National and local policy and guidelines - school improvement clusters
1. National context:
· Schools have the most important role in making sure that children achieve their full educational potential.
· Local authorities have a vital role in supporting and challenging local schools and colleges to improve; and in tackling underperformance.
· The context in which local authorities support school improvement has changed significantly. Schools are being given increasing autonomy and alongside this are expected to take more responsibility for their own improvement.
· The number of academies is growing; local authorities have no powers or funding to tackle underperformance in academies. Academisation also results in resources switching from the local authority direct to schools – meaning that local authorities have less money than previously to undertake their school improvement activity.
· Against this background local authorities have to develop new ways of working with academies and local schools to ensure they can continue to fulfil their support and challenge role. The circumstances do not necessarily mean that local authorities are withdrawing from supporting schools – in many cases they are strengthening and deepening their relationships.
· Local authorities across the country have responded in differing ways however a common model is the provision of support and challenge to a variety of school improvement partnerships while also providing targeted interventions for schools identified as being at risk and developing a high quality traded offer.
2. Timeline of developments
• 1976 – Start of the ‘Great Education Debate’ – the Prime Minister stated that education was too important to be left almost entirely to the teaching profession and that many voices needed to be heard on the purpose of schooling and educational standards. More was being demanded of schools and core issues such as the desirability of a national curriculum and a stronger inspectorate needed to be addressed. To this point England had a highly decentralised system.
• 1988 – The Education Reform Act – introduced a national curriculum and a new assessment system – an unprecedented degree of centralisation. There was however also a degree of decentralisation that delegated new financial powers to schools
• During the latter 1980s a new school improvement movement began which was driven both centrally by a more hands on education department, and locally by some local education authorities and some enterprising headteachers. Subsequent Governments have pursued this combination of centralisation in some respects and decentralisation in others. There has however been a consistent challenge in minimising variation in outcomes across schools and local areas which has meant central government in some instances has taken back powers of intervention, backed by national field forces and strategies. School improvement through this activity has become defined in terms of the processes of intervention in schools that are deemed to be ‘underperforming’
• A new more positive vision for school improvement is being enabled by two key changes:
1) The calibre of school leadership has improved
2) There has been a proliferation of schools working in partnerships of some form or other meaning the education system is now ‘networked’. School leaders are more aware of schools as a system
The new vision is of a new balance between centralisation and decentralisation, with a clear reduction in centralised action, at both national and local levels, and a matching increased in the powers and responsibilities of schools – as articulated by the Coalition Government.
3. Policy of the Coalition Government
The principle aspects of the Coalition’s Education Policy were outlined in the White Paper ‘The Importance of Teaching’ 2010. This stated:
· The primary responsibility for school improvement rests with schools
· The wider system should be designed so that the best schools and leaders take on greater responsibility, leading improvement work for the system as a whole (NB: ideally the system should evolve so that all schools support each other rather than certain key leaders taking responsibility for driving forward the rest – however this first requires all schools to become good and the evolution of the system will initially be driven forward by key leaders)
It has been written that ‘The Importance of Teaching’ supports an argument that local authorities in school improvement are part of the problem not the solution; however the paper does outline a key continued ‘indispensable’ role for local authorities as ‘the champion of children and parents’. The problem has been that local authorities have been inconsistent in their commitment to and effectiveness of discharge of school improvement activity and, in many cases, local authority arrangements have acted as a deadening bureaucratic force rather than one which has promoted innovation and responsibility at a local level
The Paper states that the role of the local authority should be to:
· Support parents and families through promoting a good supply of strong schools – encouraging the development of Academies and Free Schools which reflect the local community.
· Ensure fair access to all schools for every child.
· Use their democratic mandate to stand up for the interests of parents and children.
· Support vulnerable pupils – including Children in Care, those with Special Educational Needs and those outside mainstream education.
· Support maintained schools performing below the floor standards to improve quickly or convert to Academy status with a strong sponsor, and support all other schools which wish to collaborate with them to improve educational performance.
· Develop their own school improvement strategies (which can include marketing their school improvement services to all schools, not just those in their immediate geographical area)
The White Paper, in giving local authorities freedom to define what role they will play in supporting school improvement for local schools, anticipates and welcomes that different areas will take diverse approaches. Examples of activities the Paper states that local authorities could take on are: continuing to provide support and challenge to schools that want it, running improvement conferences, bringing people together to tackle local problems and brokering support from excellent schools to support other schools. The paper underlines however that ‘we anticipate that school-to-school support will be at the heart of very many local authority strategies’.
The vision of the Paper built on the practice of increased collaboration between schools in England which had already developed in the years previous – for example schools forming into federations, 14-19 partnerships, specialist schools partnership programmes, chains of academies sharing the same sponsor and school improvement initiatives such as Excellence in Cities, National Challenge and National Leaders in Education / National Support Schools. The Paper pledges continued support for the expansion and development of the latter and other similar initiatives.
The development of the Paper on these previous activities was to more firmly push the responsibility for leading school improvement activity towards school leaders themselves, so setting down the foundations for the development of a ‘self-improving school system’. This therefore marked the end of some programmes which were seen as seeking to control improvement from the centre – for example City Challenge and School Improvement Partners. (NB: a key underpinning feature for a self-improving system where some leaders take on responsibility for improvement beyond their own boundaries is an acceptance of responsibility for outcomes outside of your immediate control and the development of a shared intolerance of failure wherever it is found within the system).
