Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of California Santa Cruz]On: 09 October 2014, At: 08:08Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
School Leadership & Management:Formerly School OrganisationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cslm20
Consultant leadership—a new role forhead teachers?Peter Earley a & Dick Weindling aa and Create Consultants , Institute of Education, University ofLondon , UKPublished online: 20 Aug 2006.
To cite this article: Peter Earley & Dick Weindling (2006) Consultant leadership—a new role forhead teachers?, School Leadership & Management: Formerly School Organisation, 26:1, 37-53, DOI:10.1080/13634230500492921
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13634230500492921
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Consultant leadership*/a new role for
head teachers?
Peter Earley* and Dick WeindlingInstitute of Education, University of London, UK and Create Consultants
Most school heads in England, especially secondary heads, once appointed remain in their schools
until retirement. However, recent years have seen a considerable increase in opportunities for head
teachers to undertake other forms of education-related work. The range of these new opportunities
is examined with particular attention given to ‘consultant leaders’ and the growing role they are
playing or will play in implementing government strategies, such as the New Relationship with
Schools, the leadership strategy of the London Challenge and the National Primary Strategy.
Drawing on a recent evaluation of the London Leadership Strategy directed by the authors, the
paper examines what is known about consultant leaders and raises a number of issues that need
consideration. As the importance of consultant leaders is likely to grow in the near future, there is a
clear need for further research in this area.
Introduction
Studies have shown consistently that most school heads, especially secondary heads,
once appointed remain in their schools until retirement (Earley & Weindling, 2004).
For some schools, especially secondary schools, the appointment of a new head is a
rare occurrence. However, recent years have seen a considerable increase in
opportunities for head teachers to undertake education-related work, indeed some
see the growth of a new breed of head*/the ‘portfolio’ head*/heads who see
themselves as ‘doing a job’ for a predetermined number of years before moving on to
pastures new (Flintham, 2004; Hartle, 2005). As Flintham notes:
Such colleagues do not see headship as being for life nor as being the summit and
end point of a professional career, but rather as part of a ‘portfolio’ of professionaldevelopment which will encompass advisory, consultancy and school improvement
work to build upon that concentrated headship experience and allow it to begeneralised into wider contexts. (2004, p. 18)
Heads in post, or those who have resigned or retired early, now have numerous
opportunities to undertake paid employment in education-related activities. The
range of these opportunities is examined with particular attention given to
educational consultancy and the growing role ‘consultant leaders’ are playing and
*Corresponding author. Institute of Education, 20 Bedford Way, London WC1H 0NT, UK.
Email: [email protected]
ISSN 1363-2434 (print)/ISSN 1364-2626 (online)/06/010037-17
# 2006 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13634230500492921
School Leadership and Management,
Vol. 26, No. 1, February 2006, pp. 37�/53
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 08:
08 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
will continue to play in implementing government strategies, such as the New
Relationship with Schools, the National Primary Strategy and the leadership strategy
of London Challenge. Drawing on an evaluation of the latter, the authors examine
what is known about consultant leaders, whilst also raising a number of issues that
need consideration. As the importance of consultant leaders is likely to grow in the
near future, there is a clear need for further research.
Career options*/new challenges?
Career movement after taking up headship is not common. Primary heads are more
likely to move to a second headship for career or promotion (salary) purposes but
secondary heads have traditionally been a relatively immobile group (Earley &
Weindling, 2004; Fidler & Jones, 2005). Many heads achieve their first headship in
their late 30s or early 40s. The average age for secondary heads appointed in the early
1980s was 42 (Weindling & Earley, 1987). It is unlikely that this figure has altered
drastically since the time of the NFER study of newly appointed heads. If appointed
at this young age to headship, it can therefore mean a period of 20 years or more
before retirement, so heads will probably want at least one change of post or
environment in the time remaining. Professional revitalisation or refreshment is
essential.
Fidler and Atton (2004) refer to three main options for heads in post:
1. Move on to a further headship.
2. Revitalisation in the same post.
3. Professional work after headship.
As far as revitalisation is concerned, Fidler and Atton mention two possibilities:
reinvigorating headship, and professional work in addition to headship. Fidler
and Atton systematically examine the various options for heads and what needs to
be done to revitalise them, to provide the professional refreshment needed to
ensure effectiveness does not plateau or disenchantment set in. There is growing
recognition that performance does plateau unless there is additional stimulation and
development or opportunities for revitalisation (Earley & Weindling, 2005).
Activities outside their own school which can assist the revitalisation of school
leaders include:
. secondments
. inspections
. LEA temporary posts
. mentoring and coaching
. professional posts (e.g. associations and LEA working parties)
. academic courses and other training
. acting headship in another school
. consultancies.
