Upload
landry
View
79
Download
6
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
SIPs in 21st Century Schools. Tailoring SIP CPD to meet local needs. Aims:. Support LAs and SIPs in: understanding the national picture for Primary school improvement expressed in the 21 st Century Schools White Paper; reviewing the implications of this document for LA SIP CPD; - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Slide 1
© Crown copyright 2009
SIPs in 21st Century Schools
Tailoring SIP CPD to meet local needs
© Crown copyright 2009
Slide 2
Aims:Support LAs and SIPs in:
• understanding the national picture for Primary school improvement expressed in the 21st Century Schools White Paper;
• reviewing the implications of this document for LA SIP CPD;
• exploring how SIPs can become increasingly effective in supporting and challenging all schools in addressing their priorities.
© Crown copyright 2009
Slide 3
Programme for the day
10.00 Introduction;10.10 The vision and future of SIP CPD;11.30 Coffee;11.50 Moving schools forward;1.00 Lunch;2.00 SIPs’ role in support and challenge;3.00 Action planning for LAs;3.30 Close.
© Crown copyright 2009
Slide 4
The vision and future of SIP CPD in the context of the 21st Century Schools White Paper
Session One
Slide 5
© Crown copyright 2009
New Context
• NS role extended until March 2011 ….key role in implementation of the White Paper
• Ambitious change… mark of local and national success
• Higher trust and higher accountability• DCSF in general will cease to provide or fund
the provision of SI support
Slide 6
© Crown copyright 2009
New Context
In the context of schools at centre of self improvement, DCSF to determine with NS:
• Preservation and transfer of body of knowledge and examples of effective practice
• Secure, extend, exit and reposition services as appropriate
Slide 7
© Crown copyright 2009
White Paper
• The greater focus on schools and LAs being commissioners of support will over time mean that NS local consultancy will reduce or be redirected, though LAs already have autonomy about how they prioritise funding through Area Based Grant
• There will still be some centrally initiated priority programmes, likely to be time limited, where LAs will require specialist consultancy support, e.g. ECAR and ECC
Slide 8
© Crown copyright 2009
White Paper
• There will be further information from DCSF giving detail of the primary SI strategy
• LAs operate between national and front line delivery - new relationship with DCSF
• Development of a school improvement strategy for all schools and phased implementation plan
© Crown copyright 2009
Slide 9
The DCSF segmentation
Outstanding (Great) – should provide support to others SIPs to challenge them to do this
Good-to-great self improve with SIP challenge and support and working in partnership with Great schools
SIP support and challenge for schools with
weak progress
SIP support and challenge
for schools with
Inconsistent performance
Below the Floor, Hard to Shift, Ofsted
Increasing needSchools
© Crown copyright 2009
Slide 10
Priority Learning LAs
• LAs and schools learning with and from each other
• Supported by the NS – a different partnership!
• Modelling broader, deeper, longer term change….moving to post NS in 2011
Slide 11
© Crown copyright 2009
The SIP Review
• Range of evaluations 2004-7
• 2009 joint review led by DCSF, based on LA field work and focus groups
• The findings have been used to inform the White Paper
Executive summary
Key Findings
There is significant support for the SIP programme from heads. Where the programme is effective there is great pride from local authorities in what is being accomplished. From all parties there is still significant buy-in to the policy and its intentions.
The quality of the SIP programme is a direct result of the effectiveness of the leadership and management of the LA’s school improvement service. Effective LAs have an effective SIP function.
There are high levels of satisfaction from headteachers about the quality of challenge and support they receive from their SIPs. They cite examples of where challenge has brought about improvements in their practice and how they have been challenged to set higher targets than they otherwise would have done. In some cases, mainly amongst schools found Outstanding by Ofsted, heads are less clear of the benefits.
Challenge on the schools self-evaluation is a strength of the programme. However wider interpretations of school improvement beyond that which is focused on attainment and progress data are less common, as is effective challenge and support on the wider ECM outcomes.
In general LAs do not see brokering as the SIP’s role, consequently it is not possible for SIPs working in these LAs to perform this function effectively. There is little evidence of a single conversation. Heads would value a stronger role in brokering for SIPs and a single conversation, but LA SIP managers do not see these as a high priority. Solving this problem will require new thinking from LAs, schools and SIPs.
Where QA and performance management are done effectively, then LAs lead and manage a consistent, effective and high impact service, however this effective practice is not sufficiently widespread and should remain a major focus of attention to ensure the SIP function is consistently effective across the country
Challenging and supporting the school1. Challenging and support the school on its self-
evaluation and the priorities it identifies as a result
8.5
9.79.3 9.4
012345678910
Effective Important Effective ImportantHTs and govs SIP managers and SIPs
SIP is challenging and drills down, gets to those questions others don’t get to.
