The document summarizes a roundtable discussion on accountability, regulation and leadership in the UK school system, where key figures explored visions and challenges. Participants agreed schools need autonomy but also robust local oversight held accountable by Ofsted. A coordinated inspection regime is needed for school groups to ensure effective governance, value for money, and educational outcomes regardless of school type or size.

1. accountability, regulation and
leadership in our school system
exploring a ten year vision

2. key figures at the roundtable
Mark Blois, (Chair), Partner and Head of Education
Browne Jacobson LLP
Paul Barber, Director
Catholic Education Service
Debbie Clinton, Board Member
Freedom and Autonomy for Schools - National Association
John Fowler, Policy Manager
Local Government Information Unit (LGiU)
Ty Goddard, Co-Founder
The Education Foundation
Hugh Greenway, Chief Executive
The Elliot Foundation Academies Trust
Ian Hickman, Chief Operating Officer
Northern Education Trust
Emma Knights, Chief Executive
National Governors’ Association
Nick MacKenzie, Partner
Browne Jacobson LLP
Fiona Millar
Writer and education journalist
Stephen Morales, Chief Executive
National Association of School Business Management
Lord James O’Shaughnessy
Floreat Education
Diana Owen, CBE, Chief Executive
L.E.A.D. Multi Academy Trust
Cathie Paine, Deputy Chief Executive
REAch2 Academy Trust
Simon Parkinson, Chief Executive
The Co-operative College
Malcolm Trobe, CBE, Interim General Secretary
Association of School & College Leaders

3. Accountability, regulation and leadership in our school system | contents page | 3
contents
About the roundtable...........................................................................
Introduction......................................................................................
Executive summary / key recommendations..............................................
Accountability and regulation................................................................
What does effective accountability look like?.......................................
Principles of system design.............................................................
Current challenges to an effective system...........................................
Solutions...................................................................................
Leadership.......................................................................................
What leaders do we need?..............................................................
Current challenges.......................................................................
Solutions...................................................................................
About Browne Jacobson......................................................................
4
6
8
10
10
12
13
15
18
18
19
21
23

4. Accountability, regulation and leadership in our school system | about the roundtable page | 4
This report reflects the thoughts and views that were introduced in a white paper Browne Jacobson issued in
preparation for the event and then developed at our roundtable. It puts forward a series of key recommendations
for further consideration by stakeholders on delivering an effective accountability and regulatory regime and about
what the sector needs to do to support the development of the next generation of leaders. In the report, where we
refer to the panel, we are referring to the attendees of the roundtable as a whole.
The content of this report does not reflect the views of any one individual who attended or the organisation they
represent. The information and opinions expressed in this report are no substitute for full legal advice, it is for
guidance only.
about the roundtable
Browne Jacobson would like to thank the key education sector stakeholders who attended our latest
roundtable discussion, chaired by Mark Blois, Head of Education at Browne Jacobson.
You are right to challenge us for a
ten year vision. We could draw it, we
could flip chart it but actually the
politics of education are incredibly
hard.
roundtable delegate
“
”

5. Accountability, regulation and leadership in our school system | about the roundtable page | 5

6. Accountability, regulation and leadership in our school system | introduction page | 6
When considering what an effective accountability and regulatory regime should look like, it is important to
start with who it needs to serve. Any education system must deliver to the needs of young people, their parents,
employers and the taxpayer.
In addition, the impact of globalisation on our school system continues to grow at pace. Whether it is through
improvements in the emerging nations’ education systems leading to high-skilled workers in low cost economies
or the development of new technologies that impact on the physical proximity of workers, the global stage
increasingly impacts on the job prospects for our school and university leavers. The importance of this is perhaps
best illustrated by the growing prominence of international comparisons of the world’s education systems.
introduction
Over the last 20 years our schools system has fundamentally changed, perhaps beyond recognition.
There is no doubt that schools, colleges and academies operate in an increasingly atomised sector.
Beyond, and indeed as part of, the creation of different ‘categories’ of schools, many strands of
accountability and regulation are in place, with even more on the horizon.
Against this backdrop:
• the Education White Paper, ‘Educational Excellence Everywhere’ published in March 2016, has signalled the
Government’s direction of travel and affirmed its desire to see a fully academised system
• the Education and Adoption Act 2016 received Royal Assent in April 2016. The Act now provides far greater
intervention powers for central government (albeit it is clear they will be exercised through the National School
Commissioner and his network of Regional School Commissioners (‘RSCs’) and their deputies)
• Ofsted continues to reign as the inspectorate for the state funded sector, reinvigorated with a new framework,
new inspectors and a focus on great leadership. However, the introduction of a system of RSCs quickly followed
by the expansion of their role has created confusion about the role of Ofsted, particularly in relation to driving
up education standards
• maintained schools remain under local authority control, yet we are witnessing the erosion of local authority
powers with a firm political agenda in favour of academisation, alongside a strengthened intervention role for
the Secretary of State
• academy trusts themselves, though formally regulated by the Education Funding Agency (‘EFA’), also find
themselves ultimately accountable to the Charity Commission and must adhere to their duties under company
law. We have seen the introduction of focused inspections for multi-academy trusts but without any formal
extension of Ofsted’s powers or a bespoke framework
• finally the recent education green paper demonstrates that the Government’s appetite for education reform
remains bold.

