Not according to research published today. According to a group of academics, a school is only as good as the quality of its teachers and has little to do with the ability of its head, writes Debbie Andalo.
They discovered that a new head made little difference to a school's performance within the first five years of being appointed.
Their conclusions were based on an analysis of the pupil valued-added and attitude scores of children from year 4 and year 11 at 500 primary and secondary schools between 2000 and 2005.
Researchers from the Curriculum, Evaluation and Management Centre at Durham University looked at the scores to see if there was any impact when a new head was appointed.
They discovered that there was, on average, no difference in performance of those schools where a new head had taken over or where the headteacher had remained the same during the five-year period.
The academics, who were commissioned by the rightwing thinktank Policy Exchange, concluded in their report, The Leadership Effect, that heads had little impact on the quality of learning because schools are "loosely coupled" organisations and the head's influence on learning is less than a classroom teacher.
So, do their findings confirm the belief held by many frontline teachers that it is their input in the classroom that can turn schools around and, as the academics point out, that a headteacher's time is better spent recruiting and retaining staff?
