Government response
Potential for school collaboration
Importance of mutual benefit
1. Properly handled, school collaboration
offers benefits to all schools involved. The Government should
continue to promote this message so as to reassure reluctant governing
bodies and promote equality of esteem among all participants.
(Paragraph 31)
The government will continue to promote
school partnerships with a focus on the more structured and formal
partnerships such as multi-academy trusts.
In order to help primary schools to
convert as part of a multi-academy trust, the Department for Education
(DfE) is offering a one-off grant of £25,000 per chain. We
envisage that many groups will use this money to part-fund a business
manager to work across the chain, or hire a part-time project
manager to oversee their conversion.
We have seen that strong chains of three
or more academies can help drive up standards and provide opportunities
for increased collaborative working among schools. We expect all
schools that are performing well and applying for academy status
to partner a weaker school.
The Governors' Handbook promotes partnership
working as a tool for helping governing bodies increase standards,
achieve value for money and generate efficiencies. By pooling
their funding, schools working in partnership can share staff,
functions, facilities and technology across all the schools. The
handbook sets out the various partnership models that academies
and maintained schools can follow.
Competition and collaboration
2. We believe that while there are
tensions between competition and collaboration, these are largely
creative tensions. Collaboration between schools is growing in
many forms within a competitive school system. (Paragraph 35)
We agree with the Committee that collaboration
between schools is growing strongly, but the increase in the number
of schools working collaboratively indicates that there is little
tension between competition and collaboration.
The growth of academy chains highlights
the important role that chains are playing in driving forward
school improvement. Almost half of all approved academy sponsors
are high-performing schools, and almost 350 converter academies
are approved as sponsors or are in the process of becoming so.
The evidence shows that, rather than
having a negative impact on a school's attainment levels, working
with others improves a school's outcomes. Chapman's research for
the National College on federations[2]
showed that in this model both the weaker school and the strong
supporting school see an increase in performance.
Joint working has a positive impact
on a range of factors such as leadership, staff development and
the opportunity for leaders to impact on the wider school system.
All these work together, leading to an improvement in overall
performance.
Evidence of impact
3. Although evidence on the impact
of school partnerships seems positive, it would still benefit
from robust evaluation, particularly aimed at identifying what
works and why. Given the importance of a school-led improvement
system to its vision, we recommend that the Government embed evaluation
into further initiatives relating to school partnership and collect
systematic evidence on 'what works'. (Paragraph 39)
We welcome the Committee's recognition
of the positive impact of school partnerships. Multi-academy trusts
are having a significant impact on partnership working as the
number of academy chains has grown. We review a chain's performance
on an on-going basis, by looking at their overall results, how
individual academies are performing, and whether there are any
financial issues which need to be addressed.
The National College for Teaching and
Leadership (NCTL) has a long standing and robust body of evidence
which has closely reviewed the range of approaches for school
leadership and the impact of school partnerships, including what
works and why. A series of practical guides and resources for
school leaders are available on the NCTL website[3],
in addition to a number of reports evaluating the impact and maturity
of school partnerships.[4]
Teaching schools are another key way
of encouraging and enabling greater partnership and collaboration
between schools and are based upon the success of school networks
within the City Challenge areas. An evaluation of the teaching
schools programme has been commissioned from the University of
Nottingham, by NCTL, and will review the overall effectiveness
of the teaching schools model and evaluate the impact of teaching
schools on the schools and pupils in their alliances. The first
interim report will be published early next year and the final
report will follow in 2015.
Diversity and desirable features
Diversity of models
4. We believe that, in common with
the Government's view of the education system, schools are best
placed to identify the most effective ways to work with other
schools, based on their particular history, ethos and challenges.
Schools should be able to adopt models of partnership and co-operation
that suit their needs within a legislative and policy framework
that is as non-prescriptive as possible. (Paragraph
45)
5. We believe that school partnerships
with clear lines of accountability and some element of obligation
are more likely to be successful in achieving gains from collaboration.
(Paragraph 46)
We agree with the Committee's conclusions
that schools are best placed to identify the most effective ways
to work with other schools, based on local context and circumstance.
We think that this is best achieved through multi-academy trusts,
where there is a formal partnership with clear accountability.
We also believe that weak schools should be required to join partnerships
under the leadership of a strong sponsor.
The government's vision is for a self-improving,
school-led system where schools and teachers are able to respond
to local need through school-to-school support and collaboration.