7. Accountability, regulation and leadership in our school system | introduction page | 7
Change is indeed inevitable but, in an already atomised sector, how can we achieve consistent and effective
accountability and regulation?
We hope that the publication of this report will stimulate further serious debate about the system of accountability
we will need in our schools system in the medium term, together with what the sector needs to do to support the
development of a next generation of leaders who are fit for purpose to lead our system in a post-Brexit world.
Mark Blois and Nick MacKenzie
Browne Jacobson LLP
September 2016

8. page | 8
executive summary / key recommendations
Our research, experience and discussions at the roundtable lead Browne Jacobson to make the
following observations and recommendations:
• schools and academies should be given as much
autonomy as possible but this needs to be supported
with robust local oversight (be that RSCs, local
authorities or a combination) which is, in turn, held
properly, competently and independently to account
by Ofsted. In addition, both Ofsted and schools will
need to have professional confidence in the ability
of that local oversight body to consistently make
judgements
• there needs to be a co-ordinated inspection
regime for school groups and multi-academy trusts
that assesses the effectiveness of the group both
educationally and organisationally. There are strong
arguments in favour of considering one regulator, and
for that to be an expanded and developed Ofsted, to
ensure that academy trusts deliver:
• effective governance and are operated in a
manner that is financially viable regardless of
size or complexity
• value for money for the public purse
• good or better educational outcomes.
• in order to deliver the potential of a self-improving
school system, the Government should provide
funding to enable the SIR to be sophisticated
enough to be able to look at, understand and
judge the effectiveness (both educationally and
organisationally) of different approaches rather than
regulate via a compliance model where there is a
tendency towards a ‘one size fits all approach’. This
upfront investment could well save the public purse
in the longer term
• the Government and the profession need to work
together to ensure that the public see teaching as a
high-quality and high-status profession. This must be
evidenced through actions and policies rather than
general statements
• the Government needs to provide support to allow
the sector to advance and deliver a leadership
development strategy which will bring together
a number of strands including formal training
and mentoring of new leaders. The strategy
fundamentally needs to address the size of the
challenge (in terms of numbers of leaders needed)
and therefore will need funding, focus and fostering.
This needs to be sector led but supported by
Government.
Accountability, regulation and leadership in our school system | executive summary / key recommendations
• the single independent regulator, whether it is Ofsted
or another body (the SIR), also needs to check the
effectiveness and efficacy of Government policy in
the way its policies are implemented in schools

9. page | 9Accountability, regulation and leadership in our school system | executive summary / key recommendations

10. page | 10
It was acknowledged by the panel that if we were
creating an accountability and regulatory structure
from scratch, we would not be starting in the place
we now find ourselves. Historically, policy has often
been implemented in an ad hoc way, with the relevant
Government tearing down old systems, adding new
layers and attempting to justify its reform. As one panel
member put it “What is very helpful to do is to think
about if we were starting afresh, what sort of system
would we create”.
When considering what an effective accountability
and regulatory regime should look like, it is important
to start with who it needs to serve. Any education
system must deliver to the needs of young people,
their parents, employers, the local community and the
taxpayer. With this in mind, there was consensus that
schools should be given as much autonomy as possible
but that this needs to be supported with robust local
oversight which is, in turn, held properly, competently
and independently to account (by both Ofsted and
schools).
The panel discussed the role of ‘legitimacy’ within
any system of accountability; in the words of one
panel member “legitimacy is an incredibly important
concept”. The panel felt that legitimacy in the system
is critical and this legitimacy must be delivered in the
eyes of all stakeholders. Legitimacy in this context is
provided in part by law but also through competence,
independence and integrity.
The panel identified that it is also important to balance
the inevitable tension between accountability and
autonomy. Schools are part of their communities and
therefore it is important, on a local level, not to
completely disempower parents and children but to
strike the right balance between representation and
skills on school boards. Schools need a place in their
communities and this balance is critical to retaining
this. The panel’s discussion also touched on the
importance of remembering that the local community is
more than just parents.
accountability and regulation
What does effective accountability look like?
Accountability, regulation and leadership in our school system | accountability and regulation
What is very useful to do is to think about if we
were starting afresh, what sort of system would we
create?
roundtable delegate
“
”

