The most significant barriers to equitable recruitment are rarely obvious. Natalie Turner, recruitment manager at Shaw Education Trust, argues that by rethinking everything from job adverts to application processes, schools can widen access to talent, strengthen retention and foster a more inclusive culture
Recruitment can often be treated as a process: so integral to schools, that we don’t stop to think about how it can be improved. A vacancy arises, an advert is written, applications are assessed and the strongest candidate is appointed. But in practice, recruitment is one of the most powerful levers schools and trusts have to shape equity. Long before shortlisting begins, decisions about how roles are framed, what is assumed and what is left unsaid influence who feels able to apply, and who quietly rules themselves out.
As a recruitment manager working across a multi academy trust, I see this play out repeatedly. The biggest barriers to equity are rarely explicit. They sit in the small, habitual design choices that feel normal because they have always been done that way.
Who the role is really written for
Every job advert carries an unspoken message. Beyond essential criteria and contractual detail, it answers a quieter question for the reader: is this role designed for someone like me?
Language around hours, availability and “flexibility subject to operational need” can be enough to deter experienced candidates before they have considered whether they meet the core requirements. Similarly, long lists of “essential” attributes often describe an idealised profile rather than the role as it actually operates. When everything is framed as non negotiable, candidates who do not see themselves reflected will often opt out rather than test the boundary.
This particularly affects those with caring responsibilities, those returning after a career break and those who may already feel marginal to traditional leadership pathways. Over time, these small signals accumulate, shaping who progresses and who disappears from the pipeline.
Expectations that live between the lines
Many inequitable outcomes in recruitment come not from policy, but from expectation. Phrases such as “must be able to commit to the full demands of the role” or “requires flexibility beyond core hours” are rarely interrogated. Yet they communicate a very specific model of commitment, often based on availability rather than impact.
In reality, many leadership roles are already performed flexibly in practice, through redistributed responsibilities, protected time or trust wide support. But when adverts fail to reflect that reality, schools unintentionally present a narrower version of leadership than actually exists. Candidates are left to assume that leadership means long days, constant presence and personal sacrifice, even where this is not the case.
Why transparency matters at advert stage
Teaching Vacancies encourages schools to be explicit about role context, expectations and flexibility where appropriate, and facilitate the process of blind recruitment on the site to make taking positive steps easier for schools. This is not about lowering standards. It is about replacing assumption with information.
When schools explain how leadership responsibilities are shared, what support structures exist or how progression is approached, candidates can make more informed decisions. Crucially, this benefits schools as much as applicants. Those who apply do so with a clearer understanding of the role, reducing mismatch, early attrition and recruitment churn.
Shortlisting begins earlier than we think
Equity is not only shaped by who applies, but by how applications are structured and assessed. Traditional open ended personal statements reward confidence, familiarity with professional language and the ability to perform expected narratives of commitment. They do not always reward evidence of impact.
Structured application systems help to rebalance this. By separating factual experience from reflective responses, they allow candidates to focus on what they have done and how they work, rather than how well they can sell themselves. For recruiters, this leads to clearer comparison, fairer shortlisting and more consistent decision making across schools.
What schools should stop doing
Just as important as improvement is knowing what to remove. In my experience, there are several common practices that quietly undermine equitable recruitment. They include treating flexibility as an informal conversation rather than visible information, listing every desirable attribute as “essential”, assuming leadership roles require identical availability across all contexts, and using legacy advert templates that no longer reflect how roles operate in practice.
None of these decisions are malicious. But collectively, they narrow the field of who applies and who progresses.
Recruitment as culture setting, not administration
Ultimately, recruitment does more than fill vacancies. It sets the tone for how a school or trust understands leadership, belonging and progression. Every advert, role description and application form reflects what the organisation values and what it expects people to trade off in order to belong.
When schools take a more intentional approach to recruitment design, they are not only widening access. They are investing in retention, leadership sustainability and morale. Equity, in this sense, is not a separate initiative. It is built quietly into the systems we use every day.
The most effective recruitment processes do not rely on candidates taking personal risks to test whether a role might work for them. They make expectations clear from the outset, allowing a wider range of talented people to see themselves in the profession and, crucially, to stay within it.
About Natalie Turner
Natalie Turner is recruitment manager at Shaw Education Trust, working with school leaders to improve recruitment practice, candidate experience and inclusive hiring across schools.