These principles form the basis of the teaching school model,
where partnerships are formed through alliances and, in some cases,
through more formalised networks. We will continue to explore
whether there is a greater role for government in helping schools
to identify and understand the characteristics of effective partnership
and collaboration to support more school-to-school working.
Families of schools
6. The Government's publication of
similar schools data is a useful first step but much more needs
to be done to make this an effective resource for schools. In
particular, the data should highlight schools' strengths and weaknesses
so that schools find it easier to form partnerships where both
parties can challenge and be challenged to improve. We recommend
that the DfE review the presentation of similar schools data in
consultation with schools in order to provide richer and more
easily accessible information on possible partners. (Paragraph
50)
We welcome the Committee's acknowledgement
of the usefulness of the similar schools data. We know that this
is an important tool for schools and we want to ensure that schools
have access to data that they can use to help create successful
partnerships.
We have already reviewed the presentation
of the similar schools data, taking into account feedback received
since its introduction. In addition to grouping schools on the
ability of their intake, we will introduce groupings of similar
schools based on the proportion of their pupils eligible for free
school meals.
The performance tables website enables
schools to filter and sort by different characteristics, such
as for pupils who have English as an additional language. This
will make it possible to identify other schools with similar pupil
characteristics, so that best practice can be shared by schools
facing similar challenges.
7. It is regrettable that, in establishing
the similar schools data system, the Department for Education
did not adopt a model more like the original 'families of schools'
and then use the familiar name to help achieve buy-in from schools.
(Paragraph 51)
The Committee acknowledged the DfE's
view that it would be confusing if we used the same name, but
there were other reasons for not adopting the original families
of schools methodology.
Contextual data and the contextual value
added (CVA) measure were key features of the families of schools
model. We dropped the CVA measure from 2011 because it was difficult
for the public to understand and research showed it to be a less
strong predictor of success than raw attainment measures. It also
had the effect of expecting different levels of progress from
different groups of pupils on the basis of their ethnic background
or family circumstances, which we think is wrong in principle.
Geographical coherence
8. The preponderance of the evidence
we received suggests that partnerships in which all members are
located within close proximity are most likely to be effective.
The DfE should bear in mind the significance of this when identifying
sponsors for academies and should ensure that the advantages of
geographical proximity are set out in relevant guidance on school
partnerships and cooperation more generally. (Paragraph 54)
We agree with the Committee's emphasis
on the importance of geographical proximity and already take this
into consideration when making decisions about the appropriateness
of sponsors working with specific schools. We are currently
exploring the benefits of geographical proximity in more depth,
including using data to look at the relationship between having
schools in clusters and sponsor performance, and whether there
are any effects from having widely dispersed schools. We intend
to share our findings with sponsors widely in the spring, including
through updating relevant guidance on school partnerships and
cooperation in order to point sponsors in the right direction.
9. We are concerned that the Government's
definition of a "reasonable travelling distance" has
not been sensibly applied to the similar schools tables. We recommend
that the definition is altered to become "within an hour's
drive" (ie 30 to 50 miles depending on location). (Paragraph
56)
10. We note that in rural and coastal
areas the number of suitable partner schools within an hour's
drive may be very limited. We recommend that the Government set
out how the similar schools model applies to schools in rural
and coastal areas and assess the applicability of the collaborative
model to remote schools. (Paragraph 57)
Whilst an hour's drive would be ideal,
to maximise the number of schools who have a better-performing
similar school nearby we will keep the radius to 75 miles. Using
the current criteria, 48% of secondary schools have a better-performing
secondary school within 75 miles. If the radius was reduced to
50 miles only 38% of schools would have a better-performing secondary
school nearby. We want to ensure that as many schools as possible
are able to identify a better-performing school to work with.
In relation to schools in rural and
coastal areas, where we are unable to find a better-performing
school within the 75 mile radius, we have identified a better-performing
school outside the radius, meaning that most schools are able
to benefit from the model.
