Remember, remember...
Where there's fire, there's probably some talent
It feels fitting, in the week of Bonfire Night here in the UK, to be writing about sparks, flames, and potential.
I’ve spent much of this year working with schools, charities, academy trusts, and organisations committed to tackling inequality in communities. Through this work, and thanks to colleagues at Tees Valley Education who believe in investing not only in our own people but in others too, I’ve seen talent in a complex system.
Amid difficult headlines about hardship and stretched school budgets, I’m reminded that people continue to stand close to the fire of broken systems and want to do something about it. Behind many bonfires of broken systems and deepening inequalities are educators, leaders, researchers and support staff who remain furiously curious about inequality and how to dismantle it.
They are, sometimes unknowingly, the greatest lever for change that communities have. I’m discovering that where there is fire, there tends to be talent.
Throwing fireworks
When things go wrong in education and organisations, it’s tempting to look for someone to blame. I’ve seen it countless times, especially in struggling schools, in external reviews and in policy debates.
Humans rarely point to exhausted systems, outmoded policies or structural issues; we all have a tendency to point at people. It’s something that has been the subject of interest for many psychologists and social researchers.
Miller and Ross (1975) explored how personal and collective bias can underpin much of everyday blame. When individuals are accountable for outcomes, they unconsciously distort their interpretations to maintain a positive self-concept. In workplaces, this can manifest as ‘blame-shifting’ or ‘credit-claiming’. So, in schools and organisations it sometimes translates as “we fail because of circumstance; they fail because of character.”
There’s also plenty of research to indicate that when belonging or identity feels threatened, people can project blame outward to maintain positive group distinctiveness. This is why we might sometimes use or hear phrases like ‘It’s the fault of HR’ or ‘that new leader doesn’t get it’. I’m convinced that the phrase ‘it’s Dad’s fault’ probably has connections to it too!
Research from Hood (2011) suggests that ‘blame games’ are more heightened when accountability is tested or reputations are at stake. And, to be blunt, schools and charities serving in areas of significant need will too easily slip into this at times.
I still remember one early leadership experience vividly.
I was new to leadership and working in a different school. Our school’s pupil premium strategy was under intense scrutiny. Staff turnover was high, outcomes far below national averages. An external ‘scrutiniser’ demanded: “This is public money and you are failing with it. Give me one good reason why I shouldn’t close the school!”
I was but a few months into the role and I tried to explain that we were still understanding pupils’ needs, that improvement would take time. It wasn’t what they wanted to hear. Yet some years later, the same individual returned with praise for our apparent ‘turnaround’.
It bothered me for some time that the process never really felt developmental. It felt more like an exercise in accountability and scrutiny. Over time, I learned how to navigate it, and with plenty of deliberate practice, I became more adept at handling those types of meetings. But my main takeaway back then was a flawed one. That the answer was simply to perform better under pressure and build more resilience.
Looking back, I probably moved into school leadership too soon. But I had a curiosity , a need to understand the mechanics of how to fix broken situations. I was drawn to the heat of working in complex and struggling school environments. For me, at the time, leadership meant being willing to face stress, get on with it, and keep striving for different results.
Over the years, I’ve come to understand that talent doesn’t form in the fireworks or in the furnaces alone. It isn’t forged by constant firefighting or sustained by performative ‘can-do’ energy. It needs to be tempered and moulded. It’s shaped, sharpened and strengthened through reflection, care, and the right conditions to grow.
So yes, there is likely plenty of talent by the fire. But without investment and development, it will either turn to ash or drift toward a new flame elsewhere.
Smoke and mirrors
Whenever the conversation turns to tackling inequality in schools, one phrase reliably reappears ‘quality-first teaching’.
Of course, great teaching matters enormously. Research continues to dictate that quality teachers in classrooms are a significant lever for change in securing good outcomes for all pupils, especially those facing disadvantage (Aaronson et al 2007; Kraft and Papay 2014; Fletcher-Wood and Zuccollo 2020; Riordan et al 2021).
The EEF (2025) emphasise that “the best available evidence indicates that great teaching is the most important lever schools have to improve pupil attainment. Ensuring every teacher is supported in delivering high-quality teaching is essential to achieving the best outcomes for all pupils, particularly the most disadvantaged among them.” However, the EEF also highlight the importance of careful implementation, reminding schools that high-quality teaching should not be seen in isolation, but as a key component within a wider, systematic approach to effective teaching and learning. I sometimes wonder how often this is really understood by those championing the value of quality-first teaching as the silver-bullet to tackle attainment gaps.
Focusing on pedagogy alone risks narrowing an understanding of what really changes outcomes for children living in persistent levels of poverty and hardship.
Much of our sector still equates ‘disadvantage’ with administrative labels like Free School Meals (FSM) eligibility, and ‘outcomes’ as examination results. Educators and leaders can sometimes talk about quality-first teaching as though it exists in isolation, separate from the wider ecosystem of relationships, resources, and organisational culture that sustain it.
Yet research shows that high quality teaching is made possible and sustained when schools have:
Inclusive, supportive cultures.
