ERW Self Evaluation

May 2014

Introduction

This short self-evaluation aims to provide an objective and evaluative base line for on-going and further improvement in the region’s work. It aims to focus largely on service delivery and leadership and on process and arrangements rather than outcomes for learners. This is largely because we are awaiting results in a few months’ time, and that all detail on regional performance is noted in the strategy and business plan. In addition, the main aim is to identify key aspects of work to action before the end of this academic year and to set a baseline.

The three aspects of Estyn’s inspection framework have been used as a guide.

  1. Standards
  2. Service Delivery
  3. Leadership

Précis

Overall, the region performs adequately. Standards are good when compared with other regions, but should be far better, with performance on all indicators improving at a greater pace than Wales.

Service delivery is too inconsistent to make a generic judgment. The main short term challenge for the region is to bring about improvement in consistency and quality in terms of process and operational support to schools.

The pace of joint working at hub level is too varied. Despite some good development work, the implementation of agreed principles is too slow, too inconsistent or unclear. Too often schools are unclear about the range of services they should expect from the regional service/ hub.

Overall, the leadership given to the region’s work through its Partnership Board and Directors Group is good. There is effective peer support and challenge. Collective leadership from all local authorities has created a strong alliance which has enabled the region to make a collective stand on many key aspects of practice. Nevertheless, some aspects of decision making have been unclear. Aspects of democratic accountability have not been clearly understood by all. Similarly, school leaders’ roles and understanding of ERW’s functions and impact is mixed. These perceptions hinder the region’s ability to progress effectively and to implement the National Model effectively within the local context.

Standards

Overall, standards across the region are adequate. This however masks areas of good and outstanding practice in a number of schools and mediocre or poor standards elsewhere.

Across all local authorities within the region there is sufficient ceiling for progress on all key indicators of pupil progress.

In comparison with other regions, ERW’s performance is good, but needs to be confidently and consistently above Wales averages in all LAs. The region should accelerate progress away from the average national progress in order to reflect expectations within our socio –economic context.

Service

Much of the regions’ work is taken forward through a range of working groups. There have not beeneffective arrangements to cascade or account for the work accomplished by these groups. Too often, the cascading of information has been opaque and the arrangements and focus of groups has been inconsistent. Nevertheless some of the groups, specifically the work around literacy and numeracy has been useful to focus schools’ attention on key priorities. There are too many working groups at too operational a level. These are often useful networks but do not impact significantly enough on hub level practice and school level practice.

Significant operational focus and activity has been driven through SEOG. It has been successful at developing a common ladder of support and intervention; and implementing a common approach to attendance.

Nevertheless, inconsistencies remain in the way individual schools are supported, monitored and challenged. Too little of the effective practice is not shared or built upon and inconsistent performance management impacts considerably on the quality of delivery.

Headteachers are often confused about the support and challenge they should receive due to ineffective communication and too little involvement in planning service delivery.

Work to dovetail aspects of LA functions which remain outside the scope of ERW currently is varied. Some aspects such as attendance have received collaborative attention, but overall there is scope to strengthen a strategic focus on many aspects which affect schools’ capacity to improve. A key aspect in many authorities are the school rationalisation programmes and support services for learners.

Hub level working is essential to enable a diverse region to work effectively. Further success will mean building on this approach within a common understanding of core value, principles and working arrangements. The varied pace at which hub working has developed has led to a difference in how the region’s work is understood and valued.

Leadership

The region’s leadership has strengths in areas such strategic vision and setting principles for joint work. However, there are areas for development in securing effective delivery via operational staff and enabling elected members to be clear about the work of the region. Therefore, perceptions of and the actual impact of the region’s work is largely inconsistent.

The collaborative advantage gained from joint decision making, agreed strategic priorities and common approaches to challenges has led to early impact on practice and outcomes. For example, a common strategy for attendance. In addition the regional approach to union engagement and to pay and conditions has been successful in enabling officers to work to agreed parameters.

The Lead Director has worked effectively in partnership with Welsh Government toinfluence the process of co constructing the national model for school improvement. This work, with the work of the Lead Chief Executive has also been successful in strengthening the partnership between the consortium and the Welsh Government and strengthened our status as a region.

