So, this is from my other blog. I wrote it, couldn’t decide which blog it belonged on. I asked my wife. I read her the last paragraph and she didn’t know either. She’s the smart one. So, blatant plug.
Blatant Plug
The Authentic Leader
Empathy, Leadership & Experience. Authenticity.
Category Archives: Hold The Line
Beyond the Metric: Harmonising the 2026 Reforms with a Developed and Divergent Curriculum
The landscape of secondary accountability in England is currently navigating a period of profound transition, moving away from the rigid mechanical constraints that have defined the previous decade. Following the 2025-26 data lacuna—a hiatus necessitated by the absence of pandemic-era primary baselines—the Department for Education and the Confederation of School Trusts (CST) are articulating a new vision for Progress 8. However, for the authentic leader, this shift represents more than mere regulatory adjustment; it is an invitation to return to a four-movement symphony of curriculum design—one that prioritises intentionality, deep engagement, authentic connection, and a divergent narrative of success.
Movement I: Elevating Intentionality and the Search for Dignity
An excellent curriculum begins by establishing a clear and purposeful direction, elevating the intentionality behind every aspect of the learning journey. For too long, the rigid mechanical constraints of Progress 8 acted as a statistical straitjacket. When a student with complex SEND or significant socio-emotional barriers prioritised quality over quantity, the system imposed a zero-score penalty for empty slots—effectively ghosting their efforts and rendering their genuine achievements invisible to the national record.
As I look ahead to September 2026 and reflect on the KS4 curriculum model I have shaped, I see it as much more than a timetable or an options grid; it is a deliberate expression of my belief that every learner deserves a pathway that fits who they are, not who a metric expects them to be. The CST’s support for the proposed Best-Fit model for Low Prior Attainers is a vital step toward reclaiming this intentionality. In our symphonic model, we recognise that not every movement requires a full orchestra to be impactful; sometimes, a soloist’s performance is more resonant than a crowded stage. By validating progress based on the subjects a student actually completes, the Best-Fit measure finally allows us to design pathways based on intellectual range rather than bucket filling. This ensures the breakthrough moment of a vulnerable learner—whether in a vocational setting or a life-skills environment—is no longer silenced by the over-zealous accounting of a historical league table driver.
Movement II: Fostering Deep Engagement by Dismantling the EBacc Tyranny
The second movement of our curriculum symphony focuses on fostering deep engagement—moving beyond mere compliance to ensure students truly thrive. The intended scrapping of the EBacc’s restrictive mandate finally dismantles a hierarchy that subtly relegated the Arts to the sidelines of the academic pageant. In crafting my model, I have ensured that students move through Key Stage 4 with genuine agency, supported by structures that offer breadth without forcing conformity.
This sense of agency is underpinned by a robust academic bedrock. Every child in my school will have access to a rich core of English, mathematics, and science—taught for 27 lessons across the fortnight—ensuring the consistency and sequencing that deep learning requires. Alongside this, they remain grounded through core PE, maintaining the physical and wellbeing dimension of their development. These anchor points give stability, allowing our four option blocks, each containing five hours of learning time, to offer the flexibility that a truly inclusive curriculum requires. By populating these blocks with a mix of creative, technical, academic, and vocational subjects, I have ensured that no block feels restrictive or privileges one category over another. Each block acts as an invitation; whether a student’s strengths lie in expressive arts, critical humanities, digital production, or applied learning, they are not boxed into a single route by the architecture of the curriculum. This is the dawn of a nuanced accountability, where subjects like Art, Music, 3D Design, and Creative Media stand on a guaranteed equal footing with traditional academic pillars.
Movement III: Cultivating Authentic Connections via Jacob’s Ladder
The third movement seeks to cultivate authentic connections to the wider world, reaching the summit of Jacob’s Ladder where the academic enterprise connects to future enduring skills. My curriculum acts as fertile ground for emerging expectations around digital literacy, oracy, and data science. Subjects such as iMedia, Business Studies, and Citizenship provide natural spaces where students develop digital reasoning, resilience against misinformation, and the confidence to articulate their ideas in an increasingly complex public square.