Incentivising partnerships
Ofsted
11. We agree with the Government
that it would be incorrect and confusing for Ofsted to label outstanding
schools differently according to their excellence in supporting
other schools, when they deliver just as good levels of education
to the pupils in their care. We strongly support Sir Michael Wilshaw's
proposal for an excellent leadership award to be given to school
leaders rather than schools, as the highest accolade available
to headteachers and only for those who support underperforming
schools in disadvantaged communities. (Paragraph 61)
We welcome the Committee's recognition
of the important role undertaken by many school leaders in driving
wider system leadership and striving to improve the educational
outcomes not only for the pupils within their own schools, but
for the pupils in neighbouring schools and beyond. The importance
of high quality school leadership cannot be overstated. We recognise
that those individuals undertaking system leadership roles are
people-centred and motivated by a strong personal moral purpose
with a willingness to collaborate in order to improve educational
outcomes.[5]
The long-standing and successful National
Leaders of Education (NLE) and National Support Schools (NSS)
programmes provide national recognition for outstanding[6]
school leaders and their staff who provide system leadership and
support for schools in need. In addition, the Local Leaders of
Education (LLE) programme provides national recognition for good[7]
school leaders who provide coaching and mentoring support for
other headteachers, but may also provide wider school support.
We are keen to avoid creating a proliferation
of system leadership statuses. We will continue to explore whether
there is more that the government can do to recognise excellent
leadership for those who provide system leadership support for
under-performing schools in disadvantaged communities.
School accountability measures
12. We regret that no one has yet
devised a workable model of school accountability that incentivises
schools to form partnerships, whilst preserving school level responsibility
and retaining the impetus to maximise their pupils' performance.
We see the potential of such an approach and encourage further
efforts to generate an appropriate model. (Paragraph 63)
We hold individual schools to account,
so that they can demonstrate the quality of their teaching and
the breadth of their curriculum, and show how they are enabling
every pupil to reach their full potential. Where a school is part
of a multi-academy trust, the sponsor is responsible for the performance
of all academies within the trust. The trust is accountable to
the Secretary of State, and must explain any poor performance
of the academies in the chain and put in place improvement measures
where necessary.
Our accountability system helps us to
identify those individual schools and sponsors that can, and must,
do better. The development of academy chains and other forms of
partnership working have grown substantially, so it is not clear
that the current accountability framework creates any real barriers
or disincentives.
Our reforms to the secondary school
accountability system will introduce a fairer way of holding schools
to account in the future. Secondary schools are currently accountable
for the percentage of pupils achieving 5 A*-C grades including
in English and maths. This creates the perverse incentive for
schools to focus on pupils near the C/D borderline at the expense
of other pupils. From 2016, once our secondary accountability
reforms are in place, the key accountability floor standard will
be based on progress, and schools will be rewarded for the success
of all their pupils.
Financial incentives
13. We believe that the Government
should provide funding to help schools meet the costs associated
with taking part in collaboration. We are concerned that the existing
funding incentives are concentrated too narrowly on the academy
sponsorship route. The Government should widen this funding to
help meet the costs associated with formalising other partnerships.
In particular, we recommend that the Government widen eligibility
for the Primary Chains Grant to help schools cover the cost of
forming federations, since many would benefit from working in
partnership without leaving local authority control. (Paragraph
67)
There are no plans to widen the Primary
Chains Grant to schools who are not moving to academy status,
as we believe that the multi-academy trust model delivers increased
freedoms for schools, leading to more benefits for pupils. To
support more primary schools forming multi-academy trusts, we
are extending the grant for small schools. Schools with fewer
than 100 pupils will receive an additional £5,000 and those
with between 100 and 210 pupils will receive £2,000.
The government is committed to supporting
all schools who want to form partnerships. As part of the "Review
of efficiency in the schools system", published in June,
we proposed the reintroduction of small start-up grants to enable
clusters of primary schools to take on a school business manager
to provide support to the entire group. The grant would last for
one year and contribute towards the initial recruitment costs,
but we would then expect the role to become self-sustaining as
the schools start to reap the benefits of that expertise. The
grant will encourage schools and academies to work together. We
will make further announcements about this in due course.
Funding for Teaching Schools
14. We recognise the challenges posed
by the nature of funding for Teaching Schools but the take-up
rate of the Teaching School Programme suggests that concern about
the limited period of funding has not deterred schools from participating.
We believe that the DfE has adopted the right approach in providing
funding only to help with start up costs with the expectation
that they become self-sustaining organisations thereafter. (Paragraph
70)
We welcome the Committee's recognition of the merits
of the current approach for funding teaching schools. The government
has announced a fifth year of funding for the teaching schools
cohort, and over time it is envisaged that teaching schools will
become self-sustaining. We will explore whether there is more
that can be done to inform the development of sustainability strategies
for teaching schools.
