INDEX for INCLUSION PILOT – 2017/18 YEAR 1 REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY : (pages 1 to 5)

This report gives an overview of the work completed by schools involved in the INDEX for INCLUSION pilot between September 2017 and July 2018. It reflects on the approach adopted, the achievement of the proposed aims and objectives and details the impact of activities on improving outcomes for pupils at the schools involved. It also includes a proposal for next steps in order to widen the benefits of utilising this document and approach to improve pupil outcomes countywide.

The aims and objectives of this pilot are outlined on page 6 of this report.

Summary of Method: (pages 6 - 8) The approach adopted by all involved in this pilot has been based upon the PRINCIPLES of VALUES-LED school development activity, (as outlined in the INDEX) and not solely on the nature of the activities themselves. Every one of the 7 working clusters noted that these principles should be at the forefront of all discussion and the driver of any activity, and that the emphasis throughout needed to be on ‘walking the walk’ and not on ‘paying lip service’ to the task or the ‘ticking of any boxes’. Also, that doing whatever was NECESSARY for success and not ‘finding reasons for not engaging’ or relying on funding to enable change, were key factors uppermost in the minds of all participants.

Secondly, a fully collaborative team methodology was maintained throughout, with schools and clusters sharing and benefitting from each other’s experience and practice and even finding the flexibility to engage in joint CPD. Securing full parental and pupil voice and demonstrating a commitment to ensuring the engagement and challenge of all staff and all sections of the school community was a key component to this methodology but proved to be more challenging in practice especially in large secondary environments. Fully engaged leadership was noted as VITAL for maximum success. However, all pilot schools’ commitment to this aspect was commendable as it was seen as a hugely important and a necessary empowering part of the process.

Overall, of the original 67 schools who engaged in cluster meetings at the start of the pilot, 46 completed the pilot and produced evidence detailing their findings and impact.

Summary of Key Findings: (pages 8 - 11)

In terms of building a county-wide model, this pilot has highlighted collaboration, the importance of honest reflection, agreement on priority locality issues, a shared and deeper understanding of the issues faced by disadvantaged pupils, and the development of strategies/systems to help combat these difficulties as necessary building blocks for successful inclusive practice.

Finding solutions that ensured the involvement of all stakeholders has been a clear thread running through the cluster work. There is ample evidence of pupil and whole staff voice. Much valuing of support staff voice and their involvement in whole school development and processes also features highly. HT opting to use some of their Index funding to ensure TAs and other support staff were fully included, also featured widely in participating schools.

Focus has been equally balanced between generating impact and positive outcomes, and the importance of ‘how’ activities were undertaken. A commitment to ‘doing something properly’ and a demonstrable ‘moral purpose’ has been evident in the discussions and achievements of Index schools. This has culminated in a range of possible leadership models, and strategies & resources to support SI in both specific areas but also in developing whole school development. Simple ‘solutions’ and a focus on Quality First Teaching (QFT) and

1

developing classroom practice has resulted in positive outcomes, and some unexpected and unanticipated impact. Funding has been limited resulting in creative thinking. Each pilot school received £816 only.

The process has been about culture change, which is very much part of the wider SI/Inclusion agenda. Most beneficial aspects noted by all participants were: the networking opportunities, working with schools

outside of their localities, hearing different voices and sharing ideas at the I4I meetings. Using the Index as an auditing tool with staff, highlighting inclusion weaknesses and areas for development. Bringing 'Inclusion' to the fore front of leaders/teachers and TA's minds and raising the profile and importance of inclusive practices.

Of particular note and ongoing impact has been initial ‘ACE’ (Adverse Childhood Experiences) or ‘Trauma’ joint CPD/training sessions delivered by staff from Beacon House (highlighting the importance of understanding and managing the needs of a wide range of children suffering various forms and levels of trauma which can, have, and continue to be misinterpreted as SEND) The development of knowledge, skills and T&L/whole schools strategies concerning Growth Mind set and well-being and resilience has also been at the forefront of joint school CPD.

There has also been a sense that even in the most inclusive environments there has had to be a return to basics. Revisiting the foundations for improved learning outcomes and reflection on the conditions required has been noted as being key. Are we ACTUALLY inclusive? We might think we are, but ARE we meeting the needs of ALL our children? Is that BEHAVIOUR or action inclusive? And how do we know? Participating schools have continually used the INDEX to revisit, reflect, review and refine their practice. INDEX schools are fully committed to improving inclusion through their SDP priorities for 2018/19.

Pilot schools have also recognised the importance of, and been supremely focussed on improving outcomes for ALL children. Work HAS NOT been focussed on specific groups and in fact many colleagues have argued that labelling children, e.g. SEND or PP, is most disadvantageous for all concerned. Even though the initial Index for Inclusion Conference had clearly stated aims, there was still a MISCONCEPTION that as it was concerned with inclusion, it must be ‘about SEND’.

“What are the needs of our most vulnerable children?” This is a question that has been raised again and again. Addressing the needs of these pupils through a change in processes and a focus on adult attitudes has been at the heart of all those involved in the pilot. The phrase, ‘hearts and minds’ has been used often in discussion when contemplating school activities and change.

Schools have also demonstrated that with little financial support they CAN impact on outcomes for the better. There has been a ‘higher purpose’. “There’s been a sense that we’re doing this work to improve outcomes for all of us, not just individual schools. NOT about box ticking, a possibly longer, but more sustainable process to improve outcomes across school populations” (HT)

Summary of Impact: (pages 12 – 17)

Working with the INDEX has led to a variety of whole school outcomes and has had quantitative and/or qualitative impact in all schools involved.

There has been evidence of rising attainment reflected in KS1 and KS2 results. “There has been a significant impact across the school with our project and the evidence is partly found in the rising attainment for our KS1 this year but also in the children’s books as they are taking more care with their work. It also has had an impact for the children when they are working independently from the teacher – they are more focused and on task and the outcome/piece of work is more in keeping with the work the children produce when they are working with an adult. Staff also feel more confident to support children who are experiencing difficulties/ barriers and they are also recognising/identifying when children may need support.Additionally , at another primary school, “I can report that our KS2 results this year are all in line or above national and have risen from last year and we feel confident that is a clear evidence of impact from our approach to leaning which is all about inclusion and was certainly strengthened by being part of the project.” (HT)Another HT had this to say, “Our results improved as a result of all of the different strategies we put in place last year. The increased school wide emphasis on overall resilience has also improved the general attitude and a more positive attitude to learning within the school. KS1 outcomes have improved: (2017/2018 figures) Reading 55%- 80% Writing 35%-60% Maths 35%-70% Phonics 48%-72%” (HT)

2

Whole school classroom initiatives demonstrated quantifiable impact: “All results show there has been a positive impact since the introduction of independent maths sessions. Levels of concentration have shown high increases, up nearly 30% of children scoring 10. O children scored below 5 in spring. Nearly 20% more children claim to do maths at home every day” (Teacher) and “Outside environment impact on children’s enjoyment of reading. “Measurable improvements in enjoyment of DEAR, concentration and enjoyment of reading” (Teacher) (these are just two examples of many from one primary school)

There was also evidence of reduced exclusion and playground incidents: In one secondary setting, “Overall staff response to follow up work after CPD around Ace’s, significantly increased awareness of attachment and the effects of trauma, and resulted in a REDUCTION OF FIXED TERM EXCLUSIONS (FTE) and ‘behaviour points’ for particular ‘at risk’ students. (AHT) and in 2 large primary settings, break and lunchtime interventions, originally intended to improve attendance of particular EAL cohorts, not only INCREASED ATTENDANCE in this group but also led to increased social integration for many other children, including those with PD. There were also NOTABLE DECREASES in playground incidents especially concerning Year 5 girls. (Inclusion Lead) “This is the best club ever” (Yr. 4 pupil)”It’s great to know that children who struggle on the playground have a place to go where they can play happily” (TA) “Since the creation of the club, I have found that I have had fewer issues to deal with after break times” (Yr. 5 class Teacher) At another primary school, a most challenging pupil at major risk of exclusion at the beginning of the spring term was ‘managed differently’, and due to the intervention, change of attitude and approaches by staff, did not have another FTE for the remainder of the year. (SENCo)

