A Blueprint for Education Reform

Image source:

With debate about the visionless White Paper underway, I thought I would contribute with this outline of a blueprint for reforming our system, pulling together ideas from various sources that make the most sense to me. Much of this echoes ideas shared in the Headteachers’ Roundtable manifesto from last year.


The Goal:  

A coherent, integrated system where school autonomy is balanced with the needs of the community;  a one-system system where schools are schools and diversity of provision is held together by a stronger over-arching structure. This means removing the Academy vs Maintained distinction. (All claims that one form is better than the other are false).  It means ensuring that all schools function within regional authorities that coordinate provision and ensure various safety nets are in place.


  • There are no academies, maintained or free schools; just schools.
  • No school is an island; all schools have responsibilities within a system, serving the communities in which they are located.
  • Directing the maximum funding to schools is the best way to ensure money is spent directly on provision for children.
  • No school should have greater freedoms in relation to admissions or the curriculum than another of the same phase.
  • All schools should operate within the authority of a local/regional structure that governs safeguarding, admissions, the allocation of SEND places, exclusions and alternative provision.
  • All school land and buildings are publicly owned; no profits can be made from educational provision.


The English system should be made up of  local School Partnerships accountable to larger regional authorities.  Numerous models of  School Partnership are  acceptable. Multi-school trusts emerging from MATs; federations between self-selecting equal-partner schools;  a default model of Community Partnerships emerging from LA-maintained school, run by coordinating bodies funded by the member schools.

Regional authorities have the power to approve School Partnerships ensuring they are not too big or too small; to instruct School Partnerships to absorb schools that are either isolated or under-performing; to approve bids to run new schools to meet school place planning needs, brokering membership of School Partnership as necessary.

Regional authorities have the power to direct independent and selective schools to contribute to the pool of provision available for managing inclusion across the system.

As we push up standards of behaviour across the system, regional authorities will coordinate a network of specialist short-placement behaviour centres to support schools in targeted areas to set a high bar and to safeguard SEND students in the system.

(In the long run,  we should aim for a system where all schools are open to all regardless of faith, ability or ability to pay. But that’s a revolution we don’t have time for – and probably won’t for decades. Still, this principle should influence the direction of travel).


The Goal:  

A national curriculum common to all learners in all settings; a curriculum founded on the ancient principles of the Trivium that provides all learners with strong foundations in literacy and mathematics, a deep and wide core knowledge base with room for stage-appropriate diversification and proportionate value given to character-forming experiences within and beyond the classroom as an intrinsic feature of an English education.   A fully-inclusive curriculum framework that allows all learners to achieve success, leaving school with recognition for their successes and achievements in every aspect of their education.


  • A national curriculum should apply to all learners in the nation.  It should remain stable enough to enable the development of high quality supporting resources and to enable each new generation of teachers to focus on building their expertise in curriculum, assessment and pedagogy.
  • The curriculum prescribed nationally should define a strong core within a wider content framework that can be determined locally.  This should include humanities, languages, arts and sciences at least to 16 and maths and English up to 18.
  • The upper secondary curriculum should have a Baccalaureate-style structure spanning the  14-19 age-range encompassing academic learning and personal development for all with academic and technical elements included on an equal basis as appropriate to the context.
  • Public Examinations should not confine or define the curriculum;  over time, exams should move closer to the piano-exam model where students can gain success when-ready at the most appropriate challenge level accumulating accreditation over time at the highest level they can reach across different elements of the curriculum.


Introduce an independent body to oversee the National Curriculum, accountable to Parliament but removing powers from the Secretary of State to determine the details; introduce 10-year reform periods to ensure stability beyond the short-term influence of the electoral cycle.

