1. SCHOOLS WEEK14 @SCHOOLSWEEK FRIDAY, JULY 3, 2015
Figures suggest governors have a gender
bias when they appoint headteachers. So
what happens when they don’t have a say?
I
have written before about the apparent
gender bias among some governing
bodies that contributes to women being
significantly under-represented in headship.
So I was interested to see what would happen
when we took governors out of the equation
in recruiting headship-ready leaders for the
Talented Leaders programme.
The results were fascinating: 44.8 per cent
of applicants were women and 45 per cent of
those who were successful in the selection
process were women.
My conclusion is that there is much we can
learn about female leaders’ ambitions and
the likelihood of them being realised when
governors’ preconceptions about who makes a
good headteacher are eliminated.
That women are almost as likely to apply to
the programme as men challenges the notion
that women aren’t up for headship. Although
44.8 per cent is still well below the proportion
of women in the teaching workforce, it
proves there are plenty still willing to take on
headship – including as part of a programme
that commits them to relocating to where their
leadership is needed most.
And, instead of meeting a governing board
that might have outdated views about the
“right man” for the job, those who applied
met a robust selection process designed
to minimise interviewer bias. None of the
applicants got an easy ride.
It began with a written application and
a number of essays that applicants used to
evidence their track-record as an effective
senior leader or head. Following that,
successful applicants were put through a
rigorous five-part technical selection process,
designed with the Association of School and
College Leaders to emulate the activities used
by governing boards.
They also had to complete a two-hour
interview looking for evidence of the
competencies that research from the Future
Leaders Trust and Hay Group suggests are
the best indicators of leadership potential.
The profile of the assessors that we used is
also important; experienced heads, former
heads, coaches and accredited behavioural
interviewers. Each underwent demanding
training and their assessments were subject
to quality assurance. Each candidate was
evaluated by a different assessor for each
task, based on a clear set of competencies
that defined, in advance, what a successful
candidate would say or do on each activity.
The judgments were then brought together
to triangulate the candidates’ performance
across the day, based on objective evidence.
Using different assessors for every candidate
diminished the risk that any one assessor’s
biases (and we all have them, whether
conscious of them or not) led to applicants
being penalised unfairly, with subjective
opinion challenged and disregarded in the
final “wash-up” discussion. Finally, individual
assessors did not know the success bar,
ensuring that no one could engineer a pass or
fail through their scoring.
The result was that male and female
applicants were equally successful. That those
that made it through have been snapped up
by schools in the programme is an external
validation of the process. Women make up
two-thirds of those matched to schools so far.
Talented Leaders is still in its early days.
Many of our heads don’t take up post
until September but some, such as Nadia
Paczuska, Craig D’Cunha and Christine
Woods, are already making a difference to the
children and communities they serve. All are
committed to spending at least three years in
the schools they are appointed to.
It should perhaps be no surprise that
women fared so well. In the past three years,
female applicants to the Future Leaders
programme – our accelerated headship
programme, which uses similar selection
methods – have outperformed men. Sixty-
five per cent of this year’s cohort are women.
The contrast between these figures and those
of the national workforce are an interesting
illustration of what happens when an objective
selection process is used.
Talented Leaders recruits exceptional
school leaders and matches them with
schools struggling to recruit a headteacher.
Apply now or contact The Future Leaders
Trust if your school is looking for a great
headteacher: bit.ly/talentedleaders-sw.
It can be daunting, but academy
trustees are legally bound to understand
the financial position of their school.
Read on . . .
A
cademy trust finances continue to be
a hot topic and a concern to many of
those responsible for them.
The board of trustees, or governors, shoulder
this crucial obligation and must ensure
academy funds are used in accordance with
the law, its articles of association, funding
agreement and the Academies Financial
Handbook (AFH).
This can be daunting, particularly for
anyone with minimal financial knowledge.
