In many ways, this is the golden age of professional development, but there’s a gap in our provision which could be storing up problems for the next generation of school leaders.
Renewed focus on professional development has brought about welcome change. A growing body of research shows what good CPD looks like, trusts are investing training and schools are scrutinising the quality of every hour spent on staff development.
The government’s post-Covid recovery package helped drive this. The Department for Education funded new National Professional Qualifications (NPQs), opening doors for thousands of staff.
But the momentum hasn’t lasted. Funding priorities have shifted and cohort numbers have fallen from two annually to just one this year. This is a story of ‘peak and plateau’ rather than ‘boom and bust’, but the plateau is real. The new NPQs have changed professional development landscape, but their impact is flatlining.
For course leaders like me, NPQs are inspiring to run. The cohorts are engaged, hungry to learn and often willing to study in their own time.
But here’s the nagging question: once the final case study is submitted, what difference does it actually make in schools?
Golden thread or golden ticket?
As part of the government’s ‘golden thread’ strategy, NPQs were meant to offer a window into the demands of leadership, giving aspiring leaders a chance to test whether they’re ready for the next step.
But there’s another part to the story of their appeal: having an NPQ on your CV helps you stand out in the quest for promotion – at least in theory.
Now, with so many applicants holding the qualification, that advantage has faded. And if you’re not in the role already, the qualification’s benefits can feel distant.
Banking knowledge for some future point in your career is appealing, but in a profession driven by urgent priorities, the reality is that NPQs can feel abstract.
I’ve tried to close that gap in my own delivery of NPQs. Every seminar ends with participants setting concrete actions, which we revisit at the next session.
Sometimes, it works brilliantly: staff are allowed to shadow senior leaders or trial aspects of leadership. But too often the follow-up is: “I haven’t had time.”
Schools are stretched and opportunities aren’t always available, resulting in understandable frustration and lost momentum.
This tension isn’t new. The old NPQ courses culminated in large-scale projects that taught participants to run initiatives from end to end. This was time-consuming and restricted numbers.
The current framework is broader and more accessible, but risks being too theoretical.
Practical solutions
There are several options worth considering to finally strike that balance:
In-school coaching
Each participant could be paired with a coach to help them apply their learning in context. Schools lack capacity for this, but funding could be redirected – similar to the ECTP model – to release senior staff for coaching.
Cohort networking
Mix aspiring leaders with those already in post and make peer reflection and shadowing a structured part of the programme.
Practical checkpoints
After each module, require participants to evidence a real-world task before moving on. This could mean attending a governor meeting, presenting to staff or analysing school data.
Reformed assessment
We’ve piloted internal programmes such as Management Mastery, which demand live application. They work, but limiting NPQs only to staff already in leadership roles would shut out future talent. The qualification must meet participants where they are, not exclude them.
The golden thread’s impact is undeniable. Some of our first NPQH participants are now stepping into headships – a tangible return on investment.
But with tighter funding and fewer places, the challenge is ensuring every participant sees similar value. That means blending theory with practice so they not only learn leadership but live it.
As we recruit our ninth cohort, we face a choice: prioritise leaders already in post, or nurture future ones? Either way, if NPQs are to remain relevant, practical application must move from the margins to the centre of the framework.
Because in leadership as in learning, you use it or you lose it.
Your thoughts