20/10/2016 Newsnight

Newsnight exclusively reveals data that suggests we are rewarding

the wrong headteachers with the big bucks and the knighthoods.

It may mean that we have to go back to step one in terms of who is

running our schools. I'll be asking the Chief Inspector

of Schools if he agrees. Also tonight, as Theresa May meets

EU leaders, Newsnight understands that those in Whitehall advocating

a softer Brexit think the door should be kept open to

lower-skilled migrants to avoid And another clue about the direction

of Brexit talks, perhaps, When it comes to pass porting for

the financial institutions, that is something that has to be negotiated

as well. But I can say something very clear. If you want to have

passport in, you need to accept at least, basically, the EU regulation

that we have and the financial area. I will totally accept the results of

this great and historic presidential election if I win.

Today, Donald Trump said something unheard of in modern American

history - how big a threat is this to American democracy?

The Government has long had a penchant for parachuting so-called

The narrative goes like this - head teachers arrives -

kicks ass - kicks all the bad eggs out -

pupils and the teachers - results soar - head gets

Moves to next badly performing school and so on.

But Newsnight can exclusively reveal new evidence that

demonstrates that this strategy is not working.

Chris, a fundamental problem with the way our schools are wrong, then?

Absolutely right. This research coming out from a peer-reviewed

publication has looked at 411 English headteachers. What it

basically find is that we pay almost twice as much to the most short

termist and destructive head teachers, who just look like they

are doing a good job, while there is a huge category of teachers who do

brilliant jobs who basically never get knighthoods and who get paid

much less. This is phenomenal research, based on data from inside

schools which has never had a look at. This could be some of the most

important research for social policy in recent years.

We spend a lot of time and energy trying to improve schools in

England. But a new piece of research published tonight in the Harvard

business review and shared exclusively with Newsnight is

potentially a breakthrough. It reveals we are getting some very big

things wrong when it comes to what makes a good head teacher. This new

research throws up into question whether we are hiring the right

people to be a high headteachers and whether we are rewarding the right

people to be our headteachers. It looks at things from a very

different angle and it may mean that we may have to go back to step one

in terms of who is running our schools. This new research uses a

unique data source to work out what works. Administrative data from a

big group of sample secondary academies, which analysts at the

center for high performance have used to look at what headteachers

actually do. We looked at 411 heads and looked at the actions that they

actually take within their management information systems, how

they manage staff, how they manage teachers, how they manage students.

What they paid teachers, how they manage behaviour, how they recruit

people, how they exclude people. What we have found is that they fall

into five main categories. There are three of those groups that are

particularly interesting first of all a group that they dodged the

surgeons. These are headteachers who act decisively and cut out both

staff and pupils from their schools as they turned them around. Second,

the group they call the philosophers. These are headteachers

who think of themselves as just experienced teachers, not really

leaders or managers. They talk a lot about pet -- pedagogy in particular.

This thirdly, the architects, slow and mystical as planners who like to

do things in secret. These categories are very different.