38 P. Earley and D. Weindling
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 08:
08 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
There is some evidence (e.g. Ofsted, 1999) that such ‘extra curricular’ and out-of-
school activities can be powerful learning opportunities that bring benefits to both
the individuals performing them and their host institutions. Sabbaticals and
secondments can be helpful in rejuvenating school leaders (e.g. Clayton, 2001) as
are a range of other activities, such as overseas visits and study tours. Providing
assistance to those schools in special measures can also be an important source of
professional development and growth.
Participation in such a range of activities*/what the National College for School
Leadership (NCSL) refers to as the fifth stage of headship: consultant leadership*/not
only promotes a broader perspective on the part of the individual, but also, most
importantly, allows for developmental opportunities to be embraced back at school
for those having to take on new responsibilities (NCSL, 2001). The role of governing
bodies in encouraging or inhibiting school leaders from participating in this diverse
and growing range of opportunities as ‘consultants’ is also important, but what do we
know about consultant leaders and what are some of the key issues for consideration?
It is the last of the above revitalising activities*/consultant leadership*/which requires
further attention.
Consultant leadership
A growing number of heads are being encouraged to become ‘consultant leaders’
(NCSL ‘level 5’ leaders or, in Fullan’s [2005] terms, ‘system leaders’), either whilst
in post or as an activity after headship. Until recently many consultants in education
were often working part-time and supported by an enhanced pension or early
retirement package, but a growing number of (successful) heads are looking at
consultancy as an alternative to headship and an occupation which can match the
salary levels achieved by headship. Others see themselves as ‘system leaders’
operating as consultants for perhaps 30�/40 days per annum whilst continuing to
act as head teachers.
Fidler and Atton (2004, pp. 196�/197) provide us with a useful list of consultancy
opportunities that heads and others in England may wish to pursue. These
opportunities include:
. threshold assessors (up until 2004)
. performance management advisers*/advice on operation of PM in schools
(2000�/01)
. external advisers to governing bodies on head’s performance (2000�/06)
. fast track teacher assessors
. teacher training assessors (graduate and overseas trained)
. NPQH tutors and assessors
. advanced skill teacher assessors
. headship appointment consultants
. consultants for schools in special measures.
Consultant leadership*/a new role for head teachers? 39
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 08:
08 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
Further ‘consultancy’ opportunities can be added to Fidler and Atton’s list, namely:
. Ofsted inspectors and secondments to HMI
. tutors and trainers on NCSL programmes other than NPQH (e.g. LPSH, LftM,
New Visions)
. NCSL ‘consultant leaders’ (e.g. primary leadership strategy), London Challenge
leadership strategy consultants and advisers
. remodelling advisers/consultants
. School Improvement Partners.
The New Relationship for Schools (DfES/Ofsted, 2004) which was piloted in
2004�/05, entails some practising secondary heads spending 40 days per year working
as School Improvement Partners (SIPs) having a ‘single conversation’ with their
peers. Arrangements for primary schools are slightly different but will build on the
national primary leadership strategy and provide further opportunities for primary
heads to act as consultants.
In other words there is no shortage of consultant activity which head teachers and
other educational leaders with the right background and skills and the appropriate
training can undertake. The traditional choices after headship such as HMI, LEA
advisory posts, teacher training and university posts have largely been replaced by
consultancies*/activities, unlike those in universities or LEAs, where heads can
usually at least match their headship salaries should they so wish. These consultancies
can be secured as individuals work freelance and/or through private consultancy
firms, of which there are many. Also, increasingly, they can be undertaken whilst
remaining in headship. Indeed notions of ‘level 5’ or system leaders often imply that
such individuals are currently engaged in headship in addition to undertaking these
consultant activities. For example, the NCSL’s training programme for consultant
leaders is available only for those currently in post (NCSL, 2005).
These are exciting times for educational consultants! But what else is known about
them? Research in this area is very sparse but from the little there is, some interesting
findings are beginning to emerge.
Consultant leaders*/some initial findings from the London Challenge
The role of consultant leaders was part of the recently completed evaluation of the
leadership strategy of the London Challenge (Earley et al., 2005). ‘The London
Challenge*/Transforming London Secondary Schools’ (DfES, 2003) was launched
in 2003 with the specific aim to create within the next five years an excellent
secondary education system that could match the best anywhere. It aims to enable
every pupil to achieve their potential, to raise standards and to ‘turn round failure in
the most challenged areas, where neighbourhood renewal and joined up policies are
essential to make the best of school improvement’ (2003, p. 7). The DfES document
outlines the keys to success which include each school in London having ‘a tailor
made support programme and heads with energy, commitment and a record of
40 P. Earley and D. Weindling
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 08:
08 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
leadership success’ (2003, p. 7). The London Challenge therefore included a
significant emphasis on leadership at all levels in secondary schools and the need for
‘school leaders to be amongst the very best in the country’ (p. 9). The leadership
strategy of the London Challenge was central in helping to bring this about.