Just when you think things are going well she brings us back to reality … but she is a partner not an inspector.
[our SIP] really helped to focus the school on the main priorities.
I don’t feel challenged, only agreed with.
Challenging and supporting the school on its self evaluation is judged the most effective aspect of the SIP role and the most important through both the focus group work and all the LA based field work. This fits with previous evaluations (PMDU and YCL) as well as previous NS field work.
There were some examples however where heads felt they weren’t getting the challenge they wanted. In most cases these were heads of outstanding schools. Here much comment was about the SIP affirming and confirming the school’s previously held views.Overall heads of outstanding schools, by and large, would prefer to have more time with their SIPs than less (as they frequently do not get much), along with a desire for a more searching dialogue than some of them get currently within the time available
In conducting the field work it was apparent that the key determining factor of effective challenge and support from SIPs was the effectiveness of leadership and management of SIPs by the LA. A clear vision for school improvement from strong leaders and managers within the LA results in highly effective SIPs. Lack of vision, weak leadership and poor management leads to inconsistent and unsatisfactory practice.
This LA is not prepared to back up SIPs in challenging schools. As a result , SIPs are less likely to risk “rocking the boat.”
The single most important addition to SI practice has been the LA’s access to heads’ PM. This has been a key lever for change. Assistant Director
The SIP programme is the first systematic support to special schools that has credibility with heads.
Brokering Support 5. Brokering the support the school needs to implement its
development plan
2.9
5.8
3.44.3
0
12
3
45
6
7
89
10
Effective Important Effective Important
HTs and govs SIP managers and SIPs
Ave
rag
e sc
ore
(m
ax 1
0)
Link Advisers and brokeringThree of the four LAs visited retain a link adviser varying from a full allocation for every school in some, to a named officer who for good and outstanding schools rarely (if ever) visits the school in others.A common LA view is that the link advisers role is to broker support, whereas the SIP role is to identify the support required and monitor and evaluate its impact. From the LA perspective, there are clear benefits to this approach. But headteacher views are mixed: where it works well, then they are appreciative of the high quality support on offer. However even under these circumstances, they query strongly the need for an additional conversation, especially where it repeats the conversation already held with the SIP, which in general it does.The key question is why do LAs see it as entirely possible for advisers to broker support but not SIPs. The answer would seem to rest on the extent to which they are tied into the LA and the ease with which they can access those with control of the resources. This is much simpler for members of the LAs permanent staff.
Brokering in the National Challenge One National Challenge school was visited as part of the review. The experience of brokering in this school was good, partly as a result of the very clear expectations around brokering for NCAs and also the fund-holder nature of the role. It would appear that this notional “fund-holder” role allows NCAs to overcome the difficulties identified by LAs that have resulted in the issues identified above. Bearing in mind that in reality fund-holding for NCAs is only an administrative construct (they don’t in reality have a budget), then there seems to be no reason why this can’t be replicated for SIPs.
Brokering is the weakest area of the SIP function. The focus groups provide some interesting perspectives:•For headteachers, this is the second least important role for SIPs •For SIP managers, it is the least important function.•For heads, there is the largest gap between effectiveness and importance of any of the functions, for SIP managers, it is one of the smallest gaps.
In two of the LAs visited there are well constructed systems for analysing school priorities and support needs and commissioning support as required. It would be beneficial if this practice was more commonplace
The brokering function for SIPs is seen as an insurmountable difficulty by LAs and not worth the effort. They are happy for SIPs to signpost support needs, but are unable to see how this can be turned into full brokering. There are issues with “external” SIPs not having access to the full picture of LA services. At the same time “internal” SIPs don’t have the networks and support that others do.No one has the full picture
We need someone to cover what the SIP doesn’t.
Link Advisers – what’s that for?
I’ve had some conflicting messages from SIP and link adviser, the link adviser tends to present an over-optimistic view of the school?
“the SIP has a brokering role ‘in theory’, it would be useful to expand this role”
Every Child Matters
3. Challenging and supporting the school on its impact across all the outcomes of ECM
4.4
6.3
4.0
6.4
0
12
34
5
67
89
10
Effective Important Effective Important
HTs and govs SIP managers and SIPs
Ave
rag
e sc
ore
(m
ax 1
0)We need the right set of performance indicators, but we need to be careful that PIs don’t always create backward looking action. We need to be forward looking and creative. Chair of Governors.