This model grew from my conviction that Best-Fit is a philosophical reform as much as a technical one. Under the old system, students with non-linear profiles became invisible; in my model, pathways such as ASDAN AOPE and Life Skills stand proudly alongside GCSEs and BTECs. These are not fallback routes; they are intentionally designed journeys that acknowledge different forms of confidence, communication, and independence. My next step is to ensure these themes—including the responsible use of AI and structured oracy routines—are not left implicit but become visible threads running through every scheme of learning. This integrated approach ensures that a divergent curriculum naturally provides more avenues for developing the essential skills of critical thinking and teamwork that are indispensable in an ever-evolving world, empowering students to engage civically and confidently with their community.
Movement IV: Inspiring Deeper Connection—When the Centre Holds
The final movement—inspiring deeper connection—is where the centre must hold. A divergent and developed KS4 is entirely dependent on the strength of the foundations laid at Key Stage 3. When intentionality falters in these early years, the KS4 curriculum can quickly unravel, leaving students ill-equipped for the complex marketplace of options. Conceptual stagnation in the lower years leads to a loss of momentum that no amount of late-stage intervention can fully repair.
To ensure the integrity of the whole, we must treat the proposed statutory Year 8 reading tests as a critical diagnostic tool—an early warning system for a fading echo of enthusiasm. A genuinely developed KS4 is only possible if we prioritise a strong, enabling KS3 that fosters resilience and bridges the literacy gap. Designing this model also means preparing for the evolving Ofsted landscape of 2026; inspectors will look for the rationale behind our subjects and the coherence of our intent. They will want to see not simply what subjects are offered, but why they connect and what they mean for the learners who take them. My model positions us well by demonstrating a commitment to inclusion through multiple viable pathways, but I must continue to articulate these design principles explicitly so that the rationale—the why behind the what—is heard as clearly as it is felt.
Coda: The RISE Model and the Stigma of the Quintile
Yet every symphony has its moments of tension. The introduction of the Targeted RISE (Regional Improvement for Standards and Excellence) model introduces a potential discord. While peer-to-peer support is theoretically sound, the 18-month window creates a high-stakes countdown that could force leaders back into a checklist approach to improvement—prioritising quick data wins over the deep, cultural growth that sustainable excellence requires.
Furthermore, the shift to Percentile Banding, or the stigma of the quintile, carries heavy implications for the health of our professional communities. Labelling the bottom 20% of schools as targets for intervention risks creating a revolving door of leadership and staff in the very schools that most need stability and resilience. We must remain vigilant that the support we receive does not come at the cost of our curriculum’s soul or the breadth we have fought to preserve. The danger is that support becomes a euphemism for conformity, silencing the unique melodies of schools that do not fit the standard mould.
The Final Movement: A Resonant Future
Ultimately, the curriculum I have built reflects who we are as a school: inclusive, ambitious, creative, and unafraid to rethink what success looks like. The 2026 reforms offer a glimpse of a more nuanced educational symphony that finally values the divergent nature of excellence. It embodies the principle that a curriculum should adapt to the learner—not the other way around.
By using our own four-movement model as the conductor, we can ensure that these technical changes grant our students the dignity they deserve. We are moving towards a model where success is measured not by how well a student fits a pre-defined bucket, but by the strength of their character, the breadth of their knowledge, and the readiness with which they step into the world. Our task now is to ensure that everyone—students, staff, families, and governors—can see the intentionality and ambition woven into every part of this journey, building a developed, resilient, and human-centred foundation for their futures.
Afterword:
As always, there is more to come. How this looks on the ground and how we take colleagues with us on this journey. How this best impacts the life chance of the students and then the wider community. As I draw these reflections together, I am increasingly mindful of Ofsted’s renewed focus on curriculum coherence from 2026 onwards. This shift invites me to articulate with greater clarity the principles that underpin the model I have designed. While much of this thinking has informed my decisions implicitly, I recognise the importance of making these intentions visible—not only for inspectors, but for my staff, my students, and the wider community who place their trust in our curriculum.
At the heart of my design is a commitment to breadth for all. I want every student, whatever their starting point or ambition, to move through a curriculum rich in possibility. Breadth is not simply about offering more subjects; it is about giving every learner the chance to encounter disciplines that broaden identity, understanding, and aspiration. This curriculum is built to ensure that students do not find themselves siloed by prior attainment or early decisions but instead remain open to discovery.
Alongside this breadth sits the principle of creativity as an academic entitlement. For too long, the creative arts have lived in the shadow of accountability systems that undervalued their contribution to intellectual and personal development. My model deliberately restores their status, ensuring that Art, Drama, Music, Photography, 3D Design and Creative Media appear across the option blocks as legitimate, ambitious, knowledge-rich routes. Creativity is not a supplement to academic life; it is a vital expression of it.
Equally important to me is securing applied routes with genuine parity. Subjects such as Business Studies, Childcare, Food and iMedia should not be seen as alternatives for the few, but as rigorous, purposeful pathways that match the interests and strengths of many students. These routes develop autonomy, problem‑solving and real-world competence, and they deserve the same institutional respect as more traditionally academic subjects.
Underlying all these decisions is a principled commitment to SEND dignity. The move towards Best-Fit accountability allows me to articulate openly what has always mattered to me: that learners with complex needs must never be forced into an ill-fitting curriculum for the sake of a metric. By offering ASDAN AOPE and Life Skills alongside GCSE and BTEC options, I am affirming that success looks different for different students and that every pathway deserves to be celebrated. This is not accommodation; this is intention.
Finally, I hold closely the need to cultivate future-facing literacies. Our students will grow into a world shaped by AI, digital communication, data, and rapidly shifting socio-economic landscapes. They need more than subject knowledge—they need confidence in navigating information, expressing their ideas, understanding digital ethics, and engaging meaningfully with their communities. My curriculum, with its strong digital and civic components, begins to lay the groundwork for this, though I know there is still more to do.
These principles—breadth, creativity, parity, dignity, and future-readiness—are the threads that bind the structure together. They ensure that the curriculum is not merely a timetable but a declaration of what I believe education should offer. As I continue refining and developing this model, these values will remain my compass, guiding the decisions that shape the learning journeys of the young people in my care.
Hold the Line – The Leader’s Imperative
I cannot tell you how many times I happened across the film ‘Zulu’ on TV during the 70s and 80s. In my mind, the phrase “hold the line” functions as a crucial cultural constant within the history of human endeavour. While its origins are found in the literal musket-smoke of 19th-century linear warfare, its true resonance today lies in the demonstrable, everyday expression of professional purpose. To “hold the line” is to move beyond abstract definitions of vision and to engage in the robust, resilient work of maintaining one’s “True North” against the pressures of accountability and the often-turbulent winds of institutional change. It is an act of professional defiance—a refusal to allow the quality of our mission to be diluted by the convenience of the status quo.
The Tactical Genesis: The Line as Professional Expression
The etymology of the phrase is rooted in the foundations of rigour and discipline. In the 18th and 19th centuries, infantrymen stood in rigid, shoulder-to-shoulder “lines” to maximise the effectiveness of their limited-range muskets. This was not merely a physical formation; it was a professional attribute that extended beyond academic competence into the realm of survival. The integrity of the line was a shared contract; each soldier’s safety depended entirely on the steadfastness of the colleague to their left and right.
If a line broke, the defensive formation collapsed into chaos, rendering the unit vulnerable to a total rout. Thus, “holding the line” was the primary function of leadership—assisting colleagues in elevating their practice from simple survival to the clear articulation of a collective mission. The most enduring historical image, the “Thin Red Line” at the Battle of Balaclava (1854), proved that a disciplined, unwavering formation represents the professional expression of institutional care. It demonstrated that a numerically inferior force could repulse a superior one, provided their commitment to the formation remained absolute and their “methods” remained consistent under fire.
The Cinematic Crucible: Zulu and the Mechanical Moral Purpose
The 1964 film Zulu, which is a classic of British, boys’ own stuff, provides a definitive visual dictionary for this concept, offering a masterclass in how institutional resilience is built through standardisation and grit. Depicting the Battle of Rorke’s Drift (1879), the film dramatises how a “line” is not a static script, but a rhythmic, iterative process that must be maintained with almost mechanical precision. Yet again, I am looking; where’s the love?
The Love for Subject (Rank Fire):
The British defenders utilised “rank fire”—a sophisticated system where rows of soldiers cycled through firing and reloading to ensure a continuous stream of firepower. In an educational context, this mirrors the transition from “content delivery” to a “moral purpose.” Without the “love for the subject” and a deep belief in its transformative power, pedagogical activity risks becoming procedural. The soldiers held the line because they were committed to the analytical rigour of their formation; similarly, educators hold the line when they are committed to the rigorous implementation of a curriculum that empowers their pupils.
The Perimeter of Mealie Bags: When the outer “line” was threatened by overwhelming odds, the defenders did not scatter in individual panic. Instead, they “shortened the line,” redrawing their perimeter using whatever materials were available—mealie bags and biscuit boxes. This represents Strategic Adaptability. It shows that while the mission is non-negotiable, the methodology of the defence must be responsive. They utilised the tools at hand to ensure the structural clarity of their defence remained intact, spanning from the initial, terrifying assault through to the exhaustion of the final stand.
