Salford’s Strategy for School Improvement 2013-2016 Updated October 2014 1 Background and Context Salford’s strategy for school improvement sits at the heart of our plans to create a prosperous city in which people want to live, work and study. We believe that improved educational outcomes is the key to unlocking the City’s potential. To achieve our ambitions the Salford Learning Partnership, a collective of all key education providers in the city, provides the strategic partnership and framework and the Schools’ Provider Arm, led by headteachers from good and outstanding schools, provides the vehicle through which we will challenge and support schools and settings to improve. We believe that all children and young people deserve to be educated in successful schools. Our overall aim is that all schools should be judged to be good or outstanding and that no school should fall into a category of concern. By supporting and enabling strong school leadership and management and through early intervention when necessary, we aim to work in partnership with schools to bring about the best possible education for our children and young people. Over the next three years we want to; i) ii) iii) iv) v) Increase proportion of secondary schools (mainstream and special) being judged as good or better from 56% to 86%. Increase the proportion of primary schools judged as good or better from 74% to 98% Have no primary schools or secondary schools or settings judged as inadequate (currently 2%) Raise standards in all schools so that attainment and progress measures at all key stages are in line with or exceed national averages Improve progress so that all schools will be at least in line with national averages for expected and good progress Improving the quality of provision in schools and academies so that 98% of primary schools and 86% of secondary schools of our schools are good or outstanding will bring Salford in line with our best statistical neighbour (Ofsted Dataview – July 2013). These are Local Authorities with similar demographics and levels of deprivation.To achieve these ambitions we have developed a Schools Provider Arm (SPA). The SPA is led and ran by outstanding leaders from good and outstanding schools and through the SPA we are creating the much talked about self-sustaining and self-improving system. The SPA is driven by moral purpose and a growing number of system leaders across the city that take as much responsibility for the progress and achievement of children and young people in other schools as they do their own. A small, high quality school improvement team work alongside the SPA to provide additional capacity. We are clear that we must also work with our wider partners to ensure that children and young people are healthy, stay safe, enjoy and achieve, make a positive contribution and achieve economic wellbeing. These partnerships are strategically led by the Children’s Trust. 2 The first of eight priorities for the Trust is learning pathways for all and the Salford Learning Partnership leads on this priority on behalf of the trust. (www.partnersinsalford.org/CYPTrust.htm). The Salford Learning Partnership website (www.salfordlearningpartnership.org) brings together all the learning institutions in the Salford area, and provides centrally held information for individual learners, their parents and carers, as well as organisations to use. It is recognised that schools and academies are primarily responsible for their own improvement. Alongside this, the Local Authority (LA) has statutory duty ‘to promote high standards and fulfilment of potential in schools and other education and training providers so that all children and young people benefit from at least a good education.” This ‘standards duty’ is universal and applies to all maintained schools and academies. An effective process of identifying schools who are vulnerable in terms of underperformance as well as those who have good practice is key to our strategy for school improvement. This process, termed categorisation is used by the SPA to determine priorities for support and to share good practice. The process is reviewed annually to ensure it provides early identification and meets the current floor standard requirements and the Ofsted framework. The categorisation is shared annually with all governing bodies and academy sponsors. If a school is judged as ‘light touch’ the LA offer to all school is outlined in Appendix 1. If a school is judged as vulnerable the next steps for challenge and support will be agreed with each school. This process is detailed in the Schools Causing Concern policy (Appendix 5). This categorisation will also apply to academies as, whilst it is noted that LAs do not have statutory powers of intervention with respect to education standards, LAs do have a responsibility to communicate clearly and formally with academy chains and academy governing bodies. Where an academy is categorised as vulnerable there will be an expectation that the governing body/academy sponsor will clearly outline its plans for improvement. The LA will take reasonable steps to discuss this with the individual establishment, the executive leadership and governance of the chain, and/or the Department for Education, where appropriate. Detailed and comprehensive analysis of school data is crucial. All schools will be expected to submit a summary evaluation sheet, on a biannual basis (Appendix 2). This will provide the school’s evaluation of its current position, its intentions for improvement and current progress and targets for pupils including performance of underachieving groups identified by the LA as high priority. For 2013/14 this group is identified as those eligible for Free School Meals. Schools’ Provider Arm (SPA) This school improvement officer team work in partnership with headteachers to form the Schools Provider Arm. The school improvement team consists of:3 Senior Manager: Head of Schools Provider Arm Two Primary School Improvement Officers Primary Teaching and learning Officer Secondary School Improvement Officer (position currently vacant) The secondary Schools Provider Arm is led by St Patricks RC High School. The Primary Schools’ Provider Arm is led by a group of primary headteachers. School improvement support is commissioned through these leads from any school in the LA or beyond where good practice has been identified. The SPA school to school challenge and support model is based on the belief that school to school collaboration is the most effective, sustainable vehicle to improve the outcomes for children and young people across the city. Secondary and Primary School Improvement Boards (which comprise of headteacher leads and LA officers) will oversee and evaluate the work of the SPA to ensure support commissioned for vulnerable schools is effective. The governor services team also work closely with the SPA to provide support for governing bodies through a service level agreement, which includes a range of courses to develop expertise and understanding, clerking governing body meetings and training for chairs of governing bodies. The LA has also brokered support for governing bodies of vulnerable schools through National Leaders of Governance (NLGs) and other quality assured external providers. The LA is a member of the Greater Manchester School Improvement Board. The role of the Board is to coordinate collaborative school improvement support across the city region and this has facilitated school to school support from beyond Salford as needed via the vehicle of By Schools For Schools. (byschoolsforschools.co.uk) Secondary Schools Provider Arm St Patrick’s RC High School, a National Support and Teaching School, takes a leading role in the Secondary SPA. The Secondary SPA is a collaboration of all secondary schools and its’ aspiration is that as many schools as possible should become a provider of the service and so contribute to a self sustaining model. The Secondary SPA is commissioned by the LA to provide support for those schools that are identified as vulnerable (see categorisation outlined below). The SPA works with a range of providers to enable these schools to make rapid progress. This will include other Salford schools, National Leaders in Education (NLEs), Specialist Leaders in Education (SLEs), and quality assured external commercial providers. An ‘additional offer’ is also available from the Secondary SPA, which all secondary schools buy into, which provides training, support and guidance, on a wide range of school improvement issues, aligning to SPA and LA priorities (Appendix 3). Primary Schools’ Provider Arm The Primary Schools Provider Arm is led by the Primary SPA School Improvement Board which is made up of 4 headteachers of good and 4 outstanding schools. The Head of Schools Provider Arm is the LA representative on the Board. These headteachers will be trained as Ofsted inspectors and have experience of sharing practice in other schools. This group will work with schools in all categories in order to bring about improvements either through school to school support provided by their own schools, from other provider schools or externally commissioned support. The School Improvement Officer team, in partnership with SPA lead headteachers, will tailor and commission appropriate support for vulnerable schools from either the SPA lead headteacher themselves or associate member SPA schools within Salford or beyond who are able to facilitate quality school to school support. Primary SPA has developed “Family Clusters” to support effective challenge, collaboration and improvement. Each primary school is a member of a cluster. The purpose of the clusters is to provide a local resource to address underperformance. These clusters have now been in place since 2011 and the LA intends to formalise processes for the Family clusters to ensure best practice is further developed. There is also a Service Level Agreement on offer to all schools which formalises the school improvement support offer available from the Primary SPA (Appendix 4). In addition a bespoke training programme in collaboration with a number of external providers including Lancashire LA is being led by the Primary SPA. The primary families of schools have also organised relevant training for their clusters. School Categorisation The LA will use the categorisation system and take into account the most recent Ofsted judgement of the school before making a final decision on whether to classify the school as vulnerable. Notification of the categorisation and vulnerable school classification is communicated, in writing, to the Headteacher and Governing Body. Next steps to support each vulnerable school are detailed in the Schools Causing concern policy. In the event of a disagreement about the categorisation the Headteacher and/or the Chair of Governors should contact the Assistant Director (Universal Services) to discuss the issues. If the disagreement cannot be resolved then the Chair of Governors should write to the Strategic Director of Children’s Services stating the reasons why the school disagrees with the categorisation/vulnerable school classification and any evidence to support this view. This will then be discussed by the Directorate Leadership Team, following which the Strategic Director of Children’s Services will write to the school with a final decision. Secondary School Categorisation 1. Attainment % of 5 A*-C including English and Maths Well