Introduce the National Baccalaureate for England across all phases.  This would include a one-level Primary Bacc with a Secondary Bacc at Advanced, Intermediate, Foundation and Entry levels to be awarded to school leavers aged 18/19.   This would include a national transcript for recording every students’ achievements.  Ensure that every provider is offering a Personal Development Programme offering high value opportunities to all learners. (Centre-devised PDPs will sit alongside large scale programmes such as AQABacc, PiXLEdge, National Citizen Service, DofE etc)

Phase in tiered when-ready examinations in maths and English language; develop a wider range of Level 2 qualifications  and slim-volume Level 3 qualifications in traditional subjects (like IB Std level) that can be studied up to 18 to broaden the scope of accreditation within the Nat Bacc framework. Meanwhile, ensure all GCSE grades are promoted as measures of achievement.

Teachers and Teaching: 

The Goal

Teaching as the go-to profession for graduates across all subject disciplines, attracted not only by the intrinsic moral purpose of the profession but by the quality of professional learning, the opportunity for personal development; positive working conditions and high-trust school cultures appropriate for a high-status profession at the centre of the national agenda for transformation and social justice.


  • Entry into and progression within the profession should be straight-forward and coordinated.  Schools and ITT providers should form part of a single coherent system that recognises the value of learning from experience in the classroom and the value of teachers having a strong understanding of educational theory and the associated evidence base.
  • Entry into teaching should be flexible; a funnel allowing people to enter the system from a range of circumstances.
  • Once accepted into the ITT system, there should be an incremental structure of high value teacher accreditation that allows teachers to develop both their knowledge-base and competency-base throughout their career.
  • Professional learning should be built into the routine structure of teachers’ working lives and factored in a core element of school funding.
  • School leaders are the key agents for determining teacher workload and the professional culture within schools.  There are damaging system-wide assumptions and expectations of teachers (excessive marking, report-writing, data collection, appraisal documentation, intervention teaching) that have low impact to effort ratios; radical change is needed to build a high-trust, high impact professional culture.
  • Individual teacher accountability should be replaced by collective accountability; individual goals replaced by team goals. Again, this represents a radical cultural shift that school leaders should engineer.


Reform ITT into three phases:

Stage 1: Entry.  A two or three year phase combining academic learning and practical learning. Completion to include in-school assessment and examinations in subject-specific pedagogical content and general pedagogical principles.

Stage 2: Mastery: Teachers work towards a Masters level professional qualification taken typically after five years.  Includes in-school assessment, examinations and a depth study.

Stage 3: Career: Nationally recognised professional learning modules can be taken when ready. Career progression could be linked to evidence of engagement with ongoing professional learning.

The National College should determine the specifications for all the assessments.

The training of school leaders should be given higher status under the direction of a reformed NCSL and, supported by the DFE, professional associations and OfSTED, there should be deliberate movement to engineer the culture shifts indicated above.


The Goal

An accountability system designed to ensure that standards rise continually and that safety-nets work effectively whilst avoiding creating disproportionate negative pressure and perverse incentives. It is a humane, intelligent accountability system that fuels a positive spiral of improvement, incentivising teachers to join and remain in the profession – not the reverse cycle like the one we’re in now.

The drive for ever-increasing standards in the quality of education – including outcomes and the quality of every student’s school experience – comes from within the community that a school serves.  This includes the teachers; high calibre teachers who are motivated and supported to provide mutual challenge and trusted to put their professional expertise into practice.  It also includes parents, employers and other stakeholders who should have a voice in the running of the schools in their community.

Our integrated system includes agents of accountability responsible for maintaining the safety nets and for making the regional structures work effectively.


  • The purpose of all accountability mechanisms is to highlight strengths and weaknesses, to facilitate the process of generating a consensus around standards, to identify problems to solve and to point to solutions.  It is not to rank, to label or to place guns to our heads.
  • The main focus on accountability is on the quality of inputs, not on measuring outputs: the curriculum, the CPD, the level of ambition embodied in the school vision, leadership capacity and so on.
  • Schools should be known; teachers should be known. This requires accountability processes based on continuous engagement with schools and teachers where challenge and support are intrinsically linked.
  • Public accountability is achieved through reporting school strengths and areas for improvement alongside data indicators and cohort profiles. There are no overall judgement grades or inspection reports based on short visits.
  • Data measures inform the accountability process but there is no room for artificially constructed aggregate data measures  such as P8 (in this blueprint we have ditched data-garbage methodology).


