13
Page 1 of 13 Excellence for All part 2: School Improvement Procedures 2017-18 Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Section 1: The annual improvement cycle 2 3 Section 2: Data collection schedule 6 4 Section 3: Extract from Schools causing concern statutory guidance (March 2016) 7 5 Section 4: Pathway of action for maintained schools causing concern 8 6 Section 5: Pathway of action for academies causing concern 9 7 Section 6: Support procedure for headteacher absence (primary) 10 8 Section 7: LA monitoring, intervention and support for schools causing concern 11 9 Section 8: LA approach to categorisation 13 Introduction Excellence for All is the East Sussex strategy for school improvement which is updated on a biannual cycle. These school improvement procedures set out the operational actions to be taken by the LA, individual schools and school partnerships to secure ongoing improvement in East Sussex schools and in outcomes for children and young people. The procedures should be read alongside Excellence for All. East Sussex County Council is committed to working with all schools in the county to ensure that: All children and young people are able to attend an establishment that is rated at least good by Ofsted All children and young people who are educated here achieve the best possible outcomes from their education. The leadership for school improvement sits with schools, which are working together in a range of partnerships to secure whole-system improvement. The local authority will continue to provide support to schools as they work together to build the local capacity, mutual trust and expertise required for a sector-led improvement system. The local authority has statutory responsibility to promote high standards and ensure that appropriate strategies are in place to secure improvement. It also has a duty to monitor performance and take prompt and effective action when schools are not performing, using the full range of its intervention powers. The local authority works closely with the Regional Schools’ Commissioner to discharge these responsibilities. The procedures described here set out the operational steps to be taken by all parties in order to analyse need; provide robust and timely challenge and intervention where required; plan and deploy support; monitor progress and evaluate the impact of support. These procedures are designed to take account and support the development of a system-led model of improvement in which individual schools, the LA, Education Improvement Partnerships (EIPs) and Teaching School Alliances (TSAs) all have distinct roles to play.

Excellence for All part 2: School Improvement … · School Improvement Procedures 2017-18 Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Section 1: The annual improvement cycle 2 3 Section 2: Data

  • Upload
    vandat

  • View
    215

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1 of 13

Excellence for All part 2:

School Improvement Procedures 2017-18

Contents

1 Introduction 1

2 Section 1: The annual improvement cycle 2

3 Section 2: Data collection schedule 6

4 Section 3: Extract from Schools causing concern statutory guidance (March 2016) 7

5 Section 4: Pathway of action for maintained schools causing concern 8

6 Section 5: Pathway of action for academies causing concern 9

7 Section 6: Support procedure for headteacher absence (primary) 10

8 Section 7: LA monitoring, intervention and support for schools causing concern 11

9 Section 8: LA approach to categorisation 13

Introduction Excellence for All is the East Sussex strategy for school improvement which is updated on a biannual cycle.

These school improvement procedures set out the operational actions to be taken by the LA, individual schools and school partnerships to secure ongoing improvement in East Sussex schools and in outcomes for children and young people.

The procedures should be read alongside Excellence for All.

East Sussex County Council is committed to working with all schools in the county to ensure that:

All children and young people are able to attend an establishment that is rated at least good by Ofsted

All children and young people who are educated here achieve the best possible outcomes from their education.

The leadership for school improvement sits with schools, which are working together in a range of partnerships to secure whole-system improvement. The local authority will continue to provide support to schools as they work together to build the local capacity, mutual trust and expertise required for a sector-led improvement system.

The local authority has statutory responsibility to promote high standards and ensure that appropriate strategies are in place to secure improvement. It also has a duty to monitor performance and take prompt and effective action when schools are not performing, using the full range of its intervention powers. The local authority works closely with the Regional Schools’ Commissioner to discharge these responsibilities.

The procedures described here set out the operational steps to be taken by all parties in order to analyse need; provide robust and timely challenge and intervention where required; plan and deploy support; monitor progress and evaluate the impact of support.

These procedures are designed to take account and support the development of a system-led model of improvement in which individual schools, the LA, Education Improvement Partnerships (EIPs) and Teaching School Alliances (TSAs) all have distinct roles to play.

