How Proprietors Can Hold School Leaders to Account

A practical guide for proprietors of independent special schools and alternative provision

Most proprietors we work with are clear that they’re responsible for their school. Rather fewer are confident about what holding a headteacher to account actually looks like in practice, particularly if they don’t come from an education background.

It’s an understandable gap. A trustee in a multi academy trust has training, a framework and a committee structure. A proprietor who built a specialist provision because they saw children being failed has none of that, and is often being asked to challenge a professional in a field they didn’t train in.

Many proprietors tell us they worry about two opposite things at once: being too hands off to discharge their duties, and being so involved that they undermine the person they appointed. This guide is about finding the space between them.

What do the standards expect of you?

The Independent School Standards place duties on the proprietor rather than on the headteacher. That’s the point most often missed.

You must ensure the school is effectively led and managed, that leaders demonstrate good skills and knowledge, that they fulfil their responsibilities so the standards are consistently met, and that they actively promote the wellbeing of pupils.

“Ensure” is a strong word. It means you can’t discharge the duty by appointing a good headteacher and stepping back. You have to know whether it’s working, and you have to be able to show how you know.

That’s the whole of it, really. Not managing the school, but knowing enough about it to be confident, and being able to evidence the basis for that confidence.

What is the difference between oversight and interference?

This is the line most proprietors are trying to find, and there’s a workable rule.

Oversight is about outcomes and assurance. Are children safe? Is the education good? Are we meeting the standards? How do we know? What’s the plan for the things that aren’t right?

Interference is about methods. How the timetable is built, which member of staff teaches which group, how a particular behaviour incident was handled, what the display boards look like.

The test we’d suggest: are you asking about the destination or the route? A proprietor entitled to ask whether reading is improving is not entitled to specify the phonics scheme. Both matter, and only one is yours.

Where a proprietor consistently crosses into methods, two things follow. Good heads leave, and the accountability actually weakens, because a head who’s being directed can no longer be held responsible for the results.

What should you ask for, and how often?

A regular rhythm beats occasional deep dives.

Every half term, a written headteacher report to the proprietor. Safeguarding, including numbers and any themes. Attendance. Behaviour and incidents. Progress against the improvement plan. Staffing, including vacancies and turnover. Compliance, including any gaps. Complaints. Placements and admissions. Anything the proprietor needs to know.

Every term, a proper meeting on that report, minuted, where you ask questions and record the answers.

Annually, a headteacher appraisal against agreed objectives, and a review of the school’s self evaluation against external evidence.

Alongside that, three habits. Visit and be visible, without inspecting lessons. Speak to staff and to children, not only to the head. And read the safeguarding data yourself rather than accepting a summary of it.

How do you evidence challenge?

This is where most proprietors are weakest, and it’s usually a recording problem rather than a practice problem.

Proprietors challenge their heads constantly, in corridors, on phone calls and over coffee. None of that exists as far as an inspector is concerned.

What counts is a written record: the report you received, the questions you asked, the answers you got, and what you decided to do. Minutes of a termly meeting are enough. They don’t need to be elaborate.

The most useful question to have on record is “how do we know?” A head reports that safeguarding is strong. You ask how we know. The answer is either evidence, in which case record it, or it’s an assurance, in which case you’ve found something worth pursuing.

Keep a simple log of the actions you agreed and whether they happened. That single document does more to demonstrate effective oversight than any amount of policy.

Getting independent assurance

Everything above relies on information from the person you’re holding to account. That’s a structural limitation, however good your relationship is.

An independent review gives you an external, evidenced picture. So does a targeted safeguarding audit or a single central record audit, both of which are small commitments and frequently surface things nobody knew.

Two things worth saying about this. First, commissioning a review isn’t a signal of distrust and shouldn’t be presented as one. The strongest heads we work with welcome it, because it validates what they’ve been telling you and occasionally gives them evidence for something they’ve been unable to get you to fund.

Second, do it on a cycle rather than in response to a worry. A proprietor who commissions a review only when they’re concerned has made every review an event.

From our experience

The two failure modes are almost equally common and they look nothing alike.

The first is the absent proprietor. Appointed a good head, trusted them completely, hasn’t asked a hard question in three years. Usually well intentioned and it doesn’t meet the standard, because “ensure” requires knowing.

The second is the involved proprietor who’s in the building daily, has views about everything, and confuses activity with oversight. They know a great deal about the school and can’t answer “how do you know the education is good?” with evidence.

Many proprietors tell us they’d never asked for a written report because it felt formal in a small school. It’s the single change that most improves oversight, and good heads generally welcome it, because it gives them a structured way to tell you things they’d otherwise have to raise awkwardly.

A common misconception

“I employ an experienced headteacher, so leadership and management is covered.”

It’s a reasonable thought and it isn’t how the standards are written.

The duty to ensure the school is effectively led sits with you. A good headteacher makes discharging it easier. They don’t discharge it for you, and an inspection judging leadership and management will look at the proprietor’s oversight as part of that judgement, not only at the head’s leadership.

More practically, the children in your school are relying on more than one person’s judgement about whether things are as they should be. That’s what oversight is for, and it’s a service to your headteacher as much as a check on them.

Questions for proprietors

• Do I receive a written report every half term, and do I ask questions about it in a minuted meeting?
• Can I evidence challenge I’ve made in the last twelve months?
• When did I last ask “how do we know?” and get evidence rather than reassurance?
• Have I had an independent read of this school in the last year?
• Am I asking about the destination or the route?

Our perspective

Holding a headteacher to account isn’t about being tougher. It’s about being systematic, and most proprietors are much closer to doing it well than they think.

Ask for a report on a rhythm. Meet on it and minute the conversation. Ask how we know, every time. Get an independent read once a year. Do the appraisal even when things are going well.

That gives you genuine confidence rather than assumed confidence, it gives your headteacher a clear framework to work within, and it means the children and young people in your school have more than one set of eyes on whether they’re getting what they should be.