The Inherent Blockage: Navigating the Messiness of Change
Every meaningful evolution—whether on the battlefield or within the faculty—inevitably hits a blockage. This is the point where change is no longer a theoretical, inspiring ascent but a difficult descent into the inherent complexity of reality. It is the messy middle of any transformation where initial enthusiasm wanes and the weight of entrenched habits begins to pull the team back toward the path of least resistance.
In Zulu, the blockage was the overwhelming physical pressure of the opposition and the sheer fatigue of the defenders; in leadership, the blockage is often the frozen state of habit, the transactional nature of daily tasks, or the mental exhaustion of the academic cycle. This period of stagnation is where the Love for the Journey is most tested. The resilient leader acknowledges that progress is non-linear and often attained incrementally, through a series of “unfreezing” and “refreezing” moments. When the line hits a blockage, the mandate is not to abandon the vision in frustration, but to engage in honest scrutiny, derive lessons from the friction, and adjust strategies dynamically to keep the momentum alive.
Where is the Love? The Moral Imperative of Consistency
To hold the line during these blockages requires more than technical competence or administrative oversight; it requires what we might call the Love for the People and Love for the Journey. It is an emotional and ethical commitment to the collective success of the institution.
- Love as Robust Consistency: Authentic professional development is not a superficial or isolated event. It is the deep, sustained commitment to ensuring that pedagogical expectations—the “non-negotiables”—are followed with 100% intentionality in every classroom. This consistency is the highest form of love because it protects colleagues from the isolation of individual failure and protects students from the inequity of a variable experience. It ensures that excellence is not a lottery, but a guaranteed standard.
- The Jacob’s Ladder of Leadership: Leadership requires the constant navigation of a professional “Jacob’s Ladder.” This necessitates managing the descent—the necessary engagement with complex compliance, budgetary constraints, and the messiness of institutional change—without ever losing sight of the ascent—the moral purpose of upholding standards and fostering human flourishing. The resilient leader refuses to let the technicalities of the descent overshadow the educational imperative of the ascent.
- Empowerment through Shared Responsibility: Just as the defence of Rorke’s Drift relied on the distributed leadership of every man behind a mealie bag, educational resilience depends on collective efficacy. We hold the line not because we are told to by a central authority, but because we are empowered to take ownership of our professional domain. Empowerment is the practical manifestation of institutional trust; it acknowledges that every member of the team is a vital link in the chain, capable of exercising professional judgement to sustain the integrity of the whole.
Reaffirming the Trajectory
As we navigate the demanding trajectory of the academic year, holding the line remains our most evocative shorthand for professional integrity. It is the refusal to permit the technicalities of the descent to overshadow the human and educational imperative of our mission. It is an understanding that while the what of our work may change in response to new regulations or frameworks, the why—our commitment to pupil success—must remain immovable.
Whether we are redrawing a perimeter, refining a curriculum, or navigating a period of fiscal uncertainty, the goal remains the same: to ensure that excellence is not an exception, but a unified standard. By intentionally working to elevate intentionality, combat complacency, and champion the growth of our peers, we ensure that our love for the journey sustains the enduring health and efficacy of the institution long into the future.
Beyond Buckets: Schools Without the Squeeze
Academic Breadth: Because Children Aren’t Pancakes
The education white paper “Every Child Achieving and Thriving,” published this past Monday, 23rd February 2026, marks a definitive pivot from the performance table era of the last decade toward a more holistic, inclusive model. Every Child Achieving and Thriving proposes a generational £4 billion overhaul of the SEND system, transitioning away from a one-size-fits-all model towards a tiered, inclusive by design framework. At its core is the introduction of digital Individual Support Plans (ISPs) for every child with additional needs, intended to provide legally enforceable, day-to-day support without the need for a lengthy EHCP battle or a formal diagnosis. This is backed by a £1.8 billion Experts at Hand service, giving schools direct access to specialists like speech therapists and educational psychologists, and a £1.6 billion Inclusive Mainstream Fund for early interventions.
Furthermore, every mainstream school will be required to establish an inclusion base—supported by £3.7 billion in capital investment—to ensure specialist help is available locally, while National Inclusion Standards will be introduced to eliminate the postcode lottery and ensure consistent accountability across the country.
But it is not solely about SEND. A hundred others better qualified and more nuanced will write about the SEND aspects. There are other aspects I would like to share for us to consider.
This paper is less about hitting targets and more about fixing the foundations. However, the success of the Progress 8 reform and the Disadvantage Funding model will depend entirely on whether the Treasury treats this as a genuine investment or just a re-shuffling of the deck chairs.
By scrapping the EBacc and reworking Progress 8, the government is effectively admitting that a “one-size-fits-all” academic jacket was becoming a bit too tight for many pupils. Here is a breakdown of the specific aspects you highlighted:
1. The Progress 8 & Attainment 8 Reset
The decision to scrap the English Baccalaureate as a performance measure is a watershed moment. For years, the “EBacc bucket” was criticised for squeezing out the arts and vocational subjects.
- The Transition: The DfE proposes replacing the EBacc constraint with an Academic Breadth measure. This is expected to give equal weighting to creative subjects and the humanities, finally letting the arts out of the performance penalty box.
- A Tailored Measure: The new measure for children who start secondary school significantly behind is perhaps the most empathetic part of the reform. It acknowledges that a child’s progress shouldn’t just be a high-stakes race from a baseline they never reached; it allows schools to be recognised for the massive value they add to pupils following non-standard or supported curricula.
- Deadline: As you noted, the consultation on these metrics is live until 4 May 2026. This is a critical window for school leaders to ensure the new Academic Breadth doesn’t just become another version of the same old buckets.
2. The Enrichment Framework: From Extra to Essential
Moving enrichment from the periphery into the Ofsted inspection toolkit is a bold move. It changes the status of school plays, sports, and civic projects from nice-to-haves to accountability-haves.
- The Benchmark: The framework will set national standards for what a good offer looks like (covering arts, culture, nature, sport, and life skills).
- The Challenge: While this is a win for the whole child, it places a new burden on school budgets. To help, the government has announced a £22.5 million Enrichment Entitlement fund to support the 400 most disadvantaged schools in meeting these new benchmarks.
3. Disadvantage Funding: The Winners and Losers Risk
The shift away from binary Free School Meal (FSM) eligibility toward a more nuanced household income-based model is an attempt to catch the “hidden poor”—families who are just above the threshold but still struggling in the current economic climate.
- The Caution: I share the ASCL’s caution regarding the new funding model. Better targeting for our most vulnerable pupils is the right goal, but I agree with Pepe Di’Iasio that this shouldn’t be a ‘zero-sum game’. If the DfE isn’t putting new money on the table, they are effectively creating winners and losers, which will inevitably lead to financial instability for many schools. We need to see an increase in the total spend, not just a redistribution of the same budget
- The Policy Gap: The white paper commits to halving the disadvantage gap within a generation, but without a massive injection of fresh core funding beyond the specific SEND and teacher training pots, the redistributive model remains a point of high anxiety for the sector.
Other Big Picture Hits from the Paper
- Workforce Boost: A plan to recruit 6,500 additional expert teachers and a doubling of maternity pay (to 8 weeks full pay) to stem the retention crisis.
- SEND Experts at Hand: A £1.8 billion service providing schools with direct access to specialists (speech therapists, psychologists) without the need to fight for an EHCP first.
- Inclusion Bases: Every secondary school will be expected to host a dedicated inclusion base to support the Every Child Included mission.
Ultimately, this white paper marks a bold shift from a rigid, data‑driven culture to a more human, inclusive system. It replaces the old academic straitjacket with a tailored approach that treats the arts, enrichment, and specialist support as essentials rather than luxuries. But for this to be a true watershed moment — not just a reshuffling of deck chairs — the vision must be matched by sustainable new funding, ensuring that better targeting for our most vulnerable pupils does not destabilise the schools that serve them.
A Green and Pleasant Curriculum: initial thoughts on the Francis Review outcomes.
Key Reforms in England’s National Curriculum:
The government has confirmed the most significant overhaul of the National Curriculum in over a decade, largely adopting recommendations from Professor Becky Francis’s Curriculum and Assessment Review. The reforms are aimed at equipping pupils with “skills for life and work” for the 21st century.
Implementation Timeline
- Final Revised Curriculum Publication: Spring 2027.
- Full Implementation (First Teaching): September 2028.
New Compulsory Subject Content
The changes focus on introducing essential life and digital skills: - Financial Literacy: Teaching on budgeting and concepts like mortgages, to be integrated into Maths or compulsory Primary Citizenship lessons.