Alignment is with the SEF, but there is a tendency to focus on healthy schools and obesity.
There is no capacity for this agenda – would need more time, but would welcome it being mentioned in the SIP brief.
• Field work suggests that this is less effective than the focus groups would show. There are contrasts between LA views on the extent to which SIPs can, should and do engage with this agenda.
• There is evidence of SIPs challenging on ECM outcomes as part of their work with heads on the SEF, but little beyond this.
• There is a lack of data and the data there is provided by schools themselves.
• To strengthen this aspect of the role there needs to be a clear articulation of the SIP role in challenging on ECM outcomes, that:
(a) goes beyond simple alignment to the SEF, (b) is integral with the conversation on standards and progress and (c) works within the SIP paradigm of robust challenge on real data
• A clear message is that focus on standards and progress within the SIP role should not be diminished, rather it should be strengthened through interrogation of ECM outcomes.
The conversation has got a bigger space now but the data is some way behind.
The LA’s support in terms of guidance and data is minimal.
… if SIPs are going to cover the ECM outcomes in more detail there is a need for better provision of data by LA.
Current spheres of concern for SIPs
Data on att and prog
All
Few
erVery few
A new context for SIP engagement
Leadership and management focus on improving outcomes
SIP focus on outcomes, through provision to L & M
Data on: Attainment
ProgressECM
Slide 18
© Crown copyright 2009
Redefined role
• Strengthened role of SIP as single agent for challenge and support across all ECM outcomes on behalf of LAs;
• Gatekeeping role of SIPs;• Brokerage• Increased time in some schools;• Increased leverage over weaker schools;• Reduce time attached to school to 3 years.• Re-accreditation over time;• NCSL role in accreditation and QA;
© Crown copyright 2009
Slide 19
New Context
School leadership leads and manages provision to secure outcomes for children and young people. To reflect this SIPs need to:
• interrogate outcome data; and • evaluate provision and challenge; and • support the school’s leadership on their effectiveness in
using provision to bring about the best outcomes.
What are the implications of the findings of the SIP review for the LA SIP workforce?
Slide 20
© Crown copyright 2009
SIP CPD
• NS aims to support the continued improvement of SIP professional skills to meet the high demands of working effectively with 21st Century Schools
• National CPD - workshops which build LA capacity for provision of SIP CPD and places SIPs at the heart of planning
• Support from NS regional teams for SIP CPD linked to local need
• Monitoring and evaluation of the quality of CPD and the impact of SIPs on SI
Slide 21
© Crown copyright 2009
Conference on-line Forum Group
It doesn’t end here!• We are creating a private discussion group for attendees• The group will be supported by the conference leads
What can you do in a group?The group will continue the work of the conference through:• peer support • support from conference leads • exchange of ideas between members • uploading and sharing documents and materials • bookmarking content on the NS site relevant for the group to use
Slide 22
© Crown copyright 2009
Conference on-line Forum Group
What happens next?• You will shortly receive an emailed invitation to join the
group• Follow the link to the National Strategies web site at
http://nationalstrategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk • If you are already registered on the National Strategies
web site, then log-in to participate • If you are not yet registered on the site, an account will
be created for you, and you will receive two emails: automated notification that you have been registered on the site, followed by an invitation to join the group
Slide 23
© Crown copyright 2009
Moving schools forward:
satisfactory to good, good to great.
Session 2
Slide 24
© Crown copyright 2009
The DCSF segmentation
Outstanding (Great) – should provide support to others SIPs to challenge them to do this
Good-to-great self improve with SIP challenge and support and working in partnership with Great schools
SIP support and challenge for schools with
weak progress
SIP support and challenge
for schools with
Inconsistent performance
Below the Floor, Hard to Shift, Ofsted
Increasing needSchools
Slide 25
© Crown copyright 2009
Ofsted SEF/report headings (draft):
• Overall effectiveness grade;• Capacity for sustained improvement grade;• Outcomes: how well are pupils doing taking
account of any variation? Grade and sub grades for outcomes;
• How effective is the provision?• How effective are leadership and
management?
Slide 26
© Crown copyright 2009
SIPs’ role in moving schools forward:
• Developing leadership and management;
• Supporting narrowing of gaps;
• Supporting improvements in teaching and learning;
• Taking account of the wider context.
Slide 27
© Crown copyright 2009
From recent study of schools that need to maximise
rates of progress the following barriers were identified:
• Inconsistent progress;
• Whole school tracking does not identify progress issues and enable appropriate targeted interventions;
• Inconsistent use of AfL across the whole school
• Specific curriculum weakness;
• Inefficient school management systems and structures;
• Specific learning and teaching issues.
