New Relationship With Schools Evaluation

Research Report DCSF-RR050
New Relationship
with Schools
Evaluation Report
Georgina Cowen
York Consulting LLP
Research Report No
DCSF-RR050
New Relationship with Schools

Evaluation Report
Georgina Cowen
York Consulting LLP
The views expressed in this report are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department for
Children, Schools and Families.
© York Consulting LLP 2008

ISBN 978 1 84775 231 4
Acknowledgements
The study involved a detailed multi-method approach requiring in-depth case studies,
national surveys, rigorous assessment and reporting. This was delivered by an expert
research team comprising York Consulting LLP staff and associates - Dr Vicky Hopwood,
Matthew Terry, Helen Palmer, Kerry Merrill, Sally Kendall, Louise O’Neill, and Kathryn
Hyland, Wendy Merson, and John Thompson. The surveys were conducted by our
strategic partner organisation McCallum Layton.
Sincere thanks and appreciation go to all those that contributed to the study including
those participating in consultations as part of detailed case study work (headteachers,
school improvement partners, senior leaders, teachers, governors, parents, local authority
and local learning and skills council stakeholders); those responding to the national
surveys (headteachers, school improvement partners and local authority stakeholders);
and representatives of the New Relationship with Schools consultative group.
CONTENTS
Page
REPORT SUMMARY i
1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW ...................................................................... 1
CHAPTER ONE: SCHOOL SELF-EVALUATION AND DATA-USE

2 EFFECTIVENESS & IMPACT OF SCHOOL SELF-EVALUATION...................... 7
3 FACTORS INFLUENCING EFFECTIVENESS AND DEVELOPMENT .............. 18
CHAPTER TWO: THE SIP PROGRAMME

4 EFFECTIVENESS OF SIP CORE ROLE ............................................................ 26
5 BROKERING SUPPORT .................................................................................... 40
6 IMPACT OF THE SIP PROGRAMME ................................................................. 47
7 CONSISTENCY OF SIP PROGRAMME ............................................................. 57
8 MANAGEMENT AND DELIVERY OF SIP PROGRAMME ................................. 63
CHAPTER THREE: OTHER NRWS STRANDS

9 PROGRESS TOWARDS NRWS POLICY INTENT............................................. 74
10 SCHOOL PROFILE ............................................................................................. 84
Appendices:
Appendix A: Case Study and Survey Evidence Ilustrating Key Messages
Appendix B: Aspects of SIP Programme Management and Delivery
Acronyms
Acronyms which have been used throughout this study are:

x SIP = School Improvement Partner;
x LA = Local Authority;
x HT SIP = serving headteacher SIP;
x LA SIP = full-time LA employee SIP;
x LA (w) SIP = full-time LA employee SIP with previous headteacher experience;
x LA (wo) SIP = full-time LA employee SIP without previous headteacher experience;
x EC SIP = SIP employed as an external consultant to the LA;
x EC (w) SIP = external consultant SIP with previous headteacher experience;
x EC (wo) SIP = external consultant SIP without previous headteacher experience;
x SLT = Senior Leadership Team;
x KS = Key Stage;
x FS = Foundation Stage;
x AGR = Annual Governors Report;
x SEF = Self-Evaluation Framework
x CVA = Contextual Added Value;
x FFT = Fischer Family Trust (data source)
x AfL = Assessment for Learning;
x ECM = Every Child Matters;
x CPD = continuing professional development.
REPORT SUMMARY
Overview
1. This report presents the findings of a comprehensive two year national evaluation of
the New Relationship with Schools (NRwS) policy. The policy, announced in 2004,
was recognition of the need to streamline and improve the relationship between the
then Department for Education and Skills (DfES), Local Authorities (LAs) and
schools; ensure closer alignment of national and local priorities; and address
‘bureaucracy’ as an ongoing area of concern at both the primary and secondary
phases of education.
2. The evaluation demonstrates that a number of the strands of NRwS, both
independently and collectively, have supported a move towards the intelligent
accountability framework envisaged when the policy was first announced. There is
also evidence that these developments are contributing to improvements in quality
and standards for some schools and LA areas, particularly in the secondary sector.
3. The outcomes achieved place LAs and schools in a good position to respond to
some of the challenges set out in the recently published Children’s Plan, including
those associated with preventative school support, challenge for coasting schools,
improving attainment for specific groups and engaging parent’s in their child’s
learning.
4. There is, nevertheless, a need for continued efforts at national level to work towards
more coherent policy development and delivery across all ECM services and ensure
schools have the capacity and necessary support to respond to the significant
developments currently affecting the sector. There is also the potential for greater
value to be achieved from addressing some aspects of consistency and
effectiveness associated with school self-evaluation, data availability and the School
Improvement Partner (SIP) programme.
Key Achievements
5. There are four areas of improvement that have been seen over the three years
since the policy was announced:
1) Improved data availability and use has enabled schools to undertake sharper
data analysis which has in turn supported an increased focus on achieving
outcomes for pupils overall and for specific groups;
2) Improved school self-evaluation mechanisms have resulted in:
x better assessments of performance and understanding of the action required
to address aspects of under-performance;
x engagement of pupils and parents in achieving progress; and
x more focused accountability for improving performance amongst middle
managers and teaching staff.
3) The challenge and support provided through the SIP programme has
supported:
x the development of more evaluative and accountable school structures and
culture;
x a more consistent focus across schools on improving pupil outcomes and
addressing areas of under-performance;
x the development of challenging but realistic targets;
i
x the identification of school support needs and, for many schools, the
provision of advice and support to address priority areas for school
improvement.
4) Coherence has been achieved across the Self-Evaluation Framework (SEF),
School Improvement Partner (SIP) Programme and new Inspection Framework 1 ,
including the links made with specialist school designation.
6. Positive outcomes associated with these strands of the NRwS have been observed
over the two-year evaluation period. This is across both the secondary and primary
sectors, though achievements are more noticeable in the former particularly in
relation the SIP programme which is at an earlier stage of rollout in the primary
sector.
Impact on Standards and Quality

7. The contribution that improved data availability and school self-evaluation have
made towards achieving higher standards, quality and value added is apparent from
the evaluation evidence. This is both in terms of stakeholder perception and
detailed case study assessments. The latter provide a number of examples of how
(through data analysis and wider self-evaluation approaches) schools have seen
improving outcomes across the school, for particular pupil groups and/or for specific
subject areas.
8. The direct impact of the SIP programme on school standards and quality is more
difficult to establish due to the nature of the role which is to challenge and support
rather than directly engage in school improvement activities. Nevertheless, there
are a small number of evaluation case studies which indicate a link between SIP
support for school improvement interventions and better school outcomes.
9. More generally, it is clear that the SIP role is contributing to better school
improvement, in terms of:
x supporting headteachers and senior leadership teams to:
understand performance issues;
effectively plan and prioritise areas for improvement;
focus on outcomes, including for particular pupil groups;
improve data use, analysis and self-evaluation approaches;
engage pupils and parents in achieving progress;
x more focused accountability for performance amongst headteachers, senior
leadership teams (SLTs), middle managers and teachers;
x aligning headteacher performance management (HTPM) with school priorities.
Other Areas of Progress