- Media and AI Literacy: Greater focus on identifying misinformation, disinformation, and AI-generated content.
- Compulsory Primary Citizenship: Citizenship will become mandatory in primary schools, covering financial literacy, media literacy, law, and democracy.
- Climate Change and Diversity: The curriculum will include more content on climate change and feature better representation of diversity.
Major GCSE and Accountability Changes
Substantial shifts are planned for secondary school examinations and performance measures: - Scrapping the EBacc: The English Baccalaureate (EBacc) accountability measure will be scrapped, with the aim of encouraging a greater breadth of GCSE study, particularly in the arts and creative subjects.
- Guaranteeing Triple Science: Schools will be required to work towards offering the three separate science GCSEs (Biology, Chemistry, Physics) as standard.
- Reducing Exam Time: The Department for Education (DfE) plans to cut overall GCSE exam time by up to three hours for each student on average.
- Progress 8 (P8): The measure will be reformed, though specific details on its final structure are pending.
- New Statutory Year 8 Reading Test: A new mandatory reading test for Year 8 pupils will be introduced, intended to identify and address reading difficulties.
Wider School Experience - Oracy: Oracy (speaking, listening, and communication) is to be given the same status as reading and writing in the curriculum, supported by a new oracy framework.
- Enrichment Benchmarks: Schools must offer and advertise to parents a new set of core enrichment activities, covering:
- Civic engagement, Arts and culture, Nature and adventure, Sport and Life skills.
Progress 8 (P8) Accountability Reforms
The government has confirmed it will reform the Progress 8 (P8) school performance measure, although the specific details of the final structure are still pending.
• DfE Stance vs. Review Recommendation: This is a point of divergence from the Curriculum and Assessment Review, which recommended retaining Progress 8 largely unchanged (other than renaming the EBacc section). The DfE’s decision to reform it is explicitly linked to the scrapping of the EBacc measure.
• The Aim of Reform: The goal of the P8 reform is to ensure the accountability measure now encourages students to study a greater breadth of GCSE subjects, specifically aiming to give equal status to the arts alongside humanities and languages.
• Progress 8 currently divides a student’s best 8 grades into three ‘buckets’: English & Maths (double-weighted), three EBacc subjects, and three ‘Open Group’ subjects.
• What is Expected: Given the removal of the EBacc as a measure, the P8 reform is highly likely to involve changes to the ‘EBacc bucket’ to reflect the new priority of a broader curriculum. However, the exact mechanism—such as how many non-EBacc subjects will be allowed to count or whether the points structure will change—has not yet been finalised by the DfE.
The government is aiming to publish the final revised National Curriculum, including the full details of these assessment changes, by Spring 2027
GCSE Triple Science Entitlement
The government has confirmed it will introduce a statutory entitlement for all GCSE pupils to be able to study Triple Science (separate GCSEs in Biology, Chemistry, and Physics).
Goal: The primary aim is to address the socioeconomic gap in Triple Science uptake, ensuring that access to this STEM pathway is not curtailed by a student’s background or the school they attend. Currently, a significantly lower proportion of disadvantaged pupils take Triple Science.
Mechanism (Access, Not Compulsion): The reform is about access, not mandatory uptake. The change requires all secondary schools to offer the three separate science GCSEs as standard, meaning every child will have the option to choose them. This is a significant change, as many schools currently only offer ‘Combined Science’ (a double GCSE).
Implementation: The Department for Education (DfE) has stated that schools will be expected to work towards offering Triple Science as standard, ahead of the full statutory entitlement. This staggered approach acknowledges the practical challenge of recruiting or retraining specialist science teachers—a key concern raised by school leaders.
So what now?
Elevate Intentionality: Strategic Focus on the New Curriculum
The new curriculum, slated for first teaching in September 2028, requires immediate, high-level planning. Intentionality means moving beyond mere compliance to strategic integration.
• Audit for New Literacies: Do not wait until 2028. Elevate intentionality by immediately mapping where financial literacy and digital/AI misinformation can be woven into existing subjects (Maths, Computing, Citizenship, PSHE). Design a whole-school strategy now, rather than rushing a few isolated lessons later.
• Design for Breadth (Post-EBacc): The scrapping of the EBacc and the reform of Progress 8 creates an opportunity. Intentionally design your Key Stage 4 (GCSE) curriculum to reflect true value, not just accountability measures. Ensure your staffing and options structure genuinely promote uptake in Arts, Music, and Languages based on student interest and economic opportunity, not just league table mechanics.
