In the early days of local management, traditional school hierarchies seemed to be on the verge of extinction. Faced with a range of new management tasks, some schools began introducing “flatter” staffing structures, delegating more responsibility to senior teachers and involving other members of staff in policy planning. In some schools non-teaching administrators or bursars have replaced deputies on senior management teams. Some schools scrapped deputy head posts altogether.

Where these early pioneers led, other schools were widely expected to follow. Yet five years after the introduction of local management, deputy heads are still in post in the overwhelming majority of schools, though there has been some fall in their numbers, with the threat of more to come.

The latest available Department for Education and Employment figures show that by 1993, while the number of deputies in primary schools has remained static at 0.87 deputy heads per headteacher, in secondary schools there had been a 2 per cent drop from 2.01 to 1.97 deputy heads per head.

At the same time, much of the 36 per cent rise in school spending on non-teaching staff has been on classroom assistants rather than on bursars and other administrative staff.

However, a survey of 3,500 schools by the National Governors’ Council and the public finance institute CIPFA suggests schools will see a 6 per cent fall in the number of deputy head posts over the next two years, with secondary schools losing more posts than primaries.

Jack Morrish, vice-chair of the NGC, attributes this fall largely to inadequate school funding. “When a deputy headteacher’s post becomes vacant, many governing bodies are forced to consider if they can still afford to maintain the same structure which they have regarded as being right for their school in the past.”

There are also, of course, governing bodies who see the departure of a deputy head as a opportunity to review management roles and devise a new structure they believe is better for the school. One possible reason this is not happening as often as seemed likely a few years ago is that the deputy heads are staying longer in post.

Kevin McAleese, head of Harrogate grammar school in North Yorkshire, thinks the sluggish housing market may be slowing down mobility. Pointing out that restructuring is usually only possible when a deputy head leaves a school, he says: “There are fewer headships and deputy headships available because people can’t sell their houses. We are finding that it’s never been a better time to recruit teachers but it’s harder to recruit people in more senior posts because they aren’t willing to move unless they can sell their houses.”

One of Mr McAleese’s own deputies did leave, and the school restructured its management team, bringing in a non-teacher to act as bursar and using the rest of the funds saved on the deputy’s salary to increase the number of promoted posts lower down on the staffing structure. Mr McAleese maintains that these changes have made the school’s management more efficient and cost-effective.

But a Secondary Heads Association survey adds weight to the National Governors’ Council view that only a minority of governing bodies axe deputy heads because they are genuinely convinced of the merits of “delayering”.

Of the 245 schools in England which completed the SHA questionnaire, 100 had between them lost 148 deputy heads in the last five years, while 15 had created new deputies’ posts, often in response to rising rolls.

Of those which cut deputy head posts, 66 per cent cited financial reasons, with other reasons including falling rolls and changes in structure.

According to Vivian Parker, chair of the SHA’s deputies’ committee and deputy head of Longcroft school in Beverley, Humberside, these changes were often linked to efficiency savings, with schools introducing new structures in order to justify their decision not to replace a departing deputy head.

The survey also found that relatively few schools had replaced deputies either with senior teachers or administrators.

The schools in the sample employed a total of 564 senior teachers, an average of 2.3 per school, and 177 senior administrators, an average of 0.7 per school.

“I had expected that there would be more senior teachers and administrators, ” says Ms Parker. “But what I’ve found is that the senior management team is smaller on the whole, with a reduced number of deputies and the remaining deputies and the head picking up the extra work.

“Certain tasks have also been delegated further down, so I think senior teachers may be leading more working parties but the major initiatives are still being led by deputies because it’s the deputy who has got credibility with staff and who hasn’t, as staff would see it, the vested interest that a senior teacher who is also a head of faculty would have”.

A similar picture of more collegiate styles of management existing alongside leaner traditional, management structures emerges from research into new forms of education management by the Birmingham and Ulster universities and Canterbury Christ Church College. Findings from this Economic and Social Research Council-funded project suggest that market forces have a major impact on school management processes, with governors and, to a lesser extent, headteachers likely to strengthen their grip on schools facing tough competition.

These are also the schools most likely to develop new patterns of management, in some cases shedding deputy head’s posts in the process as they look for ways of managing the uncertainty that market forces have created.

“The characteristics of schools in market contexts are that they have flatter, less hierarchical structures and, by implication, more delegation, ” says Professor Stewart Ranson of Birmingham University’s School of Education. “They are into whole staff participation, but that is located within a frame of strategic planning which is under control of governors who feel rather more accountable than they might have done in the past.”

The Birmingham-led research team also found that national cultures have an influence on management patterns in schools, including the number of deputy heads they employ. Schools in England appear the most likely to develop new management structures and processes. Those in Northern Ireland, on the other hand, tend to be more hierarchical, probably reflecting the more conservative tradition of education in the province.

A school’s size seems to be another factor that influences the shape of its management structure and the number of deputies it employs, with the DFEE figures showing that it is the larger secondary schools that have lost the most deputy heads.

But this trend is not universal. Great Barr school in Birmingham, which with 2,300 pupils is one of the largest in the country, is currently appointing its fifth deputy head, having already strengthened the position of the four existing deputies after opting out in 1991. Each deputy is responsible for managing a clearly defined area - operations, curriculum, pastoral care and staff - while the new deputy will take charge of the school’s sixth form.

As well as establishing this clear division of layout at the top of the organisation, headteacher Brian Sherratt involves other members of staff in developing policy, with all senior teachers belonging to a management committee that meets twice a week.

“I think the deputy head’s role strengthens the position of the staff,” says Mr Sherratt. “It doesn’t take opportunities for management experience away from staff because when an area of a school is tightly managed it is possible to experiment and take risks in a way that would not otherwise be possible. ”

The experience of managing people and budgets which deputies gain at schools such as Great Barr is clearly a good preparation for headship. But the gradual decline in the number of deputy head posts nationally means that fewer people now have the chance to pick up this kind of experience and develop the leadership skills they need to become headteachers.

The dwindling number of job openings at deputy head level also means that those lower down the teaching hierarchy have fewer promotion prospects, and this may have a damaging effect on morale.

“If you have become a senior teacher in your late 20s or early 30s, where do you go next?” asks Vivian Parker, who argues for more good quality training for senior teachers and deputies now that opportunities for on-the-job development are drying up.

This is not to say that deputy heads always have the chance to acquire the wide-ranging, whole-school experience they need if they are to go on to become headteachers.

The School Teachers’ Review Body in its 1994 report makes the point that deputies can play an important role in schools, both in the absence of the Head and in respect of permanently delegated responsibilities. But, the report adds, “in many schools deputy heads have a largely administrative role better undertaken by an non-teaching administrator or assistant”.

In a move to encourage schools to review their management structures, the new statement of deputy heads’ duties included in the 1995 School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions document spells out the deputy’s “major role” in formulating aims and objectives, establishing policies, managing staff and resources and monitoring progress.

This revised statement of duties probably reflects existing good practice in many schools. But it may encourage other schools to give their deputy heads more suitable tasks than processing examination entries or looking after the school car park - however many deputies they choose to employ.

CONDITIONS The conditions of employmentof deputy heads were amendedin the 1995 Schools Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document toinclude the requirement to play a major role under the directionof the headteacher in: * Formulating the aims and objectives of the school; * Establishing the policies through which they shall be achieved; * Managing staff and resources to that end; * Monitoring progress towardstheir achievement.