10. Some other areas of progress identified by the evaluation include:
x the availability of improved data and more effective self-evaluation paperwork
mean that, whilst there may be increased workloads for school staff in
1
Whilst not the subject of this evaluation, the NfER Evaluation of the Impact of Section 5 Inspections
(McCrone et al 2007) found that the vast majority of schools were satisfied with the inspection process, it was
generally perceived to contribute to school improvement and it was valuable to confirm SEF findings.
ii
responding, headteacher perceptions are commonly that this is a more effective
and purposeful use of time;
x the SIP programme has, in some LA areas:
enabled higher levels of challenge and support for schools that do not
require formal intervention;
helped to improve LA understanding about school performance and ensure
earlier preventative interventions;
x some schools have experienced a single rather than multiple points of
communication about school improvement (this is particularly for higher
achieving schools, though also includes some schools receiving a wider range of
support intervention);
x the approaches delivered by some LAs and SIPs are providing some schools
with more autonomy to address school improvement in ways that suit their
specific circumstances;
x there is some positive recognition amongst stakeholders of general
improvements in communication from the Department for Children, Schools and
Families (DCSF) and Local Authorities (LAs), the alignment of some policies and
initiatives and the simplification and rationalisation of funding support for school
improvement;
x the School Profile has been completed by most secondary and primary schools
and a small majority of headteachers agree that its production is less
burdensome than the production of its predecessor, the Governors Annual
Report. Where parents have accessed the Profile there are some generally
positive views about its usefulness to prospective parents who are choosing a
school for their child.
11. The evaluation also identifies successful management and delivery of the SIP
programme at national and local level:
x most LAs have developed effective approaches to the recruitment, deployment
and performance management of SIPs;
x the National Strategies SIP Coordinators (SIPCos) are perceived as positively
contributing to LA management of the programme;
x there are high levels of clarity amongst stakeholders (which have improved over
the two year evaluation period) about the core role of the SIP to challenge and
support schools they work with;
x the core challenge and support role being fulfilled by SIPs is, on the whole,
deliverable within an average five day allocation;
x changes in the approach to SIP support and training have been introduced over
the last year which place a greater focus on local training and continuing
professional development (CPD) tailored to the local context and individual SIP
needs; and
x the quality of available SIPs is generally considered (by LA stakeholders) to be
high and there is evidence (from stakeholder surveys and corroborated by case
study assessments) that the vast majority are equipped to undertake their role
given their knowledge, skills and experiences.
iii
Areas for Further Development
School Data Use and Evaluation
12. Whilst many schools are demonstrating good practices, some schools (particularly
in the primary sector) are still developing their approaches to data use and self-
evaluation and a minority require significant further development. Development is
required particularly in terms of:
x accountability for understanding and improving performance amongst middle
managers and teaching staff;
x engagement of pupils and parents in understanding and achieving progress;
x developing more accurate judgements;
x evaluative rather than descriptive SEFs which are clearly linked to priorities in
school development plans.
13. The introduction of real-time reporting in all secondary schools by September 2010
should help to move towards greater consistency amongst schools in their
approaches to engaging parent’s in their child’s learning. It will be important to
ensure that schools have suitable support to implement the requirement, particularly
in terms of developing schools’ ICT systems.
14. More generally across schools there is the potential to improve:
x their evaluative approaches in relation to wider ECM outcomes and the links
between these and achievements/standards; and
x the extent to which self-evaluation incorporates 14-19 collaborative provision
and responsibilities for influencing improvement are clear. This is a particularly
important consideration in light of the introduction of new diplomas, many of
which are delivered in partnership.
Data Availability
15. The delays in getting RaiseOnline up and running have damaged overall
perceptions of the effectiveness of NRwS to increase the usefulness of data and
reduce burdens on schools. Whilst many headteachers are now positive about the
potential of the system, there is frustration that the timing of data availability does
not enable them to use it to inform planning when they need to.
16. There is also the potential for greater clarity surrounding specific data sources and
some need for more coherent presentation of the range of data overall. This would
help to ensure greater levels of understanding around the value and purpose of
individual data sets which may help to address some feelings of being
overwhelmed.
Brokering School Support
17. Relatively low proportions of stakeholders identify that the SIP programme has been
effective in brokering school support needs. These perceptions are influenced by
both some lack of clarity around the role of the SIP and different practices in
brokering support across LAs and SIP types:
x Clarity: Whilst clarity of the SIP role in brokering support has improved since the
beginning of the evaluation, there remains some uncertainty amongst a
significant minority of headteachers and, to a lesser extent, amongst SIPs
themselves;
i
x Breadth of Support: Outside the core challenge and support role, the breadth
of support (and associated additional resource) provided to those schools
requiring higher levels of intervention varies across LAs;
x SIP Type 2 : There are differences in the support role played by different types of
SIP, with those who are full-time LA employees (and to a lesser those employed
as external consultants) more commonly capacity building, monitoring progress,
brokering and managing support packages than serving headteacher SIPs. In
the primary sector, the role of serving headteacher SIPs in identifying support
needs also appears to be less significant than for full-time LA employee SIPs.
18. This variance in practice is largely a function of different models of LA delivery for
brokering school support. These fall broadly within two types – those where a clear
distinction is made between the SIP role to challenge and the LA role to broker
support; and those where additional resource is provided to some types of SIP
(predominantly those that are full-time employees of the LA) to monitor progress/
interventions and build capacity. However, there is evidence in a minority of LA
areas of the potential to improve the coherence of the support offer and role of the
SIP in relation to this:
x in some LA areas, there are perceptions of some duplication of the role being
played by the SIP and other LA staff; and a lack of a clear and defined role for
SIPs within the overarching LA strategy for school access to support
interventions;
x there is evidence amongst a small number of case study schools that the SIP
programme (and/or the LA school improvement approach) is not consistently
providing additional ‘support’ resource for schools that may benefit from it.
19. More generally across LA areas there is the potential to improve the effectiveness
and consistency of LA mechanisms to ensure that there is a comprehensive
understanding of the range of support interventions available and suitability in
different circumstances.
20. The differences in the support role played by different SIP types result, as you would
expect, in some variance in perception of SIP effectiveness. Those headteachers
allocated with serving headteacher SIPs less commonly identify that their SIP has
effectively brokered support needs or been a key influence in changing schools’
approach to self-evaluation. Nevertheless, there are practical and pragmatic
reasons for giving predominantly full-time LA employee SIPs or other LA staff the
brokering and monitoring role. Given the demands of their own schools, serving
headteacher SIPs are more constrained than other types of SIP in terms of
delivering additional support resource for schools that they work with.
Nature and Scope of SIP Role

