Analysis of School Effectiveness Survey
Report on research carried out by The Head of School Effectiveness for the National Society and Church of England Education Division
Contents Page no. Executive Summary
1
Introduction
2
Research Findings – DDE Survey
3–4
Research Findings – Schools Advisor Survey
5–6
Appendix A – Results of DDE Survey by item
7–8
Appendix B – Results of Schools Advisor Survey by item
9 – 10
Executive Summary The Department for Education announced a number of major policy changes set out in the Education Bill (2011) to address under-performance and raise standards. The Bill outlines significant changes to the inspection framework, performance tables, curriculum reform and the structure and organisation of the school system all of which have been identified as central to the Department’s drive for school improvement. The intention is to increase autonomy and liberate schools from the bureaucratic burdens directed from central and local government so they are free to choose how best to serve their learning communities. The key objective and the intended effects of the reform are to accelerate improvement in school standards. At the same time as proposing greater autonomy for schools the Department is also bringing into focus the accountability measures by which schools will be assessed. The Secretary of State has described this aspect of the reform as ‘critical to driving educational improvement’. Previously, this has meant schools that continually under-perform may be closed and re-established as academies sponsored by external bodies (businesses, charitable organisations, faith groups and more recently, Local Authorities). Such academies were outside of the jurisdiction of the Local Authority and able to decide what methods are best to tackle persistent under-performance. Under the current reforms schools that judged as outstanding by Ofsted can convert to become academies free from LA control to find innovative ways to contribute to the school improvement agenda. For instance, becoming a teaching school or establishing a school-to-school partnership with a neighbouring school or schools to help improve standards in their area. While the Department’s official line is not requiring every school to become an academy it is very clear that the direction of travel is towards schools operating as autonomous institutions taking responsibility for everything from standards and performance to the training, recruitment and retention of the future workforce. The importance of Church school provision is set out in the Way Ahead they are popular with parents and educated a million young people attending their schools. The Dearing report also states ‘Not all of these schools are everything they might be’. The challenge facing the Church is how, in this time of rapid and major change, we ensure that our schools fulfil the Church’s mission and deliver the ‘effect’ that enables young people to live out the promise of their abilities. As sponsors of academies and provider of education to almost a million children, the Church like other sponsors will have a role in those institutions for school improvement and effectiveness, curriculum design, school-to-school relationships, teaching schools and initial teacher training.
1
Introduction The Statutory Inspection of Anglican Schools (SIAS) process provides an important vehicle for dioceses to assess the distinctiveness of Church schools as manifested in the ethos/character; the impact of collective worship; the effectiveness of Religious Education (in voluntary-aided schools); and, the leadership management. The key purpose of the SIAS inspection is to measure how well Christian values inform the development and achievement of the whole child in Church schools. The SIAS framework defines a focus on learners, a focus on evaluation of distinctiveness and effectiveness and the stimulation of improvement among its core principles. SIAS has proved an invaluable tool in providing the Church with an independent external evaluation of the effectiveness of its schools and a diagnosis of what should be done to improve. It is one tool in a strategy required to support schools and academies during a time of educational change that emphasizes enhanced student outcomes as well as strengthening the Church’s capacity for managing change. The increasing expectation on schools to improve their effectiveness by working with other schools coupled with the decreasing role of Local Authorities in this area comes at a time when The National Society is seeking to re-define its strategy for school standards and improvement. The survey provides information on the way dioceses are supporting their schools to meet the challenges of the educational landscape. The Survey One questionnaire designed specifically to ascertain the work that Diocesan Directors of Education undertake was sent to all DDEs in England. A separate survey was sent to diocesan Schools Advisors for the same purpose. The items in each are set out below. Figure 1.1
1
2
3
4
Directors Does your work include support for school effectiveness in terms of leadership, management and general organisational arrangements in the school? E.g. governance, leadership appointments, finance and resourcing Does your work include devising school action/development plans to address underperformance? Does your work include brokering, commissioning or identifying appropriate CPD or school-to-school support and collaboration? Does your work include support for curriculum development? E.g. reviewing performance and monitoring or setting targets.
5
To what extent are you involved in school selfevaluation activities? E.g. one-to-one work with HT to strengthen self-evaluation
6
To what extent does your work involve the monitoring, evaluation and review of pupil progress? E.g. identifying priorities through discussion, i.e. differential attainment of groups of pupils
School Advisors Does your work include support for school effectiveness in terms of leadership, management and general organisational arrangements in the school? E.g. timetabling, subject leadership and resourcing Does your work include input into school action/development plans? E.g. post-SIAS and Ofsted action plans Does your work include delivery of, or input to CPD? Does your work include support for curriculum development for Religious Education? E.g. classroom support, lesson planning, learning walks, reviewing schemes of work and teaching and learning reviews. To what extent are you involved in school selfevaluation activities? E.g. effectiveness of preparation for SIAS and Ofsted inspections, quality of provision.
