1. Post SIP, Post SEF, a new landscape Julie Westrop Mike Simm 11 June 2011

2. Overview National context Local context Life after SIPs Life after SEFs Schools causing concern/at risk Other schools

4. The Schools White Paper 2010 “The importance of Teaching” Section 6: Accountability 6.4 Central to our approach is the need to make it easier for parents and the public to hold schools to account. In the past, too much information has been unavailable to parents, too difficult to find or not presented comprehensibly. So, as we take away the centralising compliance system – the centrally-driven process of target setting, the requirement for every school to have a school improvement partner (SIP) and the requirement for every school to complete a self evaluation form – we will make sure that there is comprehensive information available to parents about every school.

5. The Schools White Paper 2010 “The importance of Teaching” Section 6: Accountability 6.24-6.26: new minimum “floor standard”: schools are below the floor if… …fewer than 60% of pupils achieve level 4 and above in both English and maths and fewer pupils than average make good progress between KS1 and KS2 (primary) …fewer than 35% of pupils achieve 5 or more A*-C grades including English and maths and fewer pupils than average make good progress between KS2 and KS3 (secondary)

6. The Education (School Teacher Performance Management) (England) Regulations 2006 Appointment of external advisers in respect of head teachers 9 (1) Subject to paragraph (2), the governing body shall appoint an external adviser for the purposes of providing it with advice and support in relation to the management and review of the performance of the head teacher. (2) Where the local education authority has appointed a school improvement partner for that school, paragraph (1) shall not apply and the governing body shall use the school improvement partner for the purposes of providing it with advice and support in relation to the management and review of the performance of the head teacher.

7. Strategies for Improvement Norfolk will continue to: work in partnership with the most effective headteachers in and beyond the county extend our work with National Leaders of Education to commission support to raise standards and improve overall effectiveness work closely with any teaching schools that will be accredited by October 2011 using Local Leaders of Education commission services from them to support under performing schools.

8. School Improvement Services from September 2011 Education, Achievement, Improvement and Governance team (NEAIG): core school improvement service, led by Terry Cook Norfolk Integrated Education Advisory Services (NIEAS): traded school improvement service, led by David Orsborne

9. Core service –The Education, Achievement, Improvement and Governance (NEAIG) team will provide an Improvement Professional for every school below the floor standard in in danger of falling below or at risk of being in an OFSTED category [plus special/complex needs/short stay schools] –work in close partnership with the commissioned school improvement provider whether that is our traded team in Norfolk Integrated Education Advisory Services (NIEAS), a Norfolk teaching school/schools, or provider beyond our boundaries.

10. Other schools: one day for all All Norfolk (LA maintained) schools will receive one day of school improvement support by an experienced professional funded through Schools Forum (2011-12) Commissioned from Norfolk Integrated Education Advisory Services (NIEAS) Annual conversation Sharing LA Dashboard

11. Post-SIP Link Adviser (top-up package) The role of the Link Adviser will incorporate key milestones in the school improvement process: –Data Analysis and Target Setting (autumn term) –School Self-Evaluation based on new agreed protocols linked to national inspection standards (spring term) –School Improvement and Annual Report to Governing Body (summer term) –Support for Governors for Headteacher Performance Management (autumn term)

12. Post-SIP Link Adviser (top-up package) [continued] The process will be responsive to the individual needs of the school and can be tailored through negotiation with the Link Adviser, the Chair of Governors and the head teacher of the school Full service is £2650 (£2,820 non-maintained schools) The day funded by Schools’ Forum is in addition to the services above.

13. Additional chargeable services Additional chargeable services may be recommended by the LA or requested by the school. They could include: Brokering a range of other support Validating the process of evidence gathering as part of the self-evaluation system (e.g. lesson observation judgements) Sixth form monitoring visit Health checks on issues, subjects/departments or key improvement objectives Intensive monitoring and support for improvement (e.g. support boards, project boards) which also evaluate the effectiveness and impact of any interventions.

14. The end of the SEF……. ‘Capacity for sustained improvement’ “the school’s self-evaluation provides the school with an accurate appraisal of its effectiveness and its plans reflect what it needs to do to consolidate success and secure further improvement” The Evaluation Schedule for Schools ‘Son/daughter of SEF’ – a Norfolk common sense approach – see separate document

15. Questions

16. Workshops

17. Thanks for listening Julie Westrop: 01603 303334; julie.westrop@norfolk.gov.uk Mike Simm: 01603 307774; mike.simm@norfolk.gov.uk