The paper also pledges support for continued diversification in school provision and continued devolution of resources via the continued expansion of the academy and free school movement.
4. Cuts to the Education Services Grant (ESG)
The Education Services Grant (ESG) is a per-pupil grant paid to both local authorities and academies. The June 2013 Spending Round announced a £200 million (around 20%) cut to the ESG in 2015-16. For Essex, this would see a grant reduction of approximately £6.5m. The DfE consulted in summer 2014 about the precise level of this cut and the different ways in which local authorities may respond. The DfE recognise that there is large variation across the country in how authorities provide their services to schools and in what they understand their responsibilities to be in this area. The view of the DfE outlined in the consultation document was that that schools should take greater responsibility for their own improvement, leaving local authorities to focus on their statutory functions in relation to maintained schools. They believe that many local authorities should be able to make significant savings on their spending on ESG services without damaging key capabilities. The consultation document outlines various different ways in which savings can be delivered, including: increased collaboration, charging for services and re-structuring .
Essex has defined its response to these proposed cuts through a business driven not only by the need to make these reductions but also by the recognition of the continuing proliferation of different types of school across Essex, the impact this has on the current direct relationship in service provision between the Local Authority and individual schools and of the known benefits of schools working in collaboration, supporting one another to improve. Work under this business case will include identifying a clear strategy for the Council in respect of the services to schools that we feel we must provide, how we should provide them, which services we think are appropriate to charge maintained school and academies for and the services we will no longer provide.
In essence the Essex vision for support for schools moving forward will be a ssmaller, leaner but higher quality central offer which is targeted towards areas of highest need and the development of school to school peer support networks as the primary method of driving up overall standards in a sustainable manner.
1
3. Landscape of different types of cluster / support arrangements allowed under legislation and guidance:
Arrangement / Explanation / Legislative basisMaintained Schools
Federation of schools / The creation of a single governing body for two or more schools which may (but doesn't have to be) be followed by the creation of other joint roles across the schools, for example a single headteacher. Only applies to maintained schools / Education Act 2002 and The School Governance (Federations) (England) Regulations 2012
Statutory collaboration / Schools retain their own governing bodies but create a joint committee with some delegated powers. Only applies to maintained schools. / School Governance (Collaboration) Regulations 2003
Trust schools / Maintained foundation schools can be supported by a charitable foundation ('the trust'). The Trust appoints some governors and provides additional support to school leadership. Trust schools maintain a link with the local authority. Clusters of schools can work together to set up a co-operative trust and the schools supported by one Trust can work together in support of one another. / Education and Inspections Act 2006
Academies
Academy chains / More than two academies which work together in a wide variety of partnership structures with varying degrees of closeness, including: / Academies Act 2010
Multi-Academy Trusts (MAT): / A number of schools join together and form a single Trust and Board of Directors—there is only one legal entity accountable for all schools in the Trust and there is one set of Articles which governs all the academies in that Trust. The MAT has a Master Funding Agreement with the Secretary of State and each academy also has a Supplemental Funding Agreement. The MAT may set up either a local governing body or advisory body for each Academy. The MAT can agree to delegate some matters to this local governing body.
Umbrella Trusts (UT): / This allows a cluster of primary schools, or a mixture of primary and secondary, to set up a trust which allows them to work together while still retaining a certain level of independence and individuality. For example, the UT may appoint a governor in each school in the chain to provide a clear link between the schools. It can also procure joint services to reduce costs for all of the individual schools involved. This allows schools of mixed category (e.g. Voluntary Controlled, Voluntary Aided, and Community) to work together. Multi-academy Trusts can be members of an Umbrella Trust.
Collaborative Partnerships: / There is no shared Trust or governance arrangement in a collaborative partnership. A collaborative partnership is simply an agreement between a group of Academies to work together. The Academies themselves can decide how tight or formalised to make such an arrangement; for example, through agreeing a contract or publicising their arrangement.
Systems leadership
National Teaching Schools / Schools which act as hubs for initial and on-going training. Schools apply to be a Teaching School on the basis that they can supply evidence of successful partnerships, excellent leadership and a proven track record of school improvement. Teaching Schools can form together into a Teaching School Alliance - cooperative organisations which can be cross phase, sector and local authority. Teaching School Alliances can vary in structure and how they are funded.
System leadership (National Leaders of Education, National Support Schools, Local Leaders of Education and Specialist Leaders of Education) / Systems leadership programmes are supported by the The National College of Teaching and Leadership. They encourage headteachers of highly performing schools to use their
skills and experience to support other schools particularly through increasing their leadership capacity.
Outstanding headteachers can apply to be Local Leaders of Education (LLEs) or National Leaders of Education (NLEs). NLEs involve other members of their school staff in the role and the school will become designated as a National Support Schools (NSS).
Specialist Leaders of Education (SLEs) are outstanding middle or senior leaders who use their skills to support individuals or teams in similar positions in other schools. SLEs are specifically attached to a local Teaching School alliance.
Collaborative organisations / Many national school to school support organisations have sprung up in the past few years and form part of a new 'middle tier' in education. These organisations generally act to provide inspiration and support to schools from within the sector and are not government led initiatives. Examples include: the Whole Education Network, the PiXL club and Challenge Partners.
The initiatives above form part of the range of options that schools may be using, engaging in or considering. Schools may be engaging in a number of initiatives at the same time. Cluster arrangements / initiatives etc in which schools will engage may consist of: