HARROOP SANDHU, VICE PRESIDENT, CHARTERED COLLEGE OF TEACHING, UK; EDI CONSULTANT; LEADERSHIP COACH
The research tells us time and time again that as global majority educators move through their careers, they are less likely to progress to leadership roles. Here are some stark statistics from the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER):
- Black teachers are 60 per cent less likely to be in senior leadership roles than white peers with similar experience
- Asian teachers make up nine per cent of the workforce but only four per cent of headteachers
- Ethnic minority teachers are more likely to reach middle leadership, but significantly less likely to advance from middle to senior leadership or headteacher roles
- Across England, 86 per cent of schools have an all-white senior leadership team, and 96 per cent of headteachers are white (Kotonya et al., 2025).
And it’s not due to a lack of ambition. The data tells us that, in fact, people from the global majority are more ambitious but less likely to be successful:
- Ethnic minority teachers are more likely to want promotion, but are less likely to be promoted (Kotonya et al., 2025).
Although the focus here is on progression into leadership, the implications extend directly to classroom practice. Leadership diversityThe recognition of individual differences in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, physical ability, religious beliefs and other differences influences curriculum decisions, behaviour expectations and the culture in which teachers work. It shapes which perspectives are represented at the decision-making table and, ultimately, the experiences of pupils. When certain groups are consistently missing from leadership, the policies that shape classrooms reflect a narrower range of viewpoints than the communities that they serve.
While diverse representation is important for staff, students and the local communities that we serve, that can’t be the only reason. It’s also a matter of social justice. The truth is that often leaders are keen to ensure that they have a diverse representation in the leadership teams but fall short when focusing on equality-based initiatives rather than equity. This often stems from a fear around being tokenistic, which is valid, but it’s important to consider how we change this trajectory going forwards.
The influence of sponsorship and mentoring on progression
I think that this is one of the most underused and under-examined areas when we think about progression and promotion. Why? Because sponsorship and mentorship happen all the time, but often in informal ways.
We’ve seen the benefits of sponsorship and mentoring for those on the receiving end. They often determine:
- who gets a nudge to apply for a promotion
- whose potential is seen or whose hard work is overlooked
- who gets mentioned and persuaded to take on a role, with coaching afterwards.
But here lies the issue. Research tells us that we are most likely to mentor and sponsor people who are similar to us in race, gender and other aspects of identity (Coqual, 2019). This is something I realise I’ve done myself. Whether it was working parents, carers or staff from the global majority, I would support them disproportionately. Because I shared a similar experience, I wanted to offer wisdom and advice. Coqual (2019, p. 3) describe this as ‘mini-me syndrome’.
Research in education also shows that mentoring quality and focus strongly affect development. Hobson and Malderez (2013) highlight that effective mentoring accelerates professional growth, while informal or inconsistent mentoring can inadvertently reinforce existing inequalities.
So, here’s the uncomfortable truth. If your senior team is largely white and male, and you follow this pattern, you unintentionally compound the global pipeline problem.
What’s the difference between sponsorship and mentoring?
Mentoring focuses on building an individual’s skills, confidence and professional knowledge. Sponsorship goes further. Sponsors use their influence to create visibility, recommend someone for roles and advocate for them in decision-making spaces. Mentoring develops capability; sponsorship increases opportunity. In schools, mentoring might involve coaching a colleague through a curriculum project. Sponsorship is putting their name forward to lead it, ensuring that they are seen by senior leaders and backing them if their capability is questioned.
A recent example in a secondary school illustrates this distinction. A department lead with strong potential repeatedly avoided applying for promotion, assuming that they ‘weren’t ready’. A senior leader sponsored them by nominating them to lead a whole-school initiative, advocating for their involvement in leadership meetings and directly encouraging them to apply for an assistant head role. The combination of visibility and explicit backing changed the outcome; they secured the position. Without sponsorship, their capability would have remained largely invisible.
Even when sponsorship is taking place, it’s not always done well. Sponsors often recognise a protégé’s potential but stop short of advocating for their promotion. When choosing protégés, most sponsors focus on proven ability (73 per cent), rather than selecting people who bring complementary leadership or management skills that they themselves lack (23 per cent) (Coqual, 2019).
And the benefits are not one-way. Those who sponsor others expand their capacity to get things done. They broaden both their knowledge base and skillset. They also see more career progression for themselves, as their advocacy for others is recognised. In addition, they gain greater awareness of the concerns of junior colleagues (Coqual, 2019).
How do you sponsor well?
Effective sponsorship requires consistency rather than goodwill. Leaders can start with four practical steps:
- Ask diagnostic questions:
– Who received informal stretch opportunities this term?
– Who is missing from high-visibility roles and why?
– Which colleagues have expressed ambition but received no advocacy?
– Whose work is praised privately but not amplified publicly? - Make advocacy visible: Give protégés chances to lead meetings, present professional development or represent the school externally. Ensure that their contribution is seen by decision-makers and they are supported to do well.
- Sponsor across difference: Avoid defaulting to those with similar backgrounds or experiences. Build the racial literacy needed to recognise how systemic inequities shape behaviour and confidence.
- Track the impact: Ask who is progressing, who is applying for roles and who is being overlooked. Treat sponsorship as part of professional development, and not an informal favour.
The downstream impact on pupils is significant. Staff who see progression pathways for people who look like them or share their backgrounds are more likely to remain in the profession, improving consistency and stability for learners. Diverse leadership strengthens cultural competence, curriculum relevance and the credibility of policies with students and families. Sponsorship is therefore not only a workforce issue but also a factor shaping the conditions in which pupils learn.
Sponsorship should be seen as a short-term solution to a systemic problem. We need to shift the mindset from ‘we advertised and it was open to everyone’ to asking ‘why is it that certain people do not apply?’.
And, if you’re looking to be sponsored, don’t wait to be discovered. Ask targeted questions that make expectations visible and expose pathways on which you can act:
- What does readiness look like here?
- What experience would strengthen my case?
- How are stretch roles allocated?
- Who actively sponsors staff and how can I access that support?
These questions signal ambition, encourage transparency from senior colleagues and help you to understand the routes that lead to visibility, advocacy and progression.