Surgeons dropped into a school would be expected to expel as many as 28%

of the final year students to improve GCSE results. The

philosophers, 6%. The architects, just 1%. The philosophers don't

really change anything in terms of staff. While the architects manage

out poorly performing staff, they recruit replacements, so they end up

with a bigger staff. Surgeons are very decisive. They make quick

actions and sometimes those actions are controversial. A cut large

numbers of students and also get rid of underperforming staff come about

in the short term they are able to increase examination results very

quickly. You can see that in this graph, which chose the annual

average change of exam results while each sort of head is in post. The

surgeons's schools certainly do much better than the loss of that and the

architects at getting results up. They massively increase the

proportion of children who leave with five good GCSEs. Our surgeons

good in the long term? Surgeons are not good in the long-term because

they are short is. They aggressively focus on students about to take begs

nations and expel those who they think will not pass. School leaders

who take more time and focus on working with the community are able

to build sustainable schools. Yet is the same chart you saw before but

let's look at the year after those heads leave. The architects's

schools are stable but surgeons's schools's results collapse, dropping

after two years too. Only after three years do surgeons's results

stabilise, now the architects look the best. But remember, surgeons

shrink the size of the school by hoofing out kids. The surgeons would

average only between 50 and 90 students graduating with five or

more good GCSEs. The architects would leave a school where 160-170

children each year would get five GCSEs. The raw social good of an

architect is way bigger. The architects focus on building the

right school for the future, the right school for its community. They

start off by improving the environment in the school, improving

behaviour of the students and improving the leadership, and then

improving the teaching. They also engage with the local community and

try and understand what is the right school. For example, they seek

parental complaints as a positive thing because they believe that

parents are now engaged with the school, which is the right thing for

the school going forwards. He would hope that our school system is

systematically identifying and rewarding those architect

headteachers. But it isn't. If you look at who the Government gives

honours two, 60 3% of the surgeon headteachers in our example had a

gong of some kind. For the architects, it was just 13%. If you

have a look at who governing bodies are winning to pay the most, you see

the same pattern. The average surgeon was earning ?154,000 per

year on average, as opposed to ?86,000 a year for the architects,

even though they run much bigger schools. Generally when governing

boards are looking at how to reward their head teachers, they will only

look at one year's performance. One year's data. And indeed, the system

as a whole is geared around one or two years in terms of, Ofsted comes

and visits very frequently in underperforming schools, league

tables are published every year. So without a doubt, head teachers will

very much feel that they are on an annual cycle of being monitored. So

I think we could really do with a sea change where all of us think

much more about what we need to do to improve schools in the

medium-term. If that weren't enough, there is another fascinating finding

too. Of the surgeon headteachers, 71% were PE teachers. Of the

philosophers, 78% were English teachers. And of the architects, 68%

were either history or economics teachers. Our most surprising

finding was the clearly and between the subjects they studied and taught

and how they then behave as leaders of schools. We believe that this

clearly comes because they have not had leadership training or exposure

to other ways of thinking, so they fullback on the values and beliefs

within the subjects that they have studied and taught over the years.

For example, PET just believe that our winners and losers and you're

only as strong as your weakest link. -- PE teachers. So you can see how

they believe in excluding the worst performing students. We are not

rewarding heads to make the biggest impact for the longest number over

the longest period. We are simply rewarding those heads who are best

at playing the game. Joining me now is Sir Michael

Wilshaw, who is the Chief Inspector And indeed a former history teacher

himself! Good evening. Terrifying that some of the best heads in the

country are being paid the least. I'm really glad this research has

come out because it confirms things that I have believed in for a long

time, there are lots of people who go unrecognised to do a fantastic

job getting good results in the long-term and yet they unrecognised

and unrewarded. We've got too many people in the system who are into

self-aggrandisement, empire building, receiving massive salaries

and who are not building for the future. A great head is not only

somebody who improves results for all children but also ensures that

there is a future for the school and gets staff in who can replicate the

success that they have achieved. Some of this short-term stuff is

absolutely desperate, because they are going for the quick hit, the

short-term, the exclusion of that year's GCSE pupils, in these

so-called quick turnaround is, in some schools it is 28%, in some

schools it is 50%. Of course you can get any result you want the more

kids you exclude! If our inspectors found that we would do something

about it and heavily criticised the school. It doesn't seem to have been

found. We do criticise schools who have high exclusion rates. We

produced a report a few months ago on the underperformance of children

between 11 and 14 at Key stage three because in secondary schools were

focusing on key stage four, yet and India 11, particular focusing on

year 11, last year group, to the exclusion of focusing on those

younger youngsters between 11 and 14, and as a result, although their

outcomes look good on the surface, they should have been a lot better.

