- Children, Schools and Families Committee Contents


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 103-119)

COUNCILLOR LES LAWRENCE, LORRAINE COOPER, DECLAN MCCAULEY AND LYNDA JONES

1 APRIL 2009

  Chairman: Can I welcome our three new witnesses who have been good enough to brave the rigours of G20 London to be with us. They are Lorraine Cooper, Lynda Jones and Declan McCauley. Thank you very much for helping us with this inquiry. I think that you got a feel for the range of questions that we ask from the session with Councillor Lawrence. We are very keen to understand more about School Improvement Partnerships and Partners. That is what we will spend the next hour asking about. We are always happy for our witnesses to say a couple of things to open up the session, if they want to, or they can choose to go straight into questions. We have your CVs here, so we know where you are coming from. However, if there is anything that you want to add before we start on questions, please do so.

  Lorraine Cooper: No.

  Lynda Jones: No.

  Declan McCauley: No.

  Q103  Chairman: You are terribly well-behaved and good students. I will start the questions. You have been listening to the evidence and the three of you have a great deal of experience in terms of accountability and inspection. What do you think are the strengths and weaknesses of the system that we have at the moment? What would you say that you would defend, if not quite to the death but none the less strongly, about the accountability system we have at the moment? Lorraine?

  Lorraine Cooper: I think that the model of accountability that we have at the moment is broad. It covers a range of areas. By and large, I think that it gives very useful information across the board about what is going on in terms of schools and pupils' learning. I think that the breadth that this model offers is one of its strengths, in that we have databased information at great depth now. That is very helpful. We have Ofsted inspections coming in and then we have what SIPs do, in terms of the interface with schools. All of that provides information that is extremely useful. Sometimes, I think that the reliability of the model is its weakness. That is where we have to be very careful sometimes, because however good the system is it is only as good as the reliability it can produce. On occasions with schools we have problems, as we had this year over the testing systems and the problems that they created for schools; we are only just getting those problems reported now. Sometimes we have inconsistencies in the way that Ofsted inspections may be carried out. Admittedly, those inconsistencies occur much less frequently now, in my experience.

  Q104  Chairman: It is the quality of the inspectors?

  Lorraine Cooper: Occasionally you can have a situation where that proves to be problematic. However, I think there have been growing strengths in the relationship between the people who work at the interface with schools at local authority level and Ofsted inspections. There is a much better dialogue, in terms of sharing information, which is helpful from the point of view of schools. I think that there are a number of strengths. The breadth of the model is one. However, we need to be sure about the reliability right the way through the system.

  Q105  Chairman: Lynda, what is your view about the strengths and weaknesses of the model of accountability? Is there anything that you really worry about, or anything that concerns you, about the overall strengths of the accountability system at the moment?

  Lynda Jones: I just want to add something to my colleague's point, which is about a strength in the accountability systems that have been developed over the last few years. The increase in data, which gives us a huge variety of ways of looking at performance, together with schools themselves becoming more accountable through the self-evaluation form and Ofsted, has meant that there has been a developing partnership between local authorities, SIPs and schools and governors. In turn, that has meant that the partnership has improved. I would like to add that as a strength of the system.

  Q106  Chairman: Some people are very critical of self-assessment. They see it as diluting or weakening the inspection, by putting so much onus on self-assessment. I see that Lorraine is shaking her head at that point. Lynda, what do you think?

  Lynda Jones: I think that it is about the validity and reliability of the judgments that are being made, really, and the evidence that is used to support those judgments, whether they are being made by the school judging its own performance or by those coming and making judgments themselves. That is the key point, I think.

  Q107  Chairman: The original idea I had of SIPs were that they would all have to be heads. You were a deputy head. Do you think that SIPs should be heads? I know that you had another role as well.

  Lynda Jones: I probably still have a personal interest because I have not been a head teacher, although I have gone through the NPQH—National Professional Qualification for Headship—process, and I have been a deputy head for seven years. I believe that my experience as a school improvement adviser in two authorities and my experience in schools over 31 years brings a different perspective, and I am able to learn from head teacher colleagues who are part of the SIP process.

