The roles 2020: A cohesive and collective school-led system The Surrey Governors Association 25 November 2017 Maria Dawes, Deputy Director South East South London RSC Office

South East and South London (SESL) region key facts c. 3200 schools 32% academies 79% of acads in MATs 216 MATs 128 Teaching Schools 90% Good/Outstanding Low failure rates Pockets of real challenge Disadvantage

Vision: our ambition is to create more good and outstanding academy places so children, particularly in our most challenging areas, can benefit from an excellent education. Ministerial priorities have meant an intentional shift from a focus on academy numbers to even more strongly embedding the importance of effective school improvement. ‘We want to encourage, support and challenge the best leaders to take responsibility for more schools and to bring their expertise in school improvement to benefit more children.’ Sir David Carter School Improvement Building Capacity

What does a school-led system that delivers improvement look like? High Quality Leadership in all schools Strategic School and Cluster Improvement Strategies Collaboration and Partnership Use of evidence to drive improvements Local Area and Place Based Solutions Strategic Support through ‘Capacity Givers’

Who are the ‘Capacity Givers’ in the System? Organisations Successful and Sustainable high performing maintained schools, academies and MATS Teaching School Alliances Maths Hubs NPQ Licensed Providers Newly designated Research Schools Effective school improvement providers working across Local Authorities Credible and Effective Improvement organisations (Teach First, ASL, EEF, Sutton Trust, NSN) Universities and HE Schools of Education Independent Schools Designated System Leaders National leaders of education National leaders of governors Specialist leaders of education CEO of MATS Headteacher Board Members DfE Education Advisors Academy Ambassadors Leaders of School Improvement in TSA, MATS etc Outstanding Heads of good schools Great school leaders past and present, who are none of the above

What contribution should we expect our ‘Capacity Givers’ to make? Connecting the school to wider system thinking Diagnosis of Improvement Need Bring evidence based thinking to strategic development Challenge the emerging strategic plan Offer Advice and Guidance to Leaders and Governors on managing change Mentor and Coach School Leadership teams Challenge thinking and practice and review implementation Open up access to new networks Bringing the wider system into the school Take over the leadership of a school in severe crisis Add capacity at team level and review team performance Source classroom and middle leader support Build sustainability for long term success Identify talent and potential for succession planning Deliver bespoke training Identify better schools for leaders to visit and learn from

New ways of thinking about System Capacity Why SSIF is integral to this Carries the expectation that MATS, schools, TSA, Diocese and LA will work together to design new solutions Focus is more strategic Scalable solutions across more schools Sustainability of the improvement solution is integral Local Area and Place Based solutions to deliver effective improvement to more schools and more children How is this being developed? 12 Opportunity Areas RSC Priority Areas Sub Regional Improvement Boards Criteria for the Strategic School Improvement Fund applications (SSIF)

MATs play an integral part in the improving school system What’s happening? Quality not quantity key 79% academies now in MATs, and rising 75% MATs between 1-3 schools Mainly local, organic More sharing of learning across MATs Join up across the system eg. LAs, Teaching School Council, SSIF MATs tell us opportunities are… Share professional practice Leadership succession development Recruitment and retention Mutual accountability Refresh governance Economies of scale The point: better outcomes for children

Three core elements that the strongest trusts exhibit A board that contains a wide range of professional experiences that can deliver the dual responsibility of building strategy to deliver great outcomes for children alongside the culture of accountability that is necessary across the organisation. The appointment of an executive leader, typically an executive head or chief executive officer, who is held to account for standards across the schools. The creation and execution of a school improvement strategy that develops and improves the workforce, builds succession and enables the strongest teachers and leaders to influence outcomes for more children. We know that the composition of MATs varies in different locations, and there is no one right model. There are great examples of primary only or secondary only trusts, but also examples of trusts with different types and phases of schools Whilst there is no single way to create and lead a MAT there are at least three things that the strongest MATs all demonstrate: … It is the last one that I want to talk about today.

The Autonomy Debate and Who Does What Academy Autonomy Academy Alignment Academy Standardisation What does being Autonomous mean? Academies choose what they do on the basis of local need What does being Aligned mean? ‘Strategic partnerships require alignment with organisational mission and vision’ The way we do things has some common elements but some scope for flexibility What does Standardisation mean? ‘The process of making something conform to a standard’ The way we do things is the same across the whole MAT

What are the benefits of greater standardisation across the MAT? Greater equality of experience for Children Effective practice across the MAT is evidence led Leads to economies of scale in terms of time, resource and speed of school improvement Enables staff to work within clearly defined parameters that are common to teams across the trust Enables leaders, teachers, governors, parents and children to be clear about the expectations of the individual in the trust structure It can be challenging because…. Schools may have been promised their autonomy Schools often think that their challenges are unique Schools are reluctant to let their strongest staff play a wider role across the MAT Schools can be afraid of their weaknesses and strengths being shared more visibility