But you are Chief expects and you are also head of Ofsted. You think

that this has been a flawed system. Do you think you should have done

more? Have Ofsted been far too short term is about this? They're not. I

signed letters every week and if you talk to headteachers who receive

them, they say they are pleased to receive them, these are headteachers

in schools that are not good, they are underperforming, but they expect

to see that the leader is putting into place the building blocks for

improvement and strategies for long-term growth. I send those

letters out to save the school is not good yet, the results are not

good, but you are a good leader and you have got in place those systems

to improve the school. So why is it that these short-term heads, the

so-called surgeons, the quick fix guys and girls who get in and get

out fast, they are getting paid nearly double other heads? We need

to blame the governors for that and headteachers prepared to commit

themselves to the community and the school. I get worried about

headteachers who get the gongs and the big salaries and then go off

somewhere else for a bigger salary. As they had, I spent a long time in

schools to make sure that school worked and that the community was

proud of that institution. We need heads who will commit themselves for

the long-term. And if they don't do that, the government should do

something about it. They certainly shouldn't be rewarded by the

government. Let's move onto more broadly talking about education

under this Government. Describe the impact that you think Theresa May's

plans for grammar schools will have? I've been quite open about this, I

think it is a retrograde step. I came into teaching to improve the

lot of all children, not just some. If we go down the route of grammar

schools, the 15% - 20% will do well but the rest will do badly. All you

have to do is look at areas with grammar schools. Look at Kent, look

at ducking, Sutton. Look at the attainment gap between those who go

to the grammar schools than those who don't.

The best teachers will gravitate to the place where it is easiest to

teach. All you have to do is speak to people in modern schools in Kent

and they will say how difficult it is to get staff. If you look at

London schools, they are doing fantastically well serving the most

deprived communities. I can take you to academies in Portsmouth and

Birmingham where you have got great heads, architect heads, who are

doing very well by their children. The big challenge for our schools

system is to make sure we have got enough teachers and enough leaders

in our schools to improve them. It is not about structural change, we

have had enough of that. If you look back at the tenure of Michael Gove

and Nicky Morgan, how would you rate that? You were there during those

years. I was and I have had a lot of admiration for Michael Gove. He

felt, as I and many other people felt, that we needed to give more

autonomy to headteachers to make a difference. That has happened. We

need more diversity in the system with academies and free schools. He

realised the curriculum and the examination system were not as good

as they should have been anti-reform to those and we are seeing the

benefits now. If there was one thing you wished you had pushed harder on,

what would it be? I wish I had pushed harder on focusing on what it

matters for those youngsters who are not going to university, those

youngsters who need skills, who need to go to an apprenticeship. I wish I

had focused on that much more than I did. That is a big challenge for the

country, as well as ensuring you have got good teachers.

In Brussels tonight, Theresa May at her first EU summit

is addressing the 27 other EU leaders after dinner on the subject

of the UK's departure from the European Union.

They apparently have been instructed to listen but stay schtum.

The body language on both sides tonight will no doubt be cordial,

but the devil will be in the detail, and one very big detail will be

Katya Adler, the BBC's Europe Editor, is live in Brussels

Katya, what has been the reception to Theresa May?

This is her first EU summit as Britain's Prime Minister and after

the Brexit vote we would have thought it would be a frosty

reception. But all the leaders here are seasoned politicians and you can

call it duplicity or being down bids diplomats, that they are perfectly

capable of picking holes in each other's politics and being polite to

each other. But if you listen to the leaders who arrived at this summit,

there is a noticeable hardening of town. Francois Hollande of France

said, if she was a hard Brexit, we will give her hard negotiations.

Even German, the Netherlands and Italy are hardening their tones. We

have to be careful of expecting things to happen too quickly.

Although Brexit is one of the most dramatic developments in post-war

Europe, this is about a process and not a single event. In the meantime

we are in a holding pattern of screaming silencers. Theresa May

refuses to tell the leaders the precise details of the Brexit she

once and they refuse to top details whether and until a formal Brexit

leaving has started. Tonight all the leaders, including Theresa May,

talked about Russia and Syria. The Prime Minister insisted the UK

remains a full EU member until it leaves and demanded not to be cut

out of, decision-making. The British have voted to leave the EU and

Theresa May says they will leave the EU, but we are an infinite number of

decisions and meetings away and tell the UK walks out of the door. One of

the big issues to deal with freedom of movement and we have learned that

has been pushed back against the Chancellor and there is believing in

a softer Brexit who say the doors should be kept open to lower skilled

migrants coming from the EU to avoid damage to the economy. Theresa May

has been urged by senior figures in Whitehall to wake to the last minute

before she triggers Article 50. The EU leaders have to wait until the

end of March. They are making this case because Britain needs every

minute to get its ducks in a row. It is working process. You were talking

about those hostile briefings against Michael Hammond on the Prime

Minister was not amused by those briefings her Chancellor. There was

talk of the time of those briefings imposing rules to keep the doors

open to highly skilled workers and make it more difficult for lower

skilled workers. But there is a concern if you close the door too

much on the lower skilled workers it would be bad for the economy and you

would undermine key areas like the care sector.