11. Accountability, regulation and leadership in our school system | accountability and regulation page | 11
Arguably, at its simplest, there are two key ingredients to effective accountability in a state funded schools
system; educational performance and effective use of public funds. With regard to the latter, the panel were
keen to discuss the perception that efficiency amounts to cost-cutting and argued that where this arises it should
be replaced with a more sophisticated approach. In public sector terms, the correct phrase to use is ‘value for
money’. Perhaps the best explanation of this comes from the National Audit Office (‘NAO’) through its work.
The NAO uses the three ‘Es’ to assess whether spending represents “the optimal use of resources to achieve the
intended outcomes”. These are:
Ofsted’s role is more than acting as an inspector; its wider value can easily be, and is often, overlooked. Ofsted
has played a constructive role in taking a step back and taking a longitudinal view as to what is happening. For
example, a panel member cited Ofsted’s ‘Unseen Children’ report which looked back over 20 years to provide a
view to really challenge the entire system at a sector level on access to education and closing the achievement
gap. This type of review and analysis will be particularly relevant in an increasingly academised system.
Additionally, in a confusing system, there needs to be the ability to identify what is good practice or ‘areas of
promise’.
• “economy: minimising the cost of resources used or required (inputs) – spending less
• efficiency: the relationship between the output from goods or services and the resources to produce
them – spending well
• effectiveness: the relationship between the intended and actual results of public spending (outcomes) –
spending wisely.”

12. Accountability, regulation and leadership in our school system | accountability and regulation page | 12
Principles of system design
• a non-political and expert body to regulate and
inspect, which has the acceptance of both the
public and professionals
• even-handed accountability (regardless of type of
school, geography, size)
• clarity of roles between the different ‘actors’ within
the framework
• a body that checks the effectiveness and efficacy of
Government policy, in the way it is implemented in
schools
• strong and co-ordinated voice of the educator
• understanding the difference between efficiency
and effectiveness
• a body capable of looking at, understanding and
judging the effectiveness of the ‘corporate centre’
of school groups
• ability to understand and effectively regulate for
vulnerable groups
• a body that, once it has diagnosed a problem,
understands what and how long it will take to
address that problem and then, with appropriate
safeguards on checking progress, allows
organisations sufficient time to make the necessary
improvements
• a body or bodies that have demonstrable
consistency of ability to make judgements
• a body that resists both a ‘one size fits all approach’
and ‘compliance model’. The body should be
sophisticated enough to be able to look at,
understand and judge the effectiveness of different
approaches
• in a self-improving school system, the accountability
and regulatory regime should be flexible and
sophisticated enough to let excellence emerge from
the school system itself.
The panel discussed key elements of an effective system and touched on a range of core elements that need to be
present in an effective system, including:

13. Accountability, regulation and leadership in our school system | accountability and regulation page | 13
As identified in the introduction, our schools system has over the last 20 years fundamentally changed, perhaps
beyond recognition. There is no doubt that schools, colleges and academies operate in an increasingly atomised
sector. It is clear that we are only part way through the delivery of current reforms and therefore it is important
to take a longer term view as to what accountability structures will be needed once the current reforms are fully
implemented.
In the words of one panel member, “we are living in a period of unintended consequences”. With the system still
in a state of flux, part way through significant structural changes, this also places pressure on existing regulatory
bodies structures such as Ofsted, whilst also presenting significant challenges for the emerging new bodies such as
the RSCs and Head Teacher Boards. There was a real feeling amongst the panel that the regulatory system schools
face “is not joined up at the moment”. One panel member felt that “there is lack of clarity about who does what
and who has the responsibility… who is making the judgements”.
The system currently provides for the National School Commissioner and the group of RSCs supported by Head
Teacher Boards (‘HTBs’) to have an integral role in the accountability of schools. A glance in the direction of future
policy indicates that their role will only strengthen, whilst the parts that local authorities and, arguably, Ofsted
have to play will be simultaneously eroded. Previously, it was Ofsted’s role to ‘diagnose’ and the local authority’s
role to ‘arrange treatment’. In moving to a structure where the local authorities role is reduced and RSCs appear
involved in both diagnosis and treatment, there is a blurring of responsibilities which is causing confusion for
schools and weakening the effectiveness of the system overall. Whilst policy makers may argue that the roles are
distinct and clear, the panel felt this is not a view shared by many schools, parents and other stakeholders.
The relationship between Ofsted and the RSCs is something that the Department for Education (DFE) has felt the
need to clarify. It states on its website:
“Ofsted is responsible for inspecting and reporting on the quality of education that schools provide. RSCs
decide whether intervention is necessary based on Ofsted’s inspection results and accountability measures for
school performance. The RSCs work with the relevant Ofsted regional directors to make sure that appropriate
information is shared.”
Current challenges to an effective system
There is lack of clarity about who does what and who has the responsibility...
who is making the judgements.
roundtable delegate
“
”

