Strategic Plan for School Improvement

1

Strategic plan for

school improvement

Achieving and sustaining excellence

2013–16

Su

pp

ortin

g sch

oo

l imp

rovem

en

t

2

City of York Council Strategic Plan for School

Improvement (2013–16)

Our vision

We want York to be a great place to grow up in so that every child and young person can live their dreams. We will work together to stretch, support and nurture all children and young people and ensure that our work improves the life chances of the most vulnerable so that York is know as one of the fairest cities in Britain to grow up in.

The local authority (LA) firmly believes that our role is to serve the needs of all the children and young people in York. Whilst we value our relationship with individual schools, the needs of the city are paramount and to that end we work in partnership with all schools regardless of individual status.

To realise our vision of achieving and sustaining educational excellence, the key strategic priorities for York (2013–16) are to:

Ensure that at least 90% of pupils attend good and outstanding schools by 2016.

Increasing the percentage of outstanding schools, so that 30% of schools are outstanding by 2016 and 40% of schools are outstanding by 2018.

Work with schools to raise the aspirations of all children and young people so that every child and young person can live their dreams.

Continue to stretch and challenge the most able.

Continue to improve outcomes for vulnerable groups, particularly those eligible for free school meals, travellers, looked after children and those with special educational needs so that the gap in outcomes between them and their peers continues to close so that performance is at least in line with national averages by 2016.

Further develop the LA‟s strategic role as a commissioner rather than a provider of school improvement services, through continuing to build the processes and structures underpinning a successful and self improving school system in York.

Work with a range of partners in York to ensure that all children and young people have opportunities to access artistic, cultural, sporting and spiritual experiences by 2016 to enrich their lives, promote their emotional and social well-being, raise their aspirations and help them to realise their dreams.

3

The strategic role of the local authority in school improvement

To achieve our vision of educational excellence and fairness, City of York Council has an important role in ensuring that all children, young people and their families have access to good and better schools and educational settings. We have a statutory duty as the champion for children, young people and families to ensure that every child has fair access to all schools and to the highest standards of teaching.

Our ambition in York is for every child and young person to attend a school that is good or outstanding. That is their right and we all, whether we are parents, officers, headteachers, governors, teachers or support staff, have this ambition as our aim and priority. We also have the ambition that every child should make better than expected progress, regardless of circumstance or background.

We want the performance of York schools to be well above national comparators for each and every indicator. Overall there is much to be pleased with, but we are not complacent and will not settle for anything less than the highest quality and the highest outcomes. We know that we can and should do better.

Whilst this Strategic Plan focuses on clarity around protocols, how the LA will work with schools to improve performance, how good or outstanding schools can support other schools, and what level of intervention is needed to drive improvements, we should also remember that we seek broader outcomes for our children and young people. We want them to have a high quality set of learning experiences that enriches their lives and enables them to achieve success in a range of situations, to have self-esteem, confidence, and to have the skills that will enable them to play their part in society, achieving economic well-being.

Together, we can achieve our ambitions. Our workforce in schools is committed, dedicated, extremely hard working, ambitious and absolutely child-centred. “York is a city making history and our children are its future” as described in the Children and Young People‟s Plan 2012–15 and our children and young people deserve every chance of success.

Janet Looker

Cabinet Member for Education

4

Section A: The working with schools protocol

1. Introduction

The 2010 Schools White Paper made it clear that the government expects local authorities (LAs) to continue to have a strong strategic role in education. This strategic role as the champion for children, young people and families includes a duty to ensure that every child has fair access to all schools and to the highest standards of teaching. It is also important to recognise that local authorities continue to retain a legal responsibility for performance in their area as a whole, under the 1996 Education Act. In June 2013 Ofsted began to inspect the school improvement arrangements in local authorities to provide an independent external evaluation of how well they carry out their statutory duties in relation to promoting high standards in schools and other providers so that children and young people achieve well and fulfil their potential as defined by section 13A of the Education Act 1996. This includes support for schools causing concern as set out in Part 4 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006.