‘Consultant Leaders’ was an important strand within the London Leadership
Strategy (LLS), accounting for a significant amount of the total funding (approxi-
mately 22%) allocated to the strategy. There were 65 trained consultant leaders
(CLs) at the end of March 2005 available for such work, and about 40 were deployed
to work with other secondary schools. The majority of CLs who volunteered for such
work were practising, experienced London secondary heads although a few were
deputies. The numbers involved varied from year to year as new CLs joined the
programme and others dropped out.
Head teachers were invited to become CLs; they normally undertook the five-day
NCSL consultancy training programme and had an induction (with a senior CL) to
the LLS role and to the London Challenge. They were paid to allow release from
their school to work with another head, for half a day or one day per week, on a
variety of tasks which had been negotiated with the recipient head and the LLS
central team. Head teachers of challenging (‘Key to Success’) schools were
encouraged to work with a CL but there was no compunction*/the scheme was
voluntary although recipient heads might be strongly encouraged by their London
Challenge Advisers (working for the DfES) to ‘sign up’ to the programme. The norm
was for CLs to work with peer head teachers but some were working with other
members of the senior team or with middle leaders, e.g. acting as external coaches
for the ‘Leading for the Middle’ programme.
The role of the consultant leader in London has been clearly defined by the LLS
(2003) and by the Senior Consultant Leader, George Berwick (Berwick, 2004).
Table 1 draws on a Working Paper to show the clear division between the brokerage
role and consultancy role.
It is claimed that the strength of the CL model is that it is flexible and tries to
respond to people’s needs (Berwick, 2004). In our evaluation examples of activities
engaged in by CLs included: policy development, planning processes, approaches to
self-evaluation and classroom observation, advising on the appointment of a deputy,
Table 1. Consultant leaders in London
Consultancy Brokerage
. Individual consultant practice including
mentoring/coaching/facilitating.
. A range of other activities directly
supported by the consultant.
. Providing access to a range of courses provided
by the NCSL and the London Leadership
Centre.
. Providing access to a range of outside specialist
consultants.
. Providing access to a range of expertise within
the consultant’s own school.
Consultant leadership*/a new role for head teachers? 41
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 08:
08 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
SEN/EAL support processes, the development of the library or, more broadly, acting
as a sounding board or critical friend. Consultant heads worked with other heads on
the latter’s agenda in order to enhance leadership capacity, which over time should
lead to school improvement (Berwick, 2004).
Methodology
For the evaluation of this strand of the London leadership strategy, we collected data
from both the CLs and the ‘recipient’ heads (RHTs). Qualitative data were collected
from focus group discussions and interviews with individuals. Two focus groups were
conducted (Autumn/Spring 2003/4) involving a total of five CLs; face-to-face
interviews took place with six CLs, with a further eight being interviewed by
telephone. Information was therefore obtained from a total of 19 consultant leaders
and their views sought on a variety of matters, including how they saw their role and
the perceived impact on themselves and the schools. We also conducted telephone
interviews with a smaller number of heads who were working with consultant
leaders (‘recipient’ heads). It proved to be extremely difficult (for reasons that
will become clear) for us to arrange these interviews, and despite approaching
over 20 RHTs, only ten telephone interviews were conducted. However, three
of the evaluation’s ten case-study heads were also working with CLs so this means
a total of 13 RHTs were interviewed. In addition, three of the case-study school
heads were CLs and a further two had been approached to become consultant
leaders.
The main findings and key issues identified from the qualitative data are discussed
under the following nine headings:
1. benefits for CLs
2. impact on own school
3. role clarity
4. impact of CLs
5. the need for specific skills and qualities
6. trust
7. visitor overload
8. relationship with LEAs
9. time.
Benefits for CLs
Consultant leaders generally saw becoming a consultant leader as a natural part of
their own professional development or growth as head teachers. Acknowledging the
significance of NCSL’s notion of ‘level 5’ leaders, they wanted to give something
back to the profession, whilst recognising that the experience itself was likely to
impact on them, making them better practitioners. The following comments were
typical:
42 P. Earley and D. Weindling
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 08:
08 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
It’s a natural next step. It is something that you try to develop at a certain age, it
broadens you.
I wanted to become a consultant leader for personal development, was interested in
extending myself after I had been teaching for a while, but without wishing to move
on to a new school.
It was recognised as a means of broadening their horizons and acquiring or
developing new skills:
It has given me a new way of working. I am still developing skills after 13 years as a
head.
I was at that stage of my career when the school was doing well, and it would be
good for the school and for me to broaden my horizons. I’d done LPSH and the
pilot of NPQH.
Nearly all the CLs noted how the activity had affected their own practice in a very
positive way, making them reflect, and learning so much as a result, especially from
the recipient head’s school. The process was perceived as a form of peer coaching or
peer mentoring*/‘people on the same level supporting each other’. One remarked ‘I
wish I had had it as a new head’. Consultant leaders liked working with other
practising heads although it was recognised that once you leave headship you have a
limited shelf life as a consultant.
