Responsibility in a High-Accountability System: Leading Schools in England

  • Daniel MuijsEmail author
Part of the Studies in Educational Leadership book series (SIEL, volume 16)


The English school system is characterized by high levels of school autonomy coupled with high levels of accountability and a great frequency of change following policies instigated in the late-1980s but strengthened over time. School leaders play a very strong role in their schools and are therefore subject to significant pressures. This is leading to a systemic problem in terms of the capacities of the headteacher to take on these tasks in an effective way and to a crisis of recruitment where even those leaders who have completed the National Professional Qualification for Headteachers often fail to move into headteacher jobs. Some creative solutions are being developed to alleviate these issues, however. These include increased training and professional development for school leaders, the encouragement of distributed forms of leadership in schools, the development of the role of the School Business Manager, a non-educator charged with factors such as administrative and financial management and the development of school-to-school collaboration and networking. While all these developments have potential, they do themselves pose leadership challenges that require careful management and the development of localized professional development strategies.


Professional Development Transformational Leadership National Curriculum School Staff School Leader 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ainscow, M., & West, M. (2006). Improving urban schools. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong, P., Collins, A., Muijs, D., Pearson, A., & Woods, C. (2010). School business management programmes: Evaluation: CSBM/DSBM and ADSBM activity. A report for the National College. Manchester: University of Manchester.Google Scholar
  3. Barber, M. (2001). Large-scale education reform in England: A work in progress. Paper prepared for the School Development Conference, Tartu University, Estonia.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, N., Harvey, J. A., Wise, C., & Woods, P. A. (2003). Distributed leadership: A desk study. Nottingham: NCSL.Google Scholar
  5. Berends, M., Bodilly, S., & Kirby, S. (2000). Facing the challenges of whole-school reform: New American schools after a decade. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.Google Scholar
  6. Blair, T. (1999). Speech to the labour party conference. Bournemouth, UK, 28/9/1999.Google Scholar
  7. Caldwell, B. J., & Spinks, J. M. (1992). Leading the self-managing school. London: Falmer.Google Scholar
  8. Chapman, C., & Harris, A. (2004). Improving schools in difficult and challenging contexts: Strategies for improvement. Journal of Education Research, 46(3), 219–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chapman, C., & Muijs, D. (2010, April). The impact of federations on pupil achievement. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.Google Scholar
  10. Chapman, C., Ainscow, M., Bragg, J., Gunter, H., Mongon, D., Muijs, D., & West, M. (2010). New models of leadership. A report for the National College. Manchester: University of Manchester.Google Scholar
  11. Creemers, B. P. M. (1983). The effective classroom. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  12. Cullingford, C. (1999). An inspector calls. Ofsted and its effects on school standards. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  13. Earley, P., Fidler, B., & Ouston, J. (1996). Improvement through inspection? Complementary approaches to school development. London: Fulton Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. Fitz-Gibbon, C. T., & Stephenson-Forster, N. J. (1996). Inspecting her majesty’s inspectors: Should social science and social policy cohere? Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, Spain.Google Scholar
  15. Fletcher, J., & Käufer, K. (2003). Shared leadership: Paradox and possibility. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 21–48). Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fullan, M. (2004). Systems thinking in action. London: DfES/NCSL.Google Scholar
  17. Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press; and Toronto: Ontario Principals Council.Google Scholar
  18. Gronn, P. (2000). Distributed properties: A new architecture for leadership. Educational Management and Administration, 28(3), 317–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hadfield, M. (2007). Co-leaders and middle leaders: the dynamic between leaders and followers in networks of schools. School Leadership and Management, 27(3), 259–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(1), 9–34.Google Scholar
  21. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness: 1980–1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(3), 157–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (2010). Collaborative leadership and school improvement: Understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School Leadership and Management, 30(2), 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Handy, C. (1991). The age of unreason. London: London Business Books.Google Scholar
  24. Harris, A., & Muijs, D. (2004). School improvement through teacher leadership. Ballmoor, Bucks: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Heck, R. H., Larsen, T. J., & Marcoulides, G. A. (1990). Instructional leadership and school achievement: Validation of a causal model. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26(2), 94–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Huber, S., & Muijs, D. (2009). School leadership effectiveness: The growing insight in the importance of school leadership for the quality and development of schools and their pupils. In S. Huber (Ed.), International perspectives on school leadership. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Jones, J. (2009). The development of leadership capacity through collaboration in small schools. School Leadership and Management, 29(2), 129-156.Google Scholar
  28. Lindsay, G., Muijs, D., Harris, A., Arweck, E., & Goodall, J. (2007). School federations pilot study 2003–2007. London: Department for Children, Schools and Families.Google Scholar
  29. McGuire, M., & Agranoff, R. (2007). Answering the big questions, asking the bigger questions: Expanding the public network management empirical research agenda. Prepared for presentation at the 9th Public Management Research Conference, Tucson, Arizona, 25–27 Oct 2007.Google Scholar
  30. Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. G. (2003, October). Managing networks effectively. Paper presented at the National Public Management Research Conference, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  31. Muijs, D. (2006). New directions for school effectiveness research: Towards school effectiveness without schools? Journal of Educational Change, 7(3), 141–160.Google Scholar
  32. Muijs, D., & Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership: Improvement through empowerment? An overview of research. Educational Management, Administration and Leadership, 31(4), 437–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Muijs, D., & Harris, A. (2007). Teacher leadership in (In) action: Three case studies of contrasting schools. Educational, Management, Administration and Leadership, 35(1), 111–134.Google Scholar
  34. Muijs, D., & Chapman, C. (2009). Accountability for improvement: Rhetoric or reality? In C. Chapman & H. Gunter (Eds.), Radical reforms. Perspectives on an era of educational change. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  35. Muijs, D., Harris, A., Chapman, C., Stoll, L., & Russ, J. (2004). Improving schools in socio-economically disadvantaged areas: An overview of research. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15(2), 149–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Muijs, D., Chapman, C., Ainscow, M., & West, M. (2011). Networking and collaboration in education. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. OECD. (2002). Public sector leadership for the twenty-first century. Washington: OECD.Google Scholar
  38. OfSTED. (1995). Planning improvement; schools' post-inspection action plans. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  39. OfSTED. (2005). Leadership and management: What inspection tells us. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  40. PwC (PriceWaterhouseCoopers). (2007). Independent study into school leadership: Main report. London: DfES.Google Scholar
  41. Ritter, T., Wilkinson, I., & Johnston, W. (2003). Managing in complex business networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(3), 175–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Silns, H., & Mulford, B. (2003). Leadership and school results. In K. Leithwood, P. Chapman, J. Corson, P. Hallinger, & A. Hart (Eds.), International handbook of educational administration. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  43. Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective [Electronic version]. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3–34.Google Scholar
  45. Teddlie, C., & Reynolds, D. (2002). International handbook of research on school effectiveness and school improvement. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  46. Teddlie, C., & Stringfield, S. (1993). Schools make a difference. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  47. West, M., & Muijs, D. (2009). Personalized learning. In C. Chapman & H. Gunter (Eds.), Radical reforms. Perspectives on an era of educational change. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  48. Woods, C., & Brown, M. (2003, January). Distributed leadership at school site level: The role of the School Business Manager in school improvement. Paper presented at the International congress for school effectiveness and improvement, Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
  49. Woods, C. E., Gunter, H., & West, M. (2007). Scoping study for the school business director programme: Final report. eScholarID:18112.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations