Preventing The Disadvantage Gap From Increasing During And After The Covid-19 Pandemic

This report from the Education Policy Institute provides a series of policy recommendations to government to prevent a widening of the disadvantage gap following the pandemic.

Prior to the outbreak of Covid-19, EPI research found that disadvantaged children are already on average one and a half years of learning behind other pupils by the time they take their GCSEs.

Create an account to read this article

£7.00+ VAT

One-off purchase

Purchase and Download today

Register for free

No Credit Card required

Register for free
Access to 3 free articles
Free TeachingTimes Report every month

array(8) {
  ["distinct_key"]=>
  string(10) "post#88646"
  ["title"]=>
  string(58) "The Challenges Facing Schools and Pupils in September 2020"
  ["categories"]=>
  array(2) {
    [0]=>
    string(10) "Leadership"
    [1]=>
    string(20) "Leadership Briefings"
  }
  ["url"]=>
  string(89) "https://www.teachingtimes.com/the-challenges-facing-schools-and-pupils-in-september-2020/"
  ["post_date_timestamp"]=>
  int(1599561157)
  ["objectID"]=>
  string(12) "post-88646-0"
  ["_snippetResult"]=>
  array(2) {
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(119) "Over half of teachers estimate that the learning gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers has widened."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(342) "... behind in their curriculum learning in relation to teachers’ normal expectations for the end of the school year; the impact of Covid-19 on the ‘disadvantage gap’; the need for catch-up support from September; and the logistical issues and resource implications of opening schools fully while taking measures to ..."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "full"
    }
  }
  ["_highlightResult"]=>
  array(6) {
    ["title"]=>
    array(3) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(58) "The Challenges Facing Schools and Pupils in September 2020"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(0) {
      }
    }
    ["author"]=>
    array(1) {
      [0]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(12) "Raspal Singh"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
    }
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(119) "Over half of teachers estimate that the learning gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers has widened."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(1) {
        [0]=>
        string(3) "gap"
      }
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(5627) "This NFER research investigates the impact of Covid-19 on mainstream primary and secondary schools in England and focuses on the challenges schools will face from September when they open to all pupils.It considers the extent to which pupils are behind in their curriculum learning in relation to teachers’ normal expectations for the end of the school year; the impact of Covid-19 on the ‘disadvantage gap’; the need for catch-up support from September; and the logistical issues and resource implications of opening schools fully while taking measures to reduce the risk of infection. It also considers schools’ experiences of offering remote learning from March, and blended learning (remotely and in-school) from June, in order to inform decisions about the support and resources that schools will need in the event of future lockdowns.Jointly funded by Nuffield Foundation and NFER, the study is based on a weighted sample of almost 3,000 school leaders and teachers across over 2,200 mainstream primary and secondary schools in England. Main Findings:Nearly all teachers estimate that their pupils are behind in their curriculum learning, with the average estimate being three months behind. Over half of teachers estimate that the learning gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers has widened. Teachers in the most deprived schools are over three times more likely to report that their pupils are four months or more behind in their curriculum learning than teachers in the least deprived schools. Reasons related to the provision of remote learning include: diminishing levels of pupil and parent engagement over time; and a continuing lack of interactive remote teaching approaches. Reasons related to in-school provision for some pupils from June include: a skew of teaching resource to in-school provision to meet the demands of social distancing. This took teaching resources away from pupils based at home; a reduced quality of in-school teaching due to the restrictions of social distancing (almost three quarters of teachers did not feel able to teach to their usual standard); and low levels of pupil attendance, especially among Pupil Premium and Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) pupils. The main reasons for low attendance were parental safety concerns. Although many schools were supplying IT equipment to their staff, over a third of teachers were providing their own laptop or computer, and three-fifths either supplied their own camera/video equipment or had no access to this at all. Over one quarter (28 per cent) of pupils had limited access to IT at home. This is a particular issue for schools serving the most deprived pupil populations. Teachers estimate that 44 per cent of their pupils are in need of intensive catch-up support. These estimates are much higher in the most deprived schools and in schools serving the highest proportion of pupils from BAME backgrounds. Senior leaders’ top priorities for September are to provide support for pupils’ emotional and mental health and well-being (81 per cent); to re-engage pupils with learning (64 per cent); and to settle them into school (63 per cent). Academic catch-up activities are most likely to take the form of small-group or one-to-one sessions. While most senior leaders predict they will find it at least ‘somewhat manageable’ to open to all pupils in September while taking measures to minimise the risk of infection, many identify a need for additional staffing and resources for cleaning, protective equipment and IT. The percentage of teachers and senior leaders intending to leave the profession has reduced by more than half compared to previous estimates. However, schools plan to reduce their initial teacher training (ITT) placements in 2020/21. This is of concern, given the large increase in the number of applications for ITT in 2020.Implications for government, schools and those that support them:Parents need reassurance that schools are safe. The Government’s national advertising campaign will need to be convincing and may need to continue through the autumn in order to assuage current levels of parental concern. Schools may need help from local authorities (LAs) and trusts with the management of non-attending pupils. The Government’s additional funding for catch-up support is welcome, but schools need extra resources for cleaning regimes and for staffing, to ensure social distancing is managed appropriately. The Government needs to work with school leaders and ITT providers to tackle the challenge of an increase in ITT applications, coupled with a reduction in training places in schools. When inspections resume, Ofsted may need to modify expectations of schools providing a broad and balanced curriculum while social distancing is in force. With the exception of pupils working towards examination specifications, catch up needs to be treated as a long-term endeavour rather than a ‘quick fix’. In future episodes of partial lockdown, ‘blended learning’ must ensure equity for all pupils. Effective remote learning needs to be coupled with high-quality in-school teaching for vulnerable pupils, children of keyworkers, disadvantaged pupils and pupils with unsuitable home learning environments (rather than specific year groups). Schools need government support to prepare for remote learning in a local lockdown. In particular, they need a clear steer on safeguarding. In the absence of this, many schools will avoid teaching and learning methods involving interaction with pupils. Schools need to take an evidence-informed approach to"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "full"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(2) {
        [0]=>
        string(12) "disadvantage"
        [1]=>
        string(3) "gap"
      }
    }
    ["categories"]=>
    array(2) {
      [0]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(10) "Leadership"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
      [1]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(20) "Leadership Briefings"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
    }
    ["tags"]=>
    array(2) {
      [0]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(12) "Non homepage"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
      [1]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(6) "pupils"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