below average for the past 3 years (below 55%) 5 Score 4 Below average in any 1 year of the past 2 years (below 55%) Broadly in line with national average (1% below and 4% above) Above national average (5% or more) 3 2 1 2. Expected Progress Progress in English and Maths Well below national median (11% or more below the median) Below national median (between 2 and 10% below the median) Broadly in line ( 1% below to 4% above the national median) Well above national median ( 5% or more) Score (English) 4 Score (Maths) 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 3. Good Progress Progress in English and Maths Well below national median (11% or more below the median) below 10% Below national median (between 2 and 10% below the median) between 11 and 19 Broadly in line ( 1% below to 4% above the national median) 20% and above Well above national median ( 5% or more) LA category 1 schools LA category 2 schools LA category 3A LA category 3B LA category 4 Score (English) 4 Score (Maths) 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 Score 8 or less Score 9 to 11 Schools score 12-15 Schools score 16-18 Schools score 19. NB For those schools who have Enhanced Resource Provision for particular groups of pupils with Special Educational Needs, pupils progress can be analysed, where possible, using CASPA. The information that this provides will be used to inform the categorisation of the school. 4. In addition the following criteria may also be used i) ii) Those schools with significant financial deficits in which identified spending on school improvement may be compromised Identified Governance and/or Human resources issues that impact on the outcomes for children and young people Category 1 schools: These schools will be considered as very light touch schools. They may buy into the SPA for additional support or commission an external provider in 6 order to validate internal judgements from monitoring and evaluation exercises. These schools should be able to support the secondary SPA by sharing expertise and practice with other schools. The governing bodies of these schools may also wish to offer support on governance models to other schools. Category 2 schools: Schools in this category will be considered as light touch. These schools may choose to buy into the SPA for additional support or to commission an external provider in order to support school improvement. These schools may also be able to support the secondary SPA through targeted work with identified schools. Category 3A schools: Schools in this category have the potential to be judged as good at the next inspection and are unlikely to be classified as vulnerable by the LA. An annual monitoring visit will be undertaken by a member of the SPA team. These will focus on achievement, quality of teaching, behaviour and safety and/or leadership and management to quality assure the school’s judgements. Category 3A schools may wish to receive support from a Category 1 or 2 schools. Category 3B schools: These schools are very likely to be identified as vulnerable by the LA .These schools will receive support and challenge which will be directly focused on the results of either the most recent Ofsted judgement or a school improvement visit commissioned by the SPA. Monitoring visits will focus on achievement, quality of teaching, behaviour and safety and leadership and management. The LA may choose, where appropriate, to commission in support from the Secondary SPA as and when necessary. With the support of the LA, governors will be expected to undertake appropriate training to further support them in their role as critical friends. Category 4 schools: These schools will be identified as vulnerable by the LA. Schools in this category will receive support and challenge which will be directly focused on the results of either the school’s most recent Ofsted judgment or a School Improvement visit commissioned by the SPA. Monitoring visits will focus on achievement, quality of teaching, behaviour and safety and leadership and management. With the support of the LA, governors will be expected to commission an external view of the school/academy self evaluation and agree to training to further support them in their role as critical friends. It is also likely that the LA will recommend an external review of governance. These schools will receive a letter from the LA identifying the school as vulnerable. Experienced governors or National Leaders of Governance may be deployed to support the Governing Body. 7 Primary School Categorisation 1. Attainment Attainment at the appropriate level in R, W, M Combined attainment at Key Stage 2 is well below the national average (6% or more below the national average) Combined attainment at Key Stage 2 is below the national average (between 2% and 5% below the national average) Combined attainment at Key Stage 2 is broadly in line with national average (1% below to 4% above the national average) Combined attainment at Key Stage 2 is well above the national average (5% or more above the national average) 2. Expected progress Expected progress Progress in reading, writing and mathematics is well below the national average for expected progress (6% or more below the average) Progress in reading, writing and mathematics is below the national average for expected progress (between 2% and 5% below the average). Progress in reading, writing and mathematics is broadly in line with or above (1% below to 4% above) the national average for expected progress. Progress in reading, writing and mathematics is well above (5% or more) the national average for expected progress. 