Independent State School partnerships
15. Independent schools and state
schools have much they can do for and usefully learn from one
another. We welcome the Government's steps to promote closer links
between the independent and maintained education sectors, but
consider that academy sponsorship is not always the right engagement
model for such partnerships. We recommend that the Government
re-introduce targeted seed corn funding to encourage the establishment
of sustainable Independent State School Partnerships. (Paragraph
73)
Independent State School Partnership
(ISSP) pump prime funding was withdrawn as a result of the government's
tight fiscal position. However, we know that many of the larger
partnerships continue to flourish after the funding ended. We
continue to support the Ministerial Independent State School Partnership
forum, which is an important way of promoting partnership working
and collaboration between the sectors. The government looks to
the forum for its expertise and commitment in school collaboration
to raise educational attainment, narrow the achievement gap and
widen opportunities for children and staff.
While the government is unable to put
further seed corn funding into ISSPs, we are supportive of these
initiatives and are looking at ways we can support ISSPs from
the centre under the leadership of the ISSP forum.
The government is hosting an ISSP conference
in January 2014, which will showcase the wealth of good initiatives
around the country, and inspire and enthuse schools, both independent
and state, to form new partnerships or strengthen existing ones.
This will be supported by an initiative to pull together data
on existing partnerships to form a database recording the pattern
of existing ISSP activities. This can be used by schools as a
matching database to establish what is going on and how they can
join or expand existing partnerships.
There are other government initiatives
which can also support ISSP activity. Where an independent school
is designated as a teaching school, the teacher training it offers
will support teacher development at surrounding state schools.
Some independent schools also operate programmes whereby their
senior staff take on the role of governors of neighbouring maintained
schools. This has a two-way benefit as the schools benefit from
the skills and experience of those senior staff, but the staff
also get valuable learning and development from the experience
of setting and driving the strategic direction of the school.
An increasing number of independent schools are now acting as
academy sponsors, using their leadership and management expertise
directly to raise standards in underperforming state schools.
Coordinating collaboration
The middle tier and the new role
of local authorities
16. Local authorities still have
a critical role to play in a school-led improvement system, in
particular through creating an "enabling environment"
within which collaboration can flourish. We welcome Ofsted inspection
of local authorities' school improvement services which has acted
to highlight the importance of this role. We also support the
new system which is emerging with recognition that the expertise
lies within schools but with local authorities as part of the
picture. The role of local authorities is still evolving and some
clarification of what is expected of them is needed. We recommend
that the Government set out clearly the role of local authorities
in helping to broker school-to-school partnerships and acting
as champions of all parents and children, with particular reference
to academies in their region. (Paragraph 80)
Local authorities have considerable
flexibility as to how they fulfil their statutory responsibilities,
to promote high standards in primary and secondary education,
which are set out in section 13a of the Education Act 1996. Statutory
guidance already sets out the local authority's role in relation
to schools that are causing concern. Within a system of increasing
school autonomy, it is important for local authorities to retain
the local flexibility that they already have. In the consultation
document on planned reductions to the Education Services Grant,
due to be published in the new year, the government will clarify
its expectations of local authorities in relation to school improvement
alongside a revised Schools Causing Concern statutory guidance.
Strategic oversight
17. We recommend that the DfE and
NCTL take steps to identify and designate system leaders, such
as National Leaders of Education and Teaching Schools, in areas
where they are currently lacking. This should be coupled with
increased incentives for existing system leaders to work in the
areas of greatest need. Coordination of system leadership may
well be better achieved at a sub-regional or local level than
at the national level and we recommend that DfE and NCTL explore
such an approach. (Paragraph 83)
It is important to recognise that many
system leaders travel outside of their immediate locality to provide
support and this often means travel outside of a local authority
boundary or working with schools in other regions. We also know
that some schools without access to teaching schools, NLEs and
others may use other forms of school support through academy trusts
and wider established arrangements. The issue of geographical
coverage and access is, however, a significant focus for NCTL
in considering the designation process of system leadership roles
and in prioritising future recruitment drives in areas where there
is unmet need. We will continue to explore what more can be done
to ensure that there is sufficient coverage and access to school
support for those areas in greatest need.