The City of York‟s Strategic Plan for School Improvement was first written in March 2010. This updated version focuses on the changing role of the LA with regard to:

the York Education Partnership and the School Improvement Commissioning Group (SICG)

monitoring of school performance and categorisation of schools

support for, and interventions in, schools

commissioning and brokering support for schools

the Ofsted frameworks for the inspection of schools, settings and local authority school improvement arrangements

being a strategic partner within the Ebor Teaching School Alliance (ETSA)

the higher profile of governance within school performance

statutory duties related to SEND.

2. The York Education Partnership

The York Education Partnership (YEP) was formed in 2011 and is designed to be a sector-led strategic and decision-making making body for education in York. It incorporates the responsibilities of the Schools Forum, and this is reflected in the membership. The rationale for the YEP is that in the new world of school autonomy it was felt that a partnership between all schools and the LA was crucial so that the increasing responsibilities of schools for school improvement would not lead to the fracturing of previously strong relationships with each other and the LA. There has been a continued commitment to partnership by all schools, including the academies. Regardless of the status of schools or the nature of their governance, all have remained committed to joint activity in the best interests of the wider community of York.

5

The YEP has an independent chair and there are five meetings each year. Schools are grouped in six geographical clusters across the city and their representatives sit on the YEP board. In recognition of the importance of good governance and the key role governors play in the strategic leadership of schools there are also two governor representatives on the YEP board.

The School Improvement Commissioning Group (SICG) is a sub-committee of the YEP. It is a smaller group with membership from the clusters, the secondary heads forum and the LA to ensure that all school improvement functions are coordinated. The SICG is accountable to the YEP, and the assistant director (Education and Skills) and head of school improvement bring recommendations to YEP Board meetings. However, the SICG has delegated powers to make decisions on funding, resources, and support for underperforming schools.

3. Practice and models of support and intervention in York

The LA firmly believes that in order that all children and young people have a good education, the focus must be on ensuring:

High standards of attainment and progress of all children and young people

High quality of leadership and management, both at headteacher level and governance

A rigorous focus on closing gaps

Supporting a robust approach to raising the aspirations of all children and young people including the most able, those eligible for the pupil premium and those with special needs and/or disabilities

High quality teaching, learning and provision in the classroom

Effective partnerships to support the spiritual, moral, cultural and social development of children and young people.

There are already effective arrangements for school improvement in York; these include:

The School Improvement Commissioning Group (SICG)

Models of school to school support

The Ebor Teaching School Alliance comprising two teaching schools in the city, and a wider network of other teaching school alliances across the region

The LA and the ETSA working together around the protocols of support and intervention, commissioning of National Leaders of Education (NLEs) and Local Leaders of Education (LLEs), due diligence and service level agreements

School clusters and emerging governor clusters supporting school improvement

The use of National Leaders of Governance (NLGs) and York Leaders of Governance (YLGs)

Supportive networks and mentoring arrangements for new headteachers and newly qualified teachers (NQTs)

6

A York Challenge Partner (YCP) deployment model that has LA and external YCPs

A school improvement provider team including English, maths, science, SEND

A school improvement commissioning team involving LA officers and headteachers.

These arrangements are subject to process of continuous evaluation to ensure that they are effective in improving outcomes in schools.

4. Developing models of school-to-school support

Central to the local authority‟s new role in school improvement is the commitment to developing models to support sustainable sector-led improvement. This has led to the emerging model of cluster based support linked to the development of the York Challenge. This model is being co-constructed with the cluster chairs and is designed to promote greater partnership working so that there is greater accountability for school improvement at cluster level. The local authority is working with school leaders to ensure that the tiers of intervention model and thresholds for the categorisation of schools are clearly understood. The LA is working with all schools in partnership; supporting and promoting the concept of schools supporting schools which is at the heart of sector-led improvement. The LA also commissions interventions from a range of sources, including from outstanding schools and good schools with strong leadership, the ETSA, regional teaching school alliances and external providers, eg Navigate. The LA recognises that there could be good or excellent practice in any school and will harness that within its commissioning role.

Arrangements for school improvement in York will build upon current effective practice that the LA knows has had a strong impact, and also explore new solutions and ways of working. There will be a “mixed economy” with appropriate and bespoke solutions and ways forward for schools.

