Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Summer HALF TERM UPDATE
2018
General Data Protection Regulation
The start of the Summer Term saw the DfE release a GDPR Toolkit for schools. The Toolkit has been
developed by the DfE, in collaboration with schools, MATs, Local Authorities, system suppliers, GDPR
support providers, the National Cyber Security Centre and the Information Commissioners Office.
The Toolkit highlights nine steps that the group believes will help schools efficiently develop the culture,
processes and documentation required to be compliant with the strengthened GDPR legislation and
effectively manage the risks associated with data management. However, the DfE clearly points out that
the Toolkit does not constitute formal legal guidance, and as a data controller in its own right, a
school is ultimately responsible for its own data protection procedures and compliance with
legislation.
The nine steps identified outline a suggested sequence of activities that will enable schools/academies
to identify and monitor the use of personal data, undertake the necessary processes for auditing and
assessing risk, and assist with compiling policies to ensure schools/academies can sustain compliance.
Each step is broken down into the intended outcomes of each step, a suggested ‘how to’ approach, top
tips, case studies where appropriate, and links to the most relevant resources that have been identified
to date.
The Toolkit has been released as a “Beta version” which means that the DfE is confident that, overall, it
adds value in achieving its aims of supporting schools to better manage data protection and to
implement the new elements of data protection associated with GDPR. However, the DfE is also aware
that the Toolkit needs to be tested by schools for ease of use as well as viewed by a wide range of
stakeholders who are interested in ensuring that schools deal with data protection robustly and
efficiently. As a result, alongside the publication of the Toolkit, an informal consultation exercise will run
until the 1st June 2018 and the feedback gathered will be used to inform a revised version of the Toolkit.
The document is also likely to be refreshed once the Data Protection Bill is finalised.
The GDPR Toolkit can be accessed here but the nine steps, and some of the intended outcomes of
adopting these steps, can be summarised as:
Raising awareness
• Raising awareness across all staff within the school who come into contact with personal data.
Page 2 of 33
• Governors and Trustees are aware of the key issues arising for the schools from the legislative
changes and understand how to effectively monitor and review compliance with the data protection
regulations.
Creating a high-level data map
• Build up an overview of all the places personal data are stored and used in the school - often
referred to as the school’s “data ecosystem”.
Turn your data map into a data asset register
• Identify the areas of weakness/risk or gaps that will most likely begin the creation of a risk-
management based approach to GDPR compliance.
Documenting the reasons for processing data
• Become familiar with the conditions and lawful basis for processing data that are most relevant to
the activity of schools.
• Understand the extra reasoning that is required to process special categories of data, which are
tightly defined in the new GDPR legislation.
Documenting how long you need to retain information
• Understand that data retention is based on justification – if you can justify it, you can keep it.
Reassurance and risks
• Assess what can be done to eliminate or reduce areas of medium/high risk and set action plans to
do so.
• Use Data Protection Impact Assessments as a part of your risk identification and mitigation
procedures.
Decide on your Data Protection Officer role
• Understand the different options for a school appointing a DPO, so that schools can consider the
best value and appropriate method for them.
Communicate with data subjects
• Be familiar with the full potential rights a data subject has, and the circumstances in which these do
not all apply in all cases.
• Consider how best to demonstrate your compliance with new legislation, which is a key focus of
what is changing. Compliance alone is not enough.
Operationalise Data Protection, and keep it living
Page 3 of 33
• Identify the range of policies required within a school that cover the procedures and processes for
data protection.
• Understand what a data breach is, and what to do about it.
• Ensure that data protection and risk management is a core and regular part of decision making and
risk management practices within the school.
Sharing of school pupils’ data put on hold
The BBC is reporting that the Government has halted researchers and others from accessing personal
information about UK schoolchildren. The DfE has said the step was a temporary move to modify the
national pupil database's approval process in order to be compliant with the forthcoming GDPR
regulations.
The national pupil database is designed to help researchers and experts study the effect of different
educational strategies over time. Access was paused on the 1st May with the DfE expecting to provide
further information in June.
Campaigners have raised concerns that many parents are unaware that data on millions of English
schoolchildren can be shared with academics and businesses. A recent survey by the data privacy
campaign, Defend Digital Me, suggested that 69% of parents did not know about the data-sharing.
Applicants can request different levels of access, with the highest level including individual children's
names, addresses, ethnicities and disabilities, among other factors. Currently, parents and children are
not allowed access to their data. Gender, ethnicity, exam performance and reasons for absence can all
be accessed by third parties under certain rules. Defend Digital Me is calling for a change in how the
data is managed citing that there is not even the normal right to request subject access so parents and
children can check whether the information about them is right and have it corrected if it's wrong.
English records in the national pupil database have been kept since 1998 and include more than 21
million named English schoolchildren. The information, collected by the DfE, is generally gathered via
school censuses. Requests from academic researchers make up the majority of data extract applications
processed by the DfE. Many relate to projects studying education in the UK. Besides academic
researchers, there are also requests from private companies, which use the data to aid education policy
consulting services to local authorities. The Home Office has requested data on schoolchildren under
its immigration control and Syrian resettlement programmes, although the latter request has yet to
receive approval.
A legal officer at the civil liberties group, Privacy International, said the research by Defend Digital Me
"raises serious questions", recommending that data practices in the education sector are examined
thoroughly, particularly given the sensitivity of children's data.
A spokesperson for the Information Commissioner's Office said that it had engaged with the DfE about
its processing of pupil data in the past "and continues to do so". Watch this space!
Page 4 of 33
Data Protection in schools and colleges: Questions from the
Governing Board/Trustees/Directors
This document, written by SWGfL, is designed to support governors/trustees/directors of schools /
colleges in the UK with the upcoming Data Protection changes brought about by the EU General Data
Protection Regulation or GDPR. Throughout this document the term school / college is used and refers
to any UK state-funded educational establishment covered by the Education Act. However, the good
practice highlighted in this document is relevant to any educational establishment, whether state-
funded or otherwise, but the statutory requirements differ dependent upon the type of school.
This document does not constitute legal advice and should be used in conjunction with your own source
of legal advice. No liability will be accepted in respect of use of this advice.
Awareness and communication
Good data protection awareness is underpinned by managers and leaders’ own awareness of data
protection legislation and its impact. However, the ‘frontline’ of good data protection is the staff
members handling the data on a regular basis.
Does the school / college ensure that all staff know about their obligations under the data
protection legislation and the school / college policy?
Do all users receive regular security and data protection training?
Why are these questions important?
As indicated above, the staff members in your school /
college are the frontline of data protection. They often
collect, store and manipulate personal data to be able to
fulfil their duties. It’s therefore no surprise that staff are a
likely cause of a data breach. Not just accidentally, but also
maliciously. Whilst a data protection training programme is
unlikely to stop malicious breaches, it has the potential to
significantly reduce the occurrences of accidental data loss.
Research suggests that training staff members about online
safety happens in only around 50% of schools and that fewer
schools have a data protection policy. Not only that, but you
should also consider planning to train volunteers or parents
that may regularly visit the school.
What to look for?
• An audit of staff skills and understanding of data
protection.
• A training plan that includes all staff and visitors.
• Planned training occurs more than once a year.
• Evidence that policies are freely and readily available and
well communicated (e.g. posters, school/college
website, staff handbooks, etc.)
• A full range of training topics, including social
engineering and phishing, use of cloud technologies
and ransomware attacks covered.
Page 5 of 33
What is good or outstanding practice?
• Evidence that the training plan adapts to the needs of
the users and the school/college.
• Role-specific and detailed training for those who
process data more regularly.
• Data protection training is mandatory for all staff,
irrespective of experience, role or skill.
• Where a user fails, or has difficulty in an area of
understanding, the school/college supports the user to
understand.
When might you be concerned?
• No training needs audit or training plan in place.
• No awareness of data protection responsibilities across
staff.
• Missing records of data protection training and updates
Policies and Procedures
The UK Data Protection Act 2018 (when it comes into force) is the legislation that sits alongside the EU
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The new legislation will significantly affect and widen
individual rights with regards to their own data (or, in the case of a parent/carer, their child’s data).
