Monthly Archives: October 2025

29/10/2025
1 Comment
Uncategorized

The Pit and the Pendulum:  Turning Self-Awareness into Growth

Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary…

I sometimes have the huge capacity to get in my own way; we all have the capacity for self-sabotage; by using the mantra, the commitment to elevate intentionality, combat complacency, champion growth, and inspire deeper connections, I might have a way forward for me and possibly for you. Who knows?

The first half-term ended with some health matters, which was not the glorious conclusion that I was planning. Being open with you as well, it really played to my own anxiety of not being there at the point where everyone needs the help, or at least, as many boots on the ground, as possible. Guilt being the cement boots that drag us all down to the river bed.

Time away has allowed me to reflect; reflection creates a plan and this is what I feel that I have assessed about myself as a leader and how I will attempt to do better.

1. Running over people’s input because I’ve already decided the answer

The Problem: I ask for opinions constantly. In the main, I do it to challenge leaders at all levels about assumptions and hope it strengthens how they may well approach the situation. In my mind, it is about owning the issue, whatever it may be, and not having me or another ‘sage like’ leader deciding they don’t necessarily believe in and then have someone else to blame if things don’t go according to plan. I do recognise that sometimes I’m waiting for someone to validate my conclusions. I mentally catalogue why differing perspectives are “wrong” and explain why my logic is better. What I don’t want is any member of my team to stop bringing ideas.

The Action I Need to Take (Elevate Intentionality / Combat Complacency):

  • What specific steps will I take to truly listen before responding?
    • I will adopt the “2-second rule”: After someone finishes speaking, I will wait a full two seconds before I open my mouth. This prevents me from forming my rebuttal while they are still talking.
    • I will make the practice of restating: “So, what I hear you saying is [summarise their point]. Did I get that right?” before sharing my own perspective.
  • How will I track my own speaking time vs. listening time in the next meeting?
    • I will use a simple tally sheet or an app on my phone to track how many times I interrupt or dominate the discussion (aiming for less than 25% of the total time). I will reflect, learn and hopefully grow.

2. Treating emotions like malfunctions that slow down progress

The Problem: If someone is upset, sometimes my instinct is to use logic to explain why their feelings are based on a misunderstanding of the facts. Dismissing how people feel teaches my team that I don’t care about the human cost of my decisions. They may well call my “objectivity” cold. They might not tell me to my face, possibly because I will use logic to tell them they are wrong. No-one wants Spock when the dog has passed away.

The Action I Need to Take (Inspire Deeper Connections):

  • Instead of explaining, what is one validating phrase I can use next time someone shares a tough emotion?
    • “That sounds incredibly frustrating, and I can see why you feel that way. Thank you for bringing the human context into this.” (This prioritises empathy before problem-solving.)
  • How will I explicitly factor in the human impact of my next major decision?
    • I will add a mandatory final bullet point to my decision-making checklist: People Impact & Mitigation. I will list who will be most affected by the change and what resources (time, emotional support, training) I will dedicate to helping them adapt.

3. Confusing brutal honesty with leadership courage

The Problem: I pride myself on “telling people exactly what they need to hear,” but my directness can land like contempt. When I point out a mistake, I’m diminishing them instead of helping them improve. The cost of my efficiency is their confidence. My efficiency is long established; their professional growth must be paramount.

The Action I Need to Take (Champion Growth):

  • How can I reframe critical feedback to focus on the desired future state (growth) instead of the past mistake?
    • I will shift the language from: “The report was messy and late,” to: “I have high expectations for you. For our next deliverable, let’s focus specifically on a structure that allows for X impact and ensures we hit the deadline. What support do you need to achieve that?”
  • Who can I ask for feedback on the tone I use during these conversations?
    • I will ask my direct supervisor or a peer mentor to role-play a difficult coaching conversation with me, specifically asking them to critique my body language and vocal tone (not just my words). I spent 5 years as Head of Drama in the dim and distance; I do this so often, but I feel not as often as I should. The strike through is for anyone who might use this advice to grow themselves.

4. Moving so fast through my own certainty that I create silent resistance

The Problem: I see the path clearly and execute quickly. Anyone who needs more explanation feels like dead weight. Speed without alignment is just me charging ahead while my teams drag their feet. They are unconvinced, but they’ve learned questioning me is pointless.

