New Relationship with Schools Evaluation

8/8/2019 New Relationship with Schools Evaluation

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/new-relationship-with-schools-evaluation 1/164

New Relationship

with Schools

Evaluation Report

Research Report DCSF-RR050

Georgina Cowen

York Consulting LLP



Research Report No

DCSF-RR050

New Relationship with Schools

Evaluation Report

Georgina Cowen

York Consulting LLP

The views expressed in this report are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department for Children, Schools and Families.

© York Consulting LLP 2008

ISBN 978 1 84775 231 4



Acknowledgements

The study involved a detailed multi-method approach requiring in-depth case studies,

national surveys, rigorous assessment and reporting. This was delivered by an expertresearch team comprising York Consulting LLP staff and associates - Dr Vicky Hopwood,Matthew Terry, Helen Palmer, Kerry Merrill, Sally Kendall, Louise O’Neill, and KathrynHyland, Wendy Merson, and John Thompson. The surveys were conducted by our strategic partner organisation McCallum Layton.

Sincere thanks and appreciation go to all those that contributed to the study includingthose participating in consultations as part of detailed case study work (headteachers,school improvement partners, senior leaders, teachers, governors, parents, local authorityand local learning and skills council stakeholders); those responding to the nationalsurveys (headteachers, school improvement partners and local authority stakeholders);and representatives of the New Relationship with Schools consultative group.



CONTENTS

Page

REPORT SUMMARY i

1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW ...................................................................... 1

CHAPTER ONE: SCHOOL SELF-EVALUATION AND DATA-USE2 EFFECTIVENESS & IMPACT OF SCHOOL SELF-EVALUATION...................... 73 FACTORS INFLUENCING EFFECTIVENESS AND DEVELOPMENT.............. 18

CHAPTER TWO: THE SIP PROGRAMME4 EFFECTIVENESS OF SIP CORE ROLE ............................................................265 BROKERING SUPPORT ....................................................................................40

6 IMPACT OF THE SIP PROGRAMME.................................................................477 CONSISTENCY OF SIP PROGRAMME............................................................. 578 MANAGEMENT AND DELIVERY OF SIP PROGRAMME.................................63

CHAPTER THREE: OTHER NRWS STRANDS9 PROGRESS TOWARDS NRWS POLICY INTENT............................................. 7410 SCHOOL PROFILE............................................................................................. 84

Appendices:Appendix A: Case Study and Survey Evidence Ilustrating Key MessagesAppendix B: Aspects of SIP Programme Management and Delivery



Acronyms

Acronyms which have been used throughout this study are:

SIP = School Improvement Partner; LA = Local Authority;

HT SIP = serving headteacher SIP;

LA SIP = full-time LA employee SIP;

LA (w) SIP = full-time LA employee SIP with previous headteacher experience;

LA (wo) SIP = full-time LA employee SIP without previous headteacher experience;

EC SIP = SIP employed as an external consultant to the LA;

EC (w) SIP = external consultant SIP with previous headteacher experience;

EC (wo) SIP = external consultant SIP without previous headteacher experience;

SLT = Senior Leadership Team;

KS = Key Stage;

FS = Foundation Stage;

AGR = Annual Governors Report;

SEF = Self-Evaluation Framework

CVA = Contextual Added Value;

FFT = Fischer Family Trust (data source)

AfL = Assessment for Learning;

ECM = Every Child Matters;

CPD = continuing professional development.



i

REPORT SUMMARY

Overview

1. This report presents the findings of a comprehensive two year national evaluation of the New Relationship with Schools (NRwS) policy. The policy, announced in 2004,

was recognition of the need to streamline and improve the relationship between thethen Department for Education and Skills (DfES), Local Authorities (LAs) andschools; ensure closer alignment of national and local priorities; and address‘bureaucracy’ as an ongoing area of concern at both the primary and secondaryphases of education.

2. The evaluation demonstrates that a number of the strands of NRwS, bothindependently and collectively, have supported a move towards the intelligentaccountability framework envisaged when the policy was first announced. There isalso evidence that these developments are contributing to improvements in qualityand standards for some schools and LA areas, particularly in the secondary sector.

3. The outcomes achieved place LAs and schools in a good position to respond tosome of the challenges set out in the recently published Children’s Plan, includingthose associated with preventative school support, challenge for coasting schools,improving attainment for specific groups and engaging parent’s in their child’slearning.

4. There is, nevertheless, a need for continued efforts at national level to work towardsmore coherent policy development and delivery across all ECM services and ensureschools have the capacity and necessary support to respond to the significantdevelopments currently affecting the sector. There is also the potential for greater value to be achieved from addressing some aspects of consistency andeffectiveness associated with school self-evaluation, data availability and the SchoolImprovement Partner (SIP) programme.

Key Achievements

5. There are four areas of improvement that have been seen over the three yearssince the policy was announced:

1) Improved data availability and use has enabled schools to undertake sharper data analysis which has in turn supported an increased focus on achievingoutcomes for pupils overall and for specific groups;

2) Improved school self-evaluation mechanisms have resulted in:

better assessments of performance and understanding of the action requiredto address aspects of under-performance;

engagement of pupils and parents in achieving progress; and

more focused accountability for improving performance amongst middlemanagers and teaching staff.

3) The challenge and support provided through the SIP programme hassupported:

the development of more evaluative and accountable school structures andculture;

a more consistent focus across schools on improving pupil outcomes andaddressing areas of under-performance;

the development of challenging but realistic targets;



ii

the identification of school support needs and, for many schools, theprovision of advice and support to address priority areas for schoolimprovement.

4) Coherence has been achieved across the Self-Evaluation Framework (SEF),School Improvement Partner (SIP) Programme and new Inspection Framework1,

including the links made with specialist school designation.

6. Positive outcomes associated with these strands of the NRwS have been observedover the two-year evaluation period. This is across both the secondary and primarysectors, though achievements are more noticeable in the former particularly inrelation the SIP programme which is at an earlier stage of rollout in the primarysector.

Impact on Standards and Quality

7. The contribution that improved data availability and school self-evaluation havemade towards achieving higher standards, quality and value added is apparent fromthe evaluation evidence. This is both in terms of stakeholder perception and

detailed case study assessments. The latter provide a number of examples of how(through data analysis and wider self-evaluation approaches) schools have seenimproving outcomes across the school, for particular pupil groups and/or for specificsubject areas.

8. The direct impact of the SIP programme on school standards and quality is moredifficult to establish due to the nature of the role which is to challenge and supportrather than directly engage in school improvement activities. Nevertheless, thereare a small number of evaluation case studies which indicate a link between SIPsupport for school improvement interventions and better school outcomes.

9. More generally, it is clear that the SIP role is contributing to better schoolimprovement, in terms of:

supporting headteachers and senior leadership teams to:

understand performance issues;

effectively plan and prioritise areas for improvement;

focus on outcomes, including for particular pupil groups;

improve data use, analysis and self-evaluation approaches;

engage pupils and parents in achieving progress;

more focused accountability for performance amongst headteachers, senior leadership teams (SLTs), middle managers and teachers;

aligning headteacher performance management (HTPM) with school priorities.

Other Areas of Progress

10. Some other areas of progress identified by the evaluation include:

the availability of improved data and more effective self-evaluation paperworkmean that, whilst there may be increased workloads for school staff in

1Whilst not the subject of this evaluation, the NfER Evaluation of the Impact of Section 5 Inspections

(McCrone et al 2007) found that the vast majority of schools were satisfied with the inspection process, it wasgenerally perceived to contribute to school improvement and it was valuable to confirm SEF findings.



iii

responding, headteacher perceptions are commonly that this is a more effectiveand purposeful use of time;

the SIP programme has, in some LA areas:

enabled higher levels of challenge and support for schools that do not

require formal intervention; helped to improve LA understanding about school performance and ensure

earlier preventative interventions;

some schools have experienced a single rather than multiple points of communication about school improvement (this is particularly for higher achieving schools, though also includes some schools receiving a wider range of support intervention);

the approaches delivered by some LAs and SIPs are providing some schoolswith more autonomy to address school improvement in ways that suit their specific circumstances;

there is some positive recognition amongst stakeholders of generalimprovements in communication from the Department for Children, Schools andFamilies (DCSF) and Local Authorities (LAs), the alignment of some policies andinitiatives and the simplification and rationalisation of funding support for schoolimprovement;

the School Profile has been completed by most secondary and primary schoolsand a small majority of headteachers agree that its production is lessburdensome than the production of its predecessor, the Governors AnnualReport. Where parents have accessed the Profile there are some generallypositive views about its usefulness to prospective parents who are choosing aschool for their child.

11. The evaluation also identifies successful management and delivery of the SIPprogramme at national and local level:

most LAs have developed effective approaches to the recruitment, deploymentand performance management of SIPs;

the National Strategies SIP Coordinators (SIPCos) are perceived as positivelycontributing to LA management of the programme;

there are high levels of clarity amongst stakeholders (which have improved over the two year evaluation period) about the core role of the SIP to challenge andsupport schools they work with;

the core challenge and support role being fulfilled by SIPs is, on the whole,deliverable within an average five day allocation;

changes in the approach to SIP support and training have been introduced over the last year which place a greater focus on local training and continuingprofessional development (CPD) tailored to the local context and individual SIPneeds; and

the quality of available SIPs is generally considered (by LA stakeholders) to behigh and there is evidence (from stakeholder surveys and corroborated by casestudy assessments) that the vast majority are equipped to undertake their rolegiven their knowledge, skills and experiences.



i

Areas for Further Development

School Data Use and Evaluation

12. Whilst many schools are demonstrating good practices, some schools (particularlyin the primary sector) are still developing their approaches to data use and self-evaluation and a minority require significant further development. Development isrequired particularly in terms of:

accountability for understanding and improving performance amongst middlemanagers and teaching staff;

engagement of pupils and parents in understanding and achieving progress;

developing more accurate judgements;

evaluative rather than descriptive SEFs which are clearly linked to priorities inschool development plans.

13. The introduction of real-time reporting in all secondary schools by September 2010

should help to move towards greater consistency amongst schools in their approaches to engaging parent’s in their child’s learning. It will be important toensure that schools have suitable support to implement the requirement, particularlyin terms of developing schools’ ICT systems.

14. More generally across schools there is the potential to improve:

their evaluative approaches in relation to wider ECM outcomes and the linksbetween these and achievements/standards; and

the extent to which self-evaluation incorporates 14-19 collaborative provisionand responsibilities for influencing improvement are clear. This is a particularlyimportant consideration in light of the introduction of new diplomas, many of

which are delivered in partnership.

Data Availability

15. The delays in getting RaiseOnline up and running have damaged overallperceptions of the effectiveness of NRwS to increase the usefulness of data andreduce burdens on schools. Whilst many headteachers are now positive about thepotential of the system, there is frustration that the timing of data availability doesnot enable them to use it to inform planning when they need to.

16. There is also the potential for greater clarity surrounding specific data sources andsome need for more coherent presentation of the range of data overall. This wouldhelp to ensure greater levels of understanding around the value and purpose of

individual data sets which may help to address some feelings of beingoverwhelmed.

Brokering School Support

17. Relatively low proportions of stakeholders identify that the SIP programme has beeneffective in brokering school support needs. These perceptions are influenced byboth some lack of clarity around the role of the SIP and different practices inbrokering support across LAs and SIP types:

Clarity: Whilst clarity of the SIP role in brokering support has improved since thebeginning of the evaluation, there remains some uncertainty amongst asignificant minority of headteachers and, to a lesser extent, amongst SIPsthemselves;



ii

Breadth of Support: Outside the core challenge and support role, the breadthof support (and associated additional resource) provided to those schoolsrequiring higher levels of intervention varies across LAs;

SIP Type2: There are differences in the support role played by different types of SIP, with those who are full-time LA employees (and to a lesser those employed

as external consultants) more commonly capacity building, monitoring progress,brokering and managing support packages than serving headteacher SIPs. Inthe primary sector, the role of serving headteacher SIPs in identifying supportneeds also appears to be less significant than for full-time LA employee SIPs.

18. This variance in practice is largely a function of different models of LA delivery for brokering school support. These fall broadly within two types – those where a clear distinction is made between the SIP role to challenge and the LA role to broker support; and those where additional resource is provided to some types of SIP(predominantly those that are full-time employees of the LA) to monitor progress/interventions and build capacity. However, there is evidence in a minority of LAareas of the potential to improve the coherence of the support offer and role of the

SIP in relation to this: in some LA areas, there are perceptions of some duplication of the role being

played by the SIP and other LA staff; and a lack of a clear and defined role for SIPs within the overarching LA strategy for school access to supportinterventions;

there is evidence amongst a small number of case study schools that the SIPprogramme (and/or the LA school improvement approach) is not consistentlyproviding additional ‘support’ resource for schools that may benefit from it.

19. More generally across LA areas there is the potential to improve the effectivenessand consistency of LA mechanisms to ensure that there is a comprehensive

understanding of the range of support interventions available and suitability indifferent circumstances.

20. The differences in the support role played by different SIP types result, as you wouldexpect, in some variance in perception of SIP effectiveness. Those headteachersallocated with serving headteacher SIPs less commonly identify that their SIP haseffectively brokered support needs or been a key influence in changing schools’approach to self-evaluation. Nevertheless, there are practical and pragmaticreasons for giving predominantly full-time LA employee SIPs or other LA staff thebrokering and monitoring role. Given the demands of their own schools, servingheadteacher SIPs are more constrained than other types of SIP in terms of delivering additional support resource for schools that they work with.

Nature and Scope of SIP Role

21. There is some potential at national and local levels to develop more consistentclarity and focus for some aspects of the SIP role as outlined below. In addressing

2The report refers to three types of SIP – full-time LA employee SIPs (LA SIPs); SIPs employed as external

consultants to the LA (EC SIPs); and serving headteacher SIPs (HT SIPs). For clarity of meaning we refer toindividual SIP types using the full reference in the main body of the text, but use the acronyms in anytables/figures to maximise space available. Note that both LA and EC SIPs do include both those withprevious headteacher experience (LA (w) SIPs & EC (w) SIPs) and SIPs without previous headteacher experience (LA (wo) SIPs and EC (wo) SIPs). In some of the tables in Chapter Two and the Appendices we

distinguish further to comment on differences/issues associated with those with and without headteacher experience.



iii

some of these areas, consideration needs to be given to the ability of SIPs tocontinue to play a focused role within an average of five days.

22. Direct Development Support: In a minority of cases, additional resource has beenallocated to SIPs (or they have more flexibility in their capacity to respond to needs)for pastoral and development support which aims to improve self-evaluation

processes and deliver targeted intervention support. The view amongst manynational and local stakeholders is that delivery of this type of support might impacton the extent to which the SIP can retain his/her independence to play an ongoingchallenge role within the school.

23. Single Conversation: There is some tension between the concept that SIPs wouldenable schools to have a ‘Single Conversation’ and the ability of SIPs to providefocused challenge and support within an average of five days a year. This is evidentin some LAs where a range of issues and monitoring/reporting requirements arebeing channelled through SIPs and this is inhibiting their ability in the time availableto fulfil the challenge role. Whilst this is not the case in all areas, these approaches(together with some national expectations and school demands) are perceived (by

half of the SIPs surveyed) as contributing to a growth in the SIP role.24. As the SIP programme has been embedded, a more redefined view of the Single

Conversation has developed and there is evidence that in some cases SIPs areenabling schools to have a single point of communication for school improvement.This is particularly the case amongst higher performing schools though there arealso some examples where those requiring higher levels of support intervention areexperiencing greater coherence in their interactions with external supportorganisations. Nevertheless there is the potential for improved clarity surroundingthe intended SIP role in this respect and the coherence of LA communicationmechanisms which might support it.

25. Changing Nature of Role: As the SIP role embeds, there is evidence in some case

study schools of its changing in nature but not necessarily growing in scope. SomeSIPs, for example, are starting to interact more with wider school staff and pupilsand some are focusing more on capacity building and advice for particular priorityareas for the schools concerned. Nevertheless, there remains uncertainty anddifference of view about whether some of the activities undertaken by SIPs tomoderate school judgements and build capacity should be provided; and whether this impacts on the extent to which the SIP can remain focused (within availableresource) and independent to effectively challenge the school.

26. Flexibility to Respond: The backdrop of continually developing national prioritiesand initiatives provides an ongoing challenge for SIPs to ensure an appropriatebalance in the use of their time. SIPs need to be able to provide challenge which is

focused on addressing a particular school’s priorities but within the context of agendas that the schools themselves are responding to. Serving headteacher SIPshave less capacity to respond in a flexible way to emerging national, local or schooldemands.

27. Suitability and Effectiveness of Support Interventions: An increased emphasisis required on the SIP role to ensure the suitability and effectiveness of supportinterventions. This aspect is likely to develop as individual SIP relationships matureand there is some evidence of this. Nevertheless, there is the potential to raise theprofile of this element of the SIP role and for LA mechanisms to develop so that theyand/or SIPs can add value in this respect. This is in terms of, for example:

integration of the SIP programme within wider LA and children’s service support

areas;



iv

placing appropriate emphasis on the SIP role to evaluate the effectiveness of support and interventions; and

creating an environment within which SIPs can appropriately challenge the LAand others about the suitability and effectiveness of support provided.

28. 14-19 delivery: There is the potential to increase the extent to which SIP challenge

and support incorporates a focus on 14-19 delivery and post-16 provision. To date,this has been influenced in some cases by a lack of coherence between theLearning and Skills Council (LSC) and LAs/the SIP programme. With LAs nowbeing given the strategic commissioning role for all education and training for children and young people up to the age of 18, there is the potential to place greater emphasis on performance across 14-19 delivery within a more integrated andcoherent framework.

29. ECM: There is also the potential for SIPs to play a greater role in supporting specificstrategies for the personal development and well-being of pupils or engagement inwider developments relating to the integration of children’s services.

Impact of SIPs on LA School Improvement

30. In the majority of cases LA respondents to the survey did not agree that LAdecisions over when, how and how much to intervene in schools are more effectiveas a result of the SIP programme. In addition, half of those responding did notagree that the SIP function is effective for supporting schools causing concern andonly one quarter agreed. This is indicative of the fact that schools in thesecircumstances clearly require additional resource to support their improvement andthat the wider LA intervention and support strategies will be critical to effectiveness.Equally, in some LA areas there are concerns that financial constraints impact ontheir ability to effectively support schools causing concern.

LA SIP Management

31. In a small number of LA areas, there is the potential to improve the effectiveness of communication around the SIP role and the message being received by schools.This is particularly in relation to the accountability of SIPs, the function of SIP visits,use of SIP reports/feedback to inform LA support strategies, and role of the SIP/LAin communicating local priorities and issues. LA survey responses in some areasalso suggest the potential to improve the consistency of National Strategies SIPCoordinator (SIPCo) support relating to deployment strategies, reporting frameworksand performance management systems.

Primary Sector SIPs

32. Headteacher perceptions suggest generally lower levels of SIP effectiveness andimpact in the primary sector across a series of indicators, though the survey andcase study evidence does show that primary SIPs provide effective challenge inmost cases. The lower perceptual levels of primary SIP effectiveness and impactare largely a function of the SIP programme being at an earlier stage of roll-out thanin the secondary sector. Positive change in perceptions amongst secondaryheadteachers between 2006 and 2007 gives some encouraging signs that similar changes might be observed in the primary sector once the programme has beenfurther embedded. However, survey and case study evidence also indicatesresistance to change amongst some primary headteachers which may beinfluencing their perceptions of SIPs. This reflects the more significant culture shiftrequired by the introduction of SIP challenge in the primary sector, given theprevious tradition of strong pastoral LA support.



v

33. There are also some perceptual differences amongst primary headteachers withdifferent types of SIP. Those with full-time LA employee SIPs more commonlyidentify that their SIP is equipped to fulfil the role, effective and achieving an impact,compared to those that have been allocated serving headteacher SIPs. The limitedflexibility that serving headteacher SIPs have to deliver the breadth of support thatother SIPs are providing is likely to be influencing these perceptions. There are alsoqualitative stakeholder views that serving headteacher SIPs potentially face moresignificant constraints than other types of SIP relating to their breadth of knowledgeand experience of challenging and coaching others. One third of LA areasresponding to the evaluation survey identified SIP recruitment and retentionconstraints in the primary sector specifically associated with serving headteacher SIPs (and in some cases external consultant SIPs).

Academy SIPs

34. There are some differences in the Academy SIP Programme which should be bornein mind given the planned expansion of the sector. This includes:

the potential limits associated with the headteacher performance management

(HTPM) and brokering support functions not being fulfilled by Academy SIPs; as Academies mature and there is less intensive support from DCSF Academy

Advisors, SIPs will be better placed to play a critical role in maintaining challengeand continued improvement;

the process of rapid transformation amongst some Academy schools means thatthe standard SIP resource may not be sufficient to support effective change; and

high skills and experience levels amongst Academy Leaders demand that their SIPs require equally high levels of experience and credibility.

Target-Setting

35. Recent national guidance and the line taken by some LAs is leading to perceptions

amongst some schools of a top-down approach to target-setting, rather than a moreinclusive and bottom-up approach that fits specific school contexts and needs.

Demands of National Policy and Organisations

36. The impact of the NRwS on changing perceptions about the levels of bureaucracyfor schools is minimal. Areas where stakeholders feel there are still significantburdens include changes in government policies and initiatives; duplicate requestsfor data and surveys; and issues associated with specific initiatives and activitiesincluding funding, IT, health and safety and assessments for teachers.

37. These perceptions highlight a need for continued efforts at the national level to worktowards more coherent policy development and delivery across all ECM services,

including steps to: achieve greater consistency in and consider the appropriateness of some of

the demands placed on schools (including those associated with volume, paceof change, requests for information and reporting requirements);

deliver more coherent responses to supporting schools in the delivery of thesignificant developments taking place including reform of the secondarycurriculum, building schools for the future, integrated children’s services andany required response to the outcomes of primary sector curriculum reviewproposed in the Children’s Plan; and

improve the coherence of communication mechanisms, including developing

more effective presentation and signposting of critical information.



vi

School Profile

38. Only 25% of headteachers surveyed thought the School Profile was an effectivemethod of communication and there was generally low awareness of the profileamongst the parents consulted. The research suggests that the School Profile isonly one of several ways in which parents can access the same data and

information about schools. Parents and school stakeholders suggest that other sources (Ofsted, parental visits, and newsletters) may be more accessible andconsidered more useful than the Profile in engaging parents and helping themunderstand the school.



1

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

1.1 This report presents the summative findings from the national evaluation of theNew Relationship with Schools (NRwS) policy. The evaluation was undertaken byYork Consulting Limited Liability Partnership (YCL) on behalf of the Department for

Children, School and Families (DCSF).

1.2 The aims of this two year study, which commenced in May 2006, were to:

assess the implementation of five key strands of the NRwS (self evaluation,School Profile, School Improvement Partners, Single Conversation, data3)and explore how these strands knit together;

assess the effectiveness of each of these strands;

explore the effectiveness of the NRwS policy in achieving its objectives;

assess the factors that influence effectiveness; and

as a subsidiary element, to explore the new relationship process as a way of developing policy.

Context

1.3 The NRwS was announced by David Miliband in January 2004 at the North of England Education Conference. The announcement was recognition that‘bureaucracy’ was an ongoing concern of schools and the former Department for Education and Skills (DfES). The DfES identified a need to streamline and improvethe relationship between the Department, Local Authorities (LA) and schools, and aneed for closer alignment of national and local priorities.

1.4 The document ‘A New Relationship with Schools’ was published by the DfES andOfsted on the 15th June 2004. The document set out its proposals for a cluster of interlocking changes affecting inspection, schools’ relations with local and centralgovernment, schools’ self evaluation and planning, data collection from schools,and communication with schools4. The NRwS comprises seven interlinkedstrands:

School Self-Evaluation – employing the use of a new Self Evaluation Formthat is updated at least once per year and secures effective self-evaluation inall schools;

Inspection – the introduction of a new short process to provide sharper-

edged, lighter touch inspection; the School Profile - that provides ‘high quality’, accessible information for

parents and the public;

the use of a School Improvement Partner (SIP) – a ‘critical friend’assigned to each school to conduct the Single Conversation and act as theconduit between central government, the LA and school;

the Single Conversation – a process to help facilitate the schools’focus/approach to school improvement through interaction between theschool and its SIP;

3

The inspection strand of the NRwS was evaluated separately by the National Foundation for EducationalResearch (NFER)4

DfES, Ofsted, (June 2004). A New Relationship with Schools p.4



2

Communication – a new streamlined communication strategy that includesan online ordering system; and

the Production and Use of Data – aligning central data demands anddeveloping common basic data sets (RaiseOnline) so that data is ‘collectedonce, used many times’ to drive school improvement.

1.5 A one year pilot was undertaken in 2005. The staged roll out of the policycommenced in 2006 with the intention that the lessons learnt from earlier developments would inform ongoing refinement of the policy. National Strategieswere appointed to lead the roll out of the SIP programme.

Overview of Method

1.6 The evaluation involved a multi-method approach involving three key strands -online surveys; in-depth LA case studies; and national consultations.

Online Surveys

1.7 Two rounds of online surveys were undertaken with secondary headteachers, SIPmanagers within LAs, and SIPs. Primary headteachers were surveyed once5. Thenumber of responses received for each of these is detailed in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1: Number of Survey ResponsesStakeholder Round 1 Round 2

Secondary headteachers 378 281

Primary headteachers na 1265

SIPs 933 778

LA (SIP Managers) 44 52

1.8 One of the key issues of concern with the roll out of the policy was the extent towhich the SIPs deployed would have headteacher experience. Nationally, theproportion of schools that have a SIP with headteacher experience is 72% in thesecondary sector and 84% in the primary sector. The survey responses broadlyreflect this picture6.

In-depth Case Studies

1.9 In-depth case studies were undertaken involving 447 schools across 11 LocalAuthorities plus two academies. Case studies involved repeat visits to 28 schoolsover a period of up to 18 months. Single visits were made to 18 schools towards

the end of the study. Case studies involved a range of activity including:

expert assessment of key school information including Self EvaluationForms (SEFs), SIP Reports, School Improvement Plans, Section 5 Ofstedreports, achievement and attainment data, and School Profile;

observation of meetings between SIPs and headteachers;

5The timing of the roll out of SIPs to the primary sector only allowed for one round of surveys with

headteachers within the timescales of the evaluation.6

73% of the secondary headteacher survey responses were from those that had a SIP with headteacher

experience. 81% of the primary headteacher survey responses were from those that had a SIP withheadteacher experience.7

23 primary schools (inc 3 first schools) and 21 secondary schools.



3

triangulated consultations with school staff (including the headteacher,members of the senior leadership team, classroom teachers, staff, governorsand parents);

consultations with the SIP linked to the case study schools; and

consultations with key LA stakeholders.

1.10 The sample was weighted to include LAs involved in the earlier stages of roll out sothat the impact of the policy could be assessed over time. The sample alsoincluded a mix of LAs in terms of region and LA type8.

1.11 Schools were selected based upon a range of characteristics which includedschool performance (based on Contextual Value Added (CVA) and attainmentdata) and the professional background of the SIP.

School Performance

1.12 Across the 20 primary schools9, twelve had improved their CVA between 2006/07and 2007/08, whilst eight had seen a decline. In terms of Average Point Scoredata, eleven had improved, two remained static and seven declined.

1.13 Between 2006/07 and 2007/08 twelve secondary schools had improved their CVAwhilst for nine, CVA had declined. In terms of achievement of A*-C GCSE’s, 13 hadimproved, three remained static and five declined.

1.14 Of the two academies, one had improved CVA data between 2006/07 and 2007/08whilst the other had seen a small decline. Both had CVA which was above thenational average. Both academies had improved A*-C GCSE data over the twoyears of the study. One had above average attainment data, the other belowaverage.

SIP Type

1.15 Within the 23 primary and first school case studies, just over half (14) had a full-time LA employee SIP, with the others split almost equally between externalconsultant SIPs (4) and serving headteacher SIPs (5). Within the 21 secondaryschool case studies, just under a quarter (5) had a full-time LA employee SIP, over half (12) had an external consultant SIP and 4 had a serving headteacher SIP. Inboth academies the SIP was an external consultant SIP.

National Consultations

1.16 Consultations were undertaken with a range of national stakeholders throughoutthe study, including Ofsted, LSCs (local and national) and National Strategies.

Overview of Report

1.17 The evaluation demonstrates that a number of the strands of NRwS havesupported a move towards the intelligent accountability framework envisaged whenthe policy was first announced. There is also evidence that these developmentscontribute to improvements in quality and standards for some schools and LAareas, particularly in the secondary sector.

8

Of the 11 LAs - two were London Boroughs, three Unitary, three Metropolitan District and three CountyCouncil.9

No data was available for the three first schools.



4

1.18 The outcomes achieved place LAs and schools in a good position to respond tosome of the challenges set out in the recently published Children’s Plan, includingthose associated with preventative school support, challenge for coasting schools,improving attainment for specific groups and engaging parent’s in their child’slearning.

1.19 There is, nevertheless, a need for continued efforts at national level to worktowards more coherent policy development and delivery across all ECM servicesand ensure schools have the capacity and necessary support to respond to thesignificant developments currently affecting the sector. There is also the potentialfor greater value to be achieved from addressing some aspects of consistency andeffectiveness associated with school self-evaluation, data availability and the SIPprogramme. Aspects of the SIP support role in particular require greater clarity andcoherence in terms of, for example, the range of interventions available to schools,the nature of the support role provided by different SIP types, and the emphasisplaced on the role to ensure suitability and effectiveness of interventions.

1.20 We set out detailed findings in the remainder of the report. Each section includes akey points box at the beginning. We have also included (in Appendix A) casestudy and survey evidence to illustrate key messages.

Chapter One: School Self-Evaluation & Data Use

Section 2: Effectiveness & Impact of Self-EvaluationSection 3: Factors Influencing Effectiveness

Chapter Two: The SIPProgramme

Section 4: Effectiveness of Core SIP RoleSection 5: Brokering SupportSection 6: Impact of SIP ProgrammeSection 7: Consistency of SIP ProgrammeSection 8: Management and Delivery of SIP Programme

Chapter Three: Other

NRwS Strands

Section 9: Progress towards NRwS Policy intent

Section 10: School Profile



Chapter One:School Self-Evaluation and Data Use





7

EFFECTIVENESS & IMPACT OF SCHOOL SELF-EVALUATION

Key Points

There is clear evidence that school self-evaluation has improved over the last few years. This

is resulting in sharper planning, a focus on outcomes, understanding of how to improve anddelivery of improvements in quality and standards.

The effectiveness of self-evaluation is evident across many schools in terms of:

embedded and whole school approaches;

data use and interpretation;

evaluative SEFs which are moderated and link to improvement plans; and

greater pupil and parent engagement in understanding and achieving progress.

There is a range of impact evidence which demonstrates that these improvements are oftenresulting in:

improved planning;

understanding of performance;

more focused accountability amongst staff for performance;

focus on pupil outcomes; and

introduction and evaluation of targeted interventions.

There is also evidence in some schools that such changes are translating into improvementsin standards, value added and quality of learning.

These achievements are observed across both the secondary and the primary sectors,though they are more advanced within the former. Due to their circumstances, academies areparticularly focused on self-evaluation and those with strong leadership are undergoingsignificant transformation.

Effectiveness of School Self-Evaluation and Data Use

1.21 The vast majority of stakeholders agree that there have been changes in schools’approaches to self-evaluation since the introduction of the SEF and Section 5Inspection and that this is resulting in positive outcomes. These positive attitudesare corroborated by the detailed assessments made for individual case studyschools, where changes have been observed across most of the schools visited.



8

Table 2.1: Stakeholder Perceptions of School Self-Evaluation% of Respondents Agreeing or Strongly Agreeingwith Statements

Statements:SecondaryHeadteachers

PrimaryHeadteachers

SIPs LAs

Changes have been made to theschool’s approach to self evaluationsince the introduction of the SEF andthe S5 Framework for Inspection

91% 90% na na

Schools have improved their approachto self evaluation

na na 90% 90%

Analysis of school and pupil data hasimproved

88% 84% 90% 85%

Schools are using data effectively toinform school self evaluation

na na 92% 87%

Self evaluation has involved greater input from the Senior Leadership Team

88% 82% 85% 83%

Self evaluation has involved greater input from wider school staff 90% 81% 82% 81%

The findings from self evaluation and analysisof data are permeatingthroughout the school

96% 89% 91% 90%

Parents have been consulted moreeffectively

73% 62% 62% 63%

Pupils have been consulted moreeffectively

81% 73% 76% 75%

1.22 Across the case study schools around half were assessed as having excellent or good self-evaluation practices. Key features of effective practices include:

effective use and interpretation of data from a range of sources to informassessments of performance, target setting and improvement planning;

delivery of embedded and whole-school approaches to self-evaluation,including the engagement of staff, pupils and parents in understanding andachieving progress;

evaluative rather than descriptive SEFs, judgements are moderated andbacked up by evidence and links are being made to improvement plans,actions and strategies; and

consulting and acting on the feedback from pupils and parents.

1.23 Amongst the remaining case studies, there was evidence that most had goodaspects of self-evaluation which were developing.

Data use and Analysis

1.24 The use and analysis of data is one of the most significant drivers for improvements in self-evaluation practices and levels of understanding across bothsecondary and primary schools. This is helping schools to get underneathperformance issues, set effective targets and focus on specific issues for individualpupil groups, and target interventions more effectively.



9

1.25 The case studies (as shown by the examples in Figure 2.1 with further examples inAppendix A) demonstrate that many schools are increasingly using internal andexternal data to assess performance, target set and plan for improvement at anumber of levels. This is for the school as a whole and across cohorts of pupils; atsubject, department, class and teacher level; and for specific pupil groups andindividual pupil progress.

Figure 2.1: Data Use and Analysis(Assessed Case Study Examples

10- Additional Examples in Appendix A2.1)

School/Cohort Levelo During the observation, it was interesting to see how the Head moved from school-level data

(RaiseOnline sheets and graphs) to class work results in order to drill down into issues, for example by bringing out Key Stage mark sheets to show the progress of individuals who hadperhaps not made their expected grades, mentioning contributory factors (such as problems athome), etc.

Subject/Department Levelo The document review highlights that all staff with key stage / department responsibility have

appropriate understanding of the school's data and are using it to evaluate teaching andlearning. Subject leaders are working more effectively across the school to improve planning.

Class, Teacher and Pupil Levelo Data is analysed by the headteacher, then the deputy & head together, and then it is shared

with staff (individual class teachers first & then whole staff) at staff meetings. There is a formaldata review meeting with all staff three times a year. Data is used to track pupils progress on anindividual, class & school level. The school also monitors the progress of particular groups for example boys, those receiving free school meals (FSM), those with special educational needs(SEN) etc. All teachers have tracking sheets for pupils.

1.26 The use of data by senior leadership teams (SLTs) at the school, cohort and pupil

group level is evident across the vast majority of case studies and it is clear in mostcases that this is informing SEF assessments. There are some primary sector case studies that are still developing their effectiveness in this respect, particularlyin terms of effective analysis for specific pupil groups.

1.27 The engagement of middle managers and teachers in the use and analysis of performance data (including that obtained through monitoring and lessonobservations) to inform and influence progress and achievement is also evidentamongst many of the case study schools. Again, there is evidence in some casestudies (in both the secondary and primary sector with slightly more in the latter)that these aspects are still developing and there is the potential for greater consistency in application across all subjects, departments and teachers.

1.28 Internally, schools are developing effective pupil tracking and monitoringapproaches, including the use of Assessment for Learning tools, lessonobservations and work scrutiny.

10The assessed case study examples in this and following figures are based on individual school case study

assessments, drawing on the range of evidence sources (triangulated consultations with a range of staff withinschools, expert document assessment, and observations).



10

Figure 2.2: Pupil Monitoring and Progress(Assessed Case Study Examples - Additional Examples in Appendix A2.2)

o The headteacher introduced a comparative tracking system that monitors the progress of

every child through the school (there was no tracking in place when she arrived). Theyassess children three times a year in writing, reading & maths, for example every half termchildren do an unaided piece of writing which is collated termly, levelled & then put on to aMapping Attainment Grid (MAG) so that you can see progress across sub-levels across theyear. The deputy and headteacher collect that information and produce data sets comparinglevels of progress of particular groups of children that need additional intervention. There isa traffic light system which helps to highlight whether pupils are making sufficient progress or not. A new electronic version of MAG has just been introduced so the school can monitor progress throughout the year rather than retrospectively or once a year.

o The school has introduced a comprehensive approach to monitoring and reviewing pupilprogress through AfL. The results from this are collated by the SLT and progress in allclasses is reviewed on a half-termly basis. Based on this, if any classes / teachers areconsidered not to be making sufficient progress across the cohort, the head of department

will introduce performance review and provide support to raise achievement.