Q: Does the school / college have up-to-date data protection policies in place?
Q: Have these been reviewed in the light of the new data protection legislation?
Why are these questions important?
Data highlights that over one third of UK schools do not
have a data protection policy.
Schools/colleges are statutorily required to demonstrate
compliance with the UK Data Protection Act (when it comes
into force) and the GDPR. The recommended way to do this
is through the creation and ratification of a clear set of data
protection policies. Further information can be found in the
UK Data Protection Act 2018 (when it comes into force)
section 54, subsection 2 and the EU GDPR, Article 5, section
2 page 118.
What to look for?
• There are up-to-date data protection policies in place
that meet statutory requirements.
• There are systematic and regular review of policies, at
least on an annual basis.
• Pupils/Students, staff, parents and carers are aware of
data protection policy and expectations.
• Volunteers, contractors and, where relevant, visitors are
aware of data protection policy and expectations.
• Policies have been developed and informed by wide
professional consultation.
Page 6 of 33
What is good or outstanding practice? • Policies are regularly reviewed through wide
professional consultation that includes the views of
pupils / students and parents.
• Evidence of monitoring and evaluation processes to
ensure understanding of, and adherence to, policies.
• Linked to and a part of other relevant policies.
When might you be concerned?
• Missing or not up-to-date data protection policy.
• Policy is generic and not relevant to the school/college’s
needs.
• No/irregular review of policies, a lack of records
management or version control.
• Policies exist but are not publicised to the
school/college body and/or are not known by staff and
pupils.
Information Audit and Consideration
All schools/colleges process (collect, store and use) personal data about their staff and pupils/students.
UK Data Protection legislation requires all schools/colleges to specify what information is held, where it
is stored and who has access to it. All controllers (those who manage the processing of personal data)
are required to maintain a record of all processing activity including the legal basis under which they
are processing this data.
Q: Has the school/college conducted a data audit/mapping exercise to identify what personal
data is processed?
Why this question is important?
Schools/colleges are obligated by legislation to ensure
that personal data is protected. Knowing what personal
data the school/college processes and why is the first step
to understanding how it needs protecting.
• How is the personal data collected?
• Who has access to it?
• What data is held?
• Where is it held?
• When will the data be disposed of?
• How will the data be stored and disposed of securely?
With cloud storage services and the range of staff that can
access personal data taking the first step in auditing is an
important start to ensuring compliance with the law. Only
once an audit has been defined and performed can
personal data be mapped and the appropriate decisions
and protections made.
Furthermore, planning for and controlling your data
sharing mechanisms is a requirement under the new
legislation. Wherever a school uses a processor to process
Page 7 of 33
information for the school/college, there needs to be a
clear contract between both parties.
This means that whenever you routinely share personal
data there should be a contract defining and controlling
this and laying out the manner in which the data from the
school/college will be processed and audited.
What to look for?
• The school/college is able to identify what and how
personal data is collected.
• A list of all the storage locations for personal data
and what is contained in each location.
• A record of processing activity.
• Users only have access to the data they need to use
and no more.
• An up-to-date data retention policy with an
associated disposal log.
What is good or outstanding practice?
• The record of processing activity includes the lawful
basis under which processing activity is taking place
and records when and how the data will be (or was)
disposed of.
• User accounts enable the users to request, or
temporarily obtain, access to personal data as
necessary to their role.
• The audit is reviewed after six months with further
actions considered.
When might you be concerned?
• There is no record of processing activity.
• The school/college does not readily know what
personal data is processed.
• The school/college does not know where personal
data is stored.
• There is no data retention or safe disposal policy.
Please note that there are occasions where you MUST share data, such as in an emergency situation.
For example, a police officer contacts you by telephone as there is a live case of a pupil/student at your
school being at risk of immediate harm, they are at risk of suicide. The officer needs to contact their
parents and only has limited information to do so. Your school/college name and the name of the child
is all they have. They request the parental address and phone number from you.
As this is a true life and death situation, sharing the details with the officer is appropriate under the
lawful base of vital interest or legitimate interest. Clearly acting in the best interest of the child in this
case would mean that sharing the information is the right thing to do. However, it is important to ensure
Page 8 of 33
that this is not a fraudulent request and therefore, a reasonable identity check should be carried out to
verify that the officer is indeed a current and serving police officer.
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 - Police and other Authorities
Section 115 of this Act allows for the exchange of information to an individual or group where that
disclosure is necessary or expedient to support of the local strategy to reduce crime and disorder, the
youth justice plan or any other purpose of the act. This act allows disclosure of information (including
that which identifies a person) to the police, Local Authorities, Probation services or Health services,
where disclosure is necessary. This Act provides agencies with the power to disclose but does not
impose a requirement on them to disclose.
If a request is made under this Act, there should be a defined process available under which a staff
member is able to identify what, if any, information should be disclosed. Under GDPR for a
school/college it is likely that the legitimate interests base would be used to facilitate this disclosure.
Please see later detail about legitimate interests.
Children and Consent
Q: How does the school/college gather consent for processing personal data, particularly
children’s data and associated formal parental/carer consent?
Q: Has a record of consent been established?
Page 9 of 33
Why are these questions important?
The GDPR provides six lawful bases for processing data. For
many schools/colleges the processing of personal data is
likely to be performed under the lawful base termed ‘public
task’. In essence, as long as the activity is necessary and the
requirement, or task, is laid down in law then you may process
the personal data and do not need to look for any other basis.
Care should be taken to ensure that the data is not collected
for one reason (under public task) and then re-used in
another way that does not constitute a public task. For
example, a parental/carer address and phone number may be
essential for a school/college to process under law, but it
would then not be lawful to process this is a different way by,
for instance, sharing this with a third party parental
communication system used to promote school events and
other notices. In this situation another lawful base should be
identified and for this, consent is most likely.
Consent under the regulation has changed. In the EU GDPR
(Article 4 (11)) consent is defined as:
“any freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous
indication of the data subject’s wishes by which he or she, by a
statement or by a clear affirmative action, signifies agreement
to the processing of personal data relating to him or her;”
This means that where a school/college is relying on consent
as the basis for processing personal data that consent has to
be clear, meaning that pre-ticked boxes, opt-out or implied
consent are no longer suitable. Pupils/students aged 12 or
over may be able to consent to their data being processed.
For ‘information society services’ (e.g. a service over the
internet) this is 13 years of age. School/Colleges should satisfy
themselves that their consent forms are clear and written in
plain English. Consent should also detail in a very clear and
specific way why this is necessary, what will happen to the
data, and, how and when it will be disposed.
Schools/Colleges should ensure that where consent is being
relied upon as the basis for processing personal data that the
consent does not lead to an imbalance of power. This means
that asking for consent to process personal data when the
pupil/student may feel that they have no choice but to
consent is not lawful. Consent must be freely given and the
pupil/student should not be disadvantaged by their decision
not to give consent should this be the case.
Page 10 of 33
In some situations, processing of data for non-public task
reasons may be undertaken under the ‘legitimate interests’
base. For example, if consent is withdrawn, but the processing
still needs to take place and this is reasonable and with a
minimal privacy impact or has a compelling reason, then the
school/college could use ‘legitimate interests’. The ICO
provides a 3-part test to help identify whether legitimate
interests applies.
Another example where legitimate interests may be relevant
is in the case of postal marketing material. As long as the
school/college can demonstrate the minimal privacy impact,
proportionate use of data and that people would not be
surprised or likely to object, then using the personal data in
this way may be appropriate. For electronic marketing activity
the school/college will still require consent under PECR.
What to look for?
• Public statements - including who can get access to data.
• Clear, established and effective routes for gaining consent
from all users, including parents/carers of children under
12 or 13 in the case of ‘information society services’.
• Clear processes when staff or students register at the
school/college and subsequently leave.
• Robust and managed records of consent.
What is good or outstanding practice?
• Evidence of clear, well-communicated, easy-to-
understand notices to all school users on what personal
data is collected stored and processed.
• Consent is made clear to all staff across the school and as
much as practicable to pupils/students in language
relevant to their age.
• Pupils/students actively involved.
• Culture of consent - informal and formal (i.e. staff feel
confident, talk about in class etc.).