Within the government's vision for a
school-led system, the ambition is for schools to work in partnership
to respond to need on a local basis. Teaching schools are already
responsible for the recruitment, designation, brokerage and deployment
of Specialist Leaders of Education (SLEs) to meet priority areas
within their own alliances and to increase the leadership capacity
of middle and senior leaders in other schools. In continuing the
move towards a school-led system, NCTL will explore how we can
best devolve other system leadership roles to a local level.
The government has also announced a
new Talented Leaders programme, which will match excellent headteachers
with under-performing schools in parts of the country that struggle
to attract top leadership talent. The programme is a positive
offer to schools; we will not be requiring any school to participate.
The key success measure of the scheme will be that sustainable
improvement is seen in the school, supported by effective succession
planning.
18. The Government should set out
how organisations in the middle tier will be held to account for
strategic oversight of partnership working in all schools and
how they will ensure that gaps are not allowed to develop or remain
unfilled, particularly in rural and coastal areas. (Paragraph
84)
Roles and responsibilities are already
clearly set out and we do not intend to change them. The legislative
requirements of local authorities in relation to the schools they
maintain are set out in statutory guidance, and the powers of
the Secretary of State to intervene in the case of failure by
local authorities are already well established. We will consider
any case of failure on an individual basis, and retain the Secretary
of State's discretion. In addition, our consultation on the Education
Services Grant will set out our expectations of local authorities
in school improvement within a system of increasing school autonomy.
Information on the role of academy sponsors,
chains, and sector leaders such as NLEs are all available on the
DfE's web pages. Accountability for academy trusts, including
multi-academy trusts, is through the funding agreement with the
Secretary of State. Breach of that agreement can ultimately result
in its termination. In future, accountability for academies will
move to Regional School Commissioners to inject sector and professional
expertise into the management of the system, providing the means
by which the Secretary of State exercises his accountability on
a more regionally-informed basis. In addition, we will continue
to increase the location and activity of accredited sector leaders.
Role of advisers
19. London Challenge and City Challenge,
two of the most successful school improvement initiatives of recent
years, both relied heavily on the use of expert advisers. We recommend
that the Department for Education make an assessment of the quality
and capacity to provide this expertise within a school-led improvement
system and ensure that schools are aware of where they can access
such advice. (Paragraph 87)
Challenge advisers identified need and
brokered support for under-performing schools before tailoring
an individual package of support. The cost of the support and
services brokered by the advisers were directly managed and covered
by the DfE. Ofsted[8]
noted that in London, many of these advisers were NLEs or LLEs.
Within the context of a school-led system,
the government has focused on building and extending this approach
through a national network of teaching schools, NLEs and LLEs,
who often provide brokerage and support services. Evidence shows
that the schools providing this support benefit from the interaction,
as well as those schools receiving support.[9]
The government will continue to explore how we can devolve responsibility
to the most effective level within a school-led system.
Academies and collaboration
Inspection of academy chains
20. We conclude that parents should
be provided with information about the performance of academy
chains, as well as individual schools. We recommend that Ofsted
be provided with the powers it needs to inspect academy chains.
(Paragraph 90)
Ofsted already have powers to inspect
groups of academies, either because they themselves have an interest,
or where the Secretary of State asks the Chief Inspector for advice.
Giving Ofsted the power to inspect sponsor chains would not provide
any information about the sponsors that the DfE does not already
have.
It is not appropriate to try to seek
'parity' with powers Ofsted already have to inspect local authorities,
because academy chains and local authorities are very different
bodies. Local authorities have a core of central statutory
responsibilities that Ofsted can inspect, whereas academy chains
have contractual obligations through their funding agreement,
which are quite different. Academy chains will vary enormously
in their structure and approach. It is unclear what chain functions
Ofsted would be inspecting and what information they would hope
to glean that could not be gained from inspecting individual academies.
We are not convinced that there is additional value in a "top
down" approach over and above existing powers to inspect
groups of academies from the "bottom up". However, from
the end of January 2014, parents will be able to use the performance
tables website to find the individual schools linked to particular
sponsors and to compare their performance.