Whole School and Embedded Approaches

1.29 More embedded and whole school approaches to evaluating and understandingperformance are one of the common themes being observed across a number of schools. This includes the development of annual review processes and engagingmiddle managers and teachers in self-evaluation activities. This is supporting better identification of strengths and weaknesses, understanding of factors influencingperformance and identification of targeted interventions.

1.30 There is also evidence that many schools are also using data and self-evaluationapproaches to inform internal teacher performance management as well as, insome cases to engage pupils and parents in understanding and supportingprogress.

Figure 2.3: Embedded and Whole School Approaches(Assessed Case Study Examples - Additional Examples in Appendix A2.3)

o The process comprises departmental reviews - an interview by the Assistant Head with eachDepartment Head which leads to an action plan. Underpinning the interview is a curriculumreview that is undertaken by the Head of Department including review of academicachievement data, lesson observations and a work sampling trawl. There is a focus onbringing together academic and pastoral teams to identify what the issues are underpinning

the evidence. SLT staff pull together overall messages and write sections of the SEF. TheSEF is formally updated annually, although in practice it is updated more regularly whereappropriate. Departmental SEFs exist and departmental action plans stem from those.

o The school this year is promoting greater devolvement of self-evaluation to lower tier staff.This is intended to shift the responsibility for self-evaluation and outcomes to all staff rather than just being a top down approach. Feedback from the teacher interviews shows that staff are aware of weaknesses, the actions they need to take and they feel accountable for results.

Teacher Performance Managemento Everything the school is trying to achieve is focused on raising accountability of teachers to

deliver improved standards. A key mechanism is tracking the progress and value added for individual teachers and linking this to performance review.

o Observations are also undertaken as part of teacher Performance Management – theheadteacher devised a form based on Ofsted criteria and this is then discussed followingobservations.



11

Figure 2.3: Embedded and Whole School Approaches(Assessed Case Study Examples - Additional Examples in Appendix A2.3)

Pupil/Parent Engagement

o Target setting is an integral part of the home/school partnership, involving parents, children

and the school in improving outcomes. A Foundation Stage parent profile meeting isundertaken during the first half term to facilitate parents as key participants in their child'slearning. Half termly curriculum meetings are held in each class to share learning activitiesthat will be covered during that period. This also helps parents who find understandingcurriculum letters difficult due to limited English or poor literacy levels.

1.31 Whilst most schools have taken steps to ensure that the use of data and self-evaluation practices are embedded across the school, many case study schoolsare still developing in this respect particularly in terms of ensuring a consistentapproach is being applied across all cohorts, departments and classes. Manyschools may also benefit from:

more closely linking self-evaluation/data use to internal performancemanagement to develop more focused accountability and impact on schoolimprovement; and

ensuring greater awareness and engagement amongst pupils and parents of their targets, progress made and issues they need to address to ensurefurther progress.

Figure 2.4: Developing Self-Evaluation Practices

(Assessed Case Study Examples - Additional Examples in Appendix A2.4)

o Self-evaluation is extremely patchy and variable if examined bottom up. Whilst somedepartments are very strong others are very weak. Evidence to support this comes from the

headteacher and SIP feedback and the document review. The interview with one Head of Department demonstrated a detailed approach to tracking and understanding performance,resulting in interventions that were impacting on GCSE achievements. Another Head of Department demonstrated naiveté and limitations in the approach to self-evaluation. This wasborne out through interviews with other members of staff, the headteacher, SIP and SLT.

o More needs to be done to ensure subject departments and teaching staff take ownership of thetargets set. Currently these are set by SLT and not negotiated. The SIP is working with theschool and has suggested that this would be better if negotiated and devolved to subject level inorder that targets are both data based and realistic.

Evaluative Assessments and SEFs

1.32 The availability of improved data, guidance for SEFs and challenge and supportfrom SIPs and LAs are all contributing to an improvement in the ability of headteachers and SLTs to make appropriate evaluative assessments which isinforming school planning.

1.33 This is evident from the perceptions of stakeholders and the detailed case studyassessments which included a document review of SEFs and other planningdocuments. There is also evidence that judgements are being effectivelymoderated for most case study schools by their SIP and, where recent inspectionshave taken place, by Ofsted.



12

Table 2.2: Stakeholder Perceptions of Evaluative Assessments & SEFs% of Respondents Agreeing or Strongly Agreeing withStatements


PrimaryHeadteachers

SIPs LAs

There is a clear link between thepriorities identified through self evaluation and the School Plan

95% 93% 93% 88%

Self evaluation has increased theschools’ awareness of strengthsand weaknesses

91% 85% 93% 92%

I have used the SEF to effectivelychallenge and support the schoolsI work with

na Na 88% na

Completed SEFs are moredescriptive than evaluative

25%(56% disagree)

18%(45% disagree)

76%(19%disagree)

60%(25%disagre

e)

1.34 There are mixed perceptions amongst stakeholders about the extent to whichSEFs are evaluative. Whilst most SIPs and LAs agree that SEFs remain moredescriptive than evaluative, only one fifth of secondary and one quarter of primaryheadteachers agree that this is the case and around a half disagreed (that is theyfelt SEFs were more evaluative than descriptive).

1.35 The case study evidence also points to a mixed picture - most are assessed asdemonstrating some evaluative focus though there is often the potential to improvesome elements in terms of sharper judgements, links to school plans andconsistencies. Some case studies provide good practice examples (in both the

primary and secondary sectors) of evaluative SEFs and clear links to SchoolImprovement Plans and priorities. However, there is evidence amongst a minorityof the case studies that there is considerable potential to improve the evaluativenature of their SEFs.

Figure 2.5: SEF Quality(Assessed Case Study Examples - Additional Examples in Appendix A2.5)

Evaluative SEFs linked to School Improvement Plans

o The SEF is written in an open and transparent way. It is good in its analysis and showsstrong evidence to back up that analysis. There are consistencies across all sections of theSEF and judgements across and within sections cohere and are well supported by evidence

and confirmed by Ofsted.o The school has identified its strengths and weaknesses well and is moving forward. The SEF

is an excellent document which has built on progress and is making further proposals for keydevelopments in all areas. This is largely reflected in the School Improvement Plan andassociated action plans, which are realistic yet challenging. This is the best form of self evaluation and school improvement. I can see why this school obtained an outstanding fromOfsted.

Potential to Improve SEFs

o The SEF is mostly descriptive with some issues of judgement missing. There are areaswhere the document is thin on strategies to address some really major issues. The 2008prediction KS4 is marked down by 20 percentage points but there is nothing in the SEF whichsets out a strategy to offset this dramatic fall in attainment. Statements can be found in the

SEF which are not borne out in practice. For example, in teaching and learning there is astatement ‘good use of ICT in lessons’. However, the SIP reports that ICT is a major issue of concern for the school.



13

Consulting and Acting on Feedback

1.36 Most stakeholders are also positive about the extent to which schools are not onlyconsulting with parents and pupils but are also acting on the feedback received,though SIPs and LAs are less commonly in agreement with these statements.Again there are a number of examples from the case studies where this is evident.

Table 2.3: Acting on Pupil and Parent Feedback% of Respondents Agreeing or Strongly Agreeingwith Statements


PrimaryHeadteachers

SIPs LAs

Schools have acted on the feedbackreceived from pupils

94% 89% 80% 77%

Schools have acted on the feedbackreceived from parents

90% 87% 75% 67%

Figure 2.6: Acting on Pupil and Parent Feedback(Assessed Case Study Examples - Additional Examples in Appendix A2.6)

o The school has restructured the way they handle transition from KS2 to KS3 as a result of feedback from parents and students - in 2004 they instigated a Transition Project to ease thedifficulties faced in moving between primary and secondary stages.

o There are a range of processes for consulting parents and pupils including questionnaires toparents, talking to children, School Council and pupil & staff questionnaires. Questionnairesto parents are given out at parents evening which is helping to access parents who wouldn'tnormally fill a questionnaire in. Actions as a result of parental feedback include extendeduniform outlets, provided after school club, breakfast club and hot dinners. Previously therewas only 50% uptake on homework and this has improved through a launch for parents with90% uptake.

Sector Differences

1.37 There is perceptual and case study evidence that shows that self-evaluation is lessadvanced amongst primary schools compared to secondary schools:

secondary headteacher perceptions more commonly agree with self-evaluation effectiveness and impact statements than primary headteachers;

SIPs in the secondary sector more often agree with self-evaluationeffectiveness and impact statements than those in the primary sector; and

a higher proportion of secondary case study schools were assessed asexcellent and good compared to the primary sector.

“About 25% of primary schools are really good at self evaluation and the majority are moving towards having good SEFs. It feels like it is delivering real improvements especially with the challenge being provided.” (Primary SIP Manager)

1.38 Nevertheless there is evidence of significant steps being taken forward in most of the primary schools we visited. We have also observed clear progression in thesecondary sector between our initial and final case study visits and there weregeneral improvements in the perceptions of secondary headteachers between the2006 and 2007 surveys. This suggests that similar changes might continue to beachieved in the primary sector.



14

Table 2.4: Differences in Secondary Headteacher Perceptionsbetween 2006 and 2007

% of Secondary Headteachers Agreeing or Strongly Agreeing with Statements

Statements: 2006 2007

Self evaluation has involved greater input

from the SLT 74% 88%Parents have been consulted moreeffectively

61% 73%

Analysis of school and pupil data hasimproved

71% 88%

Self evaluation has increased schools’awareness of their strengths andweaknesses

82% 91%

Impact on Improving Self-Evaluation

1.39 Again, both the perceptual and case study evidence suggests that the

developments in school self-evaluation being achieved are translating into clear impacts for the school.

Table 2.5: Stakeholder Perceptions of the Impactof Improved Self-Evaluation

% of Respondents Agreeing or Strongly Agreeingwith Statements


PrimaryHeadteachers

SIPs LAs

The school’s priorities for developmentand school improvement have beenmore effectively identified

88% 76% 78% 92%

Headteachers are confident to make

key decisions based on the outcomes of improved self-evaluation

na na 88% 87%

Self-evaluation is the main determinantof school improvement planning

88% 87% 88% 85%

Actions have been taken to address theschool’s development and schoolimprovement priorities

93% 89% 90% 90%

Changes to schools’ approach to self-evaluation are helping to raisestandards of achievement

84% 72% 75% 71%

1.40 The case studies provide a range of examples of achievement in terms of better

school improvement planning and target setting; more focused accountability for performance and progress amongst middle managers and teachers; focus onachieving outcomes overall and for pupil groups and individuals; and increasedunderstanding and awareness of the factors influencing performance.



15

Figure 2.7: Impact of Self-Evaluation on School Improvement


School Planning, Prioritisation and Focus on Outcomes

o School improvement planning is well focused on the priorities needed to improve pupilperformance. SLT felt they had changed the nature of school planning – “it was alwaysrigorous but having to quantify it in the SEF has sharpened the focus – we’ve got rid of sweeping statements that we made in past”. Governors agreed that they can see where theschool is going and it’s always moving on – “self-evaluation provides the yardstick tomeasure advances. It also shows if the school has met its objectives and if not it prompts usto ask why not”.

Accountability of Performance and Progress

o There is evidence from the interviews with teaching staff that they have felt an increasingsense of accountability for performance in their subject areas.

Focus on Pupil Outcomes

o Data is used to set targets and action plan, which is undertaken in teams. Interventions are

targeted at Yr3 as well as Yr5/6. Reasons for progress/lack of for certain pupils arediscussed and explained so interventions are tailored effectively.

Understanding Performance and How to Improve

o There is evidence from the interviews (and verified by SIP report) that learning walks areenabling staff to better identify weaknesses and what needs to be done to address these. Alearning walk and scrutiny of pupil books across the school showed that methods for marking varied and did not relate to the targets set for children. This is now leading to thedevelopment of strategies to tackle the whole school.

1.41 There is also considerable evidence that effective self-evaluation processes areleading to targeted interventions which are also being reviewed to ensure they

have achieved intended outcomes.

Figure 2.8: Self-Evaluation Leading to Targeted Interventions(Assessed Case Study Examples - Additional Examples in Appendix A2.8)

Developing Staff

o In terms of identifying priorities, the headteacher always looks at data first to 'identifyweaknesses’, for example last year writing was identified as a particular problem: there was a30% difference between L5 writers and readers. As a result the school is using a renewedframework and developing visual literacy, the curriculum team leader has been trained onvisual learning techniques and they have delivered staff training and discussed it in staff meetings. They are also improving the ICT structure as a result as there is a need for interactive whiteboards with sound so they can play film clips etc.

Quality of Teaching and Learning

o Self Evaluation has increased knowledge of those who perform well and those who don't andwhy. This helps to define improvement areas. It has also contributed towards the drivetowards knowledge expansion for teachers. Teaching and Learning and Innovation groupshave been set up which teachers can attend voluntarily to share good practice.

Individual Pupil/Group Support

o The school is using AfL and data to identify and track key cohorts of pupils. For example, datawas used to identify a group of 15 students who were underachieving in English when their performance was compared to other subject areas. As a result 6-7 of these students have been

targeted for extra support from the Assistant in two periods a week. These students are alsomonitored in terms of their attendance and given access to PCs where they can make use of the exam revision materials available on line.



16

Figure 2.8: Self-Evaluation Leading to Targeted Interventions(Assessed Case Study Examples - Additional Examples in Appendix A2.8)

Evaluating Interventions

o The school took part in the SEAL programme adopting a whole school approach. Theyundertook their own evaluation which found the programme to be very successful but that

some elements were not suitable for particular ages. They changed the focus to make it moresuitable – they were only able to do this from the knowledge they had of the children throughself-evaluation.

Standards, Value Added and Quality of Learning

1.42 In the vast majority of cases, stakeholders agree that these improvements arecontributing to raising quality and standards in schools, though for many schools itis too early to observe quantifiable changes.

1.43 Nevertheless, there is evidence from around half of the case study schools that thishas been achieved. Review of achievements between 2006 and 2007 for our case

study schools identifies that half of the case studies are seeing some improvementin standards and value added. The detailed assessments we have undertaken(involving repeated visits, triangulated consultations, observations and documentreview) identify that self-evaluation is contributing to improvements in many of these cases.

1.44 In addition, in a number of case study schools where the aggregate data showsthat schools are static or declining there is evidence that improvements have beenseen for some pupil groups or in specific subject areas. Many of the detailedassessments show how improved data use and self-evaluation is contributing tothese changes.

Figure 2.9: Impact of Self-Evaluation on Quality and Standards


Standards and Achievement

o At KS4 self-evaluation showed that results for science were relatively poor in relation to other departments. Additional support and challenge was provided to science teachers (lessonobservations, support from other teachers). In 2007 the science results were greatly improvedon those achieved in previous years which indicates that the support and challenge that theschool exercises for the departments that fall behind has a positive impact.

o In the Foundation Stage the school have the best results for three years. There have alsobeen improvements at KS2 in reading and writing at L4 which were respectively 33% and 21%

higher than the previous year. A key change to achieve this has been a shift in the quality of teaching. Last year 10% were good and 80% satisfactory, this year 43% were good and 57%satisfactory. This has been achieved through a detailed programme of lesson observations,individual training and CPD.

Pupil Groupso Across several classes and year groups, pupil progress tracking has highlighted groups of

pupils with borderline grades. The school recognises that many pupils do not have the rightenvironment at home for study and that barriers need to be removed before standards andachievement can be affected. Intervention groups have been set up for example workshops onparticular elements of the curriculum, Easter school with revision classes, summer school. Theschool has made a lot of use of its extended school status and has evaluated the impact onpupils attending by analysing predicted grades and achievement of those attending the school

and those who don't. Evidence suggests pupils are achieving targets or over them if theyattend revision classes etc.



17

Figure 2.9: Impact of Self-Evaluation on Quality and Standards


Teaching and Learning

o Self-evaluation highlighted that certain subjects weren't working for certain children who werelacking in motivation for 'compartmentalised' subjects such as Geography and History wherethey only had one hour a week. Teachers were given 3 days of planning outside of theclassroom to work on cross-curricular planning. As a result changes have been made to theway in which these subjects are presented and taught. Teachers have noticed improvements inmotivation and attitude towards these subjects.

Attendance

o There has been a key focus on addressing the very poor attendance record of pupils at theschool, through effective use of the SIMS package, policing of classes to ensure pupils are inclasses and not just registering, and through effective use of the Education Welfare Officers(EWOs). Attendance has increased from 80.3% in 2005 to 93.7% in 2008.



18

FACTORS INFLUENCING EFFECTIVENESS AND DEVELOPMENT

Key Points

SEF guidance and data availability/usage are the most common drivers of change for theimprovements seen in school self-evaluation approaches. The new inspection framework,

SIPs and changes in SLT have also supported developments in many cases.

Whilst most headteachers identified that the school’s approach to self-evaluation had increasedthe workload of staff, most also agreed that this was an effective use of their time.

Many schools are still developing their approaches to self-evaluation and it is too early to seethe impact on planning, quality and standards. In these cases, greater consistency is required,particularly in terms of:

the involvement of middle managers and teaching staff;

approaches to pupil tracking;

engaging pupils and parents in understanding and achieving progress; and

development of SEFs linked to school improvement plans.

There are a small number of case study schools which require significant further development

to achieve whole school, data driven and evaluative approaches.

More generally across most schools there is the potential to develop more evaluativeapproaches to assessing achievement in relation to the other ECM outcomes as well asensuring a focus on assessment and intervention for 14-19 and post-16 delivery.

The delays in getting RaiseOnline up and running have been damaging to overall perceptionsof the effectiveness of NRwS to increase the usefulness of data and reduce burdens onschools. Whilst many headteachers are now positive about the potential of the system, there isfrustration that the timing of data availability does not enable them to use it to inform planningwhen they need to.

There is also the potential for greater clarity surrounding specific data sources and some needfor more coherent presentation of the range of data overall. This may support greater levels of

understanding around the value and purpose of individual data sets which may help to addresssome feelings of being overwhelmed.

Catalysts for Improving Self-Evaluation

1.45 Most headteachers identify that the significant factors influencing the developmentof effective self-evaluation are the guidance provided on completing the SEF,improved data availability and use of data. For around two-fifths of schools thenew inspection framework, role of the SIP and changes within SLTs for individualschools have also provided some impetus.

Table 3.1: Headteacher Perceptions of Catalystsfor Improving Self-Evaluation

% of Respondents Agreeing

What was the catalyst for changing theschool’s approach to self evaluation?

SecondaryHeadteachers

PrimaryHeadteachers

Advice provided by our SIP 43% 39%

Guidance on completing the SEF 72% 73%

Ofsted/S5 inspection 48% 38%

Improved data availability and use of data 64% 66%

Changes within Senior Leadership Team 40% 38%



19

1.46 Whilst most headteachers identified that the school’s approach to self-evaluationhad increased the workload of staff, most also agreed that this was an effective useof their time. Nevertheless, there are some developments at national and locallevel which would help further ensure that senior leaders and school staff were ableto maximise the effectiveness of the time spent on data analysis and evaluationactivities.

SEF Guidance

1.47 There are positive perceptions about the SEF guidance amongst stakeholders withmost agreeing that it asks the right questions to focus on raising standards of teaching and learning. Whilst at lower proportions, the majority of stakeholdersalso agree that the SEF guidance achieves the right balance between enjoying andachieving and the other outcomes of ECM.

Table 3.2: Stakeholder Perceptions of SEF Guidance% of Respondents Agreeing or Strongly Agreeing

with Statements


PrimaryHeadteachers

SIPs LAs

The SEF asks the right questions toincrease school’s focus on raisingstandards of teaching and learning

79% 66% 90% 94%

The SEF encourages an appropriatebalance between enjoying andachieving and the other outcomes of Every Child Matters

63% 57% 76% 75%

1.48 Amongst the case study schools, some expressed the view that Ofsted do not

cover wider ECM outcomes sufficiently within the new inspection framework, withsome feeling that there is “too much focus on pupil progress and standards so theydon’t recognise our significant achievements in supporting individual pupils who arefacing multiple challenges”.

1.49 In other schools, there is a recognition that a focus on data analysis of standardsand value added measures can help to better understand the issues and barriersaffecting performance for pupil groups and individuals. Where these are related toother ECM outcomes this can then lead to a focus on introducing interventionswithin the school and/or more integrated working with other children’s services,which may result in improvements in performance and value added in the longer term.

Data Availability and Systems

1.50 It is clear that improvements in the availability of data at the national and local levelare driving self-evaluation effectiveness amongst schools, in particular through theuse of value added and prior attainment measures.

1.51 Most schools are making effective use of the improved external data available atnational and local level. This includes the FFT and Panda data (and more recentlyaccessed via RaiseOnline), other external data sources (PIPS, PAT, ALPs, CATsetc), and LA developed data systems.



20

1.52 The use of FFT, RaiseOnline and PANDA are the most commonly used sources of information for the completion of SEFs, though the use of PANDA data is lesscommon particularly amongst primary schools. The schools’ own data is also used(by around one fifth of headteachers) for the SEF, though it is more commonlyused by schools for internal activities associated with monitoring, tracking andreviewing performance at department and class level.

1.53 In a minority of cases, LA developed data systems have supported schools’analysis for the SEF. In some cases, schools have highlighted that these systemsare more easily accessible than the nationally available data. Some LAs alsosupport the development of internally based tools for analysing data and pupilprogress. Amongst the case study schools, it is evident that some schools(particularly in the secondary sector) benefit from a dedicated data manager andsome have undertaken focused CPD activities to develop staff skills in this respect.

Figure 3.1: LA and School Data Systems(Assessed Case Study Examples - Additional Examples in Appendix A3.1)

LA Data Systems and Support for Schools

o The LA tracker can be accessed by pupils and teachers – this shows analysis of current pupils andis colour coded. It was used by at least 4 of the schools visited - "It’s very easy to spot issues withcohorts/year groups and individual pupils/teachers can then plan accordingly as they can see whatis needed to improve".

o The LA provides to each school its own data compared to others in the LA and nationally (lots of comparative data on 'groups' of pupils in each school for example achievement by subject bygender, ethnicity). Schools highlighted that they get it more quickly than RaiseOnline.

Effective IT and CPD within Schools

o The school have introduced development activities on use of IT and interpretation of data for department heads and staff, and have introduced new systems (SIMS - allows direct access for allstaff to baseline/minimum predicted grade data), including a new pupil level analysis and trafficlight system.

o The school has set up clusters to share practice across departments in relation to skills and use of IT for analysis/interpretation of data. They run 3 a term for different 'clusters' of departments.

o The assessment coordinator acts as a bridge between the SEF and data. Staff do use data andhave a lot of training to bring them up to speed.

o A new ICT based monitoring, assessment & target setting system sets FFT D based target levelsfor each year and learners are colour coded according to achievement.

Consistency across Schools

1.54 Areas where it is clear that developments are ongoing in many schools relate to theconsistency of practices across the schools, specifically in terms of:

the extent to which all staff and middle managers are engaged andaccountable within the self-evaluation and performance practices withinschools, including consistent approaches to pupil progress tracking;

the level of engagement of pupils and parents in understanding andachieving progress through the use of individual and classroom basedtargets, tracking and performance data; and

developing evaluative SEFs which are clearly linked to and informing schoolimprovement plans.



21

1.55 The introduction of real-time reporting in all secondary schools by September 2010should help to move towards greater consistency amongst schools in their approaches to engaging parents in their child’s learning. It will be important toensure that schools have suitable support to implement the requirement particularlyin terms of developing schools’ ICT systems.

Case Studies Requiring Significant Further Development

1.56 The case study evidence does identify some lower levels of effectiveness for someschools. In a small number of the schools visited, overall self-evaluationeffectiveness was assessed as requiring significant further development. For example, one of the case study assessments states that:

The School does not demonstrate particular strengths in relation to data analysis-

this is supported by SIP comments and some weaknesses highlighted in the

document review. The teachers consulted were not really engaged in

understanding and using data - they were aware of pupil level data, but not of

analysing and using more comprehensive information on a day to day basis.Governors had limited awareness of key findings from data analysis.

1.57 In these cases, performance and/or CVA was declining and whilst some stepswere being taken it was clear that further work was required to:

engage middle managers and teaching staff to embed the use of data andself-evaluation principles;

use more detailed data analysis to inform an understanding of the progressand constraints for pupil groups;

provide and enable the use of data at the individual and class level in informperformance and progress; and

develop a more evaluative approach within the SEF, and ensure that theschool improvement plan and school interventions are driven by the informedevaluative assessment.

Common Development Areas

14-19 Provision

1.58 There is some uncertainty expressed amongst stakeholders about the extent to

which data from other providers responsible for the education of a school’s pupilshas been used more effectively (half of headteachers, SIPs and LAs agree and onethird neither agree nor disagree). Some of this is likely to reflect cases whereschools are not involved significantly in partnership/collaborative delivery locally.

1.59 However, the use of information from, and links with other providers, in relation toself-evaluation is not overtly evident in the SEF guidance. The extent to whichschools are reflecting on the performance of students attending collaborativeprovision is not clear from the case study evidence. There is also some lack of clarity about responsibilities between providers and how schools might be able toinfluence any improvement areas identified. For example, comments from casestudy assessment include:

There is no evaluation of the vocational courses offered by the school’s FE and training provider partners.



22

The LSC representative said that “there are no protocols in place for the quality assurance of collaborative provision and this is not undertaken with school sixthforms. FE college provision is inspected and this will include 14-16 provision that they deliver, but there are no clear protocols, for example, what are the processesfor the Specialised Diplomas?”

1.60 This area of development is a particularly important consideration in light of theintroduction of new diplomas many of which are delivered in partnership.

ECM Outcomes

1.61 There is the also potential to improve the evaluative approach being taken by someschools to wider ECM outcomes and their link to achievements and standards.Across the case study schools there is evidence that whilst there is coverage of theother outcomes of ECM, those aspects of the SEF covering personal and well-being tend to be less evaluative than others.

1.62 There are, nevertheless, some examples where more evaluative approaches arebeing taken, for example, one case study assessment states: the school works withan external organisation to collect data on the well-being of children in years 5, 3and 1. When enough data is collected it will be used to see if physical fitness hasany correlation with standards of achievement.

Data Development Needs

1.63 As previously highlighted the use of data has significantly improved within manyschools and there is evidence that some schools have good data systems and staff training in place (particularly in the secondary sector). However, the majority of SIPs (74%) and LAs (81%) highlight the need for further development needsassociated with the analysis and interpretation of data. One significant area for development relates to the use and manipulation of data from RaiseOnline asdiscussed further below.

1.64 A number of case study assessments also highlight development needs for schoolstaff to address general inconsistency in abilities across middle managers andteachers and in a minority of cases amongst members of SLT.

Figure 3.2: School Data Development Needs(Assessed Case Study Examples)

o This is a school in need of a MIS system. It has not yet engaged with RaiseOnline and is

awaiting its own internal data management system. This means that currently the datapicture beyond SLT is not particularly well organised. It is currently run on spreadsheets,which involves teachers "messing around with Excel". Departmental use of data was raisedas an issue in the 2005 Ofsted.

o There are training issues for staff as they introduced a new system in September 07 – theyhad a number of different versions prior to that. They have had technical issues with dataspreadsheets with everything crashing for 2 weeks. Staff previously had quite a lot of trainingon how to use data run by the Assistant Headteachers - where it is, how to use it and how toshare it. ALIS training on how to share data with students probably needs doing again.

o Middle managers need greater interpretation skills and RaiseOnline training is needed.



23

RaiseOnline

1.65 The majority of headteachers have used RaiseOnline as a source of data this year and many feel that they are using it effectively to inform school self-evaluation.However, there is a significant issue regarding the timing of when data is madeavailable which is not early enough in the academic year and this is impacting onthe extent to which schools can truly use this data to inform planning for the year ahead.

Table 3.3: Perceptions of RaiseOnline% of Headteachers Agreeing or StronglyAgreeing with Statements


Primary Headteachers

RaiseOnline has been used as a data source inour most recent SEF

82% 84%

The school is using RaiseOnline effectively toinform school self evaluation

67% 60%

RaiseOnline is presented in a usable format 54% 61%RaiseOnline is available in sufficient time toeffectively inform school planning

14%(84% disagree)

15%(74% disagree)

The school has a development need in theanalysis and interpretation of RaiseOnline

48% 42%

1.66 In addition, there is the need to provide more development support for schools toenable them to maximise the value of the data and the manipulation functions of the system. Whilst training was delivered to LAs a couple of years ago, there havebeen delays in getting the system up and running and it is not clear that all LAshave yet cascaded the training to schools in their areas.

Figure 3.3: Perspectives on RaiseOnline

(Additional Examples in Appendix A3.3)

Positive Views

o Tracking is done using RaiseOnline- they like the assessment pack and have found that itreally helps them understand their pupils.

o The headteacher likes RaiseOnline – “it’s useful to see trends, groups of specific children, etc,but there is a risk that you can become too data-focused and spend all your time looking at it.”

Poor Timing, Reliability and Validity

o The headteacher felt that the data on RaiseOnline comes out too late to be of use for childrenthey are currently teaching – “the LA tracker is more useful for children still teaching; Raise isuseful to identify trends, but to not plan interventions.”

o An example was provided where the school has a roll of 104 but RaiseOnline data was basedon 280 so it was ‘nonsensical.'

o The data manager felt there was an overreliance on technology that did not work &RaiseOnline was a good example of that. There have been some issues accessing data as itis often not online which has a negative impact on self-evaluation processes because they areunable to access data to feed into the process.

Training Needs

o The headteacher doesn’t think he uses it well enough in terms of its analytical functions andtends to just hit the 'print' key.

o The SLT said that they had received very little training on RaiseOnline.

o The Maths leader said that she would value guidance papers with the data provided in a

graphical format providing information on how to interpret the information. She thought thedata was useful but some of it was not very relevant for example the pages on ethnic minoritypupils which “don't tell us anything about our context because we have so few.”



24

1.67 There is also the potential for greater clarity surrounding specific data sources andsome need for more coherent presentation of data sources overall. This might aidgreater levels of clarity around the value and purpose of individual data sourceswhich may also help to address some feelings of being overwhelmed.

Figure 3.4: Data Issues Raised by Survey Stakeholders

o “I have some concern about there being too much data - not a specific issue with Raise - its'easy to lose children in the data.'”

o “There is a considerable amount of data which can flood in (from the LA and nationally),insufficient pre analysis of data (from the LA) and conflicting pictures presented by all datasets in comparison.”

o “The information usually comes too late and there is too much of it. It is getting far too bigand yet there is often little explanation of what is there. The Panda was much, much better.”

o “There is not as much confidence in post-16 data which is not as sophisticated as that for earlier key stages.”

o “There is a mismatch between FFT and RaiseOnline target setting systems and so we have

to keep an eye on both – the RaiseOnline system takes out the lowest 25% which creates ahigher tariff target system.”

o “The guidance is not clear on early years target setting.”

o “There are some mixed messages about what 2 levels of progress means – there is adifference between those that start at the bottom of a progress level and those that start atthe top. There is also a conflict with FFT data?”

o “Some schools face significant issues associated with the high mobility of pupils whichmakes it more difficult to get underneath the data, set reasonable targets and focus onstrategies to improve outcomes.”



Chapter Two: The SIP Programme



26

EFFECTIVENESS OF SIP CORE ROLE

Key Points

There is evidence of effective challenge provided by the majority of SIPs. Whilst this is lesscommonly the case in the primary sector this is largely due to the programme being at anearlier stage of rollout. SIP effectiveness is evident in terms of:

assessments of performance and moderation of school judgements;

challenge of and support for schools’ understanding of performance and focus on priorityareas;

assessing and challenging target setting; and

effective delivery of headteacher performance management.

The key ways in which the SIP programme and SIPs individually are supporting schoolimprovement approaches, include:

providing consistent challenge and focus;

helping to understand performance issues and how to tackle improvement;

influencing the development of a more evaluative culture within schools and helping to

tackle underperformance at an earlier stage; challenging self-evaluation processes and leadership structures;

interpreting data effectively to guide school leaders and providing reports considered tobe of value to schools and governors;

providing advice on how to address particular priorities and capacity building senior leadership teams to improve self-evaluation approaches;

identifying school support needs and informing LA strategies for interventions; and

signposting schools to relevant and suitable support.

There has been a less consistent focus of SIP challenge and support relating to specific ECMstrategies, the performance of collaborative 14-19 and post-16 provision, and monitoring andreviewing the effectiveness of support interventions.

Aspects of the core support function are being fulfilled effectively by many SIPs. However,

there is a more mixed picture of effectiveness than that for the challenge and HTPM functions.Differences in the role fulfilled by types of SIP, the level of school need, and issues associatedwith clarity all contribute to this variance.

There are indications that the SIP programme has successfully introduced, in many cases, aclear change in school improvement communications with schools, away from the previousmore supportive/pastoral LA approaches. However, direct development support is still beingundertaken by some SIPs. In these circumstances, stakeholders commonly identify a potentialimpact on the extent to which the SIP can retain his/her independence to play an ongoingchallenge role with the school.

SIP Challenge

1.68 There is evidence of effective challenge being provided by the vast majority of SIPs. Whilst this is less commonly the case in the primary sector primary SIPs stilldo provide effective challenge in most cases. The lower levels of challenge are dueto the SIP programme being at an earlier stage of rollout in the primary sector.

1.69 There are clearly positive perceptions amongst stakeholders, which arecorroborated by evidence from the case studies. The surveys show that:

SIPs themselves are most commonly in agreement that they had been ableto provide informed challenge to the schools they work with (95% of thoseresponding), and LA representatives support this view in the majority of cases (85% of respondents);

80% of secondary headteachers and 70% of primary headteachers agreethat their SIP has been able to provide informed challenge to the school; and



27

there has been an increase in the proportion of secondary headteachersagreeing with this statement between the 2006 and 2007 surveys (from 70%to 80% respectively).

1.70 Figure 4.1 outlines a range of specific examples to describe the challenge beingprovided by both secondary and primary SIPs based on the case study

assessments. There is strong evidence that SIPs are:

effectively assessing the performance of schools and moderating schools’own judgements and identification of priorities;

challenging and supporting schools to understand performance and focus onparticular priority and improvement areas; and

assessing and challenging the accurate setting of targets for schoolimprovement.



28

Figure 4.1: Evidence of Effective SIP Challenge(Assessed Case Study Examples - Additional Examples in Appendix A4.1)

Assessing Performance and Moderating Judgementso The assessment made by the SIP is assessed as high quality, valued and accurate. The SIP is highly skilled in data interpretation and analysis having been

an ex HMI inspector. He has accurately identified the key factors facing the school and affecting its performance. He has also determined whether the schoolhas accurately determined targets and priorities. This assessment is based on direct observation, review of SIP reports and SLT perceptions.

o There is a sustained effort by the SIP to strengthen the school’s processes to meet the needs of all pupils and to focus the school on important areas for improvement within the curriculum. The SIP’s moderation of evidence and judgements within the Partnership Plan shows a willingness to engage critically withthe schools’ leadership where she does not feel judgements are wholly warranted.

Understanding Performance & Priority Areas

o In the meeting observed, the SIP was clearly asking regularly for the Head to justify performance and/or judgements, for example, in relation to their Year 6SATs results, the SIP pushed the Headteacher to understand why results had declined. This meant that the Headteacher went back to review the data andidentified that there was a turnover issue (only 74% of the pupils who were in the KS1 data appear in the KS2 data – 26% had left and others had joinedbetween the two stages.

o Evidence from the observation suggests that the SIP has a very good grasp of the key performance issues of this school, especially in relation to data andresults (this was the focus of the meeting). This is also reflected in school perceptions and the SIP report.

o The SIP has identified a range of factors contributing to the performance of the school. This is evidenced in the interview feedback and is supported by thedocument review. For example, the school's GCSE results in 2006 were higher than ever with 60% of students gaining 5A*-C and the SIP recognised thatGNVQ results in science were a significant contributor to this performance and the school’s results were likely to be adversely affected from 2007 onwardswhen the GNVQ qualification ends. The SIP challenged the Head and SLT to improve their contingency plans for when the GNVQ science qualification comesto an end.

Focus on Priorities

o The assessed evidence from the repeated/triangulated consultations and document review shows the SIP provided effective challenge in this school. Therehas been a significant shift in the level of challenge provided since our initial visits last year. The SIP is keeping sustained pressure on the SLT to focus onkey issues of concern and has become increasingly strong on keeping a focus on the major weaknesses in provision, particularly in terms of basic skills, areasof low attainment by students and use of ICT. His analysis of weaknesses in strategies adopted and the need for a whole school approach to issues keepsthe pressure on the school to improve.

o The SIP has encouraged the Headteacher to focus on an issue facing high performing schools – how to maintain higher standards while continuing to developthe school’s leadership style (and move to baccalaureate style learning).