The Action I Need to Take (Elevate Intentionality / Combat Complacency):

  • What is the critical point in the next project where I need to pause specifically for an alignment check?
    • Immediately after the kick off of a meeting and before the team begins executing tasks. I will schedule a separate, 30-minute “Challenge Session” focused only on identifying risks.
  • What are two specific questions I can ask to surface quiet concerns without inviting a debate?
    • “If this project failed, what would be the number one reason, and who here quietly suspects it?” Failure criteria is something I have tried before, and ironically, failed in establishing; I keep coming back to it, because I think it can work. Ask yourself, what is the ‘minimum failure cost’ of this project?
    • “If you had to put a bet on a hidden obstacle, where would you place your money?”

5. Doubling down on bad decisions because admitting mistakes feels like losing

The Problem: I have strong convictions, and changing my mind can feel like weakness. My refusal to acknowledge mistakes has the capacity to destroy my credibility.

The Action I Need to Take (Champion Growth / Inspire Deeper Connections):

  • What is one recent failure I can now openly own with my team this week?
    • I will choose a small, low-stakes decision from the last quarter where I stubbornly proceeded despite early warning signs. In our next meeting, I will say: “I want to circle back to [Specific Project]. I overlooked [Specific Data Point] because I was too committed to my initial idea. I was wrong, and I apologise. The takeaway for all of us is to always prioritise evidence over conviction.”
  • How can I make “What did we learn?” the first question in our next project retrospective, rather than “What went wrong?”
    • I will institute a “Lessons Learned Log” where, instead of assigning blame, every item must be formatted as: “As a result of X, we now understand Y.” I will personally contribute the first entry to model the behaviour.

Quoth The Raven Leader:

As you emerge from the terrible “pit” of self-doubt and anxious isolation, having survived the terrifying “pendulum” of your past habits, remember this truth: The most chilling horror is not the fear of the unknown, but the terror of the unexamined self.

You have peered into the abyss and catalogued the demons that held you captive—the instinct to logically dismiss emotion, the pride of brutal honesty, and the refusal to admit a mistake. By charting your path with the clear intentionality of the “2-second rule”, the empathy of “People Impact & Mitigation”, and the courage to say, “I was wrong, and I apologise”, you have seized control of the narrative.

Let the final dread be of the leader you might have been—and embrace the brighter, more connected leadership you are now determined to forge. Nevermore shall you allow the old patterns to return.

Happy Halloween.

Tagged , , , , , , ,
17/10/2025
Leave a comment
Uncategorized

Read Between the Lines: The Real Stakes of the Year 8 Reading Test

This article aims to provide a strategic analysis of the proposed Year 8 reading test in England, examining its stated purpose, underlying rationale, design features, and potential risks. While the test is presented as a diagnostic tool to identify literacy gaps and support classroom planning, concerns persist about its use as an accountability measure.

Drawing comparisons with the Welsh model and highlighting implications for schools, teachers, and students, the article offers practical recommendations for implementation, risk mitigation, and fostering a positive reading culture.

It aims to support school leaders in navigating the policy landscape with clarity and purpose. It was originally written on the back of the initial announcement about these coming into play on Monday 29th September 2025 and was updated in light of the Secretary of State’s statement on Friday 17th October 2025.

In many respects, I am glad I sat on it while developments took hold. What I offer here are my views, but I would also like to make sure that the reader knows is that context is key. What I would like to see in my own school may well vary both externally and internally. These are not my final thoughts; these are my opening gambits.

The analysis of the proposed Year 8 reading test in England can be structured into four strategic themes, covering the policy’s aims, the evidence supporting it, its intended practical benefits, and the significant risks it carries.

Key Points by Theme

1. Elevate Intentionality: Purpose and Accountability

  • Prohibit the publication of school-by-school results and to bar Ofsted from using the specific test scores as definitive criteria in inspection judgment
  • Policy aims to be diagnostic, but functions as an accountability tool.
  • Accountability creep likely due to data sharing with DfE and Ofsted.
  • Contrast with Welsh model, which prohibits accountability use.

2. Combat Complacency: Rationale and Target Groups

  • Addresses “wasted years” between KS2 and KS4.
  • Reading seen as gateway to curriculum.
  • Targets white working-class underachievement.

3. Champion Growth: Design and Instructional Utility

  • Likely computer-adaptive for accurate, actionable results.
  • Fills data void since Year 9 SATs ended in 2008.
  • Requires ring-fenced CPD investment for teachers.

