This series of blogs looks at an issue of middle leadership that is common to many, but solved in a variety of ways. I will pick two opposing extremes and examine their strengths and weaknesses. This is the second in the series. The first looked at the relative benefits and drawbacks of highly prescriptive resources vs more autonomy for new starters and can be found here.
To make this complex issue simple enough to discuss I will focus on science as a subject and large departments which will have 1 Head of Department (HoD) and 3 other leaders (TLRs). In other large subjects this will also be possible and in smaller departments it will have to be adjusted but the issues discussed should be of value to all.
I was interested in how different Heads of Department set up their teams so I put out a survey on twitter to find out what leaders preferred.
In our thought experiment we will set out the two alternative versions of the dept.
HoD A: Has gone for the most popular model in our survey. They are the HoD with a Head of Bio/Chem/Phys beneath them.
HoD B: Has gone for a more Key Stage version. They are the HoD with a Head of KS3/4/5.
The table below aims to quickly summarise the key differences between the structures.
| Aspect of leadership | HoD A | HoD B |
| Curriculum oversight | One person is responsible for all bio/chem/phys from yr7-13 so coherence should be high | Each KS lead is responsible for their years with all three sciences |
| Subject specific training | Each specialist can deliver training in their area to the whole team. | Training might be delivered by them in their specialism but also by others including the HoD |
| Resource development | Each can have a clear vision of teaching in their subject and line manage the development of those resources. | Resources within KS are line managed but teachers might also be used. QA of resources outside of specialism will be harder. |
| Logistics (exam entries, tier changes, set changes, parental complaints, marking rotas) | These either all fall on the HoD or have to be delegated out in an ad-hoc way. | Clear demarcation of the logistical responsibilities. Staff do not need to go to HoD directly with issues as can go to KS lead. |
| QA | Each observes lessons in their area of specialism if possible. Increases awareness of quality of specialist teaching (teaching model dependent) | Each observes lessons in their key stage. Increases awareness of quality in different years. The leader can comment on the quality of teaching in their KS with ease. |
| Overall vision of T&L | Each leader needs to understand how their subject fits into the overall school and dept vision. More consistency vertically through the years but less within a year. | Each leader needs to understand how their KS fits into the overall school and dept vision. Easier as only 1 person looking across all specialisms and lessons are most likely generic in structure. |
The table basically tries to show the two philosophies. HoD A is placing the curriculum at the heart of the structure, no wonder it is the current favourite model.
HoD B is putting logistics and accountability at the heart of their structure instead.
So which is best? Well obviously that’s not the right question. The right question should be what are the consequences of each approach? So let’s unpick that a bit.
Curriculum coherence
The current preferred model looks to ensure coherence within a curriculum. This makes a ton of sense. You want to build a KS3 curriculum that dovetails seamlessly into the KS4 and 5 syllabi. By appointing subject specialists in these roles you hope their expertise can shape the resources used and sequencing of topics to ensure “students know and remember more”. The danger is this ignores the fact that while science has three subjects within it, the teaching of them is fairly generic. The danger is the head of biology wants things slightly different from the head of chemistry from the teacher of 7y2 leading to confusion.
Practical issues
There is a clear practical issue with Heads of Subject. Can you appoint 3 teachers that are good leaders and specialists in each of the sciences? If not, do you appoint the best leader or the best specialist? And if you have someone leading out of specialism does that undermine the entire point of the structure? On the other hand it is probably easy to recruit a Head of Physics, because you will at least get a physics teacher! Again this brings us back to their relative strength as a leader, but this will be on a case by case basis.
Resource development
This seems like a key win for HoD A. They can put each leader in charge of their area of specialism and get them to plan and produce all the resources. There is definitely a workload benefit to teachers who deliver resources developed by specialists. HoD B will probably need to use their entire team to plan them and have the KS leads QA their sections. This is harder for them but there are ways around it like buddy systems. There is a long term benefit to using the entire team to plan resources. It is one of the best ways to develop your team. I do worry right now that the benefit of having ‘lessons on a plate’ is de-skilling the newer teachers in the long run. This is a tension that is hard to resolve and I can see both sides.
What kind of HoD are you?
Cutting to the chase a lot of the rest of the issues can be resolved by asking yourself as HoD what are your strengths? If you hang your hat on being super organised, pinging your emails away with great speed and making sure the ship sails smoothly, then you are probably going to prefer HoD A. It takes all the T+L responsibilities off you and allows you to focus on the to-do list items. The downside is that the logistical issues are huge and this can be overwhelming at times.
If you are a leader who is mainly focussed on the vision of teaching and developing your staff then you are probably more HoD B. You create clear demarcation of the logistical issues and who can lead on them, but you will need to be front and centre on the CPD and developing the approach to teaching. You will probably have to QA more resources and be more hands on in resource design. This does need you to have enhanced subject knowledge in non-specialist areas. However some would argue as a HoD you need to develop this anyway to ensure effective QA of all staff.
Conclusion
Looking at the arguments for and against we can see there is no better way to structure a department. However there is an optimal way to structure a department for you. So reflect on your skills and build your team in a way to enhance your strengths, but be mindful of the potential weaknesses and try to work to prevent them becoming limiting factors on student achievement.
Adam Robbins Education 
Leave a reply to Faatima Mohammed Cancel reply