Women secondary head teachers in England

The underrepresentation of women in secondary school headship in England and elsewhere is an early and longstanding theme in the women and gender in educational leadership literature. The purpose of this article is to report findings from a statistical survey of secondary school head teachers across England. Data available in the public domain on school websites have been collated during a single academic year to present a new picture of where women lead secondary schools in England. Mapping the distribution of women by local authority continues to show considerable unevenness across the country. This article argues that a geographical perspective still has value. It might influence the mobilization of resources to targeted areas and ultimately result in women’s proportionate representation in school leadership. Alongside this is a need for schools and academy trusts to comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty.


Introduction
The distribution of women secondary head teachers (many now known as principals) by local authority in England has been documented on at least three previous occasions (Edwards and Lyons, 1994;Fuller, 2009Fuller, , 2013. This article updates knowledge about the distribution of women secondary school head teachers across England for the academic year 2015-16. Its identification of regional variation aims to enhance the understanding of teaching professionals, researchers and policy-makers who are interested in improving women's access to headship. In 2015, women constituted 64 per cent of classroom teachers but only 40 per cent of head teachers (Department for Education [DfE], 2016c). This article uses two new sets of data from 2001 and 2015-16 to answer the following questions: (i) where are women leading state secondary schools in England? and (ii) how has their distribution by local authority changed over the course of 15 years?
At the time of writing, the Conservative government (elected in 2015) has rescinded its plans to make all schools academies by 2020 (DfE, 2016a). Nevertheless, the intention remains that schools seen to be failing or not improving sufficiently will be forced to convert to academies (Richardson, 2016). Such schools are no longer under local authority control. These major structural changes necessarily impact on the roles and responsibilities of local authorities in the education of children and young people and the employment of staff. Each academy and free school is responsible for fulfilling the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) as education providers and employers.
The change in the role of the local authority might suggest that an analysis of women head teacher/principals' distribution by local authority will become increasingly obsolete. However, this article argues that an analysis of data by local authority at this time: (i) enables a comparison of data over time; and (ii) usefully delineates geographical units that remain familiar to teaching professionals, researchers and policy-makers. For the first time, data have also been collated using regions determined by the regional schools commissioners (RSCs) (DfE, 2016b). It is concluded that whilst schools have long worked in partnerships and networks, these and other arrangements are increasingly formalized as chains of sponsored academies, multi-academy trusts or teaching school alliances. In the future, analysis by arrangements such as these might become increasingly useful. Indeed, the workforce census presented data by local authority maintained schools and academies to show there were slightly fewer women head teachers in secondary academies (36.4%) than in local authority maintained secondary schools (38.5%) (DfE, 2015).
Having provided a brief overview of the policy context here, the article goes on to outline existing research in women and gender in educational leadership in relation to the United Kingdom (UK) Equality Act (2010). There follows a description of how the survey was conducted. The findings are presented as a series of tables as Appendix 1 (Tables 1-7) using a variety of geographical lenses. Here, the findings are discussed in the light of the literature and the requirements of the Equality Act (2010). Conclusions are drawn to advocate a regional approach for investment in equality and diversity education by policy-makers and activist professionals. Implications for further research are also identified.
Women in secondary school headship and the Equality Act (2010) Shakeshaft (1987) identified six stages leading to a paradigmatic shift in the research on women and gender in educational leadership, management and administration. These include the '1) absence of women documented; 2) search for women who have been or are administrators; 3) women as disadvantaged or subordinate; 4) women studied on their own terms; 5) women as challenge to theory; and 6) transformation of theory' (Shakeshaft, 1987: 13).
The research reported here is located in the first stage as documentation of the presence of women. It contextualizes research in England that has also focused on documenting women's experiences of becoming and being head teachers (Coleman, 2002), studying women on their own terms (Fuller, 2013), women head teachers' challenge to gendered leadership theory (Fuller, 2014a(Fuller, , 2015, and the transformation of leadership theory by feminist scholars such as Ozga (1993) and Adler et al. (1993), who have been credited, along with Blackmore (1989), for their contribution to critical leadership studies (Grace, 2000). More recently, Helen Gunter, along with Pat Thomson and Tanya Fitzgerald, has ensured that gender shapes leadership knowledge production by focusing on identity construction (gender alongside age, disability, race and sexuality, for example); issues of social injustice (power struggles, division of labour and career paths); women's adoption of male/masculine/masculinist and/or 'normative' leadership; and gender and leadership as a continuing research agenda (see Fuller, 2014b).