4. Inspire Deeper Connections: Mitigating Systemic Risk

  • Risks: curriculum narrowing, teaching to the test, teacher stress, student disengagement.
  • Safeguard: legal firewalls to prevent accountability misuse

1. Elevate Intentionality: Purpose and Accountability

This theme explores the core conflict between the government’s stated purpose for the test and its expected real-world function as an accountability tool.

  • Policy Intent vs. Reality: The explicit, stated goal of the test is diagnostic—to efficiently identify specific literacy gaps in 13-year-olds and directly inform teachers’ planning. However, its functional purpose is widely expected to be as an accountability mechanism.
  • Accountability Creep: The crucial decision to share the standardised test data with the Department for Education (DfE) and Ofsted is seen by professional bodies as rendering initial low-stakes assurances “effectively meaningless”. Consequently, school leaders are expected to pre-emptively treat the assessment as high stakes due to the inherent fear of negative inspection outcomes.
  • The Structural Conflict: This approach contrasts sharply with the Welsh model, where mandatory Personalised Assessments (PAs) are explicitly mandated not to be used for school performance or accountability. The English policy instead prioritises centralised data oversight to compel institutional compliance.

2. Combat Complacency: Rationale and Target Groups

This theme focuses on the evidence base and the structural failings in the education system that the new test is designed to rectify.

•     Addressing the “Wasted Years”: The test is a direct response to the lack of centralised accountability between Key Stage 2 (KS2) and Key Stage 4 (KS4), which has historically contributed to a reading “slump” after pupils leave primary school. The government views this as a transition failure, believing secondary schools become “less enthusiastic” about improving struggling readers.

•     Literacy as a Gateway: The DfE frames robust reading skills as the “gateway to the entire curriculum”, arguing that weak literacy fundamentally limits a student’s ability to access all subject-specific content.

•     Targeting Attainment Gaps: A primary social justice imperative behind the policy is to tackle persistent under-achievement in reading among white working-class children. By mandating a check at Year 8, the policy aims to force systematic intervention before high stakes GCSE courses begin.

3. Champion Growth: Design and Instructional Utility

This theme highlights the assessment’s technical design and the necessary steps required to ensure it supports actual student progression in the classroom.

•     Diagnostic Design: The assessment is anticipated to use a computer-adaptive format. This design ensures the rapid delivery of accurate growth scores and actionable results, allowing instructional planning to be prioritised.

•     Filling the Data Void: The test aims to establish a crucial national baseline and a consistent metric of literacy standards at the midpoint of KS3, a metric that has been absent since the Year 9 SATs were abolished in 2008.

•     Policy Recommendation: For the test to champion genuine growth, the DfE should couple the assessment mandate with ring-fenced investment in high-quality Continuous Professional Development (CPD) for secondary teachers. The test’s value must be felt primarily at the classroom level, not simply for governmental data collection.

4. Inspire Deeper Connections: Mitigating Systemic Risk

This theme outlines the major risks identified by stakeholders and proposes a necessary safeguard to protect the broader educational environment.

•     Risk of Narrowing: Stakeholders warn that the centralised pressure will inevitably lead to a narrowing of the KS3 curriculum —or as we understand it, “teaching to the test”. This is argued to undermine the need for a “broad and balanced curriculum taught by teachers who are trusted”.

•     Undermining Professionalism: The introduction of another national test implicitly suggests that existing localised professional judgment and formative assessments are insufficient, thus adding significant stress and pressure to teachers and staff.

•     Student Engagement: There is a fear that introducing another high-stakes test risks exacerbating disengagement and making the assessment counterproductive, especially since pupils’ enjoyment of reading has already fallen to its lowest level in two decades.

•     The Crucial Safeguard: To mitigate these systemic risks, the primary recommendation is to Mandate Legal Firewalls Against Accountability Creep. This requires clear, statutory legislation to explicitly prohibit the publication of school-by-school results and to bar Ofsted from using the specific test scores as definitive criteria in inspection judgments.

Recommendations for Our Academy

(edited to add: it is all about context…)

The proposed test must be viewed as an opportunity for targeted intervention rather than solely a compliance exercise, especially in a context where persistent attainment gaps are critical.

1. Strategic Policy and Purpose (Managing Accountability Creep)

We must establish a clear internal firewall to shield instructional practice from external pressure.

