The 2008-9 NMSS SIPs Pilot: Some lessons learned….

1. The 2008-9 NMSS SIPs Pilot: Some lessons learned…. Workshop Lead: Steve Cochrane, Independent Project Evaluator

2. Background • Pilot ran from April 2008 to July 2009 and included, 20 Non Maintained Special Schools (NMMS) of which 3 schools withdrew. • Two models were used: Lead Local Authority Model (Hampshire and North Yorkshire) Trustee Model • Accredited Special School SIPs were used – who continued to receive ongoing CPD and briefings from different LAs outside the project • Final summative report presented to the NMMS SIP Pilot Steering Group in September 2009.

3. The Changing Context during the pilot period... • Further, ongoing development of the Special Schools SIP Programme • DCSF/National Strategies Progression Guidance Project • Regional Commissioning Pilots & ongoing work on National Contracts • Commissioning Support Programme • “21st Century Schools” White Paper

4. 21st Century Schools: Building a 21st century schools system In particular, ‘21st Century Schools’ made some new commitments: • In every school: excellent teaching and the extra help each child needs • In every school: a well-led and highly-skilled workforce • Every school working in partnerships: because no school can do it alone • Every school improving: stronger accountability and rapid intervention when it is needed • Every school and school leaders supported: the right roles for local and central government

5. 21st Century Schools: Defining the Purposes of the School Important that schools are expected to work for the benefit of local children, families and communities, as well as their own pupils We intend to legislate to make clear that schools can use resources to take on these responsibilities We will make clear that the school has three responsibilities: - first, to the pupils on its own roll; - second, to other children and young people in the wider area; and - third, to the wider community which it serves Key responsibility of governors to hold school leadership to account for the effectiveness of how it achieves these three purposes and how it meets the needs of its own pupils as well as local children and families and the local community

6. Partnerships with other schools and providers and children’s services Key themes: • Collaboration will become central to the organisation of the school system • Local partnerships of schools will extend opportunity • Hard edged partnerships will extend the reach of the best leaders • Partnerships across the children’s services through the Children’s Trust, will tackle the barriers to learning • Partnerships will create efficiency • Promoting and eliminating barriers to partnership working With the NMSS sector?

7. Every school will drive its own improvement – what this means So what can the pilot tell us about A possible role for the SIP in NMSS sector? • Over time – schools to identify the resources they will invest in improvement and professional development, what external support they will need – across all of their responsibilities - and from whom, based on effective self evaluation and the support of their SIP • School improvement support will come from a wide range of providers including other schools, quality assured by DCSF • DCSF will move away from providing or directly funding school improvement support. Instead of central National Strategies, we will devolve funding and responsibility to schools to choose and pay for the school improvement support they need - across 5 ECM outcomes

8. Key Lessons Learned from the Pilot: • SIP experience positive for NMSS – ‘critical friend’ role and interchange with maintained sector developments are most valued elements • Neither pilot model is ‘the answer’ – both have inbuilt flaws.. • Governance within the sector needs review. • Future development of any programme needs to be planned within a changing context where LAs (and even maintained sector schools through consortia) increasingly become commissioners of specialist services and provision

9. The Findings 1: SIPs are good for the sector. Why/How? “SIPs working with schools within the pilot have undoubtedly had a measurable and positive impact upon thinking and professional practice within those schools – particularly in relation to the use of data for evaluation and target-setting purposes. As a result, nearly all of those who have been involved in the pilot are convinced that the process should be extended to the whole NMSS sector.” The main benefits were seen as those arising from: • the ‘critical friend’ role • the sustained focus upon progress and achievement • the ‘cross-fertilisation’ effect evident because SIPs who had been working within the maintained sector were also now working within the NMSS sector.

10. The Findings 2: The need to plan & prepare carefully.. • The project has identified several issues important to the work of SIPs within the non-maintained sector that will need to be addressed, as part of any plans to extend or embed the pilot programme. • These should be addressed via systematic briefings, training events/resources and ongoing (perhaps web-based?) Continuing Professional Development (CPD) and will need to be tailored variously for SIPs, headteachers and trustees within the sector.

11. The Findings 6: Clarity of purpose.. Robust Quality Assurance (QA) systems are increasingly needed within the sector but should not be allowed to compromise the ‘critical friend’ role of the SIP. Subject to regulatory safeguards, the QA function of any SIP programme within the sector should be supportive of self-evaluation within an overall commissioners’ QA Framework.

12. The Findings 3: Review governance in the sector The diversity of governance and management structures within the NMSS sector reflects the diversity of goals pursued by those organisations e.g. fundraising, marketing of services. The challenge presented to some of these existing structures (which relate to these organisational goals) – and to some individuals within them - by the SIPs’ relentless focus upon pupil progress and achievement, has introduced a fresh element for the schools’ management and governance processes to take account of. This in turn has highlighted a need for some of the schools (or their parent organisations) to review their governance or management structures in order to make the most of the SIP process. This may be as simple a matter initially as identifying a governor/trustee to liaise with the SIP.

13. The Findings 4: The Hub LA model.. LA managers in both areas, and headteachers/trustees in some of the schools, have raised concerns about three aspects of the LA-managed model: a) the conflict between the SIPs role as ‘critical friend’ to the school and the LAs role in commissioning and quality assuring placements within the sector. b) the defined core (i.e. statutory) functions of the LA do not include any responsibility for supporting or securing improvements within the NM sector. The responsibility for any remedial work that may be needed remains at all times with the trustees. LAs see this work as peripheral.. c) This sense of ‘peripherality’ is exacerbated when the schools are remote, in geographical terms, from the managing LA – as they were within the pilot and as they would be in many cases within a ‘hub LA’ managed model.

14. The Findings 5: The Trustee model.. As the LA’s role as the strategic commissioners continues to develop, then robust QA structures and processes are increasingly needed . Concerns are evident about the ability of the Trustee-managed model to: a) Reassure commissioners about the independence/impartiality of SIPs work and reports b) Ensure that headteachers (particularly in some of the smaller, single school organisations) are not additionally and inappropriately burdened with finding/selecting/briefing and managing the SIP for their own school c) Provide adequate and appropriate levels and kinds of support to SIPs working with schools where concerns of one kind or another become evident.

15. Next steps: • DCSF to consider report findings and recommendations within the new policy/strategic context provided by “21st Century Schools”. • DCSF to liaise with NASS over future plans What is this new context?

16. The Future: A reformed and strengthened accountability system – the role of School Improvement Partners (SIPs) • SIPs will be the single agent for challenge and support to schools across all outcomes on behalf of LAs - continues reform started with the New Relationship with Schools • significant shift in the way SIPs, LAs, Non Departmental Public Bodies and DCSF field forces work with schools - schools will have differentiated SIP time according to performance • stronger choice for GBs in who their SIP is – role reduced from 5 years to 3 in each school • will reform SIP training and quality assurance - expect to phase in new approach over time • Further consultation to come

17. In short: An enhanced role for SIPs… Support schools to improve all outcomes for children Increased leverage over weak performers New SIP role Support Heads to understand the new SI model Challenge, diagnose and broker support Reposition as primary intermediary between schools & LAs Increase time in school but reduce time attached to school

18. …underpinned by more checks and quality assurance Give school governors more say in who their SIP is Review and develop SIP accreditation process Require all practicing SIPs to re-accredit over time SIP Hold a national register of SIPs, identifying who is best to work where Undertake quality assurance of existing SIPs Issue ‘licence to practice’ to quality-assured SIPs