Impact on own school
Two things were required to make it happen: a supportive governing body and a
strong senior leadership team in the CL’s school.
The governing body have been very supportive*/we have a good understanding,
they wanted to ‘keep me interested’ and did not want me to move on. It would help
me bring in ideas from outside and other staff could act up for me in my absence.
This notion of ‘acting up’ was seen as a good staff retention strategy*/‘it has helped
us keep people, instead of moving to pastures new they stay here’. But it was also a
retention issue for head teachers. If governing bodies wanted to hold on to their
heads they had to recognise that heads needed opportunities for personal and
professional development. As one noted:
I’ve had some good External Advisers who basically told the governors that if they
wanted to keep the head then they needed to let him work outside*/but also they
were told that this would be beneficial as he’d bring things back to the school*/and
I have. But you do need a strong SLT [Senior Leadership Team] to enable/allow
you to take time out from the day job.
Another echoed this view about the need for a strong senior team:
The governors have been very supportive for my role as CL. I love my school and
do not want a second headship. So being a CL is excellent. But if both my deputies
got headships I would have to re-think whether I could do the CL work.
Consultant leadership*/a new role for head teachers? 43
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 08:
08 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
The act of becoming a CL was recognised as having an impact on both their own
school as well as that of the recipient heads. CLs recognised the dangers of being out
of their own school too frequently when undertaking the consultant leader role, and
wondered how replicable and sustainable the model would be. A forthcoming
inspection also made heads think again about the time required to be absent from
school and some had turned down requests to become CLs for this reason, stating
that they could not afford to be out of their schools on a regular basis. With so much
change occurring, staff and students expect heads to be around patrolling the
corridors, ‘to be seen’, that the model of regular absence associated with being a CL,
even if it is only half a day per week, is ‘high risk’. Perhaps a model whereby heads are
seconded for a term or a year might be better, although this would obviously depend
on the capability of the leadership team to work effectively in the head’s absence.
New forms of (distributed) leadership were said to help, but the new ‘short notice’
inspections were perceived as creating even further difficulties. As one CL remarked:
How many schools in London are so secure that the head could leave for 6 months
or a year? A small number. Most of us work on the edge.
However, another CL said that the governors and staff thought it was positive for the
school, which was stable and had experienced deputies in post, so the CL being out
of school was not perceived as a problem.
I told the governors that I would review the visiting and change it if it proved to have
negative effects on the school.
Berwick (2004) suggests there is a cost equation to be considered:
This revolves around the question of how long can the CLs be out of their schools
without having a detrimental effect on their schools? This seems in practice to be set
at one day per week though some have managed two days. To a large extent this has
been dependent upon two contextual factors; the relative experience of the school’s
senior leadership team and the proximity of any major issues for the school such as
an Ofsted inspection or a large building programme. (p. 24)
He goes on to note:
The impact of this is that CLs often find it difficult to commit themselves to over six
months to one year of such work. This in turn places the onus upon the deployment
team to have effective succession planning in place. Another contributory factor in a
few cases has been the management style of the CLs in their school and the degree
to which they have developed distributed leadership. However, this is often a factor
that the CLs consider before initially opting for the role. (p. 25)
Berwick’s comments were echoed in the views of our interviewees. One noted that to
be a CL you have to:
redefine your role as head in your own school. To do this you need to know if the
CL work is for one or two years so you can plan for it. I have a very supportive Chair
of Governors who knows this is about my own development. I have a very good
deputy and my being out a day a week is very good development for the SLT.
44 P. Earley and D. Weindling
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 08:
08 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
Role clarity
For some CLs the title ‘consultant leader’ did not accurately reflect the nature of
their role and the activities undertaken:
A Consultant Leader must be collaborative and not necessarily a consultativerole*/the name should be changed. We felt that there should not be too overt a
blueprint for the Consultant Leader.
I think we should be moving much more to the idea of the collaborative leader than
the consultant. An important point is that the good practice that I see in School A, Ibring back to my school and that is quite powerful.
There are three parts to the CL London model: the NCSL course and training
(NCSL, 2005), the brokerage, and the sharing of resources. The brokerage was said
to be a part of the role that had ‘seemed to grow’ but there were a number of other
worries about the role. These focused on the lack of clarity of the remit, whether
what they were doing in schools was effective*/whether it was making a (sufficient)
difference*/and which teachers/leaders they should be working with (senior or
middle leaders). Regarding the former, CLs stated:
I don’t think (the head) was very clear about my role as CL*/I think hethought*/who is she? He knew about London Challenge but he found it hard to
get hold of the role of CL. This is not surprising as with the K2S schools there arepeople coming at them from all directions.
I think that when [LLS] makes the initial contact, the role of the CL is not alwaysclear to the recipient head. For example, one of my CL friends found that he was
asked to work with the HoDs, but he thought that it was supposed to be ‘Head toHead’.