Leadership

The Challenges Facing Schools and Pupils in September 2020

8 Sep 2020

array(8) {
  ["distinct_key"]=>
  string(10) "post#44531"
  ["title"]=>
  string(63) "National Curriculum Assessments At Key Stage 2 In England, 2018"
  ["categories"]=>
  array(1) {
    [0]=>
    string(10) "Leadership"
  }
  ["url"]=>
  string(57) "https://www.teachingtimes.com/national-curriculum_070119/"
  ["post_date_timestamp"]=>
  int(1546426410)
  ["objectID"]=>
  string(12) "post-44531-0"
  ["_snippetResult"]=>
  array(2) {
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(267) "Almost a third of children who failed the phonics check at age 5 or 6 – and failed the resit a year later – still went on to reach the expected standard in reading by the end of primary, according to this DfE report. But those pupils who performed well in the ..."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(347) "... years because of changes to writing teacher assessment (TA) frameworks. In 2017, 61% of pupils reached the expected standard compared to 53% in 2016. The gap between disadvantaged pupils and others, measured using the disadvantage gap index, has decreased in each of the last seven years, narrowing by 3% in ..."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "full"
    }
  }
  ["_highlightResult"]=>
  array(4) {
    ["title"]=>
    array(3) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(63) "National Curriculum Assessments At Key Stage 2 In England, 2018"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(0) {
      }
    }
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(3) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(335) "Almost a third of children who failed the phonics check at age 5 or 6 – and failed the resit a year later – still went on to reach the expected standard in reading by the end of primary, according to this DfE report. But those pupils who performed well in the phonics check, were far more likely to read well at the end of primary."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(0) {
      }
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(3322) "The statistics show that 30 per cent of the pupils who did not meet the expected standard in phonics by the end of Year 2 in 2014 went on to reach the expected standard in reading at the end of Year 6 this year, with 4 per cent achieving a high score. But of the children who reached the phonics standard at the end of Year 1 in 2014, 88 per cent went on to reach the expected standard in reading by the end of Year 6 in 2018, with 37 per cent getting a high score, while 11 per cent failed to reach the Year 6 standard. (Percentages are rounded and do not always add up to 100.) Of those children who failed the phonics test in Year 1, but went on to pass the resit in Year 2, 62 per cent reached the reading standard at the end of Year 6 and 36 per cent failed to do so; 1 per cent were also working below the standard of the test – meaning they did not have to take it. And of those children who did not reach the phonics standard by the end of Year 2, 30 per cent did go on to pass the reading test at age 11, but half failed to do so; 19 per cent were deemed to be working below the standard of the test. The statistics also reveal that in 2017, 88 per cent of pupils who reached the phonics standard at the end of Year 1 reached the expected standard in reading at the end of Year 6. Slightly more of pupils who failed the phonics check at the end of Year 1 or 2 went on to reach the reading standard in 2017 than did so in 2018 – with 64 per cent of pupils who failed the phonics test in Year 1, but passed in Year 2, going on to get the reading test in 2017 and 31 per cent of pupils who failed the phonics standard at the end of Year 2 doing so. Main Findings: In 2018, 64% of pupils reached the expected standard in all of reading, writing and maths. Attainment in reading, writing and maths (combined) is not directly comparable to previous years because of changes to writing teacher assessment (TA) frameworks. In 2017, 61% of pupils reached the expected standard compared to 53% in 2016. The gap between disadvantaged pupils and others, measured using the disadvantage gap index, has decreased in each of the last seven years, narrowing by 3% in the latest year and 13.2% since 2011. 88% of pupils who met the phonics standard in year 1 attained the expected standard in reading at the end key stage 2. Of pupils who met the expected standard in phonics by the end of year 2 (but not in year 1), 62% went on to meet the expected standard. Of those pupils who did not reach the expected standard by the end of year 2, 30% met the expected standard. At key stage 2 in MATs, progress was higher in writing and maths than in reading. In 2018, 25% of MATs had progress scores above or well above the national average in reading, compared with 32% in writing and 30% in maths. There were 25% of MATs with progress scores below or well below average in reading, compared with 18% in writing and 24% in maths. Pupils in MATs make most progress in writing and least progress in reading. This was also the case in 2017. WEB LINK National Curriculum Assessments At Key Stage 2 In England, 2018Keywords National Curriculum Assessments, Key Stage 2, England, phonics check, expected standard, primary, reading "
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "full"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(2) {
        [0]=>
        string(12) "disadvantage"
        [1]=>
        string(3) "gap"
      }
    }
    ["categories"]=>
    array(1) {
      [0]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(10) "Leadership"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