21. There is some potential at national and local levels to develop more consistent
clarity and focus for some aspects of the SIP role as outlined below. In addressing
2
The report refers to three types of SIP – full-time LA employee SIPs (LA SIPs); SIPs employed as external
consultants to the LA (EC SIPs); and serving headteacher SIPs (HT SIPs). For clarity of meaning we refer to
individual SIP types using the full reference in the main body of the text, but use the acronyms in any
tables/figures to maximise space available. Note that both LA and EC SIPs do include both those with
previous headteacher experience (LA (w) SIPs & EC (w) SIPs) and SIPs without previous headteacher
experience (LA (wo) SIPs and EC (wo) SIPs). In some of the tables in Chapter Two and the Appendices we
distinguish further to comment on differences/issues associated with those with and without headteacher
experience.
ii
some of these areas, consideration needs to be given to the ability of SIPs to
continue to play a focused role within an average of five days.
22. Direct Development Support: In a minority of cases, additional resource has been
allocated to SIPs (or they have more flexibility in their capacity to respond to needs)
for pastoral and development support which aims to improve self-evaluation
processes and deliver targeted intervention support. The view amongst many
national and local stakeholders is that delivery of this type of support might impact
on the extent to which the SIP can retain his/her independence to play an ongoing
challenge role within the school.
23. Single Conversation: There is some tension between the concept that SIPs would
enable schools to have a ‘Single Conversation’ and the ability of SIPs to provide
focused challenge and support within an average of five days a year. This is evident
in some LAs where a range of issues and monitoring/reporting requirements are
being channelled through SIPs and this is inhibiting their ability in the time available
to fulfil the challenge role. Whilst this is not the case in all areas, these approaches
(together with some national expectations and school demands) are perceived (by
half of the SIPs surveyed) as contributing to a growth in the SIP role.
24. As the SIP programme has been embedded, a more redefined view of the Single
Conversation has developed and there is evidence that in some cases SIPs are
enabling schools to have a single point of communication for school improvement.
This is particularly the case amongst higher performing schools though there are
also some examples where those requiring higher levels of support intervention are
experiencing greater coherence in their interactions with external support
organisations. Nevertheless there is the potential for improved clarity surrounding
the intended SIP role in this respect and the coherence of LA communication
mechanisms which might support it.
25. Changing Nature of Role: As the SIP role embeds, there is evidence in some case
study schools of its changing in nature but not necessarily growing in scope. Some
SIPs, for example, are starting to interact more with wider school staff and pupils
and some are focusing more on capacity building and advice for particular priority
areas for the schools concerned. Nevertheless, there remains uncertainty and
difference of view about whether some of the activities undertaken by SIPs to
moderate school judgements and build capacity should be provided; and whether
this impacts on the extent to which the SIP can remain focused (within available
resource) and independent to effectively challenge the school.
26. Flexibility to Respond: The backdrop of continually developing national priorities
and initiatives provides an ongoing challenge for SIPs to ensure an appropriate
balance in the use of their time. SIPs need to be able to provide challenge which is
focused on addressing a particular school’s priorities but within the context of
agendas that the schools themselves are responding to. Serving headteacher SIPs
have less capacity to respond in a flexible way to emerging national, local or school
demands.
27. Suitability and Effectiveness of Support Interventions: An increased emphasis
is required on the SIP role to ensure the suitability and effectiveness of support
interventions. This aspect is likely to develop as individual SIP relationships mature
and there is some evidence of this. Nevertheless, there is the potential to raise the
profile of this element of the SIP role and for LA mechanisms to develop so that they
and/or SIPs can add value in this respect. This is in terms of, for example:
x integration of the SIP programme within wider LA and children’s service support
areas;
iii
x placing appropriate emphasis on the SIP role to evaluate the effectiveness of
support and interventions; and
x creating an environment within which SIPs can appropriately challenge the LA
and others about the suitability and effectiveness of support provided.
28. 14-19 delivery: There is the potential to increase the extent to which SIP challenge
and support incorporates a focus on 14-19 delivery and post-16 provision. To date,
this has been influenced in some cases by a lack of coherence between the
Learning and Skills Council (LSC) and LAs/the SIP programme. With LAs now
being given the strategic commissioning role for all education and training for
children and young people up to the age of 18, there is the potential to place greater
emphasis on performance across 14-19 delivery within a more integrated and
coherent framework.
29. ECM: There is also the potential for SIPs to play a greater role in supporting specific
strategies for the personal development and well-being of pupils or engagement in
wider developments relating to the integration of children’s services.
Impact of SIPs on LA School Improvement
30. In the majority of cases LA respondents to the survey did not agree that LA
decisions over when, how and how much to intervene in schools are more effective
as a result of the SIP programme. In addition, half of those responding did not
agree that the SIP function is effective for supporting schools causing concern and
only one quarter agreed. This is indicative of the fact that schools in these
circumstances clearly require additional resource to support their improvement and
that the wider LA intervention and support strategies will be critical to effectiveness.
Equally, in some LA areas there are concerns that financial constraints impact on
their ability to effectively support schools causing concern.
LA SIP Management
31. In a small number of LA areas, there is the potential to improve the effectiveness of
communication around the SIP role and the message being received by schools.
This is particularly in relation to the accountability of SIPs, the function of SIP visits,
use of SIP reports/feedback to inform LA support strategies, and role of the SIP/LA
in communicating local priorities and issues. LA survey responses in some areas
also suggest the potential to improve the consistency of National Strategies SIP
Coordinator (SIPCo) support relating to deployment strategies, reporting frameworks
and performance management systems.
Primary Sector SIPs
32. Headteacher perceptions suggest generally lower levels of SIP effectiveness and
impact in the primary sector across a series of indicators, though the survey and
case study evidence does show that primary SIPs provide effective challenge in
most cases. The lower perceptual levels of primary SIP effectiveness and impact
are largely a function of the SIP programme being at an earlier stage of roll-out than
in the secondary sector. Positive change in perceptions amongst secondary
headteachers between 2006 and 2007 gives some encouraging signs that similar
changes might be observed in the primary sector once the programme has been
further embedded. However, survey and case study evidence also indicates
resistance to change amongst some primary headteachers which may be
influencing their perceptions of SIPs. This reflects the more significant culture shift
required by the introduction of SIP challenge in the primary sector, given the
previous tradition of strong pastoral LA support.
iv
33. There are also some perceptual differences amongst primary headteachers with
different types of SIP. Those with full-time LA employee SIPs more commonly
identify that their SIP is equipped to fulfil the role, effective and achieving an impact,
compared to those that have been allocated serving headteacher SIPs. The limited
flexibility that serving headteacher SIPs have to deliver the breadth of support that
other SIPs are providing is likely to be influencing these perceptions. There are also
qualitative stakeholder views that serving headteacher SIPs potentially face more
significant constraints than other types of SIP relating to their breadth of knowledge
and experience of challenging and coaching others. One third of LA areas
responding to the evaluation survey identified SIP recruitment and retention
constraints in the primary sector specifically associated with serving headteacher
SIPs (and in some cases external consultant SIPs).
Academy SIPs
34. There are some differences in the Academy SIP Programme which should be borne
in mind given the planned expansion of the sector. This includes:
x the potential limits associated with the headteacher performance management
(HTPM) and brokering support functions not being fulfilled by Academy SIPs;
x as Academies mature and there is less intensive support from DCSF Academy
Advisors, SIPs will be better placed to play a critical role in maintaining challenge
and continued improvement;
x the process of rapid transformation amongst some Academy schools means that
the standard SIP resource may not be sufficient to support effective change; and
x high skills and experience levels amongst Academy Leaders demand that their
SIPs require equally high levels of experience and credibility.
Target-Setting
35. Recent national guidance and the line taken by some LAs is leading to perceptions
amongst some schools of a top-down approach to target-setting, rather than a more
inclusive and bottom-up approach that fits specific school contexts and needs.
Demands of National Policy and Organisations
36. The impact of the NRwS on changing perceptions about the levels of bureaucracy
for schools is minimal. Areas where stakeholders feel there are still significant
burdens include changes in government policies and initiatives; duplicate requests
for data and surveys; and issues associated with specific initiatives and activities
including funding, IT, health and safety and assessments for teachers.
37. These perceptions highlight a need for continued efforts at the national level to work
towards more coherent policy development and delivery across all ECM services,
including steps to:
x achieve greater consistency in and consider the appropriateness of some of
the demands placed on schools (including those associated with volume, pace
of change, requests for information and reporting requirements);
x deliver more coherent responses to supporting schools in the delivery of the
significant developments taking place including reform of the secondary
curriculum, building schools for the future, integrated children’s services and
any required response to the outcomes of primary sector curriculum review
proposed in the Children’s Plan; and
x improve the coherence of communication mechanisms, including developing
more effective presentation and signposting of critical information.
v
School Profile
38. Only 25% of headteachers surveyed thought the School Profile was an effective
method of communication and there was generally low awareness of the profile
amongst the parents consulted. The research suggests that the School Profile is
only one of several ways in which parents can access the same data and
information about schools. Parents and school stakeholders suggest that other
sources (Ofsted, parental visits, and newsletters) may be more accessible and
considered more useful than the Profile in engaging parents and helping them
understand the school.
vi
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
1.1 This report presents the summative findings from the national evaluation of the
New Relationship with Schools (NRwS) policy. The evaluation was undertaken by
York Consulting Limited Liability Partnership (YCL) on behalf of the Department for
Children, School and Families (DCSF).
1.2 The aims of this two year study, which commenced in May 2006, were to:
x assess the implementation of five key strands of the NRwS (self evaluation,
School Profile, School Improvement Partners, Single Conversation, data 3 )
and explore how these strands knit together;
x assess the effectiveness of each of these strands;
x explore the effectiveness of the NRwS policy in achieving its objectives;
x assess the factors that influence effectiveness; and
x as a subsidiary element, to explore the new relationship process as a way of
developing policy.
Context
1.3 The NRwS was announced by David Miliband in January 2004 at the North of
England Education Conference. The announcement was recognition that
‘bureaucracy’ was an ongoing concern of schools and the former Department for
Education and Skills (DfES). The DfES identified a need to streamline and improve
the relationship between the Department, Local Authorities (LA) and schools, and a
need for closer alignment of national and local priorities.
1.4 The document ‘A New Relationship with Schools’ was published by the DfES and
Ofsted on the 15th June 2004. The document set out its proposals for a cluster of
interlocking changes affecting inspection, schools’ relations with local and central
government, schools’ self evaluation and planning, data collection from schools,
and communication with schools 4 . The NRwS comprises seven interlinked
strands:
x School Self-Evaluation – employing the use of a new Self Evaluation Form
that is updated at least once per year and secures effective self-evaluation in
all schools;
x Inspection – the introduction of a new short process to provide sharper-
edged, lighter touch inspection;
x the School Profile - that provides ‘high quality’, accessible information for
parents and the public;
x the use of a School Improvement Partner (SIP) – a ‘critical friend’
assigned to each school to conduct the Single Conversation and act as the
conduit between central government, the LA and school;
x the Single Conversation – a process to help facilitate the schools’
focus/approach to school improvement through interaction between the
school and its SIP;
3
The inspection strand of the NRwS was evaluated separately by the National Foundation for Educational
Research (NFER)
4
DfES, Ofsted, (June 2004). A New Relationship with Schools p.4
1
x Communication – a new streamlined communication strategy that includes
an online ordering system; and
x the Production and Use of Data – aligning central data demands and
developing common basic data sets (RaiseOnline) so that data is ‘collected
once, used many times’ to drive school improvement.
1.5 A one year pilot was undertaken in 2005. The staged roll out of the policy
commenced in 2006 with the intention that the lessons learnt from earlier
developments would inform ongoing refinement of the policy. National Strategies
were appointed to lead the roll out of the SIP programme.
Overview of Method
1.6 The evaluation involved a multi-method approach involving three key strands -
online surveys; in-depth LA case studies; and national consultations.
Online Surveys
1.7 Two rounds of online surveys were undertaken with secondary headteachers, SIP
managers within LAs, and SIPs. Primary headteachers were surveyed once 5 . The
number of responses received for each of these is detailed in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1: Number of Survey Responses