Another concurred and felt their talents were ‘wasted’ if they were not working with
their peers.
Impact of CLs
Several expressed their frustration at not knowing if the work was having an impact
on the recipient school:
It is important to feel that you are making some progress in the school, especially atthe top end. It feels like I am operating in the right building, but in slightly the
wrong room, with slightly the wrong clothes on, but not all together. Though thereis the potential over time, I might get there.
Another was far more positive about the effects of her work:
I think the support I have given her, as another head teacher, has been essential forher. And she thinks that. I remember a colleague who had been a head for a long
time, who used to talk to a friend of his every Friday in the pub. I think all heads
need to be able to talk to somebody to be able to debrief. When I was doing the CLtraining, I needed to talk to someone, I was muddled*/heads get muddled with all
the things that impact on schools from so many directions. Heads don’t need
Consultant leadership*/a new role for head teachers? 45
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 08:
08 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
someone to tell you what to do, they need someone to say why don’t I take this bit
off you.
The head says I keep her focused. She says, ‘You kick me up the backside and
then I go and kick them up the backside’! Last week I asked her if she wants
me to continue working with her, because the situation has changed as they
have come out of Special Measures. She mentioned my optimism which she
has not mentioned before. She is an optimistic person (most heads are) but
it can grind you down. That sort of ability to help keep someone in perspective,
and know that the problem is not them, is valuable. So she does want me to
continue.
A recipient head went as far as to say:
We have just had the Ofsted inspection which went well, and I really think this is
due to the support we have received from London Challenge.
Another remarked:
I really appreciated the help. There is always an element of uncertainty when
someone new comes into the school, but the CLs were outstanding. They rolled up
their sleeves and got on with it.
Knowing that your efforts were paying off was difficult as the process was long term
and there were few ‘quick fixes’. A senior CL recognised this as a potential problem
when the CLs felt frustrated at the slow progress they appeared to be making. He
commented:
I give them potential case studies to reflect on, to inject some challenge*/about how
to do it, and so on. I tell them that rapport is developing and now they must use the
opportunities for challenge.
When asked how successful they have been he went on to say:
The CLs have experienced a bit of a roller coaster! We tell them it will be difficult,
need patience, etc. and they say to us ‘You didn’t exaggerate did you!’ It’s a bit of a
long haul. They need to be flexible but once they get their teeth into issues they
enjoy it enormously. The (recipient) heads gain in confidence too*/they like it
because the CLs have no other agendas (they warm to that)*/they oil the wheels for
others to come into the schools (i.e. ‘I’m not here to solve your problems but I can
introduce you to others’). It allows the [RHTs] to move away from the operational
to deal with the more strategic. If they have difficulties, RHTs will ‘put up the
barricades’. CLs can help with these.
It is important to reiterate that the learning (and impact) is two-way:
You need to talk to her (the RHT) about my impact as a CL. I enjoy working with
her*/it’s very rewarding. Initially she was very suspicious*/she said (as a K2S
school) ‘I’ve got too many mentors, advisers*/I don’t need another! Why does
everybody think I can’t do my job properly’. But I’ve learnt a lot from [the RHT].
Her style is very different from mine*/she’s very collaborative, consultative and
values-driven. I’ve learnt from her. I go there at her request, she might say, ‘I want
to pick your brains’.
46 P. Earley and D. Weindling
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 08:
08 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
Being a CL was particularly valuable for the heads; they learnt a lot and brought back
good practice to their own schools and encouraged mutual visiting. For example:
The work is intellectually stimulating*/unlike others who visit their school, you [as
CL] have no other agendas, such as the LEA or DfES*/you are not setting
performance or attainment targets for them or their school. She has visited my
school and I’ve been to hers. She is now sending people over and my Head of
Science is mentoring her Head of Science. Her Head of English and deputy have
arranged to come and my Head of Art is visiting her school. It’s an Arts College and
doing really good stuff*/I went to a day conference on the arts*/it was very good*/I
feel we’re both learning a lot.
The CL scheme is very helpful and gives heads the opportunity to work outside
their own school and see examples of good practice elsewhere. I’ve learnt so much
from working with other heads and CLs. There is a lot of talk re collaboration and
sharing but the reality is that not much actually goes on.
Several of the CLs interviewed expressed the view that CL work needed to be
conducted by other heads:
I have worked with a head that has been good to work with, and it has been
worthwhile. I also think that head teachers are the most helpful people to other
heads*/I know I could upset a lot of people by saying this*/because people who
haven’t been heads do not understand the pressures in the same way.
I have always believed that the best way of supporting practitioners is to have other
practitioners of a similar level working with them. So it was good when the DfES
and London Challenge recognised this formally with the LLS scheme.
I know this is the right model*/practitioners helping practitioners in other schools.
It has to be the way forward.