There is much evidence from the pilot to suggest that working with the INDEX has had a positive impact on pupil, staff and parent/carer wellbeing. This, as we know, is a vital component for success in any field. (NB: It is worth noting here that Mental Health and Emotional Well Being are high on both the county’s and national government agendas) “The Index for Inclusion has proved a powerful discussion point for promoting the mental health of our school community. Further Trauma Training is arranged for other staff and a session for parents. We plan to use the Index to review our vision and values” (HT)

Evidence of work with Growth Mind set and resilience has seen most pleasing outcomes in a number of clusters. An activity from a ‘Building Learning Powers’ project led to the following pupil comments. “It’s a bit tricky, so I will try and try. Effort always equals results Mrs Turner, you should know that” “I know if I make a mistake I can learn from it” When we learn something new, it makes a new pathway in pour brain” (Yr. 6 pupils) “It is still early in the project but the language of growth mind set can be heard throughout the school. The confidence in the children in seeing themselves as successful learners is good to see and is beginning to transfer itself into improved progress.” (HT)

Evidence of improved parental involvement and interaction was noted in a number of clusters: In one primary school, a number of initiatives targeted at parental engagement, included joint parent/child maths lessons which received most positive responses from both adults and children. (Enjoyment, confidence, well-being and improvement in learning were all noted) In another primary school, excellent responses to ‘Solihull ‘coffee mornings from new reception parents (the group has doubled in size), was reported. “They have really valued the input they are getting and there is a sense we can all work together more effectively” (Inclusion lead) And from another primary school: “There has been a greater emphasis on building better relationships with parents and the school and also between adults and children - there has been a marked difference/change in complaints from parents and parents feel much more confident in approaching the school.”(SENCo)

Improved outcomes with EAL cohorts was another example of impact: EAL Attainment data from a primary school where there has been a strong focus on parental engagement and well-being is showing improved outcomes. 2016/17 All pupils: 61% EAL 70% Non-EAL 57% - 2017/18 All pupils: 73% EAL 83% Non-EAL 67% and from another primary school, “We are really pleased that our EAL cohorts are doing so well, especially as the demographic has changed and we now have many more children starting with a low level of English acquisition. Progress has been accelerated in all years so they are in line with their peers. (HT) (detail pg. 16) Another primary HT noting impact stated: “improved Quality First Teaching for children with EAL and children with SEND. Improved identification and induction/ transition practices for EAL children” (HT)

3

“The index for inclusion development is having early signs of impact on thinking. However, it has yet to spread beyond the host school, embed in teacher’s practice and improve outcomes. When school leaders had been involved in the index for inclusion development, what they had learnt had demonstrable impact on school teachers and leader’s inclusive thinking. However, it was too early to link these changes to improved outcomes for children.” (from collation of comments from SI Link Adviser Spring visits 2018)

Whole school impact in large secondary schools is more difficult to demonstrate but an example of a changing culture is encouraging: “ We have used the index to inform planning at a strategic level and this has seen SLT roles and responsibilities change, alternative curriculums planned and much more understanding and empathy for the students who don’t quite fit the mould. Our thinking has become much more creative and solution focused and taken us back to our inclusive roots in ensuring every child gets their right to the best education upheld” (DHT)

In one school, focus was on building an inclusive curriculum – Outcomes: “Reception - baseline 2017 - 35.3% at typical level. By end of year 76.5% at Good Level of Development. Year 1 - 84% met phonics. Year 2 - 65% met age related expectations for RWM combined - compared to 22% at typical level in their baseline. Year 6 - 63% met ARE in RWM combined. Progress level above floor (1st time we have scored above floor in 3 years)” (HT)

Evidence that making learning fun and challenging pupils to take ownership of their learning has resulted in improved focus and engagement in lessons. Year 4 pupils explained how their group working skills had improved and that now ‘everyone had an opportunity to give their opinion, be a scribe or chair a group discussion.’ Year 6 boys expressed their enthusiasm and excitement for lessons about ‘the Island’, where they were able to have an immediate influence over the content and direction of the learning and session outcomes.

Evidence of building and extending inclusive school cultures and a valuing of professional expertise at all levels within a school environment, helping to develop creativity and share knowledge and practice, has been exemplified in a number of ways during the pilot. At a large primary school, staff involved in action research had both qualitative and quantitative outcomes to share at their whole school summer INSET day.

Evidence of the beginnings of developing more inclusive cultures BEYOND individual schools and clusters has also been a feature of pilot work. At least two SENCos in the West of the county took the INDEX and methodology to their respective SENCo/locality networks. INDEX questionnaires and needs analysis tool were shared at meetings which highlighted growing SEMH concerns and action taken as a result.

“All staff are more aware of the INDEX and the power it could have. Governors know that it will be part of a longer term improvement cycle. The School council is stronger and recognise their potential for change. Staff have started to investigate other aspects of the INDEX... The Sociogram has been used in school to support inclusive practices.” (HTs – Quad schools) These schools working together enabled staff and pupils to visit each other’s schools. “Really valued, as a member of support staff, having the opportunity to visit and work with other schools” (TA)

Conclusions: (page 18)

It is clear that the INDEX for INCLUSION pilot has been successful in achieving its overall aim and expectations as set out at the beginning of this report.

A focus on INCLUSIVE values and action has resulted in positive outcomes and there is also evidence that there has been a reduction in excluding actions.

The expectations for the pilot; collaborative activity, building capacity, sharing knowledge and expertise, challenging colleagues and beliefs, securing stakeholder involvement at all levels, consistency of approach, enabling impact evaluation and creating a sustainable model for future dissemination across West Sussex; have all been achieved.

Key to some pilot outcomes has been the focus on UNDERSTANDING VULNERABLE AND DISADVANTAGED CHILDREN. The ACE/Trauma Training from Beacon House needs to be delivered county-wide and linked to the work currently in progress in WSx under the Mental Health and Well Being agenda.

4

‘Index schools’ need to be ‘CHAMPIONED’ and their HTs enabled to lead locality work in this area. There is a need to champion evidence of ‘RISK TAKING’ behaviours - Schools that have taken risks have seen/are seeing positive impact. Some funding for HTs to lead these initiatives in LOCALITIES is required.

A ‘What Works Well’ bank of resources needs to be compiled and opportunities for school staffs to ‘pop in and see for themselves’ is a strategy easily shared within schools and further afield.

‘Buddying’ – Collaboration and joint ventures have been a really successful feature of the pilot. Many schools have worked closely together and these opportunities need to be developed and extended in localities.

There is an open opportunity for individuals/schools undertaking action research to work alongside Chichester University. The creation of regular ‘TEACH MEET’ opportunities is needed to sustain culture.

The pilot has also SHOWCASED THE IMPORTANCE OF LEADERSHIP AT ALL LEVELS – Ongoing work with the INDEX needs to be driven through HTs and Governors for best impact and through SDP priorities. SIPs and Link advisers need to be fully involved.

EMPOWERMENT, SUPPORT AND CHALLENGE of ALL staff are absolutely KEY, as is CLEAR ACTION resulting from PARENTAL & PUPIL VOICE.

There is much anecdotal evidence and more emerging quantifiable data from this pilot to demonstrate that the INDEX is an increasingly valid and potentially very powerful tool for empowering leaders to highlight inclusion and place it at the very top of their school improvement agendas. People and children MATTER. Using the INDEX as a starting point to reflect on vision and values enables all within the school environment to discover for THEMSELVES moral clarity around educational purpose.

Next Steps/Recommendation:

School activity/development plans and priorities concerning the INDEX moving through 2018/19 and participant recommendations on next steps following a celebratory conference in June 2018 are outlined on pages 19 & 20 of the report. A proposal for next steps and Year 2 of INDEX activity is outlined on page 21.