5. Success criteria for ALL schools

We have high expectations of all schools in York. The following summarises our joint expectations with schools:

The LA and each school has a clear vision communicated to all stakeholders, re-visited regularly and re-enforced

The LA is well above all national performance measures for each key stage and for all groups of pupils and schools are demonstrating accelerated and improving trends

All schools are good or outstanding according to the LA or Ofsted assessment, therefore no schools are requiring improvement or in an Ofsted category

The LA meets the Ofsted criteria for its school improvement arrangements to be judged as effective

The leadership of each school is of the highest quality, including governance

High quality teaching impacts on learning and outcomes for all pupils

7

„Behaviour, safety and attendance‟ is at least good as defined by the current Ofsted framework

Schools focus on closing the gap between vulnerable pupils and groups of pupils, whilst accelerating progress of all pupils, including the most able

Pupils are fully engaged, are listened to, and can inspire their own learning

Schools provide opportunities to develop pupils spiritually, morally, culturally and socially to enrich their development as future citizens

Parents are fully engaged to inspire their children

Safeguarding is of the highest quality.

6. The LA’s risk assessment process

As part of the LA‟s risk assessment process, schools are placed in one of four LA categories. The LA assesses and categorises schools using the Ofsted evaluation criteria, local intelligence and information gained from the school‟s self-evaluation process. Category 4 is for schools in an Ofsted category or causing concern, Category 3 is for schools that require improvement, Category 2 is for good schools and Category 1 is for outstanding schools.

Factors taken into account when categorising schools are:

Below floor standards for attainment and progress, or consistently so

Position with regard to national averages for key performance indicators and pupil groups

Pace of improvement

Quality of teaching and rate of pupil progress in all years and classes

Ofsted judgements and length of time since last inspection

Strength of leadership at all levels, including governance

Progress against areas of improvement from last Ofsted inspection report

Attendance, persistent absence and exclusion levels

Any safeguarding issues

Outcomes from health-check visits (brokered by LA or by the school from external consultants)

Ofsted interim assessments and monitoring inspections

Quality of performance management and appraisal process

The proven stability and sustainability of leadership and management including headteachers or chairs of governors.

8

7. Summary of school support and intervention according to category

The level of intervention and support is summarised in the following table:

LA category

Rationale Plan Support/Intervention

4 In an Ofsted category Two year strategic improvement plan with annual operational plan

Statement of intent

Executive HT

New chair and/or IEB

Structural solution

4 At-risk of an Ofsted category

Schools at risk of being below floor standards for the following year

Two year strategic improvement plan with annual operational plan

Executive HT, NLE or partner HT

Additional leadership capacity

New chair

Commissioned support

4 Requiring improvement but not improving at a sufficient pace

Two year strategic improvement plan to get to good

Detailed and specific strategies within school improvement plan

NLE or partner HT

Increased YCP days

Partner chair

Commissioned support

3 Requiring improvement or Satisfactory and improving rapidly

Two strategic improvement plan to get to good

Detailed and specific strategies within school improvement plan

Increased YCP time

LLEs or cluster lead headteacher involvement

Cluster support through the York Challenge

2 Good schools School improvement plan detailing specific strategies for moving to outstanding and building capacity to support other schools

Leading and coordinating cluster based support

Service level agreements outlining the use of cluster funding to support improvement activities in the cluster, eg through the York Challenge

1 Outstanding schools School improvement plan detailing specific strategies for moving to truly exceptional and building capacity to support other schools

Leading and coordinating cluster based support

Service level agreements outlining the use of cluster funding to support improvement activities in the cluster, eg through the York Challenge

9

8. Use of statutory powers

The LA sees the methods of support outlined in Section 3 as the constructive and preferable way to support schools. The LA would expect that early intervention would have a positive impact on a school‟s performance but would not hesitate to use formal interventions if that improvement was not evidenced in sufficient time or where barriers to improvement exist. The LA will use statutory powers as appropriate and in the following examples:

Direction to have an NLE or executive headteacher where a school is in special measures or at risk of being so

Interim executive boards (IEBs) and suspending the right to a delegated budget where governance is weak or a barrier to progress or when a school is in special measures

Direction to have a formal partnership with an academy or to federate when a school requires significant improvement

Where a structural solution, eg conversion to a sponsored academy.