14. Accountability, regulation and leadership in our school system | accountability and regulation page | 14
On the surface this is straightforward enough. The RSCs are of course not responsible for inspection and they
commission others to actually deliver intervention work. However, perhaps the heart of the question lies in that
phrase “…and accountability measures for school performance”. Yes, Ofsted grades still matter but much of the
Government’s agenda suggests a step away from reliance on Ofsted’s judgements. We have seen this, for example,
in the introduction of ‘coasting schools’. A coasting school will be subject to intervention from its RSC but its Ofsted
grade will be of no relevance in triggering this intervention. Equally, when addressing its mission to improve the
designation of system leaders in the White Paper, the Government is clear that it wants to rely on data, not Ofsted
judgements.
There appears to be some signs of a shift whereby policy is not being created in reaction to Ofsted’s findings
but rather the role of Ofsted is being moulded to fit the system that the Government wishes to create (which is
increasingly driven by RSCs). ‘Turf-war’ may be too strong a phrase but an undercurrent of tension between the
responsibilities of Ofsted and the Regional School Commissioners appears evident as schools become increasingly
answerable to the RSCs.
The RSC role has already attracted plenty of commentary and speculation on matters such as capacity, KPIs
and independence. However, there is arguably a wider point which feeds into the hurdles we must overcome to
build something better, and that is one of legitimacy. While most educationalists would readily identify Ofsted’s
imperfections, they would also be likely to agree that it is a body which legitimately fulfils its clear functions and
does so with integrity and transparency. In contrast, there was a view amongst the panel that there appears to be a
genuine lack of public acceptance towards both the RSCs and the EFA. This may be attributable (whether in whole
or in part) to their novelty, their intrinsic link to politicians or the turbulence associated with the speed of recent
reform.
In the last five years, we have witnessed the creation and expansion of hundreds of multi-academy trusts, yet there
remains an air of suspicion, particularly around large groups. We have seen the introduction of focused inspections
for multi-academy trusts but without any formal extension of Ofsted’s powers or a bespoke framework. There was
deep concern amongst the panel that the inspection regime for multi-academy trusts is opaque and disconnected
in terms of bringing together inspection of the organisation as a whole; in that neither Ofsted (as inspectorate) nor
the EFA (as regulator) properly understand the associated governance arrangements or are currently capable of
judging corporate effectiveness. There was also concern that the system was in a position where the regulators are
overly-dependent on the multi-academy trusts themselves to provide answers on how that system should operate.
The part that local authorities will have to play in school accountability may be easier to predict once we arrive at
a fully academised system. However, the route towards this could continue to create a confusing picture locally.
The White Paper and the subsequent proposed legislation providing that all schools in poorly performing authorities
will have to convert will inevitably mean that some authorities will no longer maintain any schools whereas in
others they will still maintain schools.
We are living in a period of
unintended consequences.
“
”
roundtable delegate