In England, there is a resurgence of interest in the fact that despite girls' routine academic outperformance of boys at ages 5 years, 16 years and at degree level throughout Britain, the gender pay gap persists for women (Equality and Human Rights Commission [EHRC], 2009). Women still experience the difficulties and stress of sex discrimination and sexual harassment in the workplace. They are less likely to hold leadership and management positions than men.
This applies to secondary schools, where there is a gap between the proportion of women in the teaching workforce and the proportion of women head teachers/principals leading schools in England (Fuller, 2013). Indeed, there remains a concern for the unequal opportunities for women in secondary school educational leadership in English schools (McNamara et al., 2010). This concern with women's underrepresentation in headship resonates with second wave feminist theory of equality, which sought women's equality with men in the workplace, and feminist theory of difference, which identified that women's sociocultural roles necessitated different approaches to career advancement (see Scott, 1988). In the twenty-first century, women's underrepresentation in headship is a matter of social injustice, with women's lack of parity of participation resulting in lack of recognition for their capacity for leadership and from lack of resources with which to achieve it (Blackmore, 2013;Fraser, 2007). Indeed, the barriers to women achieving headship have been seen as a complex range of interacting factors of: (i) socialization and stereotyping; (ii) internal barriers; and (iii) macro (societal), meso (organizational) and micro (personal) level culture and tradition factors (Cubillo and Brown, 2003).
In the UK, the Equality Act (2010) brought together the Race Relations Acts (1965,1976), the Equal Pay Act (1970), the Sex Discrimination Act (1975), the Disability Discrimination Act (1995) and the Employment Equalities Regulations (Sexual Orientation -2003;Religion or Belief -2003;Age -2006). It identifies nine characteristics for protection against discrimination as: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. The Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is responsible for monitoring the PSED that from 2012 requires all schools to have 'due regard' to the impact of policy-and decision-making on those with any of the nine protected characteristics. They have a duty to: 1. eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimization and other conduct that is prohibited by the Equality Act 2010; 2. advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it; and 3. foster good relations across all protected characteristics -between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it (EHRC, 2012a: 4).
As education providers, schools are expected to 'remove or minimise disadvantages', 'take steps to meet different needs' and to 'encourage participation when it is disproportionately low' (EHRC, 2012a: 4). They must publish information to show compliance with the equality duty and prepare and publish equality objectives. As employers, almost 70 per cent of the 383 randomly selected secondary schools were found to have no published objectives relating to the specific equality duties (EHRC, 2012b: 7). 41.6 per cent of secondary schools had published objectives that related to the three-fold general duty to eliminate discrimination, advance equality and foster good relations (EHRC, 2012b: 10). With respect to the specific protected characteristics, the percentage of secondary schools that published objectives (not including objectives that cover 'all protected characteristics') were: age (5.6%), disability (58.4%), sex (53.9%), gender reassignment (6.7%), marriage and civil partnership (0.0%), pregnancy and maternity (3.4%), race (46.1%), religion or belief (19.1%) and sexual orientation (22.5%) (EHRC, 2012b: 14).
