Those of a certain age will remember Catchphrase host, Roy Walker’s refrain whenever a contestant took a wrong guess at answering a question: “It’s good, but it’s not right.” That refrain springs to mind when considering the review of leadership NPQs launched by the DfE at the end of March.
It is a good thing that the NPQs are being reviewed and that the DfE is asking for views. However, the way it is going about it makes it harder to get to the right outcome. The stated aim of the evidence review, which closes on 16 May, is to ensure NPQs remain high-quality and relevant, but the process currently underway risks missing the mark.
First, let’s remind ourselves of the context. Each NPQ is underpinned by a comprehensive framework made up of statements that have to be covered in the delivery of the NPQ. These are split into ‘Learn that..’ statements that set out the knowledge that needs to be taught, and ‘Learn how to…’ statements that cover the practical application of that knowledge.
These frameworks are not small. The NPQSL and the NPQH both have 257 statements and the NPQEL has 255. Each of these NPQs covers the same ten themes and there is some repetition of language, but the statements are not the same.
All told, across these three NPQs alone, there are 769 separate framework statements to be reviewed. And it is those that the NPQ call for evidence is placing front and centre.
The review asks us to submit evidence against one of three categories: in support of the existing framework statements, in support of a change to an existing framework statement, or in support of the creation of an additional framework statement.
A separate submission is requested for each piece of evidence, setting out the source, how it can be applied, suggested wording changes and a justification for requesting the change. That means a separate submission if you want to use the same piece of evidence multiple times or across different NPQs.
There are other parts of the NPQ review process, including advice being given by an expert group, some stakeholder sessions and no doubt some more sector engagement later in the year.
The starting point should be to ask teachers and school leaders what they need
However, this is the bit of the process that sets the acceptable evidence base. Once that is set (by the DfE working with the EEF), it will be very hard to shift. It is hard to imagine a more bureaucratic and time-consuming way of gathering evidence, nor one that is more suited to maintaining the status quo.
We are deeply interested in professional development and the effective delivery of NPQs, yet this process is laborious and challenging to navigate for us. How are teachers and school leaders possibly going to engage?
It is this question that bothers us most. As the flagship qualifications for experienced teachers, preparing and supporting our future and current school leaders, these NPQs have to reflect the realities on the ground, to give teachers and school leaders the capabilities they need to excel in their roles.
So the starting point for any review should be to ask teachers and school leaders what they need help with, what they need the qualifications to cover. The job of those designing the NPQs is then to make sure they are responding as effectively as possible, so that qualifications remain relevant and useful.
We’d start by engaging directly with the profession, asking school leaders what they think is useful, what’s missing and what gets in the way. Frameworks should reflect that reality – not just what the evidence base can support
Some of those areas are likely to have less robust evidence to follow, but that does not make them less important. NPQs have to be more than an academic exercise to review evidence; they must be qualifications that help school leaders deal with the real-life challenges they are facing.
Roy Walker had another famous catchphrase: ‘Say what you see!” We see the data showing a school leadership cadre getting ever younger and less experienced, appetite for progression into leadership falling, and levels of stress and anxiety at unsustainable levels.
Let’s ask them what should be in NPQs that would help them most. And then let’s respond to that.
Contribute to the NPQ framework review here
Your thoughts