How to Address Improvement Areas

o The SIP provides the Headteacher with support during the visits in terms of constructive ideas to improve priority areas (the SIP is able to draw on previousexperience as LA advisor) and sharpen up actions. The SIP encouraged the school to reduce the number of aims they had set to ensure more focus andachievability, discussed how to present data to the governing board, and talked at length about KS1 and FS and how the school could improve writing. TheSLT view is that the relationship is ‘more like a partnership compared to the previous relationship which was more inspectoral’.



29

1.71 The examples highlight the key ways in which the SIP programme and SIPsindividually are supporting school improvement approaches, by:

providing some consistent pressure and focus;

helping understand performance and how to tackle improvement; and

influencing cultures and approach within schools to be more evaluative andtackle underperformance at an earlier stage.

Target Setting

1.72 During case study visits in Autumn/Winter 2007 we observed a key emphasis ontarget setting discussions from SIPs. This has been a particular focus this year inlight of new targets (those for two levels of progression and GCSEs includingEnglish and Maths) and guidance from LAs encouraging a focus on the mostchallenging FFT D figures. Some of the examples in Figure 4.2 illustrate theapproach SIPs are taking, including target-setting discussions focused on

individual pupils and ensuring that the targets are set in light of an understanding of performance of the school generally and for particular cohorts.

Figure 4.2: Challenging Targets(Assessed Case Study Examples - Additional Examples in Appendix A4.2)

o This is done through the SIP’s data analysis and from interviews with SLT. One meeting isdevoted to discussion of setting challenging targets in the context of FFT. The SIPidentified that the targets were not in line with FFT for year 11, but after discussion the SIPagreed that there was a good reason for this (the data would have been predictingunobtainable percentages).

o The SIP is continually challenging the headteacher on data, targets etc. The deputyheadteacher felt that the SIP was very good at engaging the school in realistic but

challenging targets. The data review observation confirmed this, with the SIP pushing theheadteacher to come back to him with reasons why individual pupils were not going toachieve the targets set.

1.73 Nevertheless, the case studies also highlight some concerns about the extent towhich some LAs are taking a more top-down approach to the target-setting processand including data collation requirements for non-statutory targets. This isillustrated by the following case study assessment extract:

During the observation, the SIP was accepting of the school perception that thetarget setting discussion was only necessary because of the need to tick one of the

LA boxes. The sense was of having to go through the process rather than really understand performance issues and why/how more challenging targets could beachieved.

Challenging Self-Evaluation and Leadership

1.74 There is also evidence from some of the case studies (though not the majority) thatSIPs are challenging self-evaluation processes and leadership and managementstructures as shown in Figure 4.3. Further examples of advice, capacity buildingand development support directed at these features are provided within theassessment of SIP support outlined later in this section.



30

Figure 4.3: Challenging Self-Evaluation and Leadership Structures(Assessed Case Study Examples - Additional Examples in Appendix A4.3)

o The Head describes ‘exacting conversations’ with the SIP, which had not always been there with theprevious link advisor role. The SIP is particularly challenging on the SEF, which the SIP viewed asnot specific enough, and requiring more judgements. The Head is now ‘really proud’ of the SEF,

which is more punchy.o The SIP was responsible for challenging the Headteacher to push through some changes in middle

management – for example, reviewing their ‘tracking pupil’ practices and involving them more inSLT. As a result there are now better tracking processes, regular monitoring and consistency acrossyear groups. The Headteacher states “in a busy school, having an outsider who can see theoverview is really helpful in prioritising.”

ECM Strategies

1.75 There has been a focus by many SIPs on review and understanding of factorsinfluencing the performance of particular pupil groups. However, there is lessconsistent evidence of SIP challenge and support focused on specific strategies to

support personal development and well-being of pupils or the engagement of schools in wider developments for integrated children’s services.

Figure 4.4: Focus on Pupil Groups(Assessed Case Study Examples - Additional Examples in Appendix A4.4)

o The SIP goes through progress by individual pupil and challenges progress of borderlinepupils.

o The SIP has challenged the school on the achievement of lower and middle ability boys. TheSIP has been pushing the Head to move towards developing a more effective andcomprehensive vocational curriculum to meet their needs.

Collaborative and Post-16 Provision

1.76 Across the case studies, there has also been a less consistent focus on particular aspects of challenge and support relating to collaborative 14-19 provision and post-16 performance, though some emphasis has been placed on the latter by LAs andSIPs over the past year. For example, in one LA a recent Joint Area Reviewhighlighted underperformance across 6th Forms and this led to renewed emphasison challenge on 6th Forms during SIP visits.

1.77 Amongst the case study visits, we also observed a focus by SIPs, in some cases,on challenge and support related to 6th Form delivery. However, evidence acrossthe case studies is variable and the overall emphasis on post-16 performance is

considered to be inconsistent by some LAs and LSC representatives consultedduring the case study fieldwork. There is also some lack of clarity in relation toresponsibilities for challenge and intervention regarding collaborative 14-19provision. The following extracts from case study assessments demonstrate thesepoints:

There is a gap in responsibilities for challenge and evaluation associated withcollaborative work-based learning programmes. SIPs are not obviously covering this during their visits and whilst providers may be evaluating the provisionthemselves this is based on self-regulation and there is no obvious external challenge.



31

Cursory attention is given to post-16 attainment and achievement because it is not statutory – it is not part of the data review as there are no targets to set – the SIP stated that “its part of my role but it doesn’t have the same currency as other areas”.

Data Interpretation

1.78 Most stakeholders agree that SIPs have interpreted data effectively to guideschools they work with (more than 80% of headteachers, 95% of SIPs and 90% of LAs agreed with this statement). This was confirmed through the case studieswhere all SIPs were assessed (through document review, observation andtriangulated perceptions) as effective in this respect. The case studies also providemany examples of SIPs reviewing school SEFs and other planning documents toinform their assessment and discussions with schools.

Reporting and Feedback

1.79 Most headteachers agree that the reports produced by SIPs are of significant valueto the schools they are supporting – 66% of secondary headteachers and 56% of primary headteachers agreed with this statement. The lower proportions in theprimary sector appear to be mainly a function of it being early days in the SIP rolebeing delivered in many cases (with only 10% disagreeing and the remaining thirdindicating neither/nor or don’t know). In the secondary sector, 20% of headteachers disagreed that the reports were of significant value.

1.80 There is some significant difference in the primary sector between thoseheadteachers with full-time LA employee SIPs and those with serving headteacher SIPs, with the latter agreeing less often that the reports are of value. This mightsuggest some difference in the skills and ability of SIP types11 to produce quality

and valued reports. However, this is difficult to determine given that headteacher perceptions may be as much influenced by their view of the general usefulness of aSIP report (compared with the perceived more valuable element of the relationshipassociated with challenge and discussion) as that of the overall quality of the reportwriting itself. This argument may also ring true for the significant minority of secondary headteachers who have disagreed that the reports have significantvalue.

1.81 Amongst the LAs surveyed, 75% felt that the SIP reports were of significant valueto schools. The case study evidence also points to a concerted focus in manyareas to improve the quality of SIP reports through quality assurance andcontinuous professional development (CPD) activities, which we discuss further inAppendix B3. Whilst this has resulted in some improvement in overall qualityacross SIPs, a small number of LAs still highlight some concerns about overallconsistency. Our own document review highlighted many good practice reports,but also some variability across the piece. The key area for improvement relates tothe extent to which reports demonstrate a clear analytical focus with expression of judgements, rather than description and position statements.

11The report refers to three types of SIP – full-time LA employee SIPs (LA SIPs); SIPs employed as external

consultants to the LA (EC SIPs); and serving headteacher SIPs (HT SIPs). For clarity of meaning we refer toindividual SIP types using the full reference in the main body of the text, but use the acronyms in any

tables/figures to maximise space available. Note that both LA and EC SIPs do include both those withprevious headteacher experience (LA (w) SIPs & EC (w) SIPs) and SIPs without previous headteacher experience (LA (wo) SIPs and EC (wo) SIPs). In some of the tables in Chapter Two and the Appendices wedistinguish further to comment on differences/issues associated with those with and without headteacher experience.



32

Figure 4.5: Quality of SIP Reports (Assessed Case Study Examples)

Good Quality Reports

o The reports are high quality and of value. Evidence to support this comes from:

- the document review which provides examples of the range of data the SIP is accessing

to make informed judgements and of the increasing levels of challenge since the firstyear reports were reviewed;

- feedback from the Head and SLT which suggests they value the SIP’s input;

- the Local Authority who identified that they are happy with the quality and rigour of thereports provided by this SIP; and

- third party feedback from the deputy head that the governors valued the SIP input as didthe school for its independent assessment of the schools’ strengths and weaknesses.

Lower Consistency or Quality Reports

o Reports were considered to be a statement of the obvious and added no additional value tothe school.

o The Local Authority has some concerns about the quality of SIP reports generally, though

this was not an issue for the SIP included within our fieldwork.

Evidence of Less Effective Challenge

1.82 Headteacher perceptions suggest that a very small proportion of SIPs (around onetenth) are not effectively challenging their schools in the ways others are doing.These low numbers suggest that in the vast majority of cases the processes for SIP accreditation, selection, management and performance review are effective.Indeed, for one of the examples identified below, the SIP is currently under performance review with the LA. We assess these aspects of the SIP programmein more detail in Section 5.

1.83 There are a very small number of examples from the case studies whichdemonstrate some lower levels of challenge. In these cases there appears to besome evidence of ‘cosy’ relationships and a lack of probing, questioning andchallenge to improve schools’ understanding of performance, target setting andfocus on priority areas.

Figure 4.6: Evidence of Less Effective Challenge(Assessed Case Study Examples - Additional Examples in Appendix A4.6)

o During observation, there was little discussion about whether certain subject areas mightstruggle to achieve targets, or identify where other departments might be set more

challenging targets. The school has below average CVA.

o The is evidence that the SIP knows the school very well, but with the schoolunderperforming the SIP seems to be too easily persuaded that this is due to other ECMissues and that their performance is acceptable. This is not the view of the local authorityand they would like to see the school setting more challenging targets to raise theaspirations for these children.



33

SIP Headteacher Performance Management (HTPM)

1.84 The headteacher performance management function is also being deliveredeffectively by many SIPs in the secondary sector. Most headteachers, SIPs andLAs agree that SIPs are effectively fulfilling this function. Amongst the detailedschool case studies, there are a number of examples illustrating that the process isgenerally considered to be good and valued by both the headteachers andgovernors involved.

Figure 4.7: Views of Headteacher Performance Management(Additional Examples in Appendix A4.7)

o The headteacher and governors are happy with the process. The governors commentedthat they felt they had more input as a result of the SIP doing this rather than an externalperson.

o The governors stated they were happier with this than the previous process. They felt theSIP knew more and brought a 'local' comparison with him.

o The governors view the SIP as exceptional and value his contribution to helping the HTPM

process as he knows the school more than anybody. Governors feel the SIP has addedvalue to the previous process and has provided lot of info prior to their meetings.

o This was the headteacher’s first performance management since promotion, so nothing tocompare with, but s/he found the SIP very useful and a mediator for translating governors'wishes into sensible objectives.

o The feedback to the SIP is that it has gone extremely well from all sides. Governors wereparticularly pleased with the paperwork in advance.

o The governors felt that it was a streamlined process and the SIP knew the school better thanthe previous advisor.

o The use of someone who knows the school well to carry out performance management for headteachers is considered to be helpful and there has been very positive feedback fromheadteachers and governors.

1.85 Whilst the effectiveness of SIPs in this role in the primary sector is less obvious(only 43% of primary headteachers agree that SIPs have effectively undertakenheadteacher performance management) this is likely to be a function of the earlystage of roll out of the SIP programme and therefore it is too early for manyheadteachers to comment.

1.86 In the Academy sector SIPs are not assigned for the HTPM role. In addition, thereis just one example from the case studies where a SIP is not fulfilling the HTPMfunction in a secondary school (the school has requested that an external advisor continues to play this role).

1.87 There are some stakeholders that point to the overall effectiveness of thegoverning body as being a critical success factor for HTPM -“The SIP works well inthis school, governors are beginning to feel that they own the process, but it isdependent on the relationship between governors and headteachers as to whether the process is effective.”

1.88 There are just a small number of qualitative examples from the surveys and casestudies which suggest that SIPs fulfilling the HTPM role is less effective than theprevious external advisor system:

“There is some resistance to HTPM from headteachers who see this as asupportive process and from some who did not previously receive a robust

process”;



34

“Feedback from local governing bodies suggests that there is no change in rigour from that provided beforehand.”

SIP Support

1.89 Aspects of the core support function are being fulfilled effectively by many SIPsand there are a number of examples of the positive effect this is having on schoolplanning and improvement. However, the evidence associated with theeffectiveness of SIPs in their support role shows a more mixed picture than thatseen for the challenge and HTPM functions. Whilst the majority of secondary andhalf of primary headteachers agree that SIPs have effectively identified their support needs, much lower proportions identified that SIPs had effectively brokeredschool support needs or provided development support to meet school needs.SIPs themselves and LA respondents are generally more positive about theeffectiveness in delivering support related functions.

1.90 Differences in the role fulfilled by different types of SIP, the level of school need,

and issues of clarity regarding the SIP support role all contribute to this mixedpicture. We comment on these factors in more detail in following sections. In thissub-section we discuss a number of aspects of the SIP support role. We explorethe issues associated with brokering support in more detail in Section 5 and onissues of SIP type consistency and clarity in Sections 7 and 8 respectively.

Providing Advice

1.91 Across the case study schools there are a number of examples where SIPs areproviding advice on how to address particular priorities. This tends to be moreprevalent, as you would expect, for lower performing schools, those needing toimprove CVA performance and those in more challenging circumstances. It also

tends to focus on ideas, suggestions and strategies as opposed to more detailedadvice on the most suitable intervention support (though this does occur in someareas as discussed below).

Figure 4.8: SIP Advice on Priorities(Assessed Case Study Examples - Additional Examples in Appendix A4.8)

o Through the regular meetings, the SIP plants ideas, makes suggestions which the SLT pickup and work with over time.

o The SIP provided pointers to the school on communication with the LA about taking pupilsexcluded from other schools. The SIP talked to the headteacher about not feeling forced totake too many if this affected other issues that the school was working on (e.g. request to

take boys when there is currently a male gender bias in the school which may be affectinggirls’ choice of school and performance).

o The SIP sets an agenda of visit to focus on an area of development and provides advice andsuggestions on how to improve based on the evidence. During observation, the SIPprovided hints and tips such as, for example, shifting the balance of self-evaluation to middlemanagers, and use of lesson observations as developmental rather than inspection focused.

o A range of intervention strategies were discussed with the school including Springboard for year 3, more structure use of higher level teaching assistants to work with underachievers inmaths in year 6 and identifying children with stretching targets to help them achieve.





36

Figure 4.9: SIPs Providing Support(Assessed Case Study Examples - Additional Examples in Appendix A4.9)

o The SIP has played an important part in the development of the school's year heads - a major issue for the 3rd and 4th visits to the school this year (quality of provision and overall

leadership & management).o The SIP discussed with the headteacher how to plan a reconfiguration of the SLT – with a

deputy about to leave, finding the money to release two SLT members for 50% of thetimetable. The headteacher clearly welcomes the ability to discuss matters like this with theSIP.

o There is evidence of a more pastoral/mentoring relationship for this school. The head likes touse the SIP as a sounding board for ideas and the SIP sees the role as being moreresponsive – “where there are issues, the head phones me, for example in relation to staffingissues and I don’t feel like I can turn a head down, it’s a bit off the script but I am happy to doit for the emotional well being of the head and school.”

o The SIP has conducted lesson observations with heads of department as part of qualityassurance. The SIP will be further involved in providing training on lesson observation for staff and how to judge whether lessons are outstanding, good etc. The school commentedthat it would be good for the SIP to undertake the role again in the future to prevent them frombecoming complacent on lesson observations and ensuring external moderation.

o The SIP has worked with the SLT and middle managers to identify what constitutes effectiveand ineffective teaching and learning, in order to improve standards of achievement.

o The SIP did provide some support/development to teachers around home learning, butexplicitly said to the headteacher that this was not part of her SIP role.

Capacity Building

1.97 There are also some examples amongst the case studies of what could beconsidered as ‘capacity building type activities’, predominantly focused on

improving the capacity of the senior leadership teams (SLTs) and middle managersin relation to self-evaluation approaches.

Figure 4.10: SIP Capacity Building(Assessed Case Study Examples - Additional Examples in Appendix A4.10)

o The SIP has undertaken leadership support activities, for example a challenge afternoonwith assistant heads.

o The SIP has particularly helped with a move towards a more bottom up self-evaluationculture – he has worked with the assistant head on processes in place for year 10 datareview.

o The SIP is undertaking paired lesson observations with the SLT in order to develop their

capacity and understanding of what makes a good/outstanding lesson.

1.98 There remains some uncertainty or difference in view regarding the extent to whichSIPs should be undertaking these ‘capacity building’ roles within their core supportrole; whether they have the time within the 5 days allocated; or whether this activitydiverts attention away from a focus on challenge and identifying/reviewing supportstrategies.

1.99 To a large extent this will depend on individual circumstances and school needsand it is clear in some cases that these activities are valued and have contributedto improvements in school self-evaluation and planning (as shown by the impactexamples in Section 6). In other examples, such capacity building is not necessary

as the schools are high performing and/or are strong self-evaluating schools.



37

1.100 Continuing flexibility around the SIP role at this margin (which is not evident in allLA areas) may therefore be appropriate to enable some SIPs to maximise thevalue of their support for schools they are working with. As a result, however, thereremains some uncertainty about when the “providing support line has beencrossed”, which may be contributing to some lack of clarity around the SIP supportrole.

Identifying Support Needs

1.101 Most SIPs play some role in identifying support needs with schools, though theextent to which this is an explicit and required activity varies. Whilst most SIPs (inthe survey) cite ‘identifying support needs’ as an activity they undertake and thatthey have effectively fulfilled, only around half of headteachers said this was thecase. 50% of primary and 61% of secondary headteachers agreed that SIPs hadbeen able to effectively identify school support needs compared to 70% of LAs and93% of SIPs.

1.102 The case study evidence suggests that this difference in perception reflects twobroad issues. Firstly, often the SIP is confirming rather than playing a significantrole in identifying support needs. This is particularly the case for well-performing,good self-evaluating schools where there may be less of a need. Therefore, whilstmost SIP reports include detail of the schools’ support needs (and therefore SIPsidentify this as an activity), schools may not recognise the SIP has havingspecifically identified those needs.

1.103 Secondly, in some LA areas (nine of our case study areas) it is an explicitrequirement to discuss support needs, whereas in others this is less obvious.

Figure 4.11: SIPs Identifying Support Needs

(Assessed Case Study Examples - Additional Examples in Appendix A4.11)o The SIP helped the headteacher to recognise what support was needed, for example in

relation to assessment for learning, introduction of Assistant teachers, pro-formas for pupilprogress and reviews with staff.

o The November meeting has a particular focus to identify support needs; thereafter the SIPregularly asks the question “does the school need support?” and will push/encourage the LAto ensure this happens.

Informing LA Strategies

1.104 In most of the case study areas (eight), the LA has defined and operates

mechanisms giving SIPs (or their reports) a specific role to inform, but notnecessarily broker LA strategies and packages of support for the school. There isalso some evidence in a small number of cases where SIPs are playing a moredirect role to influence the LA in support choices for schools.



38

Figure 4.12: SIPs Inform Support Strategies(Assessed Case Study Examples - Additional Examples in Appendix A4.12)

o The SIPs discuss school support needs and identify these in their reports. The LA use thisto provide each school with an overview of what the LA is offering that may meet their needs, what other organisations are offering and the potential gaps. The LA officer leads

this work.o The SIP played a role to push/encourage the LA to provide specific and necessary support

for one school causing concern – this was in relation to leadership & management andoccupational health. The SIP did not play a wider role however in relation to other specificpackages of support going into the school.

o In one case study area, the LA define a key role for SIPs to support the impact evaluation of LA funded support – this appears to be a more explicit intended role than elsewhere, thoughthere is recognition that there is potential to increase/improve the extent to which it isactually being achieved.

o The SIP helped the school to clarify that the Foundation Stage support the LA provided wasnot being effective – the SIP encouraged the LA to stop the support so something moreeffective could be identified.

Signpost to Support/Interventions

1.105 The extent to which SIPs signpost schools to relevant and suitable support isvariable. Only two-fifths of headteachers responding to the survey say their SIPhas done this, though SIPs themselves are more positive, with four-fifths sayingthey had undertaken this activity.

1.106 Again, the extent to which this activity is undertaken is influenced by the level of perceived need – many schools comment that they can and do sort this for themselves. This is predominantly those that are better performing and strong self-

evaluators, but does sometimes include those considered to be lower performingand requiring more significant support to develop evaluation and improvementapproaches.

1.107 Specific SIP activities to signpost schools to external support or to support fromother schools tend to be adhoc and dependent on the specific SIP knowledge andapproach.

Figure 4.13: SIPs Signposting Support(Assessed Case Study Examples - Additional Examples in Appendix A4.13)

LA/External Support

o The SIP advised the school to contact the Maths Advisory Teacher for support in relation to

assessment for learning.o The SIP facilitated access to ICT support from LA consultants.

o The SIP arranged additional maths support for the school via CfBT.

Other Schools

o The SIP brokered some ‘Gifted & Talented’ (G&T) support from an ex-headteacher, but onlybecause he knew the person. He said he would not have mentioned this to the LA althoughraised the area of G&T in his report.

o From the headteacher’s perspective, the most useful part of "support" is finding out whatelse is going on in other schools.

o The SIP referred key members of staff to documentation and examples of good practice inother schools regarding lesson observation to support greater consistency in grading.



39

Monitor & Review Support

1.108 There are a small number of examples amongst the case study schools of SIPsplaying a role to monitor and review the effectiveness of support interventions,though this appears to be an aspect of the role which has received less emphasisto date.

1.109 Where greater focus has been placed on this aspect, it has occasionally involvedmonitoring packages of support (in three of our case study areas) but more ofteninvolves the SIP questioning and challenging the school to evaluate theeffectiveness of interventions (evidence in six case study areas). There are alsosome isolated examples (in two case study areas) where SIPs are challenging theLA on effectiveness of the support being provided (as identified earlier in thissection (Figure 4.12). In a few examples SIPs appear to be going beyond what isconsidered their core role in that they have undertaken more direct evaluationactivities.

Figure 4.14: Monitor and Review Support(Assessed Case Study Examples - Additional Examples in Appendix A4.14)

SIPs Monitor Packages of Support

o The LA draws up a support plan for every school receiving support and the SIP isresponsible for monitoring the plan (although the LA always send another person to gothrough it with the headteacher).

o The SIP is part of a wider package of termly monitoring and support provided by the LA over the past couple of years due to its problems.

SIPs Challenge/ask Questions about Support/Interventions

o Evidence from direct observation and interview data shows clearly that the SIP role is one of

questioning the school on the suitability of the support they have sourced directly rather thansuggesting or planning a package of support. If the SIP felt the school were not sourcingsupport to enable it to address an area highlighted as a concern he/she would raise this asan issue in the SIP report.

o The SIP encourages the school to undertake more in depth analysis, for example, theattendance figures were slipping despite significant measures to address this so the SIPadvised the school to understand further the factors influencing this.

o The SIP asks questions of the Governors and the headteacher/SLT to encourage them toevaluate the effectiveness of support/interventions – “so what? is it working?”

SIPs Undertake Direct Evaluation Activityo The recommended action in the SIP report is reviewed in follow up visits by the SIP to see

what has happened – the SIP undertook book reviews, reviewed SATs and spoke to thoseproviding the support.

o The SIP saw heads of department and students to get a feel for the impact of interventions.





41

1.111 These perceptions are influenced by some lack of clarity and difference of viewregarding whether brokering should be a role for the SIP Programme. As a result,there are varying LA models of delivery for the brokering of school support. Thismeans that it is not possible to fully interpret headteacher responses to thequestion of whether SIPs have effectively brokered their needs, given that lack of agreement does not automatically mean that schools support needs have not beenmet. Indeed, many of the case study stakeholders reflected the view that the SIPhad not brokered their support needs but that either there are other LAmechanisms that fulfil this purpose or that they had no requirement as they couldbroker their own needs.

Clarity of SIP Role in Brokering Support

1.112 The clarity specifically associated with the brokering role has improved since thebaseline assessment in March 2007, though there is still some uncertainty amongstmany headteachers and, to a lesser extent, SIPs themselves. Under half of thoseheadteachers responding to the survey agreed that there was clarity and around

one quarter disagreed; two-thirds of SIPs agreed and one quarter disagreed.

1.113 There is some difference in clarity by SIP type. External consultant SIPs agreeless often than full-time LA employee and serving headteacher SIPs that there isclarity in relation to:

the SIP role in brokering for schools (60% of external consultant SIPs agreedcompared to 66% of full-time LA employee SIPs and 71% of servingheadteacher SIPs);

LA expectations of SIPs brokering role (54% of external consultant SIPsagreed compared to 74% of full-time LA employee SIPs and 67% of servingheadteacher SIPs).

1.114 It is difficult to truly get underneath the issues of clarity and effectivenesssurrounding the brokering support function, given that there is considerablevariance in the specific approaches LAs adopt and stakeholder interpretations of what is intended or meant by the term ‘brokering’. Nevertheless, there do appear to be clear differences in both perceptions of and practice in relation to thebrokering support role that SIPs should or do play for different types of school.Well-performing or good self-improving schools require less brokering than thosethat are lower performing or causing concern. Equally, many schools state thatthere is not a role for the SIP or LA to play in relation to ‘brokering support’ giventhat they (the schools) source and manage their own support. This view isreflective of the general ‘indifference’ we experienced when we consulted someschools on the effectiveness of support brokering they experienced.

1.115 For low performing schools, schools in challenging circumstances or schoolscausing concern (which may be accessing a significant range of support) there isoften a more significant role to be played associated with ensuring coherence,suitability and effective planning and management of the support accessed.

LA Delivery Models

1.116 Outside the core challenge and support role, the breadth of support provided tothose schools requiring higher levels of support intervention varies across LAs.

This is indicated both by the perceptions of those SIPs that work across LA areasand the different practices that LAs have adopted in allocating additional resourcefor SIP functions:



42

amongst those SIPs responding to the survey that worked in more than oneLA area, just over half reported that the breadth of support varied and thatthere were different definitions of the core SIP role across LA areas; and

additional resource is being provided by some LA areas (half of thoseresponding to the survey) for SIPs to fulfil specific support functions for some

types of school, but this is not always the case.

1.117 This difference is largely a function of varying definitions across LAs of where theSIP role ends and the LA one begins. Many LAs and SIPs feel that this brokeringsupport function is most effectively undertaken by LAs – a common view which isexplicit in some LA areas is that “SIPs challenge, LAs broker”.

1.118 LA delivery models for brokering school support fall broadly within two types –those where a clear distinction is made between the SIP role to challenge and theLA role to broker support; and those where additional resource is provided to sometypes of SIP (predominantly those that are direct employees of the LA) to monitor progress/support interventions and build capacity.

Brokering Access

1.119 In most case study areas where arrangements have been clearly defined, the LAhas responsibility for the specific matching or brokering of access to the supportpackages available. This is sometimes supported through mechanisms to ensureSIPs (and schools themselves) have some awareness of the packages whichinform their discussions of support needs.

Figure 5.1: LAs Brokering Support Packages (Assessed Case Study Examples)

o There are two conversations – the SIP challenges and the Learning network coordinators

broker and coordinate – SIPs can help to identify areas of support but not the where or thewhat.

o A single conversation meeting is held once a year with all schools to discuss the supportavailable/to be accessed. Some schools felt this was not the most effective approach giventhat it is at just one point in the year and it is difficult to discuss individual support needs withother schools round the table.

1.120 Only in three of the case study areas can the approach adopted by the LA beconsidered as the SIP specifically brokering access to the packages of support,and in one of these areas the role is fulfilled by full-time LA employee SIPs only(i.e. these SIPs are allocated to those schools requiring greater levels of support)

Figure 5.2: SIPs Brokering Support Packages (Assessed Case Study Examples)

o The SIP identified a formal package of support from the LA, but also informed the school of other support available within the LA that the school was not aware of (e.g. EAL, INSET).

o The SIP reviewed the ‘Contract of Targeted Support’ modules with the school to identifyareas most appropriate/useful to the school particularly in relation to the subject leaders’role. The headteacher noted that the SIP is the official person for support, but the school willgo elsewhere for support also.

o Unusually in this LA area, the SIP does broker support for this school (a school causingconcern) by talking to the appropriate person in the LA – the school is not always clear aboutwho this should be. The clarity of lines of communication could be improved.

o The SIP is involved in negotiating the school support plan. Beyond the LA, the SIP relies on

his own experience and contacts, which come from 'SIPing' in seven schools across two LAareas.



43

Management and Co-ordination of Support

1.121 The management and coordination of packages of support tends to be a rolefulfilled by LAs rather than SIPs, where necessary. This predominantly relates tothose schools in challenging circumstances or identified as causing concern, whichhave a significant level and range or support being accessed. Those schools withlower levels of support needs tend not to require specific management or they canmanage/coordinate it themselves.

1.122 There is just one case study area where the SIP (and this is usually a full-time LAemployee SIP) has been allocated to a school to enable them to undertake amanagement/coordination role: There are quite a lot of meetings due to the school being in special measures - the SIP is coordinator of the school's Priority ActionPlan. He gets more time for this role, and tries to keep it separate from the coreSIP challenge role.

Ensuring Suitability and Effectiveness of Support

1.123 The arguments for full-time LA employee SIPs or other LA staff undertaking thespecific functions of brokering access and managing packages of support arepractical and pragmatic. Serving headteacher SIPs in particular have lesscapacity, given the demands of their own schools, to provide the necessaryadditional resource. It seems appropriate, therefore, that for certain types of school(those in challenging circumstances or causing concern) these specific functions,which require resource outside the core five days, should be fulfilled by full-time LAemployee SIPs or other LA staff. However, this does not negate the need or potential value from SIPs fulfilling the intended, though more implicit planning roleassociated with support interventions, namely to:

advise on resources and strategies which fit priorities;

ensure that support accessed by schools meets their needs and is wellchosen/suitable;

ensure that it is managed appropriately; and

ensure that it has the potential to significantly impact on standards in theschool, producing the desired improvement in the school.

1.124 As discussed in Section 4, it is evident that some of these aspects are not yetbeing achieved on a consistently effective basis. One of the constraints may be, infact, the use of the word ‘brokering’ (which is no longer explicitly mentioned in theSIP brief but continues to have currency). The word is open to interpretation inexact meaning and the pragmatic arguments for LAs to fulfil this role tend to focuson the specific functions of brokering access and managing support packagesperhaps to the detriment of a more appropriate emphasis on the strategic SIP roleassociated with advising, ensuring suitability, and maximising the impact of supportinterventions.

LA School Support Strategies

1.125 In most LA areas, the communication associated with the definition and role of theSIP appears to have been clearly set out with some highlighting that there arecomplimentary roles to be played and the SIPs on their own cannot effectively raise

standards. However, there is evidence in a minority of LA areas of the potential toimprove the coherence of the support offer and role of the SIP in relation to this.



44

Distinction between SIP and LA Roles

1.126 There is the potential in some LA areas to improve communication with schoolsabout the distinction between the role of the SIPs and other LA functions. A third of headteachers responding to the surveys agreed that there was duplication betweenSIP and LA roles. The vast majority of these respondents also indicated that thetraditional LA ‘link adviser’ role still existed in their LA area, reflecting that in theseareas the LA have not fully aligned the SIP programme with school improvementservices.

1.127 In the secondary sector, these responses were less common amongstheadteachers in LAs that are in Wave 3 of the roll-out of the SIP programme,indicating that some of the messages and lessons from early roll-out are beingaddressed by those LAs engaging at a later stage (but not necessarily by those inearlier Waves).

Coherence of Strategies

1.128 There is evidence in four of the case study areas that SIPs do not have a clear anddefined role within the overarching LA strategy for school access to supportinterventions. In these areas, whilst SIP reports might identify support needs, theyare not obviously collated or informing LA strategies in a coherent or consistentway. Any signposting, brokering and management of support packages appears tobe more independent of the SIP role. In particular, there is the potential toimprove consistency in these LA areas in relation to:

explicit requirements and guidance for SIPs to identify support needs;

mechanisms to build on SIP evidence and reports about school supportneeds to inform LA intervention strategies; and

the provision of knowledge and information for SIPs (and schools) about LAsupport strategies and packages.

1.129 There is also some evidence amongst a small number of case studies that the SIPprogramme is not consistently providing additional resource for aspects of thesupport role for schools that may benefit from them. In these cases, the schoolsare low performing and/or achieving low levels of CVA and might benefit fromadditional capacity building, brokering or monitoring of support via the SIP or LA,but are not obviously doing so as others amongst the case studies are.

Figure 5.3: Schools that Would Benefit from more Support

(Assessed Case Study Examples)o The resource allocated does on the whole appear to be adequate for the SIP to deliver core

functions. However, it may be that this is adequate because there is noassumption/requirement that they will deliver support brokerage and HTPM. There isevidence from the session observed and interview with the SIP that with more time the SIPcould address weaknesses of the school more head on but there simply isn’t the time to dothis.

o There is now insufficient LA support for schools for work outside the SIP remit e.g.appointing head teachers, supporting in SCC, seconding staff to cover school senior managers etc. The SIP is now the only point of contact for many schools and there is noslack in the system.



45

1.130 Additionally, some LA stakeholders point to financial constraints (as discussed inSection 8) which may be impacting on their overall level of support for schoolscausing concern.

Common Development Areas

1.131 More broadly across most LAs areas, there is the potential to improve theeffectiveness of specific aspects of LA mechanisms. This is particularly in terms of developing a comprehensive understanding of the range of support interventionsavailable and suitability in different circumstances.

1.132 The extent to which schools benefit from SIPs signposting them to relevant supportinterventions tends to be adhoc and dependent on the specific SIP knowledge andapproach. Whilst there are some good practice examples where “menus of information” are provided regarding LA or National Strategies support, this is notthe case across all LA areas and there tends to be less information available aboutother forms of external support or good practice from other schools (though again

there is one case study area that operates good practice in this respect).

Figure 5.4: LA Support Mechanisms – Support Options Available

o This is a priority for this LA area this year, but is a key area of weakness. Currently there isno clear approach for gathering evidence of the support needed, aligning this with potentialoptions and signposting the SIP/school to appropriate support, particularly if this is morespecialist support.

o One school highlighted that they would prefer to look outside core LA support throughpartnerships with other schools including those outside the LA, but they feel some pressurefrom the SIP to access LA support.

o The LA identifies which schools in the area are specialists/high performing in particular areas. This is shared with all SIPs and schools to support the identification of school links.Whilst this may be a good practice approach to developing school collaboration, one schoolin the area did feel that there was a constraint associated with accessing support fromoutside of the LA area – often they were identified as the “specialists” and so there are manycalls on their expertise, and in fact they had a particular support need in an area that theywere identified as “specialist” within the LA area.

1.133 There is also evidence in some areas that schools feel that the SIP is pushing themto take up LA support, without necessarily considering the wider options available.Historic arrangements in some areas also inhibit the extent to which LA employeesare incentivised to look beyond the LA support (for example, in one case studyarea, the LA support is operated through a traded arm and teams/departments

have targets to reach).

1.134 Other areas where LA mechanisms could be improved to facilitate the SIP supportrole include:

integration of the SIP programme within wider LA and children’s servicesupport areas;

encouraging SIPs to ensure they place increasing emphasis (as the SIPrelationship is embedded) on evaluating the effectiveness of support/interventions to ensure they are contributing to an improvement instandards; and



46

facilitating an appropriate relationship with SIPs to enable them to challengeand influence LA decisions about support for school improvement - “The SIP needs to have some detachment from the LA and have the strength of character to enable him/her to challenge and evaluate the work of LAcolleagues (who are providing more direct support to schools)” .

Figure 5.5: Integration of SIPs

o The SIPs are outside of the LA area and are not therefore plugged into LA mechanisms of support for wider children’s services.

o The LA has multi-agency secondary team meetings which include SIPs and they aregradually inviting individuals across the LA to communicate directly with the SIP, for example, head of education, and welfare on attendance. Other LA departments, however,still tend to go directly to schools.

o The structure within the LA area has recently changed. There are four children’s serviceareas and the SIP managers and SIPs are being restructured to match these boundaries.This should provide a greater opportunity to draw in wider support from children’s servicesmore generally.



47

IMPACT OF THE SIP PROGRAMME

Key Points

The evaluation case studies provide a range of evidence to show that the SIP programme issupporting some schools to raise standards of achievement. The direct impact of SIPs

themselves is difficult to establish due to the nature of the role to challenge and supportrather than being directly engaged in school improvement activities. It is the actions of thosewithin the schools (SLT and other staff) that ultimately achieve improvements.