Here it can be seen that these schools have not demonstrably referred to characteristics that disproportionately affect women, such as pregnancy and maternity. The emphasis by secondary schools was on education but not on employment (EHRC, 2012b). The percentage of secondary schools that published objectives relating to employment was: applications and appointments (26.0%), pay gap (2.0%), promotions or representation in senior roles (4.0%), discrimination, harassment, bullying or grievances (4.0%), sickness absence or staff leaving (0.0%), job satisfaction (2.0%), training (54.0%), and other (44.0%) (EHRC, 2012b: 17). Clearly, these issues apply to all the protected characteristics, but research shows that some of them have been cited by women head teachers as barriers to their advancement to secondary school headship which had to be overcome (Coleman, 2002). In recent research in six English local authorities, senior leadership team members (women and men) reported discriminatory attitudes from a range of people such as governors, senior leadership team colleagues, teaching colleagues, pupils and parents (Fuller et al., 2015). So, too, there was evidence of discrimination reported at the intersection of sex and a variety of other protected characteristics. Showunmi et al. (2016: 927) have shown that only a few white women recognized 'the privilege of white ethnicity in leadership positions'. Black and Global Majority women are underrepresented in the population of women head teachers in secondary schools (1.8%) compared with: the proportion of BGM women in secondary school teaching (9.9% of women classroom teachers) (DfE, 2016); the 14 per cent of BGM/BME of the population as a whole (Office of National Statistics, 2012); and the 23.2 per cent of minority ethnic secondary school children (DfE, 2012). The women who achieve secondary headship are white women.

The research
The research described below raises epistemological challenges with respect to an essentialist gendered construction of leaders. Indeed, a critical and poststructural feminist approach would be more concerned with the deconstruction of gendered power relations and the reconstruction of leadership as multidimensional and multidirectional (Blackmore, 1989(Blackmore, , 2013. Nuanced perspectives are possible using qualitative research methods (see Fuller, 2014aFuller, , 2015. Nevertheless, this research provides a context for such research and has enabled recognition, for example, that the majority of chief executive officers of the large chains of academies are men, whilst women appeared relatively well-represented in site-based leadership (Fuller, 2016). It enables further questions to be asked about the location of power and decision-making in these new structures. There follows a description of the survey as it was carried out.
This was a survey of state-funded mainstream secondary schools serving children who take public examinations at the age of 16 years. Its purpose was to map the distribution of women in secondary school headship. It follows existing research into women's underrepresentation by focusing on English local authorities as the unit of analysis (see Edwards and Lyons, 1994;Fuller, 2009Fuller, , 2013, thus enabling a comparison over time. Earlier research (Fuller, 2009) collated data from The Education Authorities Directory (2005) as a list of schools published annually. By 2010, data were available online at the schoolswebdirectory.co.uk. 1 A combination of this and local authority website data was used to map women's distribution in secondary school headship in the UK in 2010 (Fuller, 2013).
During the academic year, 2015-16, data for this study were collated by combining a list of schools by local authority from schoolswebdirectory.co.uk, 1 lists published online by local authorities and data collated from individual school websites. School websites were likely to be more accurate than either of the published lists. A number of stages ensured findings could be compared with research 1. independent schools, sixth form colleges and middle schools were removed from the list taken from schoolswebdirectory.co.uk; 1 2. the remaining list was compared with the local authority list to ensure that alternative provision, pupil referral units and special schools were removed; 3. academies (sponsored and converter), free schools, studio schools, university technical colleges and through schools were included (some had replaced schools included in earlier research; some were new schools); 4. school websites were analysed to ascertain the head teacher's sex as it was presented by the incumbent and constructed by the researcher.
In England, titles are commonly used to indicate a person's sex. In this survey, the titles 'Mr' and 'Sir' were used to identify men; 'Mrs', 'Ms', 'Miss', 'Dame' and 'Lady' were used to identify women. Neutral titles, such as Dr and Reverend, and the use of initials prompted the search for additional material as photographs or media reports in order to construct head teachers' sex as it was presented in traditional ways in English culture. Thus, the sex of head teachers/principals was constructed from website welcome messages, photographs, lists of senior or strategic leadership teams, minutes of governing body meetings and letters home to families. Descriptive statistics have been used to present the findings in a univariate analysis with biological sex as the single variable.
A benefit of researching websites was to find examples of co-leadership and temporary arrangements not shown in data held by the DfE or local authority. In 24 schools there was evidence of co-headship/principalship. In 12 schools a woman and a man shared the role; in six schools there were two women, and in five schools two men. In one school there were three co-principals: one woman and two men. All were counted with the proportion of women calculated in relation to the number of schools rather than the number of head teachers. There were 81 schools with acting or interim head teachers/principals: 40 women and 41 men. All were counted. One website showed the head teacher was on maternity leave, her headship being covered by a man as acting head teacher; in this case both were counted.