Ring a bell? What we think should happen is an Australian style

points-based system so we get the people we need for the NHS and for

all our other businesses and services. It was one of the defining

issues in the referendum campaign, Britain would take back control of

its borders and definitively bring down emigration. But it did not take

long for Theresa May to say no to that proposal. What the British

people voted for was to bring some control into the movement of people

from the EU into the UK. A points-based system does not give

you that control. Since then immigration has unsurprisingly

emerged as one of the most contentious issues as ministers try

to thrash out an agreed UK negotiating position. The

Chancellor, Philip Hammond, has found himself under fire from leave

supporters after he urged caution at the meeting of the Cabinet's Brexit

committee over plans to restrict unskilled workers from the EU. We

understand Theresa May was deeply irritated that are misleading

account of a discussion behind closed doors was leaked in a

deliberate bid to damage the Chancellor. The discussions in

Whitehall are described as fluid. Advocates of a hard Brexit are

pressing for a system of work permits designed to keep the door

open to skilled migrants and narrow opportunities for unskilled workers.

Where there is an economic need, the Polish builder is an example, work

permits would be issued for less skilled workers. Those advocating a

softer Brexit are saying the doors should be kept open much wider to

lower skilled workers, or risk undermining, for example, the care

sector. One idea is to set a base level for a migrant salary. One

remains a porter warned Britain would have to tread carefully. We

cannot have our cake and eat it, we cannot have complete control over

who comes here and at the single market. Is there a compromise where

we have limited controls over who comes here and limited, but not all

membership of the single market? That is possible in theory, whether

it is negotiable in practice would be difficult legally and

politically. A former cabinet minister on the leave aside she said

Britain should make up its own mind. Immigration should not be a matter

for negotiation with the rest of the EU. The point of getting that

control over our laws and Borders is that we make those decisions and no

other country asks us what rules they should apply about access to

their country for work or travel. We should apply the same rules to

people coming from Europe as we do to people coming from other friendly

countries. The present system has a whiff of racialism about it with

people coming from our former colonial territories who are

severely controlled and those coming from white, European countries are

not. The same rules should apply to everybody. Theresa May faces a long

and winding road before she formally losses there is Brexit negotiations

with the rest of the EU, possibly at the last minute at the end of March.

The skirmishes have just begun. Earlier today I spoke to the German

Deputy Finance Minister, Jens Spahn, to ask about his ambitions

for Brexit discussions. I started by asking him

whether given Britain is projected to have the strongest growth

in the EU this year, despite Brexit, that the UK could do perfectly well

outside of the Union. This uncertainty stops investment.