Well-developed support staff who complement classroom practice. Education is not something associated only with those labelled as ‘teachers’.
Evidence-led interventions and strong implementation processes.
Strong leadership rooted in community and context.
I have argued it before and won’t apologise for over using it, teaching alone will not shift systemic and sustained inequality. Educational inequality is not disrupted by education alone. It’s clearly a vital component, but it’s not the solo firework display that we often showcase it to be in the education sector.
And yet, the education system channels professional development budgets almost entirely into teaching CPD, as if the sole lever for change exists only at the front of the classroom. Recent research from the Teacher Development Trust (TDT, 2025) reveals that a substantial proportion of the estimated £1 billion spent annually on teacher continuing professional development (CPD) in England is largely ineffective.
I get it. Teaching needs to be great. Professional development and effective teacher education can make a difference if implemented well. I cannot deny this.
But perhaps it’s time to strip away the smoke and mirrors surrounding the idea that teaching alone is enough. People, not just teachers, are the real levers for change in schools, systems and communities. The most disadvantaged, those with the least, need more. Communities facing deepening and persistent inequality require more than a capable teacher at the front of a classroom. Real change demands systemic approaches and a level of talent development that, too often, is missing from the bonfire like environments of challenging schools and communities.
Maybe it’s time to reframe ‘CPD’ altogether.
I want to see more investment in Credible People Development, not continuing professional development. Talent is forged and it’s not exclusive to classrooms.
Burning talent
According to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, “talent consists of those individuals who can make a difference to organisational performance, either through their immediate contribution or in the longer term by demonstrating the highest levels of potential” (CIPD, 2021).
In schools, this must mean more than producing high-performing teachers. It’s about building ecosystems of talent. The likes of teachers, leaders, support staff, and community partners who understand the barriers that inequality creates and have the empathy, expertise, and agency to address them.
Yet schools, and the education sector as a whole, are still losing far too much of this talent. McLean and Worth (NFER, 2025) report that in 2023/24, 90% of teachers considering leaving the profession cited high workload as a key factor, with pupil behaviour emerging as one of the fastest-growing contributors to pressure since the pandemic. Recruitment into initial teacher training fell below target in all but five secondary subjects in 2024/25, and NFER’s latest forecast for 2025/26 indicates that only these same five subjects are likely to meet recruitment targets. The report also highlights a growing reliance on unqualified and non-specialist teachers; pointing to worsening shortages, a problem that hits hardest in schools serving higher proportions of disadvantaged pupils.
Needless to say, this burning of talent simply exacerbates the very inequalities that high-quality teaching seeks to address. If the schools serving the most disadvantaged pupils struggle to retain their best people, the inequalities in attainment, wellbeing, and opportunity will only deepen.
This can sometimes mean that leaders are prompted into situations where they have to quickly find replacements and push recruitment processes through just to keep roles covered. Too often, this approach is less about finding or nurturing talent and more about simply filling the gaps. A more effective strategy starts with mapping where talent already exists and identifying where it is needed most.
For example:
A pastoral lead tackling persistent absence might need targeted learning on family engagement and understanding the needs of a community.
A curriculum lead might need coaching to evaluate sequencing impact and understanding how poverty can impact the learning brain.
A new assistant head might need development in holding others to account and supporting others to spot trends in disadvantaged datasets.
These are not bolt-ons; they’re strategic alignments between people and organisational purpose. A key question I often ask in my work alongside schools is, ‘does your investment in people directly increase your capacity to understand and tackle inequality?’
Tools like McKinsey’s nine-box matrix can help visualise where performance and potential sit across a workforce. This is not to label people, but to navigate how best to grow and develop their talent. When combined with a strengths lens (more on this in a moment), this mapping supports purposeful succession planning and equitable deployment.
In schools and charities serving communities facing persistent or high-levels of hardship, this isn’t a neat HR strategy. It is a moral imperative.
Sparks and strengths
Identifying and nurturing talent isn’t only about strategic systems.
It can happen every day in the interactions between colleagues, leaders, educators, and external partners. I’ve been ignited by many sparks from working with others. Ideas, insights, and inspiration that I’ve been able to bring back into my role at Tees Valley Education. I am fortunate to work alongside leaders, including a CEO, who actively seek out these sparks, mining for learning and insight from across the sector and beyond. We strongly believe that expertise does not grow in silos.
Yet talent development does also occur in formal processes like appraisals. For too many years, as an emerging leader, my experience of appraisal was as a passive participant behind a laptop, while a manager typed furiously into a spreadsheet, setting targets that would define my role for the year ahead. Rarely was it about recognising or forging the talent and strengths I could bring to the organisation.
Appraisals are more than a moment to review performance. They can offer a powerful opportunity to reflect on the mission and core purpose of your collective work. How often do words like inequality, social justice, or tackling poverty enter the lexicon of your appraisal conversations with a manager or with others?
Appraisal should never be a bureaucratic cycle. It should:
Invite reflection in advance, rather than catching people off guard.
Focus on developing expertise, not simply preparing for promotion of role.