Nevertheless, the perceptions of many stakeholders, particularly in the secondary sector, arepositive about the contribution being made by SIPs and there are a small number of evaluation case studies which indicate a link between SIP support for school improvementinterventions and better school outcomes.

More generally, it is clear that the SIP role is leading to better school improvement, in termsof:

supporting headteachers and senior leadership teams to:

understand performance issues;

effectively plan and prioritise areas for improvement;

focus on outcomes, including for particular pupil groups; improve data use, analysis and self-evaluation approaches;

engage pupils and parents in achieving progress;

more focused accountability for performance amongst headteachers, senior leadershipteams, middle managers and teachers; and

aligning headteacher performance management with school priorities.

There are more mixed views amongst LA stakeholders about the impact of the SIP rolewhich may reflect some difference in impact across the primary and secondary sectors. It isalso indicative of a broader perspective of the contribution that the SIP programme may havewithin LA support and intervention strategies more generally.

The SIP programme has, in some LA areas, enabled higher levels of challenge and supportfor schools that do not require formal intervention. It has also contributed to improved

understanding about school performance amongst some LAs, helping them to deliver earlier preventative interventions.

Half of LAs responding to the survey do not agree that the SIP function is effective for supporting schools causing concern and only one quarter agree. This is indicative of issueshighlighted in Section 5 that in these circumstances schools require additional resource tosupport their improvement.

1.135 There is perceptual and case study evidence that the SIP programme is supportingsome schools to raise standards of achievement. The direct impact of SIPsthemselves is difficult to establish due to the nature of the role to challenge andsupport rather than being directly engaged in school improvement activities.

Nevertheless, the perceptions of many stakeholders, particularly in the secondarysector, are positive about the contribution being made by SIPs. The case studiesalso provide a more detailed understanding of how SIPs do contribute in someinstances.

Stakeholder Perceptions

1.136 Table 6.1 identifies that 60% of secondary headteachers agree the SIP hassupported their school to raise standards of achievement. This represents asignificant increase since the survey undertaken in 2006 where only 34% of secondary headteachers agreed with this statement. This provides someencouraging signs for the primary sector, where the programme is at an earlier

stage in roll-out and currently 45% of primary headteachers agree with thestatement.



48

Table 6.1: Stakeholder Perceptions of SIP Impact on StandardsPercentage of responses to the statement “Our SIP has(I/SIPs have) supported schools to raise standards of achievement”

Agree/ strongly agree Disagree/ strongly disagree

Secondary headteachers 60% 17%

Primary headteachers 45% 18%SIPs 78% 1%

LAs 37% 17%

1.137 There are more mixed views amongst LA stakeholders which may reflect somedifference in impact across the two sectors (LA respondents included a mix of those working within the secondary and primary sectors and some will haveresponded from a joint perspective). It does also represent, however, a broader perspective of the contribution that the SIP programme may have within LA supportand intervention strategies more generally, as discussed later in this section.

1.138 There are some statistically significant differences in the perceptions of primary

headteachers with different types of SIP. Those with full-time LA employee SIPswith headteacher experience agree more often (51%) that their SIP is supportingtheir school to raise standards of achievement, compared to those with other typesof SIP. Those with serving headteacher SIPs agree the least (30%).

1.139 Amongst SIPs themselves, 78% think their role has contributed to raisingstandards of achievement in the schools they work with. Again there is somedifference by SIP type, with full-time LA employee and external consultant SIPsagreeing more commonly (80% or more) than serving headteacher SIPs (61%).However, this may be as much a function of perspective as opposed toeffectiveness, with serving headteacher SIPs recognising that their impact is limitedgiven their indirect role in the schools they work with.

1.140 SIPs are also positive about the impact of their support both on changes in schools’approaches to self-evaluation and the development of strategies to achieve the fiveoutcomes of Every Child Matters. However, headteachers and LAs had moremixed views as shown in Table 6.2

Table 6.2: Stakeholder Perceptions of SIP Impacton Self-Evaluation and ECM StrategiesPercentage of responses to thestatement:

Secondaryheadteachers

Primaryheadteachers

SIPs LAs

Support from the SIP has been a key influencing factor in changing schools’ approach toself evaluation

12

Agree/ strongly agree 44% 25% 75% 33%Disagree/ strongly disagree 28% 33% 2% 17%

SIPs have supported schools to develop strategies to achieve the five outcomes of EveryChild Matters

13

Agree/ strongly agree 39% 25% 68% 21%

Disagree/ strongly disagree 27% 29% 4% 17%

12

Figures do not add up to 100% as a large proportion of respondents answered neither agree nor disagree or too early to tell13

Cit Op



49

Case Studies

1.141 Across the case study schools, around half have seen improvements in standardsand CVA between 2006 and 2007. In many of these schools the SIP role isdemonstrated to be providing some value in helping the schools to focus onpriorities and address improvement areas, though it is not possible to definitivelyattribute the SIP role to any changes and improvements made. It is the actions of those within the schools (SLT and other staff) that ultimately achieveimprovements. Amongst those schools that have more static or decliningperformance again it is evident that SIPs are often playing a more focused role inchallenging and supporting the school.

1.142 The case studies do provide some examples which help to demonstrate how SIPsare contributing to raising standards for some schools, as shown in Figure 6.1. Asmight be expected, the examples where some link between SIP activity andimprovement in standards can be made tend to be those where a SIP has

undertaken more specific capacity building or development activity within theschool.



50

Figure 6.1: Assessed Case Study Examples:SIP Contribution to Improving Standards

o As a result of data analysis it was clear that the sixth form value added data wasn’t goodenough and some subjects were underperforming more generally. The SIP undertook areview and interviewed students, heads of department and some teachers. The outcomes

(and suggested actions) of the review helped the Head of sixth form to understand theunderlying issues (particularly subject specific issues relating to custom/practice and viewsof students). This led to a number of changes including consistency in dealing withpunctuality, slipped coursework, guidance and support. Heads of department were givenmore responsibility to address the issues identified. The ALPS data now shows a changefrom Low to Excellent. Last year 6 departments were not good enough – now 2 areexcellent, 3 are average and 1 is still unsatisfactory. The external nature of the SIP, the factthat he was not from a different LA and his experience were all very important in his ability toconduct the review.

o In the first year of SIP involvement with the school, the school was deemed to be inadequatein terms of achievement and standards and, in particular, performance at KS4 was identifiedas a cause for concern. The key aim for the SIP in the first year was to refocus the schoolfrom the ECM agenda to improving standards and the SIP has worked hard to encourage a

greater emphasis on standards throughout the school. The SIP has challenged the Headand SLT on its results and grading of its own effectiveness in this area. Performance thatyear was good and the school improved its performance at GCSE and grades 5 A-C and theschool is considered to have shifted from inadequate to satisfactory, with targets set for thisyear considered to be sufficiently challenging. It is not possible to determine whether theimprovement in KS4 performance is attributable to the SIP or whether this would havehappened anyway. However, it is noticeable that the SIP is pushing the Head and SLT tohave a greater focus and input in the area of standards.

o Performance in English has improved as a result of work the SIP did with the Literacy Team.The review of literacy conducted by the SIP led to better marking (SMART targets, ‘close thegap’ comments, giving pupils time to respond on comments) and ideas on how to useresources for Reception, KS1 and KS2.

o

The SIP has supported the school to improve the quality of analysis and reporting of the SEFto ensure much sharper judgements were made and consequently acted upon. The SIP isalso supporting the school to develop the capacity of its middle leaders. The school hasdelivered, with external support, specific targeted interventions in Maths and Science.Evidence of improvements between our Year 1 and 2 visits are clear. There was a 2%increase from the previous year in KS4 A*-C results. This seemingly small increase was dueto having a much lower ability group in 2007. The FFT D projections for the group were that17% would achieve A*-C and the final result was 29%.”

o The SIP has challenged and worked with the governing body which were deemed to beunsatisfactory in a previous Ofsted inspection. This time the governing body were rated asgood. The SIP helped them with organisation, challenge, and the School Improvement Plan – “these governors are the most fantastic you could have, the SIP has done a lot of workwith them in meetings”.

6.9 Figure 6.2 provides a range of other examples where a link can be made betweenSIP challenge and support and more general activity for school improvement, including:

a focus on outcomes for individuals and pupil groups;

more focused accountability for performance amongst middle managers andteachers;

engaging pupils and parents in achieving progress;

understanding performance and how to improve;

planning and prioritisation;

delivering school improvement; and improving self-evaluation.



51

Figure 6.2: SIP Contribution to School Improvement Capacity(Assessed Case Study Examples - Additional Examples in Appendix A6.2)

Focus on Outcomes and Pupil Groups

o The SIP is constantly monitoring progress - asking the school to show her the school'sattainment profile at regular intervals to ensure that they are making progress. The school is

under a huge amount of pressure to make progress & achieve 65% target in 2008 results.The SIP reports focus on this & have culminated in 4 recommended actions which theschool will achieve before her next visit in the spring: timescales are purposively short so keypieces of work/actions are done very quickly.”

Engaging Pupils and Parents in Achieving Progresso The SIP instigated pupil progress meetings and developed understanding of how to evaluate

actions to provide evidence. Assessment for Learning has been promoted and strategieshave improved considerably. Children are now actively involved in their own learning andassessment for learning. Peer and self-assessment strategies are now becomingestablished. Work is consistently matched to pupil's needs and higher attaining pupils arenow suitably challenged.

Accountability for Performanceo The school's processes for self-evaluation were new or embryonic when the SIP first came

into contact with the school. The SIP has worked with the Head and SLT to encourage morefocused accountability amongst subject teachers and greater consistency on reflectivepractice, data use and evaluation across the school. The SIP still feels that the school'sprocesses need to be more robust than they are but that things are moving “in the rightdirection”.

o The SIP questioning & challenging of SLT and asking for evidence to support judgementsmade has helped to develop accountability – there is an emphasis on the school respondingrather than the LA. The governors felt that the SIP had increased the school’s accountabilityas SIP visits were like having 3 mini Ofsted’s a year which are very focused & keep peopleon the ball - if any problems arise they are addressing them before they get out of hand, acontinual process so nothing gets through the net - “It’s good for the school & children”.


o SIP challenge on achievement and standards has encouraged the school to refocus on thisaspect. This has included developing the school's capacity to assess the quality of teachingand learning through consistency in lesson observation and application of the Ofsted criteria.As such the SIP has increased school staff awareness of what good teaching and learninglooks like. Evidence to support this is triangulated in feedback from the Head, SIP andmiddle managers.

Planning and Prioritisation

o The SIP challenged on the low proportion of pupils achieving five A*-C including English andMaths, the results of which had not been obvious to governors. As a result of the SIP’schallenge and intervention a restructuring & expansion of the management team wasundertaken with greater focus on attainment.

Delivering School Improvement

o The SIP is a sounding board, for example the headteacher asks the SIP’s advice oncurriculum development – whether it is feasible, what the national perspective is. The SIPspends a lot of time in the school and the governing body appreciate him, “he's part of theschool's success, he's given us sound advice & is always there to help us, easy to talk to,and staff get on with him & respect his views”.

Improving Self-Evaluation

o Feedback from the SIP, Head and others demonstrates that the SIP has and continues toprovide valuable input on how to improve school self-evaluation. This includes suggestions

during visits on how to devolve to middle managers, and working with SLT to improveconsistency and accuracy of judgements on lesson observations. Evidence to support thiswas gathered from the Head and teacher interviews, observation of a SIP visit to the schooland the document review. In the latest report the SIP has also agreed a number of actions



52

Figure 6.2: SIP Contribution to School Improvement Capacity(Assessed Case Study Examples - Additional Examples in Appendix A6.2)

with the school to assist in self-evaluation including provision of good practice materials for use by middle and senior leaders and information about successful strategies to monitor student progress and provide personalised support for students who are falling behind.

1.10 As would be expected, it is much less obvious that the SIP programme is having adirect and noticeable impact for those schools that are high performing. However,there is evidence that in some LA areas, these schools are receiving greater levelsof challenge than was the case through previous LA school improvement strategies.

Figure 6.3: SIP Impact on High Performing Schools

(Assessed Case Study Examples)

o In one school (previously graded as good with outstanding features) the SIP helped focus onunderperforming subjects and did some capacity building with SLT to develop data analysisand grading. The school is now graded outstanding with good features – the SIP focus

helped this school to move forward in a short timescale.o In one high performing school which had become complacent, the SIP pushed the school

hard to get underneath their data and FFT showed that it was underachieving for pupils withspecial needs and the lower middle ability pupils. This year the school demonstrated muchmore systematic data use and analysis and are taking actions as a result.

o The head feels she is being challenged - "it's the questions they ask and your responses tothem - they know when you're winging it". However, the SIP accepts that challenge in anoutstanding school is different, and is more about negotiation than challenge. Perhaps as aresult, there is some lack of evidence to support where/how school has been challenged.

o The SIP views challenge as crucial, even for high performing schools where challenge isabout ensuring “small degrees of upward change – it’s a very delicate balance if you don’tget the challenge and support right.

Perceptions of Limited Impacto The headteacher felt the school had evolved quite rapidly in last couple of years in self-

evaluation & student assessment but didn't think it was because of the SIP. She'd agreedwith what they'd done but didn't feel she'd impacted.

o "The SIP reports don't tell us anything we don't already know. The SIP is useful in a schoolwhere there is no challenge or where you need support to identify what the issues are. Butfor us we have a strong governing body that provides our challenge and external validation.The report from the SIP is just like an Ofsted report and there are no surprises in it. The SIPprogramme should be seen for what it is, providing the background work for Ofsted, achecking mechanism to check we know what we need to do, that we have in place what weneed to rectify problems."

1.11 It is too early to really comment or assess the impact of the SIP amongst somecase study schools, particularly those in the primary sector: The headteacher felt it was difficult to comment on the effectiveness of the SIP role as it was still early days. She felt that the previous School Improvement Advisor was less challenging and chattier so the SIP has the potential to impact on school actions and activities.She felt sure that he would have an impact because of the quality of the meetingsthey had which were “very upbeat, official & challenging” but she had not seen any tangible impacts yet.



53

Academy SIPs

1.12 We do not have a sufficient number of Academy sector schools in either the surveyresponses or case studies to identify any differences in SIP effectiveness or impactcompared to the wider secondary sector. However a number of positive outcomesfrom the Academy SIP programme were cited by stakeholders:

“SIP reports show that SIPs have helped Academies with their SEFs – they havehelped them to write more analytical documents, reduced their size, and havechallenged areas that have caused concern. In turn better SEFs have madeimprovements – for example one Academy needed to improve its student voice –now 12 students have been trained to observe lessons in pairs and providefeedback.”

“One Academy had good overall results but actually had less that 20% achieving A-C in English and Maths. The headteacher overlooked this in his report togovernors and had prioritised working with the community. With SIP intervention,the Chair of Governors led a restructuring of the management team to refocus onattainment. Two appointments were made to increase capacity to improve.”

“In the context of over-estimating the standard of our teaching, the SIP provided some very helpful training on judging lessons. This made us realise that we had toomuch focus on the quality of teaching and not enough on learning. This year our judgements are lower, but realistic.”

Impact of SIP role in HTPM

1.13 There are more mixed views amongst both secondary and primary headteachersabout the extent to which HTPM being fulfilled by the SIP has resulted in thisactivity being sharper and more closely tied to the priorities of the school. 49% of

secondary and 23% or primary headteachers agree, 20% and 17% respectivelydisagree, with the remainder not expressing a clear view. This picture reflects thefact that SIP HTPM is not yet operating in all schools (particularly in the primarysector).

1.14 In the minority of cases where headteachers disagree, this predominantly reflects aview that the previous system was just as effective, rather than any dissatisfactionin the role played by the SIP. There are just a small number of comments in thesurvey that suggest otherwise.

1.15 The case studies provide a number of examples where stakeholders identify theSIP’s role in sharpening schools’ focus both through the specific HTPM activity and

more generally in providing feedback and engaging governors in schoolperformance issues.



54

Figure 6.4: SIPs Help to Sharpen Focus on School Priorities – Case StudyStakeholder Perceptions(Additional Examples in Appendix A6.4)

o “Without exception governing bodies are saying that this is a much tighter and moreinformed and challenging process. It is the one SIP function that we rate most highly and feel

will ultimately bring about change and as a result raise standards.”o “It has brought greater rigour in a number of schools where school priorities are at the centre

of objectives.”

o “I was impressed by the honesty, level of challenge and enthusiasm for the task – he isclearly aware of the issues facing the school and its constraints.”

o “The Governors value very much the feedback provided by the SIP – these are newgovernors and the SIP has seen them 2 or 3 times to introduce himself, target set and todeliver a general report.”

Impact of SIP Programme on LA School Improvement

1.16 There are low levels of agreement amongst LA survey respondents about theextent to which the introduction of the SIP programme has had an impact on LAapproaches to school improvement, as shown in Table 6.3.

Table 6.3: Views of the impact of the SIP Role on the LAPercentage of LA responses:

StatementAgree or strongly agree

Disagree or strongly disagree

Neither agreenor disagree

School improvement has become moreeffective in schools that do not requireformal intervention from the LA

33% 33% 29%

The SIP function is effective for supportingschools causing concern

25% 48% 21%

LA influence over school improvement hasreduced

25% 54% 15%

LA decisions over when, how and howmuch to intervene in schools are moreeffective

13% 60% 21%

1.17 It is evident that for some stakeholders the response to these questions is notnecessarily indicative of the view that the SIP programme is not of value, but thatthe programme itself fits within wider LA school improvement strategies which areequally important to raising standards and achievements. The following commentfrom a respondent to the LA survey illustrates some of the contextual issuessurrounding responses to this survey question.

“SIPs in this authority provide a very good service and are effective in raising standards of attainment and achievement. However, this is only because of our work with SIPs and the way we have provided complementary Link Inspector support. I believe that the SIP role on its own cannot be effective in raising standards or providing the appropriate challenge and support to schools. This is particularly so if the SIPs are serving headteachers who perform the SIP role intheir 'spare time'. I believe the implementation of this programme should have beenmanaged on an inverse proportion to success. The model does not enabledifferentiation on LA success / failure in school improvement.”



55

Schools not Requiring Intervention

1.18 LA agreement is strongest in relation to the impact of the SIP programme onschool improvement approaches for schools not requiring more formal intervention(one third of LA respondents agree). There are some examples from the casestudy areas that support this view (as illustrated earlier in Figure 6.3). However, asimilar number of LA respondents disagreed. This mix of view is likely to be afunction of the different perspectives that LA respondents will be responding from.Opinions will be influenced by their views of how effective LA approaches andstrategies for school improvement were before the SIP programme was introduced.

Influencing School Improvement

1.19 In the majority of cases, LA respondents to the survey did not agree that LAdecisions over when, how and how much to intervene in schools are more effectiveas a result of the SIP programme. However, there are some qualitative examplesfrom the survey and the more detailed case studies which show positive

perceptions of the impact of the SIP programme alongside other NRwSdevelopments. These include contributions to improving levels of understanding of school performance across LA areas, broadening knowledge of supportinterventions and helping to ensure earlier preventative interventions.

Figure 6.5: Positive Perceptions of Impact on LA School Intervention Strategies

o “The SIP service to schools is comprehensive and provides greater depth of support andchallenge than was previously possible. Some schools see this as more challenging but italso enables support to be more effective.”

o “In 2006 there were a dozen schools in the ‘at risk’ category. We expect there to be justthree or four by Christmas 2007. This demonstrates some positive impact of the SIPprogramme in terms of improving the LA’s knowledge of when to intervene before schoolsenter a category. The SIP reports and feedback provide an early alert system.”

o “There is evidence from the SIP trial in 2006/07 that judgements following section 5inspections match LA judgements for around 95% (compared to 62% nationally).”

1.20 Concerns that the introduction of the SIP programme has had a negative impact onLAs’ ability to influence school improvement are only apparent for 25% of the LArespondents. Such concerns were echoed amongst schools and LAs in just two of the case study areas, particularly relating to concerns about loss of linkage througha SIP from outside the LA area.

Figure 6.6: Concerns about School Links with LA

o “There is some nervousness about LA contact with schools – due to the second hand natureof LA/school staff contact. There is some dependency on those from outside the LA to brief on school issues.”

o “The perceptions are that the SIP is not linked into the LA strongly enough, so the schooldoesn’t feel that they are that accountable – they never hear anything from the LA. They feelthat although the SIP knows the school well, the old Link Officer spent more time in school.The LA also did indicate that they probably don’t know the schools as well as they used to.However the reports from the SIP are good and thorough, so they have no concerns aboutthe school.”

o “The headteacher does not perceive that the SIP and LA discuss the school much becauseit’s in ‘a safe pair of hands’. The headteacher said that the LA never comments on the SIPreports back to the school and that the SIP cannot be their advocate.”



56

1.21 These perceptions are likely to be a function both of the extent to which the SIPprogramme is embedded within particular LAs and levels of effectiveness ingeneral communication with schools regarding the SIP programme. Evidence citedin previous sections shows that in a minority of cases, there is the potential toimprove the effectiveness of LA communication with schools about the role of theSIP and the function of SIP visits.

1.22 In other LA areas, the line management and report review structures put in placeby LAs (as discussed in Section 8) are ensuring that they maintain an effective linkand understanding of performance across schools in the area.

Schools Causing Concern

1.23 Half of LAs responding to the survey do not agree that the SIP function is effectivefor supporting schools causing concern and only one quarter agree. This isindicative of issues highlighted in earlier sections which identify that in thesecircumstances schools clearly require additional resource to support their

improvement and that the wider LA intervention and support strategies will becritical to effectiveness. Equally, in some LA areas there are concerns thatfinancial constraints impact on their ability to support schools causing concerneffectively.



57

CONSISTENCY OF SIP PROGRAMME

Key Points

There are differences in the support role played by different SIP types, with full-time LAemployee SIPs more commonly capacity building, monitoring progress, brokering and

managing support than serving headteacher SIPs. A key factor influencing this is that thelatter are more constrained than other SIP types to deliver additional resource for schools or be more flexible to emerging demands.

This lack of consistency is, as you would expect, influencing perceptions of the effectivenessand impact of SIP types. Those headteachers with serving headteacher SIPs lesscommonly identify that their SIP has effectively brokered support needs or been a keyinfluence in changing approaches to self-evaluation.

Headteacher perceptions suggest generally lower levels of SIP effectiveness and impact inthe primary sector across a series of indicators. This is likely to be largely a function of theSIP programme being at an earlier stage of roll-out. However, these perceptions also reflectsome resistance to change with a more significant culture shift required by the introduction of SIP challenge in the primary sector (given the previous tradition of strong pastoral LA

support). There are also some differences in primary headteacher perceptions of overall effectiveness

and impact of SIP types. Those with full-time LA employee SIPs indicate more commonlythat their SIP has the capability, is effective and is having an impact compared to those withserving headteacher SIPs. Again, these perceptions are influenced by the flexibility thatserving headteacher SIPs have within available resource to deliver the breadth of supportthat other SIPs are providing. However, some LA stakeholders also identify that servingheadteacher SIPs can potentially face more constraints in terms of the breadth of their knowledge and experience of challenging and coaching others.

There are some differences in the Academy SIP Programme which should be borne in mindgiven the planned expansion of the sector. This includes:

the potential limits associated with HTPM and brokering support functions not being

fulfilled by Academy SIPs; as Academies mature and there is less intensive support from DCSF Academy Advisors,

SIPs will be better placed to play a critical role in maintaining challenge and continuedimprovement;

the process of rapid transformation amongst some Academy schools means that thestandard SIP resource may not be sufficient to support effective change;

high skills and experience levels amongst Academy Leaders demand that their SIPsrequire equally high levels of experience and credibility.

Consistency and Effectiveness of SIP Support Role

1.24 There is some inconsistency in the support role played by different types of SIP,with full-time LA employee (and to a lesser extent external consultant) SIPs morecommonly capacity building (and in some cases directly delivering supportinterventions), monitoring progress, brokering and managing support packagesthan serving headteacher SIPs. In the primary sector, the role of servingheadteacher SIPs in identifying support needs also appears (based onheadteacher perceptions) to be less significant than for full-time LA employee SIPs.

1.25 Some LAs provide additional SIP resource for predominantly full-time LA employeeSIPs to monitor progress and support interventions. Whilst this may be a functionof the explicit matching considerations by the LA (that is, allocating those schoolsthat might require additional resource the SIPs that have the flexibility to undertake

such a role), this is not always the case. There may therefore be cases where aschool has a serving headteacher SIP who does not fulfil a monitoring function dueto limited flexibility of the SIP rather than the needs of the school.



58

1.26 Additional resource is also being delivered in a minority of cases to enable SIPs toprovide capacity building support. However, this type of support is not commonlyachieved through an explicit allocation by the LA; rather the SIPs have the flexibilitywithin their job role to provide more support in some circumstances. In thesecases there is evidence of the value that capacity building activities can provide,though there remains some uncertainty about whether it is appropriate for SIPs toundertake such activities within the core days allocated.

1.27 As discussed in Section 8, a key factor influencing these trends is that servingheadteacher SIPs are more constrained than other types of SIP, both in terms of delivering additional support resource for schools that may benefit and inresponding in a flexible way to emerging national, local or school demands.

1.28 The survey findings suggest that this lack of consistency is influencing perceptionsof the effectiveness and impact of different SIP types. This is across both primaryand secondary sectors in relation to brokering and providing support, but moregenerally in the primary sector across a range of indicators (as discussed later in

this section). It is interesting to note that in the secondary sector it is full-time LAemployee SIPs without headteacher experience (rather than those withheadteacher experience) that are perceived to be effective in brokering andproviding development support more commonly than serving headteacher SIPs.

1.29 Whilst we have also sought to identify any significant differences by type of schoolacross the headteacher surveys, the sample numbers are often too small toindicate any statistically significant differences. Nevertheless, there is onesignificant difference found in the primary headteacher survey which suggests thatsome schools with low CVA but relatively high performance are benefiting lessoften from effective SIP brokering of support than others (low CVA/lowperformance and low performance/high CVA).

1.30 There is also some evidence from the case studies that some schools (that are lowperforming and/or achieve low added value) are not benefiting from the samelevels of capacity building and brokering of support as others in similar circumstances. This may be minimising the potential impact the SIP programmecould have on the pace of school improvement in these cases.



59

Table 7.1: SIP Type Differences for Support Role14

Secondary Headteachers with.. Primary Headteachers with.. SIPs

HTSIP

EC(w)SIP

EC(wo)SIP

LA(w)SIP

LA(wo)SIP

HTSIP

EC(w)SIP

EC(wo)SIP

LA(w)SIP

LA(wo)SIP

HT EC LA

The SIP has effectively ...

..identified support needs 60% 59% 55% 61% 68% 39% 48% 49% 56% 50% 86% 90% 97%

..brokered schools’ support needs 28% 38% 34% 42% 50% 14% 22% 25% 31% 28% 53% 57% 82%

..provided development support 23% 32% 29% 35% 46% 12% 20% 17% 25% 23% 33% 38% 55%

SIP support has been a key influenceon self-evaluation

37% 43% 44% 49% 54% 13% 26% 27% 29% 27% 62% 76% 78%

14

HT SIP = serving headteacher SIP; EC (w) SIP = external consultant with previous headteacher experience; EC (wo) SIP = external consultant SIP without previousheadteacher experience; LA (w) SIP = full-time LA employee SIP with previous headteacher experience; LA (wo) SIP = full-time LA employee SIP without previous headteacher experience.



60

Sector Differences

Primary Sector

1.31 The survey responses indicate generally lower levels of SIP effectiveness and

impact across the series of indicators in the primary sector . This is likely to be afunction of the SIP programme being at an earlier stage of roll-out than in thesecondary sector and there is evidence to support this amongst the case studyschools. The positive change in perceptions amongst secondary headteachersbetween the 2006 and 2007 surveys gives some encouraging sign that similar changes might be observed in the primary sector once the programme has beenfurther embedded.

1.32 Nevertheless, these sector differences are also likely to reflect, to some extent, themore significant culture shift being required by the introduction of SIP challenge inthe primary sector (given the previous tradition of strong pastoral LA support).Some LA perceptions and evidence from some case studies indicate more

resistance to such change amongst primary headteachers.

1.33 There are also some perceptual differences between the sectors in relation to theeffectiveness of certain SIP types. In particular, in the primary sector there aremore significant differences between the perceptions of headteachers with full-timeLA employee SIPs compared to those with serving headteacher SIPs – the former indicating higher levels of ability, effectiveness and impact than the latter.

1.34 Again, these perceptions are influenced by the flexibility that serving headteacher SIPs have within available resource to deliver the breadth of support that other SIPs are providing. However, some LA stakeholders also identify that servingheadteacher SIPs can potentially face more constraints in terms of the breadth of

their knowledge and experience of challenging and coaching others (as discussedfurther in Section 8).



61

Table 7.2: Primary Sector SIP Type Differences15

Primary Headteachers with..

HT SIPEC(w)SIP

EC(wo) SIP LA(w) SIP LA(wo) SIP

The SIP...

..has the necessary knowledge

and information to discusspackages of support

55% 64% 59% 74% 71%

..has skills and experiencehave been effectively matchedto the school

59% 66% 59% 73% 60%

..has an effectively relationshipwith the headteacher

70% 75% 74% 84% 80%

..is able to interpret dataeffectively to guide the school

73% 77% 80% 84% 84%

..reports are of significantvalue to the school

49% 60% 54% 60% 58%

..has supported schools toraise standards of achievement

30% 41% 42% 51% 45%

..has supported schools todevelop strategies to achieveECM outcomes

14% 25% 25% 30% 25%

1.35 It is important to note that these figures indicate that many primary headteacherswith serving headteacher SIPs do agree that their SIPs are effective, but they do soless often than those with other types of SIP.

Academy Sector

1.36 SIPs have only been in operation in Academy schools for one whole year and assuch there has not been the same opportunity as in other sectors to assesseffectiveness of the programme. The consultations we have undertaken do,however, highlight some differences in the Academy SIP programme compared tothe wider secondary sector, which should be borne in mind for the plannedexpansion of the sector.

Functions of the Role

1.37 Academy SIPs do not fulfil the HTPM function which may inhibit the extent to whichthere is a link to school priorities, depending on how well they take account of SIPreports. However, were SIPs to take on this role, it may not fit with the function of sponsors.

1.38 Academy SIPs are not responsible for brokering support (a function which isfulfilled through the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust (SSAT), although theymay advise the Department). This may impact on the extent to which the SIP canplay a role in ensuring the suitability and effectiveness of support that a schoolreceives.

15

HT SIP = serving headteacher SIP; EC (w) SIP = external consultant with previous headteacher experience;EC (wo) SIP = external consultant SIP without previous headteacher experience; LA (w) SIP = full-time LAemployee SIP with previous headteacher experience; LA (wo) SIP = full-time LA employee SIP without previous headteacher experience.



62

Nature of Role

1.39 In the early stages of an Academy being launched, there is potential for duplicationwithin the DCSF Academy Advisor function. In the medium term, as Academiesmature and there is less intensive support, the SIP will be better placed to have acritical role to play in maintaining the level of challenge and ensuring continued

improvement.

1.40 Given that most Academies are in a process of rapid transformation, the three-visitstructure may not be frequent or flexible enough to pick up on arising issues. Inthis fast moving, complex and challenging context, SIPs must be particularly sharpat picking up issues and priorities as soon as they arise.

1.41 Fast tracked Academies have even greater needs for intense support andchallenge because they have not benefitted from the 18 month lead in time that‘normal’ Academies receive to effect cultural change/embed planning. SIPs maynot have the resource that is required to support fast track Academies to makeeffective change.

Experience and Skills Required

1.42 Senior leaders within Academies have often been fast-tracked (so they have theskills set but not necessarily the breadth of experience). The SIPs challenging andsupporting them need to be highly experienced and astute to ensure that they canadd value to this strong base. In other circumstances, Academy leaders areexamples of excellence and therefore need a SIP of equivalent capability to be acredible challenge.



63

MANAGEMENT AND DELIVERY OF SIP PROGRAMME

Key Points

The vast majority of stakeholders are clear about the core SIP role and there has been animprovement since the surveys we undertook in 2006. There are lower levels of clarity inrelation to SIP accountability and the SIP role in brokering support and delivering the SingleConversation.

Most stakeholders are satisfied with LA guidance on the function of SIP visits. However,there remains some uncertainty regarding the appropriateness of some of the moderation andcapacity building activities (involving greater interaction with wider school staff and pupils) thatsome SIPs are undertaking.

The average five-day allocation for SIPs is, on the whole, sufficient for the core SIP role to befulfilled. However, the backdrop of continually developing national priorities and initiativesprovides a challenge for SIPs to ensure an appropriate balance in the use of their time. Thereis evidence that they may sometimes require more flexibility in resource to respond tonationally or locally driven agendas.

The guidance and direction for SIP visits provided by some LAs (and sometimes nationalagencies) and stakeholder expectations of a ‘Single Conversation’ can also impact on theextent to which SIPs can contain the role within the core allocation.

The vast majority of SIPs appear to be equipped to undertake their role in terms of background experience; accreditation; and skills and knowledge. There is some perceptualevidence in the primary sector that serving headteacher SIPs may be equipped less oftenthan full-time LA employee SIPs with headteacher experience.

Successful management of the SIP programme is evidenced:

most LAs have developed effective approaches to the recruitment, deployment andperformance management of SIPs;

the National Strategies SIP Coordinators (SIPCos) are perceived as positivelycontributing to LA management of the programme;

changes in the approach to SIP support and training have been introduced which place agreater focus on CPD tailored to the local context and individual needs;

the quality of available SIPs is generally considered to be high.

In a small number of LA areas, there is the potential to improve the effectiveness of communication and the message being received by schools, particularly in relation to theaccountability of SIPs; the function of SIP visits; use of SIP reports to inform LA supportstrategies; and role of the SIP in communicating local priorities and issues. There is alsosome perceptual evidence (from LA stakeholders) of the potential to improve the consistencyof National Strategies SIP Coordinator (SIPCo) support in some LA areas.

Nature and Scope of SIP Role

Clarity of Role

1.43 The vast majority of stakeholders are clear about the core SIP roles of challengeand support and there is an improvement in overall proportions of respondentsbeing clear since the surveys we undertook in 2006. 80% of headteachers said therole of the SIP to challenge is clear (an increase from 73% in 2006) and 90% of SIPs and LAs agreed with this statement.

1.44 The majority of stakeholders also agree that the SIP role in supporting schoolimprovement is clear. 75% of headteachers and 90% of SIPs agreed that the roleis clear. As discussed in Section 4, however, there is the potential for greater

clarity and consistency at the margin, specifically in relation to the fine distinctionbetween “direct delivery” of support and “capacity building”.



64

1.45 There is less clarity and more uncertainty amongst headteachers in particular inrelation to:

who SIPs are accountable to for the advice they provide (47% of primary and42% of secondary headteachers agree and 25% and 34% respectivelydisagree);

the role of SIPs in brokering support (45% of primary and 38% of secondaryheadteachers agree and 27% and 24% respectively disagree);

the distinction between the SIP role and other local authority advisory roles(50% of headteachers agree and 30% disagree); and

the role of the SIP in delivering the Single Conversation (47% of primary and53% of secondary headteachers agree and 19% and 35% respectivelydisagree).

1.46 There is most uncertainty about the accountability of SIPs amongst primaryheadteachers that have external consultant SIPs without headteacher experience

and amongst secondary headteachers with serving headteacher SIPs. SIPs andLAs, however, indicate high levels of clarity. This perhaps indicates potential for more effective communication by LAs with schools about the role of the SIP.

1.47 In Section 5 we presented the issues associated with brokering support and thedistinction between LA and SIP roles. We discuss findings associated with thesingle conversation in Section 9.

SIP Visit Structures and Activities

1.48 Most LAs have set a common structure for SIP visits, which tend to include onevisit per term for core SIP business and an additional visit for headteacher

performance management (HTPM).

1.49 Stakeholders are predominantly satisfied with the extent to which LAs haveprovided clear guidance on the function of SIP visits. This is particularly the caseamongst SIPs and LAs themselves (around 95% agreed). Most headteachers alsoagreed but in lower proportions (63% of secondary headteachers and 71% of primary headteachers) and as many as 20% of secondary headteachers (and 13%of primary headteachers) felt that clear guidance had not been provided.

1.50 The exact nature and focus of discussions varies by LA area and school needs.Nevertheless there tends to be a common pattern with Autumn meetings focusingon data review, overall assessments of performance, identification of priorities and

setting of targets, and later visits addressing more specific issues, for example:

SEF/School Development Plan review and moderation;

audit/review of quality of teaching and learning;

review of leadership and management;

identification of support needs; and

review/evaluation of the effectiveness of interventions.