The LA does not use statutory powers lightly and these formal interventions will only be used if:

The school is not demonstrating accelerated improvement

Leadership is weak and is a barrier to improvement and progress

Governance is weak and a barrier to improvement and progress.

In every situation, the issue of formal intervention would be discussed with the headteacher and governors, and a formal warning notice given if appropriate.

9. Protocol and framework for LA interventions in school governance

The characteristics of strong governance

Governors play a significant role in creating a vision that is shared by all members of the school community and is based on input from, and consultation with, a range of stakeholders

The governing body (GB) is influential in setting the strategic direction of the school in partnership with senior leaders

The GB ensures decisions are made in line with the school‟s vision and strategic priorities and monitors the impact of these decision

Governors have an understanding of the data which they use to cross reference and challenge what they are told by school leaders; and have a detailed and accurate understanding of the school's overall performance

10

Governors regularly evaluate their own effectiveness and this informs the evaluation of school leadership

Governors ensure the performance management of the headteacher and other staff is focused on the school‟s strategic priorities and on improving the quality of teaching/pupil outcomes

Governance structures are kept under review to ensure they reflect school and national priorities

Governor questions demonstrate a relentless drive for improvement

Budget is consistently balanced with no significant carry forward balance

Governors routinely monitor the schools financial control mechanisms and can evidence financial probity exists

GB documentation demonstrates a clear and consistent approach to fulfilling a wide range of statutory duties and the GB‟s determination to keep abreast of new initiatives and any changes in legislation

Governors are able to demonstrate a thorough understanding of their responsibilities related to safeguarding so that the school‟s safeguarding arrangements and approach is robust and fit for purpose

Agendas and work programmes reflect a clear commitment to an annual cycle of timely discussion, review and approval of key compliance requirements (eg Child Protection Policy)

The headteacher, chair and clerk jointly agree the structure of agenda for each FGB to ensure they reflect statutory requirements and school priorities

GB plans its training and development to reflect SDP priorities and latest government initiatives/requirements, eg Pupil Premium

The home–school agreement is reviewed each year and governors know the school takes reasonable steps to ensure all parents/carers sign it

Parents, pupils and staff are surveyed regularly and their views impact GB decisions

Governors encourage effective links with other schools and the local and wider community; and can evidence a positive impact on pupil outcomes

Governors have a detailed knowledge of how Pupil Premium funding is used, including intended outcomes and impact

The school has an up-to-date website which provides parents with a range of accessible financial, curriculum and pastoral information, and including governance.

Criteria for concern

All governing bodies are different and work in different ways. However, there are a number of indicators that flag up issues of concern and which can be monitored by the LA in order

11

to make a judgement regarding the effectiveness of an individual governing body. Few of these on their own would be cause for concern, but where several indicators are triggered, this will suggest the need for further investigation. This list of criteria is not exhaustive, but represents the range of indicators that may be considered:

Pupil performance is below floor standards and pupils are not making progress that is either expected or better than expected

The school is in, or at risk of being in, an Ofsted category

Strength of leadership is of concern

The governing body is unable to appoint a chair of governors

There is a new chair of governors

There is a high level (20%+) of long-standing (more than 6 months) governor vacancies

Lack of engagement with the LA (eg the governing body is rarely represented at LA briefings)

Low take-up of governor training

Clerking is inadequate or not sufficiently independent of the school

The minutes do not evidence appropriate challenge and engagement by governors

There is no evidence of a robust committee structure

Meetings are frequently inquorate and/or there is a significant level of non-attendance

There are concerns about safeguarding arrangements and expectations

The headteacher has concerns about the quality of governance.

Framework for interventions

Where a school requires improvement (either Ofsted or LA judgement) the headteacher and chair of governors will be required to attend a school improvement panel (SIP) meeting. Other attendees will include the assistant director, Education and Skills (chair), supporting headteacher and/or chair, a representative of the Diocesan Board (aided schools) and a note-taker. Where there are concerns about governance, the head of governor support will also attend.