2
Research Findings – DDE Survey The response rate was very good with a 58 per cent return from DDEs. As demonstrated in figure 1.3 below the overwhelming majority of DDEs regularly engage in school effectiveness activities centred on supporting leadership and management including governance, finance and resourcing and general organisational arrangements. This is an aspect of all DDE work with none reporting that they rarely or never engage in this type of school support. In respect of more direct work to tackle underperformance the results were more varied. Less than half the respondents (44%) reported their work regularly or sometimes included devising school action/development plans. Almost the same amount (40%) stated that their work rarely involved this type of work and 16 per cent said it never did (exactly the same amount as those that regularly work in this area). The vast majority of those surveyed regularly/sometimes broker, commission or identify appropriate Continuing Professional Development (CPD) or school-to-school collaboration with only 4 per cent of the sample stating this was never part of their work. A very similar picture also emerges for selfevaluation activities including one-to-one work with HT to strengthen this area of work with the majority supporting schools in this was and others doing so rarely. See Appendix A for a breakdown of responses per question. A more even spread of responses is illustrated when examining the support for reviewing performance and monitoring/setting targets: 48 per cent regularly/sometimes; and, 52 per cent rarely/never. Although the number of respondents regularly/sometimes supporting schools the monitoring, evaluation and review of pupil progress for example, differential attainment of groups and identifying priorities for development was smaller than for the other items on the questionnaire, qualitative data indicates that for many DDEs this is a growing area of their work for a number of reasons including the reduction in local authority school improvement services and change in national policy. Many of the additional comments made reference to strong partnership arrangements with local authorities with LAs taking the lead on school improvement matters. This included input at strategy meetings to monitor the performance of Church schools either in a LA or Ofsted category or those identified as vulnerable for other reasons. However, the evidence collected in this survey points to a changing relationship between dioceses and local authorities. For instance, the analysis illustrates that the need to respond to government policy, the academies programme and the transition and/or demography of diocesan staff meant that some dioceses were taking a more proactive role in the standards and school improvement agenda. Several dioceses referred to offering traded consultancy to schools either directly or through Service Level Agreements to address under-performance. Among the services offered examples included: devising and monitoring action plans; reviewing pupil progress; training/appointing governors; establishing school-to-school collaborations, attending monitoring meetings; reviewing progress on action plans; and, identifying headteachers to work with vulnerable schools. Indeed, one DDE described tackling under-performance and addressing the gaps in attainment between groups as ‘fundamental to the way we work’. A number of dioceses also referred to using the opportunity to fill recent vacancies or reconfiguring existing teams to strengthen the skills in their teams necessary to meet the new demands to. For example, appointing dedicated school advisors and deputy Directors whose sole brief is school improvement and/or effectiveness. A handful of directors described school improvement as not part of their portfolio but that it was the role of their schools advisor/officer.
3
Figure 1.2 Results of DDE Survey Item 1
2
3
4
5
6
Does your work include support for school effectiveness in terms of leadership, management and general organisational arrangements in the school? E.g. governance, leadership appointments, finance and resourcing Does your work include devising school action/development plans to address under-performance? Does your work include brokering, commissioning or identifying appropriate CPD or school-to-school support and collaboration? Does your work include support for curriculum development? E.g. reviewing performance and monitoring or setting targets. To what extent are you involved in school self-evaluation activities? E.g. one-to-one work with HT to strengthen self-evaluation To what extent does your work involve the monitoring, evaluation and review of pupil progress? E.g. identifying priorities through discussion, i.e. differential attainment of groups of pupils
Regularly %
Sometimes %
Rarely %
Never %
96
4
0
0
16
28
40
16
20
60
16
4
20
28
16
36
28
40
32
0
16
16
24
44
4
Research Findings – Schools/RE advisor Survey The response rate was very good with a 67 per cent return from advisors. As demonstrated in figure 1.4 below the overwhelming majority of advisors supporting schools regularly/sometimes timetabling, subject leadership and resourcing. A small number identified this area as an aspect they are rarely or never involved in. Similarly, respondents identified school action planning in particular post-SIAS and Ofsted action planning as a key part of their work with no advisors not engaged in this type of activity. The single highest response was for item three of the survey where 83 percent identified CPD as a regular part of their work (see Appendix B). Less than three per cent of advisors are rarely engaged in the delivery of, or input to CPD. Almost 95 per cent of those surveyed regularly/sometimes support schools with curriculum development for Religious Education. This includes classroom support, lesson planning, learning walks, reviewing schemes of work and being involved in teaching and learning reviews. Almost 6 percent of the sample stated that this was rarely or never part of their work. A very high number of advisors described self-evaluation activities namely SIAS and inspection preparation as a regular aspect of their work. This was identified as part of all the work of all those who responded. The qualitative data provided very useful insight in to the many activities advisors participate in and contribute to. Almost all advisors identified SIAS as a major part of their work with a particular emphasis on visiting schools to help them prepare for inspections or healthchecks. In the same way, additional comments made reference to the support given to schools for effectiveness in terms of Christian distinctiveness and values. Some advisors made specific reference to school improvement and effectiveness such as working with Local Authorities to support vulnerable schools or those in a category. One advisor identified working with schools to meet floor standards and brokering support with National Leaders and Local Leaders of Education (NLEs and LLEs) to secure additional help for schools within the diocesan family. Another distinguished the dioceses own categories of ‘schools causing concern’ and the support offered to them in response to the four SIAS areas. The written comments also included references to the pastoral care and support offered to schools and input into whole school visions days as an important part of the advisor role. Many respondents used the opportunity to elaborate on the professional and pastoral support offered to headteachers and governors including involvement in appointments and succession planning generally. Two respondents discussed the changes in their roles describing the different nature with which schools are engaging with them. For instance, seeking School Improvement Partners (SIPs), financial management and data support. One advisor described previous experience in Ofsted and school improvement as helpful in the role as it changes. Conclusion There are a number of policy changes set out in the Education Bill (2011) to address under-performance and raise standards. The Bill outlines significant changes to the inspection framework, performance tables, curriculum reform and the structure and organisation of the school system all of which have been identified as central to the Department’s drive for school improvement. All of which have implications for Church school provision. Church schools are challenged with the task of providing an educational experience for children and young people that allows all to achieve. The activities outlined in the survey are key to securing that aim: developing relationships between schools supporting them to work with one another and their staff to share a sense of purpose; disseminate and sharing good practice; challenge underperformance; monitoring progress; and evaluating school and pupil performance. As providers of education and sponsors of academies, the Church like other sponsors/providers will have a role in those institutions for school improvement and effectiveness, curriculum design, school-toand school relationships if it is to demonstrate its ability to offer children and young people the opportunities they deserve.