3. Good Progress Good progress Progress in reading, writing and mathematics is well below the national average for good progress in reading, writing and mathematics (6% or more below the average.) Progress in reading, writing and mathematics is below the national average for good progress (between 2% and 5% below the average). Progress in reading, writing and mathematics is broadly in line with or above (1% below to 4% above) the national average for good progress. Progress in reading, writing and mathematics is above the national average (5% or more) for good progress. 8 Score 4 3 2 1 Score 4 3 2 1 Score 4 3 2 1 LA category 1 schools score LA category 2 schools score LA category 3A schools score LA category 3B schools score LA category 4 schools score 7-9 10 - 16 17 – 20 21 – 24 25 - 28 NB For those schools who have Enhanced Resource Provision for particular groups of pupils with Special Educational Needs, pupils progress can be analysed, where possible, using CASPA. The information that this provides will be used to inform the categorisation of the school. For the one Infant school in Salford we will work with the school to develop a bespoke categorisation 4. In addition the following criteria may also be used where relevant i) ii) Those schools with significant financial deficits in which identified spending on school improvement may be compromised Identified Governance and/or Human resources issues that impact on the outcomes for children and young people Category 1 schools: These schools will be considered as very light touch schools. They may choose to buy into the SLA provided by the authority or commission an external provider in order to validate internal judgements from monitoring and evaluation exercises. These schools should be able to support the primary SPA by sharing expertise and practice with other schools. The governing bodies of these schools may also wish to offer support on governance models to other schools. Category 2 schools: Schools in this category will be considered as light touch. These schools may choose to buy into the SLA provided by the LA or to commission an external provider in order to support school improvement. These schools may also be able to support the primary SPA by sharing expertise and practice with other schools. These schools will be striving to be judged as outstanding schools by Ofsted. Category 3A schools: Schools in this category have the potential to be judged as good at the next inspection and are unlikely to be classified as vulnerable by the LA. An annual monitoring visit will be undertaken by a member of the SPA team. These will focus on achievement, quality of teaching, behaviour and safety and/or leadership and management to quality assure the school’s judgements. Category 3A schools may wish to receive support from a Category 1 or 2 schools. 9 Category 3B schools: These schools are very likely to be identified as vulnerable by the LA. Schools in this category will receive support and challenge, which will be directly focused on the results of either the most recent Ofsted judgement or of the termly monitoring visits carried out LA officers and/or headteachers from the primary SPA. Monitoring visits will focus on achievement, quality of teaching, behaviour and safety and leadership and management. Support may be commissioned from the Primary SPA or externally as and when necessary. Governors will be expected to undertake appropriate training to further support them in their role as critical friends. Category 4 schools: These schools will be identified as vulnerable by the LA and will be classified as schools causing local concern. Schools in this category will receive support and challenge which will be directly focused on the results of either the school’s most recent Ofsted judgment or the ‘Health Checks’ carried out by SPA School Improvement Officers. Half termly monitoring visits will focus on achievement, quality of teaching, behaviour and safety and leadership and management. Support may be commissioned from the SPA lead headteachers, an NLE or expertise from another LA. With the support of the LA, governors will be expected to commission an external view of the school self-evaluation and agree to training, to further support them in their role. It is also likely that the LA will recommend an external review of governance. These schools will receive a letter from the LA identifying the school as vulnerable. Experienced governors or National Leaders of Governance may be deployed to support the Governing Body. Categorisation for Special Schools, Pupil referral units and other settings The categorisation system used for mainstream schools isn’t appropriate for special schools and settings. The criteria below are currently used the use of CASPA (Comparison and Analysis of Special Pupils Attainment) will be developed with the schools to further develop this process. Declining/fluctuating trends in above performance Satisfactory OfSTED judgement for overall effectiveness) Those schools with significant financial deficits in which identified spending on school improvement may be compromised. Identified Governance and/or Human resources issues that impact on the outcomes for children and young people. (including Review, Monitoring and Intervention for Vulnerable Schools NB Further details can be found within Salford’s Schools Causing Concern policy. This policy has recently been reviewed so it is in line with the School Improvement Strategy (Appendix 5). 