When might you be concerned?
• No evidence that informed consent has been sought.
• Staff and pupils/students have little knowledge of how
their data is collected, stored and processed.
• There are no clear routes for users to obtain relevant
access to their personal data.
Responsibility and Assessment
Q: Who is your designated Data Protection Officer?
Page 11 of 33
Q: Who is responsible for ensure future data protection compliance including data protection
impact assessments?
Why are these questions important?
The requirement to appoint a data protection officer is a
statutory requirement under GDPR – Articles 37, 38 and 39.
In short you must appoint a DPO if:
• You are a ‘public authority’ – this is highly likely to be the
case for state-funded English and Welsh schools.
• You carry out large-scale monitoring such as; attendance,
attainment or behaviour records processed either in
school or the cloud.
• You process large amounts of ‘special category’ data or
criminal convictions or offences (such as DBS checks).
The Officer:
• Should have expert knowledge of data protection law.
• May be designated as data protection officer by several
organisations.
• Must publish the contact details of the controller.
• Must be involved in all data protection matters.
• Must be provided with all required resources.
• Must be independent of the controller and not be subject
to any conflict of interest.
• Must report directly to the Headteacher/Governing
Board.
• Must be entrusted with the tasks laid out in section 69,
including: advising and monitoring data protection
impact assessment procedures, monitoring compliance
with policies and monitoring the controller, assigning
responsibilities, raising awareness, training, conducting
audits.
What to look for?
• A clear line of communication between the highest
management level of the controller and the appointed
DPO, either internally, or as a service from a third party,
or consortium/cluster.
• Clear evidence that the school has sufficient skills and
staff to ensure that personal data is kept safe and secure.
What is good or outstanding practice?
• The DPO has a proven history in data protection and has
attended a range of training events/courses and has a
relevant qualification, for example CISSP, CISMP, PC.dp
• The DPO regularly updates their own knowledge.
• The DPO is fully resourced and able to directly contact the
Headteacher/Governors where a decision is required.
Page 12 of 33
When might you be concerned?
• There is no DPO.
• The DPO is not able to perform their duties owing to lack
of resource.
• The DPO does not have suitable experience/qualification.
• The DPO is not involved in all issues relating to data
protection.
• The DPO is influenced or instructed by senior managers
in the performance of their tasks.
• The DPO is not independent from direct personal data
processing at the school/college.
• The DPO is not empowered to make decisions
independently and/or has been penalised for carrying out
their duties.
Personal Data Breach Procedures
Q: What are the school/college procedures in the event of a personal data breach?
Why is this question is important?
Strong data protection leadership should lead to a
school/college adopting good data protection procedures
and policies and that this will reduce the likelihood of a data
breach occurring. Nevertheless, this eventuality should be
planned for.
Under the new legislation not all data breaches need to be
reported. Where a breach results in a ‘risk to the rights and
freedoms of natural persons’ then this should be reported to
the ICO within 72 hours of discovery, where feasible. If a
breach requires notification owing to a ‘high risk to the rights
and freedoms of natural persons’ then the data subjects shall
also be notified, without delay.
It follows, therefore, that good data breach notification and
business continuity plans should be drawn up to plan for the
most likely scenarios. This may be delegated from the
Headteacher to the DPO, or the DPO in partnership with other
staff/technical support partners. Either way, this process
should be clearly documented and made available to those
who need access to it.
Furthermore, data breach, business continuity and disaster
recovery plans should be tested at least annually to verify that
the systems and processes would operate as expected in the
event of an incident occurring.
Page 13 of 33
What to look for?
• A suite of related data breach, disaster recovery and
business continuity plans, perhaps drawn together in a
single document and/or flowchart.
• Evidence of these plans having been tested.
• DPO involvement in the production of the policies and
procedures.
• Effective data backup systems and procedures.
What is good or outstanding practice?
• Systems have been tested termly.
• There is evidence of a wide range of stakeholder
involvement in the planning process.
• Wider staff members are aware of the policies and
understand their role in the event of a situation occurring.
• Effective data backup systems and procedures that are
regularly tested and include off-site copies.
When might you be concerned?
• There are no plans for disaster recovery, breach
notification or business continuity.
Appendix One: Where to go for support
1. Does the school/college ensure that all staff know about their obligations under the data protection
legislation and your policy? Do all users receive regular security and data protection training?
o The ICO’s information for Education
o The ICO’s Preparing for the GDPR: 12 steps to take now
2. Does the school/college have a suite of up-to-date data protection policies?
o The ICO’s information for Education
o The ICO’s Preparing for the GDPR: 12 steps to take now
3. Does the school/college have a suite of up-to-date data protection policies in place? Have these
been reviewed in the light of the new data protection legislation?
o The ICO’s information for Education
o The ICO’s Preparing for the GDPR: 12 steps to take now
4. Has the school/college conducted a data audit/mapping exercise to identify what personal data is
processed?
o The ICO’s information for Education
o The ICO’s Preparing for the GDPR: 12 steps to take now
o Iain Bradley from the DfE produced a blog in his role as a governor
o A video from Ian Bradley from the DfE explaining how to create a data map
5. How does the school/college gather consent for processing personal data, particularly children’s
data and associated formal parental/carer consent? Has a record of consent been established?
o The ICO’s information for Education
o The ICO’s Preparing for the GDPR: 12 steps to take now
6. Has the school/college appointed a Data Protection Officer (DPO)?
o The ICO Education FAQs has some useful guidance
o GDPRinSchools blog helps in making a decision about a DPO
7. What are our procedures in the event of a data loss?
Page 14 of 33
o The ICO has a guide to personal data breaches
o Advice from the ICO in the event of a security breach
Safeguarding
December 2017 saw the DfE publish a consultation on proposed changes to its statutory safeguarding
guidance, Keeping Children Safe in Education (“KCSIE”). The consultation provided respondents with an
opportunity to comment on proposed revisions across all parts of the guidance as well as an opportunity
to comment on the effectiveness of the Government’s sexual violence and sexual harassment advice.
The consultation also sought to extend the DfE’s evidence base by asking a number of questions on
how schools and colleges put KCSIE into practice. The consultation closed at the end of February 2018.
The Government has now published its response to the KCSIE consultation which can be accessed via
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/707944/Keeping_chil
dren_safe_in_education_-_consultation_response.pdf
A draft of the revised KCSIE guidance has also now been published so that schools and colleges can
plan for the commencement of the new guidance on the 3rd September 2018. This draft is for guidance
purposes only and until the 3rd September 2018, the existing statutory guidance, Keeping Children Safe
In Education, 2016 is still in force and is what schools and colleges must continue to have regard
to.
It should be noted that the DfE consulted on proposed change to the statuary guidance Working
Together to Safeguard Children in the last quarter of 2017. The draft version of KCSIE 2018 has not been
updated to reflect the new safeguarding partner arrangements at this stage. Subject to Parliamentary
clearance of the underpinning regulations, a revised version of Working Together to Safeguard Children
will be published in early summer. When the revised KCSIE is published and comes into force on the 3rd
September 2018 it will be fully reflective of schools’ and colleges’ role in the new safeguarding partner
arrangements. The updated KCSIE 2018 will also include updated guidance on information sharing
practice under the new GDPR regulations and the Data Protection Act.
The draft KCSIE 2018 guidance can be accessed here. Part Two of the draft statutory guidance looks at
the management of safeguarding and the responsibility of Governing Bodies, proprietors and
Management Committees, with specific regards to:
• Legislation and the law;
• Safeguarding policies and procedures;
• The designated safeguarding lead;
• Multi-agency working;
• Information sharing;
• Staff training;
• Online safety;
• Opportunities to teach safeguarding; and
• Safer recruitment.
Page 15 of 33
The DfE has also published revised Child on Child Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment advice, which
can be found here This follows an inquiry by the House of Commons’ Women and Equalities Committee
which in 2014 found that 59% of girls and young women aged between 13 and 21 said they had faced
some form of sexual harassment at school or college in the previous year. The advice covers schools’
legal responsibilities, a whole school approach to prevention, and responding to a report of sexual
violence or harassment.