5
Figure 1.4 Results of Advisor Survey
Item
1
2
3 4
5
Does your work include support for school effectiveness in terms of leadership, management and general organisational arrangements in the school? E.g. timetabling, subject leadership and resourcing Does your work include input into school action/development plans? E.g. post-SIAS and Ofsted action plans Does your work include delivery of, or input to CPD? Does your work include support for curriculum development for Religious Education? E.g. classroom support, lesson planning, learning walks, reviewing schemes of work and teaching and learning reviews. To what extent are you involved in school self-evaluation activities? E.g. effectiveness of preparation for SIAS and Ofsted inspections, quality of provision.
Regularly
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
%
%
%
%
58
28
11
3
50
39
11
0
83
14
3
0
75
19
3
3
78
19
3
0
Figure 1.5 Results of Advisor Survey
School Advisors Survey 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Never Rarely Sometimes Regularly
Does your w ork Does your w ork Does your w ork Does your w ork To w hat extent are include support for include input into include delivery of, include support for you involved in school school or input to CPD? curriculum school selfeffectiveness in action/development development for evaluation terms of leadership, plans? E.g. postReligious activities? E.g. management and SIAS and Ofsted Education? E.g. effectiveness of general action plans classroom support, preparation for organisational lesson planning, SIAS and Ofsted arrangements in the learning w alks, inspections, quality school? E.g. review ing schemes of provision. timetabling, subject of w ork and leadership and teaching and resourcing learning review s.
6
APPENDIX A Results of DDE Survey by Item Q1. Does your work include support for school effectiveness in terms of leadership, management and general organisational arrangements in the school? E.g. governance, leadership appointments, finance and resourcing 0% 4%
0%
Regularly Sometimes Rarely Never
96%
Q. 2 Does your work include devising school action/development plans to address underperformance?
16%
16% Regularly Sometimes Rarely 28%
40%
Never
Q. 3 Does your work include brokering, commissioning or identifying appropriate CPD or school-to-school support and collaboration?
16%
4%
20% Regularly Sometimes Rarely Never
60%
7
Q. 4 Does your work include support for curriculum development? E.g. reviewing performance and monitoring or setting targets.
20% Regularly
36%
Sometimes Rarely 28%
Never
16%
Q.5 To w hat extent are you involved in school self-evaluation activities? E.g. one-to-one w ork w ith HT to strengthen selfevaluation
0%
28%
32%
Regularly Sometimes Rarely Never
40%
Q.6 To what extent does your work involve the monitoring, evaluation and review of pupil progress? E.g. identifying priorities through discussion, i.e. differential attainment of groups of pupils
16% Regularly
44%
16%
Sometimes Rarely Never
24%
8
APPENDIX B Results of Advisors Survey by Item
Q.1 Does your work include support for school effectiveness in terms of leadership, management and general organisational arrangements in the school? E.g. timetabling, subject leadership and resourcing
11%
3% Regularly Sometimes Rarely
28%
58%
Never
Q. 2 Does your work include input into school action/development plans? E.g. post-SIAS and Ofsted action plans
0%
11%
Regularly Sometimes 50% 39%
Rarely Never
Q.3 Does your work include delivery of, or input to CPD?
3% 14%
0% Regularly Sometimes Rarely Never 83%
9
Q.4 Does your work include support for curriculum development for Religious Education? E.g. classroom support, lesson planning, learning walks, reviewing schemes of work and teaching and learning reviews.
3% 3% 19%
Regularly Sometimes Rarely Never 75%
Q.5 To what extent are you involved in school self-evaluation activities? E.g. effectiveness of preparation for SIAS and Ofsted inspections, quality of provision. 3% 19%
0% Regularly Sometimes Rarely Never 78%
10