10 The Local Authority has a statutory responsibility to identify vulnerable schools and also ensure that the appropriate support and challenge is bringing about rapid and sustained improvement. Where academies are classified as vulnerable we will work with the governing body or the academy trust in the case of sponsored academies to have clear communication regarding concerns. Termly meetings are convened to evaluate the progress of all vulnerable schools by LA officers and SPA lead headteachers. Other schools will also be discussed where there is data and/or intelligence indicating that there are issues that warrant review. The effective deployment of resources used to support these schools will be considered for each vulnerable school. This will include ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness of all support allocated to each school, including school to school support. Where there is evidence that a vulnerable school is not making sufficiently rapid progress in improvement, the Strategic Director for Children’s Services will communicate with the Headteacher and the Governing Body. Half termly monitoring of progress will then take place. After the first review meeting should progress to continue to be judged inadequate then the LA will issue a Pre- ‘Performance and Standards Warning Notice’. This letter will outline the areas of concern to the Governing body and request that the Governing body submit an action plan to address the areas of concern. If progress is still judged to be inadequate after a term then the LA will issue a ‘Performance and Standards Warning Notice’. This warning notice provides a 15 day compliance period during which time the governing body will submit an action plan to address the concerns set out in the warning notice, or make representations to Ofsted against the warning notice. If this action plan is not to the satisfaction of the LA the school is eligible for intervention. Interventions will then be undertaken which are commensurate with the statutory powers available to the LA. LA Powers of Intervention Statutory Guidance for Local Authorities in relation to Schools Causing Concern was published in October 2012. http://www.education.gov.uk/aboutdfe/statutory/g00192418/scc This statutory guidance relates to the following legislation: School Standards and Framework Act 1998 Education and Inspections Act 2006 (“the 2006 Act”) Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act, 2009 (ASCL Act) (amended the 2006 Act) The School Governance (Transition from an Interim Executive Board)(England) Regulations 2010 (Transition Regulations) Academies Act 2010 Education Act 2011 (amended the 2006 Act) 11 The guidance provides information on the legislative requirements for intervening in schools causing concern and Local Authorities must have regard to it. A school will be “eligible for intervention” under the 2006 Act if it has not complied with a Warning Notice and the local authority have also given the school written notice of their intention to exercise their intervention powers under Part 4 of the 2006 Act or where it has been judged by Ofsted to require significant improvement - a “serious weaknesses” judgement or “special measures.” Where schools are eligible for intervention local authorities may exercise their powers to: require the governing body to enter into specified arrangements with a view to improving the performance of the school; appoint additional governors; suspend the delegated budget of the school; appoint an Interim Executive Board. Where schools are eligible for intervention the guidance makes clear that the Secretary of State has the power to appoint additional governors; appoint an Interim Executive Board, or direct the local authority to close a school. The Secretary of State also has the power under the Academies Act 2010 to make an Academy order, subject in certain cases to consultation. The DfE guidance also extends the definition of “schools causing concern” beyond those “eligible for intervention” within the meaning of Part 4 of the 2006 Act (see definition above), to include those about which the local authority and/or the Secretary of State have other serious concerns which need tackling, such as those consistently below the floor standards, those where there has been a serious drop in performance or where the performance is not meeting the expected standards of comparable schools. The DfE suggests that the local authority may want to consider giving those schools a Warning Notice, and then a further notice that they propose to use their intervention powers under the 2006 Act making the school eligible for intervention and subject to the intervention powers of the local authority and/or the Secretary of State. The DfE has a clear expectation that in those cases, where the school has a history of performing below floor standards, conversion to an Academy with a strong sponsor will be the normal route to secure improvement. 12 Overview of School support, challenge and LA intervention KS2/KS4 data becomes available. Schools are categorised. Vulnerable schools are identified using categorisation and most recent Ofsted reports. Head teachers and Governing bodies notified. Vulnerable Schools Light Touch Schools LA Officers of SPA and/or SPA lead Head teachers work with schools to identify next steps and commissioned support Universal offer of Support from LA/SPA Service Level Agreements available from Primary and Secondary SPA Termly meeting of LA officers and SPA leads and LA officers review progress of vulnerable schools. Light touch schools will also be reviewed if appropriate Schools making inadequate progress will be issued with a warning notice if progress continues to be inadequate. Interventions will be used as appropriate 13 Glossary SPA Schools Provider Arm LA Local Authority NLG National Leader of Governance NLE National Leader of Education LLE Local Leader of Education SLE Specialist Leaders in Education CASPA Comparison & Analysis of Special Pupils Attainment APS Average points score SLA Service Level Agreement FSM Free School Meals 14