1.51 To fulfil these functions, most SIPs spend the majority of the time at school inmeetings/discussions with headteachers, members of SLT and governors. This is

sometimes supplemented (often at the beginning of the SIP relationship) with brief tours of the school. A minority of SIPs also interact more widely with schools staff and pupils to undertake moderation activities.



65

Figure 8.1: SIP Moderation and Assessment Activities(Assessed Case Study Examples)

o The SIP identified inconsistency in marking, target setting and lesson observations resultingin variable performance across the school. The Headteacher stated “you can’t hide anything

from our SIP – the SIP was amazing in what she/he picked up in a short learning walk. Shefound that there was no consistency in our marking and target setting across the school,very astute”.

o The SIP undertook pupil progress meetings which demonstrated that despite the targetbooks, pupils were unable to articulate what their targets meant.

o In the second term the SIP agreed to run pupil conferencing in order to compare school’sown judgements with views of pupils. He selected pupils himself and asked questions aboutlearning and how they fed back issues to the school. Overall it was very positive, and gaveconfidence to the school that their judgements were correct. This demands a lot of trust fromthe school.

1.52 These types of SIP activity are much more apparent amongst the primary schoolcase studies. This indicates some difference in the delivery of the Primary SIPprogramme, compared to that in the secondary sector and may reflect historicalLA/primary school relationships which have traditionally provided strong pastoralsupport.

1.53 Nevertheless, as the SIP role embeds, there is evidence in some secondary casestudy schools of its changing in nature but not necessarily growing in scope, interms of for example:

some SIPs are interacting more with wider school staff and pupils, rather than purely with the headteacher and senior leadership team; and

some SIPs are able to focus more on capacity building and advice for particular priority areas for the school concerned.

Figure 8.2: Changing Nature of the SIP Role – Stakeholder Commentso “Once trust and a working relationship has been established involvement in more aspects of

school life has grown with it.”

o “Greater understanding of the school and how it works leads to more detailed and in-depthsupport. No item of the development in school operates in isolation. This impacts on other areas which are then drawn into the equation when planning and supporting.”

o “As the NRwS has developed in practice the role has inevitably changed. The demands of getting familiar with a school in a limited timescale in order to deliver appropriate challengeand support are time-consuming.”

1.54 There remains some uncertainty over the extent to which some of the moderation,capacity building and direct provision of targeted intervention support (which isprovided by SIPs in a minority of cases) is appropriate and whether this impacts onthe extent to which the SIP can remain focused (within available resource) andindependent to effectively challenge the school.



66

Figure 8.3: Views of Appropriate SIP Activities

o “We have deliberately separated the support role of providing training etc from the SIP roleas we feel this would be inappropriate. If a SIP recommends certain practice then it is moredifficult to objectively review the success of the school.”

o “SIPs can't 'support' anything, in practical terms. They're not there long enough. They can

challenge and make evaluations. The potential reasons for any failure to make an impactare too many and complex to be evaluated from a discussion in the head's office. SIPsaren't allowed to go too much beyond the challenge role.”

o “The apparent ban on gathering first-hand evidence may mean that the SIP process is anunhelpful return to the old days of meetings in the headteacher's office. We shall encourageour SIPs to get involved in order to get a real sense of the school. This appears to bediscouraged by the briefing and training received so far.”

1.55 As highlighted in earlier sections, there is also evidence that the SIP programme isnot consistently delivering aspects of the support role associated with ensuring thesuitability and impact of support interventions. Whilst an increased emphasis on

this aspect of the SIP role is required, consideration also needs to be given to theextent to which it can be achieved within the 5 days. To some extent SIPs mayhave more capacity within the prescribed meetings to focus on these evaluationaspects as the SIP relationship matures. There is, however, also a strongdependence on the effectiveness of LA mechanisms to support knowledge,information sharing and communication/integration. Improvements in theseelements may result in more time required by SIPs to keep up to speed and makeappropriate links.

Scope of SIP Role

1.56 Stakeholder perceptions about changes in the scope of the SIP role are verymixed. Half of LAs and SIPs agree the scope of the role has grown over the lasttwo years, whereas two-fifths think that it has stayed the same. These perceptionswill be influenced by the specific LA context and approach to the allocation of resource and management of the programme overall. It may also be influenced bythe stage of development in each LA, with some approaches to delivery still‘unravelling’.

National Demands

1.57 Of those identifying a growth in the role, most put this down to the demands of DCSF and the continuing stream of national initiatives and agendas that SIPs needto keep track of. The backdrop of continually developing national priorities and

initiatives provides an ongoing challenge for SIPs to ensure an appropriate balancein the use of their time. SIPs need to able to provide challenge which is focused onaddressing a particular school’s priorities but within the context of the agendas thatthe schools themselves are responding to.

1.58 There is evidence that SIPs may require more flexibility in resource to respond toparticular issues, for example, to provide appropriate challenge and support in linewith nationally or locally driven agendas (such as, for example, the recent changein requirements for target setting and HTPM reporting to governors). There arealso some significant current agendas, including the integration of children’sservices, review of curriculum in the primary sector and introduction of diplomas inthe secondary sector which may be perceived as demanding more SIP time to

effectively challenge and support schools’ performance in light of these ongoingdevelopments.



67

1.59 Within their core role, SIPs are expected to keep up to date knowledge andinformation about policies, initiatives and priorities at national and local level; ensueeffective integration and communication with relevant stakeholders across the LA;and understand how these wider agendas and priorities might impact on schoolimprovement for the schools they are working with.

Figure 8.4: Stakeholder Views - Demands of Specific Agendas/Policies

o “The Remit has grown around Performance Management, there are complexities associatedwith the mass of data/evidence and there is a wide ranging spectrum of initiatives fromnational to local perspectives. Keeping abreast of these means reading/research and theability to have access to what outstanding looks like.”

o “My answer to the scope question is that the role seems likely to increase according tosignals conveyed at the last nationally convened SIP Conference. If SIPs are to providesupport/advice to schools relating to the new secondary curriculum then the role is bound toexpand.”

o “More is being added to the list of things to explore with the school. E.g. the last trainingsession I attended we were told to look at the national languages strategy and the Disability

Equality Scheme - 2 enormous areas. Even though I have the knowledge to tackle suchareas, I do not have the time during a limited visit.”

o “As DCSF and Ofsted have broadened their remit regarding schools' need to interact andprovide community cohesion, so the SIP has had to look beyond tangible data and exploreother areas of the leader's role in extending the school's own development. ExtendedSchools and introduction of the Equalities' agenda has also raised the necessity for schoolsto respond to this in order to be deemed effective. This means targets must not only includestatistical data on achievement and progress but must also look, especially in Headteacher Performance Management, to this wider picture.”

1.60 The effectiveness of LA mechanisms to support SIPs in these tasks will influenceboth the perceptions of the scope of the role they have to fulfil and actual resource

commitments required.Local Demands

1.61 Many SIPs (57%) also identified that growth in the scope of the SIP role was afunction of LA demands, citing high expectations from both LAs and NationalStrategies of the number and range of activities and issues that they can cover during their visits.

1.62 The guidance and direction for SIP visits provided by some LAs (and sometimesnational agencies including National Strategies) can inhibit the extent to whichsome SIPs can effectively deliver (within five days) a challenge and support rolefocused on schools’ own priorities. In seeking to address wider national and local

priorities, LA guidance for SIP visits has sometimes included requirements for datacollection, monitoring progress or discussion of particular issues/agendas, whichcan detract from the ability of the SIP to focus his/her challenge on the schoolcontext.

Figure 8.5: LA Demands – Stakeholder Views

Pushing Local Agendaso “LA's in the worst cases are using SIPs to push their own agenda and the expectation in

these instances far outweighs capacity.”o “Each and every new piece of legislation and advice appears to now come with a tag line

about how SIPs will be looking at this area in their visits. There are too many instances of this - to name just financial management is an interesting case in point. There is not enough

central funding for a SIP to complete all of the existing role and new role. i.e. not enoughdays are funded to fulfil the role properly.”



68

Figure 8.5: LA Demands – Stakeholder Views

Data Collection, Monitoring, Reporting (LA)o “The LA expects us to communicate on their behalf too, relating to local and national

priorities and their need for information/action. The admin time necessary to maintain this isnot feasible within the paid hours”

o “The LA has increasingly used the SIP to gain information from schools about specificdevelopments that impact on LA priorities e.g. healthy schools agenda, post 16 staying onrates and % NEET, support for looked after children.”

Data Collection, Monitoring, Reporting (Other Organisations)

o “There has been a shift to assuming that a SIP can address all the current National Strategypriorities in their visits; there are mixed messages about the role - to some it is increasinglyinspectorial, to others it is a "catch-all" conduit for picking off different agendas (Gifted &Talented provision, 14-19, Modern Foreign Languages strategy). The word "partner" isincreasingly ignored and school's priorities are not always given sufficiently high priority.”

o “There is an increasing demand from national bodies for SIPs to become involved in newareas of work. This is often not supported by adequate advice and guidance to SIPs (e.g.

Specialist School re-designation). Communication to SIPs from the centre is poor. LAs andschools are more willing to ask the SIP to become involved in supporting schools or assistingin school improvement planning e.g. I have been asked to perform the SIP role with theeducational provision of a Young Person's Secure Centre.”

Reporting Demands

o “Extra time commitment for additional meetings, e.g. to attend LA annual reviews of schools.Lack of streamlining of reporting has led to an accumulation of additional reports, some of which duplicate or overlap with previous reports (e.g. reporting on specialist status and theannual report to governors). Could there be one report, to which the SIP adds at relevantpoints of the year, leading to a composite document?”

School Demands

1.63 40% of SIPs and 27% of LAs identified that the growing scope of the SIP role wasa function of school demands on SIPs time. This includes responding to individualschool circumstances/needs (such as additional requests for support/information atthe time of inspection); and some school (and LA) expectations surrounding theSingle Conversation which can impact on the requests made of SIPs.

Figure 8.6: Responding to School Specific Needs and Demands – Stakeholder Views

o “Schools want more than the 'SIP package' - for example, governors expect the SIP to

support the appointment of a new headteacher and to be present at Ofsted feedback.”

o “Some schools need further time and explanation about how SIPs are working. For someheads it’s been difficult to reconcile how the new role of SIPs has developed on from theLink Inspector model. Requests about staffing and governance issues for example Iunderstand were tackled by the previous Link Inspectors. New systems are being put inplace and this may take a little time for Heads to be clear about 'who does what when'.”



69

Resource for SIP Role (Further Detail in Appendix B1)

1.64 The evidence suggests that, on the whole, the average five day allocation to SIPsis sufficient for the core challenge and support role to be fulfilled in most schools.Nevertheless additional resource is allocated by some LAs to fulfil specific supportfunctions for some types of school. This is not being consistently provided acrossLA areas. As discussed in Section 5, there are also differing views andperceptions of whether this should be a more general LA function or whether SIPsshould be playing a role.

SIP Capabilities (further detail in Appendix B2)

1.65 The vast majority of SIPs appear to be equipped to undertake their role based onstakeholder perceptions (from the surveys) and corroborated through our triangulated assessments at the case study level (through repeated consultations,document reviews and observations). This is in terms of:

background experience - most SIPs have either experience of being aheadteacher or of working within a LA school improvement service, andmany have experience of both;

accreditation - all practicing SIPs are accredited ensuring that a minimumlevel of skills and knowledge is evident;

specific skills and knowledge – most stakeholders agree that skills andexperience have been effectively matched and that SIPs:

– have a clear understanding of the school circumstances;

– have an effective relationship with headteachers;

– respect school autonomy; and

– have the knowledge and information required to discuss packages of challenge and support.

1.66 There is some perceptual evidence (particularly in the primary sector) that servingheadteacher SIPs may be equipped less often than full-time LA employee SIPswith headteacher experience. The qualitative evidence also identifies that servingheadteacher SIPs potentially face more significant constraints than other types of SIP in terms of their resource/time, breadth of knowledge and experience of challenging and coaching others.

SIP Type Differences

1.67 There is some difference in SIP and headteacher perceptions about the extent towhich different SIP types are equipped with the knowledge and informationrequired to discuss packages of support. In particular, external consultant SIPs areless commonly identified than full-time LA employee and serving headteacher SIPsas being equipped in this sense:

external consultant SIPs less commonly identified that they have the requiredknowledge (69%), compared to serving headteacher SIPs (81%) and full-timeLA employee SIPs (93%);

headteachers in the primary sector that have full-time LA employee SIPsmost commonly identify that their SIPs have the required knowledge (over 70%), where as those with serving headteacher SIPs and external consultant

SIPs do so less often (54% and 60% respectively); and



70

headteachers in the secondary sector with external consultant SIPs without headteacher experience are less likely to identify that their SIP has therequired knowledge than those with other types of SIP (50% of compared toaround 70% for headteachers with other types of SIP).

1.68 In addition, there are some statistically significant differences in perceptions

between headteachers in the primary sector with different types of SIP. This isparticularly evident for primary headteachers with full-time LA employee SIPscompared to those with serving headteacher SIPs – the former more commonlyagree that their SIPs are equipped in terms of:

effectively interpreting data;

understanding circumstances within the school;

having the knowledge and information to discuss package of support andchallenge; and

producing reports that are of significant value to the school.

1.69 LA and SIP comments regarding SIP’s experience highlight some perceptions of the constraints that serving headteacher SIPs may face which may be influencingsome of these trends, including:

resource/time – the lower levels of flexibility for serving headteacher SIPscompared to other types of SIP is evident in particular in relation to elementsof the support role (brokering, managing, monitoring and capacity building),as discussed in earlier sections;

specific challenge and coaching skills – whilst serving headteacher SIPsare perceived as more credible than those without direct experience as theyhave practical experience of delivering school improvement, they do not

automatically have the skill set required to challenge and coach others to dosimilar; and

breadth of knowledge – equally, serving headteacher SIPs may not havethe broader range of experiences that others may have from working withschools in a number of experiences.





72

1.74 The financial and capacity issues raised by LA stakeholders identify two keyconcerns. Firstly, that some stakeholders feel that the overall funding for the SIPprogramme is insufficient to attract and support the number and quality of SIPsrequired and ensure that appropriate management structures are in place.Secondly, some stakeholders identify additional school support and improvementactivities that LAs should be fulfilling but for which overall funding levels areconstraining the extent to which they can be achieved.

1.75 Evidence from the cases studies provides some detail behind the performancemanagement processes in place in some LA areas, which include clear linemanagement structures, quality assurance of reports, shadow visits and annualperformance review systems. There are also some examples where LAmanagement and review processes have been effective in identifying andaddressing SIP performance issues. Whilst these processes were comprehensivein many areas, there were a couple of case study areas where systems appearedto be less robust.

1.76 There is some evidence from the stakeholder surveys and case studies that thereis the potential in some LA areas to improve the effectiveness of communicationand the message being received by schools. This includes clarifying the messagesand mechanisms surrounding the accountability of SIPs; the function of SIP visits;use of SIP reports and feedback to inform LA support strategies; and the role of theSIP and LA in communicating local priorities and issues.

1.77 The National Strategies SIP Coordinators (SIPCos) are perceived by most LAstakeholders as positively contributing to LA management of the SIP programme.There are more mixed views across LAs about the effectiveness of SIPCos insupporting the development of effective deployment strategies, reportingframeworks and robust performance management systems.



73

Chapter Three: Other NRwS Strands



74

PROGRESS TOWARDS NRWS POLICY INTENT

Key Points

Some strands of the NRwS, both independently and collectively, are contributing towards theachievement of the intelligent accountability framework envisaged when the policy was

announced. These developments are resulting in more focused accountability amongstschools and more effective approaches to raising standards and achievement.

There are some concerns about the extent to which national guidance and some LAs aretaking a more top-down approach to the target-setting process and including data collationrequirements for non-statutory targets.

The impact from the NRwS on changing perceptions about the levels of bureaucracy for schools is minimal. Nevertheless, stakeholders recognise some improvements in thealignment of national and local priorities including the coherence achieved across the SEF,SIPs and the Inspection Framework.

Areas where stakeholders feel there are still significant burdens include changes inpolicies/initiatives; duplicate requests for data/surveys; and issues associated with specificinitiatives/activities including funding, IT, health and safety and assessments for teachers.

Some schools are experiencing a single rather than multiple points of communication for school improvement (particularly for higher achieving schools though also for some of thoserequiring higher levels of intervention).

However, there is a tension between the concept of SIPs enabling a ‘Single Conversation’and their ability to provide focused challenge within the average five-day allocation. There isthe potential for improved clarity about the intended SIP role in this respect and thecoherence of LA mechanisms which might support it.

Continued efforts at the national level are required to work towards more coherent policydevelopment and delivery across all ECM services, including steps to:

achieve greater consistency in and consider the appropriateness of some of thedemands placed on schools (including those associated with volume, pace of change,

requests for information and reporting requirements); deliver more coherent responses to supporting schools in the delivery of current

significant developments, such as reform of the secondary curriculum, Building Schoolsfor the Future (BSF), integrated children’s services and any required response to theoutcomes of the primary sector curriculum review;

improve the coherence of communication mechanisms, including developing moreeffective presentation and signposting of critical information.

Intelligent Accountability

1.78 There is clear evidence that some strands of the New Relationship with Schools,both independently and collectively, are contributing towards the achievement of the intelligent accountability framework envisaged when the policy was firstannounced. This is in terms of:

improved data availability and use, with many schools undertaking sharper data analysis supporting a greater focus on outcomes for pupils overall andfor specific groups;

increased emphasis on school self-evaluation mechanisms resulting in moreinformed improvement actions, engagement of pupils and parents inachieving progress, and more focused accountability for performanceamongst middle managers and teaching staff;





76

Figure 9.1 – Top Down or Bottom Up Target Setting – Stakeholder Views

Top Downo “The 2009 government targets are a nonsense and definitely not bottom up target setting.

The government need to trust teachers more and let them do their own assessments. The

targets are imposed centrally, e.g. 2 levels of progress and 30% A*-C GCSE including mathsand English.”o “The headteacher is not convinced that a bottom up target setting system exists and is

concerned that department guidance on FFTD targets runs counter to this policy.”

More Inclusive Approacheso “I can see a shift in culture in that the government are now trying to give the structures and

planning to schools but there is still a top down push at the moment on standards throughNational Strategies work and Ofsted.”

o “The LA has defined a bottom-up approach whereby the schools and SIP make judgementsbased on where the school is at and then work towards targets.”

Bureaucracy1.82 The impact from the NRwS on changing perceptions about the levels of

bureaucracy for schools is minimal. Around a quarter of most stakeholders (andlower levels of primary headteachers) agreed that the policy objective of reducingthe unnecessary bureaucracy surrounding school planning systems had beenachieved. The majority of headteachers state that there are still significantbureaucratic problems which continue to impact on them.

Table 9.2: Stakeholder Perceptions of Impact of NRwS on Bureaucracy% of Respondents Agreeing or StronglyAgreeing with Statements

Statements: The NRwS has....SecondaryHeadteachers

PrimaryHeadteachers

SIPs LAs

..reduced the unnecessary bureaucracy surroundingschool planning systems

23% 11% 25% 27%

..aligned local and national priorities 40% 33% 58% 50%

..produced greater certainty and predictability on futurefunding

17% 17% 28% 35%

..reduced requests to provide duplicate information 27% 18% 32% na

The DCSF fortnightly email is significantly better than amonthly paper mailing would be

58% 38% na na

The potential to miss information has been reduced by theuse of e-mail in preference to paper

40% 28% na na

There are still significant bureaucraticproblems which continue to impact onthe schools

82% 77% 64% 63%

Positive Changes

1.83 Some stakeholders recognise that improvements have been made and to someextent policy intent realised in terms of greater alignment of national and localpolicies. This is, for example, through:

the coherence achieved across the Self-Evaluation Framework, SIP

Programme and new Inspection Framework, including the links made withspecialist school designation;



77

the improved data available and more effective Self-Evaluation paperworkmean that, whilst there are increased workloads in responding, perceptionsare that this is a more effective and purposeful use of time;

the delivery of the SIP programme itself alongside developing LA strategiesfor school improvement; and

for some schools a single rather than multiple points of communication for school improvement (particularly for higher achieving schools though also for some schools subject to a wider range of support intervention).

1.84 There is also some positive recognition of general improvements in communicationfrom DCSF and LAs and the simplification and rationalisation of funding support for school improvement.

Figure 9.2: Positive Perceptions of Reducing Bureaucracy

o “There has been no reduction in bureaucracy as there is more to analyse. However, it is moreuseful bureaucracy.”

o “One of the greatest achievements has been to link specialist school re-designation with Ofstedand the Single Plan. That’s been a massive step forward.”

o “The new inspection regime has reduced the burden considerably. It is based on a singledocument which is useful from the school’s point of view.”

o “We have seen a reduction in what is requested as evidence required on other programmes.For example, for the healthy school award previously we would spend hours compilinginformation for the annual review. However, this has changed this year and the burden hasbeen reduced by requiring an assessment every three years as opposed to annually and byevidence being based more on self-assessment.”

Continuing Burdens

1.85 However, the responses from the survey and case studies suggest that suchachievements are not consistently recognised or achieved and that significantfurther development is required to reduce bureaucratic burdens across the schoolsector. Around one fifth of headteachers disagreed that the NRwS had resulted inmore aligned national and local priorities and half disagreed that the NRwS hasprovided greater certainty and predictability on future funding.

Volume and Demands from Policies & Organisations

1.86 Stakeholders most commonly identified the burdens associated with the number,coherence, pace and demands of policies, initiatives and the organisationsintroducing them. Many stakeholders pointed to a general lack of a joined up

approach across all organisations responsible for the ECM services, with somehighlighting the number of organisations involved and some not respondingeffectively to the spirit of the NRwS policy intent.



78

Figure 9.3: Incoherent Response from Government Agencies – Stakeholder Views

o “There remains a lack of joined up responses from services to the ECM key themes whichresults in duplicated information.”

o “Government initiatives are driving us all mad and having to bid for things is not very NRwS:

the 14-19 'gateway' is a shambolic attempt to control something that should be accessible toall. There are still too many initiatives at one time e.g. 14-19 diplomas, revised NC orders,healthy schools, revised PM, workforce reform.”

o “You get the impression that the right hand does not speak to the left hand with the deluge of demands and orders. Many come from the different areas of the Department, some comefrom the local authority. I do not think the new move towards Children's Services has helpedschools. With the universal service so much pressure is laid at our doors it is little wonder that people no longer want to be headteachers.”

1.87 The vast number of initiatives and pace of change demanded from them is a realchallenge for schools. Examples were cited of policies that schools are currentlyrequired to respond to including 14-19, Building Schools for the Future (BSF),

diplomas, new KS3 curriculum, social cohesion, healthy schools, race and gender equality duties, admissions codes, workforce reform, re-designation for specialism,extended schools and financial management standards. Many stakeholders alsopointed to unnecessary and unreasonable demands of some of the statutoryrequirements which do not always have relevance in particular school contexts.

Figure 9.4: Volume and Demands of Initiatives – Stakeholder Views

o “The number of new initiatives continues unabated - whose bright idea was it to introduce newKS3 and new A levels at the same time? It makes nonsense of reducing teacher workloads!Also, whilst workforce reforms have reduced the admin burden on teachers, Senior Leaderscontinue to be increasingly snowed under.”

o “Targets: statutory targets acceptable; optional targets increase the needless demands. There

are still too many external agencies impacting on schools: Local Authorities, DCSF, SSAT,Ofsted, SIP etc. There are still too many statutory initiatives.”

o “Frequent changes to policy and DCSF guidelines. Introduction of initiative after initiative evenbefore current ones have been embedded. Use of LA to communicate changes in governmentpolicy causes huge delays in being prepared (e.g. changes in attainment measures).”

o “Vast amounts of legislation and regulation which make little real difference to children butrequire consultation, re-writing of policies and endless production of documents and statisticse.g. New Admissions Code, new appeals code, new attendance regulations, gender equalityduty, race equality duty, community cohesion, healthy schools, new uniform guidance, BSF,diploma gateways, reform of national curriculum, extended schools - and that's just the last sixmonths.”

o “Sudden emergence of priorities from DCSF, which seem to be rushed add-ons at times with

deadlines that are unachievable (e.g. DDA, Race Equality Policies). Sudden changes to Fireregulations which involve a huge burden on our small organisations.”

1.88 Reporting, consultation and paperwork demands from a range of initiatives andorganisations are also considered by stakeholders to be unreasonable andsometimes lacking in clear and coherent instructions or support. This includes insome cases (as discussed earlier) LA requirements for responding to and reportingon non-statutory targets and a non-inclusive approach being taken to thedetermination of appropriate school level targets.



79

Figure 9.5: Reporting and Paperwork – Stakeholder Views

o “The requirements of Health and Safety are almost ridiculous now. It does feel as though weare simply ensuring that fewer claims can be brought by people who just have accidents! Wewill soon be asked to have a policy for breathing! Far too much policy being required by

government legislation.”o “The sheer amount of information required for various bodies is still an issue; so much

repeated work with no clear feedback about the difference that it makes or the manner in whichit can inform school improvement. I think we lose sight of the children and the needs for thedevelopment of staff. Far more emphasis on appropriate funding is required - way tooconstrained and hindered.”

o “Running the school as a business is necessary but creates much extra work which is notfocussed on teaching and learning. HR, risk assessments, the demands of new financialreporting, etc. are amongst the issues generating this work.”

o “Too much paperwork; too many conflicting requests for information; far too little joined upthinking. Letters arrive late with then impossibly short deadlines; different organisations wantdifferent information on the same day.”

o “LEAD group requirements, 14-19 diploma development, termly attendance data, LEA riskassessments for minor trips and simple activities, LEA data processing, government LACreports and PEPs – they ask for the same information repeatedly”

o “The expectation that schools complete a SEF to the government’s format rather than theschool's own. (DCSF) Apply to expand a successful school (DCSF). Apply to develop grasssports fields even when the development is sports related (DCSF). The need to complete arange of documentation in relation to specialism’s (DCSF). The new performance managementframework (DCSF). Termly attendance returns (DCSF). Financial Management Standard(DCSF). I could go on!!!”

Communication Mechanisms

1.89 Communication with schools from the range of national and local organisations iscommonly considered to be inefficient and to place unnecessary demands onschools.

1.90 Just under half of headteachers disagreed that the potential to miss informationhad been reduced through the use of email communication. Whilst some welcomegreater email communication, many headteachers felt that this had made nochange to the amount of information received and that email communications canmake it more difficult to identify and priorities the information they really need toread.

1.91 A number of stakeholders suggested the introduction of systems to more effectively

signpost headteachers to the important information including better presentation of the communications themselves including brief summaries and identification of keydeadlines. Some suggested the need for more support for schools in developingtheir ICT capacity to help them manage the information received.

1.92 Others recognised the attempts from DCSF to streamline and clarifycommunication mechanisms but felt that this was not always being achieved byother organisations.



80

Figure 9.6: Volume of Communications – Stakeholder Views

o “Vast amounts of paper post and e-mail. The potential to spend hours every day reading andresponding to e-mails is worrying. Organisations such as the SS&A Trust send huge numbersof e-mails and send far too much printed post as well!”

Suggested Signposting

o “Information can easily become lost when sent by email. There is little to differentiate it from allother emails and printing is costly to the school. There should be a much simpler method of alerting headteachers of the important information whether it be by email or post but puttinginformation on a website and hoping it will be spotted is unsatisfactory.”

o “The total amount of information from LA and government and other agencies that hits my deskevery day takes me away from teaching and learning. At least start all documents with asynopsis, level of urgency and any deadline for action. Help for headteachers in initialprioritisation of documents. I spent all day Sunday and half of Saturday this week onpaperwork. Work life balance for headteachers stinks!!!!! Plus I am asked to complete aquestionnaire nearly every week.”

Schools’ Capacity to Respond

o “Lack of funding to employ support staff and keep up with electronic communications which canbe easily missed.”

1.93 The duplication of requests for data and surveys continue to be a significantfrustration for many schools. Half of headteachers disagreed that there had beenreduced requests for duplicate information.

Figure 9.7: Duplicate Requests – Stakeholder Views

Datao “Still too many returns asking similar questions. PLASC, GTC, 618G, FMSIS, Food standards

etc... the list is endless and not reducing. Termly PLASC has increased bureaucracy, the

nonsense of doing PLAMS for one year and the cost of it.”o “Requests for stats on individual cohorts of students (e.g. Looked after, travellers etc) of from

the EWO when it is already available on SIMS and available to authority. Requests fromSchool Nurse.”

Surveyso “There is still duplication - e.g. LA has asked for an evaluation of the SIP impact as have you -

why couldn't we have just done one? There are a lot of surveys commissioned fromindependent commercial organisations which we are asked to complete.”

o “Another main problem is the number of surveys (electronically or over the telephone) fromdifferent organisations e.g. NCSL, DCSF, LA (and including this one). All take longer tocomplete than the providers say.”

o “Requests for surveys on everything that moves under the sun (NFER, Travel plans from LA,

NCSL on leadership).”

Impact on Unproductive Relationships

1.94 Perceptions are generally that the SIP programme has had little impact on reducingthe number of unproductive external relationships that schools have. However,there is evidence of some positive steps being made, particularly in terms of therole of SIPs to provide headteacher performance management and more generalimprovements in the focus of the conversation about school improvement.



81

Table 9.3: Stakeholder Views of SIP Impact on Unproductive Relationships% of responses to “the time spent on unproductiverelationships has significantly reduced as a result of the SIProle”

17

Agree/ StrongAgree

Disagree/StronglyDisagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Secondary headteachers 33% 35% 29%Primary headteachers 14% 33% 38%

SIPs 21% 22% 32%

LAs 12% 29% 29%

Figure 9.8: Positive Perceptions of a Reduction in Unproductive Relationships

o “With the SIP undertaking HTPM, bureaucracy has reduced since schools no longer need tosend information to an external advisor. The SIP knows the school and can look at the areasto measure. The process feels much more measurable.”

o "The SIP role is helping to reduce bureaucracy to some extent as conversations are morestreamlined. I believe it saves the school a lot of time and going over old ground as used to

happen with the external advisor. The SIP knows the school."o “The SIP identified challenging the LA about how they use collective intelligence to influence

issues outside of school improvement, for example how the Children and Young People’sBoard use SIP intelligence.”

1.95 One of the key reasons for the low levels of achievement is that the concept of a‘Single Conversation’ (where SIPs provide a conduit for a range of relationships)was never a reality given its inconsistency with the intent of the SIP programme toeffectively deliver a role within the average five days of resource allocated. Fewstakeholders disagree that the Single Conversation is a good idea but not feasiblein practice.

“It is impossible in a school like ours where needs are so complex and we areworking with such a wide range of partners to address issues of school improvement. I’m not so sure I want a single conversation – what’s the point of setting up brokerage structures in a LA if we can only have one conversation?”

1.96 A more significant driver for any reduction in perceived unproductive relationshipswould be greater alignment in national policies and initiatives and more coherentinteraction of national and local organisations in their dealings with schools (asdiscussed earlier).

1.97 Whilst there are generally negative views of the feasibility of the ‘SingleConversation’ in its broadest sense, many stakeholders do agree that they areclear about the specific role of the SIP in delivering the Single Conversation(though there is more uncertainty amongst headteachers).

17Totals do not add to 100% as some respondents said ‘don’t know’ or ‘too early to say’.



82

Table 9.4: Stakeholder Views about the Single Conversation% respondents to statements

Statements: Secondaryheadteachers

Primaryheadteachers

SIPs LAs

The Single Conversation is a good idea but not feasible in practice

Agree/Strongly Agree 52% 28% 48% 71%

Disagree/Strongly Disagree 27% 21% 28% 18%Neither Agree nor Disagree 19% 38% 21% 14%

The role of the SIP in delivering the Single Conversation is clear


Disagree/Strongly Disagree 35% 19% 17% 30%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 10% 24% 9% 10%

It is possible for a SIP to act as the main point of communication regarding issues relating to school improvement


Disagree/Strongly Disagree 34% 24% 33% 54%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 14% 18% 11% 10%

1.98 These views tend to be based on a more refined view of what the concept of theSingle Conversation means for SIPs (which has developed through the roll-out of

the programme), namely that SIPs can provide a single point of communicationfor school improvement. Half of headteacher and SIPs agree that this morerefined concept is feasible (though only one third of LAs agree and half disagree).

Figure 9.9 A coherent point of communication about School Improvement –Stakeholder Views

o “The position of SIP as central to the school improvement dialogue between school and LAis generally accepted by all. In well-performing schools, the issue of multiple conversationson schools improvement has never really been an issue, while those who struggle seem toaccept that their position will always come with a lot more LA intervention and interest.”

o “There shouldn’t be an absolute requirement for the SIP to be the only conduit all the time –

the SIP role as monitor of support is crucial.”o “The role of the SIP should be more along the lines of a check and balance of the school’s

performance, not necessarily the conduit/communication link between school and LA.”

1.99 There remain, however, different expectations and applications of the conceptacross LAs and schools. Some of the approaches taken imply that the SIP will bethe single point for communication of a wide range of issues including some thatcould be considered (depending on one’s interpretation) as not directly relating toschool improvement. For example, information about policies, initiatives andmonitoring/reporting requests. As discussed in Section 8, where LAs are adoptingsuch approaches (and schools are expecting them in some instances), this may be

inhibiting SIPs in their ability to focus challenge and support within the daysallocated.

“The SIP has raised concern about what happens if the SIP becomes the catch all for everything.”

1.100 There is evidence in other LA areas that the concept of a coherent conversationregarding school improvement is being achieved through the SIP role. Thisappears to be particularly achievable for higher performing schools, though theimpact here may be minimal given that they are less likely to have experiencedmultiple relationships in the past.



83

1.101 For schools experiencing higher levels of support intervention, full-time LAemployee and external consultant SIPs have often been allocated resource toprovide brokering and management of support, which has helped in some cases toensure some coherence in the interactions of external support organisations withthe school. Serving headteacher SIPs have less capacity and flexibility toundertake similar roles in schools they support.

1.102 Where other LA staff fulfil a role to access and manage packages of support for aschool this clearly impacts on the potential to achieve a ‘single conversation’ withschools regarding school improvement. As highlighted in Section 5, there isevidence of the potential to improve the coherence of communication with SIPswhere they are not directly undertaking these roles.

“The SIP questions the 5 days resource for schools in special measures – thereare many additional issues to cover, meetings to attend, if the SIP wants to retainthe role as primary conduit of school and LA communication, this proves difficult inthe case of those schools in special measures.” “Brokerage is a challenge, especially if you’re a SIP from elsewhere and don’t

know the full LA context.”

“Even in a case study area where SIPs have been more closely linked to thematching process, some case study schools commented that the SIP did not havesufficient understanding of the support packages available and we might as well have spoken to the LA ourselves.”

1.103 Nevertheless, there are also some examples of good practice where, whilst a‘single conversation’ may not be being achieved as such, the coherence of communication with the school is achieved through mechanisms to “keep the SIPin the loop”.

Figure 9.10: Examples where Coherent Communication is Achieved

o The SIP receives copies of all Notes of Visit from within the LA, which helps them keep anoverview of the interactions with the schools regarding school interventions and improvement.

o The two roles (LA and SIP) knit together very well and the main focus is on successfulcoordination/avoiding duplication, retaining a clear line between the roles of the two systems.

o Coherent communication is evidenced in the SIP report – there is an agreement between theschool, SIP and LA strategy consultant on a programme of brokered support for the comingyear (the LA broker the support but the SIP is clearly involved/engaged in the communicationloop).



84

SCHOOL PROFILE

Key Points

80% of schools report that they have completed the School Profile. Positive comments aboutits effectiveness include simplicity and ease of completion, graphical presentation and easeof comparison across schools.

Less than 50% of the headteachers surveyed thought that the data provided an accuratepicture of the school – secondary schools were significantly more negative (44% disagreedcompared to 27% of primary schools). Wider concerns include bureaucratic burden,duplication of existing information and technical and formatting difficulties.

Only 25% of headteachers thought the Profile was an effective method of communicationand a number of concerns were raised. These included the use of data from the previousyears; and the availability of the same information through other sources (newsletters,parental visits and Ofsted reports) considered to be better for engaging parents. Parentstended to agree that these other sources were more useful.

Despite generally low awareness of the Profile, internet hits on all school profiles increasedfrom 63,000 to 100,000 between July 2007 and January 2008. Positive parental commentswere often from families who were moving areas.

Parental concerns (when shown the document) included difficulties in understandinggraphical representations of CVA data, terminology, lack of access to the internet and lack of accessibility for those with low levels of English.

Some Governors felt that the School Profile reduced their accountability to parents becauseit had removed a direct link between them and parents.