The interviewees liked the client-centred consultation/facilitation model that under-
pinned the CL process and thought it was an effective way to challenge school
leaders to think more clearly about what they were doing.
It’s a hard way to work, instead of going in and problem-solving, it did allow me to
focus on the real positive thing that we were there for. My approach was a bit more
laid back . . . which is not the way we are used to working . . . Instead of using the
facilitating skills . . . so I found that quite good. I can be more analytical now.
One CL, however, was less convinced about the client-focused model:
In the CL team there is discussion about the consultancy model and about telling
someone what to do. I think that if someone asks, then it is rubbish to say as a
consultant I can’t tell you!
One of the CLs made the important distinction between ‘executive consulting’*/tak-
taking over the running of the school*/and a ‘supportive role’ which is what the
London CLs do. However, there was a difficulty in that the CLs were people who
were recruited for being expert head teachers. It was said that not all the London
Challenge Advisers understood the non-executive role of a consultant leader.
Consultant leadership*/a new role for head teachers? 47
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 08:
08 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
The need for specific skills and qualities
It was recognised by all our interviewees that the role of a CL requires a huge amount
of tact and sensitivity to the needs of the other head and his/her school. Reference
was made to ethical dilemmas and tensions that may arise. The development of a
trusting relationship between the head and the CL was therefore deemed to be
critical. In some cases, the self-esteem of the receiving school was so low that it was
difficult for the head or members of the senior leadership team to accept support or
to acknowledge that what the CL had to offer would be valuable. The extent of
collaboration between the CLs and members of the receiving schools varied,
depending on the confidence built up between the two sides. The visiting of each
other’s schools was encouraged but the quality of collaboration was largely
dependent on the relationship established between the recipient head and the CL.
Trust
Interviews with the heads who were working with CLs (recipient heads) brought
home the importance of relationships, trust and compatibility.
I think the most important thing about the CL is getting the match right*/if you
have a personnel mismatch, they can be no help at all.
In principle the CL idea was seen as a very good one, but it does require
collaboration and trust from the receiving schools. This building of trust was said
to be facilitated by social gatherings (such as a dinner) for both CLs and recipient
heads. As one RHT noted:
The CLs dinner was brilliant. I sat next to X and thought she was very good. I
found the evening excellent and felt that there should be more of these types of
arrangements, with a semi-formal atmosphere and discussions. It gave me some
good contacts and ideas for my school. I felt the power of networking. There weresome ex-borough heads and no rivalry. I would like to meet others and pick their
brains.
But getting heads to trust CLs and make visits to their schools was an issue that could
not always be speedily resolved. Progress on this front could be very slow and in some
cases painful.
Berwick (2004) gives various reasons as to why recipient head teachers might not
accept CLs’ support:
�/ They have had a poor experience of consultancy in the past which has
predominantly been carried out in an executive/‘telling’ manner, offering solutions
but lacking accountability for the outcomes.
�/ They have had no experience of the type of consultancy being offered andcould not see its value.
�/ The London Challenge Adviser who recommended the use of CLs had not
broached the issue with the school, although this is a requirement of their support
plan.
�/ The value of the work has not yet been proven. (p. 15)
48 P. Earley and D. Weindling
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 08:
08 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
He further notes that:
Of the schools the CLs are deployed to, the majority have new headteachers. They
seem to welcome the support from the CLs more readily. The gap in relative
experience and age has helped, as has the opportunity it has provided for the
headteacher to discuss issues with a critical and loyal colleague. (2004, p. 19)
We would concur that this model often works best or has a better chance of success
when involving newly appointed heads.
However, another senior CL had a different view and felt that the attitudes of
RHTs varied and that their more favourable predisposition was not always related to
age and experience. More important in his view was the match of individuals. This
was crucial and a lot of time was spent on matching them up carefully bearing in
mind gender, experience and compatibility.
One CL had worked very hard at establishing a working relationship with a RHT
who initially had shown some resistance towards him. He said:
She and I are very different people, but I think it is working because we have the
same values. The CL relationship is working because I do not play at the consultant
role. I am very straight about it. [She] really likes the idea that I am not part of the
LEA and not a threat to her.
A recipient head noted that the names of two people who might act in a consultant
leader capacity been put forward but in the event only one had showed up. ‘She had
doubts*/and so did we and that was the end of it!’
In some cases working with school leaders other than (or in addition to) the head
could lead to all sorts of difficulties or ethical dilemmas that had to be worked
through:
I have found a tension in my role. As my relationship develops with each of the SLT
and I get insights from them, I think, who am I working for and working with? I am
working for the head*/but do I tell him some of the things they say?
There are a lot of problems (with the deputy)*/‘under the cloth issues’, about her
relationship with the head. I have made my role about this clear to the head. I have
to be careful, there are some things I can’t say to the head and some I can’t say to
the deputy. I can’t take sides.