The range of roles and nomenclature of school leaders reflects changing structures in the English school system. It is common to find joint welcome messages by an executive head teacher/principal and head teacher/principal. In some cases, it is impossible to ascertain how far the role is a sitebased leadership role. The person whose name was most prominent was counted as the head teacher/principal. In the case of chains of academies, a photograph of the chief executive might appear on every school website. Where possible, the site-based leader was sought and counted. This difficulty in deciding who the head teacher/principal of a school is might account for some differences between these findings and findings that appear to show a dramatically fluctuating proportion of women in some authorities that used a different method (telephone survey) to identify the sex of the head teacher (Fuller et al., 2015). It raises methodological questions for future research.

The distribution of women secondary school head teachers by local authority
The proportion of women leading state secondary schools included in the survey in each local authority is given in Tables 1-7 in Appendix 1. The data are presented as Table  1 -the London boroughs (LB), greater metropolitan districts (GMD) and non-metropolitan districts (N-MD); Table 2 local authorities with 50 or more secondary schools; Tables 3a-b -local authorities where the proportion of women is particularly high or low; Tables 4a-4d -significant changes over time (2001, 2005, 2010 and 2015-16); Table 5 -the English regions determined by the responsibilities of the RSCs (Times Educational Supplement, 2016); Table 6 chains of academies with ten or more secondary schools; and Table 7 -a complete list of local authorities.
In earlier research, data about the distribution of women head teachers in state secondary schools have been presented as a series of tables to show every local authority (Fuller, 2009(Fuller, , 2013. For ease of reading here, the tables of data are provided for reference as Appendix 1. The findings are reported below as outlined above. The London boroughs, metropolitan districts and non-metropolitan districts (Table 1) Analysis of the proportion of women leading state secondary schools in the London boroughs (LB), greater metropolitan districts (GMD) and non-metropolitan districts (N-MD) shows that the highest proportion are in South Yorkshire (47.1%), followed by the London boroughs (42.9%). The lowest proportions are in Merseyside (33.7%) and the N-MDs (36.1%). The degree of variance in each of the groups shows that some local authorities where women are well represented are geographically close to those where they are not -for example, Sandwell (16.7%) and Coventry (56.5%) in the West Midlands. This replicates findings elsewhere (Fuller, 2009(Fuller, , 2013Fuller et al., 2015).
Within seven miles (the distance between Kensington & Chelsea (LB) and Richmond-upon-Thames (LB)), one authority has no women secondary head teachers at all (0/6 schools) and one has 70 per cent of schools led by women (7/10 schools). Each of these authorities is too small to make generalizations, so it is more useful to compare larger authorities consisting of fifty or more schools. The size of these authorities is comparable to the smaller greater metropolitan districts, Merseyside, South Yorkshire, and Tyne and Wear.
Large local authorities ( Table 2) Whilst none of the larger local authorities (with 50 or more secondary schools) is comparable in size with the combined local authorities that comprise the London boroughs, or the West Midlands, Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire greater metropolitan districts, it is interesting to note the relatively high proportion of women leading schools in Kent (51.0%), Surrey (45.5%) and Birmingham (46.9%). In the past, the 'ILEA [Inner London Education Authority] factor' (Edwards and Lyons, 1994: 8) has accounted for higher proportions of women in and around London (Fuller, 2009). The ILEA was known for its radical antisexist education policy that aimed to 'free both sexes of the restrictive stereotypes which undervalue and undermine girls and women, and which convince boys and men that their superiority is "natural"' (ILEA, 1985: 3 cited in Arends andVolman, 1995: 119-120). Whilst London and Birmingham have been picked out as having relatively more women head teachers, it 'does not appear to be a distinctly urban phenomenon but does seem to be regionally biased' (Coleman, 2005: 9). The proximity of Kent and Surrey to London would suggest that this remains the case, though it appears not to be the case for Essex. Analysis of the former ILEA London boroughs reveals that the proportion of women head teachers was 46.3 per cent -marginally higher than in the London boroughs overall (but this was a decrease over time -see below).