What we are seeing…… As the MAT model matures, more trusts are recognising the need to align strategy and delivery across the schools in a more significant way and move from being loose to tighter Many of our early and smaller MATS are highly focused on giving their academies their autonomy so have high population of strategy here In order to increase alignment MATS start to co-construct strategy to build collaborative engagement across the schools rather than impose centrally driven decision making on the schools Some standardization exists around HR policies, financial system and governance but modest use of standardization in place for educational delivery

How an Academy ALIGNS and Co-Constructs its strategies and approaches Which features of the MAT strategy are STANDARDISED across all Academies? How an Academy ALIGNS and Co-Constructs its strategies and approaches Where does an Academy still have the AUTONOMY/OWNERSHIP to take decisions? Strategic Focus Areas Governance and Setting Vision Being a single employer Financial Management Raising Standards and Improvement Planning

The strongest MATs have a clearly defined trust wide improvement strategy The ultimate challenge is finding the right approach that raises standards and sustains them Trust Cluster School What happens where?

Trust/Cluster/Academy Improvement Strategy Shared vision based on the highest expectations Define the strategy at different levels of the trust structure Trusts need one data system Monitoring must inform delivery Diagnosis and Analysis Commissioning Delivery Accountability and QA Some form of external QA process

What do we know about effective improvement strategies for groups of schools? They know their academies well quantifiably They ensure their academies work together They adapt strategies to an academies context They deploy expertise strategically They coach improvement in teaching and learning They use inquiry based learning to accelerate improvement They empower middle leaders They evolve and employ some non-negotiables They work and learn from other schools They know their impact

MAT Improvement Capacity Vision, Culture and Ethos Clarity of purpose Understanding of needs Leading a culture of improvement People and Partners Building capacity for improvement Recruiting, developing and retaining talent Teaching and Learning Approach to pedagogy Leadership of teaching Evidence based professional learning Curriculum and Assessment Aligned curricula Intentional use of assessment Quality Assurance and Accountability Knowing schools quantitatively Knowing schools qualitatively

We see four main phases in the ‘turnaround’ of schools… Sustain Sustained good outcomes over 3+ years Confident, innovative & risk-taking delivery Phase 3 Improve Leadership is proactive Strategies start to embed Outcomes never as bad again Phase 2 Repair Control from chaos Reactive decision making Things improving Phase 1 Stabilise The school is broken No underpinning of the future Real truth comes after project starts

Strategic Questions For Governors in each phase Stabalise Repair Improve Sustain How close are we to understanding the precise nature of what needs to be done? Are we effective at prioritising the strategies we need to implement? Who should we commission to provide the external support and challenge we need? Do we have the right skills and experience on our board to critique the effectiveness of the strategies? What data is going to help us to provide the challenge that our leaders need? How do we understand the short term progress the school is making without having to wait for the next meeting? How are we monitoring the cost of improving the school? What should we ask the leaders to do less of to create capacity in other areas? Where are the pockets of stronger practice that we can develop and share? The questions posed in the Stabilise Phase still apply but in addition these link to the Repair Phase: Is the external support that we have commissioned delivering what we need it to? Have we got the balance right between supporting and challenging our leaders and staff? Are the leaders in the school coping? How reliable is the data that the school is sharing with us to demonstrate progress? How do we moderate it? Now that the school is improving, how are we working with parents and students to learn from their experience? Should we commission some external reviews to reassure us that progress is as secure as we are being told it is? The questions posed in the Stabilise and Repair Phases will apply up to a point but some will no longer be needed. These are the focus questions for the Improve Phase: Have we articulated the lessons learned so far and are we sharing them more widely? Are we getting the balance right between quality assurance and operational improvement? How do we make sure we are not institutionally blind to the challenges we still face? What are the areas that still need repair? As a board of governors do we need to refresh our professional expertise and capacity? What is our strategic plan to train and develop our team of governors as we move towards becoming a very good school? The questions that governors should be asking in the Sustain Phase are about sustainability / wider system participation: What are the risks to us reaching a performance plateau and how do we avoid that? What capacity do we have to support another school? Can we be confident that the areas of expertise we believe we have really are that good? Are the strategies we have implemented scalable and replicable? Have we allocated key areas for sustainable performance to members of the board (disadvantaged students, able students)? 19

Thank you: Any questions or comments? RSC.SESL@education.gsi.gov.uk 0207 783 8162 5th Floor, Trafalgar House, 1 Bedford Park, Croydon 21