5

REPORT IN DETAIL:BACKGROUND & RATIONALE:

As part of the Education & Skills Directorate’s vision for improving outcomes for all children & young people in West Sussex (WSx), an ‘Index for Inclusion’ (INDEX; ‘A guide to school improvement led by inclusive values’ authors: Tony Booth and Mel Ainscow - 4th edition) Conference was held at the Avisford Park Hotel on 27th April 2017. Participating delegates, a mixture of Head teachers, governors, Inclusion leads and SENCos, alongside colleagues from Surrey and the INDEX’s main advocate Tony Booth, fully discussed and explored the potential offered by the INDEX as a possible tool and focus for schools in WSx to stimulate further discussion, raise the profile of inclusion and drive school improvement across the county.

Following the conference, ideas of all stakeholders were taken into account concerning the proposal for a pilot. A plan was devised and shared with all schools in July 2017 inviting them to register their interest in participating in the proposed pilot from September 2017.

Initially, 78 schools, 12 secondary, 49 primary, some with SSCs,(Special Support Centres) 4 junior, 7 infant, 2 nurseries, 3 specials, the APC (Alternative Provision College) and 1 college registered interest in the materials and/or in being part of the pilot; all of which was extremely encouraging. Apart from conference delegates, interest had also developed through word of mouth, and was widespread, with all areas of WSx being represented.

AIMS OF THE PILOT:

The overarching aim of the pilot was to:

“Improve outcomes for all children and adults working in schools and settings by putting inclusive values into action and disconnecting action from excluding values”

There were 3 main expectations of pilot/participating schools/settings:

That participating schools/settings worked in cross-phase clusters agreeing commonalities, sharing best practice and building capacity.

That we would build a county-wide collaborative model which would be focussed and consistent in its approach to implementation and would select clear and focussed aspects of the Index to ensure manageability and impact evaluation.

And that securing parental and pupil voice across all aspects of school life in participating schools and challenging peers and colleagues would be a key component regardless of the methodology.

School/setting activities would vary from cluster to cluster meeting local need but offer varying perspectives enabling comparative analysis of the implementation process and associated impact for a future, wider, roll out in Year 2.

This would also enable pilot schools and settings to share learning, celebrate and share successes and work though issues to prevent barriers and build a collective strategy for future utilisation.

METHOD:

At the start of the pilot in September 2017, 67 schools attended the varying cluster meetings which took place across WSx in the first three weeks of the autumn term. Leadership at all levels was represented.

6

After a lively debate clarifying the term ‘inclusion’ along with a general exploration of the materials, in each cluster, participants looked at the ‘indicators’ within the Index as a means by which to reflect on areas of school priority and then decided as a cluster which particular foci they would agree to work on collaboratively. The ‘indicators’, helped individuals to;

reflect on current school practice and behaviours in their settings assisted them in highlighting areas requiring improvement that linked to existing whole school development

plans and school improvement priorities discuss ways forward with a range of colleagues from differing environments and roles to their own

The original agreed areas of Cluster foci are noted below:

INDEX Dimension A - Creating Inclusive Cultures:

A1 - Building Community – Staff and children respect one another (MID 1) The school and local communities develop each other (NORTH) Everyone is welcomed (SOUTH 1 & WEST 1) Staff and parents collaborate (WEST 1, NORTH & MID 2) and staff link what happens in school to children’s lives at home (MID 2)

A2 - Establishing inclusive values - Expectations are high for all children (SOUTH 2) the school encourages children and adults to feel good about themselves (SOUTH 1) the school develops shared inclusive values and inclusion is viewed as increasing participation for all (NORTH)

INDEX Dimension B – Producing Inclusive Policies:

B1 - Developing the School for All – The school has a participatory development process (WEST 2) B2 - Organising Support for Diversity - Barriers to attendance are reduced (WEST 1 & WEST 2) English as an additional language is a support for the whole school (SOUTH 1 & WEST 1)

INDEX Dimension C – Evolving Inclusive Policies:

C2 - Orchestrating Learning - Children are actively involved in their learning (MID 1 & 2) and learn from each other (MID 1) Learning activities are planned with all children in mind and encourage the participation of all children (MID 1) Teaching Assistants support the learning and participation of all children (WEST 2)

Discussion around potential school activities included:

That the nature of any work would ensure impact for ALL children/staff and would seek to address misconceptions that ‘inclusion’ is concerned only with SEND or groups of pupils

Compilation & analysis of questionnaires to staff, governors, parents and children and the creation of baseline assessments/starting points for the work

Staff meetings - reflection and discussions highlighting & agreeing areas for development Linking with and enhancing existing school development plans & joint school/locality priority alignments Cluster schools working in partnership and sharing current expertise and practice Cluster liaison on training needs and running joint CPD activities Developing coaching practices/sharing staff expertise Pushing student voice/outcome to the forefront of all activity Determined focus on impact for all children and all school participants/community Solution focused activities emphasising ‘thinking outside the box’ for creative strategies and solutions Focusing on pedagogy and Teacher/TA participatory action research activities Creating and implementing new strategies, tools and resources for whole school use Using the Index to underline & support existing initiatives e.g. mental health and wellbeing for staff and

children and within ‘Rights, Respecting Schools’. Generation of ideas as to future working across WSx

7

On the one hand, the INDEX was seen a tool for whole school SI and on the other, as a process of collaboration and discovery and the idea, that such a positive model, could build capacity that was easily sustainable. It could remove so called ‘silo working’ and would clearly link to the INDEX’s definition of inclusion that “it is, most importantly about putting inclusive values into action. Inclusive values-led development involves connecting a shared framework of values to everything that happens in, and around a setting”. (INDEX pg. 9) The process of collaboration was therefore underlined as vital to the success of the pilot and no-one was ‘allowed’ to ‘go it alone’.

Meetings were held on a regular 6 weekly cycle throughout the academic year and targets, progress and impact were discussed at every meeting. Financial support in the form of £816 per participating school, (an equitable distribution after considered stakeholder agreement) was allocated on production of an Index action plan and an explanation/proposal of the use of funds in an additional document. Cluster ‘good news’ and activities were recorded and shared in 2 newsletters (Jan 2018 and April 2018) with a wide WSx audience and through the Local Offer.

Additionally, partnership arrangements brokered with Chichester University allowed participants to benefit from a Knowledge Exchange Platform, (KEP) where all ideas, resources, meeting minutes and training opportunities were shared, enabling participants to see and respond to activity within all clusters.

A whole day conference, sharing the outcomes and impact of pilot activities and providing a platform for the showcasing of the work of all participating schools took place in late June. It was well attended despite the difficulties of getting everyone together at a very busy time of year and was described by those present as a most inspiring, enjoyable, enthusiastic and positive, forward looking day. (A photographic record is testament to this)

OUTCOMES:

In terms of outcomes, the 3 main expectations of the pilot (re-iterated below), running alongside the overarching aim of improving outcomes for all through the promotion of inclusive values, were viewed as straightforward and attainable.

1. That schools worked in cross-phase clusters agreeing commonalities, sharing best practice and building capacity. 2. We built a county-wide collaborative model which would be focussed and consistent in its approach to implementation and would select clear and focussed aspects of the Index to ensure manageability and impact evaluation. 3. That securing parental and pupil voice across all aspects of school life in participating schools and challenging peers and colleagues would be a key component regardless of any methodology.

In terms of these first two objectives, all participants demonstrated a genuine enthusiasm and energy to work with and learn from each other by focusing on aspects of the Index that addressed locality and school priorities. Participants sought to agree commonalities and share practice from the outset. Achieving agreement on specific foci was, naturally, more problematic. Schools were in differing stages of development and had varying school development plan (SDP) priorities which had already been set. However, in 6 out of 7 clusters, agreement to develop activities that specifically focussed on 1, 2 or 3 INDEX ‘indicators’, was achieved. These foci were, in most cases, added to or written into existing SDPs. The SOUTH cluster was the only example of a cluster focussed on one aspect.

As the pilot progressed, participants either refined their foci or widened their focus depending upon school needs, ongoing outcomes and cluster dynamics. Work in each cluster developed organically; the regularity and intensity of the meeting schedule meant that the potential for the sharing of many ideas and outcomes could be rapidly progressed. This was reflected in the majority of clusters where there were consistently high levels of attendance and commitment. In these clusters, new ideas and activities were often shared, taken on by others and further developed. This ‘sharing’ was seen by many as one of the major benefits of the cluster approach. However, in

8

clusters where attendance was more inconsistent, fewer ideas were shared and collaborative activity of all kinds was reduced as was the enthusiasm of the more regularly attending members! Overall, clusters formed strong teams and built friendships and professional partnerships.

In terms of collaboration, apart from a firmly agreed ‘way of working’ within each cluster, many schools took the opportunity to work more closely together to share training/CPD opportunities that they had identified as common priorities. This was a very positive aspect of the pilot allowing for wider distribution of ‘common messages’ and a cross-fertilisation of ideas across a wider audience. The involvement of CPD in its widest sense throughout the pilot process has resulted in people thinking more creatively and the collaborative nature of joint school training has been hugely positive and rewarding.

Of particular note and ongoing impact has been initial ‘ACE’ (Adverse Childhood Experiences) or ‘Trauma’ training sessions delivered by staff from Beacon House (highlighting the importance of understanding and managing the needs of a wide range of children suffering various forms and levels of trauma which can, have, and continue to be misinterpreted as SEND.

The development of knowledge, skills and T&L/whole schools strategies concerning Growth Mind set and well-being and resilience has also been at the forefront of joint school CPD.

The pilot approach has been based upon the PRINCIPLES of values led school development activity, not solely on the activity itself. EVERY cluster noted that these principles should be at the forefront of all discussion and the driver of activities, and that the emphasis throughout needed to be on ‘walking the walk’ and not on ‘paying lip service’ to or the ‘ticking of any boxes’. Also, that doing whatever was NECESSARY for success and not ‘finding reasons for not engaging’ or relying on funding to enable change, were key factors uppermost in the minds of all participants. An element of ‘risk-taking’ was encouraged. A good example of this was the approach taken by one of the HT in the Mid 1 cluster, who enthused and empowered every member of her staff team to complete a 2 term action research project with an inclusion focus.

This strongly stated and agreed high level of engagement and school/individual commitment towards pilot activities naturally led to some fallout and a reduction in the total number of initially engaged schools; with some schools stating after the first couple of cluster meetings that they were, or would be, unable to participate as fully as they would otherwise wish. Additionally, other factors, such as staff sickness, maternity leaves or changes in headship, staff responsibilities and changing school circumstances etc., accounted for a further drop in participating school numbers.

Overall, of the original 67 schools who engaged in cluster meetings at the start of the pilot, 46 completed the pilot and produced evidence detailing their findings and impact.

Securing parental and pupil voice and a commitment to ensuring the engagement and challenge of all staff and all sections of the school community, although apparent in most schools’ baseline data/starting points for action, proved to be more problematic in practice and making and apportioning TIME and analysis for/of this was seen as crucial in the early stages. This was especially problematic in large secondary environments.

In all clusters, there WAS however a commitment to this aspect as it was seen as a hugely important and empowering part of the process underlining the principles of the INDEX.

Of course, leadership was MOST key here and where head teachers or school representatives with active HT/governor engagement and support were cluster school representatives, better stakeholder involvement was apparent. Also key, was the collaborative networks of these HTs and staff in their localities. Much time was devoted outside of the INDEX meeting schedule to forward plans and to secure impactful whole school outcomes. Both Mid 1 and South 1 clusters operated in this manner. The four schools that made up the ‘Quad’ in South 1 collaborated

9

throughout and shared objectives, activities, CPD and more. Their respective school councils worked together and pupil voice was a strong driver in the Quad’s actions and outcomes. At another junior school in the North cluster, although the HT was not the cluster school representative, the SENCo was fully empowered to make whole school decisions and take action with positive effect. This distributed leadership approach was evident across clusters but sometimes, where staff were not full members of leadership teams, leading on whole school developments were sometimes more complex.

In all, out of the final 46 pilot schools were represented by 15 HTs, 10 DHT/ASTs, 18 Inclusion leads/SENCOs and 1 classroom practitioner. (In 2 cases 1 person was representing 2 schools or school & SENCo locality)

Securing full and realistic stakeholder engagement in the secondary sector was more challenging for representative staff even where they had the full support of leadership. Obviously, canvassing and analysing responses of large numbers of pupils, parents and staff takes much more time and consideration than in a small primary school, and in each of the secondary schools involved this aspect was covered differently.

However, finding solutions that ensured the involvement of all stakeholders has been a clear thread running through the cluster work. There is ample evidence of pupil and whole staff voice. Much valuing of support staff voice and their involvement in whole school development and processes also features highly. HT opting to use some of their Index funding to ensure TAs and other support staff were fully included, also featured widely in participating schools.

In terms of building a county-wide model, this pilot process has highlighted collaboration, the importance of honest reflection, agreement on priority locality issues, a shared and deeper understanding of the issues faced by disadvantaged pupils, and the development of strategies/systems to help combat these difficulties as necessary building blocks for successful inclusive practice.

Focus has been equally balanced between generating impact and positive outcomes, and the importance of ‘how’ activities were undertaken. A commitment to ‘doing something properly’ and a demonstrable ‘moral purpose’ has been evident in the discussions and achievements of Index schools. This has culminated in a range of possible leadership models, and strategies & resources to support SI in both specific areas but also in developing whole school development. Simple ‘solutions’ and a focus on Quality First Teaching (QFT) and developing classroom practice has resulted in positive outcomes, and some unexpected and unanticipated impact. Funding has been limited resulting in creative thinking. Each pilot school received £816 only.

The process has been about culture change, which is very much part of the wider SI and the INDEX agenda. There is evidence that staff have been more reflective, asking ‘Is this, or am I inclusive? And challenging each other’s stance and thinking on certain issues has been essential. The book “When the Adults Change, Everything Changes” by Paul Dix has been referenced widely and has been a shared message across many clusters.

There has also been a sense that even in the most inclusive environments there has had to be a return to basics. Revisiting the foundations for improved learning outcomes and reflection on the conditions required has been noted as being key. Are we ACTUALLY inclusive? We might think we are, but ARE we meeting the needs of ALL our children? Is that BEHAVIOUR or action inclusive? And how do we know? Participating schools have continually used the INDEX to revisit, reflect, review and refine their practice. INDEX schools are committed to improving inclusion through their SDP priorities and this is ongoing into 2018/19.

These pilot schools have also recognised the importance of, and been supremely focussed on improving outcomes for ALL children. Work HAS NOT been focussed on specific groups and in fact many colleagues have argued that labelling children, e.g. SEND or PP, is most disadvantageous for all concerned. Even though the initial Index for Inclusion Conference had clearly stated aims that were advertised in Feb 2017, THERE WAS A MISCONCEPTION THAT AS IT WAS CONCERNED WITH INCLUSION, IT MUST BE ‘ABOUT SEND’.

10

“What are the needs of our most vulnerable children?” This is a question that has been raised again and again. Addressing the needs of these pupils through a change in processes and a focus on adult attitudes has been at the heart of all those involved in the pilot. The phrase, ‘hearts and minds’ has been used often in discussion when contemplating school activities and change.

Schools have also demonstrated that with little financial support they CAN impact on outcomes for the better. There has been a ‘higher purpose’.

“There’s been a sense that we’re doing this work to improve outcomes for all of us, not just individual schools. NOT about box ticking, a possibly longer, but more sustainable process to improve outcomes across school populations” (HT)

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS REGARDING INDEX ACTIVITY:

Following the SI Link adviser spring visits, the following findings relating to inclusive practices were observed: (the comments highlighted in bold have direct relevance to the INDEX work in different ways.

Overall there was a positive picture recorded of inclusive practice. This often was counter to the picture of outcomes for the focus groups.

Pupil’s progress was universally and extensively tracked. In some cases extra-curricular participation was also recorded. This was frequently used to inform conversations with teachers about pupil progress where these pupils were often the focus.