Visitor overload
Anther factor to note is that many of these challenging (K2S) schools suffer from
‘visitor overload’. They have a series of visitors*/advisers, consultants, inspectors,
evaluators*/all wearing slightly different hats; the offer of further support from CLs
was therefore sometimes treated with initial suspicion. Once it was clear that there were
no hidden agendas and that there were no reports to be written, objectives to be set or
accountability trails, then the chances of the relationship working successfully were
enhanced. However, perceptions of the process as a ‘deficit’ model, rather than one of
‘peer collegiality’, were sometimes difficult to shift. Berwick, similarly, notes that some
Consultant leadership*/a new role for head teachers? 49
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 08:
08 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
established head teachers (as opposed to new ones) suggested that the acceptance of a
CL implied some degree of failure on their part. As is the case for any form of
collaboration, it is important for the process to involve and be seen to involve learning
on the part of both parties. CLs are the first to admit that the benefits can be two-way.
But there was also a need to recognise that sometimes the need for a CL comes to
an end*/the value added by a CL may not be equal to the amount of effort expended
on the relationship. Their services may no longer be needed. This occurred in at least
one school. The recipient head said:
We’ve now decided we’ve gone as far as we can and we’ll keep in contact once a
month, because he’s up in London once a week and comes in about 8.00 and leaves
around 10.00. But it’s the time it takes to sit down with someone for that length of
time on a weekly basis. To be honest, we’ve gone as far as we can. If I want to speak to
him, fine, but there are other things I could be constructively doing with other
colleagues. I’ve got a new deputy starting and I need to allocate time to coaching her.
The importance of exit strategies was mentioned by one of the senior CLs*/and what
performance indicators you would want to consider before withdrawing. He made
reference to ‘pogo stick’ schools where a CL might leave and then the school finds
itself back in the doldrums. However, there is a need to avoid a dependency culture
developing within a school whereby it relies overly on the support it gets from CLs
and others.
Relationship with LEAs
The relationship with the LEA was another area where there had occasionally been
some friction. Normal practice was to inform the appropriate LEA member of the
support team about the situation. This had met with a mixed reception in the schools
and LEAs. One recipient head noted how his LEA was concerned about the help the
school was receiving from outside.
They think that it is their job. With the recent announcements they are getting
worried about their survival.
Some heads have good relations with their LEAs, others are wary of their
involvement and their role and perceive them as part of the problem. In a few cases
the CLs have found themselves mediating with LEAs on behalf of the head teachers.
I’ve also tried to help re-establish relations between the school and the LEA. I had a
conversation with the LEA and they got their foot back in the door. Now the LEA is
providing training for them.
Time
Another key issue raised by CLs was finding the time to visit RHTs’ schools,
especially when the journey took so long, although working outside the CL’s LEA
was seen to have its advantages:
50 P. Earley and D. Weindling
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 08:
08 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
I find it works better when there is little distance to travel between the schools. ½
hour travelling across town is not good use of my time!
But it is hard to be a prophet in your own land. It is important as a CL that I am not
from the LEA*/and I do not have any baggage. It is also important that I have not
tried to poach some of the good staff I have seen there.
I like the CL work and I’d like to contribute more. It’s very creative working with
people and I’d like to develop it further. Lots of heads find this form of support is
what they need. The good thing is working in a different LEA*/X LEA is a different
place, a different environment. It’s a hassle travelling but it would not be quite the
same if I was in my own LEA.
Another time-related problem was finding the time to sit down with people and tease
out with them the main issues in the school.
We need time to reflect on key issues*/what do we want to achieve and how to get
there from where we are now, and so on.
For another CL there were
No problems really. It’s been good*/it’s so nice to be trusted to get on with it with
no interference*/to be treated like a professional. I feel a lot more confident myself.
Conclusion
Consultant activity for heads is likely to grow in the future, as will the emphasis given
to ‘system leaders’ and consultant leaders. We know very little about these activities
and their implications. The evaluation of the role of CLs within the London
Challenge has raised some significant issues. In conclusion and to summarise we can
say:
. The CL strategy seems to have had a positive reception among the heads and the
receiving schools.
. There are benefits to be gained from both parties from the scheme.
. It appears to work most readily with those heads who are recently appointed.
. As the scheme develops and matures and as further resources are dedicated to this
strand, its chances of further success appear great.
There is little doubt among head teachers that a CL scheme has considerable
potential and, in the words of one, ‘It should be the right of all heads to have one!’
Addressing the support needed for what is generally recognised as a demanding and
lonely job has long been recognised but it is only relatively recently that this issue is
being addressed. The consultant leader’s role of helping to provide that support,
together with the challenge needed to encourage development, is crucial.
It is perhaps too early to be able to assess the extent and impact of the CLs. In our
view the evidence of its initial success in London suggests that the services of a CL
need to be made available to all new heads.