1.104 The School Profile, which replaces the Annual Governors Report (AGR), aims toprovide high quality, up to date and accessible information for parents and thepublic. Completion of the Profile is a statutory requirement of all schools. The

standard template aims to allow parents to compare the information on differentschools in a consistent way. The Profile allows for the provision of a mix of quantitative and qualitative information. The data elements of the Profile are pre-completed by the DCSF.

Completion of the School Profile

1.105 Most schools visited and surveyed have an online School Profile completed or started. Just one fifth of both primary and secondary headteachers who respondedto the surveys reported that they had not completed it.

Table 10.1: Completion of the Profile by Schools

% of Respondents Agreeing with Statement

StatementsSecondaryHeadteachers

PrimaryHeadteachers

I have completed the School Profile 56% 62%

I have started but not completed the School Profile 23% 17%

I have not completed the School Profile 21% 20%

No response 0% 1%

1.106 Views on ease of completion were mixed. One half of primary headteachers andone third of secondary headteachers thought online completion was quick andeasy. Around half of all respondents thought there was sufficient space to addrelevant information. Positive views reported were in relation to the simplicity of the

form and ease of completion compared to the AGR.



85

1.107 Around half of the headteachers responding to the survey reported that theyconsidered the Profile to be less of a burden to complete than the previous AGR.However, a majority of headteachers consulted in the case studies expressedconcerns about the additional bureaucratic burden created. Concerns relate to thefact that the Profile duplicates existing information and a range of technicaldifficulties experienced by headteachers.

Figure 10.1: Headteacher views on Completion of the Profile

Positive Viewso “It’s concise and simple. I like the fact that some of it is pre-populated.”o “It’s much easier to complete than the AGR and overlaps with the SEF.”

Negative Viewso “Our newsletters provide much more detailed information on what this school is all about. The

Profile tries to duplicate this in a more watered down manner.”o “I’ve had problems in inputting information and have lost lots of data.”o “It’s restrictive - it doesn’t give the opportunity to outline the school’s character”

Value and Quality of the Profile

1.108 On balance, the views of headteachers and governors consulted through thesurveys and case studies were that the School Profile is of limited effectiveness.Less than half of the headteachers surveyed thought that the data did provide anaccurate picture of the school. Secondary headteachers were more negative thanthe primary headteachers - 44% of the former thought that the data did not providean accurate picture compared to 27% of the latter.

Table 10.2: Stakeholder Perceptions of the School Profile% of Respondents Agreeing or Strongly Agreeing

with Statements


PrimaryHeadteachers

SIPs LAs

The data in the School Profileprovides an accurate picture of theschool

37%(44% disagree)

45%(27% disagree)

36% 31%

The Profile is a more effective way of conveying information to parents thanthe governors’ annual report

29%(43% disagree)

25%(49% disagree)

39% 44%

1.109 Just over one quarter of headteachers thought that the Profile was a more effectivemethod of communication than the AGR. SIPs and LAs were slightly more

positive. Positive views included: the ease of comparison across different schools;

the use of graphs to provide trends in performance;

the simplicity of the format.

1.110 However, a significant number of headteachers consulted through the case studiesraised concerns:

the graphs/data in the Profile refer to the previous year, whilst thecommentary is about the current year;

the information presented is out of context;

newsletters and parents visits to the school are better sources;



86

Ofsted reports provide a more objective assessment that parent’s trust.

Figure 10.2 Headteacher Views on the Value and Quality of the Profile

Positive Viewso “It provides useful comparator information and is clearer than the AGR.”

o “The graphs are helpful for the governors.”o “It’s concise and simple.”o “It provides a rich picture of what the school has to offer.”

Negative Views

o “Information is provided out of context and is too harsh.”o “The data is old – we’ve moved on since last year.”o “Parent’s trust Ofsted. I think they’d question this more because it’s written by us.”o “The focus is on results. There’s limited space given to ECM which is what we’re all about.”

1.111 Some governors consulted felt that the School Profile did not provide a vehiclethrough which governors’ themselves could report back to parents. This meant the

profile was not an accountable document as the AGR had been.“The School Profile has taken over from what I believed, as did my governors, wasan important part of their accountability to the community we served. Who aregovernors now accountable to and who is measuring their performance?”

Parental Access and Views

1.112 Over the period between July 2007 and January 2008, there were on average63,000 hits per month on School Profiles18, increasing to almost 100,000 inJanuary 2008.

1.113 During the case study fieldwork we consulted with just under 100 parents. A smallnumber of those consulted who had seen the Profile expressed some positiveviews about its’ potential use. These comments mostly referred to the value of thedocument when choosing a school for their child, in particular if the family wasmoving area.

Figure 10.3: Parental Views of the ProfilePositive Views

o “It’s a useful source particularly when you’re moving to another part of the country and don’tknow anything about the schools.”

o “You can look across two schools and compare what they’re about.”o “When I read the Profile I can see the achievements the whole school has made and this fits

with the improvements I’ve seen in my child.”o “I like the bit about parents having their say.”o “I received the annual governor’s report and read it, but it was very long and boring. This

School Profile is better than, but not as good as the newsletter.”

18Source: Google Analytics



87

1.114 However, there was low awareness about the School Profile amongst most parentsand carers consulted. Just one third of primary headteachers and one quarter of secondary headteachers agreed that parents and carers were aware of the Profile.This was the case even in the small number of schools where the headteacher hadtaken specific action to promote the Profile. One school had promoted the Profilethrough the school newsletter and another had printed and sent the Profile to allgovernors and parents. The parents we consulted in this latter school did notremember receiving the Profile or reading it.

1.115 When shown the document, parents highlighted some issues associated with theaccessibility of the Profile. These were:

difficulties in understanding the graphical representation of CVA data;

the terminology used in the document;

lack of accessibility for parents without internet access; and

lack of accessibility for parents with low levels of English.

Figure 10.4: Parental Views of the ProfileNegative

o “I can’t imagine parents choosing a school based on CVA.”o “If it’s supposed to be for parents they should cut out all the education jargon.”o “It’s dull and lifeless. Testimonials from parents and pupils would be better.”o “It doesn’t give the sense of what this school is about. It’s all about the data.”o “We would need to get it translated into more than thirty different languages and send it out to

parents to be accessible.”

1.116 The added value of the school profile to parents is not clear. When parents were

shown the school profile they felt the information was of some interest. However,many thought that existing communication mechanisms, such as newsletters andpupil updates, provided them with the information they needed.

Figure 10.5: School Profile: Views of Added value

o "I think everything on here already exist in a better format somewhere else. You can get dataand a view on results and performance from Ofsted, feedback from the newsletter and fromour own school website."

o "For comparative information across schools, parents will still go to Ofsted. That's becausepeople trust Ofsted and see the information as impartial. The School Profile is still compiledby the school even though it has national data in it.

1.117 On balance, the School Profile was considered to work contrary to the aim of theNRwS policy, to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy. Whilst it was considered thatthe document was of some value to parents when choosing a school, the vastmajority considered that other sources of information were more useful. Ofstedreports provide a trusted resource on performance, whilst schools’ owncommunication mechanisms are better for conveying their ethos. Additionally, theProfile was not felt to have addressed the issues of accessibility of the AGR, as toofew parents were aware its existence.



Appendix A: Case Study and Survey Evidence Illustrating Key

Messages

The figures in this Appendix provide a series of assessed case studyexamples (as opposed to quotes from stakeholders). These are based on

individual school case study assessments, drawing on the range of evidence sources (triangulated consultations with a range of staff within

schools, expert document assessment, and observations).

88



EVIDENCE FOR SECTION 2 OF MAIN REPORT: EFFECTIVENESS AND IMPACT OF SCHOOL SELF-EVALUATION

Figure A2.1: Case Study Examples of Data Use and Analysis

School/Cohort Level

The schools' target setting is very sound, involving full use of value added data. The monitoring and evaluation plan provides a

lot of data evidence which feeds into SEF. Targets are set every October for the coming year using a range of data including

previous year’s results and predicted grades. (Secondary School)

They provided me with a traffic light analysis for year 10 that shows a 2007 predicted grade analysis by subject, by grade

groupings and effort grades; this analysis is then cut by tutor group to show predicted grades by tutor group. This identified tutor

groups where additional support may need to be provided by the tutor. (Secondary School) There are clear systems to ensure that all teaching is informed by data which contributes to achievement & progress. Rigorous

data analysis by the assessment coordinator identifies pupils not making satisfactory progress – this is shared with the SENCO

for appropriate action to be taken. (Primary School)

During the observation, it was interesting to see how the Head moved from school-level data (RaiseOnline sheets and graphs)

to class work results in order to drill down into issues, for example by bringing out Key Stage mark sheets to show the progress

of individuals who had perhaps not made their expected grades, mentioning contributory factors (such as problems at home),

etc. (Primary School)

Subject/Department Level

Analysis is undertaken by subject/class levels and comparisons are made between subjects, pupil groups and individual pupil

level as well as compared to national performance – Heads of department accept this pupil level analysis now - it is in job

descriptions. The Assistant Head holds school improvement groups with clusters of dept headteachers once a term to share

practice on using IT and interpreting data. (Secondary School)

Evaluation systems are designed to measure that progress is being made, not just checking to see if they are meeting targets

that are easily achievable. For example, some departments have already met their FFT target so they are now using data to set

aspirational targets, which, in turn, allows more powerful conversations about strategies to achieve those targets. (Secondary

School)

The analysis of data for each Phase leader is provided and this is discussed with the Department Head. The Phase

Leader/Curriculum leader discusses the data with 'their' staff. (Primary School)

The school clearly identified the areas for improvement in subject areas – Mathematics in particular - and in the areas of raising

standards and achievement overall, pupil progress and challenge for the more able. Literacy, Science and Maths leaders

analyse RaiseOnline data for their areas and use it to inform areas for development, targets and planning. (Primary School)

The document review highlights that all staff with key stage / department responsibility have appropriate understanding of the

school's data and are using it to evaluate teaching and learning. Subject leaders are working more effectively across the school

89




90

Figure A2.1: Case Study Examples of Data Use and Analysis

to improve planning. (Primary School)

Class, Teacher and Pupil Level

Teachers are provided with data which shows expected grades for each child based on prior attainment and using FFT data.

Teachers then set targets. Teachers have ownership of the class data. (Secondary School)

They conduct an achievement day analysis of predicted grades/effort - these are discussed with pupils and parents, and an

analysis of progress KS2-3 at individual level - which highlights good/satisfactory/unsatisfactory progress being made. This is

analysed by gender/ethnicity. (Secondary School) Data is analysed by the headteacher, then the deputy and head together, and then it is shared with staff (individual class

teachers first and then whole staff) at staff meetings. There is a formal data review meeting with all staff three times a year. Data

is used to track pupils progress on an individual, class & school level. The school also monitors the progress of particular groups

for example boys, FSM, SEN etc. All teachers have tracking sheets for pupils. (Primary School)

There was no data analysis prior to the arrival of the current head in 2005. She introduced a whole school system to review

pupils’ progress in all core subjects involving subject and class teachers. Ongoing assessments, optional SATs, PAT, KS1, FS1,

P-scales, Pivots and school monitoring systems all inform target setting. Numerical targets are set annually for reading, writing

and Maths for all pupils in KS1 & FS. Class teachers, subject leaders & SENCO are set specific targets for pupils this

information is shared with parents. (Primary School)

Layered targets are monitored half-termly to ensure pupils are moving through the appropriate sub-levels to achieve L4 at end

of Y6. Every teacher has a Mapping Attainment Grid (MAG) for reading, writing & numeracy. Teachers monitor progress termly

& SLT Performance Management Teams also meet with staff to monitor progress: half termly for targets & termly for MAGs.

(Primary School)




91

Figure A2.2: Pupil Monitoring and Progress

Pupil Tracking Systems

There is a comprehensive system for tracking all pupils’ progress and identifying where they need support (Form Tutor link with

Year Heads or Heads of Subject Departments depending on what kind of support is needed). The headteacher felt that they were

now acutely aware that one of the key agents for improvement was monitoring and tracking pupils and supporting those falling

behind and not achieving. (Secondary School)

The headteacher introduced a comparative tracking system that monitors the progress of every child through the school (there

was no tracking in place when she arrived). They assess children three times a year in writing, reading and Maths, for example

every half term children do an unaided piece of writing which is collated termly, levelled and then put on to a Mapping AttainmentGrid (MAG) so that you can see progress across sub-levels across the year. The deputy and headteacher collect that information

and produce data sets comparing levels of progress of particular groups of children that need additional intervention. There is a

traffic light system ensuring children are making sufficient progress. A new electronic version of MAG has just been introduced so

the school can monitor progress throughout the year rather than retrospectively or once a year. (Primary School)

Assessment for Learning

The school has introduced a comprehensive approach to monitoring and reviewing pupil progress through AfL. The results from

this are collated by the SLT and progress in all classes is reviewed on a half-termly basis. Based on this, if any classes /

teachers are considered not be making sufficient progress across the cohort, the head of department will introduce performance

review and provide support to raise achievement. (Secondary School)

The school and individual departments are using assessment for learning to identify where pupils may need extra support. They

also have been given credit in the LA for developing a good practice model of intervention plans. (Secondary School)

More generally, they use assessment for learning, so there is close work with teachers/subject teachers to ensure learning ischild centred. (Primary School)


The SEF explains that there are procedures in place for monitoring teaching and learning. It refers to the lesson observation file

and Sec 5a explains in detail just how systematic it is. Training has been provided for teachers on what is a good lesson and

paired observations have also taken place. Observations are supplemented by work scrutiny. As a result, weaker areas of the

curriculum (e.g. resistant materials) have been identified through observations and measures put in place to address them.

(Secondary School)

The Moderated School Self Review (MSSR) process is used to moderate results. Work Scrutiny and Unit Analysis are also




92

Figure A2.2: Pupil Monitoring and Progress

undertaken. Pupil progress tracking takes place (previously bi-annually and from Sept 07 three times year) for reading, writing

and numeracy. Pupil work scrutiny and pupil discussions using monitoring and subject leader files are undertaken. There is a

visual tracking chart for the whole school introduced in November. Lesson observations/teacher assessments take place

(informal - weekly); formal twice yearly against performance management objectives and School Improvement priority areas).

(Primary School)




93

Figure A2.3: Embedded and Whole School Approaches

Whole School Approaches

The process comprises departmental reviews - an interview by the Assistant Head with each Department Head which leads to

an action plan. Underpinning the interview is a curriculum review that is undertaken by the Head of Department including

review of academic achievement data, lesson observations and a work sampling trawl. There is a focus on bringing together

academic and pastoral teams to identify what the issues are underpinning the evidence. SLT staff pull together overall

messages and write sections of the SEF. The SEF is formally updated annually, although in practice it is updated moreregularly where appropriate. Departmental SEFs exist and departmental action plans stem from those. (Secondary School)

There is evidence from SEF, School Improvement Plan and the SIP that the whole school is involved in self-evaluation and

they are now being given the vision and provided with the evidence to focus on the main issues for improvement and

development. The SEF states that the School Improvement Plan has been developed through rigorous self-evaluation, data

analysis, Ofsted key issues, monitoring, curriculum team action plans, leadership team focused sessions and work in staff

meetings. All staff have been consulted, governors have agreed it and parents have been sent a summary’. (Primary School)

Accountability of Middle Managers and Teachers

All elements of the school are involved. There is broad based and collaborative leadership through the headteacher and SLT;

increasing accountability and direction from middle management, and an increasingly active governor body under a new chair.

(Secondary School)

Self-evaluation is heavily devolved to middle management - SLT have the responsibility for drafting the SEF, but they use

middle managers as a 'reality check', and the focus of self-evaluation is at the year and department level. (Secondary School)

The headteacher has various meetings with curriculum teams/cross curricula teams. They do mini SEFs (which include the

results of parent /pupil questionnaires) and the process is linked to performance review. As part of the review process PhaseLeaders have performance reviews first, followed by all teachers and assistants who have professional development

interviews. There is a merging of personal priorities (from these interviews) and whole school issues (from the mini SEFs).

LA/Government priorities feed in through staff meetings. (Primary School)

The school this year is promoting greater devolvement of self-evaluation to lower tier staff. This is intended to shift the

responsibility for self-evaluation and outcomes to all staff rather than just being a top down approach. Feedback from the

teacher interviews shows that staff are aware of weaknesses, the actions they need to take and they feel accountable for

results. (Primary School)

Teacher Performance Management

Everything the school is trying to achieve is focused on raising accountability of teachers to deliver improved standards. A key

mechanism is tracking the progress and value added for individual teachers and linking this to performance review.




94

Figure A2.3: Embedded and Whole School Approaches

(Secondary School)

Observations are also undertaken as part of teachers Performance Management – the headteacher devised a form based on

Ofsted criteria and this is then discussed following observations. (Secondary School)

Regular monitoring of staff performance (reflected in performance management targets) has had a significant impact on

achievement. (Primary School)

Pupil progress against sub-levels is monitored and linked to the performance management of staff. (Primary School)

Pupil/Parent Engagement

Information is shared with parents at the year 10/11 transition meetings the school holds to consider pupil requests for extrasupport. This then subsequently helps planning for subject leaders to raise attainment. Low level maths results have pushed

for more cross-curricular ways of raising standards and improving motivation. Maths and vocational staff now plan jointly.

(Secondary School)

Target setting is an integral part of home/school partnership, involving parents, children and the school in improving outcomes.

A Foundation Stage parent profile meeting is undertaken during the first half term to facilitate parents as key participants in

their child's learning. Half termly curriculum meetings are held in each class to share learning activities that will be covered

during that period. This also helps parents who find understanding curriculum letters difficult due to limited English or poor

literacy levels. (Primary School)

The school has recently adopted good procedures to assess and monitor pupils’ academic progress. This is used well to

identify pupils with learning difficulties as early as possible and to set class and individual targets so that most pupils have a

growing understanding of how well they are doing and what they need to learn next. The pupil tracking systems are beginning

to be used to link assessment information to targets for individuals and groups allowing staff to tell pupils how well they are

doing and what they need to do to improve. (Primary School)




95

Figure A2.4: Developing Self-Evaluation Practices

Less Consistency Across the School

Self-evaluation is extremely patchy and variable if examined bottom up. Whilst some departments are very strong others are

very weak. Evidence to support this comes from the headteacher and SIP feedback and the document review. The interview

with the one Head of Department demonstrated clearly a detailed approach to tracking and understanding performance,

resulting in interventions that were impacting on GCSE achievements. Another Head of Department demonstrated key naiveté

and limitations in the approach to self-evaluation. This was borne out through interviews with other member of staff, the

headteacher, SIP and SLT. (Secondary School)

Departmental structures include lesson observations, work scrutinies, curriculum review, moderation etc. but there is variability

across middle managers use of these (Secondary School)

Data is used in performance management at SLT and middle manager level. All teachers receive a formal personal review but

it's not clear what data is discussed within these. (Primary School)

The school is moving towards greater embedding with the focus being shifted to teachers/subject leaders, but it is gradual as

extent of change required is considerable. (Primary School)

Lower Accountability amongst Staff

More needs to be done to ensure subject departments and teaching staff take ownership of the targets set. Currently these are

set by SLT and not negotiated. The SIP is working with the school and has suggested that this would be better if negotiated and

devolved to subject level in order that targets are both data based and realistic. (Secondary School)

The SIP report also suggests there are some inconsistencies in target setting at the teacher and individual child level across the

school. (Primary School)

The school undertake a range of activities including good analysis of data and subject scrutinies including lesson observations /

review of marking etc. However, these don’t appear to be clearly linked to performance management, and tends to be more of

a once a year type activity, rather than an ongoing process of development. (Primary School)




96

Figure A2.5: Case Study Examples: Potential to Improve SEFs

and Link to School Improvement Plans

The SEF is linked to school plan but in reverse, the school plan drives the SEF and not the other way round. This is currently

identified as a key constraint to the effectiveness and rigour of school self-evaluation (based on document review and SIP

feedback). It also explains why the School Improvement Plan has been updated but the SEF has not (Secondary School)

The SEF is mostly descriptive with some issues of judgement missing. There are examples of where the document is thin on

strategies to address some really major issues are. The 2008 prediction for GCSE A*-C is marked down by 20 percentage pointsbut there is nothing in the SEF which sets out a strategy to offset this dramatic fall in attainment. Statements can be found in the

SEF which are not borne out in practice. For example, in teaching and learning there is a statement ‘good use of ICT in lessons’.

However, the SIP reports that ICT is a major issue of concern for the school. (Secondary School)

The self-evaluation framework could be further strengthened by identifying the individuals who are responsible and accountable

for delivery and by setting dates for achievement within the term. This would bring it in line with the School Improvement Plan

and better enable links to be made between the two documents (Primary School)




97

Figure A2.6: Acting on Pupil and Parent Feedback

In response to feedback from students that they wanted more involvement in decisions in the college and the community, the

college has strengthened the college council and trained students. Four students now sit on the governing body and seven on

the local authority youth council. (Secondary School)

The school has restructured the way they handle transition from KS2 to KS3 as a result of feedback from parents and students -

in 2004 they instigated a Transition Project to ease the difficulties faced in moving between primary and secondary stages.

(Secondary School) Pupils were consulted on lessons and highlighted they wanted to be challenged more. As a result of greater SE and pupil

progress tracking, targets are set for all pupils and these are discussed with parents at parents evening/target setting day. Also,

identified that parents with children on SEN register were not happy, and felt they were not getting the same rights as part of

extended schools agenda. The HMI SEN advisor and disability officer came in. The school formed a SEN parents group which

meets monthly. This has greatly improved situation for SEN pupils. (Secondary School, EC SIP)

The Parent survey showed that parents wanted more information about their child's learning. Pupil progress meetings are now

undertaken with parents regularly to monitor individual progress and this feeds into teacher performance assessment (Primary

School, LA SIP)

Examples of consulting and acting on feedback from parents and pupils include:

Black History Month provision is actively supported and has been developed by parents in cooperation with the Humanities

Team;

School Council was active in making recommendations for improved playground facilities;

views of parents regarding security measures around the school were acted upon, with new electronic entry system,fencing, security cameras and staff awareness;

a staggered intake, which included full time pupils going home for lunch and returning for the afternoon session;

an action point from the Disability working party (including parents and staff) has been that school newsletters and key

dates will soon be accessed via the school phone system. (Primary School)

There are a range of processes for consulting parents and pupils including questionnaires to parents, talking to children, School

Council, pupil and staff questionnaires. The questionnaire to parents given out at the parents evening who wouldn't normally fill

a questionnaire in. Actions as a result of parental feedback include extended uniform outlets, provided after school club,

breakfast club and hot dinners. Previously there was only 50% uptake on homework and this has improved through a launch for

parents and now there is a 90% uptake. (Primary School)




98

Figure A2.7: Impact of Self-Evaluation on School Improvement

School Planning, Prioritisation and Focus on Outcomes

‘School improvement planning is well focused on the priorities needed to improve pupil performance. SLT felt they had

changed the nature of school planning – it was always rigorous but having to quantify it in the SEF has sharpened the focus –

we’ve got rid of sweeping statements that we made in past. Governors agreed that they can see where the school is going and

it’s always moving on – self-evaluation provides the yardstick to measure advance. Also shows if the school has met it

objectives and if not it prompts them to ask why not. (Secondary School)

Slightly disappointing GCSE results in Summer 2007 have resulted in beefed-up SMT intervention, scripted meetings and

better feedback to mentors. Supported through a planning board in the staffroom identifying all of the key pupils (Secondary

School)

Planning for Maths and English is being developed to focus on the areas that have been identified as weak through tracking

and unit analysis. Layered targets are used to help ensure that work is challenging. Recent monitoring shows that children

know their targets and are working on them. (Primary School)

The headteacher commented that weaknesses are identified through the self-evaluation process and interventions are put in

place to address those weaknesses. ‘It’s easy to slip but self-evaluation keeps the school focused as we are looking at it

termly and if something is not being done we can address it there and then’. (Primary School)

Accountability of Performance and Progress

There is evidence from the interviews with teaching staff that they have felt an increasing sense of pressure to be accountable

for performance in their subject areas. (Secondary School)

There is raised awareness among departments as a whole. We are now asking more questions of people (teacher). It has

brought everyone together - made everyone questionable and answerable (governor). (Secondary School)

The Deputy headteacher said that the biggest help to teachers was the target framework/grid enabling them to compare the

progress of groups of children. Staff had less ownership before now they can see where the 'reds' are for children, and they

can also see data for individual subjects across the whole school. They now have a rigorous whole school approach to

tracking which did not have before. (Primary School)

The introduction of curriculum teams means everybody has the opportunity to take professional responsibility. The SIP report

states that there is now a new structure in place to give all teachers a role in leading improvement. (Primary School)

Focus on Pupil Outcomes

The value added data has made a big difference to the school because they realised that despite good achievement, their

added value wasn't good enough. They introduced an estimated grade into KS4 (each term) for better tracking and for




99

Figure A2.7: Impact of Self-Evaluation on School Improvement

example in science they identified a group of students who needed additional support. (Secondary School)

Data from assessments draw attention to specific areas, for example, a pupil in Y6 may have high reading score but lack skills

in comprehension – this allows teachers to tailor individual work (Primary School)

Data is used to set targets and action planning, which is undertaken in teams. Interventions are targeted at Y3 as well as

Y5/6. Reasons for progress/lack of for certain pupils is discussed and explained so interventions are tailored effectively

(Primary School)

The school has reviewed its target setting system across the school. This has resulted in targets being more stretching for the

most able pupils, in order to increase the number of those reaching higher levels. Previously, if pupils had met their target partway through the term, they would not be pushed to achieve more. This has resulted in more differentiation in the classroom.

(Primary School)


Analysis of FFT, Key Stage results and fine grade data has consistently identified the relatively poor performance of lower

ability boys as a key issue. Discussion between the SIP and the SLT has identified that it is necessary to broaden the

curriculum at 14-19 in order to provide more appropriate learning opportunities for the cohort. This is a priority for 2008.

(Secondary School)

As a result of greater analysis across subjects, it has been easier to pick up coasting subjects or those not performing as well

as other areas. There are new support and challenge measures given to underperforming departments. (Secondary School)

There is evidence from the interviews (and verified by SIP report) that learning walks are enabling staff to better identify

weaknesses and what needs to be done to address these. A learning walk and scrutiny of pupil books across the school

showed that methods for marking varied and did not relate to the targets set for children. This is now leading to the

development of strategies to tackle whole school. (Primary School)

The school had received some complaints from parents of SEN pupils that their children were not getting sufficient resourcesto progress appropriately at school. Improved data provision allowed the school to track achievement back to individual pupils

and demonstrate that they were actually doing very well. Interesting example of data being used to prove or disprove external

comments and criticisms. (Primary School)




100

Figure A2.8: Self-Evaluation Leading to Targeted Interventions

Developing Staff

The use of residuals had identified some concerns regarding the performance of a particular member of staff and so work was

done to provide additional support and CPD to that member of staff as well as targeted interventions for some students (extra

support from a teaching assistant). (Secondary School)

In terms of identifying priorities the headteacher always looks at data first to 'identify weaknesses’ for example last year writing

was identified as a particular problem: there was a 30% difference between L5 writers and readers. As a result the school is usinga renewed framework and developing visual literacy, the curriculum team leader has been trained on visual learning techniques

and they have delivered staff training and discussed in staff meetings. They are also improving the ICT structure as a result as

there is a need for interactive whiteboards with sound so they can play film clips etc. (Primary School)


Self Evaluation has increased knowledge on those who perform well and those who don't and why. This helps to define

improvement areas. It has also contributed towards the drive towards knowledge expansion for teachers. Teaching and

Learning and Innovation groups have been set which teachers can attend voluntarily - sharing of good practice. (Secondary

School, EC SIP)

Examples include: a) Writer in residence in which a male writer was employed to work across the school on creative writing and

particularly to promote enjoyment of creative writing amongst boys (identified as underachieving); b) Target SEN pupils identified

as underachieving through placing pupils into ability groups for extended writing and science; c) strategies to improve outcomes

in basic skills through engagement with the Creative Partnerships initiative (Ofsted partially attributes improvements in basic skillsto this intervention). (Primary School)

Self-evaluation identified that boys' achievement is not as high as girls and as a result a number of strategies have been put in

place to address this. Evidence to support this comes from the doc review, Ofsted report and stakeholder interviews. Individuals

quoted examples of subject specific or whole school initiatives to drive up standards and/or address identified areas of weakness.

One example is where the whole school are working together to try and boost progress in school. This has included a dedicated

one afternoon per week on extended writing and one afternoon per week on extended Science. (Primary School)

Individual Pupil/Group Support

Based on FFT data, it was identified that a significant proportion of KS4 pupils would be unlikely to achieve Grade C or above in




101


maths at GCSE. The school has introduced an intensive Maths intervention programme, bringing students in after school and in

holidays to support progress. (Secondary School)

The school looked at set 2 GCSE data, Yellis and KS2-4 projections and identified a group of 15 pupils who would benefit from

greater support. As a result, it was agreed that these pupils would be given additional support from the Assistant Headteacher.

(Secondary School)

There is evidence from interviews with teachers, SIP and document review that once issues are identified, action is undertaken to

introduce/implement intervention strategies. This includes strategies to improve weaknesses in pupil performance (e.g. in

September residuals are analysed to identify which cohorts of students may benefit from additional support from a teachingassistant or latterly in the year from catch up sessions for example that are run every Monday. (Secondary School)

The school is using Assessment for Learning and there is evidence that school is using data to identify and track key cohorts of

pupils. For example, data was used to identify a group of 15 students who were underachieving in English when their

performance was compared to other subject areas. As a result 6-7 of these students have been targeted for extra support from

the Assistant in two periods a week. These students are also monitored in terms of their attendance and given access to PCs

where they can make use of the exam revision materials available on line. (Secondary School)

Data analysis showed that the performance of boys was below that of girls at Level 3 in all subjects in the end of KS1 SATs. As a

result, booster groups were held in the spring term. In addition, male and female Y2 children were placed in ability groups for

English and maths on mornings over a 4 week period in Jan and Feb. (Primary School)

Year 5 took a Year 6 SAT at the end of the year in order to help analyse their preparedness. On the basis of the results, teachers

divided pupils into three ability groups. Issues were addressed both through science and also in literacy, where vocabulary was

identified as an issue. Children understood vocabulary but weren't using it – they had discussions with pupils which led to key

words being put up in classrooms and a greater insistence on their use. SAT results delivered 98% at Level 4 and above. Pupilsare more aware of their own understanding and school has a better understanding of cross-curricular links. (Primary School)

Evaluating Interventions

Targeted intervention has taken place over the past few years, in particular through a peer mentoring scheme for borderline (C-D)

pupils. This has been effective in the past at pushing up GCSE results, but less so in Summer 2007. Direct intervention is now

planned across the board for borderline pupils. Peer mentoring will stay, but only for relatively able pupils. (Secondary School)

Self-evaluation has led to a number of changes. Most significant is the 6th form which has been restructured as a result of a

review conducted out of the data analysis from the SEF. As part of the self-evaluation process it was identified that the

achievement levels in the 6th form were poor, so the school wanted to review the quality of teaching. They set up a clear




102


programme of self review, including detailed analysis of results, lesson observations, marking, attendance, and punctuality. They

found that the teaching was good, but attendance and punctuality were poor. They implemented policies addressing attendance

(more signing in etc). Results still fell the next year. They focussed on unpicking other factors through talking to pastoral staff and

6th formers. It transpired that there were a number of issues, not least the distraction of shopping. Their entry & school guidance

policy was also reviewed - too many girls were taking inappropriate subjects just to stay on at the school. They have now

tightened entry requirements for 6th form and have started to broaden curriculum to include vocational courses. (Secondary

School)

School has a 'Provision Map' which is an A3 sheet of paper which identifies any children they are concerned about. Teachersthen compile an intervention package for those children (for example work with them more or get more TA support). This is

tracked & monitored and last year those children receiving intervention had made good progress – they monitor whether the

intervention is making any difference and the data shows how many sub-levels they've improved by etc. Generally it has made a

difference but where it hasn't TAs have been provided with additional training. (Primary School)

The school took part in the SEAL programme and took a whole school approach, as it was on the School Development Plan and

linked to teacher Performance Management. They undertook their own evaluation linking which found the programme to be very

successful but that some elements not suitable for particular ages. They changed the focus to make it more suitable – they were

only able to do this from the knowledge they had of children through self-evaluation. (Primary School)




103

Figure A2.9: Impact of Self-Evaluation on Quality and Standards

Standards and Achievement

The Head of Science uses AfL and a traffic light system to highlight pupils who need extra support or particular targeting. This

has led to an improvement in standards. Performance in science in particular has been a major contributor to the school

achieving it highest ever performance in A*- C grades. (Secondary School)

In 2006/7 value added data was showing that the 6th form was 'coasting', so they conducted a 6th form review. Out of the 6th

form review there are now more consistent learning strategies & practices for getting coursework in on time. Very effectiveworking with SIP and 6th form is now in top 25% ALPs. (Secondary School)

At KS4 self-evaluation showed that results for science results were relatively poor in relation to other departments, partly as a

result of the head of department being absent for over five months on sick leave. As a result additional support and challenge

was provided to science teachers (lesson observations, support from other teachers). In 2007 the results have improved and the

SIP notes The science results were greatly improved on those achieved in previous years and indicates that the support and

challenge that the school exercises for department that fall behind has a positive impact. (Secondary School)

One third of Y7 were identified as having a reading age of 7 or below. A strong intervention programme was introduced to

tackle this including an entirely new curriculum for some, with others receiving support through the mainstream. The result was

that every targeted child improved by between 1 and 2.5 reading years in 7 months (Secondary School)

The school created topic folders to address the issue of learning not being embedded which was having a detrimental impact on

results. SLT & subject leaders review three topics a term and focus them on the needs of the community and children's learning.

Improvements with topic-focused work were observed (and before lots of work were not completed). RaiseOnline data shown

that school made a 20% increase in its L3s in writing last year (improvement in boys' writing was a key priority last year) – the

headteacher felt this showed the impact of self-evaluation going on in school and that this was helping the school achieve its

targets. (Primary School)

In the Foundation Stage the school have the best results for three years. There has also been improvements at KS2 in reading

and writing at L4 which were respectively 33% and 21% higher than the previous year. A key change to achieve this has been

a shift in the quality of teacher. Last year 10% were good and 80% satisfactory, this year 43% were good and 57% satisfactory.

