Retention: What will it take to make more schools ‘sticky’?

It’s a truism to suggest that teachers who thrive are more likely to stay in the profession. After all, who wants to work somewhere you don’t feel valued, where the work is neverending, and your opportunities for creative, intellectual work are few and far between?

At the Teaching Commission, Professor Qing Gu reflected on what makes teachers thrive. Teachers who are inspired by the job, develop good relationships and feel they belong are much more likely to stay. They have a shared purpose focused on what’s best for their pupils and communities. They value research, and know they can use their learning – which means they have a sense of self-efficacy which leads to wellbeing.

Government policy has focused on the individual, on making sure that teachers have the knowledge and skills to survive. But that misses the other half of this equation. Teachers also need to thrive. Too often, they do not.

So what makes a school ‘sticky’ – a place where teachers want to stay?

In another project I’m supporting at Manchester Metropolitan University, ‘Decentring Teacher Resilience‘, early findings show that teachers value school cultures that encourage collegiality, trust and openness to new ideas, where they feel included and safe, and have time to develop friendships with colleagues.

In sticky schools, leaders positively influence wellbeing and self-esteem. They promote teachers’ willingness to seek and give help. They do this by listening and consulting, creating time for staff to meet to collaborate – or just talk – and opportunities to lead projects that interest them. Some arrange ‘stop weeks’ with no meetings or events, giving staff time to breathe.

Professor Gu’s research suggests that leaders of ‘sticky’ schools set vision and direction, focused on ambitious academic and social goals for students. Their decisions about expectations, resources, curriculum and teacher learning work in that same direction.

Leaders of ‘sticky’ schools know that government policies come and go

They know that government policies come and go, that they are often incoherent and contradictory. So they stay focused on the direction they’ve set, adapting policies to fit the needs of their pupils and staff, using them as opportunities for change, reflection, learning.

All this is a far cry from the pictures some of the teachers have painted for the Teaching Commission. So many schools seem to want conformity, fidelity to a PowerPoint, a methodology, a lesson structure, that leaves no space for engaging with the pupils in the room.

One of the biggest drivers for this is the accountability system, particularly Ofsted, and the performativity culture it encourages.

According to Professor Jane Perryman’s research, high-stakes inspection makes schools focus on ‘what Ofsted wants’ instead of what’s in the best interests of students. Teachers feel under pressure to talk about data points instead of looking at the needs and aspirations of individual students, to be constantly testing students to provide those data points. They talk of the work as guilt-inducing, soul-destroying.

Importantly, this happens not once every few years, when Ofsted is due, but daily. Teachers feel scrutinised all the time; it just increases when schools reach ‘the window’. As inspection looms closer, there are mock inspections and deep dives.

Leaders don’t know if their inspectors will be looking for evidence of success, or trying to ‘catch them out’. Talk becomes increasingly of ‘what Ofsted wants’.

In Perryman’s survey of teachers and leaders for the Beyond Ofsted report, a mere three per cent of respondents said they do ‘nothing special’ in preparation for The Visit. Is it any wonder that headteachers laughed when Sir Martyn Oliver told them “I don’t want you to be doing anything ‘for Ofsted’”?

This isn’t what accountability looks like elsewhere. We have normalised a system that shuts down teacher creativity and intellectual challenge, that works against the reasons why people became teachers and drives them out of the profession.

We operate as if the answer to what makes a good education system (a good curriculum, quality teaching, effective leadership) is ‘out there’, set by Ofsted rather than agreed by the profession. And we have grown dependent on Ofsted to change itself.

In a high-stakes system, it’s a brave school leader that does nothing ‘for Ofsted’. Teacher retention cannot rely on this kind of individual bravery.

Real school improvement requires openness and honesty, a willingness to ask for help when it’s needed. We know that ‘sticky’ schools support teachers and pupils to exceed their ambitions. We need an inspection system that does the same.