Consultant leadership*/a new role for head teachers? 51
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 08:
08 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
Concerns were expressed about the effect of the CLs’ absence from their schools.
This was a real issue and warrants further research. As one CL noted, in order to
minimise any negative effects of being ‘off-site’ perhaps it would be better for heads
who wished to engage in such activity to finish headship earlier (e.g. at age 57 or 58)
and then to do several years of CL (and other) work.
Consultant Leaders appear to have had a good reception, both among the
consultants and the receiving schools, but not always. Where the relationship has
worked it has been very positive but it has not worked well in all cases. This is due to
a variety of factors including the ‘match’ (or rather mismatch) between the two
parties and the lack of trust engendered.
For the CLs the existence of an appropriate balance between challenge and
support is necessary for development to take place. This issue needs further
exploration especially as the move to the New Relationship with Schools with a
proposed single conversation with a ‘School Improvement Partner’ takes place. But
are such heads (peers) likely to be more supportive than challenging?
Evidence from research with External Advisers raises the same questions
(Crawford & Earley, 2004). Similarly, the Ofsted analysis of the Primary Leadership
Programme found a number of primary strategy consultant leaders (PSCLs) who
were unwilling to challenge schools about their expectations and low standards even
when there was clear evidence available to them that this was the case. The report
noted that: ‘In effect, they colluded with the headteacher and leadership team rather
than provide challenge’ (Ofsted, 2004, p. 16). To be fair, Ofsted also stated that this
applied only to ‘a small number’ of PSCLs, but it does highlight the special skills
needed of consultant leaders and advisers. Also the PSCLs had been trained by the
NCSL in the use of ‘client-centred’ consultancy model, an approach to working with
others which may be more appropriate to LLS than it is to the Primary Leadership
Programme. What is clear, however, is that not all heads can be consultants, not all
will possess or be able to develop the skills needed to work with others. Perhaps for
many they have operated for too long in the ‘telling mode’!
One of the aims of the CL programme in London and nationally is to develop
system leaders to help bring about change in their own schools as well as others. It is
too soon to make a judgement about how successful this strategy has been, but there
was some initial evidence that this was beginning to happen in London. It has been
shown to have benefits for both parties.
This paper has shown that openings and opportunities for heads or former heads
have grown considerably in recent years. Consultant leaders are now seen as playing
a key role in future educational developments such as the London Challenge, the
New Relationship with Schools (School Improvement Partners) and the Primary
Leadership Strategy. Clearly more research in this burgeoning area is needed.
References
Berwick, G. (2004) An evaluation of the consultant leaders’ programme, paper produced for
London Challenge, April.
52 P. Earley and D. Weindling
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 08:
08 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
Clayton, J. (2001) Sabbaticals*/expectations and rights, Professional Development Today, 5(1),
27�/32.
Crawford, M. & Earley, P. (2004) Headteacher performance management: an investigation of the
role of the external adviser, School Leadership and Management, 24(4), 377�/390.
DfES (2003) The London Challenge*/transforming London secondary schools (London, DfES).
DfES/Ofsted (2004) A new relationship with schools . Available online at: www.dfes.gsi.gov.uk.
Earley, P. & Weindling, D. (2004) Understanding school leadership (London, PCP/Sage).
Earley, P. & Weindling, D. (2006) Do school leaders have a shelf life? Career stages and head-
teacher performance, Educational Leadership, Management and Administration (forthcoming).
Earley, P., Weindling, D., with Evans, J., Woodroffe, L., Coleman, M., Bubb, S., et al. (2005)
Evaluation of the leadership strategy of the London Challenge (London, Institute of Education).
Fidler, B. & Atton, T. (2004) The headship game: the challenges of contemporary school leadership
(London, RoutledgeFalmer).
Fidler, B. & Jones, J. (2005) Second headship: second time around or new learning experience?,
Management in Education, 19(1), 12�/16.
Flintham, A. (2004) Postmodernist portfolio people: sustainability and succession in school
leadership, Management in Education, 18(3), 16�/19.
Fullan, M. (2005) Leadership and sustainability: system thinkers in action (London, PCP/Sage).
Hartle, F. (2005) Shaping up to the future: a guide to roles, structures and career development in
secondary schools (Nottingham, NCSL).
London Leadership Strategy (LLS) (2003) Working paper, consultant leader programme (DfES/
NCSL, London Leadership Strategy).
National College for School Leadership (NCSL) (2001) Leadership development framework
(Nottingham, NCSL).
National College for School Leadership (NCSL) (2005) The impact of participation in the consultant
leaders’ development programme (Nottingham, NCSL).
Ofsted (1999) Making headway (London, Ofsted).
Ofsted (2004) The national primary strategy and the role of consultant leaders (London, Ofsted).
Weindling, D. & Earley, P. (1987) Secondary headship: the first years (Windsor, NFER-Nelson).
Consultant leadership*/a new role for head teachers? 53
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 08:
08 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