School Partnerships should provide mutual challenge and operate benchmarking mechanisms and at the curriculum level.  School Partnerships are responsible for quality assurance across their partnership, writing public reports of strengths and areas for development on a two-year cycle.

OfSTED’s role is to monitor each Regional Authority which, in turn, will quality assure the accountability structures within School Partnerships. This keeps processes as close to the ground as possible, overseen by people who know schools well; in depth and detail and in context.

Use of baseline and outcome cohort profiles and examination results will feature in annual data reports published by each school alongside a commentary from the School Partnership.  We do not replace the complexity of the truth with the illusion of simplicity.

In the absence of single-grade judgements and single-measure data labels, schools will focus on continual improvement at the level of the inputs. The era of hoop-jumping and window-dressing will be a thing of the past. Every school is an improving school.

Where significant concerns emerge, School Partnerships can intervene or, if required, the Regional authority can transfer schools into new partnerships where greater support can be offered.  OfSTED’s role is to monitor the rigour at this level; not at school level.


Hopefully, this all adds up to something a bit more coherent than the White Paper is offering.  It’s not a quick fix but it is all achievable if the will is there to move forward in this direction.

See also: A Great Education for All.  The Headteachers’ Roundtable Manifesto 2015.

Sign up for our White Paper event on July 1st: HTRT Think Tank.

It’s also worth reading the ASCL Blueprint for a Self-improving System.  There’s a lot of overlap with what I’ve written here.



  1. A great post Tom : the sad thing and perhaps more frustrating is that much of what you describe does exist in part or in places but constant tinkering stops anything worthwhile from planting and then embedding .


  2. Problem with these proposals is that they are thoroughly considered, cohesive, rational, inclusive, equitable, reasoned, aspirational, collaborative and eminently do-able. Great thoughts which could lead education back to the premise that change is only ever driven by need based on input from all of those who educate. Imagine a profession driven by it’s own challenging aspirations not external ideologies or politics – I might even be persuaded to return.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. An excellent paper. I’d like to see your section on ITT broadened however. As a mature entrant into the profession with significant previous teaching and vocational experience, my training requirements hardly differ – if at all – from my peers at very different stages of their lives. To put it simply, there is little room for meaningful differentiation in too many ITT schemes at present. This has to be tackled, a) as a matter of professional integrity for teaching as a whole and b) to encourage entry into the teaching profession of skilled, capable practitioners who can draw on depth and breadth of personal learning to enrich pupils beyond the mechanics of the National Curriculum.
    In addition, I would like to see all ITT courses imbued with authentic opportunities for dialogue between trainer and trainee. In so much of the pedagogical theory commended by ITT providers, the role of collaboration between teacher and learner is regarded as pivotal. This is not, I’m afraid, always given the priority it deserves in ITT. Of particular concern to me in this regard, are the astonishing stories of the peremptory and demagogic manner in which school mentors treat placement trainees. In such situations, the opportunity to model creative mentoring as an exemplar of collaborative learning is lost to defensiveness of the status quo, limited perspectives in reflective practice and inherent collusion with perpetuating a professional culture that is neither healthy nor wise.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I found this thought-provoking. There are several questions I have.

    Do you mean that private education should cease to exist? How do you propose that this should be achieved? It is a substantial sector in the UK educational economy.

    How do you define behaviour? I am opposed to behaviour targets because they reinforce authoriarian structures.

    My personal preference is to abolish religion and religious education. However, I have to dance around the idea that I want to respect other people’s views on this. Is it possible to do this within one big system like the one that you are proposing? It seems to me that the Steiners want to dance with the fairies and there is a large market for that kind of education. Does the state have a right or a duty to regulate this? Steiner is a soft target, but what about Catholic schools? Or other denominational schools?

    In my professional life I have seen curriculum designers as the big enemy filling up teacher time with junk learning. That experience makes me wary of conceding time and space to the kind of centralised curriculum authority that you propose, even if the political football would only be taken out of the cupboard every ten years.

