Enhancing Effective Governance

David Triggs

• Principal, Greensward Academy• CEO Academies Enterprise Trust comprising

Clacton Coastal, Greensward, Maltings and New Rickstones

• CEO Unity City Academy• Consultant Head to Hasmonean High School• Associate Headteacher to the SSAT• National Leader of Education

Mission Statement

Greensward’s (now AET) mission statement:

‘Make our Best Better’

Fuji Films mission statement:

‘Kill Kodak’

Vision

To help students achieve world class outcomes by developing world class teachers in a world class community.

Three Core PrinciplesSynergy

• Processes and transformational tools developed must fit together to avoid confusion and promote self-confidence, professional development and personal effectiveness.

Clarity• It is solutions for children we need, not more professional puzzles for adults

to unravel.

Simplicity• Even when addressing complex issues, the procedures and processes

must be easy to understand and follow to ensure that, in the best way we can, energies are focused relentlessly on “making a difference” to the outcomes for our children and young people and their parents and communities.

Key Indicators of Our Performance

• How do we as governors know our school is promoting the best possible standards and the highest achievement?

•  How do we promote high quality outcomes through similarly high quality provision in learning, in teaching, assessment, care, welfare and support for students, and through an engaging and challenging curriculum?

• How do we know we are being as effective as we should be in leading and managing our schools and indeed whether we being as effective and inspiring as we could be?

Relationships with Ofsted

The management of change toolkit

Experience with Ofsted

• 5 schools out of special measures

• 2 schools (1 Academy) avoided special measures

• 2 schools ‘Outstanding’.

The role of Governors

• Little doubt Governors are vital to shaping the way schools are run and developed.

• They are now required to have a more detailed knowledge of the schools they govern. Their responsibilities have become much sharper and wider.

Just imagine…Your school has just received 3 days notice of inspection by OFSTED. Thechair, and a couple of other governors are due to meet the lead inspector.

What questions might you expect to be asked?

“I have read your SEF and the school’s self-evaluation report, do you agree the school’s overall judgements are right?”........

“How do you know that the picture set out in the self-evaluation is accurate?” “How do you know, for example, about the quality of teaching or about the strengths of the leadership team?”

“What sort of monitoring and evaluating of the school are you and other governors involved in? How often does this happen? What is the result?”

How effective do you think the governing body is in carrying out its responsibilities? Can you give me an example where your action has had a direct impact?

How would you answer?As we will see, these are reasonable questions given your role as governors…..

What are governors being asked to do?

For a long time the three key roles of a

governing body have centred on:

• Providing a strategic view• Acting as a critical friend• Ensuring accountability

Governing Bodies and Effective Schools (OFSTED/ BIS/ DFE 1995) and see

also Governing the School of the Future (DfES 2005, p 3—8)

OFSTED viewOver the years have defined these three

roles more helpfully as:

• Providing a strategic direction for the work and improvement of the school;

• Supporting, monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the school;

• Holding schools and their leaders to account for the standards achieved and the quality of education.

Being clear about your focus• Fundamental is your responsibility to monitor and

evaluate the work of the school and to hold people professionally to account for the school’s outcomes and its continuous improvement.

• Collecting monitoring evidence, on which the school’s self-evaluation judgements are based, is part of the professional duty of every Headteacher and their staff.

• It is not your responsibility to duplicate this professional process. However, in acting as a critical friend, your role is to review the robustness of the school’s view of itself and monitor its progress.

Heart of your responsibilities as Governors?

There are three central questions ….each linked to your role as governors and

different forms of your monitoring work

• Where are we now?

• Where do we want to be?

• How are we going to get there?

Central questions for schools & focus of audit-based inspection – the mirroring effect

• Do we/you/they know precisely the school’s and each area’s strengths and weaker aspects and are we clear about what these highlight for change?

(Where we are now)

• Have we/you/they identified the key priorities? ...to get to… (Where we want to be)

• Do we/you/they have a clear and manageable Quality Plan and the capacity to achieve and sustain through our Quality Management Programme the required improvements and change(s)?