•     Prioritise Diagnostic Use: Explicitly treat the Year 8 test internally as a diagnostic tool—its stated purpose —rather than a high-stakes accountability check. Use the resulting data to efficiently identify literacy gaps and inform instructional planning for individual students.

•     Decouple from Staff Performance: Provide assurances to staff that the test data (shared with the DfE and Ofsted) will not be used as a definitive criterion for internal teacher or departmental performance judgments. This is crucial to prevent the test from adding “stress and pressure” to teachers and to encourage trust in existing professional judgment.

•     Lobby for the “Crucial Safeguard”: Actively support calls from professional bodies to Mandate Legal Firewalls Against Accountability Creep. This includes advocating for legislation to prohibit the publication of school-by-school results.

2. Instructional Implementation (Combating Complacency)

The school should leverage the test’s format to address the “reading slump” prevalent in Key Stage 3 (KS3).

•     Target the “Wasted Years”: Initiate or reinforce a systematic, whole-school literacy strategy across Years 7 and 8 to actively combat the perceived lack of centralised accountability after primary school. This is the direct structural problem the government aims to rectify.

•     Utilise Adaptive Data: Fully exploit the computer-adaptive format of the assessment. Use the rapid delivery of accurate growth scores and actionable results to drive specific, small-group intervention, particularly for students identified as falling behind.

•     Literacy as a Gateway: Train staff across all subjects (not just English) to understand their role in reading instruction. Literacy is the “gateway to the entire curriculum”, and intervention must ensure students can access the subject-specific content in Science, History, and Maths.

•     Invest in CPD: Dedicate funds to ring-fenced investment in high-quality Continuous Professional Development (CPD) focused on effective secondary literacy instruction and how to interpret and act on adaptive assessment data.

3. Student Engagement and Risk Mitigation

Given that student enjoyment of reading has fallen to its lowest level in two decades, the school must protect the curriculum from the worst effects of testing.

•     Protect the Broad Curriculum: Actively resist any pressure to allow the test to lead to a narrowing of the KS3 curriculum—the phenomenon known as “teaching to the test”. The school should commit to maintaining a “broad and balanced curriculum”.

•     Counter Disengagement: Recognise the risk that introducing another high-stakes test risks exacerbating student disengagement. Implement or expand non-assessed reading-for-pleasure initiatives, such as silent reading time, library access, and book clubs, to foster a positive reading culture separate from assessment pressure.

•     Focus on Attainment Gaps: Directly address the social justice imperative of the policy: tackling persistent under-achievement in reading among specific groups, such as white working-class children, who may be disproportionately represented in the inner-city school’s cohort

Edited to add:

The DfE statement on Friday 17th October from the secretary of state aligns with and directly addresses several key themes and rationales detailed in this analysis of the proposed Year 8 reading test, while also using language that attempts to mitigate the risks identified. I am not claiming foresight or wisdom, but I do wonder whether Bridgit has been reading over my shoulder…

Areas of Alignment and Direct Support:

•     Policy Intent (Diagnostic Use): The statement explicitly emphasises the test’s diagnostic purpose. It stresses that the assessment is intended to “give you the tools and data you need to identify where children need additional help” and provide “invaluable data for schools – giving you insights to ensure no child needing additional support slips through the cracks.”

•     Addressing the “Wasted Years”: The statement addresses the structural failure identified in the original article by mentioning the “gap where too many children slip further behind” between the “crucial staging posts at the end of year 6 and year 11”. This is the government’s direct response to the “lack of centralised accountability between Key Stage 2 (KS2) and Key Stage 4 (KS4)

•     Literacy as a Gateway: The statement frames the policy with the rationale that a child “must first be able to read” before they can “engage in everything their school offers,” which aligns with the DfE’s framing of robust reading skills as the “gateway to the entire curriculum”

•     Targeting Attainment Gaps: The concern about “disadvantaged children” being less able to read is mentioned in the statement, echoing the original articles theme that the policy has a “social justice imperative” to tackle persistent under-achievement

Areas of Contrast and Risk Mitigation:

•     Accountability vs. Low-Stakes: The government’s statement repeatedly attempts to reassure teachers that the test is not an accountability measure, saying, “it is not about putting you… under the microscope” and is “without being onerous or adding unnecessary pressure onto pupils.” This is a direct attempt to pre-empt and mitigate the major systemic risk identified in the document: Accountability Creep

The original article however, warns that this low-stakes assurance is “effectively meaningless” because sharing standardised data with the DfE and Ofsted means school leaders are expected to pre-emptively treat the assessment as high stakes

•     Teacher Stress and Professionalism: The statement aims to counter the risk of “Undermining Professionalism” and “teacher stress” by saying, “I know your expertise will help them feel confident,” and “Your expertise and dedication are among our education system’s greatest strengths.” The original article warns that introducing another national test implicitly suggests that existing professional judgment is “insufficient”.