Generally, the Directors group has given effective strategic leadership to the regions’ work. This has enabled the region to be a useful alliance to support all LAs on a journey of improvement. Some of this can be seen in:

  • Developing a joint service for School Improvement between Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire has supported Pembrokeshire to make swift improvements in practice whilst in special measures;
  • Powys and Ceredigion’s close work to support Powys and move towards a single service; and
  • Peer challenge over pre-inspection, most recently this has helped Swansea identify quickly its put arrangements in to areas for development.

In this current inspection cycle, the region has the fewest number of local authorities in follow up. Similarly for school improvement services, the region has the strongest profile. On-going monitoring feedback from Estyn and our own self-knowledge suggests that Powys and Pembrokeshire are making strides ahead and are likely to be out of follow up soon. This external information and the judgements of WAO on LA leadership position the region with good prospects or capacity to deliver on the next stage of regional work under the national model. Despite recognising that we have a relatively good foundation on which to build the region’s service as well as effective leadership to drive the work, we are not underestimating the task ahead.

Across region self-evaluation arrangements in each local authority have developeddifferently. However, there are a range of other intelligence and knowledge available which informs the Directors group about progress, challenges and inconsistencies.The regions self-knowledge is informed through working groups, SEOG and governance arrangements. However, this has not been systematically captured in the past.

The regions board members and officers know and understand well the strengths and shortcomings of the regions work. However, there has not been sufficient central capacity or robust processes to capture or act on necessary actions in a timely way. As a consequence the pace of improvement and change has been unavoidably slow.

Financial management and arrangements for the region have been supported by City and County of Swansea. This is an historic arrangement and appropriate overall for administration and audit. However, it is not always clear how some historic arrangements for commissioning key tasks and work streams have been undertaken.The arrangements for financial management and audit are developing following a recent change of lead authority from Swansea to Pembrokeshire. There are inconsistencies and a lack of clarity around some areas of grant funding. This is currently work in progress. Based on last year’s financial data and outcomes ERW provides adequate value for money.

Communication is underdeveloped on many levels:

  1. Sharing information within the region has been largely ineffective. Too many schools and LA partners are unclear about the regions’ work streams, focus and priorities and this has led to some suspicion or confusion.
  2. There is no consistent and regular update to schools on important matters which affect them.
  3. Marketing and design are all inconsistently used across hubs. This adds to the confusion and enhances inconsistency.

The Lead Leader, Lead Chief Executive and Lead Director have accelerated the pace of change in the region. However, too many elected members, senior LG officers and school leaders are unclear about the scope, governance and delivery functions of ERW. This has a detrimental impact on the regions ability to function as an alliance of six authorities.

The region is working at pace to respond to the national model’s requirements and despite having many of the structural aspects in place in principle, there are significant aspects of operational work which needs to be tightened. In addition, clarity around accountability remains opaque.

Scrutiny arrangements for school improvement are managed and supported through individual local authorities because the statutory functions for school improvement remain located clearly in local government. Nevertheless, there is a requirement for the activities of the consortium to be increasingly scrutinized in a common way.

Key areas for development

Consistent use of agreed regional templates for planning, evaluation and implementation

Reshaped regional Ladder of Support and Intervention in line with National Categorisation

CPD programme. Amendments using current strengths as a baseline

Single data system

Consistent approach to bridging from System Leader to Challenge Adviser with a common approach to Challenge Advisers performance management and evaluation

Effective CPD programme for school leaders and Challenge Advisers

Clarity on accountability, roles and responsibilities between the region and its constituent local authorities including scrutiny and audit.

Effective arrangements for drawing together on-going self-evaluation into a regional self-evaluation with clear areas for development feeding into the Business Plan

  • Regular effective communication with headteachers and Challenge Advisers
  • Methods for communicating effectively and consistently through Hubs
  • Robust accountability and quality assurance arrangements
  • Arrangements to take forward HR requirements as noted in the national model for school improvement.

Conclusion

Added value for money

Expertise

Collective gain

Collaboration advantage

Alliance of purpose

ERW Self-evaluation Report v3

RISIS: Strategic Documentation