Accountability
The Education Secretary recently spoke at the annual conference of the National Association of
Headteachers. His speech considered the barriers that can drive teachers, and leaders, out of the
profession and may indeed put people off in the first place. The first barrier was workload with the
Education Secretary stating that workload comes from different places: sometimes from schools
themselves, for example, from policies on marking and data collection; it can come directly from specific
requirements set by government; but it can also come indirectly from the pressures inherent in the
accountability system.
The Education Secretary gave the example of trying to explain the world of Regional Schools
Commissioners, Ofsted, MATs, coasting, below floor to someone not in the education sector. Not only
would they look “pretty blank” but his time in office had found that even within the profession and
within the sector, there can be confusion about the different “actors” within the system. Or, more
specifically, who has the power to do what and on what basis and the exact circumstances that could
lead to enforced structural or leadership change at a school. This meant that the “spectre” of the
accountability system can loom large over schools - fear of inspection, fear of a single set of bad results,
fear of being forcibly turned into an academy, all of which can create stress and anxiety which can
percolate through school staff.
In order to provide school leaders better clarity on how the accountability system will operate, the
consequences that can flow from it, and the roles of the actors within it, the DfE has published Principles
for a clear and simple accountability system. The detail of how these principles will be implemented
is expected to be announced in the Autumn Term.
• Accountability matters as every child deserves a great education. The DfE has a responsibility
to ensure all pupils are getting a great education and will be unapologetic in acting where pupils’
education is suffering.
• The DfE will only mandate academy conversion, leadership change or re-brokerage of a
school on the grounds of educational underperformance if Ofsted has judged it Inadequate.
Significant change must only be done on the basis of the soundest possible evidence. Ofsted is the
only body that can provide an independent, rounded judgement of a school’s performance - data
alone cannot tell the whole story.
• The RSC’s role in intervention is to ensure the Inadequate school is matched with an academy
trust that can support it to improve.
• The DfE will not pursue forced conversions to academy status other than in instances of
school failure as judged by Ofsted. Hundreds of schools each year voluntarily convert to academy
status and the DfE wants this to be a positive choice for more and more schools.
Page 16 of 33
• The DfE will also identify schools that are underperforming and would benefit from an offer
of support. The DfE needs to identify those schools that have not failed but are showing the
warning signs that suggest they may need support. The DfE will be proactive in helping the existing
leadership team find and access that support. These schools will be identified based on
transparent and objective criteria. The DfE will set a clear threshold that will trigger an offer of
support – the DfE will not have both floor and coasting standards as this can be confusing.
These measures will be replaced with a single, transparent data standard. The DfE will consult on
how this will operate and consider whether an Ofsted Requires Improvement judgement should
also be part of the trigger for an offer of support.
• The support for underperforming schools will come from a MAT, an accredited system leader
such as a teaching school, or a school improvement provider using evidence-based
programmes. The RSC will help identify and commission this support if needed, but it would be for
academies and schools to make the final decision about the support they want.
• School leaders above the threshold will know they have the freedom to do the best for their
pupils without interference. However, the DfE will ensure that high quality school improvement
provision is available in the system for these leaders to access if they choose to do so.
• There will be no more ‘inspections’ of schools by RSC representatives. Ofsted is the only body
that can form an independent judgement about a school through inspection. RSC
representatives going into schools and performing visits that can feel a lot like inspections can be
confusing for schools and can add to workload where there are additional requests for data. This
will end.
• The DfE will always approach academy trusts and LAs, not individual schools (unless a single
academy trust). RSCs will work with academy trusts on their leadership and oversight of their
schools, and with LAs if they want help to access support. The RSC role is not to carry out the
improvement activity themselves, but to help identify and commission it from an approved provider.
• The DfE will be more transparent about how it takes decisions about schools, and the role of
Headteacher Boards in particular. Headteacher Boards advise RSCs on their decisions and records
of their discussions, and advance notification of which schools they are discussing, will be made
available, in order to make the system more transparent.
The DfE is proposing to:
• work with the sector over the coming months to refine the principles articulated above and to turn
them into detailed proposals for consultation in the Autumn.
• work with school leaders and others on a simpler, more accessible system of school improvement
support.
• develop a parallel regime that will allow for more rigorous oversight and challenge on the financial
performance of academy trusts.
• focus on how the DfE can improve the effectiveness of governance in the sector more generally,
including at MAT level. As MATs grow in number and size it will be important to keep pace by
evolving how they are held to account.
Page 17 of 33
Assessment – What are Inspectors looking at?
Ofsted’s focus over the last twelve to fifteen months has primarily been on a “broad and balanced”
curriculum and what this this means in practice for schools. However, in recent months, the focus of
Sean Harford’s blogs, Ofsted’s National Director of Education, has been on the Inspection process itself.
His latest blog considers what Inspectors are looking for with respect to assessment information.
Sean Harford acknowledges there has been a great deal of change in assessment over the past few
years with levels removed and replaced by the freedom for different schools to develop assessment
systems of their choosing. With this needs a move to a far more sophisticated way of thinking about
how schools, and Ofsted, assess pupils. When it comes to inspection, inspectors are looking to see that
a school’s assessment system supports the pupils’ journeys through the curriculum. It’s really important
that schools don’t design assessment around what they think inspectors will want to see.
In his blog, Sean Harford clearly reiterates that Inspectors do not need to see quantities of data,
spreadsheets, graphs and charts on how children are performing. Neither do inspectors want to see a
specific amount, frequency or type of marking. He was recently asked on Twitter what he thought was
the biggest flaw in assessment across schools currently. His response? That he believes there is too
much marking being expected compared with the resultant benefits to pupils’ learning. That there is
too much reliance on meaningless data and too little meaningful assessment of the right things at the
right point in the curriculum.
Sean Harford confirmed that Ofsted inspectors shouldn't be asking schools to predict progress or
attainment scores. This is for the very good reason that they’re based on the national performance of
each cohort, so they can’t be compared until everyone’s taken the test. ‘Expected progress’ was removed
as an accountability measure in 2015 by the DfE.
What inspectors do want to see is the assessment information your school uses, in the format that you
find works best, to help you know how well your pupils are doing at the point they are at in your
curriculum. And, crucially, what you do with that information to support better pupil achievement.
Ofsted will then evaluate how well your school is supporting pupils to progress and deepen their
knowledge, in order to promote understanding and develop their skills.
Ofsted is only one part of the national accountability system. The assessment that schools carry out –
including formative assessment, in-school summative assessment and nationally standardised
summative assessments – all do different jobs. But the key reason for all assessment is to ensure that
teaching and learning are working well and that children are benefiting from a deep and rich education.
Here’s to the next Ofsted update!
Financial Issues
School Resource Management
The School Resource Management webpages on the DfE’s website have recently been updated. The
webpages feature tools and advice from the DfE which can be used to help with planning school
finances and resources. The webpages consider:
Page 18 of 33
• How efficient your school is, using the Schools Financial Efficiency Metric Tool.
• Comparing your school with other similar schools using financial benchmarking – the separate
benchmarking tools for maintained schools and academies have been amalgamated into one tool,
enabling maintained schools to compare their financial performance to academies and vice-versa.
The combined benchmarking tool has been made considerably easier to navigate and interrogate.
The tool is expected to be updated this term for academies’ financial information for 2016/17. The
updated benchmarking tool can be accessed via https://schools-financial-
benchmarking.service.gov.uk/
• The top ten financial planning checks for governors, including
o Staff pay as a percentage of total expenditure
o Average teacher cost
o Teacher contact ratio
o The proportion of the budget spent on the leadership team
o Three to five-year budget projections
• Advice to help schools plan how to use staff effectively and plan future staffing structures, which
includes a curriculum planning tool.
• The national deals that have been negotiated by the DfE to help schools save money on the things
it procures regularly i.e. energy, water, printing, photocopying. The DfE has just announced a school
building framework, with a list of approved contractors, which is intended to support the delivery
of the ESFA’s school building programmes and will also be available for schools and local authorities
to use for their own projects.
• Where schools can gain financial advice from, including case studies from other schools.
Funding Boost to children's early language skills
The end of April 2018 saw the Education Secretary, Damian Hinds, announce new support to help
parents improve their children’s early language, communication and literacy skills at home before
starting school. Two specific schemes are expected to help build the confidence of parents to support
their children in language and reading at an early stage, which has been shown to help close the ‘word
gap’ - the gap in communication skills between disadvantaged children and their peers when they start
school.
A new £5M scheme will be run by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) to trial projects to provide
practical tools and advice to parents so that they can help their children learn new words through simple
steps like reading and singing nursery rhymes. The EEF will trial projects in the north of England, looking
at what works best in improving children’s communication skills at home before they begin school. The
project’ s aim is to give parents and carers the tools to widen children’s language, vocabulary and social
skills in the pre-school years to tackle the ‘word gap’ that exists between disadvantaged children and
their better off peers at age five, with evidence demonstrating that this has a long-term effect on
educational outcomes.
Alongside this, an £8.5M programme, the Early Years Social Mobility Peer Review Programme, has
opened for Local Authorities to fund projects to improve early language and literacy development for
disadvantaged children.
In introducing the two new schemes, the Education Secretary stated that whilst 1.9M more children
attended schools rated good or outstanding compared to 2010, with the attainment gap narrowing in
both primary and secondary school, too many children still arrive at school struggling with language
and social skills, placing them at a disadvantage when they begin their formal education.
Page 19 of 33
The National Funding Formula
In a recent survey of 1,500 headteachers by the lobbying campaign, Worth Less? a majority of
headteachers have stated that the introduction of the national funding formula in April 2018, to iron
out budget inequities between schools in different areas, has left them worse off. School leaders
reported that their budgets were still in crisis, with 80% of schools having to cut teaching assistant and
support staff numbers with 60% removing teaching posts to balance budgets. The poll also found that
a significant 90% of schools were having to dip into their pupil premium funding pot to keep their
budgets afloat. Half of the poll’s respondents said they used more than 50% of their dedicated pupil
premium funding for this purpose.
Whilst schools have been highlighting real-term funding cuts to their budgets for a number of years,
the Worth Less? survey addressed budgetary issues since the introduction of the NFF. The survey found
that:
• 15% of schools thought they were better off in real terms under NFF, whilst 60% said they are worse
off.
• There was also widespread future budget uncertainty, with 90% of heads saying they had no
financial certainty for “meaningful financial planning” beyond one year under the NFF.
• As well as staff cuts, survey respondents said they had been forced to trim their curricular offer, IT
provision, investment in books and building repairs, with many reporting that the recruitment and
retention of teaching staff had never been more challenging.
• More than 90% of headteachers in the survey said they thought the DfE had “no realistic idea of
how much it costs to effectively run a school”, whilst 80% of those who contribute to the
apprenticeship levy, which further eats into school budgets, felt they were not benefitting from it.
Saving money on agency supply teachers
The Crown Commercial Service is working with the DfE to develop a new national deal to support
schools obtain value for money when hiring agency supply teachers and other temporary staff. The new
deal, when fully developed, will give schools access to a list of preferred suppliers and managed service
providers that agree:
• to be transparent about the margins they charge;
• not charge temporary-to-permanent fees for workers in post for 12 weeks (with 4 weeks’
notice);
• to consistent, rigorous background screening checks in line with statutory guidance such as
Keeping Children Safe in Education; and
• to be audited by an accredited industry body.
The DfE expects this list to be available for schools to use from September 2018.
Page 20 of 33
Academy Issues
Farewell to the National Schools Commissioner
The end of April saw the National Schools Commissioner, Sir David Carter, announce his retirement from
the end of August 2018. The Government has confirmed that a new NSC will be recruited and the
recruitment process has already commenced.
In a recent Tes interview, Sir David reiterated his belief that he has been successful in what he set out to
achieve as the NSC. He believes he has got the Regional Schools Commissioners to work better together
(he referred to the RSCs working as 8 “standalone” academies within a MAT framework when he first
became NSC); has helped MATs meet expectations on governance, school improvement and leadership;
and ensured there are more checks on MATs before they expand. Interestingly, Sir David is leaving his
successor with a three-point plan: ensure that small MATs are successful, increase collaboration between
MATs, and build further on the improved relationship with Ofsted.
Watch this space for news on the new appointment!
Enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) Checks for Trust Chairs
The Chairs of Trustees for all Academy Trusts must apply for an enhanced DBS certificate and have their
application countersigned by the Secretary of State for Education. All new chairs require a new enhanced
DBS certificate, regardless of the positions they may have held previously at different trusts. Only Trust
Chairs with an enhanced DBS certificate from the same school prior to converting to an academy trust
are exempt from this requirement.
Hard copies of the DBS enhanced disclosure application form, identity verification form, the DfE’s
enhanced DBS disclosure form for chairs of academy trusts and a £44 payment will need to be sent to
the DfE who will check and countersign the application prior to forwarding it on to DBS for approval.
The Chair of Trustees is also responsible for ensuring that other members and trustees have an up-to-
date enhanced DBS certificate although these do not need to be countersigned by the Secretary of
State.
Academies Budget Forecast Return (BFR) 2018
A reminder that the deadline for academy trusts to submit their 2018 BFR is Monday 30th July 2018. The
online form will go live for users to complete on the 21st June 2018, not the 1st June as had been
previously notified by the ESFA. This year the BFR will ask trusts to provide 3-year forecast data and a
guide has been produced to assist with this process. The ESFA will also publish the BFR excel workbook
by the 1st June, which will outline what information is required and will allow Trusts sufficient time to
prepare their BFR returns well in advance of the 30th July deadline. The three year guidance can be
accessed via
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/709358/academy_trus
t_guide_to_3-year_budget_forecast_return.docx
Page 21 of 33
Governance Vacancies
Academy trusts, including free schools, must notify the ESFA about the appointment or vacating of
governance roles within their trust. The Academies Financial Handbook clearly sets out the requirements
for Trusts to provide:
• information and direct contact details for the Chair of Trustees, Chairs of the local governing bodies,
Accounting Officer and Chief Financial Officer; and
• information for all members, trustees and local governors.
Trusts must notify the ESFA within 28 days of opening, and subsequently within 14 days of any changes
being made, using the Get Information About Schools service. Individual academies within MATs should
also record their headteacher information on GIAS and keep this up to date.
Mental Health Provision within Schools
MPs from the Education and Health and Social Care Committees have published a joint report which
documents their concerns that the Government’s plans to tackle the mental health crisis, as set out in
its December 2017 Green Paper, will “fail a generation of young people”.
The Government’s current proposals centre on three key elements: a teacher at every school and college
becoming a Designated Lead for Mental Health; support for schools from new mental health support
teams; and a four-week trial for access to Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS). The
committees state that plans to roll-out this strategy through “trailblazer” areas, covering between a fifth
and a quarter of the country by 2022/23, will leave hundreds of thousands of children unable to benefit
from it. The report points out that the use of “trailblazer” areas risk destabilising provision in surrounding
areas, with staff moving to work in areas where staffing levels and services are better.
The joint report documents the committees’ concerns that the plans “lack ambition” as they are too
narrow in scope, fail to address root causes and may create further pressures on the workforce without
the commitment of sufficient resources. The report also notes that the levels of demand for services are
expected to have been underestimated due to the use of data which was last published in 2004.
On the prevention of mental ill health, the committees recommend that the Government seeks
independent evidence exploring the impact of exam pressure on mental health, which has not been
considered by the Green Paper. The report also highlights that:
• An additional responsibility payment for teachers who take on the Designated Lead Role is
considered, arguing that whilst the role has “significant potential”, it is currently a voluntary role;
• Health and education services are already under great strain with stretched resources and
workforce recruitment concerns;
• The Green Paper fails to fully take into account the need for preventative action in the early
years; and
• The Government should ensure that the implementation of the four-week waiting time target
does not raise the threshold of access to CAMHS.
Page 22 of 33
Geoff Barton, the general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL), agrees the
Government’s plans do not go “far enough or fast enough” with the Green Paper failing to address a
critical problem facing schools and colleges – that real-term funding cuts are forcing them to cut back
on existing counselling and support services at exactly the time that mental health issues are on the
rise. He believes that the proposal for a designated senior lead for mental health in every school doesn’t
address this problem and may actually add to workload. Geoff Barton’s concerns have also been echoed
by the Children’s Commissioner for England, Anne Longfield.