There is more focus on pupils with SEND than pupils who are disadvantaged. Often teacher assessment of pupil progress and learning was used to inform/reshape learning. A range of interventions were noted. When these were best implemented, they were frequently evaluated as to

their impact on learning and altered if they needed to be. When school leaders had been involved in the index for inclusion development, what they had learnt had

demonstrable impact on school teachers and leader’s inclusive thinking. However, it was too early to link these changes to improved outcomes for children.

Quality first teaching (QFT) was quoted as a priority, but the school leaders understanding of what this meant was not explored nor evidence sought of changes to teaching and the impact for the learner.

Parental communication was frequently a priority for school staff of pupils liable to underachieve. Resources were often used to buy additional staff. However, school leaders were unable to evaluate the impact

of this decision on pupil learning and outcomes. The language used did not imply an expectation that these pupils should make accelerated progress. Pupil voice is less well developed. Governors knew that they had to seek evidence of the standards of learning for groups of pupils liable to

underachieve. Some met with subject leaders to discuss these groups progress. There is a variation in the quality of reports schools have received from pupil premium reviews, many of which

had been commissioned by school leaders. This focus was well worth the time taken and raised the profile of inclusion. However, it is clear that school

leaders have plenty to do. The development of inclusive practice and cultures varies across the local authority, but generally too many

school leaders are just exploring what the development of inclusion means for their school. Generally, it is not a high enough priority for school improvement. As a consequence, many do not appreciate the importance of inclusion.

Leaders do not pay enough attention to accelerating pupil learning for groups liable to underachieve. The index for inclusion development is having early signs of impact on thinking. However, it has yet to spread

beyond the host school, embed in teacher’s practice and improve outcomes.

11

IMPACT EVALUATION:

Clusters thought about impact from the outset. Schools established starting points and baseline assessments using questionnaires and other data and information that were revisited towards the end of the year. Original action plans were also re-examined and participants submitted impact assessments and noted plans for inclusion in SDPs in 2018/19.

Participating schools were asked to answer 3 questions as to their experience of the pilot. Not every school response has been included but the comments below are representative.

MOST BENEFICIAL ASPECTS:

Networking and sharing ideas at the I4I meetings; honing our school in on specific focus areas linked to our priorities. Getting the chance to work closely with local schools, which often share the same families and similar issues and to work collaboratively to share ideas and problem solve together.

Apart from the noted impact the most beneficial aspect of the pilot was using the Index for Inclusion as an auditing tool with staff. It gave clarity on issues and areas of inclusion that were felt to need a focus in order to move forward.

We thoroughly enjoyed being part of it, sharing ideas and networking together. The conference has given us ‘food for thought’ and we hope to keep moving forward with inclusion for all.

There was a moment during last week's conference when I realised that this project has the potential to do great things & my cynicism fell away!

The Index has highlighted our inclusion weaknesses and our areas for development. One of the most positive things to have come out of the project was the opportunity to work with 2 other local schools intensely and liaise with the other schools in our cluster. We have been able to share different types of good practice and the training together was refreshing. We are hoping to continue this work into next year. As part of the Worthing SENCo network, I will be sharing our experiences at the next meeting and asking for other schools opinion of the Index.

The most beneficial parts have been the way the Index has opened up dialogue and got us to reflect on what we already do. We are already looking to how we can build on the work we have done this year and embed the ‘Learning Crew ‘ further as well as looking at the I4I for helping us develop other areas that are on our School Development Plan.

Working with schools outside of the locality – different voices and ideas. The Developmental Trauma training from Beacon House and the funding to try new things – knowing that small changes can have a big impact

The time and space to really think through underlying issues and how to tackle them proactively without just reacting to a set of circumstances. It also helped me in my Ofsted Inclusion interview as I was clear about the issues.

The most beneficial parts of the pilot were Highlighted some needs and allowed us a little resource to actually address them, with a meaningful plan to change some aspects of our practice and intervention.

Bringing 'Inclusion' to the fore front of leaders/teachers and TA's minds and raising the profile and importance of inclusive practices.

WHOLE SCHOOL IMPACT:

The impact whole school is that we have used the index to inform planning at a strategic level and this has seen SLT roles and responsibilities change, alternative curriculums planned and much more understanding and empathy for the students who don’t quite fit the mould. Our thinking has become much more creative and solution focused and taken us back to our inclusive roots in ensuring every child gets their right to the best education upheld

There is now more awareness of where we need to go as a school by staff and governors to become more inclusive. This was reinforced by our visit with our link advisor where we discussed the cross over between her

12

review and our work with the Index for Inclusion. ‘Inclusion’, rather than SEN has become more the focus. There is a little less tendency to label and more to respond to individual and present needs.

Development of the understanding of Growth Mind set, interactions with children who have undergone trauma improved, continued development of improved use of TAs.

There has been a significant impact across the school with our project and the evidence is partly found in the rising attainment for our KS1 this year but also in the children’s books as they are taking more care with their work. It also has had an impact for the children when they are working independently from the teacher – they are more focused and on task and the outcome/piece of work is more in keeping with the work the children produce when they are working with an adult. Staff also feel more confident to support children who are experiencing difficulties/ barriers and they are also recognising/identifying when children may need support.

Increased awareness of EAL children’s needs and their families - through the questionnaire. Increased awareness of how to support children in school with their learning – audit of school resources. Increased awareness of the stages of learning English and the impact on their academic and social progress - through the training. Increased awareness for all children on the different cultures and ethnicities we have in school – through the questionnaire and ‘Rockin’ Around the World’. Enrichment of the curriculum”

The biggest impact is the change of mind set and language used around the school- staff are now thinking in a more inclusive way, there has been a culture change in the way we discuss inclusion and there has been a greater desire to avoid exclusions as much as possible - we have often looked at different strategies.

Attendance has sadly remained largely the same. This is mainly due to the size of the school (75 pupils) and we have also had a number of illnesses which have affected large numbers of children at the same time. However attendance in a number of individual cases has significantly improved due to professional action: (Child A) 54% to 74% and (Child B) 50% to 64%. Increased focus from all staff – ‘voice, value and wellbeing’ is becoming a buzz phrase that everyone is considering more carefully.

Staff are much more open to the issues around developmental trauma The project has given me the SENDCo more confidence and knowledge in leading whole school good practice to promote inclusion for all. It has also inspired me to continue improving standards for all children.

There has been a greater emphasis on building better relationships with parents and the school and also between adults and children - there has been a marked difference/change in complaints from parents and parents feel much more confident in approaching the school.

Much improved communication between parents and school through maths and ICT workshops enabling parents to feel empowered in supporting their children, whilst also enabling opportunities for teachers running workshops to be appreciated and valued by parents.

from the few staff members that have gone on the training and now all want the Beacon House input! I can see practice with children who have complex challenges already becoming more effective than before with most having settled better than they did last year. We have had a very good response to our Solihull coffee mornings from new reception parents (the group has doubled in size), partially on the back of what other parents have said. They have really valued the input they are getting and there is a sense we can all work together more effectively.

SPECIFIC EVIDENCE OF IMPACT:

There much evidence to suggest that working with the INDEX has had a positive impact on pupil, staff and parent/carer wellbeing. This, as we know, is a vital component for success in any field. (NB: It is worth noting here that Mental Health and Emotional Well Being are high on both the county’s and national government’s agenda).

One Crawley primary school’s termly ‘Well-Being Café’ hosted over 100 parent/carers at each of their afternoon events. Feedback from the parent/carer audit demonstrated increased knowledge, confidence and understanding in supporting children both at home and in school. “It is a very nice idea and hopefully it will help families to open up and talk about issues” (parent/carer) I’ve worked closely with Time 2 Talk. What you do is brilliant. Keep up your hard work as mental health hospitals in Crawley need as much help as you can possibly give. Thank you! (Parent/carer)

13

And in the south of the county, “The Index for Inclusion has proved a powerful discussion point for promoting the mental health of our school community. Further Trauma Training is arranged for other staff and a session for parents. We plan to use the Index to review our vision and values” (HT)

“I have also used the money from the pilot to create a sensory room which has been highly effective in reducing the stress and anxiety levels of a number of pupils with additional needs. (DHT)

Evidence that making learning fun and challenging pupils to take ownership of their learning has resulted in improved focus and engagement in lessons. Year 4 pupils from a primary school in the middle of the county, explained to the INDEX lead how their group working skills had improved and that now ‘everyone had an opportunity to give their opinion, be a scribe or chair a group discussion.’ A group of Year 6 boys from the same school expressed their enthusiasm and excitement for lessons about ‘the Island’, where they were able to have an immediate influence over the content and direction of the learning and outcomes. They were very clear that without these sessions, they would be less engaged.

Evidence of work with Growth Mind set and resilience has seen most pleasing outcomes in a number of clusters. An activity from a ‘Building Learning Powers’ project led to the following comments from year 6 pupils. “It’s a bit tricky, so I will try and try. Effort always equals results Mrs Turner, you should know that” “I know if I make a mistake I can learn from it” When we learn something new, it makes a new pathway in pour brain” “It is encouraging to use our Growth Mind set” (Yr. 6 pupils) “It is still early in the project but the language of growth mind set can be heard throughout the school. The confidence in the children in seeing themselves as successful learners is good to see and is beginning to transfer itself into improved progress.” (HT)

Evidence of building and extending inclusive school cultures and a valuing of professional expertise at all levels within a school environment, helping to develop creativity and share knowledge and practice, has been exemplified in a number of ways during the pilot. At a large primary school, again in the middle of the county, staff involved in action research had both qualitative and quantitative outcomes to share at their whole school Inset day at the beginning of the summer term:

“Among many approaches to developing a truly inclusive culture, this year has seen all teachers developing their own action research projects around inclusive strategies in the classroom. This is targeted at enhancing inclusion but is also about developing teachers as leaders within this inclusive culture – taking back ownership of the profession. The project culminated in an Inset day in April where each teacher presented their project and its outcomes to their colleagues. It was an inspiring day with a range of strategies including: developing class Book Clubs to develop reader engagement; independent ‘free’ maths sessions to improve progress and confidence; developing use of task planners to improve independence; Forest Schools to support confidence and developing peer supported proof-reading and editing to develop children’s writing. The outcomes of the day shared similar characteristics: pupil ownership and independence in learning. These strategies are now being built into the school improvement plan to disseminate the success of the projects across the school.” (HT)

In another primary school, a project on Restorative Justice has had impact in both the classroom and the playground with pupils regularly observed using the language of mediation. This has led to the development of a peer mentoring initiative.

Evidence of the beginnings of developing more inclusive cultures BEYOND individual schools and clusters has also been a feature of pilot work. At least two SENCos in the West of the county took the INDEX and methodology to their respective SENCo networks. INDEX questionnaires and needs analysis tool were shared at meetings which highlighted growing SEMH concerns. The ACE training (Beacon House) was put in place and further workshops and a day conference organised. “I still feel nervous about changing a whole culture, however from the training my

14

knowledge regarding the impact of stressful experiences in children has given me the confidence to keep having those difficult conversations with teachers and TAs”(SENCo)

Interest has also been generated at locality meetings with a number of other HT who had heard about INDEX cluster activities and been interested to hear more. In every case, the INDEX lead has followed up those opportunities and spread the word and copies of the INDEX more widely.

“The impact on our setting has been very positive - it has been the start of a dialogue around engagement for disenfranchised learners and around practical steps that can be taken to support them, and to facilitate their time at our school successfully, rather than looking at alternative settings. One main thrust of this has been the work with Beacon House around Early Trauma, attachment and mental health and well-being. Using Index funding, and the channels opened by the first year of the project, we have trained our whole staff on awareness of Early Trauma, and how it manifests in many of our learners. We have now booked in follow up sessions directly with Beacon House in the Autumn Term to begin more practical working with our learners who are most challenging and most at risk of disengagement or exclusion. The remainder of the funding has been used to fund training for pastoral leaders around building their capacity to support this learner demographic. We already have the luxury of timetabled sessions with pastoral leaders for certain pupils, but with additional training and expertise, and dedicated programmes to support, we are now developing a suite of low-level therapeutic interventions we can conduct within school, using our existing staff, to support pupils with mental health and well-being concerns, including those with early trauma and attachment profiles. This means pastoral work to support our most challenging and vulnerable, is a lot more targeted. In terms of outcomes, these programmes and therapeutic approaches take a long time to yield results, and steps in progress are often very small, but our hope is that with more specific support around their attachment difficulties and mental health, that these pupils are starting to show more promise in engaging with staff, the curriculum, and learning, rather than becoming such high risk that they cannot be accommodated in our setting. We are at the start of a large piece of complex work, but it is already showing a change in culture and thinking about how to accommodate these pupils’ challenging needs.” (AHT)

“Impact – improved Quality First Teaching for children with EAL and children with SEND. Improved identification and induction/ transition practices for EAL children” (HT)

“There has been a significant impact across the school with our project and the evidence is partly found in the rising attainment for our KS1 this year but also in the children’s books as they are taking more care with their work. It also has had an impact for the children when they are working independently from the teacher – they are more focused and on task and the outcome/piece of work is more in keeping with the work the children produce when they are working with an adult. Staff also feel more confident to support children who are experiencing difficulties/ barriers and they are also recognising/identifying when children may need support. We are already looking to how we can build on the work we have done this year and embed the ‘Learning Crew’ further as well as looking at the I4I for helping us develop other areas that are on our School Development Plan.” (Inclusion Lead) “The ‘Crew’ encourage us to improve our work. They are really important. I was amazed when I saw my work on the wall next to the ‘Go for it Gorilla’” (pupil) “I love how it is such quick way of getting the children back on track or filling them with confidence” (Teacher)

“Joint CPD and the opportunity to receive the Trauma training from Beacon House. “Very informative training from which I gained deeper insight into what trauma is and how it can impact children's daily lives and wellbeing. It has helped me to look beyond the behaviour and use my understanding to bring pupils back to a 'safe place' where we can start to build new pathways” (Teacher)

“All staff are more aware of the INDEX and the power it could have. Governors know that it will be part of a longer term improvement cycle. The School council is stronger and recognise their potential for change. Staff have started to investigate other aspects of the INDEX such as A2.2 Expectations are high for all children A2.9 School encourages

15

children and adults to feel good about themselves. The Sociogram has been used in school to support inclusive practices.” (HTs – Quad schools) Schools working together enabled staff and pupils to visit each other’s schools. “Really valued, as a member of support staff, having the opportunity to visit and work with other schools” (TA)

Three other schools collaborated in the South and focussed on issues concerning EAL. New signage in all three schools has had a positive impact with parents and staff have had the benefit of additional training “The training helped me to empathise with how it must feel and how exhausting it must be trying to understand and function in an environment where you may not understand everything that is being said” “The trainer was very knowledgeable, it was good to have realistic ideas of how to support children with EAL and the potential the world map has as an inspirational resource” (Teacher)

A lot of the pilot work has had unexpected impact; For example, when individuals are ‘allowed’ to discover things for themselves, they can give themselves ‘permission’ to change. Monthly ‘pedagogical breakfasts’ at a large secondary school, where a few ‘bacon butties’ and a convivial atmosphere were ‘swapped’ for an exchange of ideas and strategies, in turn led to some quite simple but none the less important changes and improvements to whole school practice. “Numbers of staff attending breakfast averaged around 15 people per session but have increased. There has been increased dialogue and a shared knowledge of inclusive practice and resources based on Pedagogy. Staff set up observations and resources based around students and ideas and attempted to measure impact (ongoing). Practical strategies were shared and developed whole school though Google drive. Websites and resource bank log-ins were shared within departments. Overall there has been increased dialogue whole school about inclusive practice. Staff were very positive about the sessions” (Inclusion Lead)

Similarly, in another secondary setting, “Overall staff response to follow up work after CPD around Ace’s, significantly increased awareness of attachment and the effects of trauma, and resulted in a reduction of fixed term exclusions (FTE) and ‘behaviour points’ for particular ‘at risk’ students. (AHT)