Exceptional local authorities (Tables 3a and 3b) Exceptional local authorities are identified as those where the proportion of women is particularly high or low.
Women are not a minority. A social justice argument suggests women should be represented in headship in the same proportion as their representation in society and/or in the secondary school teaching workforce (64%). Just seven authorities had a proportion of women secondary head teachers that matches the proportion of women secondary teachers nationally: Thurrock in the East of England (70.0%); London boroughs Richmond-Upon-Thames (70.0%) and Merton (62.5%); Bristol in South-West England (68.2%); Bracknell Forest (66.7%) and Wokingham in South Central England (66.7%); and Darlington in the North of England (62.5%). The list of authorities with 50 per cent or higher proportions of women includes eight London boroughs and eight authorities from the greater metropolitan districts. However, there are high proportions of women head teachers in local authorities that cross the country from the north-east and north-west, through the Midlands to London and the south-east and south-west.
Nine local authorities with exceptionally low proportions of women secondary head teachers were defined as those with 20 per cent or fewer -considerably lower than the 38 per cent of head teachers found in England overall. The English regions (Table 5) For the purpose of this analysis the English regions have been determined by the current responsibilities of the RSCs. Ten RSCs have a specific remit for the further academization of schools (Durbin et al., 2015). Their geographical areas of responsibility make up the following regions: South-East England and South London; South Central England and NW London; East of England and NE London; Lancashire and West Yorkshire; East Midlands and the Humber; South-West England (includes Isles of Scilly); West Midlands; and North of England. The composition of each region by local authority was provided by the Department for Education (2016b). The regions incorporate the greater metropolitan districts, nonmetropolitan districts and London boroughs.
Women are represented in higher proportions in secondary headship in South-East England and South London (44.5%) than elsewhere, and particularly compared to the North of England (33.6%). However, as already demonstrated, there is considerable variation within each region. In Newcastle-upon-Tyne, in the North of England, 50 per cent of schools were led by women. The degree of variance between local authorities within the regions is high in every case, the highest being South Central England and NW London, with a degree of variance of 66.7 per cent between Kensington & Chelsea (0.0%) and Bracknell Forest (66.7%). This provides an indication of the variation in the representation of women in some authorities within regions.
There follows a discussion of the implications of this update of knowledge for teaching professionals, researchers and policy-makers.

Implications
It is hoped that these data will be useful to teaching professionals, researchers and policy-makers alike. Using the local authority as the unit of analysis has enabled comparison over time that shows the rate of increase is painfully slow at less than 1 per cent per annum. At this rate women's representation in headship will not match their representation in the teaching workforce before 2040. Mapping the distribution of women secondary school head teachers/ principals across England using a number of different groupings and making a range of comparisons shows just how patchy it remains. The juxtaposition of local authorities with high proportions of women and those with low proportions remains in place.
Recommendation has been made to women aspiring to headship that they should 'Consider location: London and the metropolitan areas are statistically favourable' (Coleman, 2002: 48). This is certainly not the case for many London boroughs, and the greater metropolitan district authorities are not uniformly favourable. It might be more useful for women (and men) aspiring to headship to look carefully at the degree of diversity in school governing bodies, academy trust boards and in senior leadership teams before deciding where to apply for headship.
Women's disproportionate responsibility for childcare and domestic arrangements, and direct and indirect discrimination during the selection process and among workplace peers has been well-documented (Coleman, 2002;Fuller, 2009;Fuller et al., 2015;Ozga, 1993). It is vital that governing bodies, academy trust boards and head teachers ensure that objectives are set with respect to their responsibility as employers -not just as educators -in compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty.