Page 2 of 13

Section 1: The annual improvement cycle

This table sets out the responsibilities in the annual improvement cycle for individual schools, the LA and for providers working collaboratively, through Education Improvement Partnerships (EIPs), the secondary Leadership Support Group (LSG) and Teaching School Alliances (TSAs).

For more detail on monitoring, intervention and support for schools causing concern, see section 5.

Date Individual school actions by KS & phase Collaborative actions (EIP/TSA/LSG) LA actions

June Analyse provisional outcomes data and share data with LA: Early Years’ Foundation Stage (EYFS) Key Stage 1 Phonics

EIPs: Initial review of impact of current year’s activity (pending summer results) EIPs: Submit draft plans to LA outlining how priorities will be addressed and the funding required. EIP Executive: Review draft plans and provide feedback and suggestions to EIPs

Analyse data to identify risk, prioritise support and resources

Early discussion with schools where data raises concerns to explore accuracy of data and consider school response and support required

Collate and publish data at LA and EIP level

June/July Send provisional outcome data to LA: Key Stage 2

Analyse data to identify risk, prioritise support and resources

Early discussion with schools where data raises concerns to explore accuracy of data, school response, support required and to flag possible change in category

Letter to schools where data raises concerns confirms LA data analysis and risk to category

Collate and publish data at LA and EIP level

July Receive data from LA collated at county and EIP level. Consider own data in context of local schools and the county-wide picture: EYFS Key Stage 1 Key Stage 2 Phonics

EIPs: Submit finalised plans for the coming year for moderation EIP Executive: Moderate EIP plans and allocation of funding for the year ahead, and provide feedback to EIPs.

Share collated provisional data (and subsequently unvalidated and validated data) with schools, EIPs and councillors

Initial analysis of county-wide strengths, vulnerabilities and priorities for action in the primary and early years’ phases

July to September High and medium risk primary schools agree EIPs: Identify high and medium risk primary Detailed discussion with primary schools

Page 3 of 13

Date Individual school actions by KS & phase Collaborative actions (EIP/TSA/LSG) LA actions

support needs with LA and EIP schools at a local level and liaise with LA about support requirements

where provisional data indicates high risk to understand issues, agree and commission support and interventions, including leadership reviews where further information is required

August Analyse provisional outcomes data and send data to LA on GCSE results day: Key Stage 4

Secondary Leadership Support Group (LSG):

Analyse data to identify risk, prioritise support and intervention and resources

Early discussion with secondary schools where data raises concerns to explore accuracy of data and school response and support required

Collate and publish data at LA and EIP level

September

Key Stage 4 High and medium risk schools agree support needs with LA and Secondary Leadership Support Group (LSG)

Receive collated data and consider the school’s data within the context of local schools and the LA

Secondary Leadership Support Group (LSG): Review data analysis

Identify high and medium risk schools and plan support and intervention

Detailed discussion with schools where provisional data indicates high risk to understand issues, agree and commission support and interventions

September Support package in place for high risk primary schools and those in the Ofsted window

EIPs: Identify area-wide strengths and priorities across local schools

September to July Monitor progress against agreed targets and milestones

EIP/TSA/LSG: Monitor progress of schools where support has been provided towards agreed targets and milestones

Review and adjust support if progress is too slow or milestones not met

Monitor progress of high risk schools towards agreed targets and milestones (through external adviser/CHT visits, IEBs or progress boards as appropriate)

Review and adjust support if progress is too slow or milestones not met

Term 1 Primary schools: Discuss self-evaluation with external adviser

EIPs: Implementation of action plans begins. Prioritise external adviser/CHT visits for schools considered at high risk or those in the

Page 4 of 13

Date Individual school actions by KS & phase Collaborative actions (EIP/TSA/LSG) LA actions

in term 1 meeting to inform categorisation Secondary schools: Discuss self-evaluation with consultant head (CHT) in term 1 meeting to inform categorisation Share KS4 (and where relevant, KS5) targets for the year ahead with CHT at this visit

Ofsted window

October EIPs: submit final evaluation of previous year’s activity

By October School self-evaluation sent to LA

Review school self-evaluation and confirm category

Arrange moderation of categories for small number of schools where LA and school judgement differs