It does not bring more growth, but less growth and I think it is

important for all of us that we start the process and get an idea

where it might end. Let me say this, I think we underestimate the

long-term results of this Brexit. Of course we can argue about what is

happening in the share markets today, tomorrow and next week, but

the long-term situation of Britain as well as the European Union will

change and that will affect the economy in a different way, much

more than we see today. But I wonder if there is a possibility that we

could have EU nationals coming to the UK to work if they have worked

rhesus. It is free movement of labour with work visas, in return

for access to the single market. Is it not possible these work visas

might be a way of negotiating? Between no relations and the

internal market there are many options in between, so I am sure we

can find something for strong trade and a strong economic agreement and

something that is about movement and working in Britain or the other way

round, on the continent for British people as well. But if it is really

an internal market as it is now in the European Union, then you have to

accept the freedom of movement. That is one of the pillars of the

European Union, it is one of the most important values that the

European Union has to offer to its average citizens and we cannot

compromise on that. Is it possible we could make financial

contributions as we do now and in return we might be able to continue

passports, for example, that is it possible there could be set access

in return for contributions? It depends on the package but I do not

see the point in paying contributions, paying money to the

EU budget that you do not have any control over any more. What is the

improvement compared to the situation to day where you are

paying money and you have control over it at the same time and

discussing what is happening with the money in Brussels? I do not see

the point, but if that is something Great Britain once, it can be part

of a package. When it comes to pass sporting for the financial

institutions, that has to be negotiated as well, but if you want

to have that, you need to accept at least basically the EU regulation

that we have in the financial area. You cannot become a kind of

financial haven, which some people are dreaming of in the UK, some

banks are dreaming of it. A very senior figure in Germany

representing the German auto industry said the UK is an important

market, but actually cohesion of the EU, 27 countries, is more important

for this industry. That is an interesting thing for him to say. He

seems to be saying even if it meant job losses, it is more important,

the very idea of Europe is more important. What do you think of

that? He is right. Of course we want to keep this market and we want to

have access to this market as open as possible, but not at any cost,

not at any price. It depends on the conditions. The internal market,

really free access, means you have to accept the freedom of movement

and if that is a condition that is not wanted, then we have to accept

the access we have today, for example the car market in the UK,

might change and we have to find a new settlement about it. Do you

think if we did decide when we looked at the deal and we did not

like it, is there a way we can get back and with Debbie the good will

to take us back? I do not know what will happen in the next few years.

We have to see the process and negotiate. I expect this referendum

counts, but if there should be a new situation in four years' time, of

situation in four years' time, of course we will debate it again.

Donald Trump's refusal to commit to the result of the US presidential

election in the third presidential debate last night was a serious

moment for the world's biggest democracy, even by the terms of this

campaign, which apparently shocked even his own backroom team.

I watch, do you make the commitment that you will absolutely not. I will

look at it at the time. I am not looking at it now. I will look at it

at the time. What I have seen is so bad, I will tell you at the time, I

will keep you in suspense. Chris, let me respond because that is

horrifying. Every time Donald thinks things are not going in his

direction commie claims whatever it is is rigged against him. Today at a

rally in Delaware, Tom had a moderated message, you will accept

the result if he wins. I would like to promise and pledged

to all of my voters and supporters and to all of the people of the

United States that I will totally accept the results of this great and

historic presidential election. If I win!

Well, in a moment I will be speaking to an adviser to Donald Trump, but

first we will go to the American political historian. Good evening.

First of all, how big a deal do you think this was, Donald Trump last

night and then today? How dangerous do you think it is, from your

perspective? I think it's about as calamitous a development for

democracy as can be imagined, not just for the legitimacy of this

election but for the legitimacy of thousands of elections that go on in

America every year. Losers, and by the way, that is not a moderation of

his position at all, saying he will only accept the results of the

election if he wins is saying that he will not accept the results of

the election is now saying that thousands of politicians around the

country can be licensed to do be the same thing and if that happens, we

will have a cascade that threatens the very foundations of our

republic. It's dangerous. A lot of people will just see this as Donald

Trump just blustering, this is just what he does. Well, what he did in

2012 was he tweeted that because Barack Obama was ahead in the

electoral college at a time in which John McCain was ahead in the popular

vote,... He has supporters who treat everything he says as gospel. A lot

of the supporters have guns and they have promised to bring them to the

polling places. He has a ready distorted the election badly by

making people believe it's not legitimate, they may not show up.

It's terrible for a country that relies on the rule of law and

reciprocal about allegation. You have obviously studied American

political history. Has there ever been anything like this? Actually

saying that the election could be rigged, before. Never. The Trump

people are trying to compare this to 2000 when Al Gore asked for a

recount, but what actually happened was when the election was announced

for George W Bush, Al Gore accepted the results and then because of the

closeness of the result in Florida, an automatic recount was kicked in

by the procedure of law and he let that go forward. It's a completely

different situation. Completely unprecedented. Let's say that on

November the 9th Donald Trump loses the popular vote and challenges,

what could actually happen? How long could it go through the courts?

Well, we have the precedent in 2000. If it's close enough, which it

doesn't look like it's going to be, by the way, in most polls, Linton is

6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10% ahead. The procedure is actually quite

complicated because it is handled state-by-state and precinct by

precinct. We don't have a federal election system in America and so it

could be a colossal mess and that could be a crisis not only for

America but for the world. What do you think the long-term impact of

this questioning of the validity of the American electoral system might

be? Hopefully nothing. That is up to Mr Trump. I employ him to think of

the country, think of the world and do the patriotically and accept the

results of the election. If he doesn't, the long-term impact of the

most powerful democracy in the world, in the eyes of the rest of

the world being questioned, would reverberate everywhere. We would not

be able to hold the rest of the world to any kind of standard

because the way America has tried to do things for 240 years now.