Maximising Progress
Slide 28
© Crown copyright 2009
Discussion
• In your role as a SIP, what do you see as the characteristics and key barriers to schools making greater progress (satisfactory to good, good to great)?
• What are strategies that you have found that work well?
Slide 29
© Crown copyright 2009
Narrowing gaps and improving provision
Slide 30
© Crown copyright 2009
NtG Strategies for Successfor schools, settings and LAs
Know the GAPs Celebrate gap busting!
Narrow the
GAPsMind the GAPs
Slide 31
© Crown copyright 2009
‘Breaking the Link: Everyone’s Business’ (DCSF, 2009)
• About half (48%) of pupils entitled to FSM are to be found in the third of schools with greatest concentration of disadvantage, and the other half are spread across the other two thirds of schools.
• Of the roughly ten per cent of pupils identified by schools as gifted and talented, there is a significant under-representation of those from disadvantaged backgrounds … great potential is currently going unrecognised, and perhaps undeveloped
Slide 32
© Crown copyright 2009
Narrowing the gaps: strategies for Success
Know the GAPs• Identify gaps (FSM, G&T, SEN, BME, Gender)
• Understand the gaps
• Make gaps visible
• Promote use of data
• Build data confidence
Narrow the GAPs• Deliver Quality First Teaching
• Progression planning
• Intervention (e.g. 1:1 tuition, ECAR)
• Specialist pedagogy
• Work with parents and families
• Area based initiatives/partnerships
Slide 33
© Crown copyright 2009
% of pupils achieving level 4+ in English and maths, actual and projected (2008 to 2010)
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Non-FSM
All
FSM
Slide 34
© Crown copyright 2009
% pupils attaining L2 and below or L5 and above in En + Ma KS2 2007 by pupil group
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
Wh
ite-
oth
er
Wh
ite-
oth
er
Wh
ite-
Bri
tish
Wh
ite-
Bri
tish
EA
L
EA
L
Bla
ck
Bla
ck
Pak
ista
ni/B
ang
lad
esh
i
Pak
ista
ni/B
ang
lad
esh
i
EA
L
Pak
ista
ni/B
ang
lad
esh
i
Wh
ite-
oth
er
Pak
ista
ni/B
ang
lad
esh
i
Bla
ck
EA
L
Wh
ite-
oth
er
Wh
ite-
Bri
tish
Bla
ck
Wh
ite-
Bri
tish
Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Girls Girls Boys Girls Boys Boys Girls Boys Boys
NonFSM
NonFSM
NonFSM
NonFSM
NonFSM
NonFSM
NonFSM
NonFSM
NonFSM
NonFSM
FSM FSM FSM FSM FSM FSM FSM FSM FSM FSM
Pupil Group
%
L2 and below
L5 and above
Slide 35
© Crown copyright 2009
Regional/territorial data
Slide 36
© Crown copyright 2009
How gaps expand over timeLevel 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6
Chinese-Girls-Non FSM
Indian-Girls-Non FSM
Black(O)-Boys-Non FSM
Pakistani-Girls-FSM
Black(A)-Boys-FSM
White-Boys-FSM
Average
'Expected progress'
Key Stage 1 Key Stage 2 Key Stage 3
Slide 37
© Crown copyright 2009
Narrowing the gaps: strategies for success
Celebrate gap busting!• Celebrate/promote gap narrowing
• Capture and share ‘whatworkswell’
• Gain a positive Report Card
• Achieve successful OFSTED
Mind the GAPs• Assessing Pupils’ Progress
• Regular tracking and review
• Challenge from SIPs/LAs
• Relentless focus on gap narrowing
• Aim for stretch targets
Slide 38
© Crown copyright 2009
Narrowing gaps:
• Do you know what are the significant gaps in schools where you are a SIP?
• How can your LA ensure that all SIPs have this focus and relevant data?
Slide 39
© Crown copyright 2009
The SIP’s role in supporting improvements in Teaching and Learning.
• Identification with the school of significant groups;• Scrutiny of evidence from monitoring and
evaluation processes;• Evaluation with school of areas of inconsistency;• Identification of action to improve teaching.
How can you best support the school to improve teaching?
Slide 40
© Crown copyright 2009
Working in the wider context:ECM and Children’s Service Authorities.
Schools do make a difference …
… but cannot always make enough difference on their own.