Leadership

National Curriculum Assessments At Key Stage 2 In England, 2018

2 Jan 2019

array(8) {
  ["distinct_key"]=>
  string(10) "post#44140"
  ["title"]=>
  string(51) "Educational Disadvantage: How Does England Compare?"
  ["categories"]=>
  array(1) {
    [0]=>
    string(10) "Leadership"
  }
  ["url"]=>
  string(62) "https://www.teachingtimes.com/educational-disadvantage_300418/"
  ["post_date_timestamp"]=>
  int(1524579482)
  ["objectID"]=>
  string(12) "post-44140-0"
  ["_snippetResult"]=>
  array(2) {
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(218) "This report by the Education Policy Institute (EPI) and Professors John Jerrim and Toby Greany at the UCL Institute of Education (IOE) examines how disadvantaged pupils in England compare with those in other countries."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(362) "... fail to reach the new GCSE “standard” pass mark of a grade 4 in maths. The disadvantage gap in England vs. other countries: The attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers in England is equivalent to one whole GCSE grade. On this measure of educational disadvantage, England ranks in ..."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "full"
    }
  }
  ["_highlightResult"]=>
  array(4) {
    ["title"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(60) "Educational Disadvantage: How Does England Compare?"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(1) {
        [0]=>
        string(12) "disadvantage"
      }
    }
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(3) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(218) "This report by the Education Policy Institute (EPI) and Professors John Jerrim and Toby Greany at the UCL Institute of Education (IOE) examines how disadvantaged pupils in England compare with those in other countries."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(0) {
      }
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(4709) "It found that England would have to double the number of disadvantaged pupils achieving top GCSE grades in maths to match some of the best countries in the world. The country is in the bottom half of developed nations for the attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers in maths, analysis from thinktank Education Policy Institute (EPI) and UCL Institute of Education (IOE) academics has revealed. The gap between disadvantaged pupils in England – children eligible for free school meals – and their peers is equivalent to one whole maths GCSE grade, placing them at 27th out of 44 nations. Just one in 10 disadvantaged pupils in England achieve the top GCSE grades in maths, while nearly twice as many disadvantaged pupils in Singapore achieve these top grades. Key Findings: Maths Performance of disadvantaged pupils in England vs. other countries: In maths, the performance of disadvantaged pupils in England ranks in the lower half of developed countries – standing at 25 out of 44 nations. Under the new GCSE grades, the average maths grade of disadvantaged pupils in England is 3.8 (lower than the current pass grade of 4). England’s disadvantaged pupils lag behind several other Western nations including Estonia, Canada, the Netherlands and Ireland – achieving around a third of a grade lower (on average). Disadvantaged pupils in Asian nations of Macao, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Japan are even further ahead – with England performing around half a grade lower in maths. England is marked by a long tail of underperformance amongst its disadvantaged pupils. Just 1 in 10 disadvantaged pupils in England achieve a high score in GCSE maths of grade 7 to 9 (A-A* under the old grading system). Nearly twice as many disadvantaged pupils in Singapore achieve this grade. Similarly, as many as 4 in 10 disadvantaged pupils in England fail to reach the new GCSE “standard” pass mark of a grade 4 in maths. The disadvantage gap in England vs. other countries: The attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers in England is equivalent to one whole GCSE grade. On this measure of educational disadvantage, England ranks in the bottom half of developed nations, standing 27th out of 44 nations. The disadvantage gap in England is significantly larger than in high performing countries including Estonia (0.71 of a GCSE grade), Hong Kong (0.85) and Norway (0.84). However, in other countries, while overall pupil performance may be far higher than in England, disadvantage gaps are more severe. Countries such as China and Singapore perform poorly on levels of educational disadvantage, with gaps of 1.2 of a GCSE grade. Reading Performance of disadvantaged pupils in England vs. other countries: England’s performance in reading is better than in maths. Disadvantaged pupils in England scored an average grade of 4.0 (a GCSE pass grade) and rank in the top half of developed nations – standing 17th out of the 44 nations. Other leading Western nations such as Canada, Finland, Estonia, Norway and Ireland, all rank higher than England in the performance of disadvantaged pupils, scoring between 4.2 and 4.3 in reading. The disadvantage gap in England vs. other countries: In reading, the gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers in England is around three-quarters of a GCSE grade (0.76) – around the average of all other countries in the report. However, all UK home nations have smaller disadvantage gaps than England. Wales scores considerably better than England on the disadvantage gap in reading (0.64) – ranking an impressive second place – only behind Macao – out of 44 OECD developed nations. However, this could be because overall performance (amongst all pupils in the study) is, on average, poorer than in England. Northern Ireland and Scotland, with gaps of around two-thirds of a GCSE grade (0.66 and 0.68 respectively), also fare better than England on this measure. In reading there is also no link between the performance of disadvantaged pupils, and the disadvantage gap. Again, China and Singapore are high performers overall, yet perform poorly in terms of equity – with large GCSE grade gaps of 0.92 and 0.96. WEB LINK Educational Disadvantage: How Does England Compare?Keywords Educational disadvantage, countries, compare, pupils in England, GCSE grades, free school meals, Maths, reading, performance "
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "full"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(2) {
        [0]=>
        string(12) "disadvantage"
        [1]=>
        string(3) "gap"
      }
    }
    ["categories"]=>
    array(1) {
      [0]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(10) "Leadership"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

Leadership

Educational Disadvantage: How Does England Compare?