15. page | 15Accountability, regulation and leadership in our school system | accountability and regulation
The Government explains its intention to transfer responsibility for school improvement away from local authorities
as resolving an existing problem of conflict. Local authorities should be acting as “champions for all parents and
families”, challenging school providers to deliver better outcomes, rather than being the accountable providers of
education themselves. Given the rate of academy conversion in some geographical areas, is this dynamic actually
already at play to some degree in certain places?
The concept of local authorities being ‘champions’ for parents is an interesting one and reminds us that an
education system must deliver to the needs of parents and young people. In addition, one panel member
commented that the “rhetoric around maintained schools and academies hasn’t always been even handed. That is
very debilitating if you are trying to build a system of trust”.
Finally, the panel felt that the pace of change and reform needs to be acknowledged as putting significant
additional strain on the system. In moving forwards, developments and changes must be done sympathetically to
the pace and realities of reform.
The rhetoric around maintained schools and academies
hasn’t always been even handed. That is very debilitating
if you are trying to build a system of trust.
roundtable delegate
“
”
Solutions
The panel identified that in some respects, leaving aside the drive for a fully academised system, the recent
education White Paper did pursue the concept of system integration, for example in its ideas around teaching
schools. However, there was a feeling amongst the panel that there needs to be a concerted effort to develop
further system integration. One panel member expressed unease about a lack of integration and a concern that
“critically losing these channels of communication and trust into, for instance, child protection, after school
activities, community use …”.
The panel discussed the need for certainty on who is making what judgements. The body making judgements
needs to be well-equipped and capable of assessing corporate effectiveness across a diverse range of providers and
situations. Crucially, it needs to be, and remain, independent. If that body is to be Ofsted, the panel felt it needs
support to protect its integrity and independence.

16. Accountability, regulation and leadership in our school system | accountability and regulation page | 16
The panel discussed the question raised by one panel member “who is going to regulate, inspect and monitor the
quality of the centre?” In particular, the panel identified that it was of critical importance to solve the issue of
how the system assesses ‘corporate effectiveness at the centre of multi-academy trusts’. In particular, there was
a general recognition that external audits alone cannot be relied on to deliver this. There was broad consensus
amongst the panel that there is a pressing need for a proper inspection regime for multi-academy trusts, both
educationally and organisationally. This is vital to enable trust amongst all those whom the system must serve.
From an educational oversight perspective, the panel identified that the existing regime of ‘focused inspections’
must be built upon and developed so that the inspectorate has an expert understanding of what is working and
what may not be working in a multi-academy trust structure (regardless of its size) and that leaders within a
multi-academy trust can work to an identifiable and informed framework which goes beyond the contents of the
Academies Financial Handbook.
From an organisational oversight perspective the panel identified that there needs to be a clear decision as to
who is doing that role and then there needs to be investment in supporting that body become fit for purpose
to effectively deliver that role. As part of the preparation for taking on that role there also needs to be the
development of stakeholder confidence in the ability of the body to carry out the role. A number of the panel were
in favour of Ofsted taking on this role whilst also recognising that it would need support and training to be able
to carry it out effectively. In the words of one of the panel “I’ll trust their [Ofsted’s] judgements. They are not
perfect but there is a consistency of ability to make judgements to look at the context of children”. This was a
sentiment echoed by other panel members.
The panel also discussed that if both the EFA and Ofsted are to continue to exist, a proper infrastructure needs
to be put in place to enable them to work together more effectively. However, a long-term aim would be to bring
together the different core aspects required by having one regulator to ensure that academy trusts deliver:
• effective governance and are operated in a manner that
is financially viable regardless of size or complexity
• value for money for the public purse
• good or better educational outcomes.
The discussion also identified that the role of RSCs also need to be factored in. If the EFA and the RSCs are to play
effective roles, the panel felt there is clearly work to be done to convince stakeholders of their legitimacy and in
defining roles and communicating that clearly with all stakeholders.
Whoever carries out a regulatory role it will be important to safeguard against, what some panel members
identified as, the ‘tendency of bureaucracy’ to standardise approach so that regulators can specify that every
organisation should look the same in order that the regulators understand what they are looking at so they can then
carry out their regulatory duties. A standardised approach is a material counter-weight to the founding philosophy
of academies, autonomy and a self- improving system. This is clearly a significant challenge laid down by the panel.
To deliver it arguably requires a well-resourced and sophisticated regulator but it is likely to be a very important
feature of an effective system of the future (where that system is built on the principle of a self-improving system).