  Chairman: Declan.

  Declan McCauley: Certainly, looking from a school's perspective—we talked about self-evaluation—schools are much better placed now to know what is going on in school and how it impacts on school improvement. A lot of that has come about through the accountability processes which are in place with the local authorities, and that then goes on to inform Ofsted inspections. Schools are well placed in that respect. Also, regarding the amount of school improvement that we have seen, looking at pure statistics—thinking of where I am based—my school is a completely different school within the past 13 years. Children who are there make much more progress now than they did many years ago. That is down to the involvement of the local authority and the accountability that is placed on schools.

  Chairman: Thank you. Now that we have warmed you up, I will hand you over to Annette.

  Q108  Annette Brooke: I specifically wanted to ask about School Improvement Partners. They seem to have rather mixed reviews: some evaluations show how positive they are, but there is a lot of scepticism around, I would suggest, about them. My first question is: how well trained do you feel that you are for this job? Were you prepared for the task ahead with the training that was given? I do not mind who starts first.

  Chairman: Lorraine?

  Lorraine Cooper: I think that—

  Chairman: Don't let these two heads bully you, Lynda. We will stand up for you.

  Lorraine Cooper: I think it varies enormously, because people come to the role from very different perspectives. You have a range of people coming with a lot of different background experience. How far the training that they were provided with met their need might depend on their starting point. One of the problems was—it became slicker over time—that it was a fairly time-constrained process, with a set number of activities that had to happen. For some people, who had been involved in a school improvement context over a long period of time, they found that it did not stretch their thinking very much. For other people, who may not have had that background, it may have done a lot more. I think it depended on where people came from, because there is a massive breadth in the group of people who are now performing as SIPs.

  Q109  Annette Brooke: So is the training standard?

  Lorraine Cooper: It is standard. First, there is a testing process to make sure that you can do the basic data analysis type activities. Then there is a face-to-face training, which is a two-day residential, and that involves a range of different activities, including conversations that are observed, and feedback is given on the way that you might deal with addressing challenging situations. By its very nature, an awful lot of the learning happens on the job, and at that interface with other people doing the same job over a longer of time. Initial training starts you off, but whether it could ever turn you out as a fully fledged, all-singing and all-dancing SIP, I am not sure—it would depend where you started from.

  Chairman: Lynda, do you agree with all that?

  Lynda Jones: It is worth adding that there is a locally provided continuing professional development programme too, which updates as far as the national agenda is concerned, but also gives the particular local flavour. That is carried out in conjunction with school improvement professionals, so there is the development of a team, if you like—you have an evolving team who have a series of skills, knowledge and understanding. It becomes, therefore, increasingly bespoke, in relation not only to people's needs but to local needs and the changing national perspective. On my needs as a school improvement professional, I think I was pretty clued up by many of the imperatives that were to be facilitated through the SIP programme, but I wasn't particularly au fait with working with head teachers in this context. For example, this afternoon I was due to go on an induction visit, where I would shadow a head teacher colleague who was working in that role, but I can't do it because I'm here. That is just to give you some idea of how we manage the programme locally, so that we can identify people's needs and plan to meet them through the activities that we plan.

  Declan McCauley: I felt that the training was very rigorous and stressful for many people. The pressure was on to achieve; they didn't want to go to the training and not get through it. So there was an awful lot of rigour attached to it, and the use of the data and the focus on challenging schools certainly came through. I came to it from a slightly different starting point, having been a head teacher for quite a few years and having worked for my local authority, which asked me to take on a couple of schools in a different role before SIPs came in. But the training heightened my awareness of exactly how to work with refined data, and now it is a case of translating that into working within the local authority in Warwickshire. I am fortunate, because I work in another authority, so I have its perspective. My school is in Staffordshire and I work as a SIP in Birmingham, so it gives me a breadth. It is interesting to see how it all works.

  Q110Annette Brooke: That is interesting. Lynda and Lorraine, do you just work as a SIP within one authority?

  Lorraine Cooper: Yes.