At the first SIP meeting, governance will be discussed and any concerns shared and minuted. As a result of this conversation, the LA may commission an external review of governance, the outcome of which will form the basis of an Improving Governance Action Plan (iGAP).

The iGAP will be presented to the governing body by the chair of governors. In some circumstances the external reviewer, YCP or head of governor support may attend the meeting to offer clarification and/or support to the chair.

12

The local authority will write to the chair of governors (copied each member of the governing body and to the headteacher if not a governor) setting out its expectations regarding the priorities within the iGAP, the monitoring process and the timescale within which improvements must be evidenced.

Interventions, support and guidance

It is recognised that the pace of change is rapid and governing bodies may not have the capacity within their existing membership to bring about the improvements required and set out in the iGAP. In these circumstances the LA will work with the governing body (through the chair) in ways appropriate to each individual governing body‟s circumstances. This support might include:

reviewing the constitution of the governing body to allow the capacity to appoint new governors based on the skills they bring

the appointment of individuals who hold the appropriate skills and experience to bring capacity for improvement and model good governance

the appointment of the external reviewer to work alongside the governing body for a fixed period of time to ensure pace of progress and add capacity

a mentoring/coaching arrangement for the chair of governors

appointment of a person who will take the chair.

Use of LA governor appointments

People who are appointed as governors to provide capacity or modelling will normally be appointed to LA posts. Where no vacancy exists, the LA will review the performance and attendance record of the existing LA governors and may remove ineffective or inactive governors in order to create space for the new appointments. In some circumstances the external reviewer may be appointed.

Appointment of governors to be chair

Where there are weaknesses in governing body leadership, or if the governing body is unable to appoint a chair, the local authority will appoint as an LA governor a person who will take on the role of chair whilst developing a successor and strengthening governance. It is expected that where the LA uses this intervention, the governing body will support the appointment of that person as chair.

Selection of individuals for appointment as chair

Those people who are appointed will be either NLGs or YLGs.

Payment of allowances

It is the case that any person who is appointed to add capacity or lead improvements may need to commit a significant amount of time over and above that normally expected of a

13

governor. Where these people are already employed, or self-employed, this time commitment might result in significant loss of earnings, holiday entitlement or earning opportunities. The LA may recompense any executive chair, or person appointed to lead improvements, if that person is required to spend significant periods of time on governance work and, as a result, experiences personal financial loss.

Measures taken should progress not be made

At all times, the local authority will seek to work collaboratively with governing bodies. However, should a governing body actively block the progress required or fail to bring about the required improvements within the agreed timescale the local authority will consider stronger interventions including the issuing of a Performance, Standards and Safety Warning Notice. A warning notice must be copied to Ofsted at the same time it is issued to a governing body and is therefore a serious measure and one that will not be undertaken lightly. Nevertheless, the LA will use this intervention if necessary.

The warning notice will set out:

matters on which the LA‟s concerns are based. These will be set out in some detail and will explain the facts that exist in that particular school and the circumstances which are giving the LA cause for concern.

the action that the governing body is required to take in order to address the concerns raised.

the initial period within which concerns must be addressed. This is 15 working days starting on the date on which the notice is given. During this 15 days, the governing body has the right to appeal to Ofsted against the warning notice.

the action that the LA is minded to take should the governing body fail to take the required action. These might include the appointment of additional governors or the removal of the governing body and the appointment of an Interim Executive Board (IEB). An IEB is a group appointed to act as governors in order to drive rapid change.

Failure to progress following warning notice

If a school fails to make adequate progress, or fails to meet the actions set out in the warning notice, it becomes “eligible for intervention”. The types of intervention open to the LA are:

to require the governing body to enter into a contract or other arrangement for specified advisory services with a specified person (who may be a governor at another school)

to require the governing body to make arrangements to collaborate with the governing body of another school

to require the governing body to take specific steps towards creating a federation

to appoint additional governors (no vacancy required)

14

to remove the governing body and appoint an Interim Executive Board, which will take on the role and responsibilities of a governing body.