So, let us revisit in the coming weeks. Today saw the first official statement; tomorrow may show us the dull or bright reality.

Tagged , , ,
16/10/2025
1 Comment
Uncategorized

Inspiring Deeper Connections: The True Test of Senior Leadership

Approaching October half term is always an important time for our senior leaders to focus on fixing behaviour. The new intake, hormonal battles and plans in the summer that seemed so sweet are now in action as we descend into darkness. The challenge is joining up two big, different ideas. To get it right, they need to Elevate Intentionality, fight against being settled (Combating Complacency), keep pushing people to improve (Championing Growth), and Inspire Deeper Connections across the school team.

Inspiring Deeper Connections: Agency Versus Authority

The biggest challenge for our senior school leaders is figuring out how to Inspire Deeper Connections between two very different plans that represent two different types of leadership. On one side, we have the vital, detailed work—the kind often done by operational leaders—of making sure all our rules and systems (like the detailed checklist offered for children’s files and using data analysis) are working perfectly. This work puts children and colleague agency first.

On the other side is the big, expensive new idea: the Behaviour Hub and the focus on detentions as a key area of development. This model risks being seen as the traditional, middle-aged approach of command-and-control authority.

Leaders must join these two ideas together. If they don’t, the simple but important fixes—the little things that empower staff—will get ignored because everyone will be focused on the high-profile, costly project, letting authority overshadow agency. This is about making sure everyone is working on the same team, with a clear link between how we manage small problems and how we handle big ones.

Elevating Intentionality: Justifying the £250,000 Crossroads

Great school leadership starts with Elevating Intentionality—meaning leaders must think very carefully and on purpose about where every penny goes. The desire to fix things ourselves shows a real impetus to focus on strong internal processes.

But then there’s the Behaviour Hub, which is a special, full-day provision for students, mainly Years 7 and 8. It is set to cost about £250,000 every single year to run. This is a massive amount of money. Leaders need to be very intentional when they look closely at this cost and ask: Will spending all this money just reinforce a powerful, male-coded disciplinary structure, making us complacent about the vital work of operational leadership?

Elevating Intentionality means making sure that the resources are shared; fixing the simple things—the checks, balances, and children’s trails. Leaders must prove that the Hub is truly needed because the system-level fixes alone weren’t enough, not just because the powerful intervention model is easier to demonstrate action is being taken.

Championing Growth by Combating Complacency

The way we decide to handle poor behaviour shows if we truly want to Champion Growth. The plan to focus heavily on detentions as a key area of development is simple to enforce. But this easy punishment route, often seen as a quick fix from the top, risks making staff Complacent because it stops them from asking the challenging question: why did the student behave that way?

The Behaviour Hub suggests a better way to Champion Growth. It requires reflective practice, uses behaviour passports and praise on exit, and must be curriculum aligned. This approach, focused on teaching and understanding, sees poor behaviour as a chance to teach something new. Leaders must Champion Growth by making sure this reflective attitude, which values collaboration over consequence, is used by all teachers, not just the Hub staff. They must use the data driven approach to selection from the Hub to help the whole school learn how to better teach students self-control, which is a better goal than just giving out a detention. Behaviour is a curriculum model. Would not resources be better used to adapt and develop the curriculum in such a way that enhances the opportunities for children to learn and develop rather than knit pom-poms and bake cakes? Is this allowing our children to be able to adapt and thrive?

What Happens Next? The Unresolved Questions

These two sets of ideas—the detailed rule-making and the expensive new room—are both important. But the biggest challenge is making sure they work together. As senior leaders look at this plan, they need to be honest and Elevate Intentionality to solve the following problems:

  • Why is the high-cost, high-control Hub model being pushed forward so quickly? Does it risk marginalising the less visible, but vital, work of developing internal processes that empower colleagues agency?
  • How can leaders Inspire Deeper Connections so that the different ideas—like the collaborative reflective practice in the Hub and the strict use of SLT detentions—actually make sense together without one feeling like a defeat for the other?
  • Are we simply Combating Complacency by spending a massive £250,000 on a new room, or are we truly trying to Champion Growth across the entire school with our daily actions and our respect for different styles of leadership?
  • Will the pressure to get the new Hub up and running cause the equally vital work of systemic reform to be tabled for wider discussion and just forgotten about later, thus quashing the agency-focused approach?