Stakeholder Round 1 Round 2
Secondary headteachers 378 281
Primary headteachers na 1265
SIPs 933 778
LA (SIP Managers) 44 52
1.8 One of the key issues of concern with the roll out of the policy was the extent to
which the SIPs deployed would have headteacher experience. Nationally, the
proportion of schools that have a SIP with headteacher experience is 72% in the
secondary sector and 84% in the primary sector. The survey responses broadly
reflect this picture 6 .
In-depth Case Studies
1.9 In-depth case studies were undertaken involving 44 7 schools across 11 Local
Authorities plus two academies. Case studies involved repeat visits to 28 schools
over a period of up to 18 months. Single visits were made to 18 schools towards
the end of the study. Case studies involved a range of activity including:
x expert assessment of key school information including Self Evaluation
Forms (SEFs), SIP Reports, School Improvement Plans, Section 5 Ofsted
reports, achievement and attainment data, and School Profile;
x observation of meetings between SIPs and headteachers;
5
The timing of the roll out of SIPs to the primary sector only allowed for one round of surveys with
headteachers within the timescales of the evaluation.
6
73% of the secondary headteacher survey responses were from those that had a SIP with headteacher
experience. 81% of the primary headteacher survey responses were from those that had a SIP with
headteacher experience.
7
23 primary schools (inc 3 first schools) and 21 secondary schools.
2
x triangulated consultations with school staff (including the headteacher,
members of the senior leadership team, classroom teachers, staff, governors
and parents);
x consultations with the SIP linked to the case study schools; and
x consultations with key LA stakeholders.
1.10 The sample was weighted to include LAs involved in the earlier stages of roll out so
that the impact of the policy could be assessed over time. The sample also
included a mix of LAs in terms of region and LA type 8 .
1.11 Schools were selected based upon a range of characteristics which included
school performance (based on Contextual Value Added (CVA) and attainment
data) and the professional background of the SIP.
School Performance
1.12 Across the 20 primary schools 9 , twelve had improved their CVA between 2006/07
and 2007/08, whilst eight had seen a decline. In terms of Average Point Score
data, eleven had improved, two remained static and seven declined.
1.13 Between 2006/07 and 2007/08 twelve secondary schools had improved their CVA
whilst for nine, CVA had declined. In terms of achievement of A*-C GCSE’s, 13 had
improved, three remained static and five declined.
1.14 Of the two academies, one had improved CVA data between 2006/07 and 2007/08
whilst the other had seen a small decline. Both had CVA which was above the
national average. Both academies had improved A*-C GCSE data over the two
years of the study. One had above average attainment data, the other below
average.
SIP Type
1.15 Within the 23 primary and first school case studies, just over half (14) had a full-
time LA employee SIP, with the others split almost equally between external
consultant SIPs (4) and serving headteacher SIPs (5). Within the 21 secondary
school case studies, just under a quarter (5) had a full-time LA employee SIP, over
half (12) had an external consultant SIP and 4 had a serving headteacher SIP. In
both academies the SIP was an external consultant SIP.
National Consultations
1.16 Consultations were undertaken with a range of national stakeholders throughout

the study, including Ofsted, LSCs (local and national) and National Strategies.
Overview of Report
1.17 The evaluation demonstrates that a number of the strands of NRwS have
supported a move towards the intelligent accountability framework envisaged when
the policy was first announced. There is also evidence that these developments
contribute to improvements in quality and standards for some schools and LA
areas, particularly in the secondary sector.
8
Of the 11 LAs - two were London Boroughs, three Unitary, three Metropolitan District and three County
Council.
9
No data was available for the three first schools.
3
1.18 The outcomes achieved place LAs and schools in a good position to respond to
some of the challenges set out in the recently published Children’s Plan, including
those associated with preventative school support, challenge for coasting schools,
improving attainment for specific groups and engaging parent’s in their child’s
learning.
1.19 There is, nevertheless, a need for continued efforts at national level to work
towards more coherent policy development and delivery across all ECM services
and ensure schools have the capacity and necessary support to respond to the
significant developments currently affecting the sector. There is also the potential
for greater value to be achieved from addressing some aspects of consistency and
effectiveness associated with school self-evaluation, data availability and the SIP
programme. Aspects of the SIP support role in particular require greater clarity and
coherence in terms of, for example, the range of interventions available to schools,
the nature of the support role provided by different SIP types, and the emphasis
placed on the role to ensure suitability and effectiveness of interventions.
1.20 We set out detailed findings in the remainder of the report. Each section includes a
key points box at the beginning. We have also included (in Appendix A) case
study and survey evidence to illustrate key messages.
Chapter One: School Self- Section 2: Effectiveness & Impact of Self-Evaluation

Evaluation & Data Use Section 3: Factors Influencing Effectiveness
Chapter Two: The SIP Section 4: Effectiveness of Core SIP Role
Programme Section 5: Brokering Support
Section 6: Impact of SIP Programme
Section 7: Consistency of SIP Programme
Section 8: Management and Delivery of SIP Programme
Chapter Three: Other Section 9: Progress towards NRwS Policy intent
NRwS Strands Section 10: School Profile
4
Chapter One:
School Self-Evaluation and Data Use
EFFECTIVENESS & IMPACT OF SCHOOL SELF-EVALUATION
Key Points
x There is clear evidence that school self-evaluation has improved over the last few years. This
is resulting in sharper planning, a focus on outcomes, understanding of how to improve and
delivery of improvements in quality and standards.
x The effectiveness of self-evaluation is evident across many schools in terms of:
embedded and whole school approaches;
data use and interpretation;
evaluative SEFs which are moderated and link to improvement plans; and
greater pupil and parent engagement in understanding and achieving progress.
x There is a range of impact evidence which demonstrates that these improvements are often
resulting in:
improved planning;
understanding of performance;
more focused accountability amongst staff for performance;
focus on pupil outcomes; and
introduction and evaluation of targeted interventions.
x There is also evidence in some schools that such changes are translating into improvements
in standards, value added and quality of learning.
x These achievements are observed across both the secondary and the primary sectors,
though they are more advanced within the former. Due to their circumstances, academies are
particularly focused on self-evaluation and those with strong leadership are undergoing
significant transformation.
Effectiveness of School Self-Evaluation and Data Use

1.21 The vast majority of stakeholders agree that there have been changes in schools’
approaches to self-evaluation since the introduction of the SEF and Section 5
Inspection and that this is resulting in positive outcomes. These positive attitudes
are corroborated by the detailed assessments made for individual case study
schools, where changes have been observed across most of the schools visited.
7
Table 2.1: Stakeholder Perceptions of School Self-Evaluation
% of Respondents Agreeing or Strongly Agreeing
with Statements
Secondary Primary
Statements: SIPs LAs
Headteachers Headteachers
Changes have been made to the
school’s approach to self evaluation
91% 90% na na
since the introduction of the SEF and
the S5 Framework for Inspection
Schools have improved their approach
na na 90% 90%
to self evaluation
Analysis of school and pupil data has
88% 84% 90% 85%
improved
Schools are using data effectively to
na na 92% 87%
inform school self evaluation
Self evaluation has involved greater
88% 82% 85% 83%
input from the Senior Leadership Team
Self evaluation has involved greater
90% 81% 82% 81%
input from wider school staff
x The findings from self
evaluation and analysis
96% 89% 91% 90%
of data are permeating
throughout the school
Parents have been consulted more
73% 62% 62% 63%
effectively
Pupils have been consulted more
81% 73% 76% 75%
effectively
1.22 Across the case study schools around half were assessed as having excellent or
good self-evaluation practices. Key features of effective practices include:
x effective use and interpretation of data from a range of sources to inform
assessments of performance, target setting and improvement planning;
x delivery of embedded and whole-school approaches to self-evaluation,
including the engagement of staff, pupils and parents in understanding and
achieving progress;
x evaluative rather than descriptive SEFs, judgements are moderated and
backed up by evidence and links are being made to improvement plans,
actions and strategies; and
x consulting and acting on the feedback from pupils and parents.
1.23 Amongst the remaining case studies, there was evidence that most had good
aspects of self-evaluation which were developing.
Data use and Analysis
1.24 The use and analysis of data is one of the most significant drivers for
improvements in self-evaluation practices and levels of understanding across both
secondary and primary schools. This is helping schools to get underneath
performance issues, set effective targets and focus on specific issues for individual
pupil groups, and target interventions more effectively.
8
1.25 The case studies (as shown by the examples in Figure 2.1 with further examples in
Appendix A) demonstrate that many schools are increasingly using internal and
external data to assess performance, target set and plan for improvement at a
number of levels. This is for the school as a whole and across cohorts of pupils; at
subject, department, class and teacher level; and for specific pupil groups and
individual pupil progress.
Figure 2.1: Data Use and Analysis