17. Accountability, regulation and leadership in our school system | accountability and regulation page | 17
There was a feeling from within the panel that in
a self-improving system the Government should
transfer as much as possible of the regulatory and
accountability role to independent bodies free of
political influence. The move in the Academies Act
2010 to treat academies as exempt charities where
the Secretary of State for Education is the ‘Principal
Regulator’ of academies under charity law, rather than
as charities registered with the Charities Commission
(as was the case with early academies) was seen by
some as a missed opportunity to add helpful oversight,
in terms of corporate governance. There is clearly a
decision for Government on whether to invest within
its existing agencies to support effective regulation and
accountability or to provide resources to enable bodies
such as the Charities Commission to play a future active
role in regulating academy trusts.
The phrase ‘supported autonomy’ is a noticeably
new phrase that is being used by policy makers; it
was used ten times in the White Paper, ‘Educational
Excellence Everywhere’. It means “strengthening
the infrastructure that supports all schools and their
leaders to collaborate effectively”. However, there
can also clearly be a connotation of rapid intervention
when things go wrong and it relies heavily on increased
capacity within schools themselves. The concept of
‘supported autonomy’ however is an interesting one
which was picked up by the panel, both at system level
and school or school group level. Whether you refer to
‘legitimacy’ or ‘trust’, at both levels it must be present
throughout the system.
Finally and significantly, members of the panel were
concerned about system oversight of education for
children with special educational needs and disabilities.
With current spending at circa £5-6 billion per annum,
it is in danger of being overlooked as a relatively small
part of the overall education budget. However, it was
discussed within the panel that there needs to be
immediate action to consider the approach that will be
needed to deliver effective accountability for the high
needs expenditure because of the additional complexity
that sits behind the delivery of SEN education. It was
felt that the system needed to act now to consider what
this will look like in an academised system in order to
protect the most vulnerable young people.
Supported autonomy means strengthening the infrastructure that
supports all schools and their leaders to collaborate effectively.
roundtable delegate
“
”

18. Accountability, regulation and leadership in our school system | leadership page | 18
leadership
What leaders do we need?
Supported autonomy relies intrinsically on strong
leaders. In order to deliver the current vision as outlined
in the White Paper, the panel agreed finding and keeping
high-quality school leaders was essential. There was
consensus within the panel that the requirement for
strong leaders extended beyond schools and school
groups and into for example RSCs (although the panel’s
discussion mainly focused on the former). One panel
member argued that there was a “failure of imagination
for us to split [leadership roles] into education and
back office; it isn’t that simple”. Building on the
theme of part one, it was felt the strands of education
and organisational leadership needed to be addressed
through ‘organisational design’.
There is no doubt that current reforms mean that the
sector is rethinking how it leads teaching and learning.
The promotion of a self-improving system and initiatives
such as the teaching school programme have
already created momentum here. Critically, with the
rise of academy groups, the sector is tackling what
approaches are needed to provide:
The panel agreed it will be increasingly important
for academy groups to consider a move away from
traditional leadership models. Distributed leadership
has seen rising prominence within the the sector
recently and has its roots in education. Evidence
suggests it can contribute to school improvement and
pupil achievement, not least by generating capacity.
Does shared influence and mobilising leadership at all
levels offer a sensible answer? If so, how do we create
the right conditions for this model to be successful?
• leadership within a school
• leadership across a group of schools
• leadership across the sector.
An arguable advantage of distributed leadership is the
shift in focus away from the characteristics of an
individual leader. In a world of developing multi-
academy trusts (MATs), we frequently see the identity
of a particular leader enshrined in an organisation’s
identity. Charismatic leaders may have launched many
a successful MAT but this can place great challenges on
the task of succession planning.
Whilst there was a feeling that MATs provided a good
development group for future leaders by providing a
tight-knit group of schools, there was concern within
the panel about those not in MATs. This clearly needs to
be addressed.
It will also be important to tie in thinking here with
career options and career pathways. The Education
Select Committee considered this in 2012 in its report
‘Great teachers: attracting, training and retaining the
best’. In particular, its report noted “Our inquiry also
heard numerous arguments in favour of more structured
career progression opportunities for teachers, in
particular for those who do not want to become school
leaders.” The Committee’s report then described the
Singapore model’s three career ‘tracks’:
• Teacher Track (Senior Teacher through to
Principal Master Teacher)
• Leadership Track (Subject/Level Head through
to Director General of Education)
• Senior Specialist Track (Senior Specialist
through to Chief Specialist).
A key feature of the approach is the ability to move at
different points between tracks.