Activist teaching professionals are already engaged in work led by trade unions, professional associations and charitable trusts that focuses specifically on women in the teaching profession (ASCL, 2016;ATL, 2016;NAHT, 2016;NASUWT, 2016;NUT, 2016;The Future Leaders Trust, 2016). A social media based group #WomenEd, launched in 2015, already has regional networks developing across the UK that serve women leading in education across all sectors and phases (#WomenEd, 2015). In London, the Leading Women Alliance, led by ASCL, was Local authorities are used by the Department for Education to identify the regions led by the RSCs. However, future research might be carried out to identify the distribution of women head teachers in other arrangements of schools such as multi-academy trusts, teaching school alliances or chains of sponsored academies. As an alternative to the geographical analyses above, 12 large chains of academies, with ten or more secondary schools, were selected to find out women's distribution in secondary headship in these chains (Kemnal Academy Trust (73.3% of secondary schools led by women), Northern Education Trust (70.0%), Ark Schools (55.6%), Harris Federation (50.0%), Oasis Community Learning (50.0%), Academies Enterprise Trust (48.3%), School Partnership Trust Academies (46.7%), Ormiston Academies Trust (46.4%), E-Act (41.7%), United Learning (41.7%), Academy Transformation Trust (40.0%) and Outwood Grange Academies Trust (35.7%)see Table 6). All but one has higher proportions of women than in the country overall. However, women are underrepresented at chief executive level, with only two of these chains led by women. There is a need for further research into the representation of women at executive head teacher/ principal level as schools increasingly combine to form multi-academy trusts and chains of academies; and for research into site-based leadership within such organizations that asks: What is the reality of leading schools as part of a large chain of academies or in a multi-academy trust?
There is a need for further more precisely focused qualitative research into questions such as: 1. What has happened to promote equality and diversity issues in London boroughs since the abolition of the ILEA in 1990? 2. What happened in Knowsley schools in the past five years? 3. What made Bristol schools more attractive to women? Or what made women more attractive as head teachers in Bristol schools? Is there any relationship with the apparent decline in Bath & North East Somerset? 4. What is the reality of taking maternity leave whilst you are a head teacher? 5. What is the reality of co-headship? 6. What does the distribution of women secondary school head teachers look like in Teaching School Alliances? (Fuller, 2016).
With respect to policy-making, investment is needed in women's leadership development in some geographical areas more than in others. Such investment might take the form of further funding for equality and diversity education for all, i.e. pupils, staff, school leaders, governing body and academy trust board members. The DfE (2016a: 49) has devoted a section of the education white paper to 'Increasing diversity in leadership'. Recognized as a matter of identifying school leadership talent and succession planning, policy-makers state, So we need to do more to release the full potential of our diverse leadership talent pool, including groups underrepresented in leadership (like women, people from black and minority ethnic [BME] backgrounds, and lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender [LGBT] teachers). (DfE, 2016a: 49) A commitment to 'support schools to develop a strong and diverse pipeline of great school and system leaders, funding activity aimed at groups who are underrepresented in leadership positions, like women and LGBT candidates and those from a BME background' (DfE, 2016a: 49) has been followed up with funding for 'Women Leading in Education: regional networks', a 'pledge to coach women teachers in schools' and further 'Leadership Equality and Diversity Fund: for school-led programmes' (NCTL, 2016). Whilst these initiatives look and sound positive, in themselves they are not enough. More opportunities are needed for activist teaching professionals, researchers and policy-makers to work together, and for such work to become embedded in state education policy and school culture.
A starting point for school leaders would be to implement the PSED (2012), for activist professionals to challenge, and researchers to monitor the enactment of existing national policy and published organizational equality objectives.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research project was carried out with the support of the University of Nottingham.

Author biography
Kay Fuller is associate professor of Educational Leadership and Management in the School of Education, at the University of Nottingham, UK. She is a member of the Centre for Research in Educational Leadership and Management. Kay is a former teacher, head of English, deputy head teacher, school governor and initial teacher educator. She has worked in five mixed comprehensive schools in three local authorities. Kay currently leads the MA in Educational Leadership and Management. Her main research interests are in women and gender in educational leadership, which also includes women's and men's constructions of identity among school populations, and in the use of feminist theories including intersectionality theory. One of Kay's most recent publications is: Gender and Leadership in Education: Women Achieving against the Odds, an edited collection of writing that celebrates the research career of Marianne Coleman (Fuller and Harford, 2016, Peter Lang). Kay is an elected member of BELMAS Council.