10. Monitoring and evaluating the impact of support and intervention

The SICG has responsibility for commissioning support and interventions based on the LA risk assessment. The priorities for support and intervention are those schools in LA categories 4 and 3. The SICG meets half-termly and monitors the impact of support and intervention, reporting to the YEP Board.

The evidence of impact is collated through a termly survey of all schools based on:

The service level agreement agreed at the outset with clear expectations, rationale for the support or intervention, measurable outcomes and impact measure

Feedback from schools receiving support and the impact with measurable outcomes. This includes support from the LA, governance and external consultants

Schools giving support and the impact with measurable outcomes on their schools and the school they are supporting. This includes the use of chairs of governors

The range of support and interventions

Value for money.

The head of school improvement gives an annual report to the YEP and regular updates to the SICG.

15

Section B: Our Strategic Priorities 2013–16

1. Ensure that at least 90% of pupils attend good and outstanding schools by 2016. Increasing the percentage of outstanding

schools, so that 30% of schools are outstanding by 2016 and 50% of schools are outstanding by 2018.

What will we do? How will we know that we

have been successful? Who will be

responsible? Resources By when?

Work with partners (including Ofsted, the ETSA and other providers) to support schools in a category or requiring improvement to move to good within two years.

Feedback from Ofsted monitoring visits, YCP reports and minutes from school improvement panel meetings shows that category 3 and 4 schools are on track to achieve good within 2 years.

AD/HOSI SCC funding July 2016

Monitor and evaluate the progress of category 4 and 3 schools through termly school improvement panel meetings.

Category 4 and 3 schools move to good at their next inspection or at their annual LA assessment or appropriate structural solutions are in place for category 4 schools that are not making good progress.

AD/HOSI SCC funding On-going

2013–16

Commission appropriate support and monitor its effectiveness through service level agreements.

Outcomes agreed in the SLAs are being achieved. Ofsted reports recognise the effectiveness of LA commissioned support.

AD and SICG SICG funding On-going

2013–16

16




Ensure that the work of the LA school improvement team, school-to-school support and support commissioned from external providers is sharply focused on the improvement priorities of category 4 and 3 schools.

Pupil outcomes and the quality of teaching improve in category 3 and 4 schools. There are no schools below the floor standards for progress in English and mathematics.

AD/HOSI and SICG

School Improvement

Commissioning Fund

2013–14

Reviewed annually

Work with headteachers and governing bodies to support schools to move to good.

LA interventions and school improvement arrangements are judged to be appropriate and effective by Ofsted.

DCS

AD/HOSI

School Improvement

Commissioning Fund

On-going

2013–16

Develop the school improvement work in clusters to identify and share best practice to build sustainable sector-led improvement.

90% of pupils attend good or outstanding schools by 2016.

All schools are good or outstanding by 2018.

DCS

AD/HOSI

Cluster chairs

School Improvement

Commissioning Fund

On-going

2013–16

Make appropriate use of the LA‟s statutory powers of intervention (DfE Schools Causing Concern guidance) including warning notices and structural solutions when necessary to challenge underperforming schools.

Appropriate local solutions are in place such as the appropriate use of sponsored academy status to address underperformance.

DCS

AD/HOSI

Officer time On-going

2013–16

17

2. Work with schools to raise the aspirations of all children and young people so that every child and young person can live

their dreams.




Support schools to develop curriculum pathways that raise aspirations and accelerate the progress of all children and young people.

Work with a range of partners to provide all children and young people and their families with memorable experiences to engage them with learning.

Work with key partners including Higher York to further develop raising aspirations approaches in the city linked to the City Skills Strategy.

The attainment and progress outcomes remain significantly above the national average across all key stages.

School Improvement

Team


2013–16

18

3. Continue to stretch and challenge the most able.




Continue to champion and further develop the Independent–State Schools Partnership (ISSP).

Continuing to support and challenge schools to make effective provision for the most able through sharing best practice and the key messages from research.

Continue the work with key partners, eg the Children‟s University.

The attainment and progress outcomes for the most able remain significantly above the national average across all key stages.

