It is clear from another study, by Buckingham university, that independent school leaders already regard headships of state schools as a turn-off, no doubt contributing to the looming recruitment crisis. In their view, culpability lies with central government for interfering too much, offering “independence with a big thick collar and chain”. Indeed, the PWC report acknowledges that school leaders are fed up of “initiativitis”, caused by too many inconsistent and under-funded government initiatives.

A superficial reading of the report does not inspire great confidence that Whitehall is (finally) learning not to interfere. One hopes the idea that “rotating heads” could take turns to run school clusters will be quietly forgotten, while the authors’ enthusiasm for pushing “the right management behaviours” will need to be watched.

But at heart the report is a sensible account of what is already happening in a rapidly evolving school system. Traditionalists may grumble, but if schools are to become centres for children’s services and provide access (in the case of secondaries) to a full range of academic and vocational training, then their leadership structures will have to change too.

Collaboration between schools to share services - and even staff in some cases - is also sensible, especially if it enables a hard-pressed primary head to concentrate on teaching and learning instead of unblocking the loo.

The acid test is whether the Government will now promote a diverse approach to leadership rather than push every school in a particular direction. Schools must be free to develop their own approach to fit local circumstances. Good leadership practice is to be encouraged and government has an important role to play. But true leadership means knowing when not to interfere.