The systematic, curriculum approach, one that spreads responsibility, offers potency to all colleagues and creating a dynamic for children in which to develop and grow is the actual champion. Better to tackle these matters collectively than to shift towards an out of sight, out of mind model. There’s a reason that the dunces cap and standing in the corner facing the wall went the way of the cane.

09/10/2025
1 Comment
Uncategorized

The Moral Imperative: Cultivating Authentic Professional Growth in Teaching

I know I have been quiet. It means I have been noisy elsewhere. For me, this blog is a therapy; an expression of the soul of what I am doing. For those that read this and know me, this is a peek behind the curtain. For everyone else, I hope that this might offer an inspiration.

Professional growth must not be a managerial, tick box exercise. We are teachers; we are in a graduate profession. We must feed and grow ourselves to achieve something.

Professional growth in education is more than a required administrative process; it is, fundamentally, a commitment to moral purpose. For teachers, authentic development is the engine that drives student success and shapes the next generation. This journey requires intentionality, a refusal to stand still, a dedication to supporting colleagues, and a relentless focus on the human connections that underpin great teaching.

The Foundation of Authenticity

Authentic professional growth begins with deep reflection. It is the starting point of a meaningful, impactful conversation with a coach, transforming an administrative task into a deeply personal framework. Teachers are encouraged to view their development not as a mere checklist, but as an opportunity to align their individual ambitions with their professional journey. This requires honesty about practice, a willingness to receive peer feedback, and a commitment to modelling high standards for both students and colleagues alike. This developmental process is deliberately designed to help colleagues align their current role and goals with potential career progression, identifying the stepping stones toward roles like a Middle Leader or a Trust Development Team member; in short, influence the whole, not just the corner you are in.

Elevating Intention and Combating Complacency

A growth plan achieves its potential when it blends individual ambition with collective purpose. Every professional goal should directly connect to the school’s or Trust’s strategic mission, such as creating a community of empowered citizens. For teachers, this means constantly articulating and evidencing curriculum intent, implementation, and impact. This proactive approach actively combats complacency by upholding the notion that “It’s not enough to beat the odds, we must change the odds.” Intention is refined by applying high-level standards to daily practice; for example, Upper Pay Scale (UPS) Teachers are expected to actively lead and mentor colleagues, championing innovation and contributing to whole-school improvement. Even leadership targets are framed as leading initiatives that promote key qualities like sustainability or citizenship, ensuring personal growth directly serves the wider educational vision. This commitment to continuous improvement is further evidenced by using data-informed self-evaluation—turning academic data into actionable insights to refine teaching—and engaging in curriculum deep dives to ensure professional mastery and clear articulation of curriculum impact.

Championing Growth and Inspiring Deeper Connections

Sustained growth is institutionalised through supportive structures, promoting a culture where experience is shared and expertise is cultivated. Growth is championed by implementing formal structures, such as designing and leading a coaching programme for middle leaders, and actively identifying and mentoring future UPS candidates. Furthermore, UPS teachers are explicitly tasked with leading Continuous Professional Development, coaching colleagues, and setting the tone for a culture of high expectations and equity. This is a critical move from simply growing to generating growth in others. Professional growth is inherently a collaborative endeavour, which supports the wider goal of fostering citizens with agency by prioritising inter-staff collaboration. Teachers are expected to show unity, co-plan, and support faculty-wide standardisation by sharing good practice and participating in marking moderation for professional development. Colleagues are also expected to Live the Culture and Lead the Culture by taking initiative in shaping routines and upholding professional standards, as outlined in the principles of ‘The Mirror’. Finally, inspiring deeper connections means that targets must extend beyond the classroom into the real world, including developing partnerships with local businesses to enhance careers education and leading cross-curricular projects that promote global citizenship, while also fostering positive relationships with students and encouraging positive parental engagement.

Uploads of documents used over the past few days will be available to download.

I hope to not be silent for a few weeks, but we are in the midst of the longest term and the hardest work. Authenticity occasionally means going the extra mile and not seeking the immediate rewards.

Tagged , , ,