19. Accountability, regulation and leadership in our school system | leadership page | 19
Current challenges
There was a general consensus amongst the panel that “there is a need to address the deficit we have currently got
in terms of preparing people for executive leadership roles and to establish the pipeline that is coming through”.
In an era of ‘System Trusts’ (Sir David Carter, the National School Commissioner’s vision for those trusts managing
more than 30 academies), the type of leaders required will surely change. Members of the panel were also keen
to emphasise that with the size of the school system (over 20,000 schools) it is important not to forget the small
schools or small groups.
It was recognised by the panel that it is probably fair to say that most people who are now in leadership roles began
their professional life as teachers, and moved into leadership and shifted away from the classroom (particularly in
secondary). The growth of academy groups means it is increasingly likely that future leaders will also be recruited
from outside of the sector. The panel also discussed that the traditional model of a substantive head teacher for
each school or academy is also coming under increasing pressure; there has been a rise in the number of executive
head teachers for many years and now we are increasingly seeing academy groups (and not just chains) looking at
regional models of leadership and governance. The panel expressed a broad range of differing opinions about the
future for small schools, (less than 400) operated outside MATs or groups. What the panel were in agreement on
was that the system was “very wedded to the concept of a school being a building, no matter how many kids it has
in it and that building has a headteacher” and that we needed to be far more visionary about how we use a hard
pressed education budget to deliver the best outcomes for pupils.
There is an increasing conflict between the need for a leader of systems and a leader of pedagogy. Many
outstanding head teachers do not have the capacity, ability or desire to become, in the words of the Academies
Financial Handbook, ‘senior executive leaders’. Running a successful school can look very different to running a
successful multi-academy trust and some would even go as far as to say that the head teacher role for a small
primary will no longer exist in ten years. One panel member felt the speed of these reforms is currently “out of
kilter with the maturity of the workforce”.

20. Accountability, regulation and leadership in our school system | leadership page | 20
It was also recognised by the panel that some current ‘head teachers-in-training’ have never been outside a multi-
academy trust but, equally, some people have not had the luxury of growing within a multi-academy trust and
enter it afresh which can create its own challenges.
The numbers of schools now operating as part of multi-academy trusts has increased substantially over recent
years although many are still within small groups. In July 2016, there were 973 multi-academy trusts (although 681
of them operated three or less academies). The latest version of the Academies Financial Handbook is seemingly
uncompromising in setting out the requirements for multi-academy trusts to appoint a chief executive officer and a
chief financial officer. The scale on which many multi-academy trusts are starting to operate also means that having
expert HR, IT and procurement personnel within the organisation is vital. Some schools may be able to make use of
existing school business managers and support development initially. However, as the trust develops and becomes a
larger multi-academy trust, the role and complexity of the tasks faced become more complex requiring new skills.
Indeed, some panel members felt that in ten years’ time, there is unlikely to be any call for the ‘school business
manager’ as we currently know it. The recruitment need for such skilled individuals is becoming obvious but, to
date, does not appear to have attracted any real engagement from ministers.
The teacher recruitment crisis is well-publicised and evidence suggests it is attributable to both a shortage of
applicants and an increase in the number of teachers leaving the profession. There is a concern that becoming a
leader means abandoning the classroom and relationships with students. Add this into the mix with the challenges
of the role itself means leaders of the future will have to balance the scale of the job and stress of the regulatory
regime schools and academies operate in. However, as one panel member put it “screwing down the same screws”
is not going to work when the risk associated with being a leader is now so much more palpable.
The state of the problem is
you need to find 1500 CEOs and
1500 FDs in a more or less fully
academised system.
“
”
roundtable delegate

21. Accountability, regulation and leadership in our school system | leadership page | 21
The role of Government is
to invest in system changes.
roundtable delegate
“
”
Solutions
A key aspect of the challenge is to be visionary and resist the temptation to focus too much, in terms of resources
on trying to implement solutions to address the current reality, without also looking far enough ahead to ensure a
co-ordinated plan is in place that is fit for the future. Developing leaders is not a short process.
Our current leaders have had to react to significant Government reforms with a substantial number of CEOs having
not only to ‘learn on the job’ but to do so at a time when the job and its scale is constantly changing. Now is the
time to set out a clearer plan at sector level as to how future leaders will be supported and developed. Whilst
many MATs understand that they need a leadership development strategy, there is now a pressing need for a sector
driven leadership development strategy. The panel strongly felt that this strategy “has to be sector led but we do
need Government to get behind that effort”.
Fundamentally, the panel agreed that the sector needed to take the lead but because of the nature of the
challenge, it was vital that Government played its proper role in supporting system change. To date the
Government has provided, in the words of one panel member, “warm words but nothing systematic”.
Critically, this means that at some point the Government is going to have to provide meaningful financial support
to back the sector’s efforts. This is particularly important when you consider the squeeze on school finances that
will inevitably fall on some schools with the implementation of a fair funding model. It is also crucial that the
Government takes this seriously with a proper plan for delivery, including KPIs. The current reactive arrangements
and comments in the White Paper, in the eyes of some panel members, “feel amateurish”. Ultimately, in terms of
professional development, the system cannot just be left to work itself out; it needs funding, focus and fostering.
The panel felt that the demand is for leaders who inspire both the community and the organisation, but
determining the “DNA of those leaders” is a tricky task. Some common themes did emerge from the panel
including:
• CEOs that are the “servant of headteachers, not
the master of them”
• individuals with “tremendous peripheral vision”
• individuals that are comfortable to make the best
use of “freedom within boundaries”.