AD/HOSI

School Improvement

team


2013–16

19

4. Continue to improve outcomes for vulnerable groups, particularly those eligible for free school meals, travellers, looked

after children and those with special educational needs so that the gap in outcomes between them and their peers

continues to close so that performance is at least in line with national averages by 2016.




Focus on narrowing the gap in early years to ensure that all children get off to a good start.

Increase the number of free child care places for vulnerable two year olds.

The outcomes of vulnerable groups (particularly in English and mathematics) are at least in line with their peers by 2016.

Early Years Team

Pupil Premium On-going

2013–16

Improve the outcomes for looked after children, especially those placed outside of York, through continuing to develop the work of the virtual school.

Looked after children (particularly in English and mathematics) are making at least expected progress in relation to their peers by 2016.

Head of Virtual School and Virtual SLT

Virtual School On-going

2013–16

Continuing to support and challenge schools to make effective use of the Pupil Premium through sharing best practice and the key messages from research, eg from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Education Endowment Foundation.


School Improvement

Team


2013–16

Closely monitor and support schools where there are wide gaps to ensure that they have high impact strategies in place to support vulnerable pupils.


School Improvement

Team


2013–16

20




Ensure that cross council work on poverty and financial inclusion is closely aligned to school improvement priorities for vulnerable groups.

Pupil voice captures evidence of improved financial awareness.

AD/HOSI Officer time April 2014

Work with schools to develop the skills of teachers in recognising and effectively supporting the learning needs of children with SEN.

The outcomes of SEN pupils at least in line with the national outcomes for SEN pupils across all key stages.

School Improvement

Team

SEN Manager and SEN

Services Team

SENCOs


2013–16

Consult to develop data sharing protocols during 2013/14 so that the in-year progress of vulnerable groups can be more effectively tracked at LA level to inform timely targeted intervention.

Early intervention processes and strategies are closely aligned to the needs of vulnerable groups.

AD/HOSI MIS team time April 2014

21

5. Further develop the LA’s strategic role as a commissioner rather than a provider of school improvement service.




Work with school leaders through the SICG and other key partners/stakeholders, eg the ETSA to develop the capacity for school to school support.

Effective mechanisms are in place to commission school to school support with responsibilities and accountabilities transparently mapped.

AD/HOSI and SICG

YEP School Commissioning

Fund

Sept 2014

Develop a clear and transparent commissioning framework through the York Education Partnership Board.

Effective mechanisms are in place to commission school to school support with responsibilities and accountabilities transparently mapped.

AD, YEP board and SICG

YEP School Commissioning

Fund

Sept 2014

Continue to review and develop the LA‟s central school improvement services to ensure that the structure allows that LA to effectively discharge its statutory duties, is fit for purpose and financially viable.

The LA is judged to have effective arrangements for school improvement in place.

AD/HOSI Support from external

consultant, HR and finance

Jan 2014 –July 2015

Work with school leaders and chairs of governors to develop a York sector-led accountability framework to support robust peer review to support school self evaluation.

Peer review processes have been successfully implemented and LA processes for monitoring the performance of schools incorporate peer review.

AD, headteachers

and NLGs, YLGs

School Improvement

Commissioning Fund

Sept 2014

22




Support cluster based school improvement through the York Challenge.

The percentage of pupils in good and outstanding schools increases to 90% by 2016.

AD and SISG School Improvement

Commissioning Fund

2016

Work with partners, including the National College and ETSA to provide a professional development programme to develop the leadership skills for school to school support.

A professional development programme to grow the skills of school leaders to deliver school to school support is in place and is being delivered in partnership with the ETSA.

AD, SICG and ETSA

School Improvement

Commissioning Fund

Sept 2014

Key to abbreviations:

DCS – Director of Children‟s Services

AD – Assistant Director, Education and Skills

HOSI – Head of School Improvement

YEP board – York Education Partnership Board

SICG – School Improvement Commissioning Group

ETSA – Ebor Teaching School Alliance

NLGs – National Leaders of Governance

YLGs – York Leaders of Governance

Strategic Plan for School Improvement

Documents

Transcript of Strategic Plan for School Improvement