I’ve worked as a Head of Year and led teams in both rotating and static models, so I’ve seen the strengths and tensions of each.
I increasingly think a phase-leader model is more effective as you suggest, provided the pastoral structure beneath it is clear and strong.
In one school I worked in, a pastoral leader moved with the Head of Year and the cohort. It created continuity, but expertise travelled with individuals and reset when they moved on.
In hindsight, a stronger model would have been static phase leaders building cumulative expertise, with non-teaching pastoral leads attached to each year group and moving with the cohort.
That feels like the best balance: relationships anchored to students, expertise anchored in the system. But as you point out there is merit in all.
I like the non-teaching model.static or moving… But it’s expensive. School budgets are hard to extend to non-teaching leaders. This is particularly the case in my current school.
This is a thoughtful reframing of a debate schools revisit every year.
The key shift is moving from “what do people prefer?” to “what are we trying to optimise for?”
While relational continuity matters — especially at transition points — the bigger issue is role clarity. Heads of Year should function as system leaders (driving consistency, safeguarding, behaviour standards), not as “super-tutors.” When that distinction is clear, structure matters less than coherence.
The strongest argument for static or phase-based models is organisational learning. Over time, leaders build expertise within a key stage rather than resetting knowledge annually. Continuity for students can — and often should — sit more with tutors and classroom teachers.
Ultimately, structure isn’t neutral. Schools need to decide whether they are prioritising relational reassurance or cumulative system strength — and design accordingly.
Thanks Carla. I agree the continuity works best with tutors as the constant. The head of year then is also responsible for holding them to account and ensuring they have the data, time and skills to notice, act and be the students’ main point of support. Many tutors are incredible, but some need a little nudge. Being a tutor often comes second to being a subject teacher. We are very focused on this part of the role at Garden, during recruitment, which helps.
Thank you, really interesting blog.
I’ve worked as a Head of Year and led teams in both rotating and static models, so I’ve seen the strengths and tensions of each.
I increasingly think a phase-leader model is more effective as you suggest, provided the pastoral structure beneath it is clear and strong.
In one school I worked in, a pastoral leader moved with the Head of Year and the cohort. It created continuity, but expertise travelled with individuals and reset when they moved on.
In hindsight, a stronger model would have been static phase leaders building cumulative expertise, with non-teaching pastoral leads attached to each year group and moving with the cohort.
That feels like the best balance: relationships anchored to students, expertise anchored in the system. But as you point out there is merit in all.
Thanks for the comment, Lynsey.
I like the non-teaching model.static or moving… But it’s expensive. School budgets are hard to extend to non-teaching leaders. This is particularly the case in my current school.
This is a thoughtful reframing of a debate schools revisit every year.
The key shift is moving from “what do people prefer?” to “what are we trying to optimise for?”
While relational continuity matters — especially at transition points — the bigger issue is role clarity. Heads of Year should function as system leaders (driving consistency, safeguarding, behaviour standards), not as “super-tutors.” When that distinction is clear, structure matters less than coherence.
The strongest argument for static or phase-based models is organisational learning. Over time, leaders build expertise within a key stage rather than resetting knowledge annually. Continuity for students can — and often should — sit more with tutors and classroom teachers.
Ultimately, structure isn’t neutral. Schools need to decide whether they are prioritising relational reassurance or cumulative system strength — and design accordingly.
Thanks Carla. I agree the continuity works best with tutors as the constant. The head of year then is also responsible for holding them to account and ensuring they have the data, time and skills to notice, act and be the students’ main point of support. Many tutors are incredible, but some need a little nudge. Being a tutor often comes second to being a subject teacher. We are very focused on this part of the role at Garden, during recruitment, which helps.