22. Accountability, regulation and leadership in our school system | leadership page | 22
When it comes to identifying where different types of leaders and wider experts are going to come from, members
of the panel felt there may need to be room to challenge the assumption that CEOs must have an education
background. The view of the panel was that between the CEO and CFO role, a business background is required but
perhaps the sector can be more creative than a simple black and white split.
In terms of the organic development of these future leaders, which is where many schools will need to start, the
panel recognised the advantage of the multi-academy trust structure is that there is more flexibility to retain
quality personnel. However, as well as feeding ambitious staff with opportunities, schools must remember that the
inevitable stresses and strains of the job mean a career priority for many individuals’ today is often not status but
just working in a supportive environment. The panel felt there may be scope to reflect on practices in the private
sector, in terms of recognition of ‘excellent employers’ and ‘best places to work’.
The high stakes nature of the current landscape may be seen by some as deterring talented future leaders
from taking up key roles. Others may well argue that it is the perfect breeding ground for developing those
individuals with the right skills needed. What is clear is that the issues discussed in part one at our roundtable on
regulation and accountability clearly have a symbiotic relationship in terms of addressing the sector leadership
issues.
The National Standards of Excellence for head teachers outline the high standards which are applicable
within a self-improving school system. Designed to inspire public confidence in leaders and secure high
academic standards, they can be interpreted in the context of each individual leader and school, and are
designed to be relevant to all head teachers, irrespective of length of service in post. It is of course, not
compulsory to apply these standards, they can be used by head teachers to shape their own practice and
professional development, by governors to support recruitment or to provide a framework for training middle
and senior leaders, aspiring to headship. This probably does not go far enough and perhaps they should become
compulsory to support wider public confidence.
Finally, there was recognition right across the panel that a key starting point is to ensure that teaching is seen as a
high quality and high status profession. The National College of Teaching clearly has a role to play here. However,
to achieve this, it is critical that Government and the sector genuinely work together to deliver public confidence
in regulatory bodies, school leaders and the examination system.

23. • academy conversions and projects
• academy sponsorships and MATs
• admissions and admissions appeals
• behaviour and exclusions
• child protection and safeguarding
• commercial contracts law
• construction and capital projects
• data protection and information sharing
• employment and human resources
• forced academisation and school interventions
• fraud
• free schools
• governance
• health and safety
• immigration in education
• inquests
• insurance and RPA
• intellectual property
• land and buildings
• procurement
• school collaborations
• special educational needs and disability
• trading companies.
Browne Jacobson is a top UK 50 law firm offering a unique
collection of specialisms across the commercial, public,
health and insurance sectors. We have offices in Birmingham,
Exeter, London, Manchester and Nottingham and are
committed to being a quality, relationship-led business.
With over 40 specialist lawyers and HR consultants, we have one
of the largest education teams in the country. Our
multi-disciplinary team is independently recognised as an award
winning and leading provider of legal and HR services to over
1,000 education organisations from our five office network,
including independent and maintained schools, academies and
their sponsors, further education colleges, diocesan boards of
education, local authorities, regulatory bodies, educational
charities, universities and professional associations.
We are also one of a small elite group of law firms that
are ranked in Band One nationally for education by both
independent legal directories, Chambers & Partners and Legal
500.
As a full service law firm, we can provide advice and assistance
on:
about browne jacobson...
Accountability, regulation and leadership in our school system | about Browne Jacobson page | 23
© Browne Jacobson LLP 2016 – The information
contained in this report is and shall remain the
property of Browne Jacobson.
Mark Blois
Partner
mark.blois@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)115 976 6087
Nick MacKenzie
Partner
nick.mackenzie@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)121 237 4564
Katie Michelon
Associate
katie.michelon@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)115 976 6189
Leading national education
practice, with significant
experience advising on academic
issues.
Chambers & Partners 2016
“
”

24. Birmingham | Exeter | London | Manchester | Nottingham
www.brownejacobson.com/education
0370 270 6000