I used to be minion governor in a school in London in 2013-2016 before we moved. We were a 2FE primary. After an RI from OFSTED and resignation of 1 AHT the HT proposed a restructure from one HT and 2 AHTs to 1 HT, 1DHT and 1 temporary DHT ( substantive I think) to strengthen leadership to focus on priorites. A very capable QT (qualified for 4 years but a HLTA before that )was appointed to the temporary DHT having been a very capable subject leader. I later learned that the HT and this QT had worked together closely at a previous school as QT and HLTA ; the recruitment was entirely fair and the appointment worked very well. However, after a year the HT advised us that the school needed another restructure with the temporary DHT post ending and being replaced by a permanent AHT post. He said that it was very important to have the new AHT post occupied for September. The GB agreed. We advertised and got some very strong CVs from external candidates; i was all set to attend school for shortlisting and was impressed by the candidates CVs and said so to the HT. Two days later, before short listing the HT then said that the budget review and shortfall in reception numbers meant we could no longer afford the permanent AHT post and that he wanted to extend the temporary DHT post. A govenor asked about the waste of money advertising and it would have to be repeated. THe HT said that he could inform the applicants of a deferral then check later on if they still wanted to apply. I asked what the money differential was but that wasnt available and the HT needed a decision. 4 Year on Im wondering if we were right to allow this - I left the area soon after so I don't know what ever happened but I strongly expect the temporary DHT got the AHT post during a "quiet" time for recruitment. Hhow much money would we have saved retaining a QT acting as a temporary DHT compared to appointing permanent AHT ?