Education CommitteeFurther written evidence submitted by the National College for Teaching and Leadership (previously National College for School Leadership)
NATIONAL COLLEGE’S PILOT PROGRAMME FOR REVIEWS OF GOVERNANCE IN SCHOOLS AND ACADEMIES JUDGED TO BE “REQUIRING IMPROVEMENT” FOLLOWING OFSTED INSPECTIONS: SEPTEMBER 2012—FEBRUARY 2013
1. Introduction and Process of Review
The National College conducted a pilot of external reviews of governance where these were recommended following HMI-led Ofsted inspections. These reviews were offered free of charge to schools The purpose of the reviews was to enable schools to move out of the requires improvement category into at least “good” by helping the governing body to identify priorities for improvement in governance and to provide support on what steps should be taken to achieve those improvements. The reviews were offered as support to improve and develop governance, and not as an additional inspection. Reviews were led by trained reviewers who were NLGs or NLEs.
Core activities for the review included the following:
Supported self-review.
Review of documentation.
Face-to-face discussion(s).
Written record.
Reviews were adapted to the context and capacity of the school
2. Outcomes of Reviews
This report is based on the written outcomes of 36% of the reviews and conversations with some of the headteachers, chairs of governors and reviewers.
written report by the reviewer agreed by the school;
governing body’s action plan agreed by the chair of governors and the reviewer; and
evaluation feedback from reviewers and schools.
62 schools were reviewed, representing a phase and geographical mix.
26 in south, 22 in central and 14 in the north. 43 LAs represented.
The type of school:
3. Main Findings from Reviews
4. Recommendations
4.1 Overall
Governors, headteachers and reviewers are positive about the reviews.
Credibility of the reviewers is key.
Schools welcomed the reviewers as experienced professionals who understand the situation, can support and offer effective advice.
Schools think the review will impact positively on outcomes for pupils.
The process has been very useful and should continue, with modification
In future the reviews will be provided by a range of professionals and these will be commissioned and paid for by individual schools. It is important there is consistency and high quality in these reviews.
4.2 Engagement
Schools may be charged for these services in the future.
All parties must understand what the review will and will not offer in terms of time, expertise and outcomes.
KEY recommendation = a firm agreement must be made so that all parties are fully aware of what is expected of them and the commitment which they will have to provide in order for the review to be effective.
This will ensure the process is realistic and completed in a timely and efficient way.
4.3 Guidance
The pilot reviews were carried out in a variety of ways and whilst it is important to allow for flexibility so that the needs of different governing bodies can be addressed
KEY recommendation = specific, clear, comprehensive and transparent guidance for review methodology.
The guidance may cover the following areas:
1. A bank of resources to include pro-forma and methodology for review processes, details of performance tables, Ofsted criteria, information relating to headteacher performance management and salary structures, use of pupil premium and its relation to pupil outcomes.
2. Documentation required of the school available to the reviewer.
3. Objectives and suggested agenda for; preparatory meetings with chair of governors; preparatory meeting with headteacher; joint meetings with headteacher and chair of governors.
4. Facilitation of governing body review.
5. Meeting with governing body.
6. Meetings with governing body committees.
7. Suggested time frames for the process and its constituent parts.
8. Involvement of the local authority, diocese, academy chain where appropriate.
9. Exemplar materials in terms of a good practice by including high quality anonymised reports from reviews, outcomes of self review, action plans, activities and time allocated by reviewers.
4.4 Key areas for action
Clarity for reviewers is required about the key areas for action.
The highest quality reports took the Ofsted areas and recommended specific actions which would facilitate the required improvement.
Many of these included a change to the size, composition or capacity of the governing body and it may be that this becomes as a standardised part of the review process.
4.5 Action Plans
Form the basis of future development and improvement by the governing bodies.
These were the most variable element of the process in terms of quality.
Weaker Action Plans.
Did not include overall objectives explaining why the actions were required.
Recorded generic actions (eg governor training).
Identified the chair of governors or full GB as being responsible for all the actions.
Time frames reported “on-going”.
Did not have success criteria.
KEY recommendation = pro-forma provided for the process needs review and development and should include as a minimum—overall objectives, key actions, personnel, time frames and success criteria.
KEY recommendation = Reviewers may require guidance and training in action planning methodology.
4.6 Follow up
Overwhelming feedback from chairs, heads and reviewers is that these reviews need follow up.
General agreement that the reviews have achieved a great deal, the measurable outcomes will only be evident over the next months.
Ofsted inspections will ultimately determine if the school has improved but the detail of how the governing body has contributed to this improvement will be minimal.
Governors have found the discussion with experienced professionals invaluable
In some cases the reviewer has already been engaged by the school to continue their support or to evaluate progress in six months.
KEY recommendation = follow up is built into the review process from the beginning so that expectations are clear. In this way the long term impact of the reviews will be identified.
June 2013