In two large primary schools, break and lunchtime interventions, originally intended to improve attendance of particular EAL cohorts, not only increased attendance in this group but also led to increased social integration for many other children, including those with PD. There were also notable decreases in playground incidents especially concerning Year 5 girls. (Inclusion Lead) “This is the best club ever” (Yr. 4 pupil)”It’s great to know that children who struggle on the playground have a place to go where they can play happily” (TA) “Since the creation of the club, I have found that I have had fewer issues to deal with after break times” (Yr. 5 class Teacher)

At another primary school in the West, a pupil at major risk of exclusion at the beginning of the spring term was ‘managed differently’, and due to the intervention, change of attitude and approaches by staff, did not have another FTE for the remainder of the year. (SENCo)

“Increased staff awareness of Developmental Trauma has led to altered conversations linked to pupil behaviour.” (Inclusion lead)

QUANTITATIVE DATA:

Much of what has been noted previously is anecdotal or ‘qualitative’ data but I would argue that this is as valid, in this context, as any quantifiable measure, especially when Ofsted are pushing the breadth, quality and depth of the curriculum over ‘scores on the doors’. I know I speak for a number of HTs who think it is important, as much as we value inclusion, to also value the qualitative over the simple numerical headline figures. It matters a lot – how would we measure mental health in numerical data?

So at this stage, showing ‘hard data’ or quantitative evidence of positive impact that would entice others to prioritise inclusion or to take a more inclusive whole school approach is more difficult to demonstrate.

16

That said, there are EXAMPLES OF INDIVIDUAL PILOT OUTCOMES THAT DO DEMONSTRATE QUANTIFIABLE IMPACT.

“I can report that our KS2 results this year are all in line or above national and have risen from last year and we feel confident that is a clear evidence of impact from our approach to leaning which is all about inclusion and was certainly strengthened by being part of the project.” (HT)

“Unfortunately our overall attendance did not improve last year and the impact was more with individual children. However, our results improved as a result of all of the different strategies we put in place last year. The increased school wide emphasis on overall resilience has also improved the general attitude and a more positive attitude to learning within the school. KS1 outcomes have improved: (2017/2018 figures) Reading 55%- 80% Writing 35%-60% Maths 35%-70% Phonics 48%-72%” (HT)

“All results show there has been a positive impact since the introduction of independent maths sessions. Levels of concentration have shown high increases, up nearly 30% of children scoring 10. O children scored below 5 in Spring. Nearly 20% more children claim to do maths at home every day. Least noticeable difference was enjoyment of maths.” (Teacher involved in action research project – pupil ownership/independence – INDEX Orchestrating Learning C2.4)

“Approximately 77% of the class said they used the card, compared to 23% who didn’t. 63% of the class could tell me how the job card had helped them. Of the 23% who felt they did not use the job card they mostly came from children who are working at expected standard or higher. Alongside the pupils response to the job card I also monitored how much support I was having to give in order for the children to start tasks. There was a major shift towards them being more independent at starting and maintain their learning. They had more stamina for tasks and would solve problems themselves as they had the tools to do this.” (Teacher involved in action research project – pupil ownership/independence – INDEX Orchestrating Learning C2.4)

Outside environment impact on children’s enjoyment of reading. “Measurable improvements in enjoyment of DEAR, concentration and enjoyment of reading” (Teacher involved in action research project – pupil ownership/independence – INDEX Orchestrating Learning C2.4&5)

EAL Attainment data from a primary school in the north of the county where there has been a strong focus on parental engagement and well-being is showing improved outcomes. 2016/17 All pupils: 61% EAL 70% Non-EAL 57% - 2017/18 All pupils: 73% EAL 83% Non-EAL 67%

EAL end of year data for a school in the south of the county. EYFS – EAL group (23 / 180 children) In line with reading, writing and number and GLD and progress measures all above 80% for each subject (87% for writing) Year 1 – (26/ 180 in cohort.) Attainment in line with reading and just below for writing and number. Progress is above 90% for reading and writing and 81% for maths. Year 2 – (28 / 180 in cohort.) In line with the whole cohort for reading and maths and only just below for writing at expected level. Above the whole cohort for GDS in all subjects. Progress is above 75% for reading and writing and 86% for maths. For the whole of key stage one it is 82% for reading, 79% for writing and 89% for maths.We are really pleased that our EAL cohorts are doing so well, especially as the demographic has changed and we now have many more children starting with a low level of English acquisition. Progress has been accelerated in all years so they are in line with their peers.

Focus has been on an inclusive curriculum – Outcomes as follows: Reception - baseline 2017 - 35.3% at typical level. By end of year 76.5% at Good Level of Development. Year 1 - 84% met phonics. Year 2 - 65% met age related expectations for RWM combined - compared to 22% at typical level in their baseline. Year 6 - 63% met ARE in RWM combined. Progress level above floor (1st time we have scored above floor in 3 years).

17

CONCLUSIONS:

It is clear that the INDEX for INCLUSION pilot has been successful in achieving its overall aim and expectations as set out at the beginning of this report.

A focus on INCLUSIVE values and action has resulted in positive outcomes and there is also evidence that there has been a reduction in excluding actions.

The expectations for the pilot; collaborative activity, building capacity, sharing knowledge and expertise, challenging colleagues and beliefs, securing stakeholder involvement at all levels, consistency of approach, enabling impact evaluation and creating a sustainable model for future dissemination across West Sussex; have all been achieved.

Key to some pilot outcomes has been the focus on understanding vulnerable and disadvantaged children. The ACE/Trauma Training from Beacon House needs to be delivered county-wide and linked to the work currently in progress in WSx under the Mental Health and Well Being agenda.

‘Index schools’ need to be ‘championed’ and their HTs enabled to lead locality work in this area. There is a need to champion evidence of ‘RISK TAKING’ behaviours - Schools that have taken risks have seen/are seeing positive impact. Some funding for HTs to lead these initiatives in LOCALITIES is required.

A ‘What Works Well’ bank of resources needs to be compiled and opportunities for school staffs to ‘pop in and see for themselves’ is a strategy easily shared within schools and further afield.

‘Buddying’ – Collaboration and joint ventures have been a real success during the pilot. Many schools have worked closely together and these opportunities need to be developed and extended in localities.

There is an open opportunity for individuals/schools undertaking action research to work alongside Chichester University. Create regular ‘TEACH MEET’ opportunities to sustain culture.

The pilot has also showcased leadership at all levels – Ongoing work with the INDEX needs to be driven through HTs and Governors for best impact and through SDP priorities. SIPs and Link advisers need to fully involved.

Empowerment, support and challenge of ALL staff are absolutely KEY, as is CLEAR ACTION resulting from parental & pupil voice.

Interestingly, throughout the pilot, those who haven’t made the commitment to change haven’t been ‘allowed’ to dilute the efforts of others. No-one has ‘carried’ anyone else. It has been a real TEAM effort. Equally, there has been very little negativity, very little cynicism. In fact, some participants have been completely inspired and are now ‘chomping at the bit’ to be leading initiatives elsewhere.

There is much anecdotal evidence and more emerging quantifiable data from this pilot to demonstrate that the INDEX is an increasingly valid and potentially very powerful tool for empowering leaders to highlight inclusion and place it at the very top of their school improvement agendas. People and children MATTER. Using the INDEX as a starting point to reflect on vision and values enables all within the school environment to discover for THEMSELVES moral clarity around educational purpose.

18

NEXT STEPS:

USING THE INDEX TO INFORM PRIORITIES IN SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT PLANS 2018/19 (School Statements)

It will continue to underpin our continued work on Growth Mind set. Many plans made e.g. implementation of parent engagement events – x 3 per year group for class teachers

(curriculum welcome mornings and celebrations), and other opportunities planned by subject leaders. We are already looking to how we can build on the work we have done this year and embed the ‘Learning Crew’

further as well as looking at the I4I for helping us develop other areas that are on our School Development Plan.

