Why Headteacher Boards? Why just Heads?
There is many a paradox in the Academy world but perhaps the biggest one is around the Headteacher Board. A group of Headteachers, together with and headed by an RSC, making a decision on a school’s, or group of schools, ability to successfully run an academy? Then, once the group is approved they expect the Heads not to be on the Members Board and now not even on the Director’s Board. They expect the Trust to be effectively run by a group of volunteers with a diverse skill set including financial, legal and business as well as education.
Why therefore does the Headteacher Board not consist of people with the very skills they expect? Where aren’t there people sat around that Headteacher Board table with the very skills sought by the very people who probably don’t have them?? Would it not make more sense to have a Headteacher Board consisting not only educationalists but business people, financial people and legal people?
Are the problems some Trusts experience post conversion a result of poor and incomplete due diligence at the Headteacher Board? Could those issues have been seen early by a more varied and diverse group of people making up a Headteacher Board? A question that may need asking moving forward.
Most people in grassroots education feel there is no joined up approach between RSC’s and Headteacher Boards so perhaps what is needed is a complete revamp of the make up of a Headteacher Board and RSC’s with a wider skill set. If you want an academy based solely on education, have a HTB as it is now. If you want an academy based solely on a business model, have business people make up the HTB. If you want a mix – and let’s face it that is exactly what a MAT should be – then at least have a mix of people on the HTB. Just a thought!