Term 2 Arrange meetings with primary multi-academy trusts to review provisional data and priorities for the year ahead

November EIPs: Review final categories to inform understanding and support planning for local schools

Final date for confirmation of categories to schools and EIPs

1st week November Send targets to LA: EYFS Key Stage 1 Key Stage 2

Analyse targets and contact schools where data raises concern to understand any issues and adjust support if required

Publish summary targets report and share with schools

November 1st in-year data return – progress towards targets Key Stage 4

LSG: Analyse in-year data and contact schools where data raises concern to understand any issues and adjust support if required

Publish summary report to schools

End of January Return in-year data – progress towards targets EYFS Key Stage 1

Analyse in-year data and contact schools where data raises concern to understand any issues, adjust support and review category if required

Page 5 of 13

Date Individual school actions by KS & phase Collaborative actions (EIP/TSA/LSG) LA actions

Key Stage 2 Phonics

Publish summary report and share with schools

January EIPS: receive East Sussex priorities document Confirm priorities for East Sussex EIPs

February 2nd in-year data return – progress towards targets Key Stage 4

LSG: Analyse in-year data and contact schools where data raises concern to understand any issues and adjust support if required

Publish summary report and share with schools

Term 4 Arrange meetings with primary multi-academy trusts to review in-year data and progress towards targets

March EIPs: Receive EIP level data update and guidance about planning process and timeline

May EIPs: Submit to LA local improvement priorities for the year ahead

June 3rd in-year data return – progress towards targets Key Stage 4

LSG: Analyse in-year data and contact schools where data raises concern to understand any issues and adjust support if required

Publish summary report and share with schools

Term 6 Arrange meetings with primary multi-academy trust meetings to inform planning for the year ahead

Page 6 of 13

Section 2: Data collection schedule

Date Key Stage Details of data to be collected

June Early Years’ Foundation Stage Key Stage 1 Phonics

Schools report provisional outcomes via AVCO in line with timeline as

published in VSB

June/July Key Stage 2 Schools report provisional KS2 outcomes via NCA tools in line with timeline as

published in VSB

August Key Stage 4

Schools report provisional KS4 outcomes to DRIM on results day

During term 1 Key Stage 4 Data collection to be agreed in consultation with secondary headteachers

During term 1 Key Stage 5 Provisional KS5 outcome data for schools with sixth forms to be shared with consultant CHT during term 1 visit

KS5 targets to be shared with CHT during term 1 visit

1st week of November

Early Years’ Foundation Stage

1. Targets for proportion of pupils who will achieve a Good Level of Development (GLD)

2. Targets for proportion of pupils in receipt of pupil premium and pupils with SEND who will achieve GLD

1st week of November

Key Stage 1

1. Targets for proportion of Year 2 pupils on track to be working at:

the expected standard in reading, writing and mathematics

working at a greater depth within the expected standard in reading, writing and mathematics

2. Targets for proportion of pupils in receipt of pupil premium and pupils with SEND against the same measures

1st week of November

Key Stage 2 1. Targets for proportion of Year 6 pupils on track to be working at:

the expected standard in reading, writing and mathematics, and in the three subjects combined

working at a greater depth within the expected standard in reading, writing and mathematics, and in the three subjects combined

2. Targets for proportion of pupils in receipt of pupil premium and pupils with SEND against the same measures

November Key Stage 4 Data collection to be agreed in consultation with secondary headteachers

End of January Early Years’ Foundation Stage

1. Proportion of pupils on track to achieve GLD 2. Proportion of pupils in receipt of pupil premium and pupils with SEND

who will achieve GLD

End of January Key Stage 1

1. Proportion of year 2 pupils (number & cohort) on track to be working at:

the expected standard in reading, writing and mathematics

working at a greater depth within the expected standard in reading, writing and mathematics

2. Proportion of pupils in receipt of pupil premium and pupils with SEND against the same measures

End of January Key Stage 2

1. Proportion of year 6 pupils (number & cohort) on track to be working at:

the expected standard in reading, writing and mathematics, and in the three subjects combined

working at a greater depth within the expected standard in reading, writing and mathematics, and in the three subjects combined