The findings of the Index for Inclusion project will be discussed at our School Improvement Day. We will then look at our school priorities for the next school year and use the Index for Inclusion to support and guide our thinking. The Index for Inclusion document will be used by the Inclusion Coordinator to inform and support the Inclusion Action Plan for 2018-2019.

There will be an entire section in our school improvement plan on appropriate curriculum and provision and this will be underpinned by the index and academic resilience work we are doing. CPD has already been planned whole school to ensure that all staff have an understanding of this and feel more equipped to ensure all students can better engage with their learning, whatever their barriers or starting points

Whole school culture plans around resilience and Mental Health, more to come, but a really exciting continuation of the project.

We are using the Index to inform our priorities for next year. We will mainly be using the first section to make our plans as we believe we have only just made a start with ‘Creating Inclusive Cultures’.

We are working with businesses next year to promote links with all children as well as expanding our life skills provision, linking in with the opening of our new SSC where we will be promoting strong links between the mainstream school as well as the community. We will be re-launching our school council with a greater emphasis on pupil voice and the visions and values team in school will be looking at promoting diversity across the curriculum.

From the inspiring conference it has given me ideas on how we can improve inclusive practices on a classroom level. The aim for 2018-2019 is to carry out collaborative working sets with teacher and SENCO to focus on an area in the Index 4 Inclusion tool. Time will be allocated then for each teacher to choose an area to improve.

Priorities have been set based upon a wide range of evidence. The Index is now being used to shape the detail and direction and to ensure that next steps for implementation are base in inclusive practise. Key areas are: C2.2 – Learning activities encourage the participation of all children

C2.9 – Staff plan, teach and review togetherA2.10 – The school contributes to the health of children and adults.The “innovation” strand of our SIDP will be driven by developing staff and pupil understanding of how memory and processing occurs to alter practise in line with the needs of different groups of children and Locality wide work is looking to focus on the mental health and emotional well-being of the school curriculum. Collaborative working with a school not involved in the pilot has begun to bring them in line with the I4I values.Staff are welcoming the opportunity to look more closely and talk about diversity of culture/race/religion and how they can adjust their practice to be sure that they are giving quality education to all. There is co-operation at all levels to make reviewing the Index for Inclusion a regular aspect of our staff meetings and TA meetings, not just something we look at once a term. People seem genuinely relieved to have the opportunity to discuss these issues. (We are focusing on section A, Creating Inclusive cultures)

19

CONFERENCE FEEDBACK REGARDING NEXT STEPS :

The next step is to extend and expand the I4I work Use this group of schools to be ambassadors to other schools in Locality Groups – perhaps have informal

partnering of schools. The I4I work can best be promoted through the power of locality groups and established relationships.

Emphasise that inclusion and I4I is about whole school improvement, NOT a SEND issue. Clarify what the offer is to help promote it to other schools: it took a while for some schools to work out how

to use the I4I effectively. MH’s input was invaluable and it would be beneficial to continue with a dedicated central lead. A financial resource could persuade some schools to take part.

Embed the I4I vision within schools and their improvement plans Pilot schools need to champion the I4I work to other local schools. This could be done through locality

groups but Crawley would be better served if the I4I schools could present to the whole town (there are four locality groups in Crawley). We would like to draw schools in by offering training e.g.: from Beacon House; which would allow a platform to showcase the I4I work.

Clarify that the I4I is about school improvement planning; one way of promoting the I4I work could be to share School Improvement Plans with local schools, to demonstrate how I4I can be used to benefit the school.

It would be useful to have a toolkit of resources (as being developed on the Knowledge Exchange Platform) so that schools can learn from each other. The preference would be for a tangible document with listed contacts/resources, so if a school is having a problem with attendance, it can look up strategies that have worked in other schools (NB this would have to be kept updated)

I4I needs to have a clear presence in the West Sussex Strategy for Education and be supported by the Link Advisors, termly visits, AIIB work, etc.

Promoting through the Locality Groups will give accountability and help tie things together. Where HTs are not focused on inclusion, the locality groups can nudge them in that direction.

We need to better engage with Secondary Heads and with academies. We need to involve governors, empowering them to challenge school practice and to champion I4I values. Get the HTs on board, showcase the impact of work done (with very little resources) to the Head teachers,

perhaps at a Heads Exec Meeting. The HTs involved in the pilot need to promote the I4I with other heads – highlighting the positive impact of

the work at relatively low cost. Will maybe need financial incentive Perhaps the I4I project should be strategically re-classified as a strategy for School Improvement. To be really effective, the I4I needs to stand out and not get lost amongst all the other communications to

Heads. It needs to be a whole West Sussex authority project to give it momentum. One of the aims of the I4I is to reduce the numbers of pupil exclusions. Early intervention is key and we

need to build capacity for specialist help in Early Years, which should reduce the need for later intervention. It was noted that there are geographical and needs gaps within West Sussex, particularly around mental

health. Links need to be made here. It needs to be emphasised that helping the most vulnerable pupils will raise standards for all children. Would a quality mark for inclusion be useful? It would be a way of recognising and celebrating success.

Rather than a quality mark, could we instead have a system of “Inclusion Ambassadors”, which better conveys the idea of inclusion being a constantly evolving and organic process?

Can we give every school in West Sussex a copy of the Index for Inclusion, perhaps via the Link Advisors, who could refer to Index in their school visits?

20

INDEX PROPOSAL YEAR 2:

Taking into account the evidence presented above including the feedback on potential next steps from the pilot schools and after liaising with the Head of SI, the following is a proposal for the 2nd year of INDEX activity:

Funding required – 50K – to be released to the 24 Localities for INDEX work. Empower AIIB/Localities to agree fair funding distribution. Funding for copies of INDEX, HT & staff release for collaborative meetings and presentations to schools.

All schools in WSx to be given a copy of the INDEX An essential part of this Year 2 proposal will be a commitment by WSx to ensure ADDITIONAL FUNDING

(from the MH&EWB initiative) for ACE/Trauma training including Governor training (FOR ALL SCHOOLS AND ACADEMIES) This can, in discussion with partners be delivered in a variety of ways to maximise and ensure consistent messages.

From January 2019, or earlier if possible, Locality working groups meet and using the INDEX, (modelling the original cluster process) reflect on Locality priority/ies and agree a focus or foci for development. THIS SHOULD BE ADDED TO EXISTING LOCALITY PLANS AND INDIVIDUAL SDPs IF NOT ALREADY INCLUDED. Full Link adviser involvement is also required which is key to facilitating & sustaining discussion with HTs in both localities and individual settings.

To assist link advisers and the locality schools with understanding the power and potential of working with the INDEX, volunteer HTs from year 1 pilot schools are to be involved in ‘presenting outcomes’ and championing process. (A number of HTs have already got leadership models and existing presentations that can be delivered to a number of audiences – The HTs will individually/collectively model the initial role taken by the LA lead adviser (MH) at the beginning of the pilot. This should not however, preclude other INDEX leads from assisting in this role. All need to be empowered where possible.

Once INDEX foci have been agreed, schools will/may require support and wish to collaborate and share expertise within their locality in the first instance and may not need/want to broker support from their AIIB.

However, Localities will inform their AIIB of their chosen INDEX focus/foci and, if required, request school to school support.

The AIIBs will have a menu of resources/potential ‘Lead’ or ‘Buddy’ schools. And will broker that support. The aim is that EVERYONE is involved in this year 2 INDEX proposal. Academies will be working alongside LA

schools (NB: there may be work to be done here with certain trusts) Once support is brokered and schools have agreed actions, desired outcomes etc., review of activities can be

discussed, showcased and shared at Locality meetings. (This may require an extra commitment on the part of HTs to attend an extra meeting or two but those HTs who have taken part in this process will have wisdom to share)

The 2019 Summer Link adviser visit will FOCUS ON agreed INDEX outcomes. Towards the end of 2019, volunteer HTs will be asked to create a small county-wide working party to

develop/agree an initial peer review system which could be trialled from September 2019. COLLABORATION IS KEY – No-one ‘allowed’ to go it alone’ and ‘no-one is left behind’

THANK YOU TO ALL THOSE INVOLVED IN THIS PILOT

21