Goleman says, the authoritative leader says, “Come with me.” They provide direction, purpose and coherence. It implies trust in teachers, something that is very valuable to build.
Second, it is focused on what is really needed. It requires foresight to know what is coming over the horizon, and insight to know what is really happening, what really matters and what really needs to change to make things better.
A third element is building capacity through training and coaching. This is not a bolt-on extra, but an integral part of improvement as it improves the knowledge, decisions and actions of leaders and teachers. Done well, this connects with wider school leadership and teaching research.
The strongest leaders improve teaching indirectly by shaping culture, developing people and creating the conditions in which good work becomes normal. They build an organisation that can keep improving without them – a self-improving school.
That is why the Architect metaphor is so powerful. Architects do not just decorate the front and inside of the building. They ensure that the foundations are secure and that the load-bearing walls are up to the job. They think about future use and whether the structure will stand and be useful long after they have gone.
Authentic improvement is not the school that shines briefly while the leader is watching. It is the school that keeps improving when they are not.
Further reading:
- Goleman, D. (2000) Leadership That Gets Results. Harvard Business Review.
- Hill, A., Mellon, L., Laker, B. & Goddard, J. (2016) The One Type of Leader Who Can Turn Around a Failing School. Harvard Business Review.
- Hill, A., Mellon, L., Laker, B. & Goddard, J. (2017) Research: How the Best School Leaders Create Enduring Change. Harvard Business Review.
- Leithwood, K., Harris, A. & Hopkins, D. (2008) Seven Strong Claims about Successful School Leadership. School Leadership & Management.
- Fullan, M. (2011) Choosing the Wrong Drivers for Whole System Reform. Centre for Strategic Education.
- Robinson, V. (2011) Student-Centred Leadership. Jossey-Bass.
- Day, C. et al. (2010) 10 Strong Claims about Successful School Leadership. National College for School Leadership.