Thank you very much, Rick. We are joined by the foreign adviser to

Donald Trump, who declined the opportunity to have a conversation

there. Good evening. Good evening. Why is Mr Trump doing this now? You

can see clearly that they are trying to make him into a cartoon with

these attacks. It is not what he said. If it is rigged, if it is

clearly rigged... And to do that, it is not down to him to decide, it is

his lawyers and the results coming from various states. The previous

figure has mentioned that in 2000 precisely President George Bush and

former Vice President Al Gore had asked the investigation and the

Supreme Court to decide, is that so different? That was the question of

a particular number of votes and Al Gore stepped back. Where is the

evidence that Mr Trump is accumulating of rigging? It is all

over the Internet. Your viewers can go and check the cases appearing in

Colorado, in Florida. This is not to say that rigging is going to happen,

but he is taking measures. He is saying, if it is going to happen

then I'm going to take measures. I think what he is saying is because,

in the last election, when I was the adviser to Governor Romney... The Al

Gore situation was quite different because they were mandated for an

automatic recount for the hanging chads and that was quite different.

Now the Republican senator has said Donald Trump saying he might not

accept the result is beyond the pale and it does not have the support of

senior Republicans. If Donald Trump said, "If I lose then I will go

against it", then yes. But that is not what he said. He said, if there

is rigging and if there are problems. He cannot say what the

problems are because we're not yet at the ballad box. There he is

bets. -- at the ballot box. The day he was perfectly clear that if he

wins there will be no investigation. He was talking about if he doesn't

win. Is it just Donald Trump last in? I'm sure you saw the video. He

was sarcastic. His people were waiting for him to say, if I lose...

And he said, if I win and then everybody was clapping! This is

Donald Trump's style. He does not mean that really, if I am defeated,

I'm going to question the election. That is not the discussion on

strategic issues. So this is just Donald Trump's style and as the

polls widen, do you think this is really him saying, I know I'm going

to lose? Donald Trump knows exactly that his voters are not impacted by

the propaganda campaign waged against him. He wants to make sure

that this heart of his constituencies are going to vote. We

know that he is not backed by many politicians in his party, so that is

his political right to say so and under different circumstances he may

not have. But that's what he did. So this is the kind of strategy that

you would suggest that he pursue? I would not suggest that for the point

that I am not an adviser on domestic issues but on international and

national security. I would not recommend that he say so had he not

been under the kind of cartoon attacks that he has for the last two

weeks. You heard the previous speaker talking about people taking

their guns to polling stations and so forth, that actually, you would

suggest he was being sarcastic, but a lot of people you would believe

and agree presumably take Donald Trump at his word and believe

absolutely every thing he says and the tone in which he says it. Is

that not a problem that there could be incitement? Mr Trump has never

asked any of his followers to take any guns anywhere. The only violence

we saw were against GOP centres in North Carolina and other places. It

is certainly not Mr Trump who will be calling on insurrections if he

loses, but he has been sending this message because he saw and many of

his advisers told him that there are preparations, maybe not coming from

the top but he is warning that he is not going to be silent if there are

problems with this election like rigging. He is for democracy and not

against it. The papers now and one of the

presidential hopefuls says that the border belongs in Kent and not

Calais and France must push its border with Britain to the Kent

coast and stop managing migrants from the UK.

Moving on to the mirror and the shaming of BHS boss is the story.

And now we go to the Times. "Crackdown On rip-off gambling

companies". And web crime goes to the highest level for 14 years.

Before we go, the The Portuguese photographer

Tito Mouraz has just published a new collection,

The House of The Seven Women. His photographs explore

the Beira-Alta region of Portugal where he grew up where,

according to local legend, there is a house that is said to be

haunted by the ghosts of seven women, all maiden sisters,

one of them a witch. On nights of the full moon,

the women would fly from their balcony down onto the street

where they would seduce Good evening. Heading off to bed and

wondering what is in store tomorrow, pretty much what we have seen this

week. We are stuck in repeat mode at the moment. The early-morning