The Government will now be expected to respond to the findings and recommendation of the Select
Committees’ report, which will usually be within 60 days.
Supporting mental health provision in schools and colleges: pen portraits of provision
The DfE has recently published a report collating together pen portraits of mental health provision,
based on case study research in 36 schools, colleges and other educational institutions across England
(including a Bromley school). The case study research follows on from work conducted on behalf of the
DfE by the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) and the National Children’s Bureau (NCB) in
2016/17, which explored what schools and colleges across England were doing to support pupils’ mental
health. The aim of the research was to gather detailed qualitative case studies of mental health provision
that would illustrate achievable practice that can happen in schools. The research focused upon nine
particular areas of interest:
• Incorporating mental health into the curriculum;
• Having a designated mental health lead;
• Having a single point of contact in external mental health services;
• Engaging parents and caregivers in supporting children’s mental health;
• Identifying mental health needs;
• Using universal data and measurement to identify need;
• Offering counselling to support pupils’ mental health;
• Taking a whole school approach to mental health; and
• Having a plan or policy for mental health.
The case studies used were intended to:
• Offer practical details about how schools and colleges set up and deliver particular elements of
mental health provision;
• Explore how this specific provision fits in to wider school activities and contexts;
• Explore schools’ and colleges’ perceptions of the benefits of this provision; and
• Identify lessons learned around keys to success and the ways that barriers to provision have been
overcome.
The report and the case studies can be accessed here
Page 23 of 33
Special Educational Needs and Disability
EHC Plans and the cost of SEND provision
There is growing acknowledgement of the pressures facing the delivery of services and provision for
children and young people with SEND nationwide. Furthermore, there has been a rise in the number of
children and young people (CYP) with EHC Plans nationally, with increases greater across London. The
drivers for the increased number of EHC Plans include:
• General population increases;
• An increase in the accuracy, diagnosis and early identification of SEND;
• Advances in paediatric care for children with complex needs;
• The 2014 SEND reforms raised awareness and expectations, making some parents more proactive
in applying for EHC plans;
• Extending the age range of CYP eligible to 0-25 years (previous age range for SEN statements being
5-19); and
• A reduction in early intervention services and access to centrally funded support services.
Factors identified in attributing to the increasing costs of SEND provision include:
• Increasing use of out of borough placements;
• Mainstream schools ‘off rolling’ SEND pupils to demonstrate high attainment and/or as a response
to the financial implications of meeting needs in the school, including the employment of TAs; and
• A lack of vocational routes and link up with adult social care services for young persons aged 19
plus.
These findings are being used to lobby and make recommendations to the Government to enable a
sustainable, efficient and equitable model of SEND provision. In the meantime, Local Authorities are
leading their own initiatives to manage demand for and the rising cost of SEND provision.
Bercow: Ten Years On
It has been a decade since the publication of The Bercow Report: A Review of Services for Children and
Young People (0-19) with Speech, Language and Communication Needs. The Royal College of Speech
and Language Therapists and I CAN, the children’s communication charity, have published a report,
Bercow: Ten Years On, which sets out the state of provision for children’s speech, language and
communication needs (SLCN) in England in 2018.
Five key themes have emerged from the review, with evidence showing that:
• Communication is crucial to children’s life chances. Yet awareness of its importance among the
public and decision makers is not sufficient.
• Strategic system-wide approaches to supporting SLCN are rare; very often SLCN does not
feature in national or local policies.
• Services are inaccessible and inequitable. Too often support for children’s SLCN is planned and
funded based on the available resources, rather than what is needed, leading to an unacceptable
level of variation across the country.
Page 24 of 33
• Support that makes a difference is based on the evidence of what works. However, service design
and cuts frequently do not take account of the evidence that is held.
• Too many children with SLCN are being missed and are not getting the vital support they need.
The updated report found that 42% of parents and carers surveyed stated that their child’s SLCN were
noticed too late. 52% of parents and carers said their family’s experience of speech, language and
communication support was poor.
The updated report made the following recommendations:
Communication is crucial
• Clear messages and information should be developed for parents and carers.
• Support for speech, language and communication should be recognised as essential to improving
social mobility, health inequality and employment.
A strategy for system change – a clear unified message from the top is essential if change is to happen.
• A new cross-government strategy for children should be developed, with speech, language and
communication at its core.
• Proposals to transform provision for children and young people’s mental health should be
strengthened to recognise the importance of SLCN in mental health.
An accessible and equitable service - children and young people with SLCN should get the support
they need, wherever they live.
• Local areas should be provided with data on estimated SLCN in their population.
• Local area SEND inspections should continue beyond 2020.
• A programme of training on joint commissioning for SLCN should be funded.
Support that makes a difference - decisions about SLCN support should be made based on what
we know will make the greatest impact.
• The Government should support the development of evidence-based integrated pathways for
children and young people with SLCN.
• An evaluation programme for innovative models of school-based support should be funded.
• Ofsted training should ensure inspectors focus on progress in speech, language and
communication.
• Health providers should be supported to collect data on the quality and outcomes of their
intervention.
Early identification and intervention – it is essential that the signs of SLCN are spotted early and acted
on.
Page 25 of 33
• Understanding of speech, language and communication should be embedded in initial
qualifications and continuing professional development for all relevant practitioners.
• Commissioners should ensure that there is a system in place to follow up with children who are not
brought to appointments.
The SEND Governance Review Guide
The Whole School SEND, the London Leadership Strategy and Driver Youth Trust recently published The
SEND Governance Review Guide which is designed to support Governing Boards evaluate the extent to
which they have been able to secure high quality outcomes for learners with SEND. It has been
developed as a practical evaluation tool which is clearly linked to the six core competencies of effective
governance as per the Governance Competency Framework.
Whilst the Board’s strategic SEND responsibilities are frequently delegated to an individual board
member or sub-committee, it is important that the Board does not lose sight of its collective corporate
responsibility for SEND. Every Board member is accountable for securing high quality outcomes for
learners with SEND. The authors of the review acknowledge that it may be difficult for Boards,
particularly if they have limited SEND expertise, to identify precisely what their roles might be and how
they can hold school leaders to account. It is hoped that the SEND guide provides a structure through
which Boards can evaluate their effectiveness in relation to securing high quality outcomes for learners
with SEND. The guide addresses effective compliance within the five areas of strategic leadership,
accountability, structures and processes, people management and evaluation. The sixth feature of
effective governance, compliance, does not form a separate review area as it is regarded as an integral
part of the other five areas.
The guide emphasises that it is not intended to be an introduction to SEND governance, instead building
on previous work by the DfE and other sector bodies to support strategic governance. Boards are
encouraged to identify current and comprehensive evidence from a variety of sources (including parents
and carers, school staff, other professionals and sources of internal and external documentary evidence,
such as externally moderated data) to substantiate the strengths and areas of development for each
strategic element.
STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP
The setting demonstrates:
• A strategic approach that incorporates SEND as part of a broader aspiration for inclusion across all
stakeholder groups.
• An embodied vision for the education of all learners with SEND that will deliver a culture of high
aspiration for all learners.
• A culture, values and ethos which actively welcomes learners with SEND and successfully includes
parents and carers to support high quality outcomes.
• Its strategic SEND priorities and can explain how these inform short to medium term goals in
support of its broader vision.
• Collective ownership and responsibility of the implementation of the settings strategic plan with
appropriate systems for monitoring
Page 26 of 33
The Board demonstrates:
• Up to date knowledge regarding SEND policy and practice and can hold the setting to account in
line with their statutory obligations.
• That it models a culture of high aspiration for all learners.
• Active participation in building a culture, values and ethos which welcomes learners with SEND and
includes their parents and carers.
• That they monitor and evaluate progress towards the effective implementation of strategic priorities
and goals for SEND.
• Proportionate risk management policies and procedures are in place to support the setting’s
strategic SEND priorities.
ACCOUNTABILITY
The setting demonstrates:
• SEND provision is evaluated effectively alongside other priorities in its development plan.
