We all know that consistency is a key part of a successful school, and adhering to central policy is a way to ensure that happens. But as a middle leader, how should you go about monitoring and measuring fidelity to those policies? When should you intervene? And how do you know when it’s time to go rogue and do something different?

The lowdown

Middle leaders have a critical role to play in applying centrally set policies. They act as the bridges between policy creation from their leaders and the practical application in their teams, hopefully creating an efficient and enjoyable work environment in the process.

Ensuring consistency with policy can help to build trust among a team - who will see a fair and accountable process at work - and it also mitigates against risk and ideally improves standards. However, that doesn’t mean sticking to policy should be prioritised over staff concerns. So how should middle leaders walk that tightrope?

What we know about what works

When it comes to applying any policy, ensuring that staff feel invested in it is a critical first step, says Bogdan Costea, professor of management and society at Lancaster University Management School.

“A singular, top-down approach to policy implementation is very dangerous,” he says, advising that middle leaders should always discuss policy with their teams, to ensure the “agreement of the collective” in terms of adhering to it, whether it’s about curriculum, behaviour, pedagogy or any other aspect of their work.

Indeed, a key part of being an effective middle leader, Costea continues, is recognising how a central policy should best be implemented - particularly how stringently you should be about ensuring that it is followed.

“When you’re a manager or you’re responsible for a group of people, the tendency is to translate the policy into procedures, which can get very, very mechanical,” he says.

There’s a lot of value to be had in working out which procedures are absolutely necessary and which are not, he continues, as “the realisation of policy implementation has a role, but the overly procedural realisation can become destructive”.

So what should middle leaders do when their monitoring highlights a need to intervene because a crucial policy is not being adhered to in the correct way?

“Any intervention should first of all be one-on-one with the relevant colleague, to say ‘Look, is there anything going on that you’re not happy with?’, instead of saying ‘This has to be resolved’ or forcing the issue into an uncomfortable openness,” he explains.

These conversations should be informal as far as possible, he continues, without a tone of blame or culpability, or “just a question of ‘What are you going to do differently?’”.

“If you make the discussion feel threatening, it’s always uncomfortable,” he says. “Don’t do unto others what you wouldn’t want it done to yourself. Don’t start with ‘You’re doing it wrong’.”

And what about when a policy is widely being misapplied or ignored? How can middle leaders know that it’s time to deviate from the central guidance and even talk to the higher-ups about it requiring amendment?

“Often that moment will manifest itself purely through the quantity of people telling you that there is a problem with a policy,” Costea continues. “So you will begin to see the same problems arising with different people and it will become clear that this is not just an individual case.

“This is why interventions have to be so carefully managed, to not isolate an individual or a group of individuals. You must make it possible for people to raise problems they need to discuss, so you can find these systemic problems together.”

The experienced leader’s view

Jon Hutchinson is director of curriculum and teacher development at the Reach Foundation. He writes:

The word “fidelity” has become quite popular in the last few years, in part thanks to many schools setting out with much greater clarity their expectations around curriculum and pedagogy. Although most schools had some sort of teaching and learning policy in the past, the translation of this into key principles (perhaps based on a list such as Rosenshine) is becoming increasingly common.

Schools are developing their own, detailed “house style”, and as a middle leader, you’ll be responsible for ensuring what happens in the classrooms looks like what’s written on the posters.

Some people in your team will almost certainly be pretty grumpy about this whole approach. Fidelity, for them, is simply a euphemism for “micro-management” and indicative of a growing trend of removing autonomy and trust from teachers.

Before labelling them troublemakers and planning a difficult conversation, it’s worth first considering whether they have a point. It could be that what felt like a sensible policy during an SLT meeting simply doesn’t work in a particular subject. As George Orwell put it when setting out his rules for writing, “Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.”

So perhaps some teachers are rejecting fidelity for good reason. When you notice they are, it’s worth grasping the nettle early and having an open conversation about what they object to and why. Paramount in these discussions is that children’s learning remains front and centre. Otherwise, you’ll get caught in a ping-pong argument of “SLT say we have to” versus “I’m a professional, leave me alone”. Nobody wins in that argument.

Following the discussion, it may well be that you decide to make the case to the higher-ups that policies need to be adapted for your area of responsibility. In some circumstances, it may even be necessary to seek exemption altogether. But it’s also important that this doesn’t descend into a de facto ‘anything goes’ policy where teachers will never do anything that they don’t enjoy.

This is because there is great power in a consistent approach to teaching and learning. For children, it creates consistency, efficiency and predictability, all important aspects of a safe and successful learning environment. For teachers, it may nudge them into approaches that are counterintuitive and perhaps uncomfortable, but ultimately more effective in securing great outcomes. More than all of this, it signals that “we are a team, we act together”, which is crucial in a profession that can often feel very lonely.

So fidelity doesn’t need to be a dirty word, but nor should it remain unexamined and unchallengeable. As a middle leader, you can build a culture with your team where you discuss and debate how you do things, and then collectively commit.