(Assessed Case Study Examples 10 - Additional Examples in Appendix A2.1)
School/Cohort Level
o During the observation, it was interesting to see how the Head moved from school-level data
(RaiseOnline sheets and graphs) to class work results in order to drill down into issues, for
example by bringing out Key Stage mark sheets to show the progress of individuals who had
perhaps not made their expected grades, mentioning contributory factors (such as problems at
home), etc.
Subject/Department Level
o The document review highlights that all staff with key stage / department responsibility have
appropriate understanding of the school's data and are using it to evaluate teaching and
learning. Subject leaders are working more effectively across the school to improve planning.
Class, Teacher and Pupil Level

o Data is analysed by the headteacher, then the deputy & head together, and then it is shared
with staff (individual class teachers first & then whole staff) at staff meetings. There is a formal
data review meeting with all staff three times a year. Data is used to track pupils progress on an
individual, class & school level. The school also monitors the progress of particular groups for
example boys, those receiving free school meals (FSM), those with special educational needs
(SEN) etc. All teachers have tracking sheets for pupils.
1.26 The use of data by senior leadership teams (SLTs) at the school, cohort and pupil
group level is evident across the vast majority of case studies and it is clear in most
cases that this is informing SEF assessments. There are some primary sector
case studies that are still developing their effectiveness in this respect, particularly
in terms of effective analysis for specific pupil groups.
1.27 The engagement of middle managers and teachers in the use and analysis of
performance data (including that obtained through monitoring and lesson
observations) to inform and influence progress and achievement is also evident
amongst many of the case study schools. Again, there is evidence in some case
studies (in both the secondary and primary sector with slightly more in the latter)
that these aspects are still developing and there is the potential for greater
consistency in application across all subjects, departments and teachers.
1.28 Internally, schools are developing effective pupil tracking and monitoring
approaches, including the use of Assessment for Learning tools, lesson
observations and work scrutiny.
10
The assessed case study examples in this and following figures are based on individual school case study
assessments, drawing on the range of evidence sources (triangulated consultations with a range of staff within
schools, expert document assessment, and observations).
9
Figure 2.2: Pupil Monitoring and Progress
(Assessed Case Study Examples - Additional Examples in Appendix A2.2)
o The headteacher introduced a comparative tracking system that monitors the progress of
every child through the school (there was no tracking in place when she arrived). They
assess children three times a year in writing, reading & maths, for example every half term
children do an unaided piece of writing which is collated termly, levelled & then put on to a
Mapping Attainment Grid (MAG) so that you can see progress across sub-levels across the
year. The deputy and headteacher collect that information and produce data sets comparing
levels of progress of particular groups of children that need additional intervention. There is
a traffic light system which helps to highlight whether pupils are making sufficient progress or
not. A new electronic version of MAG has just been introduced so the school can monitor
progress throughout the year rather than retrospectively or once a year.
o The school has introduced a comprehensive approach to monitoring and reviewing pupil
progress through AfL. The results from this are collated by the SLT and progress in all
classes is reviewed on a half-termly basis. Based on this, if any classes / teachers are
considered not to be making sufficient progress across the cohort, the head of department
will introduce performance review and provide support to raise achievement.
Whole School and Embedded Approaches
1.29 More embedded and whole school approaches to evaluating and understanding
performance are one of the common themes being observed across a number of
schools. This includes the development of annual review processes and engaging
middle managers and teachers in self-evaluation activities. This is supporting better
identification of strengths and weaknesses, understanding of factors influencing
performance and identification of targeted interventions.
1.30 There is also evidence that many schools are also using data and self-evaluation
approaches to inform internal teacher performance management as well as, in
some cases to engage pupils and parents in understanding and supporting
progress.
Figure 2.3: Embedded and Whole School Approaches

o The process comprises departmental reviews - an interview by the Assistant Head with each
Department Head which leads to an action plan. Underpinning the interview is a curriculum
review that is undertaken by the Head of Department including review of academic
achievement data, lesson observations and a work sampling trawl. There is a focus on
bringing together academic and pastoral teams to identify what the issues are underpinning
the evidence. SLT staff pull together overall messages and write sections of the SEF. The
SEF is formally updated annually, although in practice it is updated more regularly where
appropriate. Departmental SEFs exist and departmental action plans stem from those.
o The school this year is promoting greater devolvement of self-evaluation to lower tier staff.
This is intended to shift the responsibility for self-evaluation and outcomes to all staff rather
than just being a top down approach. Feedback from the teacher interviews shows that staff
are aware of weaknesses, the actions they need to take and they feel accountable for results.
Teacher Performance Management

o Everything the school is trying to achieve is focused on raising accountability of teachers to
deliver improved standards. A key mechanism is tracking the progress and value added for
individual teachers and linking this to performance review.
o Observations are also undertaken as part of teacher Performance Management – the
headteacher devised a form based on Ofsted criteria and this is then discussed following
observations.
10
Figure 2.3: Embedded and Whole School Approaches
Pupil/Parent Engagement
o Target setting is an integral part of the home/school partnership, involving parents, children
and the school in improving outcomes. A Foundation Stage parent profile meeting is
undertaken during the first half term to facilitate parents as key participants in their child's
learning. Half termly curriculum meetings are held in each class to share learning activities
that will be covered during that period. This also helps parents who find understanding
curriculum letters difficult due to limited English or poor literacy levels.
1.31 Whilst most schools have taken steps to ensure that the use of data and self-
evaluation practices are embedded across the school, many case study schools
are still developing in this respect particularly in terms of ensuring a consistent
approach is being applied across all cohorts, departments and classes. Many
schools may also benefit from:
x more closely linking self-evaluation/data use to internal performance
management to develop more focused accountability and impact on school
improvement; and
x ensuring greater awareness and engagement amongst pupils and parents of
their targets, progress made and issues they need to address to ensure
further progress.
Figure 2.4: Developing Self-Evaluation Practices

o Self-evaluation is extremely patchy and variable if examined bottom up. Whilst some
departments are very strong others are very weak. Evidence to support this comes from the
headteacher and SIP feedback and the document review. The interview with one Head of
Department demonstrated a detailed approach to tracking and understanding performance,
resulting in interventions that were impacting on GCSE achievements. Another Head of
Department demonstrated naiveté and limitations in the approach to self-evaluation. This was
borne out through interviews with other members of staff, the headteacher, SIP and SLT.
o More needs to be done to ensure subject departments and teaching staff take ownership of the
targets set. Currently these are set by SLT and not negotiated. The SIP is working with the
school and has suggested that this would be better if negotiated and devolved to subject level in
order that targets are both data based and realistic.
Evaluative Assessments and SEFs
1.32 The availability of improved data, guidance for SEFs and challenge and support
from SIPs and LAs are all contributing to an improvement in the ability of
headteachers and SLTs to make appropriate evaluative assessments which is
informing school planning.
1.33 This is evident from the perceptions of stakeholders and the detailed case study
assessments which included a document review of SEFs and other planning
documents. There is also evidence that judgements are being effectively
moderated for most case study schools by their SIP and, where recent inspections
have taken place, by Ofsted.
11
Table 2.2: Stakeholder Perceptions of Evaluative Assessments & SEFs
% of Respondents Agreeing or Strongly Agreeing with
Statements
Secondary Primary
There is a clear link between the
priorities identified through self 95% 93% 93% 88%
evaluation and the School Plan
Self evaluation has increased the
schools’ awareness of strengths 91% 85% 93% 92%
and weaknesses
I have used the SEF to effectively
challenge and support the schools na Na 88% na
I work with
60%
25% 18% 76%
Completed SEFs are more (25%
(56% disagree) (45% disagree) (19%
descriptive than evaluative disagre
disagree)
e)
1.34 There are mixed perceptions amongst stakeholders about the extent to which
SEFs are evaluative. Whilst most SIPs and LAs agree that SEFs remain more
descriptive than evaluative, only one fifth of secondary and one quarter of primary
headteachers agree that this is the case and around a half disagreed (that is they
felt SEFs were more evaluative than descriptive).
1.35 The case study evidence also points to a mixed picture - most are assessed as
demonstrating some evaluative focus though there is often the potential to improve
some elements in terms of sharper judgements, links to school plans and
consistencies. Some case studies provide good practice examples (in both the
primary and secondary sectors) of evaluative SEFs and clear links to School
Improvement Plans and priorities. However, there is evidence amongst a minority
of the case studies that there is considerable potential to improve the evaluative
nature of their SEFs.
Figure 2.5: SEF Quality