• Plan the Three Sciences Pathway: The commitment to ensuring all students can take three science GCSEs as standard is a significant logistical change. Be intentional about resource allocation, laboratory time, and science staffing needs, particularly for students who might have previously been guided towards Combined Science.
Combat Complacency: Accountability and Attainment Gaps
Complacency—particularly around established attainment patterns—is a risk during any transition. Leaders must actively target areas of underperformance.
• Tackle Year 8 Head-On: The introduction of the statutory Year 8 reading test is a direct government action to combat complacency regarding secondary-level literacy. School leaders must treat the results of this test as a major diagnostic tool, not just an assessment.
• Advice: Develop rapid intervention programs for pupils who do not meet the expected standard, using the data to address the “problem pupils experience during the first years of secondary school”—a known factor in widening attainment gaps.
• Scrutinise Accountability Metrics: Do not assume the goalposts are static. The DfE has promised to “reform” Progress 8 and scrap the EBacc.
• Advice: Combat complacency by forming a small working group to track DfE announcements on the new P8 methodology. Ensure subject leaders understand that the value of their subject (e.g., Arts) is now guaranteed to be viewed more equitably in the new system.
Champion Growth: People, Skills, and Curriculum
Growth is not just about student attainment; it’s about the professional development required to teach a “cutting-edge” curriculum.
• Invest in Digital CPD: To teach students how to spot AI-generated content and misinformation, staff themselves must be experts. Champion growth by commissioning immediate, practical CPD for all teachers on digital literacy and the responsible use of AI in learning and assessment.
• Prioritise Oracy and Communication: The push for oracy to have the same status as reading and writing is a profound call for growth in classroom practice.
• Advice: Embed explicit instruction in speaking, listening, and debate across all subjects. This is not just an English department initiative; it’s a whole-school effort to build the communication skills valued by employers and university pathways.
• Model Reflective Practice: Use the new curriculum as a moment for all departments to ask: “How can we better represent diversity and global contributions in our subject content, while maintaining our core foundational knowledge?”
Inspire Deeper Connections: Community and Opportunity
The reforms emphasize moving beyond the exam hall to prepare children for society and the world of work. Inspiring deeper connections is essential to this mission.
• Integrate Enrichment and Community: The new enrichment benchmarks on civic engagement, life skills, and arts are now part of the accountability framework.
• Advice: Inspire deeper connections by formally partnering with local businesses, civic groups, and arts organisations to deliver these benchmarks. Frame lessons on budgeting and mortgages not as abstract concepts, but as direct connections to financial wellbeing in their community.
• Connect Post-16 Pathways: Ensure the proposed exploration of a post-16 qualification in data science and AI is discussed early with your feeder colleges and sixth-form providers.
• Advice: This fosters a deeper connection between your school’s curriculum and the high-value technical and academic pathways your students will progress to.
By using this framework, school leaders can view the curriculum review not as a burden of change, but as a clear mandate to create a relevant, robust, and modern education system for their students.
It just got a little more interesting, didn’t it?
Good luck and I hope this is of some use to you and what you do next.
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 torole-playa 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.
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.
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.
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.
The UK’s School Funding Crisis: A Call to Action: The “Hit Rock Bottom” Reality
I have never been a fan of donning the hi-vis. Admittedly, part of it is a matter of vanity; a dislike for man-made fibres and my compulsion to remind colleagues and others that teaching is a graduate profession and not a glorified babysitting service. However, from a safeguarding point of view, it makes perfect sense. Balance this against that across the UK, senior leaders are increasingly taking on responsibilities that were once handled by support staff, such as acting as caretakers or even lollipop people makes you consider how funding for education really has hit rock bottom.
This isn’t just an anecdote; it’s a symptom of a system where budgets are so stretched that schools are making what they call “impossible choices.” For example, some schools have had to cut back on support staff and services like language and mental health support, relying on parent-teacher associations for basic equipment like reading books and playground equipment.
The National Education Union (NEU) and the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) have stated this is what their members are saying where they are. They report that school staff are overstretched, morale is low, and school buildings are falling into disrepair. This is leading to larger class sizes, which are now among the highest in Europe.
The core of the problem lies in “real-terms cuts.” This means that while some government funding for schools may have increased in cash terms, it has not kept pace with inflation and the rising costs schools face.