• Data analysis specifically highlights the outcomes of learners with SEND as a cohort, across key
phases and other defined characteristics, e.g. gender, socio-economic disadvantage, looked after
etc.
• The budget is allocated and managed effectively and transparently to ensure outcomes for learners
with SEND identified in short and medium-term plans are met.
• Staffing and leadership structures actively support the strategic priorities associated with SEND.
The Board demonstrates:
• Confidence that robust performance management processes underpin high quality outcomes for
learners with SEND.
• Changes to relevant legislation, policy and practices are reflected upon and where necessary,
organisational or procedural adaptations are made.
• Reporting and publication of key SEND information is made publicly available, such as relevant
policies and a SEN Information Report.
STRUCTURES AND PROCESSES
The setting demonstrates:
• That comprehensive assessment supports accurate identification of need and informs classroom
practice.
• Systematic scrutiny of behaviour, exclusion and attendance data to ensure additional educational
needs are neither missed nor disproportionately represented.
• That all SEND documentation is accurate and is maintained, reviewed and updated regularly.
• Safeguarding procedures are clear and accessible to all.
• Specific SEND roles and responsibilities are clearly understood by all staff and volunteers.
The Board demonstrates:
Page 27 of 33
• That it robustly interrogates reports from the headteacher or others specifically focusing on
requirements related to learners with SEND.
• Governor business is focused on priorities identified in the short and medium-term plans, including
those related to SEND.
• That its committee structure ensures SEND is considered strategically and effective communication
supports this.
• Terms of reference make clear that decision making by any sub-committee or working group must
take in to account the needs of learners
PEOPLE MANAGEMENT
The setting demonstrates:
• There are clearly defined opportunities for professional development for all staff and volunteers in
relation to SEND across all phases and faculties.
• Gaps are identified in SEND knowledge, skills and understanding and appropriate professional
development opportunities are put in place to close these.
• Roles and responsibilities for SEND provision are clear. As a result, all staff and volunteers
understand and accept their responsibilities and accountabilities. The SENCO works collaboratively
alongside the headteacher, senior leaders, parents and carers, and external agencies, including the
voice of learners to develop a whole setting response to SEND.
The Board demonstrates:
• All governors understand their accountabilities towards learners with SEND .
• At least one member has demonstrably enhanced knowledge, skills and understanding of SEND.
• Skills audits identify levels of understanding of SEND and the board has developed an action plan
to address any skills or development gaps.
• The Chair ensures that governor inductions include a comprehensive setting-specific introduction
to SEND.
EVALUATION
The setting demonstrates:
• There is a comprehensive understanding of strengths and areas of development for strategic
planning of SEND informed by the SENCO and other professionals.
• That it seeks meaningful involvement from stakeholders, including learners with SEND and their
families and carers, which is used to reflect critically on progress and outcomes.
• An openness to change policies and practices where necessary to foster inclusion and meet the
needs of learners with SEND.
• Rigorous self-evaluation processes demonstrate a commitment to continuous improvement for
SEND provision.
The Board demonstrates:
• The setting’s vision, ethos and values including SEND are reviewed and updated as necessary.
Page 28 of 33
• How their decision-making impacts on learners with SEND.
• That it compares internal data with external sources of information to challenge the improvement
of the setting’s SEND provision.
• A willingness to provide peer support and proactively identifies opportunities to share effective
SEND governance with other settings and boards.
• An understanding of the views of learners with SEND to enable it to check information provided by
the setting’s leaders
Additional Updates
Governance Handbook
It is understood that the DfE is aiming to publish an update to the current Governance Handbook in the
summer. The updated handbook is, at present, expected to contain relatively minor changes, focusing
on any policy changes or identified textual errors since the last publication in 2017. Watch this space!
The Impact of Early Years
The start of May saw the House of Commons’ Education Select Committee announce that it was
launching an inquiry into the impact of children’s early years on their life chances, focusing primarily on
education policy. The Chair of the ESC, when launching the inquiry, referred to research which suggests
that children starting school with poor language skills were six times more likely to struggle with reading
at the age of eleven, and 11 times more likely to struggle with maths. The Chair claimed that “while
home and family life are the biggest influence on a child’s language and skills development in their early
years, high quality early years education can have a major impact in helping even the most
disadvantaged children to compete with their better-off peers.” It was noted that access to these
services currently rely on a “postcode lottery” and the committee will therefore aim to produce practical
recommendations to give all children the opportunity to succeed.
The committee is specifically seeking inputs on: the role of early years education in impacting life
chances; the importance of parental support in preventing problems and intervening early; and the
significance of communication skills development. The deadline for written submissions is the 1st June
2018.
Government Response to its 2016 consultation, Schools that Work for Everyone
2016 saw the Government open a consultation, Schools that Work for Everyone, which sought views on:
removing the current legislation prohibiting the creation of new selective schools; lifting the restrictions
on faith admissions in new free schools; and how the DfE could harness the expertise and resources of
independent schools and the higher education sector to work in partnership to raise attainment across
the wider school system.
May 2018 saw the DfE finally respond to the consultation responses (the response can be accessed
here) and the response coincided with the DfE’s announcement that:
• As announced in the 2016 Autumn Statement, the DfE will open a Selective Schools Expansion
Fund of £50M for existing grammar schools to expand their premises to create new places. To
access the money, which is available in 2018/19, schools will have to submit a Fair Access and
Partnership Plan setting out actions to increase admissions of disadvantaged pupils. Selective
Page 29 of 33
schools wishing to expand must demonstrate they are working with non-selective schools in
their local area to have a positive impact beyond the school gates, that there is a need for
additional places, and that they are committed to increasing access for disadvantaged pupils;
• It will develop a scheme to help create new voluntary-aided schools to meet local demand.
Schools that open under this route can open with up to 100% faith-based admissions and
providers will have to contribute 10% to capital costs. The DfE intend to work with local
authorities to create schools in areas of need;
• It will facilitate universities’ and independent schools’ partnerships with state schools. A
dedicated unit has been established in the DfE for this purpose and a Joint Understanding with
the Independent Schools Council has been made; and
• It will open the next wave of free school applications targeted at areas in which there is a
demand for places and a need to raise standards.
School Admissions for Summer-born children
Recently published research conducted by the DfE suggests that delaying a summer-born child's entry
to primary school has little impact on attainment. Specifically, children born in England between April
and August, whose start in Reception was put back a year, did only marginally better in Year 1 phonics
tests.
Background
Head teachers' unions want clearer guidance on whether delayed school entry for summer-born
children works. Paragraph 2.16 of the School Admissions Code requires school admission authorities to
provide for the admission of all children in the September following their fourth birthday – this is when
almost all children start school. However, a child does not reach compulsory school age until the
“prescribed day” following their fifth birthday, or on their fifth birthday if it falls on a prescribed day –
either the 31st December, 31st March or 31st August. A parent cannot be required to send their child to
school before this point. This therefore means that children born in the summer term (1 April to 31
August) are not required to start school until a year after the point at which they could first have been
admitted. This is the point at which the other children in their age group are moving up from reception
to year 1. Whilst parents of summer-born children are able to delay their child’s admission, typically this
means their child will start school in year 1, forfeiting their reception year. If a parent wishes to delay
their child’s admission to school until compulsory school age but wants them to be admitted to
reception rather than year 1, they must request that their child is admitted out of their normal age
group.
Research
The full research report can be accessed here but the key points can be summarised as:
Local Authorities
• The DfE surveyed 152 English local authorities about their admissions policy. Of the 92 LAs who
responded, 1,750 requests were made to delay school entry in 2016/17, up 84% on the previous
year. Overall, 75% of requests were granted.
Page 30 of 33
• Some councils said they were concerned that parents would delay entry for their child because it
might benefit them in other ways (such as not getting a place at their preferred school), rather than
because there was a genuine need.
• In general, it appears that fewer requests are received in local authority areas where the policy is
only to grant requests that are supported by strong evidence. This may be because parents are
more reluctant to submit a request when they believe it is unlikely to be granted. Similarly, it appears
that more requests are received in areas where a higher proportion of requests are agreed.
Parents
• Parents with higher incomes were significantly more likely to delay their summer-born child’s
admission to reception. However, this finding was caveated by the fact that the small sample size
means this finding is at best indicative.