2. Targets for proportion of pupils in receipt of pupil premium and pupils with SEND against the same measures

February Key Stage 4 Data collection to be agreed in consultation with secondary headteachers

June Key Stage 4 Data collection to be agreed in consultation with secondary headteachers

Page 7 of 13

Section 3: Extract from Schools causing concern statutory guidance (March 2016)

The guidance describes three groups of schools which are causing concern and eligible for formal action:

1. Schools that have been judged inadequate by Ofsted:

The Secretary of State has a duty to make an academy order in respect of any maintained school that has been judged inadequate by Ofsted, to enable it to become an academy.

An academy order will be issued for all maintained schools that have been judged inadequate, requiring them to become sponsored academies.

When an academy is judged inadequate, the RSC may terminate the funding agreement with the existing academy trust, identify a new sponsor and move the academy to that new trust.

2. Schools that are coasting:

RSCs will be able to take formal action in any school which falls within the definition of coasting, as specified in regulations. If the RSC judges that a coasting maintained school does not have a sufficient plan and the necessary capacity to bring about improvement, it will intervene. Intervention could include requiring the conversion of the school to a sponsored academy.

LA’s may also take action in maintained schools, but it will predominantly be the RSC who will act, and their powers will take precedence.

For a coasting academy, the RSC may issue a termination warning notice, which will require the trust to take specified action, and could ultimately result in the academy being moved to a new sponsor.

3. Schools that have failed to comply with a warning notice:

LA’s and RSCs may give warning notices to maintained schools where they have concerns about unacceptable performance, a breakdown in leadership and governance, or the safety of pupils or staff may be being threatened. Where a maintained school does not comply with a warning notice it will become eligible for intervention.

There are two types of warning notice that can be issued to maintained schools:

A Performance Standards and Safety warning notice. Either the local authority or the RSC on behalf of the Secretary of State may issue such a warning notice.

A Teachers’ Pay and Conditions warning notice. The LA may issue such a warning notice.

It is expected that local authorities will use their powers to issue warning notices in the schools which they maintain. When a maintained school becomes an academy the intervention role will fall solely to the RSC.

Local authority’s intervention powers for maintained schools judged eligible for intervention:

• Require the governing body to enter into arrangements • Appoint additional governors • Appoint an interim executive board (IEB) • Suspend the delegated budget

RSC’s intervention powers for maintained schools and academies judged eligible for intervention:

• Require the governing body to enter into arrangements • Appoint additional governors • Direct closure • Appoint an interim executive board (IEB) • Take over responsibility for an IEB • Make an academy order

The full statutory guidance can be found at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/510080/schools-causing-concern-guidance.pdf

Page 8 of 13

Section 4: Pathway of action for maintained schools causing concern

Some progress, actions partially complete, targets

partially met Inadequate progress, actions incomplete, targets not met

within agreed timescale

Identification of school causing concern: Triggers include: adviser/consultant head report – leadership/transition review – pupil/student outcomes – Ofsted judgement – parental complaints – safeguarding concerns – high exclusions – poor attendance – poor financial management – serious breakdown in management or governance – concern raised by third

party

Medium/low level of risk: Senior LA officer discusses concerns with HT & chair of governors (COG) to agree next steps

High level of risk: Assistant Director and Senior LA officer meet HT & COG to discuss concerns and agree next steps

Securing improvement: Action plan with timescales produced by school with timescales for

improvement and additional capacity identified as required LA judges that plan will secure improvement

School leaders/governors demonstrate capacity to address concerns

Monitoring of progress: Adviser/consultant HT (CHT) monitors progress to agreed timescale

Monthly LA review meetings monitor progress

Good progress, targets met within agreed

timescale

No further action

Action plan revised, ongoing monitoring against agreed

timescale

If slow or inadequate progress, LA and RSC review use of powers/

interventions to agree further actions

Use of LA powers in conjunction with RSC, including

warning notice, partnership, IEB or academy solution

Frequent progress monitoring against agreed timescale

Page 9 of 13

Section 5: Pathway of action for academies causing concern

LA writes to headteacher/sponsor/Trust to outline concerns and request meeting, copied to RSC (In line with agreed communication protocol)