    I also have some questions about what you mean by community. It seems to me that most schools work for a variety of communities and many disparate individuals. The word community suggests something that it isn’t: unity, common purpose.

    Does education have a role, sanctioned by the State, to militate for a vision of society that the individual members of schools, including both parents and children, do not approve? Who decides what is right? How do they get to that position? What happens to the people who have not had the luck to get to positions of power and authority?

    Is it right to devise one system of education that fits all when there are manifestly different expectations for people of different social classes? Why educate everyone to be a scientist when some people will end up as plumbers or shop assistants? These are questions that come from the mouths of the children I have taught.

    Good post. I am still thinking about it.


    • Non sequitur of the week award: ¨How do you define behaviour? ..

      My personal preference is to abolish religion and religious education¨

      Topical too: As the latest Headteacher conference proposes compulsory RME


  5. We had the “piano exam” model in MFL – Asset Languages – until Gove effectively killed it because it wasn’t GCSE. Not only did it fulfil your assessment-when-ready criterion, but it allowed for single skill testing, or a permutation of any of the four skills. It was available in 25 languages, including Tamil, Somali, Yoruba and Cornish, so it was a great vehicle for speakers of community languages. They could have their often near-native fluency recognised at a high level (Grade 9 was in between an A and an A* GCSE) without it being compromised by a poor performance in another skill. It was innovative and forward-looking – just the sort of thing that these benighted Philistines hate.It can be done.


    • I think they certainly were good for non-native speakers but it all fell down because native speakers could ace what was an easy test for them. We need a different way to accredit community languages that separates ab initio learners from others.


  6. Thanks for this which I have enjoyed reading – a colleague gave me a link to a previous post and I clicked through to find the latest. I am not a head teacher myself, in fact a bogeyman in government terms: a parent governor (boo, hiss).
    I totally agree with the premise that whether a school is “good” is not a function of whether it is an academy or LA attached. The one thing that the recent noise about compulsory academisation has made me think about is the value of partnership, and that is actually an area where our school at least (and probably many others) could be doing more to benefit our students.
    I am generally sympathetic to your ideas about curriculum, but very aware the more that is suggested the more prescriptive an outcome would result which is not necessarily good. Balance in curriculum is good, though whether that should be formalised as a “baccalaureate” seems uncertain; coming from a Higher Education background the A level system has served us well though I share the nervousness about students not maintaining either literacy or scientific/mathematic inquiry (don’t have a shorthand for that) for longer. If you are going to insist on categories up to age 16 (the EBacc model) please put right the omission of a creative subject. And don’t necessarily insist on all to the same standard, there is a significant minority who would be better served by concentrating their GCSE level studies on fewer subjects but studying others to an assessed functional level, which is what I assume those language qualifications represent.
    As an outsider I leave to the practitioners the best way to organise teacher training and development. Is it just my illusion though that it worked better when there was more clarity about expectations?
    Accountability of course relates to my role as a governor. I think it is right we have to accept that we have tended to focus too much on single schools rather than partnerships and communities, and that will require the way of working to evolve. But I think there will also need to be more emphasis on qualities of a school beyond the data, a school needs to be more than a results machine. And focussing on “high calibre” teachers is falling into the government’s trap (after all, if we insisted on our MPs being objectively assessed as “high calibre” how many ministers would survive?). Schools need to create an environment where teachers who meet the requirements to qualify can function well well, inspire our youngsters to do their best, and develop further as fits their talents. Similarly I worry that “ever improving standards” will just brand more students as failures: clearly schools should always strive to improve but ultimately they can never do better than realise the potential of the students they have at the time and that may not translate as increasing standards as assessed externally (e.g. ever higher exam grades).
    But in the end it is refreshing to read a piece which, if occasionally provocative (presumably deliberately so) reflects a writer with deep experience and understanding, and who really cares about education. Tom Sherrington to replace Nicky Morgan ……

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Thank you, this provides the basis of a serious alternative to our current “new” educational landscape. Could I ask that you consider, creating greater links to university and research within schools and providing allocated, quality teacher learning and research time.


Leave a Reply to Dear Justine. Some thoughts… | headguruteacher Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s