This has been achieved through a detailed programme of lesson observations, individual training and CPD. (Primary School)

The directed time used to help marking of writing has resulted in higher English scores and an outstanding in the Ofsted

Inspection. Improvements in science provision resulted in higher scores: 100% of Y6 got L4 and 74% got L5. (Primary School)

As a result of analysing SAT results, it was highlighted that science scores weren't as high (i.e. in the 90s) as Maths and




104


English. By undertaking conversations with pupils and book scrutinies it was identified that children lacked the necessary

vocabulary in Science. Improvements were made to teaching approaches and planning to ensure vocabulary was a key

element. They are moving towards enquiry based science. Science scores are improving. (Primary School)

Pupil Groups

The LA tracker highlighted that children with SEN were under-achieving. A literacy booster programme was introduced. All

SEN pupils in this particular cohort improved by two sub-levels in the academic year. A phonic programme was introduced for 7

children in Y2 who were dropping off - they made progress by two sub-levels after completing programme. (Primary School) Data analysis highlighted that not all weaker pupils were catered for. Provision has been made for those in lower bands to sit a

lower level GCSE which is a short course. Some pupils do a citizenship course - two units of Public Service qualification to help

them gain GCSE equivalents. Some are taken off timetable for extra support which aids motivation. This department has seen

standards rise as a result. (Secondary School)

Across several classes and year groups, pupil progress tracking has highlighted groups of pupils with borderline grades. The

school recognises that many pupils do not have the right environment at home for study and that barriers need to be removed

before standards and achievement can be affected. Intervention groups have been set up for example workshops on particular

elements of the curriculum, Easter school with revision classes, summer school. The school has made use of its extended

school status and has evaluated the impact on pupils attending by analysing predicted grades and achievement of those

attending the school and those who don't. Evidence suggests pupils are achieving targets or over if they attend revision classes

etc. (Secondary School)

Nearly a quarter (105) of all children were on the SEN register. The impact of a successful intervention programme and major

improvements in special needs provision and tracking procedures has reduced this by 20 children (20%). (Primary School)

Teaching and Learning

Analysis of pupil performance showed that the school could do more on helping gifted & talented. Results over Summer 2007

showed that these pupils achieved almost a whole level more than target in their SATs. (Secondary School)

Self-evaluation highlighted that certain subjects weren't working for certain children who were lacking in motivation for

'compartmentalised' subjects such as Geography and History where they only had one hour a week. Teachers were given three

days of planning outside of the classroom to work on cross-curricular planning. As a result changes have been made to the way

in which these subjects are presented and taught. Teachers have noticed improvements in motivation and attitude towards

these subjects. (Primary School)





Data showed that children were coming into Foundation Stage below average and making less than average progress. SLT

made the decision based on prior attainment data to restructure Foundation Stage provision. There has been a change in the

staffing structure, a new teacher appointed, and rigorous monitoring and CPD for staff has been provided. They have a more

structured approach, reverting back to nursery and two reception classes (previously combined). There is also rigorous

monitoring and work scrutiny, including visits and lesson observations by the LA's Early Years Consultant and Improvement

Advisor who have highlighted significant improvements in the quality of environment and teaching and learning compared with a

year ago. Work with parents and CPD with NNEBs and TAs (including visits to best practice schools) has also had a positive

impact. This new structure has had a significant impact on standards. (Primary School)Attendance

There has been a key focus on addressing the very poor attendance record of pupils at the school, through effective use of the

SIMS package, policing of classes to ensure pupils are in classes and not just registering, and through effective use of the

EWOs. Attendance has increased from 80.3% in 2005 to 93.7% in 2008 (Secondary School)

One member of SLT leads on pastoral side gathering evidence and documentation on attendance and punctuality. He stands

the at door and 'collars' youngsters who he knows have not been in for while. There is also an electronic registration system

with automated text messaging service to parents’ mobile phones when their kids are not in school. Attendance figures show

unauthorised absence had reduced from 5.8% to 0.8% over four years (Secondary School)

105



EVIDENCE FOR SECTION 3 OF MAIN REPORT: FACTORS INFLUENCING EFFECTIVENESS OF SELF-EVALUATION

Figure A3.1: LA Data Systems and Support for Schools

The LA has worked hard for years on class profiles and tracking systems – schools are good at it now (Primary SIP Manager)

The LA tracker can be accessed by pupils and teachers – this shows analysis of current pupils and is colour coded. It was

used by at least four of the schools visited. It’s very easy to spot issues with cohorts/year groups and individual pupils/

teachers can then plan accordingly as they can see what is needed to improve. (Case Study LA)

A comprehensive data package provided to all LA schools. (Case Study Area)

LA provides to each school its own data compared to others in the LA and nationally (lots of comparative data on 'groups' of

pupils in each school for example achievement by subject by gender, ethnicity). Schools get it more quickly that ROL. (Case

Study Area)

Effective IT and CPD within Schools

In the SEF 2006 they identified strengthening their data processes as a development area - in response they have introduced

development activities on use of IT for data and interpretation for department heads and staff, have introduced new systems

(SIMS - allows direct access for all staff to baseline/minimum predicted grade data) and have introduced new pupil level

analysis and traffic light system. (Secondary School)

There is a lot of evidence to suggest that the self-evaluation leads to action. For example they set up clusters to share practice

across departments in the use of IT to analyse data/skills in data interpretation. They run three a term for different 'clusters' of

departments. (Secondary School)

The school has instigated a cluster training system more generally to share practice across departments which seems to be

really good practice. (Secondary School)

The data manager is very knowledgeable. There is an established data management action group with representatives from

all curriculum and pastoral areas. (Secondary School)

The assessment coordinator acts as bridge between SEF and data. Staff do use data and have a lot of training to bring up to

speed. (Primary School)

The school is always looking at how members of staff can be developed in terms of data analysis. They look for staff to take

responsibility for a particular subject. (Primary School)

A new ICT based monitoring, assessment & target setting system sets FFT D based target levels for each year and learners

are colour coded according to achievement. (Primary School)

106




107

Figure A3.3: Perspectives on RaiseOnline

Positive Views

Tracking is done using RaiseOnline- they like the assessment pack and have found that it really helps them understand their pupils.

(Secondary School)

The headteacher felt that RaiseOnline was better than it used to be and much more user-friendly. It's visually easier to understand with

colours and symbols: more obvious with arrows and colours (red, green). (Secondary School)

The headteacher likes RaiseOnline – its useful to see trends, groups of specific children, etc. But there is a risk that you can become

too data-focused and spend all your time looking at it. (Primary School)

The headteacher felt that RaiseOnline is easier to understand as time gone on – the 'people' on forms are now easier to understand.

(Primary School)

Poor Timing, Reliability and Validity

The data on RaiseOnline comes out too late to be of use for children we are currently teaching – the LA tracker is more useful for

children still teaching. RaiseOnline is useful to identify trends, but to not plan interventions. (Primary School)

KS1 data is not available – we get this from the LA. (Primary School)

The data is too complex and too late. For example, KS3 data is not out until January and schools need data in September. (Secondary

school)

An example was provided where the school has roll of 104 but RaiseOnline data was based on 280 so it was ‘nonsensical'. (HT SIP)

Data is unreliable and late coming out – it’s not yet ready for us to use but we are expected to use in our role. (LA SIP)

The data manager felt there was an overreliance on technology that did not work and RaiseOnline was a good example of that. There

are some issues that is often not on line which has a negative impact on self-evaluation processes because we are unable to access

data to feed into process. (Primary School) It is still early days for RaiseOnline and the data came so late we had to do our own analysis anyway. KS3 data was nine months late

and we are wanting to look at next year’s data now. (Secondary School)

Training Needs

The headteacher but doesn’t think he uses it well enough in terms of its analytical functions and tends to just hit the 'print' key. (Primary

School)

RaiseOnline is easy to navigate and there’s loads on it but we need more training to use it fully. (Secondary School)

We have received very little training on RaiseOnline. (Secondary School)




Figure A3.3: Perspectives on RaiseOnline

The Maths leader said that she would value guidance papers with the data provided in a graphical format providing information on how

to interpret the information. She thought the data was useful but some of it was not very relevant for example the pages on ethnic

minority pupils which 'don't tell us anything about our context' because they have so few. (Primary School)

108



EVIDENCE FOR SECTION 4 OF MAIN REPORT: EFFECTIVENESS OF SIP CORE ROLE

Figure A4.1: Evidence of Effective SIP Challenge

Assessing Performance and Moderating Judgements

The observation corroborated other evaluative evidence of effective challenge by the SIP – the SIP pushed the Head to justify

or explain certain performance issues. (Primary School, LA SIP)

The Document Review provides detailed assessment of the school. The Headteacher confirmed that the SIP had asked

intelligent questions in relation to performance over the last year. (Primary School, EC SIP)

The SIP makes judgements in each area and broadly agrees with both Ofsted and the school. (Secondary School, EC SIP)

There is evidence of constructive and professional dialogue, confidence from SIP that college making right choices for continued progress. The SIP uses meetings to affirm positive progress and critically examine the colleges’ foci for continuing

action. (Secondary School, LA SIP)

The SIP has continued to be a steady hand on the tiller – respecting and encouraging the Headteacher’s and now increasingly

the SLT’s abilities to move the college forward, keeping a critical eye on the evidence for improvement and steering them where

necessary. (Secondary School, LA SIP)

The assessment made by the SIP is assessed as high quality, valued and accurate. The SIP is highly skilled in data

interpretation and analysis having been an ex-HMI inspector. He has accurately identified the key factors facing the school and

affecting its performance. He has also determined whether the school has accurately determined targets and priorities. This

assessment is based on direct observation, review of SIP reports and SLT perceptions. (Secondary School, EC SIP)

There is a sustained effort by the SIP to strengthen the school’s processes to meet the needs of all pupils and to focus the

school on important areas for improvement within the curriculum. The SIP’s moderation of evidence and judgements within the

Partnership Plan shows a willingness to engage critically with the schools’ leadership where she does not feel judgements are

wholly warranted. (Primary School, HT SIP) The SIP has undertaken a full and detailed review of the school’s documentation to understand it’s priorities for achievement .

(Primary School, EC SIP)

Understanding Performance & Priority Areas

As part of the slicing through he undertook a 6th form review and very clearly identified areas for improvement – for example,

marking and working practices, punctuality, lack of guidance and support. They made heads of department more responsible

for these areas. ALPs data now shows the sixth form as ‘Excellent’ instead of low. More generally he has been a sounding

board for the Head on priorities and development planning. (Secondary School, LA SIP)

In the meeting observed, the SIP was clearly asking regularly for the Head to justify performance and/or judgements, for

109





example, in relation to their Y6 SATs results, the SIP pushed the Headteacher to understand why results had declined. This

meant that the Headteacher went back to review the data and identified that there was a turnover issue (only 74% of the pupils

who were in the KS1 data appear in the KS2 data – 36% had left and 26% had joined between the two stages. (Primary School,

LA SIP)

Some very robust discussions about the science department, where data was suggesting there was significant room for

improvement. (Secondary School, LA SIP)

Definitely one of the genuine challenges: challenging school judgements, asking for evidence to support this, how do youvalidate evidence etc. We challenged on pupil attainment through use of all of the data ‘why are they like they are? And what

are we going to do about it?’ It’s made us much more hard-nosed about how to tackle underperformance in T&L. SLT

commented that when HT fed back to them on outcomes from SIP meetings it was clear he’d been asked some challenging

questions and HT will ask them to look at areas challenged on. (Secondary School, LA SIP)

Evidence from the observation suggests that the SIP has a very good grasp of the key performance issues of this school,

especially in relation to data and results (this was the focus of the meeting. This is also reflected in school perceptions and the

SIP report. (Primary School, LA SIP)

The SIP has identified a range of factors contributing to the performance of the school. This is evidenced in the interview

feedback and is supported by the document review. For example, the school's GCSE results in 2006 were higher than ever

with 60% of students gaining 5A*-C and the SIP recognised that GNVQ results in science were a significant contributor to this

performance and the school’s results were likely to be adversely affected from 2007 onwards when the GNVQ qualification

ends. The SIP challenged the Head and SMT to improve their contingency plans for when the GNVQ science qualification

comes to an end. (Secondary School, EC SIP)

Focus on Priorities

The SIP challenged the school’s quality of provision and put some urgency on addressing the issues – the Headteacher felt

there was a morale issue underlying the problem, but the SIP said that recognising this was not sufficient and pushed the

Headteacher to proactively deal with it.

The SIP encouraged the school to prioritise Maths and writing – the summer 2007 results showed a 27% improvement in

Maths, when previous year results had been below floor targets. (Primary School, LA SIP)

The SIP highlighted the need for a whole school push on basic skills and literacy to achieve improvement in core subjects.

(Secondary School, EC SIP)

110





The SIP report demonstrates that the SIP has asked the school to review its behaviour management procedures (I think she

believes that this area is falling between management tiers at present, and is not leading to improved behaviour standards).


The assessed evidence from the repeated/triangulated consultations and document review shows the SIP provided effective

challenge in this school. There has been a significant shift in the level of challenge provided since our initial visits last year.

The SIP is keeping sustained pressure on the SLT to focus on key issues of concern, has become increasingly strong on

keeping a focus on the major weaknesses in provision, particularly in terms of basic skills, areas of low attainment by studentsand use of ICT. His analysis of weaknesses in strategies adopted and the need for a whole school approach to issues keeps

the pressure on the school to improve. (Secondary, EC SIP)

The SIP identified key areas for action which needed to be completed before the next visit – s/he keeps the school focused on

raising achievement all the time and is not distracted by other things. (Primary School, LA SIP)

The SIP has encouraged the Headteacher to focus on an issue facing high performing schools – how to maintain higher

standards while continuing to develop the school’s leadership style(and move to baccalaureate style learning). (Primary School,

HT SIP)

The school welcomed SIP’s challenge which helped them focus on the ‘so what’ i.e. the meaning of the data and what they are

going to do about it. The SIP challenged the HT to get sufficiently on top of the challenges faced by the school, which he was

perhaps overlooking due to other commitments at the LA. (Primary School, LA SIP)

How to Address Improvement Areas

For example, the SIP has challenged the school to address weaknesses with the strategy for improving literacy, in particular that there needed to be more of a focus across all year groups and that it was reliant on staff who do not have literacy as their

major responsibility. (Secondary, EC SIP)

The SIP helped the SLT to focus in on priorities and ‘dig deep’ to highlight what they needed to do to impact on progress.

(Primary School, LA SIP)

The SIP provides the Headteacher with support during the visits in terms of constructive ideas to improve priority areas (the SIP

is able to draw on previous experience as LA advisor) and sharpen up actions. The SIP encouraged the school to reduce the

number of aims they had set to ensure more focus and achievability, discussed to present data to the governing board, and

talked at length about KS1 and FS and how the school could improve writing. The SLT view is that the relationship is ‘more like

a partnership compared to the previous relationship which was more inspectoral’. (Primary School, LA SIP)

111





The SIP has challenged the school in a number of areas:

grading of leadership and management and standards of achievement in the SEF. In the first year the head had graded

these as good and satisfactory; whereas the SIP graded L&M as satisfactory and achievement and standards as

inadequate overall;

challenged the SMT on their assessment of the effectiveness of T&L as graded by lesson observations;

challenged the school on its literacy focus which is only considered partial but which the Head sees as integral to improving

standards across the board; challenged school on participation rate and the fact that a significant proportion of pupils leave school with no passes. In

SIP’s view this is not helped by fact that a key number of difficult students are educated or crowd controlled in segregated

lessons;

quality and processes for SSE and planning which the SIP considers are back to front. The SEF has not been updated this

year which the SIP has highlighted as a key area of concern. (Secondary School, EC SIP)

112




Figure A4.2: Challenging Targets

The SIP effectively assessed whether the school had accurately set targets, recognising that the targets accounted for the

future impact of the demise of GNVQs on results. Current performance against the new target including English and Maths is

significantly below the national average and should be of concern to the school. (Secondary School, EC SIP)

This is done through the SIP’s data analysis and from AH/HT interviews. One meeting is devoted to discussion of target setting

in the context of FFT and setting challenging targets. The SIP identified that the targets were not in line with FFT for Y11, but

after discussion the SIP agreed that there was a good reason for this (the data would have been predicting unobtainable

percentages). (Secondary School, HT SIP)

The SIP has encouraged the school to set Y9 targets at FFT level D for next year, given recent results and anticipated

improvements. (Secondary School, EC SIP)

The SIP pushed for harder target setting at pupil level, resulting in higher Key Stage 1 targets overall and they are now looking

at a range of strategies to support this achievement. (Primary School, EC SIP)

The SIP focused on the school setting realistic (but challenging) targets, looking at how they were going to meet those targets,

and understanding reasons for not meeting targets. The SIP asked about the positives as well, what they were doing well in

certain areas and then using that information to address why they were not doing so well in others (Primary School, LA SIP)

The SIP is continually challenging the headteacher on data, targets etc. The deputy headteacher felt that they were very good

at engaging the school in realistic but challenging targets. The data review observation confirmed this, with the SIP pushing the

headteacher to come back to him with reasons why individual pupils were not going to achieve the targets set (Primary School,

LA SIP)

113




Figure A4.3: Challenging Self-Evaluation and Leadership Structures

Self Evaluation

The SIP identified that the school could do more to monitor and track pupils to ensure good progress can be maintained.


The Head describes ‘exacting conversations’ with the SIP, which had not always been there with the previous link advisor role.

The SIP is particularly challenging on the SEF, which the SIP viewed as not specific enough, and requiring more judgements.

The Head is now ‘really proud’ of the SEF, which is more punchy. (Primary School, HT SIP)

In the middle managers review that the SIP undertook, the SIP asked very detailed questions of phase leaders about the use of

data to track pupils’ progress. The phase leaders found it very challenging (and the document review agrees) – and it resulted in

more consistent practices. (Primary School, EC SIP)

The SIP challenged hard on the SEF, which the SIP regarded as too wordy with not enough data – ‘delivered a harsh message

very nicely’ (Head). (Secondary School, LA SIP)

The SIP encouraged in-depth analysis of attendance figures which had slipped despite significant measures to combat

absenteeism. (Secondary School, EC SIP)

Leadership and Management

The SIP was responsible for challenging the Headteacher to push through some changes in middle management – for example,

reviewing their ‘tracking pupil’ practices and involving them more in SLT. As a result there are now better tracking processes,

regular monitoring and consistency across year groups. The Headteacher states in a busy school, having an outsider who can

see the overview is really helpful in prioritising. (Primary School, EC SIP)

The SIPs questioning challenged SLT to reflect on judgements better and encouraged them to get departments to do similar –

gave guidance on how to encourage middle managers. (Secondary School, EC SIP)

The Headteacher invited staff to meetings to hear the messages from the SIP. (Primary School, EC SIP)

The SIP has played an important part in the development of the school’s new Phase Leaders (Year head equivalent) – seems to

have been a major issue for the 3rd and 4th visits to the school this year (quality of provision and overall leadership &

management). (Primary School, EC SIP)

114




Figure A4.4: Focus on Pupil Groups

The SIP goes through progress by individual pupil and challenges progress of borderline pupils. (Primary School, LA SIP)

The SIP challenged the school about the SEN figures – asking them to look for reasons behind the data to establish whether it

was a teaching issue or related to SEN. (Primary School, LA SIP)

The SIP has challenged the school on the achievement of lower and middle ability boys. The SIP has been pushing the Head to

move towards developing a more effective and comprehensive vocational curriculum to meet their needs. (Secondary School,HT SIP)

The SIP clearly helped the Headteacher to identify key factors around performance, such as the performance of key cohorts

(EAL, SEN) and getting her to focus on them. (Primary School, LA SIP)

Figure A4.6: Evidence of Less Effective Challenge

During observation, there was little discussion about whether certain subject areas might struggle to achieve targets, or identify

where other departments might be set more challenging targets. This may have occurred outside of the meeting but this was

not obvious. There was also significant debate about how to manipulate data to ensure the best outcomes were achieved with

the figures. This didn’t to me, appear to focus on school improvement, or outcomes for children. The school has below average

CVA. (Secondary School, HT SIP)

We think the SIP has got to know the school very well, but the school is underperforming and the SIP seems to be too easily

persuaded that this was due to other ECM issues and that their performance was acceptable. This is not the view of the local

authority and we would like to see the school setting more challenging targets to raise the aspirations of these children. (Primary

School, EC SIP) There are question marks over the extent of challenge provided by the SIP - the questions are asked, but answers are taken at

face value, the SIP does not push for evidence. (Secondary School, EC SIP)

Whilst the SIP encouraged the school to change its grading on standards this was explained as a function of meeting LA criteria

on CVA rather than challenging the school to understand how value added could be improved. (Primary School, EC SIP)

The overall judgements have been corroborated with the school, though the SIP didn’t challenge the school on their judgement

on teaching and learning which was picked up during inspection. (Secondary School, EC SIP)

115




Figure A4.7: Views of Headteacher Performance Management

The headteacher and governors are happy with process. The governors commented that they felt they had more input as a

result of SIP doing this rather than and external person. (Primary school, LA SIP)

The governors stated they were happier with this than the previous process. They felt the SIP knew more and brought a 'local'

comparison with him. (Secondary school, HT SIP)

The governors view the SIP as exceptional and value his contribution to helping the HTPM process as he knows the school

more than anybody. Governors feel the SIP has added value to previous process and has provided lot of info prior to their

meetings. (Primary school, LA SIP)

This was the headteacher’s first performance management since promotion, so nothing to compare with, but s/he found the SIP

very useful and a mediator for translating governors' wishes into sensible objectives. (Secondary School, HT SIP)

The feedback to the SIP is that it has gone extremely well from all sides. Governors were particularly pleased with the

paperwork in advance (Secondary school, LA SIP)

The governors felt that it was a streamlined process and the SIP knew the school better than the previous CEA advisor.


The use of someone who knows the school well to carry out PM for HTs is helpful and there has been very positive feedback

from HTs and governors. (LA stakeholder)

116




Figure A4.8: SIP Advice on Priorities

Self-Evaluation

The SIP sets an agenda of visit to focus on an area of development and provides

advice and suggestions on how to improve based on the evidence. During

observation, the SIP provided hints and tips such as, for example, shifting the

balance of self-evaluation to middle managers having greater roles and

responsibilities, use of lesson observations as developmental rather than inspection

focused. (Academy School, EC SIP)

The SIP advised the school to introduce internal support from SLT for staff on

tracking and moderation. (Primary School, HT SIP)

The SIP advised on the introduction of tracking sheets for the whole school.

(Primary school, HT SIP)

General

More generally the SIP has been a

sounding board for the headteacher

on priorities and development

planning. (Secondary school, LA

SIP)

Through the regular meetings, the

SIP plants ideas, makes

suggestions which we pick up and

work with over time. (Primary

school, EC SIP)

During observation, the SIP advised

the school on the presentation of its

data for Ofsted, drawing on his

experience from other inspections.

(Secondary school, LA SIP)

Improving Teaching & Learning

The SIP made suggestions, for example, the introduction of targeted support in the

form of additional writing workshops for Y2 and Y3 pupils, and accessing a specific

intervention for guided reading. (Primary School, LA SIP)

A range of intervention strategies were discussed with the school including

Springboard for Y3, more structure use of higher level teaching assistants to work

with underachievers in Maths in Y6 and identifying children with stretching targets to

help them achieve. (Primary school, EC SIP)

Improvement Planning

The SIP provided advise on developing an action plan for Foundation Stage. (Primary School, LA SIP)

The SIP has provided some support for the development of 14-19 Collaborative planning. (Secondary School, EC SIP)

The SIP provided pointers to the school on communication with the LA about taking pupils excluded from other schools. The

SIP talked to the headteacher about not feeling forced to take too many if this affected other issues that the school was

working on (e.g. request to take boys when there is currently a male gender bias in the school which may be affecting girls’

choice of school and performance). (Academy, EC SIP)

117




Figure A4.9: SIPs Providing Support

General Support

In the primary sector, some additional support has

been provided by LA SIPs outside of their core role –

the SIPCO has made clear that NS are not happy with

this arrangement, so may change. (LA area)

The SIP undertakes tasks linked to special measures

and the priority action plan, though this is not formally

part of the SIP role. (Primary school, LA SIP) The SIP is also undertaking additional bit and pieces of

support which he has the time to do as a LA advisor

(not certain an external SIP could do these activities

without charging more. (Secondary school, LA SIP)

The document review suggests that the SIP is acting

more like an LEA advisor used to, providing more time

than is normally allowed and becoming more involved

in the life of the school. (Secondary school, EC SIP)

The SIP was provided with five additional days to

support this school causing concern. (Primary School,

EC SIP)

Leadership & Management

The SIP discussed with the headteacher how to plan a

reconfiguration of the SLT – with a deputy about to leave, finding

the money to release two SLTs for 50% of the timetable. The

headteacher clearly welcomes the ability to discuss matters like

this with the SIP. (Primary school, LA SIP)

The SIP is helping the HT in how to restructure the SLT.

(Secondary school, HT SIP) The SIP supported the school to identify a replacement deputy.

(Secondary school, EC SIP)

The SIP was involved in supporting the appointment of new

members of SLT. (Primary school, EC SIP)

The SIP has undertaken 360 degree reviews to evaluate the

leadership team and identify strengths and weaknesses.

(Secondary school, EC SIP)

The SIP has supported the headteacher in monitoring and

developing subject leaders in the school. (Primary school, LA SIP)

The SIP got quite involved in helping the school to select a new

head of music. The headteacher found his involvement absolutely

great, though clearly this is beyond the normal definition of the SIP

role. (Secondary school, LA SIP)Staff Development

The SIP helped the HT to plan for INSET days andtraining sessions for AfL. (Primary school, LA SIP)

The SIP has played an important part in the

development of the school's year heads - seems to

have been a major issue for the 3rd and 4th visits to

the school this year (quality of provision and overall

leadership & management). (Primary School, EC SIP)

The SIP will be undertaking two evening events for

teachers to discuss school results. (Primary School,

LA SIP)

Pupil Engagement The SIP is due to run a pupil conferencing event in order to

compare the school's own judgements with views of pupils. The

SIP has selected the pupils, will ask questions about learning and

how issues are fed back to the school. Overall very positive, and

gives confidence to school that their judgements are correct.

Demands a lot of trust from the school. (Primary, EC SIP)

118




Figure A4.9: SIPs Providing Support

Supportive/Pastoral

The SIP is on the end of the phone and had many

phone calls/supporting mopping of brows through a

difficult period for the headteacher – the SIP questions

whether a HT SIP would have had time to do this. The

SIP and LA did some data analysis for the school

showing that some groups were doing better than the

overall satisfactory grading. This and other SIP timehelped to facilitate improved relationships with another

school. (Primary School, LA SIP)

There is evidence of a more pastoral/mentoring

relationship for this school. The head likes to use the

SIP as a sounding board for ideas and the SIP sees

the role as being more responsive – ‘where there are

issues, the head phones me, for example in relation to

staffing issues and I don’t feel like I can turn a head

down, it’s a bit off the script but I am happy to do it for

the emotional well being of the head and school’.


The SIP provided enormous support at the time of theOfsted inspection. (Primary school, HT SIP)

The SIP has supported the headteacher with how to

deal with parents reactions about reform of the 6th

form. (Secondary School, HT SIP)

The SIP has provided support on staffing issues with

Science and Maths departments. (Secondary School,EC SIP)

Self-Evaluation Activity

Book scrutiny is undertaken by the SIP to assess pupil progress

and awareness of targets. (Primary School, LA SIP)

The SIP has conducted lesson observations with heads of

department as part of quality assurance. The SIP will be further involved in providing training on lesson observation for staff and

how to judge whether lessons are outstanding, good etc. The

school commented that it would be good for the SIP to undertake

the role again in the future to prevent them from becoming

complacent on lesson observations and ensuring external

moderation. (Secondary school, LA SIP)

The SIP provided training for staff on lesson observations.

(Academy School, EC SIP)

The SIP has provided some development support to middle

managers on for example interpretation and use of data, support

on specific development areas, matching them up with other

colleagues in the authority – the focus has been very operational.(Secondary School, EC SIP)

Through specific support for the head of 6th form, and undertaking

a Y10 use of data review, the headteacher feels the SIP supporthas been outstanding. (Secondary School, LA SIP)

Improving Teaching/Learning

Evidence of SIP support in the development of the International Baccalaureate approach to learning. (Primary School, HT SIP)

The SIP has worked with the SLT and middle managers to identify what constitutes effective and ineffective teaching andlearning, in order to improve standards of achievement. (Secondary Schools, EC SIP)

The SIP did provide some support/development to teachers around home learning, but explicitly said to the headteacher that

this was not part of her SIP role. (Primary School, EC SIP)

119




Figure A4.10: SIP Capacity Building

SLT and Middle Manager Self Evaluation Capacity

The SIP has undertaken leadership support activities, for example a challenge afternoon

with assistant heads. (Primary School, LA SIP)

The SIP has particularly helped with a move towards a more bottom up self-evaluation

culture – he has worked with the assistant head on processes in place for year 10 data

review. (Secondary school, LA SIP)

The SIP is undertaking paired lesson observations with the SLT in order to develop their

capacity and understanding of what makes a good/outstanding lesson. (Academyschool, EC SIP)

Paired observations have been undertaken with SLT to help train on use of pro-formas

and moderate judgements. (Primary school, LA SIP)

The HT invited staff to meetings to hear the messages from the SIP. (Primary School,

EC SIP)

SSAT Re-designation

The SIP helped with the school’s SSAT re-designation, but has not provided substantive

intervention support – the SIP felt that it was not the role of the SIP to be involved in

delivering specific training in school improvement. (Secondary School, EC SIP)

General Self-Evaluation

Processes

The SIP visits focused on self-

evaluation processes to sharpen

them in preparation for

inspection – this contributed to

the achievement of a Grade 1 at

inspections. (Secondary school,HT SIP)

The SIP has provided support as

part of his/her wider self-

evaluation role within the LA –

for example, validating lesson

observations, participating in

work sampling, challenging SLT

hypotheses. (Secondary school,

EC SIP)

The SIP has supported the

school through a learning walk

focused on assessment for

learning – the SIP was able to

encourage the school to adoptthe learning walk model into its

self-evaluation processes and

demonstrate to the school where

marking was inconsistent in

order for the school to see where

Ofsted had derived its

judgements (in suggesting this

was an area for improvement).


SEF Development

The SIP has provided a commentary which was used to help a school rewrite their SEF.(Secondary school, EC SIP)

The HT and Deputy asked the SIP for support on writing their department plans – both

were new and relatively inexperienced in writing strategic documents (Primary School,

LA SIP)

The SIP has given support to the vice-principal, particularly around SEF writing and has

done some work with heads of department on SEF writing within departments


120




Figure A4.11: SIPs Identifying Support Needs

LA guidance for the first meetings outlines the requirement for SIP to discuss required support. (SIP Manager)

The SIP identified key areas for development, including for example training for the SLT in relation to classroom observations.(Primary school, HT SIP)

The SIP helped the headteacher to recognise what support was needed, for example in relation to assessment for learning,

introduction of AST teachers, pro-formas for pupil progress and meetings and reviews with staff. (Primary School, LA SIP) The November meeting has a particular focus to identify support needs, thereafter the SIP regularly asks the question does the

school need support? and will push/encourage the LA to ensure this happens. (Secondary School, EC SIP)

121




Figure A4.12: SIP Reports Inform Support Strategies

SIP reports have recommended action. (Primary Sector, Case Study Area)

The SIPs discuss school support needs and identify these in their reports. The LA use this to provide each school with an

overview of what the LA is offering that may meet their needs, what other organisations are offering and the potential gaps. The

LA officer leads this work. (Primary School, LA SIP)

The SIP produces a partnership plan for each school – this is shared with and reviewed by the LA to identify areas of supportneeds for particular schools. (Case Study Area, Primary Sector)

The LA review and collate the SI reports which identify support needs. A letter is then sent to each school outlining the potential

sources of support linked to their needs. (Primary School, LA SIP)

The areas of support required by the school are identified in the SIP report – this is collated by the LA centrally to identify which

other schools in the LA have ‘good practice’ and schools can then access support from the other school ‘specialists’ in the area.

(Primary Sector, Case Study Area)

Influencing the LA on School Support Needs

The SIP has been involved in helping the headteachers to transform a failing school into a quickly improving one in just a couple

of years – since Ofsted, levels of support have been gradually reduced, in discussion with the Head and SIP – the SIP has been

very influential in the school. (Primary School, EC SIP)

I played a role to push/encourage the LA to provide specific and necessary support for one school causing concern – this was in

relation to leadership & management and occupational health. I did not play a wider role however in relation to other specific

packages of support going into the school. (Secondary school, EC SIP)

In one case study area, the LA define a key role for SIPs to support the evaluation of impact of LA funded support – this

appears to be a more explicit intended role than elsewhere, though there is recognition that there is potential to

increase/improve the extent to which it is actually being achieved. (Case Study Area)

The SIP helped the school to clarify that the Foundation Stage support the LA was provided was not being effective – the SIP

encouraged the LA to stop the support so something more effective could be identified. (Primary School, EC SIP)

122




123

Figure A4.13: SIPs Signposting Support

LA/External Support

The SIP advised the school to contact the Maths Advisory Teacher for support in relation to assessment for learning. (Primary

School, HT SIP)

The SIP facilitated access to ICT support from LA consultants. (Secondary School, HT SIP)

The SIP arranged additional maths support for the school via CfBT. (Secondary School, LA SIP)

The SIP arranged for some G&T support through an existing contact or link, though this was an adhoc arrangement and the SIP

said he didn’t really know where to go to get the support. (Primary School, EC SIP)

The SIP is an instant contact to others who can provide support – instant contact, will get back to the HT asap. (Secondary

School, LA SIP)

Beyond the LA, the SIP relies on his own experience and contacts, which come from working in seven schools across two LAs.


The Head describes the SIP as signposting support - making suggestions about the type of external support available and how

it might be relevant. (Primary School, LA SIP)

Other Schools

The SIP makes links with other schools – a cycle of three meetings over the year with other schools has been set up.


The SIP provided links with other schools doing AfL so that best practice could be shared (Primary School, LA SIP)

Middle leaders in the school have visited the SIP’s school (Secondary School, HT SIP) The HT and head of 6 th form paid a visit

to the SIPs school to see their 6th form and speak to staff. (Secondary School, HT SIP)

The SIP facilitated a visit from his school on subject inspections which was invaluable (Secondary School, HT SIP)

Visits have been arranged to the SIPs own school to review policies for behaviour and attendance monitoring (Secondary

School, HT SIP)

This SIP has provided opportunities for members of the staff in this school to visit his school to observe and shadow his staff in

key areas where the school wanted to progress. This has included speaking with staff responsible for the behaviour policy and

for monitoring attendance. (Secondary School, HT SIP)

The SIP arranged for a headteacher from another school to come in and talk about subject inspection - this was invaluable to

the school. (Secondary School, LA SIP)

The SIP brokered some G&T support from an ex-HT, but only because he knew the person. He said he would not have

mentioned this to the LA although raised the area of G&T in his report. (Primary School, EC SIP)




From HT perspective, the most useful part of support is finding out what else is going on in other schools. (Primary School, EC

SIP)

The SIP referred key members of staff to documentation and examples of good practice in other schools regarding lesson

observation to support greater consistency in grading (Secondary School, HT SIP)

Figure A4.14: Monitor and Review Support

SIPs Monitor Packages of Support

The LA draws up a support plan for every school receiving support and the SIP is responsible for monitoring the plan (although

the LA always send another person to go through it with the headteacher). (Secondary School, EC SIP)

The SIP is part of a wider package of termly monitoring and support provided by the LA over the past couple of years due to its

problems. (Primary School, LA SIP)

SIPs ask Challenge/ask Questions about Support/Interventions

Evidence from direct observation and interview data shows clearly that the SIP role is one of questioning the school on the

suitability of the support they have sourced directly rather than suggesting or planning a package of support. If the SIP felt the

school were not sourcing support to enable it to address an area highlighted as a concern he/she would raise this as an issue

in the SIP report. (Academy School, EC SIP)

The SIP encourages the school to undertake more in depth analysis, for example, the attendance figures were slipping despite

significant measures to address this so the SIP advised the school to understand further the factors influencing this.

(Secondary School, LA SIP) The SIP asks questions of the Governors and the headteacher/SLT to encourage them to evaluate the effectiveness of

support/interventions – so what? Is it working? (Primary School, LA SIP)

SIPs Undertake Direct Evaluation Activity

The recommended action in the SIP report is reviewed in follow up visits by the SIP to see what has happened – the SIPs

undertake book reviews, review SATs and speak to those providing the support. (Primary Sector, Case Study Area)

The SIP saw heads of department and students to get a feel for the impact of interventions – he digs deeper and validates

existing work. (Secondary School, EC SIP)

124



EVIDENCE FOR SECTION 6 OF MAIN REPORT: IMPACT OF SIP PROGRAMME

Figure A6.2: Case Study Examples: SIP Contribution to School Improvement Capacity

Focus on Outcomes and Pupil Groups

The SIP worked closely with the English department to show how data form Y7 could be used to prevent the stereotyping of

badly behaved students as ‘no hopers’. There has been a change of culture as a result. (Secondary School, HT SIP)

Helped look at combined targets (English, Maths, Science) and 2 levels of progress targets. The SIP encouraged a mid-term

review of data so can intervene early (which has been embedded). (Secondary School, HT SIP) The SIP is constantly monitoring progress - asking the school to show her what the school's attainment profile at regular

intervals to ensure that making progress. The school is under a huge amount of pressure to make progress and achieve 65%

target in 2008 results. The SIP reports focus on this and have culminated in four recommended actions which the school will

achieve before her next visit in the spring: timescales purposively short so key pieces of work/actions done very quickly.


Discussions between the SIP and data manager were observed where the SIP provided suggestions on how he could improve

the integrity and value of his data analysis. This included suggesting that performance of cohorts of students were placed into

colour-coded bands, enabling a quick visual representation of weaknesses and where action needed to be taken. (Secondary

School, EC SIP)

Engaging Pupils and Parents in Achieving Progress

The SIP suggested learning walks and a parent survey - the survey showed that parents wanted to be more involved. As a

result, the school now holds fortnightly celebration assemblies where parents – ‘a great success, parents love it’. (Primary

School, HT SIP)

The SLT has instigated training, use of pro-formas during observations and pupil progress meetings as result of SIP. (Primary

School, LA SIP)

The SIP instigated pupil progress meetings and developed understanding of how to evaluate actions to provide evidence.

Assessment for Learning has been promoted and strategies have improved considerably. Children are now actively involved in

their own learning and assessment for learning. Peer and self-assessment strategies are now becoming established. Work is

consistently matched to pupil's needs and higher attaining pupils are now suitably challenged. (Primary School, LA SIP)

Accountability for Performance

The SIP has made an impact by talking to each Curriculum Team leader about their SEF. This really galvanised people andhelped them see that the things I was demanding of them were national expectations. It helped de-personalise the resentment!.