  Q111  Annette Brooke: Next question. I would really like to know from each of you, are you a critical friend or somebody who tells tales to the local authorities?

  Chairman: She means a local authority snitch. Which is it? I shall start with you, Lynda. Which are you? Or are you neither?

  Lynda Jones: I feel somewhat ambivalent, because I am employed by the LA for my substantive post and I am a critical friend when I am being a SIP. It informs my work as a school improvement professional in Warwickshire, because it enables me to get inside a school and to appreciate how it might be for them when you talk about bringing in changes. But I am a critical friend when I am being a SIP.

  Annette Brooke: Any other comments?

  Declan McCauley: We are both. We are that conduit between the local authority and the school. You have to be that critical friend, because the information flows through you—both ends—and that is really important.

  Lorraine Cooper: The critical friend element is about the trust that you build up with the school in which you work in whatever role—whether as a local authority person or not. You're a critical friend because of the trusting relationship that you build up, which allows you to ask the questions that will challenge and move things forward. My experience at the interface is that I do not often have to worry about that. Schools have never seemed to object to being asked the critical questions, provided they are delivered professionally and appropriately. I have never found that to be a conflict—any more than there seems, generally, to be too much of a conflict about them not wanting the local authority to know certain things. There is generally a good and trusting working relationship between the schools and the local authority I work in, so schools generally are very happy for there to be a triangulated discussion, and they do not seem alarmed by it. They have plenty of opportunity to feed back to us through the SIPs appraisal processes that we use, and that seems to be the message: it is not a problem to them.

  Chairman: Annette, I'll come back to you. I want to bring Andy in.

  Q112  Mr Slaughter: My limited experience of SIPs suggests that, in some ways, the schools that need them most are less good at using them. That may be a fairly obvious thing to say, because a school that is already performing—

  Chairman: I was hoping you would shout a bit. The acoustics in here are horrible, Andy.

  Mr Slaughter: I'll try.

  Chairman: Or lean forward into your mic.

  Mr Slaughter: If a school is doing well, it is probably less defensive and is probably quite interested in somebody coming in and filling in the gaps, and things like that, and it is probably better organised. Is your experience that, actually, you may be topping up already good schools, rather than addressing problems in schools that have more to do?

  Lorraine Cooper: I think you are absolutely right to say that there is a massive differentiation between what schools need and how you might work with them. However, one of the major benefits of the SIP programme—this has been reported back to me by schools—has been that good schools previously felt that they lacked the opportunity to have a robust debate with other professionals in that sort of context, on a one-to-one basis, about their school. They may have had such a debate about broad educational issues, but about their school they missed it. So I believe that the SIP programme can be equally as effective in moving good schools to outstanding and outstanding schools to be really creative in their thinking and allowing them to see how they might help in supporting others. I agree with your comment that, clearly, if schools are struggling, they will often struggle in respect of how to use the support as well. You need a different approach with those sorts of schools.

  Q113  Mr Slaughter: With struggling or coasting schools, how much is there a whistleblowing role for SIPs? Councillor Lawrence was saying, quite rightly, that if a school is going into special measures that is probably the fault of the local authority for not spotting it, but not always, because sometimes these things can happen quite quickly, after an ill-advised head appointment or if a governing body is suddenly thrown into disarray. Do you think there is a whistleblowing or supporting role for SIPs in that process?

  Lorraine Cooper: Yes, I suppose I struggle slightly with the notion of whistleblowing. Maybe that is where I would have a problem. I see it as a professional relationship, part of which is professional honesty. If there is a problem, it needs to be brought to the attention of whoever can do something about it.

  Q114  Chairman: Did you say you saw yourself as a whistleblower or not as one?

  Lorraine Cooper: No, I have a problem with the term "whistleblower", because it is about a professional relationship.

  Q115  Chairman: I was quite stunned, though, by Councillor Lawrence's saying that if we are going to sharpen up our act in the local authority world, the driver—I think this is what you said, Councillor Lawrence—is how much sharper we have to be in the bit of children's services that deals with child protection. You would have to be a whistleblower if your job was in that area, because a child might die or be in terrible misery. In a sense the whistleblower bit should not be underestimated, should it?