• A majority of children whose admission was delayed were born in the later summer months – 22%
were born in July and 53% were born in August.
Results
DfE researchers looked at results achieved in the Year 1 Phonics Screening Check. Pupils whose school
start was delayed by a year in 2014 and 2015 scored on average 0.7 marks higher than other summer-
born children. The researchers say the difference is not statistically significant. Pupils who were not
summer-born outperformed both the delayed and normal admission summer-born pupils.
Whilst the report has been welcomed, some argue that the focus on phonics testing doesn't consider
the social and emotional benefits of delayed entry which is of significant importance to parents and that
the most important comparison is how much better summer-born children are faring having started
school at the age of five rather than four – something which the DfE research does not address.
Paul Whiteman, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, stated that whilst the
flexibility required in order to accommodate the needs of some children born between April and August
each year can cause some organisational and financial issues for schools, they are not insurmountable
and more guidance from the government has helped. The Director of Policy at the Association of School
and College Leaders has called for a consistent approach across the country, urging the DfE to develop
a policy based on emerging evidence over the impact of delayed entry to school and what works best
for children. In response, the DfE has stated that "the phonics check measures a specific skill and doesn't
tell us anything about a child's development more widely. We know the Reception year is an important
part of school life and we want to make sure no child misses that year of their education because they
have summer birthdays."
The Good Estate Management for Schools (GEMS) Manual
The ESFA and the DfE have recently published the GEMS manual, which can be accessed here. It is a
new online resource aimed at individuals and organisations responsible for managing and overseeing
the schools’ estate, helping to ensure that land and buildings support educational objectives and
excellent resource management. The online resource sets out:
• the fundamental policies and procedures needed to manage the school estate effectively;
Page 31 of 33
• guidance on strategic estate management, organisational oversight, understanding your land and
buildings, energy and water management and managing projects;
• updated guidance on health and safety, compliance and maintenance (replacing existing guidance
in Essential Schools Maintenance); and
• the skills organisations need access to, links to tools and resources that can help.
Strengthening Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) and improving careers progression for teachers
The start of the year saw the DfE seek views on its proposed changes to QTS and on proposals for how
to improve teachers’ career progression, specifically:
• how to support teachers at the beginning of their career;
• how newly qualified teachers embed the skills and knowledge from their initial teacher training;
and
• how to improve career progression opportunities for all teachers throughout their careers.
The Government has now issued its response to the consultation, which can be accessed here. The key
points of the Government’s response can be summarised as:
The Government will introduce an Early Career Framework (ECF) for teachers’ induction period.
The ECF will ensure new teachers have more support in this crucial phase of their career and schools
have more guidance about what they should be offering their new teachers. The content of this
framework will build on and complement Initial Teacher Training (ITT).
The Government will extend the induction period for new teachers to two years, providing more
time for teachers to develop their knowledge and skills. Therefore, after completing ITT, teachers
will have a two-year statutory induction period rather than the current one-year period. This extension
will not impact on pay; salaries post-ITT will still be on the QTS pay scale, and teachers in their second
year will have the same opportunity to advance through pay scales that they currently have.
Under the Government’s proposals, QTS will remain, as it does now, at the end of ITT. It is expected
that a well-designed two-year induction period with enhanced support will have a more substantial
impact on improving the quality of teaching than moving the point at which QTS is awarded.
The Government recognises the importance of mentoring for early career teachers and it wants to
ensure that all schools have access to high-quality training for their NQT mentors.
The Government will also review the ITT mentor standards to make sure they are applicable to NQT
mentors in schools, as well as mentors in ITT settings. It will also amend the statutory induction guidance
to create a new role of mentor in addition to the induction co-ordinator/tutor. In light of the challenges
that this could present for some very small schools, the Government will consider adding a caveat to
the guidance that allows for exemptions to this rule, providing a strong case can be made.
To ensure all new teachers have access to the high-quality professional development and support
they are entitled to, the Government will strengthen the appropriate body function. The DfE will
introduce both an accreditation process for appropriate bodies so that the expectations of appropriate
Page 32 of 33
bodies are clear and consistent, as well as develop a quality assurance process for these accredited
bodies.
The responses to the consultation demonstrated clear support for specialist qualifications, including
subject specialisms, so the DfE will support the development of new specialist qualifications.
Improving access to high-quality Continuing Professional Development is critical to improving
progression opportunities. Consultation respondents noted that whilst the standard for teachers’
professional development is valuable, it is not being used widely enough. Thus, the DfE will reconvene
an expert group to explore options for how to improve awareness of the standard in schools.
The DfE will set up a work-related sabbaticals pilot for more established teachers. This will
commence in September 2019 for a pilot cohort who have been in the profession for at least ten years.
College Financial Planning Handbook
The ESFA has published its 2018 version of the College Financial Planning Handbook which sets out the
ESFA’s financial planning requirements for sixth-form and further education colleges. College
corporations must prepare a financial plan, including:
• estimated outturn for the year;
• approved budget for the new year; and
• forecast for the subsequent year.
Colleges must prepare the financial information using the updated template that has been published.
Colleges must also prepare commentary which supports the financial plans, including:
• the corporation’s strategic and financial objectives;
• detail of the assumptions underlying the financial plan;
• the corporation’s self-assessment of its financial health;
• explanations for year-on-year movements and variances; and
• details of the sensitivity analysis performed on the financial information.
This information must be submitted to the ESFA by the 31st July 2018. The updated Financial Planning
Handbook can be accessed here
Does your Governing Board have a ‘Professional Clerk’?
There has been a lot of focus on the role of Members, Trustees/Directors and Governors within a school’s
Governing Board, yet there is another important role which has evolved but can all too often be taken
for granted – that of the Clerk.
The DfE’s 2017 Governance Handbook states that “High professional clerking is crucial to the effective
functioning of the board. The clerk should be the boards’ ‘governance professional’.”
Gone are the days when the Clerk was simply the minute-taker in the room. The increased
expectations of the Clerk, supporting and guiding a group of volunteers, have been brought to the
forefront through the publication of the DfE’s Clerking Competency Framework. This Framework
highlights the:
Page 33 of 33
• Vital role of the Clerk in supporting the six key features of effective governance, as identified in the
Governance Competency Framework:
o Strategic Leadership that sets and champions vision, ethos and strategy with the Clerk
supporting the Chair and the Board in remaining strategic at all times;
o Accountability that drives up educational standards and financial performance with the
Clerk supporting the Board to identify information requirements and questions that could
be asked of the Senior Leadership Team;
o People with the Clerk supporting the Board to recruit, induct and train individuals with the
right skill sets;
o Structures that reinforce clearly defined roles and responsibilities and ensuring the Board
is properly constituted;
o Compliance with professional clerking providing knowledgeable and confident support to
the Board to ensure compliance with the relevant legal frameworks and governance
requirements of the organisation; and
o Evaluation to help monitor and improve the quality and impact of governance.
• The four core competencies that are expected from all school/academy Clerks:
o Understanding Governance with a sound understanding of the Board’s duties and
responsibilities and the wider context in which the Board is operating, the Clerk will be able
to make an important contribution to the Board’s effectiveness.
o Advice and Guidance by understanding governance, the Clerk will be able to provide
better quality advice on legal and procedural matters related to governance, assisting in a
more effective strategic decision-making process.
o Administration taking care of the administrative side enables the Chair and the Board to
make more effective use of their time, focusing on strategic matters.
o People and Relationships professional clerking plays an important role in ensuring the
Board has accurate records of its members and their skills. Good relationships are also
essential to establishing open communication and ensuring smooth information flows
between key stakeholders.
We would all agree that this represents a very different role to that of a minute-taker!
Does your Board use a professional Clerk for all of their meetings, including committee meetings?
It is good practice that your Board does not use:
o A member of school staff, raising the issue of potential conflict of interest; and
o A governor to minute meetings. This will result in the said governor not being able to fully engage
in Board/Committee discussions, reducing their strategic effectiveness.
A professional Clerk doesn’t always have to be employed by the School / Academy Trust - there is also
the option of using an independent Clerking Service.