125





(Headteacher, Survey)

The SIP has been excellent in encouraging a sense of accountability amongst middle managers, through explaining statisticaldata and undertaking developmental work. He has also validated and improved the school's methods of self-evaluation(Headteacher, Survey)

The school's processes for SSE were new or embryonic when the SIP first came into contact with the school. The SIP hasworked with the Head and SMT to encourage greater accountability amongst subject teachers and greater consistency onreflective practice, data use and evaluation across the school. The SIP still feels that the school's processes need to be morerobust than they are but that things are moving 'in the right direction.' (Secondary School, EC SIP)

Through instigating the learning walk model the SIP is aiming to encourage increased responsibility for targets setting andconsistency in marking across all staff. In this way all staff in the school feels accountable for improvement. This is verifiedthrough feedback from staff themselves. (Primary School, LA SIP)

The SIP questioning & challenging of SLT, asking for evidence to support judgements made, and challenging some of school'smade the school more accountable – there is an emphasis on them responding rather than the LA. The governors felt that theSIP had increased the school’s accountability as SIP visits were like having three mini Ofsteds a year which are very focusedand keep people on the ball - if any problems arise they are addressing them before they get out of hand, a continual processso nothing gets through the net. It’s good for the school & children. (Primary School, LA SIP)

The role of the SIP is useful as a management tool as you can say to colleagues ‘your results are not as good as they should beand as the head of this organisation I'm answerable to the SIP and the SIPs going to want to know why they're not goodenough, what I'm doing about it and what the future holds’. The presence of the SIP legitimises that conversation. (SecondarySchool, LA SIP)

Understanding Performance and how to Improve

SIP challenge on achievement and standards has encouraged the school to refocus on this aspect. This has includeddeveloping the school's capacity to assess the quality of teaching and learning through consistency in lesson observation andapplication of the Ofsted criteria. As such the SIP has increased school staff's awareness of what good teaching and learninglooks like. Evidence to support this is triangulated in feedback from Head, SIP and middle managers. (Secondary School, ECSIP)

The SIP challenged teachers on their quality of teaching ratings. Many thought they were good because they had a good ratingby Ofsted six years ago – the SIP challenged this them suggesting that they were only satisfactory and identified ways in whichthey needed to improve. The teachers indicated that they respected him for this challenge. The SIP also challenged theheadteacher on data and helped develop a vision and way forward for the school. (Primary School, LA SIP)

126





The SIP has worked with the school to build capacity to undertake learning walks, is being developed to help the school identifywhat it needs to do to improve. (Primary School, LA SIP)

The SIP is working with the school to improve the consistency and rigour of lesson observations. This is considered by SIP andOfsted to be integral in assisting the school to take action and prioritise based on evidence rather than assumption. (SecondarySchool, EC SIP)

The SIP has focused the SLT on identifying why there is a drop in performance between KS3 and KS4 and looking beyond thecore subjects. Self-evaluation is at the core. (Secondary School, HT SIP)

Quite simply being there for me and the team and in turn we have allowed him to walk the school unaccompanied to capture our climate for learning ...our relationship is based on trust and mutual respect but is anything but soft. Therefore, I have beenasked pithy sharp questions with no 'wriggle room' which have made me realise I need to know more about certain aspects of our current school life. He has joined me in my mission to enable us to become robustly satisfactory and then aim to be good...he has helped me understand the value of sharp performance management targets and I’ve set out to achieve this!.(Headteacher, Survey)

Planning and Prioritisation

After discussion with the SIP a number of things were identified to go in the next School Improvement Plan. The headteacher

had identified them but the SIP helped to confirm they were on the right tracks and to develop more fine-tuned targets (rather

than general statements about raising standards in maths, focusing on actions at foundation and KS1). (Primary School, HT

SIP)

The SIP has helped with prioritising, through thoroughness of data analysis, by checking that the SEF relates to the SDP (and

identifying where they don’t have coherence) and by raising the issue of succession planning with SLT (Secondary School, HTSIP)

The SIP challenged the school on the low proportion of pupils achieving five A*-C including English and Maths, the results of

which had not previously been obvious to governors. As a result of the SIP’s challenge and intervention a restructuring and

expansion of the management team was undertaken to provide a greater focus on attainment. (Secondary School, EC SIP)

As a result of SIP discussions, the school are developing an action plan for Foundation Stage provision, which the school had

identified as an issue but hadn't taken forward. The SIP also identified that the improvement plan was not clearly linked to the

priority areas identified by Ofsted and has encouraged the headteacher to make this more explicit including timescales and

responsibilities. (Primary School, LA SIP)

127





Delivering School Improvement

The SIP is a sounding board, for example the headteacher asks the SIP’s advice on curriculum development – whether it is

feasible, what the national perspective is. The SIP provides invaluable feedback & if he hasn't got the answers will know

someone who has, responding within 24/48 hours. The SIP spends a lot of time in the school and the governing body

appreciate him, he's part of the school's success, he's given us sound advice & is always there to help us, easy to talk to, and

staff get on with him & respect his views. (Secondary School, LA SIP)

The SIP fought the school's corner with the LA on accessing funding for the schools buildings, the adverse state of whichimpacts negatively on the school's ability to provide adequate time for PE -as a 'good school' in a reasonable area we cannot

attract the levels of funding associated with schools in deprived areas and the SIP is supporting us with the LA. (Secondary

School, HT SIP)

Improving Self-Evaluation

The self-evaluation process has become embedded – the SIP has helped this by supporting the headteachers to push though

change with governors, by advising/being a sounding board on developing processes. (Secondary School, HT SIP)

The SIP has supported the headteacher in developing a systematic lesson observation regime to ensure quality of provision.


The SIP report and consultation feedback from headteacher and SIP indicate that the SIP has provided developmental support

to the school to build the school's capacity to use the learning walk model in its processes for self-evaluation. (Primary School,

LA SIP)

The SIP has supported headteacher in writing SEF more concisely and with less narrative. (Primary School, LA SIP)

The SIP described the school’s previous approach to self-evaluation as turning the handle. With support from him, the process

has become more sophisticated and this is especially true among classroom teachers understanding that self-evaluation has

come of age. This has been driven by the external validation process, through the SIP and LA. (Secondary School, EC SIP)

Feedback from SIP, Head and others in the school demonstrates that the SIP has and continues to provide valuable input on

how to improve school self-evaluation. This ranges from suggestion during visits on how to promote greater devolvement to

middle managers, to working more closely with SLT to improve the consistency and accuracy of judgements with regards to

lesson observations. Evidence to support this was gathered from the Head and teacher interviews, observation of a SIP visit to

the school and the document review. In the latest report the SIP has also agreed a number of actions with the school to assist in

self-evaluation including provision of good practice materials for use by middle and senior leaders and information about

128





successful strategies to monitor student progress and provide personalised support for students who are falling behind.


The SIP has helped us be more succinct in writing SEF & helped us restructure. Also asking school to qualify statements in the

SEF & look deeper. (Primary School, LA SIP)

129




130

Figure A6.4: SIPs Help to Sharpen Focus on School Priorities

Without exception governing bodies are saying that this is a much tighter and more informed and challenging process. It is the

one SIP function that we rate most highly and feel will ultimately bring about change and as a result raise standards. (LA

Stakeholder)

It has brought greater rigour in a number of schools where school priorities are at the centre of objectives. (LA stakeholder)

Initial reports suggest that the debates have been robust and linked to the school priorities/achievement (LA stakeholder) I was impressed by the honesty, level of challenge and enthusiasm for the task – he is clearly aware of the issues facing the

school and its constraints. (Primary School, EC SIP)

The governor thought that the SIP helps to focus us. Governors make suggestions and the SIP tries to codify, provide

guidance, and focus on the school's priorities. (Secondary School, LA SIP)

All sides were happy with HTPM. The headteacher felt the SIP provides a level of robustness, ensures that it would be very

hard to set inappropriate objectives, and acts as an antidote to maverick governors. Governors felt the SIP’s guidance was

invaluable. (Secondary School, EC SIP)

The SIP has been involved in discussing Self-Evaluation with Governors, the headteacher has encouraged the SIP to have

active engagement with the governors. (Primary school, LA SIP)

The Governors value very much the feedback provided by the SIP – these are new governors and the SIP has seen them 2 or

3 times to introduce himself, target set and to deliver a general report. (Secondary School, HT SIP)

The report and presentation to governors was highly regarded. (Secondary School, EC SIP)

Governors view SIP reporting as very fair. (Primary School, LA SIP)



Appendix B: Aspects of SIP Programme

Management and Delivery

131





APPENDIX B1

Resource for SIP Role

Stakeholder Perceptions

1. There are mixed views amongst stakeholders about the extent to which the resourceallocated for SIPs is sufficient for them to effectively challenge and support the schools

they work with:

around half of headteachers agree that this is the case (52% of primary

headteachers and 53% of secondary headteachers), with 20% of primary and

26% of secondary headteachers disagreeing;

in the primary sector there are lower levels of agreement (and higher

disagreement) amongst those headteachers with external consultant SIPs

without headteacher experience; and

around 60% of SIPs and LAs agree that resource is sufficient with one third

disagreeing (full-time LA employee SIPs tend to agree the most, particularly

compared to external consultant SIPs).2. However, these perceptions are difficult to disentangle given that LAs operate different

approaches to the allocation of resource (with many allocating additional resource to

fulfil activities outside the core role). Some SIPs (particularly full-time LA employee

SIPs) are also able to be more flexible with their time and do not therefore stick rigidly

to the core days allocated.

3. Perceptions also vary depending on the type of school and the level of support they

require. A common view is that the standard 5 days is sufficient for challenge and

support of those schools that are performing well and have good self-evaluation

processes (with only one or two stakeholders identifying that the role could be fulfilled

with these schools with less than 5 days).

Additional Resource Allocated

4. For some types of school (those requiring higher levels of support and intervention)

some LA areas explicitly provide additional resource to fulfil specific support roles,

though this is not always the case. Half of the LAs responding to the survey said that

they allocated additional resource for SIPs to fulfil activities outside the core role. In

one of the case study areas, an explicit differentiation in allocated resource is made

based on bands of schools (with weaker performing schools or those causing concern

being allocated up to 13 days of SIP resource and higher performing schools 6-7

days).

5. Where LAs have indicated in the survey that they allocate additional resource (over the

5 days), this ranges from between 1 to 20 days for secondary schools and 3 to 30

days for primary schools:

in the primary sector the additional resource has generally been focused on

monitoring progress and support interventions;

in the secondary sector, the additional resource has allowed for a mix of

monitoring and capacity building support for senior leadership teams; and

in a minority of cases in both sectors, the additional resource has been used for

pastoral support, improving self-evaluation processes and undertaking targeted

intervention support.

6. Across both sectors, additional resource has predominantly been provided for schoolscausing concern or in challenging circumstances - indicated by lower performance in

133



terms of progress, CVA, achievement, or those subject to an Ofsted or LA category

(Notice to Improve, Special Measures etc). In some cases it is also allocated to

schools that have a recently appointed new headteacher or have experienced other

senior leadership team changes.

7. The monitoring of progress and support is more commonly undertaken by full-time LA

employee SIPs and to some extent external consultant SIPs, as opposed to servingheadteacher SIPs. Whilst this may be a function of the explicit matching

considerations by the LA (that is, allocating those schools that might require additional

resource to SIPs that have the flexibility to undertake such a role), this is not always

the case. There may, therefore, be cases where a school has a serving headteacher

SIP who does not fulfil a monitoring function due to limited flexibility of the SIP rather

than needs of the school.

Resource Flexibility

8. Additional resource is also being delivered in a minority of cases to enable SIPs

(predominantly full-time LA employee and external consultant SIPs rather than servingheadteacher SIPS) to provide capacity building support. In these cases, there is

evidence of the value that capacity building activities can provide, though there

remains some uncertainty about whether it is appropriate for SIPs to undertake such

activities within the core five days allocated.

9. However, this type of support is not commonly achieved through an explicit allocation

by the LA, rather the SIPs have the flexibility within their job role to provide more

support in some circumstances. There is, therefore, inconsistency in the level and

amount of support provided by different SIPs and some schools may benefit from a

greater focus in this respect.

134



Figure B1.1: Resource Flexibility of Some SIPs

o The SIP is the SIA and so brings with him whatever support is needed. The school

have not experienced a 5 day SIP but feel there would be lower impact.

o The resource is viewed as adequate for the core role. Additional support is provided

by the LA role.

o The SIP views the 5 days as sufficient, but clearly dips into his LA advisor time when

more resource is needed around the edges. External SIPs in the LA have to be more

rigid with their time due to financial issues.

10. Serving headteacher SIPs are more constrained than other types of SIP both in terms

of delivering additional support resource for schools that may benefit and in

responding in a flexible way to emerging national, local or school demands.

Figure B1.2: Serving headteacher SIP Resource & Flexibility Constraints

o “The remit continues to grow as the personalised learning agenda quite rightly expands

and as LAs shrink school improvement services due to budget demands and the

growing role of the SIP. However, this means that too little time is allocated to SIPs to

adequately do the job and other aspects then fall back to the LA. As a LA employee

within the LA where I SIP, it is easy to remain on top of what's happening within the

school. This would be impossible if I were not already based in the LA.” (SIP

Stakeholder, Survey)

o “The constraints for serving headteacher SIPs include their availability and flexibility to

support/meet schools at a mutually convenient time and their capacity to keep ringingand to make appointments.” (LA Stakeholder, Survey)

135



APPENDIX B2

SIP CAPABILITIES

Background Experience

1. Most SIPs have experience of either being a headteacher or of working within a LA

school improvement service and many (up to half) have experience of both:

Headteacher experience: Based on the most recently available data from

national strategies across all LAs, on average 85% of primary and 72% of

secondary schools have been allocated a headteacher experienced SIP;

Experience of/understanding of LA school improvement services: Based

on the headteacher surveys we undertook, we estimate that at least 50% of

secondary SIPs and 66% of primary SIPs have LA experience (these represent

the proportions of headteachers responding to the surveys that have full-time LA

employee SIPs). There may also be additional SIPs with school improvement

service experience amongst the external consultant SIPs (30% of secondary and21% of primary headteachers responding to the surveys had external consultant

SIPS);

Experience of both: Again, based on the surveys at least a quarter of

secondary SIPs and two-fifths of primary SIPs are likely to meet both these

criteria – 28% of secondary and 41% or primary headteachers have full-time LA

employee SIPs with headteacher experience. The actual proportion may rise to

half of all SIPs if we include external consultant SIPs with headteacher

experience (an additional 24% of secondary and 10% of primary headteachers

have external consultant SIPs with headteacher experience) some of whom are

also likely to have LA school improvement service experience;

Experience of neither: Only 6% of secondary and 11% of primaryheadteachers responding to the surveys had external consultant SIPs without

headteacher experience. It is not possible to say how many of these also do not

have LA school improvement service experience though we would not expect

this to be a high figure given that LAs would be looking for some relevant

background experience amongst external consultant SIPs.

2. These background experiences are considered by most stakeholders to be important

factors contributing to the extent to which practicing SIPs are equipped to undertake

their role.

136



Table B2.1: Stakeholder Views on the Required Experience of SIPs

Primary

Headteachers

Secondary

Headteacher

s

SIPs LAs

Statement

% of survey respondents agreeing withstatements

It is important for a SIP to be a current or

recent headteacher 78% 84% 52% 37%

It is important for a SIP to have worked in

a school in similar circumstances to those

they are supporting

63% 72% 40% 40%

It is important for a SIP to have experience

and knowledge of working within school

improvement services

66% 53% 58% 63%

All SIPs are accredited and that is all thatis required to be credible 18% 26% 28% 24%

Personality is the main factor in being an

effective SIP25% 37% 35% 29%

Headteacher Experience

3. A higher proportion of headteachers compared to SIPs and LAs place importance on a

SIP having both general experience of being a headteacher and specific

understanding of working in a school in similar circumstances as shown in Table B2.1.

4. This is not surprising given that we might expect headteachers to feel a SIP can relate

to their needs more effectively if they have a more direct understanding. As discussed

in Section 7, however, these views are not always reflected in headteacher perceptions of the actual effectiveness and impact of their SIP.

Experience of LA School Improvement Service

5. Most stakeholders consider experience of a LA school improvement service as

important for a SIP, though this is less significant amongst secondary headteachers

compared to SIPs, LAs and primary headteachers (see Table B2.1 above).

6. There are some differences in perception by type of stakeholder which are likely to be

a function of respondents identifying with those things that they have most knowledge

or understanding of themselves:

amongst headteachers the proportions in agreement with this statement are

lower than those agreeing that headteacher experience is important;

similar proportions of SIPs agree with both statements regarding experience of being a headteacher and of a LA school improvement service; and

more LA respondents agree that LA school improvement service experience is

important than those that identify headteacher experience as important (only

37% of LA respondents agreed with the latter).

7. The survey findings also show, however, that many stakeholders place equal

importance on headteacher and LA background experiences. Whilst this may be an

ideal scenario, it is likely that the potential pool of SIPs would be restricted if this was

sought in every instance.

137



Figure B2.1: Stakeholder Perspectives on Background Experience

o “Headteachers (as SIPs) have practical experience of leading and managing schools.

This is helpful. They are not always good, however, in challenging peers, interpreting

data or evaluating the impact of support. LA advisors are generally better at the latter

issues but often lack the credibility of having led schools. Unless you are fortunateenough to have a SIP with extended experience in both fields, the provision is always

likely to be flawed in one direction or the other.” (LA stakeholder, survey)

o “My view is that in order to be an effective SIP, the person involved must have had

experience as a Headteacher. To have been a senior/middle leader in a school is not

enough. To have had both experiences as a Headteacher and as a School

Improvement Advisor/Officer is valuable and credible experience.” (SIP stakeholder,

survey)

Skills and Knowledge

8. Whilst background experience is an important consideration in the selection of SIPs

(particularly influencing credibility in relation to direct headteacher experience) it does

not automatically provide you with the skills and knowledge to be well equipped in the

role. Personality (and its match to the headteacher) is also a criterion for many

stakeholders, though most do not agree that this is the main factor in being an

effective SIP (see Table B2.1 above).

9. In addressing the question of whether SIPs are equipped in their role, therefore, it is

necessary to also consider the specific skills and knowledge of a SIP, together with the

effectiveness of the LA matching processes.

138



Accreditation

10. The fact that all practicing SIPs are accredited provides one indicator of the SIPs

abilities by assessing specific elements of their skills and knowledge. However, most

stakeholders disagree that this is all that is required to be credible (more than 60% of

headteachers, SIPs and LAs responding to the surveys disagreed with this statement).

Many of the qualitative responses to the survey elaborate on stakeholder views thatthe accreditation process establishes a minimum skill level and it does not ensure that

a SIP will be good at his/her job in any particular circumstance.

“The SIP accreditation process clearly helps establish a minimum skill level, but it does

not, unfortunately, mean that the SIP will be good at their job. The variation in the skills

of accredited SIPs is enormous. Neither does having been a Headteacher nor having

worked for an LA automatically mean that a SIP will be effective. The personality and

skills of the individual and their match to the personality of the Headteacher and

circumstances of the school are the most critical factors.” (LA Stakeholder, Survey)

11. Most SIPs are positive about the accreditation process itself; identifying that they areclear about the skills and expertise that it is designed to assess and that it is effective

in evaluating them.

Table B2.2: Stakeholder Views on Accreditation

SIPs LAs

% of survey respondents1Statement

Agree Disagree Agree Disagree

I am clear about the skills and expertise that the

accreditation process is designed to assess90% 5% 79% 15%

The accreditation process is effective in

evaluating the skills and expertise required to be

a SIP

68% 21% 46% 33%

Only those who have the appropriate skills have

been successful in the accreditation process19% 54%

The accreditation process has failed people I

think would make effective SIPs

Not Asked

38% 17%

1Total percentages for agree and disagree do not add to 100% as some respondents answered neither agree

not disagree or don’t know.

139



12. LA respondents have more mixed views, with a third disagreeing that accreditation is

effective. Significant proportions indicated both that some accredited SIPs did not

have the appropriate skills and that the process had failed others they thought would

make effective SIPs.

“In the secondary field we have had to actively manage one of the 'recent headteacher'

SIPs due to his lack of challenge to schools and his lack of preparation.” (LA

Stakeholder, Survey)

“The SIP did not provide much in the way of challenge. The SIP report offers little in

this area. It is mostly a statement of where the school is and what its priorities are. He

brought up issues which he knew needed addressing for last year, and asked how

things were going, but did not set anything in the way of challenging targets to address

next time. The SIP has not been obstructive but has served to be little more than a

middleman reporting back to the LA.” (Case Study evidence)

13. The more negative views about accreditation are slightly more prevalent (though not

solely) amongst LA areas that were in wave 1 of roll-out of the SIP programme. Thereare also differences between Waves in LA views of the extent to which SIPs are

equipped to have challenging conversations and provide clear advice to governors on

headteacher performance management.

Table B2.3: LA and SIP Views on Preparedness for Role

LAs2

All Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3SIPs

Statement

% Respondents Agreeing with Statements

SIPs (I feel) are equipped to have

challenging conversations with

headteachers

73% 42% 77% 93% 99%

SIPs (I feel) are equipped to provide

advice and guidance on HTPM75% 42% 78% 86% 95%

2The small number in the LA wave samples means that it is not possible to assess whether these differences are

statistically significant.

140



14. These findings suggest that some of the Wave 1 LA perceptions might be influenced

by earlier experiences of the accreditation process, issues for which were highlighted

in earlier rounds of the evaluation. Changes in the accreditation process were

implemented in response to feedback provided by those involved in the earliest rounds

and perceptions amongst Wave 2 and 3 LAs suggest that they have had some positive

effect.Other Indicators of Skills and Knowledge

15. Positive stakeholder perceptions and evidence from the detailed case studies provide

further indications that most SIPs are equipped to fulfil their role. As shown in Table

B2.4, most stakeholders are positive about the extent to which the skills and

experience of SIPs have been effectively matched to the schools they work with and

that SIPs:

have a clear understanding of the circumstances in which the schools they are

supporting are operating;

have an effective relationship with headteachers;

respect the autonomy of the schools they work with;

are able to interpret data effectively to guide schools they work with; and

have the knowledge and information to be able to discuss packages of challenge

and support with schools (though perceptions are more variable in relation to this

statement, with LA stakeholders having more mixed views).

16. Whilst agreement amongst primary headteachers is at lower proportions than in the

other surveys, this tends to be due to greater uncertainty rather than because they

disagree (which is a function of the SIP programme being at an earlier stage in roll out

in the primary sector).

Table B2.4: Stakeholder Views on SIP Skills and Knowledge

Primary

Headteach

ers

Secondary

Headteacher

s

SIPs LAs

Statement

% of survey respondents agreeing with

statements

The skills and experience of SIPs have been

effectively matched to the schools they are working

with

65% 78% 93% 92%

SIPs have a clear understanding of the

circumstances in which the schools they are

supporting are operating

78% 87% 98% 96%

SIPs have an effective relationship with

headteachers78% 86% 97% 88%

SIPs respect the autonomy of the schools they

work with73% 83% na 88%

SIPs are able to interpret data effectively to guide

the schools they work with80% 84% 95% 88%

SIPs have the knowledge and information to be

able to discuss packages of challenge and support

with schools

61% 70% 83% 48%

141



17. Figure B2.2 provides some more detailed case study evidence to support these

positive perceptions. The figure also includes examples where SIPs are considered to

be less well equipped, though this was only in isolated cases.

Figure B2.2: Case Study Evidence of SIP Skills

Well Equipped

o General feedback from Head and SMT is that they see the SIP as highly credible,

knows what he's talking about and able to challenge the school. This is corroborated by

the assessment made in the document review.

o The skills and knowledge of the SIP attached to this school are viewed and

demonstrated to be more than adequate. This is demonstrated through document

review, feedback from school SLT and direct observation which showed the SIP to be

highly skilled in how he questioned staff in order to tease out the issues and draw out

areas of development.

o The SIP is highly skilled in data interpretation and analysis having been an ex HMI

inspector. He has accurately identified the key factors facing the school and affecting

its performance. He has also determined whether the school has accurately

determined targets and priorities. This assessment is based on direct observation,

review of SIP reports and SLT perceptions.

Less Well Equipped

o Whilst technically competent, the SIP does not have the skills to challenge the school

as it progresses.

o The HT and SIP have conversations about where they are at and discuss priorities

which they largely agree on. The HT is however not very open to the SIP role andfeels that due to the fact that he is a very experienced head there is little a SIP can

offer unless he was as experienced as he.

142



Appendix B3

SIP Recruitment, Selection and Deployment

LA Models

1. The vast majority of LAs responding to the survey (80% or more) consider that therecruitment and deployment processes for SIPs are effective in terms of:

Deployment Model: Stakeholders agree that the overall deployment model is

effective and that:

LAs have an effective strategy for supporting schools that are in a complex

situation (for example causing concern);

SIPs have been deployed to specific locations or for specific purposes (for

example to cover a cluster of schools);

Processes: Stakeholders agree that:

the LA has established clear criteria for the selection of SIPs;

processes are in place to match SIPs to schools; headteachers have been involved in recruitment, including seeking school

views on the suitability and deployment of SIPs.

SIP experience: Most LAs have achieved the target of 3 out of 4 secondary

SIPs being current or former headteachers and stakeholders agree that some

SIPs have substantial recent experience of work outside of the local authority

area.

2. The ways in which schools have been consulted on recruitment and deployment of

SIPs include headteacher meetings/panels as part of selection; nominations of

headteachers for SIP roles; involving headteachers in evaluation, feedback and review

processes; and consulting schools on the final decision.

3. The positive perceptions about overall recruitment and deployment models amongst

LA themselves are supported overall by the National Strategy assessments of LAs’

SIP recruitment and deployment. NS assessments from 2007 identified that most of

the secondary SIP programme recruitment and deployment approaches were good or

outstanding (in 112 of the 150 LA areas). Just six LA areas were identified as

requiring substantial improvement in recruitment and deployment for the secondary

SIP programme and the remaining 32 as requiring some improvement. Only one of the

31 LAs that had started to roll-out the programme in the primary sector was identified

as requiring substantial improvement.

143



Quality of SIPs Available

4. Generally, the quality of available SIPs, in terms of knowledge, skills and experience

was reported to be sufficient by respondents. 62% of LA survey respondents agreed

that the quality was high and 50% agreed that there were sufficient SIPs available to

meet their needs. However, the picture is not consistent across all LAs: 21% of LA survey respondents disagreed that the overall quality was high;

29% felt that there were insufficient SIPs with the required knowledge, skills and

expertise to meet their needs;

23% felt that the National Strategies’ database (SIPmanager) of accredited SIPs

was not an effective tool to support the recruitment process.

5. The less positive perceptions relating the overall quality and number of available SIPs

are influenced to some extent by the views of those respondents in Wave 1 LA areas

and they may therefore reflect some of the issues highlighted in Appendix B2

regarding the accreditation process.

Recruitment and Deployment Constraints

6. Where issues are being faced by LAs in the recruitment and deployment of SIPs they

have related to recruitment and retention issues for particular types of SIP, managing

school expectations and levels of satisfaction, and financial and resource/capacity

constraint. Recruitment and retention issues include:

31% of LA respondents said they had problems recruiting headteacher SIPs in

the primary sector; and

some of the qualitative responses to the survey identify that retaining external

consultant and serving headteacher SIPs in the primary sector is an issue.

7. As a result of these issues, some areas have experienced constraints associated with

the continuity of SIPs for some schools. Whilst 69% said they had contingency plansin place, 13% felt they did not.

Figure B3.1: Recruitment and Deployment Issues Faced

Recruitment and Retention

o “It has been more difficult to match Primary School SIPs to schools, due to the limited

amount of information available from the national database and competition for high

quality SIPs leading up to Summer 2007. Some SIPs have had to reduce workload for

personal reasons. We have a need for a contingency pool of flexible SIPs to account

for uncertainty.” (LA Stakeholder, Survey)

o “Changes of SIP have caused some disruption and the use of external consultants

makes this more likely.” (LA Stakeholder, Survey)

School Expectations and Satisfaction

o “Providing the school with what they perceive they have lost with the SIP programme

(pastoral support) has been an issue. Still working with schools to help them

understand the support mechanisms that have been put in place. May take more time

before fully embedded.” (LA Stakeholder, Survey)

Financial and Capacity Constraints

o “The quality of the SIP service assumes that there is an LA service to provide support,

development and intervention based on findings. Funding does not facilitate this.” (LAStakeholder, Survey)

144



Figure B3.1: Recruitment and Deployment Issues Faced

o “Due to the size of the authority all SIPs are external consultants and we do not have

sufficient grant funding to cover the cost and as such will have to make redundancies

to cover deficit.” (LA Stakeholder, Survey)

o “SIPs are not contracted to carry the range of duties that SIOs used to carry out eg

support with teacher capability, additional support for schools causing concern, writing

references for HT and DHTs, headteacher appointments; involvement in role as LA

adviser re redundancies. With a reduced core team it is very difficult to cover these

duties satisfactorily. Scope to employ enough officers to do this work is severely

limited due the cost of the SIP programme. It also means there needs to be a "double

conversation" with some of our schools because they have a SIP, and an additional

(LA direct employee).” (LA Stakeholder, Survey)

8. The financial and capacity issues raised by LA stakeholders identify two key concerns.

Firstly, that some stakeholders feel that the overall funding for the SIP programme isinsufficient to attract and support the number and quality of SIPs required and ensure

that appropriate management structures are in place. Secondly, some stakeholders

identify additional school support and improvement activities that LAs should be

fulfilling but overall funding levels are constraining the extent to which they can be

achieved.

LA Partnerships for SIP Deployment

9. A key feature in some LAs is that they have developed partnerships with other areas

as part of their recruitment strategy. This is more commonly apparent in LAs involved

in Wave 1 of the SIP programme roll-out. One of the benefits of this approach is thatLAs have access to a wider pool and mix of experiences of SIPs for recruitment.

10. However, there are also some concerns (amongst both LA stakeholders and schools)

that the use of LA employed SIPs that are from outside the authority area (and hence

are more akin to external consultant SIPs) inhibits more effective communication

between the LA and schools. This is particularly compared to LA ‘owned’ SIPs, as

they are more directly linked to other LA developments and support and have a better

understanding of the local context.

LA Management of SIP Programme

11. The perceptual evidence suggests that LAs have effective structures in place for SIPinduction, management and communication. Again these perceptions are supported

by National Strategy assessments across all LA areas, with the latest assessment

identifying 124 of the 150 LA areas with good or outstanding secondary SIP

performance management structures. O nly one area is identified as requiring

significant improvements and 24 some improvement in secondary SIP performance

management. 32 of the 36 LAs that have rolled-out the programme in the primary

sector are assessed as good or outstanding and 4 require some or substantial

improvement.

145



Table B3.1: Stakeholder Perceptions of Performance Management andCommunication Structures

SIPs LAs

% of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeingwith statements

LAs (we) have developed clear

structures for communicating priorities to

SIPs

88% 95%

I am (we are) able to keep (SIPs) up to

date on local priorities90% 87%

The SIP Coordinator effectively

communicates national priorities (e.g.

Primary National Strategies, 14-19

developments)

84% 73%

Effective induction processes are in

place86% 92%

The approach to performance

management of SIPs is effective72% 81%

12. Evidence from the detailed cases studies provides some detail behind the

performance management processes in place in some LA areas, which include clear

line management structures, quality assurance of reports, shadow visits and annual

performance review systems. There are also some examples where LA management

and review processes have been effective in identifying and addressing SIP

performance issues.

Figure B3.2: LA Performance Management and QA Arrangements

Process in Place

o All reports are read and quality assured by the SIP Manager. A shadow visit of the SIP

is undertaken once a year and external SIPs have extra supervision. External SIPs are

only paid on receipt of an agreed SIP report for each visit. There is a formal annual

performance review of the SIP, preparation for which includes the SIP Manager having

a 30 minute interview with the relevant headteacher and the SIP and headteacher

completing a questionnaire.

o The SIP meets the SIP manager about twice a year to talk through issues, quality of

reports etc. A strong element of the last feedback was on making judgments, and

ensuring that as an external SIP he keeps an eye on other school improvement visits

to the school.

Addressing SIP Performance Issues

o In one case study area, issues were highlighted with two SIPs and they are now no

longer employed within the SIP programme locally – one had not produced a report

and the other was cutting and pasting report findings.

o In another area, two SIPs have been placed under performance review, one for

‘talking’ about underperforming schools in too open a way and another for not havingchallenged the school sufficiently.

146



13. Whilst these processes were comprehensive in many areas, there were a couple of

case study areas where systems appeared to be less robust. For example in one

area, a review of reports was only undertaken when specific areas of concern for a

school were identified. However, this was a function of capacity constraints and the

SIP Manager is planning to introduce a more triangulated review process for the future

(involving review of reports, data and interviews with headteachers).

Communication with Schools

14. 92% of LA respondents said that schools are clear about the type, nature and volume

of support they can expect from their SIP. However, there is some evidence from the

other stakeholder surveys and case studies that there is the potential to improve the

effectiveness of communication and the message being received by schools in some

areas. This includes clarifying the messages and mechanisms surrounding the

accountability of SIPs; the function of SIP visits; use of SIP reports and feedback to

inform LA support strategies; and the role of the SIP and LA in communicating localpriorities and issues.

SIP Support and Training

15. As reported in earlier phases of the evaluation, there are significantly higher levels of

satisfaction with the SIP training that is delivered locally by LAs than that delivered by

National Strategies nationally.

Table B3.2: Views on Training and CPD

Percentage of respondents:

Agree or

strongly

agree

Disagree or

strongly

disagree

Neither agree

nor disagreeStatements:

SIPs LAs SIPs LAs SIPs LAs

Training/CPD provided at the

national level was effective in

developing my skills and

knowledge

36% 15% 41% 58% 13% 23%

Training/CPD provided at the local

level was effective in developingmy skills and knowledge

90% 87% 4% 6% 5% 4%

The typical allocation of four days

for training or CPD is enough73% 63% 15% 21% 10% 13%

16. As a result, changes have been implemented over the last year to place a much

greater focus on activities to support continuing professional development (CPD) at the

local level. This provides the opportunity for LAs to tailor their support and training to

address issues relevant to the local context and individual SIP needs.

17. Most SIPs and LAs feel that the allocation of four days per annum for CPD activities is

sufficient though a significant minority (particularly LA stakeholders) disagreed.

147



18. The SIP manager database has been used by most stakeholders at least once or

twice, though one quarter of SIPs had not used it at all. Usage was highest amongst

LA staff and lowest amongst serving headteacher SIPs. Of those using the database,

most LA staff and half of SIPs agreed that it was an effective tool. There are high

levels of indifference amongst those that do not agree rather than significant levels of

disagreement.19. Use of the Knowledge Bank is also relative high, with most stakeholders having used it

at least once or twice, and around a third of SIPs not using it at all. Usage tends to be

more occasional than regular. Serving headteacher SIPs and primary sector SIPs are

the least likely to have used the Knowledge Bank. Again most SIPs and LAs that have

used the Knowledge back think that it is effective, with very small proportions

disagreeing that this is the case.

20. The HTPM online module is the least commonly accessed support tool by all

stakeholders, though just over half of SIPs have used it at least once or twice. Again

serving headteacher SIPs are least likely to use this tool. Around half of those

accessing the module agree that is effective and one third neither agreed nor disagree.

SIP Coordinator Support

21. The National Strategies SIP Coordinators (SIPCos) are perceived by most LA

stakeholders as positively contributing to LA management of the SIP programme.

Most LA respondents agreed that the SIP Coordinator had:

provided effective support in the implementation of the programme;

developed effective networks to share ideas and joint solutions to common

issues across local authorities;

provided informed challenge to the LA on the roll-out of the SIP programme; and

supported LA officers to quality assure the work of SIPs.

22. There are more mixed views across LAs about the effectiveness of SIP Coordinators

in supporting the development of effective deployment strategies, reporting

frameworks and robust performance management systems.

148



149

Table B3.3: LA Views of National Strategies Support

Percentage of LA Survey Respondents:

Statements:

The SIP Coordinator has....

Agree or strongly agree

with statement

Disagree or strongly

disagree with

statement

Neither agreenor disagree

with statement

..provided effective support in the

implementation of the SIP programme73% 10% 12%

..developed effective networks to share ideas

and joint solutions to common issues across

LAs

67% 8% 19%

..provided informed challenge to the LA on the

roll-out of the SIP programme71% 15% 10%

..assisted in the development of strategies toensure effective deployment of SIPs

48% 29% 19%

..supported LA officers to quality assure the

work of SIPs69% 13% 13%

..supported LA officers to develop robust

reporting frameworks58% 19% 19%

..supported LA officers to develop robust

performance management systems56% 25% 15%



Copies of this publication can be obtained from:

DCSF Publications

PO Box 5050

Sherwood Park

Annesley

Nottingham

NG15 ODJ

Tel 0845 6022260

Fax 0845 6033360

Email [email protected]

Ref: DCSF-RR050

ISBN: 978 1 84775 231 4

© York Consulting LLP 2008

www.dcsf.gov.uk/research

Published by the Department forChildren, Schools and Families

Documents

New Relationship with Schools Evaluation