  Lorraine Cooper: If you mean by "whistleblower", bringing to the attention of those people who have a responsibility and an opportunity to do something about putting something wrong right, that is fine. I see that as part of that professional triangulation; that is what those roles are about between the local authority, the school, the governing body and the external bodies of accountability, like Ofsted. Together, we have that role. It is really important that that happens.

  Q116  Mr Slaughter: SIPs seem to work well where they are accepted and where there is a creative structure for them to go into, but I am talking about another example. What I meant by the whistleblower role would apply in the case of a school that is quickly getting into trouble and deep water and where the local authority may not have picked that up. If the SIP is on the ground and sees that, and the school is not responding, do you not think it is important that the SIP blows the whistle, for want of a better term?

  Lorraine Cooper: Essential. Yes, it is essential that they do.

  Chairman: Declan, what do you think?

  Declan McCauley: I agree, definitely. If you are in a school, working as a SIP, the last thing you want to be doing is saying, "Okay, this is absolutely fine" and not feeding back that there are major issues. If you see something, it has to be fed back, because at the end of the day, the SIP is the person responsible. They are the conduit. A single conversation takes place through the SIP, who passes information both ways. If you see something that is wrong, you have to tell someone about it.

  Q117  Mr Slaughter: The other scenario that we have examples of is where it is pretty clear to people involved with a school that something is going on over a period of time that the local authority ought to know about. It might be that the school does not have a permanent head or that it is struggling just above going into special measures. For whatever reason, the people who are responsible are not reacting. What does a SIP do in those circumstances?

  Lynda Jones: You must go back to the honesty and transparency underpinning all this. You would not say one thing to a head teacher and another to the LA. The reports that the SIPs write make it very clear what the judgments are. We need to remember that they have only a five-day allocation with that school. If schools have an immediate concern, the SIP might not be the person who is best placed to pick that up. If a school is vulnerable, the SIP will not be the only LA representative likely to visit the school. LA personnel will visit the school on a more regular and frequent basis. The SIP's judgment would not be a sole judgement in that case.

  Q118  Mr Slaughter: Do you see SIPs as a permanent part of the framework for school monitoring and improvement or are they a bolt-on extra that has some advantages for some schools?

  Lynda Jones: We have put the initiative in place in Warwickshire with a view to it being an enduring mechanism. The strength of the work of SIPs relies on the relationships that are developed. Anything that causes discontinuity obviously breaks that. Schools say to us, "We do not want changes in SIPs. We see this as an enduring relationship." That is the spirit in which we have gone into it. We have talked about National Challenge schools. It might be worth mentioning that one aspect of those schools is that the National Challenge adviser has taken over this role with up to 20 days allocated to those schools. That led to some dysfunction because the team had to be rearranged so that the best people were in the best places to support those schools. That is another element of the SIP programme. SIPs are matched to schools and are not arbitrarily told, "You can go there and you can go there." Some SIPs are better at supporting schools in respect of particular needs. In summary, we do see it as enduring. The quality of the relationships is built up over time. Heads have said to us, "Don't change these about. You have just got to understand our context, which we need you to do. We don't want it to change." There has been some change brought about by National Challenge, and the SIP within the National Challenge adviser role has a key part to play in bringing about improvement in National Challenge schools.

  Chairman: May I call in Derek and then come back to Andy and Annette?

  Q119  Derek Twigg: First, it is great that people like you take the time to do the work you are doing. We have talked about process and about some individual examples. The big question is what are the three key pieces of evidence that justify SIPs?

  Chairman: Declan, it is your turn to lead.

  Declan McCauley: That's lovely—give me the difficult question. In all honesty, it is the working relationship that a SIP brings to a school. They bring a level of challenge and accountability. You have a face-to-face discussion with the SIP sitting there with the data and you have to account for exactly how the school is doing and what you are going to do about it. Also, SIPs bring a level of experience to the process, which does not necessarily come from within the local authority, but might come from a number of schools.


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2010
Prepared 7 January 2010