Meeting with headteacher/ sponsor/Trust to explore concerns

Actions, milestones and timescale for improvement

agreed

Actions for improvement not agreed or significant risk of underperformance remains

Good progress made against agreed timescale

No further action

Identification of concern: Triggers include: adviser/consultant head report – leadership/transition review – pupil/student

outcomes – Ofsted judgement – parental complaints – safeguarding concerns – high exclusions – poor attendance – poor financial management – serious breakdown in management or governance –

concern raised by third party

LA dialogue with RSC to agree next steps to secure improvement

Page 10 of 13

Section 6: Support procedure for headteacher absence (primary) If a headteacher is absent from school for more than a week, the following procedures will be put in place:

If a headteacher is absent from school during a planned adviser visit, the expectation is that the visit will take place as planned and that the adviser will work with the deputy headteacher or senior leaders. The adviser will contact the senior manager for the adviser programme to confirm arrangements.

In the case of an extended headteacher absence in a secondary or special school, the LA will provide support and guidance as required by the governing body.

Leadership support (from LLE, local headteacher or mentor) will be allocated to the school to provide 2 fully funded support visits within the first 2 weeks of the headteacher’s absence to ensure that:

The school monitoring timetable is up to date and is being maintained.

Actions from adviser reports are followed up.

Ofsted recommendations have been followed up.

The school self-evaluation is up to date.

Headteacher returns to school after 2 weeks:

LLE contacts the headteacher to discuss support undertaken during absence.

Additional support no longer required.

Headteacher absence continues:

LA supports governing body to broker

leadership support, secure interim

leadership and manage absence.

School funds additional support.

Page 11 of 13

Section 7: LA monitoring, intervention and support for schools causing concern

Schedule of activity following an Ofsted judgement of Requires Improvement

Task Person responsible

Timescale

1. If further clarity on strengths and areas of development is required, a senior manager commissions a leadership and/or governance review.

Senior manager

Within two weeks of inspection

2. Senior manager or Consultant Head (CHT) brokers or commissions support as required (may include support for leadership, governance or teaching).

Senior manager/ CHT

Within one month of inspection

3. Senior manager briefs additional leadership support if required, including ensuring a robust school improvement plan.

Senior manager

Within one month of inspection

4. Mechanisms in place to monitor progress may include: external evaluator, CHT or progress focus group.

Senior manager/ CHT

Within six weeks of inspection

5. If no IEB is in place, LA considers use of powers to strengthen governance (additional governors, replacing governing body with IEB) and meets with governing body to inform or consult on options.

HOEI/Project Lead

Within six weeks of inspection

6. Adviser/CHT monitors progress regularly. Adviser/CHT Termly

7. Senior manager establishes quality assurance arrangements for those providing support or monitoring.

Senior manager

Quality assurance timeline

Schedule of activity following LA identification of concern (early data analysis, LA review or 3 or 4 categorisation)

Task Person

responsible Timescale

1. Early data analysis, LA commissioned review, categorisation or other trigger leads to identification of school causing concern.

Senior manager/ CHT/HOEI

a. July/Aug (early data analysis)

b. October (categorisation) c. When concern identified

2. If further clarity on strengths and areas of development is required, a senior manager commissions a leadership and/or governance review

Senior manager

Within one month of identification of concern

3. Senior manager or Consultant Head (CHT) brokers or commissions support as required (may include support for leadership, governance or teaching).

Senior manager/ CHT

Within one month of identification of concern

4. Senior manager briefs additional leadership support if required, including ensuring a robust school improvement plan.

Senior manager

Within one month of identification of concern

5. Mechanisms in place to monitor progress, may include: external evaluator, CHT or progress focus group.

Senior manager/ CHT

Within six weeks of identification of concern

6. If no IEB is in place, LA considers use of powers to strengthen governance (additional governors, replacing governing body with IEB) and meets with governing body to inform or consult on options.