Be screen-free (where possible) and genuinely dialogic.
Take a long-term perspective, because deep growth takes time.
When appraisals correlate to people’s strengths, potential, and purpose, it can fuel the fire of an organisation and mission. It signals, clearly and loudly that people matter.
Over many years, I have been draw to strengths-based leadership using Gallup’s StrengthsFinder framework. It’s helped my work alongside other leaders identify what energises them and align those strengths to organisational priorities.
This approach reframes development around hope, not deficit. CliftonStrengths is backed by decades of Gallup research data. The evidence shows that when people use their strengths in their roles, they are more engaged, more productive, and more likely to stay. A strengths-based culture encourages responsiveness over reactivity, collaboration over competition, and sustainable growth over short-term fixes.
Sticky workplaces
As seasoned campers, my family knows all too well the dangers, and delight, of a sticky marshmallow around a campfire. The kids draw the line at my attempts at enthusiastic sing-alongs, but they’re happy enough to compete in a heated game of cards while devouring charred marshmallows. It always feels good.
I sometimes wonder if staff wellbeing initiatives in schools focus too much on the feel-good, surface-level aspects of workplace wellbeing. Retaining great people isn’t simply about removing all tough aspects of the job, offering yoga sessions, or serving hot chocolate and marshmallows in staff meeting rooms.
I’ve heard plenty of independent wellbeing consultants promoting quick fixes and stress-busting gimmicks, with little understanding of the heartland, or the hinterland, of the mission that sits behind organisations. Too often this translates into a series of activities or strategies that promise a one-size fits all approach in every school, charity or business. The wellbeing of people working to solve inequality has to be more than fluffy marshmallows and making people feel good.
Perhaps the real solution to retaining and recruiting talent is about creating sticky workplaces. Places where people stay because the mission matters and their growth is genuinely seen, valued, and supported.
Try asking:
What makes your school or organisation sticky to work in?
How sticky is your mission? How is it used to attract the right talent?
How are you investing in your top 10%, not just those who struggle?
Are you recruiting for your persistent problems, not just job titles?
What opportunities exist in your setting beyond the NPQ for researching, understanding and tackling inequalities?
Igniting people in place
I want to ignite the right people in the right places. I’m not talking about throwing an effigy onto a bonfire this week. If we are serious about tackling inequality, developing people can’t be reduced to operational management. Instead it should be seen as a core component of forging equity.
Disadvantaged pupils and families with less don’t just need great teaching; they need classrooms, corridors, and communities filled with great people.
People with a talent for tackling persistent problems and deepening inequalities. Talented people who care enough to act practically in the here and now, while also engaging in campaigning and advocacy to push for policies that secure a better deal for the places that they serve. Deep social justice requires deep social listening and we cultivate this by spending time around the fire with people, especially those facing the flames and embers of hardship. I’ve written more about this in other areas of this Substack and in Tackling Poverty and Disadvantage in Schools.
Talent management isn’t a luxury. It’s equity work.
It’s the difference between a spark that fizzles out and a fire that lights the way forward on these ever complex wicked issues of inequality.
And if someone can’t stand the heat in the kitchen you’re serving in, find ways to nurture their talent elsewhere or help them fan the flames in other rooms where they can make a credible impact.
Remember, remember…. talent and people are levers for change. Those with less might be depending on them. I know that I am.
If I sparked your curiosity, here’s some further reading
Aaronson, D., Barrow, L., & Sander, W. (2007). Teachers and student achievement in the Chicago Public High Schools. Journal of Labor Economics, 25(1), 95–135
Cordingley et al. (2018). Developing great subject teaching: Rapid evidence review of subject-specific CPD in the UK. Wellcome Trust.
Day et al. (2010). Ten strong claims about successful school leadership. National College for School Leadership (NCSL).
Edmondson. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
Fletcher-Wood and Zuccollo (2020) The effects of high quality professional development on teachers and students: A rapid review and meta-analysis.
Gallup. (2023). How to create a strengths-based company culture.
Heider. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Wiley.
Hood. (2011). The blame game: Spin, bureaucracy, and self-preservation in government. Princeton University Press.
McKinsey. (2008). Enduring ideas: The GE–McKinsey nine-box matrix. McKinsey Quarterly.
McLean et al. (2023). Teacher labour market in England: Annual report. NFER.
Miller & Ross. (1975). Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction? Psychological Bulletin, 82(2), 213–225. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076486
Papay & Kraft. (2015). Developing workplaces where teachers stay, improve, and succeed. Albert Shanker Institute.
Riordan, S., Jopling, M., & Starr, S. (2021). Against the Odds: Achieving greater progress for secondary students facing socio-economic disadvantage. Social Mobility Commission.
Weiner. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548–573.
What a fab blog with a wealth of information to reflect upon. My favourite phrase, ‘that where there is fire, there tends to be talent.’
🔥💪🏻
There is so much talent in our most challenging schools and i used to so get frustrated when leaders made a judgement of other staff based on an ofsted or a P8 figure without trying to imagine walking in their shoes.