Research by the “Stop School Cuts” Coalition, which includes major education unions, found that 74% of schools in England have less funding in real terms than they did in 2010. This figure represents 14,112 schools that cannot afford the same staffing and resources they could 15 years ago. The research also revealed that over 1,000 schools have suffered cumulative real-terms cuts exceeding £1 million each.
The coalition calculates that core funding for mainstream schools per pupil fell by a further £127 in 2024/25, leaving schools with £558 less per pupil compared to 2010-11 in real terms.
The consequences of these funding cuts go far beyond a senior leaders’ job description. They are having a direct and negative impact on the quality of education:
Staffing Crisis: The crisis is a major driver of the recruitment and retention crisis in education. The value of teacher and school leader pay has been cut by around a fifth since 2010. This, combined with high workload and burnout, leads to a significant number of teachers leaving the profession within their first few years.
Reduced Curriculum: As schools are forced to make savings, subjects like arts, music, and sports are being lost, narrowing the educational opportunities available to children.
SEND Provision: The lack of funding is a major contributor to the crisis in special educational needs and disabilities provision. Many local authorities are spending more on SEND than they receive from the government, and teachers report a lack of confidence that a referral for a special needs assessment will result in a child getting the help they need.
Crumbling Infrastructure: Capital spending on school buildings has also seen a significant real-terms decline since 2010, leading to a situation where schools are struggling to maintain and repair their buildings.
In a realm that I am not expert in, outside of my experiences as an authentic, senior leader, here is my view on what this or any government need to implement when it comes to funding for schools.
Elevate Intentionality
The UK’s educational funding crisis is a complex issue requiring a strategic, intentional approach. Rather than relying on temporary solutions or reactive measures, the government must adopt a long-term, cross-departmental strategy to ensure every child has access to quality education. This means a shift from ad hoc funding injections to a sustainable, ring-fenced budget for schools that accounts for inflation and rising costs. We need to prioritise spending on what truly matters: a well-supported teaching workforce, up-to-date resources, and safe, well-maintained school buildings. An intentional approach also means being transparent with the public about where funding is going and the impact it’s having, building trust and accountability into the system. It’s about designing a system that works for all students, not just some. If the next initiative from the DfE is led by a sporting hero or D list celebrity, we know we are in real trouble. We need something sustainable.
Combat Complacency
For too long, the UK’s education system has operated under a veil of complacency, where the growing crisis has been met with insufficient action. The anecdotal evidence—headteachers taking on caretaker duties, crumbling school buildings, and teachers leaving the profession in droves—is not just a warning sign; it’s a call to action. We must reject the notion that “good enough” is an acceptable standard for our children’s future. The government must acknowledge the severity of the real-terms cuts to school budgets since 2010 and the devastating impact this has had on staffing, curriculum, and infrastructure. This requires an honest, open dialogue with unions, teachers, and parents to develop and implement effective solutions, moving beyond rhetoric and into decisive policy changes. This needs to be a proper dialogue and not one with apocryphal claims that every teacher in the land has agreed to ideas. In short, not a new, OFSTED framework re-launch.
Champion Growth
A thriving education system is the bedrock of a prosperous society. To champion growth, we must invest in the future by properly funding schools and the educators within them. This means addressing the recruitment and retention crisis by offering competitive pay and manageable workloads that reflect the value of the teaching profession. We also need to reverse the narrowing of the curriculum by ensuring schools have the resources to offer a rich and varied education in subjects like arts, music, and physical education. Furthermore, championing growth means fully funding and reforming the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) provision, ensuring that every child, regardless of their needs, receives the support they require to flourish. By investing in our schools, we are investing in the economic and social potential of the next generation. And hopefully generations to come.
Inspire Deeper Connections
The funding crisis has highlighted a disconnect between policy and practice, between government promises and the reality on the ground. To solve this, we must inspire deeper connections across the education ecosystem. This means fostering stronger partnerships between schools, local authorities, and communities. For instance, creating more accessible and efficient channels for communication and collaboration can ensure that funding decisions are made with the direct input of those on the front lines. Additionally, it means rebuilding the relationship between the government and teaching unions, moving from adversarial posturing to collaborative problem-solving. By uniting all stakeholders—teachers, parents, unions, and policymakers—we can work together to build a shared vision for an education system that is not only well-funded but also equitable, innovative, and a source of national pride.
The Authentic Leader 