HOEI/Project Lead

Within six weeks of identification of concern

7. Adviser/CHT monitors progress regularly. Adviser/CHT Termly

8. Senior manager establishes quality assurance arrangements for those providing support or monitoring.

Senior manager

Quality assurance timeline

Schedule of activity following an Ofsted judgement of inadequate

Page 12 of 13

Task Person

responsible Timescale

1. If no IEB is in place, senior manager to put in place appropriate mechanisms to ensure regular and robust monitoring of progress: external evaluator, secondary Consultant HT or progress focus group.

Senior manager Within 5 working days

2. Senior manager to contact the Headteacher and CoG to arrange an urgent visit and provide school with DfE guidance on Section 8 monitoring and Schools Causing Concern guidance

Senior manager Within 1 working day

3. Senior manager to commission information required for the Statement of Action, including consideration of options for academy conversion. School improvement plan drafted pending receipt of inspection report.

Senior manager Within 2 working days

4. Assistant director discusses future options for the school with RSC

Assistant director Within 5 working days

5. If no IEB is in place, LA meets governing body (GB) to set out case for replacing the GB with an IEB if required

Senior manager

Within 5 working days

6. Senior Manager to identify and commission any leadership support required, including:

Support from LLE, Consultant HT or Executive HT

Additional governors

Leadership review

Senior manager, other officers as required

Within 5 working days

7. Review draft Ofsted report when received. Provide guidance to leaders on writing press release and letter to parents. If required, prepare letter to GB for IEB consultation.

Senior manager Asap Press release/letter within two working days of receipt of draft report

8. Senior manager or Consultant HT to provide guidance to leadership in updating the school improvement plan as required.

Senior manager/ Consultant HT

Within 10 working days

9. Senior manager to commission and brief support required by the school from East Sussex officers and external providers.

Senior Manager

Within 10 working days

10. On receipt of final report, senior manager to:

Check against the SIP and adjust as required.

Finalise the Statement of Action.

Agree date for parents’ meeting with the COG.

If required: Write to GB members to begin formal consultation on reconstitution of GB as IEB.

Arrange GB meeting to consult and receive responses on IEB proposal.

Senior manager SoA within 20 working days of receipt of final report

On day after receipt of final report

IEB consultation within five working days of receipt of final report

11. Senior manager to set up meeting with External Evaluator, HT, leaders, COG, finance and personnel contacts to ensure all parties understand issues and priorities.

Senior manager Within 4 working weeks of SIP being finalised

12. Senior manager to confirm quality assurance arrangements for any additional support.

Senior manager Within 6 working weeks of receipt of report

Page 13 of 13

Section 8: LA approach to categorisation The LA’s categorisation is based on the school’s self-assessment, as discussed with the external adviser or consultant headteacher. Where this or other information is not available the category will be based upon a desktop analysis of unvalidated end of key stage performance data.

Categorisation is informed by the criteria set out in the current Ofsted handbook. The previous Ofsted inspection outcome will be taken into account if it is recent and if pupil attainment and progress since the date of the report supports the inspection judgement.

Data for very small groups of children will be treated with caution in deciding categories.

The school’s self-assessment will be discussed in the autumn term visit with an adviser or consultant head. This visit provides an opportunity for school leaders and governors to engage in a professional discussion with an adviser or consultant headteacher about the school’s strengths and areas for development. As a result of this meeting, in most instances, the LA will send a letter to the school confirming that the school’s self-evaluation has been accepted as the school’s category.

In a small number of cases the LA’s view of the school may differ from that of school leaders. In these cases, the judgements will be moderated by LA officers, advisers and consultant heads and a proposed category will be discussed with school leaders.

Where the LA has no information other than the unvalidated key stage outcomes and other historical data a category will be based on this information only.

Other factors that may affect a school’s category include:

A serious incident

Concerns about safeguarding

The impact of leadership and governance on the outcomes for children and young people

How school finances are used to impact on the outcomes for children and young people, including use of pupil premium

The following triggers may result in the LA discussing with the school a possible change of category during the course of the academic year:

The school requests a change in category, and brings forward evidence to support the request;

The outcome of a school or governance review or Ofsted inspection

In-year data suggests the need to review the category

A significant change in leadership circumstances