(How we are going to get there)

The ChallengeDevelop a straightforward approach that:

• operates in a simple-to-understand way;

• covers all aspects of your monitoring work;

• integrates fully with the school’s procedures;

• helps you and staff to work closely together in a structured and agreed way; and

• fits easily in with the way your governing body meetings normally operate.

The Effective Monitoring Process

Accelerate Achievement™

Accelerate Achievement

A transforming process of school improvement and for governance and

leadership development

www.applied-information.co.uk

Key TermsKey Indicators of Performance – KIPs

– that map across all areas of a school’s work

• Evaluation criteria for judging Standards, Quality & Effectiveness and link to each KIP

• Pivotal Evidence and Questions for each KIP

• Evaluative Profiles for each KIP that are clear, easy to understand and are rigorously benchmarked.

Just imagine…your Governing Body meeting with this as an item for discussion

Step 1 – School Self-evaluation• Routine, Rigorous & Robust Review and Self-

Evaluation – “sharpening up” the process based on a forensic approach that rests on rigorous analysis using the criteria for each KIP and then systematically evaluating the results to………………………………………

• Establish your baseline judgements; Where are we now? Where we want to be? - using the Evaluative profiles & criteria

Step 2 – Where are we now?

Step 2 - Recording our baseline judgements - Current & Target Categories

Step 3 – Allocate KIPs

Step 4 – How often will we collect information?

• The answer to this question will depend on the results of your self-evaluation (see Step 2).

SRSE Cycle

Step 5 – Gather Reports from SLT

Step 6 – Sharing & agreeing the results

At the start of the year/process;

• The school has presented an accurate and strongly evaluative picture of “Where we are now” (Current Category) which is wholly consistent with its evidence and is linked to robust overall judgements. The priorities for improvement and what needs to change have been clearly identified.

OR:-

• Progress towards the Target Category is good in all respects – targets are agreed; the Quality Plan has a clear series of actions and strategies (Quality Management Programmes); and the evidence produced indicates that what has been planned is progressing well and the intended impact is as expected.

GREEN

At the start of the year/process;

• The school has presented an accurate and evaluative picture of “Where we are now” (Current Category) which is broadly consistent with its evidence and linked to secure judgements. The priorities for improvement and what needs to change have been identified.

OR:-

• Progress towards the Target Category is uneven in some respects – targets are agreed; but the evidence suggests that the linked actions and strategies (both in the Quality Plan and Quality Management Programmes) may need some revising and/or that the agreed timetable may be slipping so that the intended impact may be less than expected.

AMBER

At the start of the year/process;

• Governors are unable confidently to “sign off” the report on the particular KIP because of doubts about whether the school’s evaluation is accurate or is sufficiently linked to convincing evidence

OR:- • Progress would automatically be unsatisfactory if the

targets for improvement have not been agreed or the actions and strategies planned lack credibility

RED

Step 6 – Share and discuss with GB

What role do the Governors play?

• Receives the report from the SLT member

• Reviews the evidence• Asks the prepared questions• Challenges where she/he is not satisfied

with the evidence• Holds the senior leaders to account. • Agrees the progress.

AET Leadership Structure Model

Reviewing the Evidence

Weekly Data

Attendance Data

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

-1

1

3

5

7

9

11

2.25

2.86

3.66

4.38

5.425.09

5.42

6.95

6.15

4.73

6.01

6.69 6.55

7.37

8.51

7.69

5.97

5.15

4.71

6.64

4.99

5.715.54

5.02

7.94

6.72

5.59

5.21

6.15

3.62

0.97

0.45 0.36 0.390.08 0.19

0.47 0.620.28 0.31

0.13

0.56 0.48

1.78

0.01 0.00

0.49

0.05

0.65

0.10 0.080.25

1.51 1.37

0.21

0.97

0.13 0.180.36 0.33

KS3 AbsenceKS3

% Authorised absence

% Unauthorised absence

Weeks

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Exclusions Data

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2

3 3

4 4

11

7

2

4

6

5

6

4

5

0

4

3

6

7 7

5

3

2

0

8

5

10

2

5

1 1

Exclusions

Weeks

Nu

mb

er o

f st

ud

ents

For further information contact:

John Brisbane

Managing Director, Applied Information

john.brisbane@applied-information.co.uk

01473 659 053

Q & A