Moving on from partnerships
21. We recommend that the procedures
for schools to leave academy chains by mutual consent are formalised
and published. The Government should consider modelling them on
those already in place for federations. (Paragraph 92)
22. It appears logical that in a
mature education market, schools should have the flexibility to
move between partnerships where this is the right thing to do
for their pupils. We recommend that the Government explain how
a school consistently judged 'Outstanding' would be able to leave
an academy chain where this is against the wishes of the chain
management. (Paragraph 94)
From our experience to date, it is extremely
rare for an academy to wish to leave a multi-academy trust. If
an academy within a trust (with or without a sponsor) is rated
'outstanding' by Ofsted and wishes to leave the trust, it might
be possible for them to exit by mutual consent. An agreement would
need to be reached between the academy, the controlling trust
board and the Secretary of State, in order to make new funding
arrangements to allow the academy to stand alone, join another
chain/multi-academy trust or become a sponsor of weaker schools.
We are not convinced of the benefit
of allowing an academy to exit a chain without the consent of
the trust board. There is a risk that allowing this would undermine
the role of the multi-academy trust, creating a situation in which
the trust is afraid to challenge an outstanding academy for fear
the academy might leave. We are also mindful to avoid a situation
in which academies that, with the support of the multi-academy
trust, have achieved an "Outstanding" rating cannot
sustain this level of performance once they lose the benefits
of the support of their chain. Further, promoting a system in
which an academy can join a multi-academy trust, benefit from
its support and then leave does not create any incentive for strong
multi-academy trusts to offer this support to other academies.
If an academy has undergone a period of improvement, their role
within their multi-academy trust will evolve from being the recipient
of support to having a role in supporting weaker schools and sharing
good practice with other schools in the trust.
An academy wanting to leave a multi-academy
trust would constitute a significant change to an open academy.
We already specify and publish the process for how an academy
can join a multi-academy trust (with the consent of the Secretary
of State) and we will consider how we can reflect in guidance
the process of leaving a multi-academy trust.
Monitoring converter academies
23. We recommend that the DfE urgently
review its arrangements for monitoring the expectation that converter
academies support another school and implement more effective
processes as soon as possible. We recommend that such processes
include surveys of the schools which were promised support on
converter academies' applications forms, since this would give
a more accurate picture of the support being provided. (Paragraph
97)
The DfE will launch a survey in January
2014, to run for four weeks, which will explore academies' support
for other schools and their use of freedoms. We will have headline
results within a couple of weeks of the survey closing and a full
analysis by mid-March. The results of the survey will be used
to inform any future arrangements. We do not support monitoring
that would be burdensome but will continue to encourage converter
academies to work in partnership, including through sponsorship
and in multi-academy trusts.
24. We recommend that the Government
ensure outstanding converter academies are able to support other
schools in the ways they think will bring about the best results.
Some schools will wish to support others through models other
than that of sponsoring another academy and this should be positively
and actively encouraged by the DfE. (Paragraph 98)
We agree that converter academies should
be able to provide support for weaker schools in a variety of
ways, but we have never been prescriptive about how they should
do so. Outstanding converter academies, and indeed good academies,
support schools in a wide variety of ways. All that we ask is
that the support given is focused on having a measurable positive
effect on standards. Support for another school is a requirement
of the converter application process and schools are asked to
name the school they propose to support. It is not obligatory
for converting schools to become a sponsor, and where schools
do not have the capacity or desire to become a sponsor, they will
be asked for more specific information about their support for
another school as part of the application process.
2 Chapman et al, (2011) A study of the impact of school
federations on student outcomes, National College. Back
3
http://education.gov.uk/nationalcollege/index (accessed November
2013) Back
4
Hargreaves, D.H.: (2012) A Self-Improving School System: Towards
Maturity, NCSL; (2012) A self-improving school system in international
context, NCSL; (2011) Leading a self-improving school system,
National College; (2010) Creating a self-improving school system,
NCSL. Back
5
Harris and Chapman, (2002) Effective Leadership in Schools Facing
Challenging Circumstances, NCSL. Back
6
Designated NLEs and NSSs are largely headteachers and schools
rated as outstanding for overall effectiveness, and for leadership
and management by Ofsted.Headteachers and schools are also eligible
if they are rated good for overall effectiveness with outstanding
for leadership and management if the school has been removed from
Ofsted category, or if the school is serving an area of high social
deprivation (% of children eligible for free school meals is above
average). Back
7
Ofsted rating for overall effectiveness, but many headteachers
who are rated as outstanding by Ofsted, may also be LLEs. Back
8
Ofsted, (2010) London Challenge Back
9
Hill, R. and Matthews, P.: (2010) Developing Leadership: National
Support Schools, Ofsted; (2010) School leading Schools II, NCSL;
(2008) Schools leading Schools, NCSL.
Back
| 