Slide 41
© Crown copyright 2009
Wider services which may have an impact on pupil progress in the school.Examples may include:Speech therapyEducational psychologistsEducation welfareCAMHSSchool nurseOccupational therapySocial workers/servicesHousingCommunity policingVoluntary sector
Slide 42
© Crown copyright 2009
Brokering support
• What needs to be improved?• What action needs to be taken?• What support is needed to make this happen?• What support is available in the school?• If not available in the school, what might need to
be accessed through the LA/wider services/external sources?
Slide 43
© Crown copyright 2009
• LUNCH
Slide 44
© Crown copyright 2009
Session 3:
Further developing the SIP’s role in supporting and challenging schools in addressing their key priorities
Slide 45
© Crown copyright 2009
The role of the SIP To challenge, support and monitor schools on behalf of the
LA:• Interrogate the school’s performance and other data;• Challenge and support the school on its self-evaluation;• Identify a small number of key priorities;• Ensure school adopts high-impact strategies to improve
its priorities;• Broker support to assist the school in its improvement;• Help the school monitor and evaluate the impact of its
actions and support it has engaged.
Slide 46
© Crown copyright 2009
National Priority PSA target 11: Narrowing the Gap
• What are the key priorities for your LA for PSA 11?
Consider one key priority for PSA 11 and individually list what is currently available in the LA to support schools to address this key priority. Share lists and discuss
Slide 47
© Crown copyright 2009
Enhancing the local offer through the use of the National Strategies’ core offer
Informed Assessmentfor Learning (AfL)
Well-evidenced teaching approaches
Effective collaborative classroom-based CPD
Better Teaching, Learningand Progress
Principles that guide the NS core offer
Slide 48
© Crown copyright 2009
Developing Stronger Management Systems
Schools are responsible for their own improvement. The diagram below illustrates the termly ISP cycle
that supports school improvement and self evaluation with pupil progress at its centre
The Single Plan
Whole-school systematic CPD
Annual Review of attainment & progress
Ensuring the progress of all learners: pedagogy and personalisation
Monitoring, evaluation and review of impact on pupil progress
Apply
TeachPlan
Assess
Review
The School Improvement CycleThe School Improvement Cycle
Practice Transfer
++++ ==
Info
rm
ed
As
sessm
en
t
Ped
ag
og
ical
Ap
pro
ach
es
Practi
ce
Tran
sfe
r
Pro
gre
ss f
or a
ll:
Ped
ag
og
y a
nd
Pers
on
ali
sati
on
Well-e
vid
en
ced
teachin
g
appro
aches
Collabora
tive
cla
ssro
om
-based
CP
D
Better
teaching,
learning
and
progress
Info
rme
d
Assessm
ent
for
Learn
ing
Review
Slide 49
© Crown copyright 2009
Session 4:
Action planning
Slide 50
© Crown copyright 2009
SIP CPD
• NS aims to support the continued improvement of SIP professional skills to meet the high demands of working effectively with 21st Century Schools;
• National CPD - workshops which build LA capacity for provision of SIP CPD and places SIPs at the heart of planning;
• Support from NS regional teams for SIP CPD linked to local need;
• Monitoring and evaluation of the quality of CPD and the impact of SIPs on SI.
Slide 51
© Crown copyright 2009
SIP CPD: what is available?
• EpDs (on SIP portal)• CPD packages;
e.g. Schools Causing Concern, EYFS, Evaluating School Performance
• Locally based, to address issues from performance management (eg Foundation Stage);
• Locally based to address specific LA issues.
Slide 52
© Crown copyright 2009
Next Steps SIP CPD: action planning
• Consider discussions across the day• In LA pairs or groups on your table, draw
up an outline action plan for development of SIP CPD in the light of identified issues (see planning sheet)What issues have we identified across the day?What have we currently got planned for SIP CPD?What additional CPD will now be required?
Crown copyright
• The content of this publication may be reproduced for non-commercial research, education or training purposes provided that the material is acknowledged as Crown copyright, the publication title is specified, it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context.
• For any other use of this material please apply to OPSI for a Click-Use, PSI Licence, or by writing to:
Office of Public Sector InformationInformation Policy TeamNational ArchivesKewRichmondSurreyTW9 4DU
Email: [email protected]: www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/index.htm
• The permission to reproduce Crown copyright protected material does not extend to any material in this publication which is identified as being the copyright of a third party, or to Royal Arms and other departmental or agency logos, nor does it include the right to copy any photographic or moving images of children or adults in a way that removes the image or footage from its original context.
© Crown copyright 2009
Slide 53Slide 53