24 Apr 2018

array(8) {
  ["distinct_key"]=>
  string(10) "post#44074"
  ["title"]=>
  string(27) "Who Is Leading Our Schools?"
  ["categories"]=>
  array(5) {
    [0]=>
    string(20) "Executive Leadership"
    [1]=>
    string(10) "Governance"
    [2]=>
    string(10) "Leadership"
    [3]=>
    string(26) "School Business Management"
    [4]=>
    string(18) "School Improvement"
  }
  ["url"]=>
  string(58) "https://www.teachingtimes.com/slt85whoisleadingourschools/"
  ["post_date_timestamp"]=>
  int(1523898202)
  ["objectID"]=>
  string(12) "post-44074-0"
  ["_snippetResult"]=>
  array(2) {
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(149) "Increasing confusion now hangs over the role of school governors. In
an era of MATs, Julia Steward unpicks the question of what their
role really is?"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(372) "... continue to increase:  the financial crisis identified by the National Audit Office looms; school places are under pressure; initial teacher training targets are missed; the disadvantage gap resists most attempts to close it – to name but a few.  Effective governance which challenges and supports operational leaders to focus on what ..."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "full"
    }
  }
  ["_highlightResult"]=>
  array(5) {
    ["title"]=>
    array(3) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(27) "Who Is Leading Our Schools?"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(0) {
      }
    }
    ["author"]=>
    array(1) {
      [0]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(13) "Julia Steward"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
    }
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(3) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(149) "Increasing confusion now hangs over the role of school governors. In
an era of MATs, Julia Steward unpicks the question of what their
role really is?"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(0) {
      }
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(5618) "“Governors really don’t have any power”, asserted my colleague, who has recently stepped down from being a school governor. “It all rests with the headteacher and senior leadership team.” The truth is, that in any position which demands impact and influence, it is up to the postholder to take hold of power.  Working as a coach to school leaders, I have heard a variety of stories of headteacher/governor relationships: some heads are appreciative of the checks and balances that a good set of governors can provide; others have been keen to keep governors at arm’s length so that they don’t get in the way; a few  have been exceptionally badly treated by their governors,  resulting in their resignation as an option preferable to extending their stress sand seeking the support of their union.    For every board which is ready to take on the leadership role which is now required, there are probably three which would echo the words of one governor who – on being told governors should be driving the school agenda – responded “you’re telling me we need to tell the head what to do?  You’re having a laugh.”The potential  impact of governanceForty per cent of inspections which resulted in a ‘requires improvement’ or ‘inadequate’ judgements during the period September 2016-March 2017 called for an external review of governance.  The reluctance to step into the space which is now demanded of school governors is just one of the reasons why governance is failing.  School governors are among the largest body of volunteers in the country.  They are accountable for our children’s education.  The central register of governors which the DfE is constructing may eventually yield valuable information concerning whether there are even enough volunteers, let alone enough volunteers with the right skills, to meet the demands of  twenty-two thousand schools, the majority of which still under local authority control.  I was a governor for eight years and I don’t think we ever operated without at least one vacancy.  Demands on schools continue to increase:  the financial crisis identified by the National Audit Office looms; school places are under pressure; initial teacher training targets are missed; the disadvantage gap resists most attempts to close it – to name but a few.  Effective governance which challenges and supports operational leaders to focus on what makes the biggest difference has never been more important.  Professionalising governanceOne of the intentions of the first academies programme was to bring the best of business innovation and skills to the education sector (and, incidentally, money, too) through introducing business boardroom practice into school governance.  Business sponsors have now largely been replaced by sponsoring schools.  The mixed academy/local authority economy together with a sharper focus on governance from Ofsted has exposed weaknesses in governance which was previously tolerated by operational leaders. Governors were often seen as a necessary, if somewhat irritating, encumbrance, rather than as a valuable means of providing continuity and stability, with the potential to secure the future of our society through setting the educational ethos of our schools. After years of minimal investment in the development of governance, in favour of every other tier of school leadership, the system is waking up to the fact that governance matters.In 2013, the CBI published Leading the Way, advocating closer partnership between public and private sector: “One of the best ways to improve performance and make governing bodies more business-like is to attract more people from industry to serve as governors.”  A major factor in successful governance is the quality of clerking.  On a Board (MATs), this role has the equivalence of Company Secretary, and the person carrying out the role is in no doubt of the need for professionalism.  In local authority schools, clerks are often badly paid minute-takers and their authority and capacity to advise governors is variable.  When the clerk is also the Head’s PA, he or she has the advantage of being privy to privileged information, but also has split loyalties, which may be difficult to manage. The governance of MATs is now much closer to a business model than that of a local authority school.  In my experience, MAT boards are more likely to attract governors than maintained schools.  This is partly because they have been proactively recruited for this new purpose, and partly because the arrival of MAT boards has signalled something new about governance.  If you want to effect change, you have to signal it: introducing it by stealth and expecting people to behave differently as a result does not work.  Local authority schools still suffer from a perception that nothing has changed in governance over the last twenty years, when governors generally had a role in rubber-stamping school policies and attending end of year assemblies to present prizes.  One former CEO of a multinational company explained to me that she was relieved to discover that the skills she had used in that role would be valuable.  She had always thought of school governors as being rather like the ‘village hall committee’ .  Business leaders who join a Trust Board recognise the landscape much more easily.  They have been used to having an impact, and are unlikely to volunteer to join a"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "full"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(2) {
        [0]=>
        string(12) "disadvantage"
        [1]=>
        string(3) "gap"
      }
    }
    ["categories"]=>
    array(5) {
      [0]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(20) "Executive Leadership"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
      [1]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(10) "Governance"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
      [2]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(10) "Leadership"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
      [3]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(26) "School Business Management"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
      [4]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(18) "School Improvement"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

Executive Leadership

Who Is Leading Our Schools?

16 Apr 2018