Evaluative SEFs linked to School Improvement Plans

o The SEF is written in an open and transparent way. It is good in its analysis and shows
strong evidence to back up that analysis. There are consistencies across all sections of the
SEF and judgements across and within sections cohere and are well supported by evidence
and confirmed by Ofsted.
o The school has identified its strengths and weaknesses well and is moving forward. The SEF
is an excellent document which has built on progress and is making further proposals for key
developments in all areas. This is largely reflected in the School Improvement Plan and
associated action plans, which are realistic yet challenging. This is the best form of self
evaluation and school improvement. I can see why this school obtained an outstanding from
Ofsted.
Potential to Improve SEFs
o The SEF is mostly descriptive with some issues of judgement missing. There are areas
where the document is thin on strategies to address some really major issues. The 2008
prediction KS4 is marked down by 20 percentage points but there is nothing in the SEF which
sets out a strategy to offset this dramatic fall in attainment. Statements can be found in the
SEF which are not borne out in practice. For example, in teaching and learning there is a
statement ‘good use of ICT in lessons’. However, the SIP reports that ICT is a major issue of
concern for the school.
12
Consulting and Acting on Feedback
1.36 Most stakeholders are also positive about the extent to which schools are not only
consulting with parents and pupils but are also acting on the feedback received,
though SIPs and LAs are less commonly in agreement with these statements.
Again there are a number of examples from the case studies where this is evident.
Table 2.3: Acting on Pupil and Parent Feedback

with Statements
Secondary Primary
Schools have acted on the feedback
94% 89% 80% 77%
received from pupils
Schools have acted on the feedback
90% 87% 75% 67%
received from parents
Figure 2.6: Acting on Pupil and Parent Feedback

o The school has restructured the way they handle transition from KS2 to KS3 as a result of
feedback from parents and students - in 2004 they instigated a Transition Project to ease the
difficulties faced in moving between primary and secondary stages.
o There are a range of processes for consulting parents and pupils including questionnaires to
parents, talking to children, School Council and pupil & staff questionnaires. Questionnaires
to parents are given out at parents evening which is helping to access parents who wouldn't
normally fill a questionnaire in. Actions as a result of parental feedback include extended
uniform outlets, provided after school club, breakfast club and hot dinners. Previously there
was only 50% uptake on homework and this has improved through a launch for parents with
90% uptake.
Sector Differences
1.37 There is perceptual and case study evidence that shows that self-evaluation is less
advanced amongst primary schools compared to secondary schools:
x secondary headteacher perceptions more commonly agree with self-
evaluation effectiveness and impact statements than primary headteachers;
x SIPs in the secondary sector more often agree with self-evaluation
effectiveness and impact statements than those in the primary sector; and
x a higher proportion of secondary case study schools were assessed as
excellent and good compared to the primary sector.
“About 25% of primary schools are really good at self evaluation and the majority
are moving towards having good SEFs. It feels like it is delivering real
improvements especially with the challenge being provided.” (Primary SIP
Manager)
1.38 Nevertheless there is evidence of significant steps being taken forward in most of
the primary schools we visited. We have also observed clear progression in the
secondary sector between our initial and final case study visits and there were
general improvements in the perceptions of secondary headteachers between the
2006 and 2007 surveys. This suggests that similar changes might continue to be
achieved in the primary sector.
13
Table 2.4: Differences in Secondary Headteacher Perceptions
between 2006 and 2007
% of Secondary Headteachers Agreeing or
Strongly Agreeing with Statements
Statements: 2006 2007
Self evaluation has involved greater input
74% 88%
from the SLT
Parents have been consulted more
61% 73%
effectively
Analysis of school and pupil data has
71% 88%
improved
Self evaluation has increased schools’
awareness of their strengths and 82% 91%
weaknesses
Impact on Improving Self-Evaluation

1.39 Again, both the perceptual and case study evidence suggests that the
developments in school self-evaluation being achieved are translating into clear
impacts for the school.
Table 2.5: Stakeholder Perceptions of the Impact

of Improved Self-Evaluation
with Statements
Secondary Primary
The school’s priorities for development
and school improvement have been 88% 76% 78% 92%
more effectively identified
Headteachers are confident to make
key decisions based on the outcomes of na na 88% 87%
improved self-evaluation
Self-evaluation is the main determinant
88% 87% 88% 85%
of school improvement planning
Actions have been taken to address the
school’s development and school 93% 89% 90% 90%
improvement priorities
Changes to schools’ approach to self-
evaluation are helping to raise 84% 72% 75% 71%
standards of achievement
1.40 The case studies provide a range of examples of achievement in terms of better
school improvement planning and target setting; more focused accountability for
performance and progress amongst middle managers and teachers; focus on
achieving outcomes overall and for pupil groups and individuals; and increased
understanding and awareness of the factors influencing performance.
14
Figure 2.7: Impact of Self-Evaluation on School Improvement
School Planning, Prioritisation and Focus on Outcomes

o School improvement planning is well focused on the priorities needed to improve pupil
performance. SLT felt they had changed the nature of school planning – “it was always
rigorous but having to quantify it in the SEF has sharpened the focus – we’ve got rid of
sweeping statements that we made in past”. Governors agreed that they can see where the
school is going and it’s always moving on – “self-evaluation provides the yardstick to
measure advances. It also shows if the school has met its objectives and if not it prompts us
to ask why not”.
Accountability of Performance and Progress

o There is evidence from the interviews with teaching staff that they have felt an increasing
sense of accountability for performance in their subject areas.
Focus on Pupil Outcomes

o Data is used to set targets and action plan, which is undertaken in teams. Interventions are
targeted at Yr3 as well as Yr5/6. Reasons for progress/lack of for certain pupils are
discussed and explained so interventions are tailored effectively.
Understanding Performance and How to Improve

o There is evidence from the interviews (and verified by SIP report) that learning walks are
enabling staff to better identify weaknesses and what needs to be done to address these. A
learning walk and scrutiny of pupil books across the school showed that methods for
marking varied and did not relate to the targets set for children. This is now leading to the
development of strategies to tackle the whole school.
1.41 There is also considerable evidence that effective self-evaluation processes are
leading to targeted interventions which are also being reviewed to ensure they
have achieved intended outcomes.
Figure 2.8: Self-Evaluation Leading to Targeted Interventions

Developing Staff
o In terms of identifying priorities, the headteacher always looks at data first to 'identify
weaknesses’, for example last year writing was identified as a particular problem: there was a
30% difference between L5 writers and readers. As a result the school is using a renewed
framework and developing visual literacy, the curriculum team leader has been trained on
visual learning techniques and they have delivered staff training and discussed it in staff
meetings. They are also improving the ICT structure as a result as there is a need for
interactive whiteboards with sound so they can play film clips etc.
Quality of Teaching and Learning
o Self Evaluation has increased knowledge of those who perform well and those who don't and
why. This helps to define improvement areas. It has also contributed towards the drive
towards knowledge expansion for teachers. Teaching and Learning and Innovation groups
have been set up which teachers can attend voluntarily to share good practice.
Individual Pupil/Group Support
o The school is using AfL and data to identify and track key cohorts of pupils. For example, data
was used to identify a group of 15 students who were underachieving in English when their
performance was compared to other subject areas. As a result 6-7 of these students have been
targeted for extra support from the Assistant in two periods a week. These students are also
monitored in terms of their attendance and given access to PCs where they can make use of
the exam revision materials available on line.
15
Figure 2.8: Self-Evaluation Leading to Targeted Interventions
Evaluating Interventions
o The school took part in the SEAL programme adopting a whole school approach. They
undertook their own evaluation which found the programme to be very successful but that
some elements were not suitable for particular ages. They changed the focus to make it more
suitable – they were only able to do this from the knowledge they had of the children through
self-evaluation.
Standards, Value Added and Quality of Learning
1.42 In the vast majority of cases, stakeholders agree that these improvements are
contributing to raising quality and standards in schools, though for many schools it
is too early to observe quantifiable changes.
1.43 Nevertheless, there is evidence from around half of the case study schools that this
has been achieved. Review of achievements between 2006 and 2007 for our case
study schools identifies that half of the case studies are seeing some improvement
in standards and value added. The detailed assessments we have undertaken
(involving repeated visits, triangulated consultations, observations and document
review) identify that self-evaluation is contributing to improvements in many of
these cases.
1.44 In addition, in a number of case study schools where the aggregate data shows
that schools are static or declining there is evidence that improvements have been
seen for some pupil groups or in specific subject areas. Many of the detailed
assessments show how improved data use and self-evaluation is contributing to
these changes.
Figure 2.9: Impact of Self-Evaluation on Quality and Standards