Inexperienced trustees often ask: “How do I
know if the trust’s financial position is at risk?”,
“do we have enough money?” and “are we
within budget?”.
It is useful for anyone interested in schools
more broadly to understand, too.
So here begins the learning.
The net current assets of an academy trust
are an area that trustees should be monitoring
to give them comfort that the trust is in a
sound financial position. These are essentially
its “working capital”, the funds with which it
can survive on a day-to-day basis.
Net current assets, which can be found on
the trust’s balance sheet, consist of debtors;
cash at bank and in hand; creditors due within
one year.
As this figure starts to decrease, the more
likely it is that the trust will struggle to meet its
day-to-day liabilities and continue “trading”.
Comparative figures should be placed
alongside the current position in reporting
packs provided to trustees by the finance team.
These help with monitoring progress and
questioning effectively any fluctuations.
In addition, using the working capital ratio
(current assets/current liabilities) helps to
indicate whether the trust has enough short-
term assets to cover its short-term debt. Many
believe that a ratio of 1.2 assets to 2.0 of debt is
sufficient. Anything above 2.0 would indicate
the trust is not investing its excess assets –
unless, of course, it is building funds to spend
on that new technology block in 2020!
Should the working capital ratio indicate
that the trust may struggle to cover its short-
term debt, then monitor the cash flow forecast.
This will show what cash is coming in month
by month and what the monthly obligations
are, such as payroll and other expenditure.
The forecast is the only place trustees will
be able to see, for example, that even though
the trust is due a grant from the Education
Funding Agency (EFA) in the current financial
year, this may not arrive in time to meet short-
term obligations.
If your board is not being presented with a
cash flow forecast, request one immediately.
It is an absolute requirement that the monthly
management accounts are presented to
trustees as prescribed in the AFH paragraph
2.3.3, and these must include a cash flow
forecast.
The AFH is vital reading as it sets out the
required financial framework for academy
trusts. Trustees should ensure they have a
copy and that they understand it. It covers
the academic year to August and is updated
annually by the EFA.
An academy trust board must also
understand its statutory duties as company
directors under the Companies Act 2006. One
duty is to “exercise reasonable care, skill and
diligence”. Trustees are at personal legal risk if
they are found not to have complied with their
statutory duties should the trust collapse, and
for not understanding the content of the AFH.
This could potentially lead to trustees being
disqualified to act as directors or trustees of
other organisations.
Finally, a trust’s budget is not prepared solely
for the EFA. It is a working document. Regular
comparisons with appropriate commentary
should be provided to trustees regularly,
preferably as part of the management
accounts.
Increasing financial pressures are raising
the risk that an academy trust could collapse
in the future. In such a climate, trustees must
ensure they act with reasonable care and
consideration and can interpret their trust’s
financial position to the best of their abilities.
The consequences otherwise could be serious.
@preynoldsfcca
EXPERTS
PHIL
REYNOLDS
Finding the right
woman for the job How to understand
an academy’s finances
Audit and assurance manager, and academies
and education specialist at Kreston Reeves
Sixty-five per
cent of this
year’s Future
Leaders cohort
are women
If you are
not given a cash
flow forecast,
ask for one
immediately
KATE
CHHATWALChief programme officer,
Talented Leaders programme

2. 15SCHOOLSWEEK.CO.UK EDITION 35 FRIDAY, JULY 3, 2015
n What constitutes a balanced role for Government in
education?
n What controls and safeguards are in place to ensure
educational policies are agreed and implemented for the
right outcomes?
n What if a political ideology conflicts with Government’s
responsibility?
n Does education need an Evidence Centre to inform policy
and practice?
n What, or who, protects education from bad ideas?
n What would an education system designed from scratch
look like?
