By Kathryn Morgan, ASCL Leadership and Workforce Specialist

Since September, we have been gathering informal feedback from members on their experiences of RISE advisers. This gives us a useful, though necessarily anecdotal and qualitative, picture of how the programme is being experienced in practice.

It is important to stress that this reflects a range of perspectives. As with any new approach, there is nuance. There are aspects that have been welcomed and others where questions remain. This blog aims to reflect that balance, ensuring that early insights are shared accurately and contribute to the ongoing development of the programme.

What is working well
The most consistent message is that credibility matters, and in many cases it is there. Advisers are often experienced system leaders, with backgrounds as headteachers or trust leaders. That shows. Leaders feel supported and challenged by people who understand the realities of the role.

There is also a more diagnostic approach than we have sometimes seen before. Advisers are taking time to understand context rather than arriving with a fixed view. That builds trust and supports more meaningful conversations about improvement.

Flexibility has been another strength. Support is not a standard package. It is being shaped around the needs and capacity of individual schools. In some cases, the ability to broker additional capacity, including funding, has made a tangible difference where teams are already stretched.

There is also support for a proportionate approach. Where advisers judge that school leaders and their teams have the expertise, capacity and insight to secure improvement, members value that being recognised. In these cases, effective teams should be supported to improve, rather than over managed.

Where there is still work to do
There will always be early issues with something new, but some of the themes we are hearing feel more fundamental.

There is a risk that the programme could become overly bureaucratic if not carefully managed. Members are clear that schools requiring contextual, tailored support will not benefit from additional layers of process. As RISE develops and operates at greater scale, there is a natural tendency for processes, accountability requirements and consistency of approach to increase. Early findings from the RISE targeted intervention: interim process evaluation report also point to the impact of tight timescales and delivery pressures, which, if not addressed, risk limiting flexibility and adding to workload. Maintaining flexibility as the programme develops will be critical.

It is also important to fully recognise the context in which leaders are working. While many members have welcomed the way advisers are taking context into account, there is a wider point about the scale and intensity of the pressures schools are facing. Headteachers and principals are managing increasing complexity, including workload, staffing, finance and pupil need, often with limited capacity.

Research reflects this. The Sustainable School Leadership final report highlights the growing pressures on headteachers, with many describing themselves as struggling or just about managing (Greany et al., 2026). The Working Lives of Teachers and Leaders wave 4 report similarly shows that leaders are working long hours and managing competing demands (Department for Education, 2025; IFF Research and UCL Institute of Education, 2025).

There is also a question about how RISE fits within the wider improvement landscape. School improvement does not sit in isolation. There is a need for clearer alignment with existing structures and partnerships, including multi-academy trusts, local authority services, Teaching School Hubs and established local and regional networks, particularly where there is already strong local knowledge and trusted relationships.
Taken together, this underlines the importance of time, alignment and responsiveness. Any improvement model needs to recognise these pressures and avoid adding unnecessary complexity.

Looking ahead
The feedback we have heard points to a model with real potential. The credibility of advisers, the focus on context and the practical support are strong foundations.

The challenge now is to hold onto those strengths as the programme develops. That means avoiding unnecessary complexity, staying responsive to context and ensuring it connects effectively with the wider system.

We would welcome further feedback from members on their experiences of RISE advisers and the wider programme. Your insights are vital in helping to ensure that this work reflects the realities of schools and colleges and supports effective, sustainable improvement. 

Please get in touch with us via TellUs@ascl.org.uk using the subject heading ’RISE feedback’.