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