Standards and Achievement

o At KS4 self-evaluation showed that results for science were relatively poor in relation to other
departments. Additional support and challenge was provided to science teachers (lesson
observations, support from other teachers). In 2007 the science results were greatly improved
on those achieved in previous years which indicates that the support and challenge that the
school exercises for the departments that fall behind has a positive impact.
o In the Foundation Stage the school have the best results for three years. There have also
been improvements at KS2 in reading and writing at L4 which were respectively 33% and 21%
higher than the previous year. A key change to achieve this has been a shift in the quality of
teaching. Last year 10% were good and 80% satisfactory, this year 43% were good and 57%
satisfactory. This has been achieved through a detailed programme of lesson observations,
individual training and CPD.
Pupil Groups
o Across several classes and year groups, pupil progress tracking has highlighted groups of
pupils with borderline grades. The school recognises that many pupils do not have the right
environment at home for study and that barriers need to be removed before standards and
achievement can be affected. Intervention groups have been set up for example workshops on
particular elements of the curriculum, Easter school with revision classes, summer school. The
school has made a lot of use of its extended school status and has evaluated the impact on
pupils attending by analysing predicted grades and achievement of those attending the school
and those who don't. Evidence suggests pupils are achieving targets or over them if they
attend revision classes etc.
16
Figure 2.9: Impact of Self-Evaluation on Quality and Standards
Teaching and Learning

o Self-evaluation highlighted that certain subjects weren't working for certain children who were
lacking in motivation for 'compartmentalised' subjects such as Geography and History where
they only had one hour a week. Teachers were given 3 days of planning outside of the
classroom to work on cross-curricular planning. As a result changes have been made to the
way in which these subjects are presented and taught. Teachers have noticed improvements in
motivation and attitude towards these subjects.
Attendance
o There has been a key focus on addressing the very poor attendance record of pupils at the
school, through effective use of the SIMS package, policing of classes to ensure pupils are in
classes and not just registering, and through effective use of the Education Welfare Officers
(EWOs). Attendance has increased from 80.3% in 2005 to 93.7% in 2008.
17
FACTORS INFLUENCING EFFECTIVENESS AND DEVELOPMENT
Key Points
x SEF guidance and data availability/usage are the most common drivers of change for the
improvements seen in school self-evaluation approaches. The new inspection framework,
SIPs and changes in SLT have also supported developments in many cases.
x Whilst most headteachers identified that the school’s approach to self-evaluation had increased
the workload of staff, most also agreed that this was an effective use of their time.
x Many schools are still developing their approaches to self-evaluation and it is too early to see
the impact on planning, quality and standards. In these cases, greater consistency is required,
particularly in terms of:
the involvement of middle managers and teaching staff;
approaches to pupil tracking;
engaging pupils and parents in understanding and achieving progress; and
development of SEFs linked to school improvement plans.
x There are a small number of case study schools which require significant further development
to achieve whole school, data driven and evaluative approaches.
x More generally across most schools there is the potential to develop more evaluative
approaches to assessing achievement in relation to the other ECM outcomes as well as
ensuring a focus on assessment and intervention for 14-19 and post-16 delivery.
x The delays in getting RaiseOnline up and running have been damaging to overall perceptions
of the effectiveness of NRwS to increase the usefulness of data and reduce burdens on
schools. Whilst many headteachers are now positive about the potential of the system, there is
frustration that the timing of data availability does not enable them to use it to inform planning
when they need to.
x There is also the potential for greater clarity surrounding specific data sources and some need
for more coherent presentation of the range of data overall. This may support greater levels of
understanding around the value and purpose of individual data sets which may help to address
some feelings of being overwhelmed.
Catalysts for Improving Self-Evaluation
1.45 Most headteachers identify that the significant factors influencing the development
of effective self-evaluation are the guidance provided on completing the SEF,
improved data availability and use of data. For around two-fifths of schools the
new inspection framework, role of the SIP and changes within SLTs for individual
schools have also provided some impetus.
Table 3.1: Headteacher Perceptions of Catalysts

for Improving Self-Evaluation
% of Respondents Agreeing
What was the catalyst for changing the Secondary Primary
school’s approach to self evaluation? Headteachers Headteachers
Advice provided by our SIP 43% 39%
Guidance on completing the SEF 72% 73%
Ofsted/S5 inspection 48% 38%
Improved data availability and use of data 64% 66%
Changes within Senior Leadership Team 40% 38%
18
1.46 Whilst most headteachers identified that the school’s approach to self-evaluation
had increased the workload of staff, most also agreed that this was an effective use
of their time. Nevertheless, there are some developments at national and local
level which would help further ensure that senior leaders and school staff were able
to maximise the effectiveness of the time spent on data analysis and evaluation
activities.
SEF Guidance
1.47 There are positive perceptions about the SEF guidance amongst stakeholders with
most agreeing that it asks the right questions to focus on raising standards of
teaching and learning. Whilst at lower proportions, the majority of stakeholders
also agree that the SEF guidance achieves the right balance between enjoying and
achieving and the other outcomes of ECM.
Table 3.2: Stakeholder Perceptions of SEF Guidance

with Statements
Secondary Primary
The SEF asks the right questions to
increase school’s focus on raising 79% 66% 90% 94%
standards of teaching and learning
The SEF encourages an appropriate
balance between enjoying and
63% 57% 76% 75%
achieving and the other outcomes of
Every Child Matters
1.48 Amongst the case study schools, some expressed the view that Ofsted do not
cover wider ECM outcomes sufficiently within the new inspection framework, with
some feeling that there is “too much focus on pupil progress and standards so they
don’t recognise our significant achievements in supporting individual pupils who are
facing multiple challenges”.
1.49 In other schools, there is a recognition that a focus on data analysis of standards
and value added measures can help to better understand the issues and barriers
affecting performance for pupil groups and individuals. Where these are related to
other ECM outcomes this can then lead to a focus on introducing interventions
within the school and/or more integrated working with other children’s services,
which may result in improvements in performance and value added in the longer
term.
Data Availability and Systems
1.50 It is clear that improvements in the availability of data at the national and local level
are driving self-evaluation effectiveness amongst schools, in particular through the
use of value added and prior attainment measures.
1.51 Most schools are making effective use of the improved external data available at
national and local level. This includes the FFT and Panda data (and more recently
accessed via RaiseOnline), other external data sources (PIPS, PAT, ALPs, CATs
etc), and LA developed data systems.
19
1.52 The use of FFT, RaiseOnline and PANDA are the most commonly used sources of
information for the completion of SEFs, though the use of PANDA data is less
common particularly amongst primary schools. The schools’ own data is also used
(by around one fifth of headteachers) for the SEF, though it is more commonly
used by schools for internal activities associated with monitoring, tracking and
reviewing performance at department and class level.
1.53 In a minority of cases, LA developed data systems have supported schools’

analysis for the SEF. In some cases, schools have highlighted that these systems
are more easily accessible than the nationally available data. Some LAs also
support the development of internally based tools for analysing data and pupil
progress. Amongst the case study schools, it is evident that some schools
(particularly in the secondary sector) benefit from a dedicated data manager and
some have undertaken focused CPD activities to develop staff skills in this respect.
Figure 3.1: LA and School Data Systems

LA Data Systems and Support for Schools
o The LA tracker can be accessed by pupils and teachers – this shows analysis of current pupils and
is colour coded. It was used by at least 4 of the schools visited - "It’s very easy to spot issues with
cohorts/year groups and individual pupils/teachers can then plan accordingly as they can see what
is needed to improve".
o The LA provides to each school its own data compared to others in the LA and nationally (lots of
comparative data on 'groups' of pupils in each school for example achievement by subject by
gender, ethnicity). Schools highlighted that they get it more quickly than RaiseOnline.
Effective IT and CPD within Schools

o The school have introduced development activities on use of IT and interpretation of data for
department heads and staff, and have introduced new systems (SIMS - allows direct access for all
staff to baseline/minimum predicted grade data), including a new pupil level analysis and traffic
light system.
o The school has set up clusters to share practice across departments in relation to skills and use of
IT for analysis/interpretation of data. They run 3 a term for different 'clusters' of departments.
o The assessment coordinator acts as a bridge between the SEF and data. Staff do use data and
have a lot of training to bring them up to speed.
o A new ICT based monitoring, assessment & target setting system sets FFT D based target levels
for each year and learners are colour coded according to achievement.
Consistency across Schools