Andreas Schleicher
OECD
John Bangs
Education International
John David Blake
London Academy of
Excellence
Jonathan Simons
Policy Exchange
Laura McInerney
Schools Week
Prof Angela McFarlane
The College of Teachers
Prof Bill Lucas Centre for
Real World Learning
Prof Mick Waters
University of
Wolverhampton
Ros McMullen
Leaf Academy Trust
Sam Freedman
Teach First
Sir John Dunford
Whole Education
Tim Oates
Cambridge Assessment
Dr Mary Bousted
ATL
Neil Carberry
CBI
Prof David Reynolds
Policy Advisor to Welsh
Assembly Government
www.politicsineducationsummit.co.uk
SPEAKERS
Join the debate and have
your say, register now at
www.politicsineducationsummit.co.uk
Chair:
Prof Chris Husbands,
Institute of Education
the fact that a lot of training delivered through
universities is at least as “schools-led” as that
delivered through, for example, School Direct.
Placing too tight a cap on university
recruitment could perversely undermine
some genuinely “schools-led” training as
well as reducing overall levels of recruitment.
And universities will be prevented from
opening new subject lines when no such
restriction is placed on school-centred
initial teacher training (SCITT) or School
Direct, representing a blatantly unfair and
unjustifiable constraint on the market.
If recruitment targets are to be met, the
artificial distinction between the two routes
should be removed and a genuine market
be allowed to operate. If the distinction is to
remain, each pot will have to be sufficiently
large and there should be scope to move
places between the two in response to
demand.
At a national level, NCTL has intimated that
it will stop recruitment once national targets
have been met.
But the setting of national targets is not an
exact science, and the teacher supply model
has in the past under-estimated the number
of new teachers schools need in some
subjects. Some flexibility will have to be built
into the system. Protection will also have to
be given to prospective trainees who are
part-way through the application process
when national caps are applied.
The great unknown is, of course, how
people respond to the new system. It is
possible that, in popular subjects such as
primary and secondary PE, a small number
of providers will recruit as many trainees
as fast as they can until national caps are
applied. That could, in theory, lead to regional
imbalance and the closure of some very good
quality programmes.
I think, however, that the professionalism
in the sector, and the in-built constraints that
exist through quality assurance mechanisms,
will prevent this from happening.
But NCTL is right to retain reserve powers,
just in case they are required. These powers
could also be used to boost recruitment in
some areas, as well as constrain it.
NCTL has said that this system is only
guaranteed for one year. It will be fascinating
to see whether it works.
In the longer term, however, we will
need to develop a model that ensures the
continuation of sustainable and research-
informed teacher education partnerships that
can meet the country’s long-term teacher
supply needs. That is the objective we should
all be striving to achieve.
Freeing up the teacher training market
has some advantages. But if recruitment
targets are to be met, the artificial
distinction between school-led and
university training should be removed
T
he National College of Teaching
and Leadership (NCTL) last week
announced a new way of managing
trainee teacher recruitment for 2016/17.
Instead of allocating places direct to training
providers, providers will be allowed to recruit
as many trainees as they want until national
limits for each phase (primary and secondary)
and each secondary subject have been met.
Freeing up the market has some
advantages. Preventing training providers
from recruiting above their allocation in
particular subjects when there is a demand
for those teachers in local schools, as happens
now, makes no sense at all. The new approach
will also increase choice for trainees,
removing at least some of the artificial barriers
that can prevent them from training where
they choose as there will no longer be
limits on the number of places available at
specific providers.
But there are risks. The NCTL will have to
have separate national pots of places for, first,
so-called “school-led” provision and, second,
for training delivered in partnership between
schools and universities.
It is clear from various pronouncements
that “school-led” training is the government’s
preferred option, and its share of the national
pot is described as a “minimum”, with
universities left with whatever remains once
school-led has had its share.
The crude “school-led”/“university”
distinction fails, however, to take account of
Executive director of the Universities
Council for the Education of Teachers
JAMES NOBLE
ROGERS
We still haven’t got the
right training model
EXPERT
The setting
of national
targets is
not an exact
science