1.54 Areas where it is clear that developments are ongoing in many schools relate to the
consistency of practices across the schools, specifically in terms of:
x the extent to which all staff and middle managers are engaged and
accountable within the self-evaluation and performance practices within
schools, including consistent approaches to pupil progress tracking;
x the level of engagement of pupils and parents in understanding and
achieving progress through the use of individual and classroom based
targets, tracking and performance data; and
x developing evaluative SEFs which are clearly linked to and informing school
improvement plans.
20
1.55 The introduction of real-time reporting in all secondary schools by September 2010
should help to move towards greater consistency amongst schools in their
approaches to engaging parents in their child’s learning. It will be important to
ensure that schools have suitable support to implement the requirement particularly
in terms of developing schools’ ICT systems.
Case Studies Requiring Significant Further Development
1.56 The case study evidence does identify some lower levels of effectiveness for some
schools. In a small number of the schools visited, overall self-evaluation
effectiveness was assessed as requiring significant further development. For
example, one of the case study assessments states that:
The School does not demonstrate particular strengths in relation to data analysis-
this is supported by SIP comments and some weaknesses highlighted in the
document review. The teachers consulted were not really engaged in
understanding and using data - they were aware of pupil level data, but not of
analysing and using more comprehensive information on a day to day basis.
Governors had limited awareness of key findings from data analysis.
1.57 In these cases, performance and/or CVA was declining and whilst some steps
were being taken it was clear that further work was required to:
x engage middle managers and teaching staff to embed the use of data and
self-evaluation principles;
x use more detailed data analysis to inform an understanding of the progress
and constraints for pupil groups;
x provide and enable the use of data at the individual and class level in inform
performance and progress; and
x develop a more evaluative approach within the SEF, and ensure that the
school improvement plan and school interventions are driven by the informed
evaluative assessment.
Common Development Areas
14-19 Provision
1.58 There is some uncertainty expressed amongst stakeholders about the extent to
which data from other providers responsible for the education of a school’s pupils
has been used more effectively (half of headteachers, SIPs and LAs agree and one
third neither agree nor disagree). Some of this is likely to reflect cases where
schools are not involved significantly in partnership/collaborative delivery locally.
1.59 However, the use of information from, and links with other providers, in relation to
self-evaluation is not overtly evident in the SEF guidance. The extent to which
schools are reflecting on the performance of students attending collaborative
provision is not clear from the case study evidence. There is also some lack of
clarity about responsibilities between providers and how schools might be able to
influence any improvement areas identified. For example, comments from case
study assessment include:
There is no evaluation of the vocational courses offered by the school’s FE and
training provider partners.
21
The LSC representative said that “there are no protocols in place for the quality
assurance of collaborative provision and this is not undertaken with school sixth
forms. FE college provision is inspected and this will include 14-16 provision that
they deliver, but there are no clear protocols, for example, what are the processes
for the Specialised Diplomas?”
1.60 This area of development is a particularly important consideration in light of the
introduction of new diplomas many of which are delivered in partnership.
ECM Outcomes
1.61 There is the also potential to improve the evaluative approach being taken by some
schools to wider ECM outcomes and their link to achievements and standards.
Across the case study schools there is evidence that whilst there is coverage of the
other outcomes of ECM, those aspects of the SEF covering personal and well-
being tend to be less evaluative than others.
1.62 There are, nevertheless, some examples where more evaluative approaches are
being taken, for example, one case study assessment states: the school works with
an external organisation to collect data on the well-being of children in years 5, 3
and 1. When enough data is collected it will be used to see if physical fitness has
any correlation with standards of achievement.
Data Development Needs
1.63 As previously highlighted the use of data has significantly improved within many
schools and there is evidence that some schools have good data systems and staff
training in place (particularly in the secondary sector). However, the majority of
SIPs (74%) and LAs (81%) highlight the need for further development needs
associated with the analysis and interpretation of data. One significant area for
development relates to the use and manipulation of data from RaiseOnline as
discussed further below.
1.64 A number of case study assessments also highlight development needs for school
staff to address general inconsistency in abilities across middle managers and
teachers and in a minority of cases amongst members of SLT.
Figure 3.2: School Data Development Needs

(Assessed Case Study Examples)
o This is a school in need of a MIS system. It has not yet engaged with RaiseOnline and is
awaiting its own internal data management system. This means that currently the data
picture beyond SLT is not particularly well organised. It is currently run on spreadsheets,
which involves teachers "messing around with Excel". Departmental use of data was raised
as an issue in the 2005 Ofsted.
o There are training issues for staff as they introduced a new system in September 07 – they
had a number of different versions prior to that. They have had technical issues with data
spreadsheets with everything crashing for 2 weeks. Staff previously had quite a lot of training
on how to use data run by the Assistant Headteachers - where it is, how to use it and how to
share it. ALIS training on how to share data with students probably needs doing again.
o Middle managers need greater interpretation skills and RaiseOnline training is needed.
22
RaiseOnline
1.65 The majority of headteachers have used RaiseOnline as a source of data this year
and many feel that they are using it effectively to inform school self-evaluation.
However, there is a significant issue regarding the timing of when data is made
available which is not early enough in the academic year and this is impacting on
the extent to which schools can truly use this data to inform planning for the year
ahead.
Table 3.3: Perceptions of RaiseOnline

% of Headteachers Agreeing or Strongly
Agreeing with Statements
Secondary
Statements: Primary Headteachers
Headteachers
RaiseOnline has been used as a data source in
82% 84%
our most recent SEF
The school is using RaiseOnline effectively to
67% 60%
inform school self evaluation
RaiseOnline is presented in a usable format 54% 61%
RaiseOnline is available in sufficient time to 14% 15%
effectively inform school planning (84% disagree) (74% disagree)
The school has a development need in the
48% 42%
analysis and interpretation of RaiseOnline
1.66 In addition, there is the need to provide more development support for schools to
enable them to maximise the value of the data and the manipulation functions of
the system. Whilst training was delivered to LAs a couple of years ago, there have
been delays in getting the system up and running and it is not clear that all LAs
have yet cascaded the training to schools in their areas.
Figure 3.3: Perspectives on RaiseOnline

(Additional Examples in Appendix A3.3)
Positive Views
o Tracking is done using RaiseOnline- they like the assessment pack and have found that it
really helps them understand their pupils.
o The headteacher likes RaiseOnline – “it’s useful to see trends, groups of specific children, etc,
but there is a risk that you can become too data-focused and spend all your time looking at it.”
Poor Timing, Reliability and Validity

o The headteacher felt that the data on RaiseOnline comes out too late to be of use for children
they are currently teaching – “the LA tracker is more useful for children still teaching; Raise is
useful to identify trends, but to not plan interventions.”
o An example was provided where the school has a roll of 104 but RaiseOnline data was based
on 280 so it was ‘nonsensical.'
o The data manager felt there was an overreliance on technology that did not work &
RaiseOnline was a good example of that. There have been some issues accessing data as it
is often not online which has a negative impact on self-evaluation processes because they are
unable to access data to feed into the process.
Training Needs
o The headteacher doesn’t think he uses it well enough in terms of its analytical functions and
tends to just hit the 'print' key.
o The SLT said that they had received very little training on RaiseOnline.
o The Maths leader said that she would value guidance papers with the data provided in a
graphical format providing information on how to interpret the information. She thought the
data was useful but some of it was not very relevant for example the pages on ethnic minority
pupils which “don't tell us anything about our context because we have so few.”
23
1.67 There is also the potential for greater clarity surrounding specific data sources and
some need for more coherent presentation of data sources overall. This might aid
greater levels of clarity around the value and purpose of individual data sources
which may also help to address some feelings of being overwhelmed.
Figure 3.4: Data Issues Raised by Survey Stakeholders

o “I have some concern about there being too much data - not a specific issue with Raise - its
'easy to lose children in the data.'”
o “There is a considerable amount of data which can flood in (from the LA and nationally),
insufficient pre analysis of data (from the LA) and conflicting pictures presented by all data
sets in comparison.”
o “The information usually comes too late and there is too much of it. It is getting far too big
and yet there is often little explanation of what is there. The Panda was much, much better.”
o “There is not as much confidence in post-16 data which is not as sophisticated as that for
earlier key stages.”
o “There is a mismatch between FFT and RaiseOnline target setting systems and so we have
to keep an eye on both – the RaiseOnline system takes out the lowest 25% which creates a
higher tariff target system.”
o “The guidance is not clear on early years target setting.”
o “There are some mixed messages about what 2 levels of progress means – there is a
difference between those that start at the bottom of a progress level and those that start at
the top. There is also a conflict with FFT data?”
o “Some schools face significant issues associated with the high mobility of pupils which
makes it more difficult to get underneath the data, set reasonable targets and focus on
strategies to improve outcomes.”
24
Chapter Two: The SIP Programme
EFFECTIVENESS OF SIP CORE ROLE
Key Points
x There is evidence of effective challenge provided by the majority of SIPs. Whilst this is less
commonly the case in the primary sector this is largely due to the programme being at an
earlier stage of rollout. SIP effectiveness is evident in terms of:
assessments of performance and moderation of school judgements;
challenge of and support for schools’ understanding of performance and focus on priority
areas;
assessing and challenging target setting; and
effective delivery of headteacher performance management.
x The key ways in which the SIP programme and SIPs individually are supporting school
improvement approaches, include:
providing consistent challenge and focus;
helping to understand performance issues and how to tackle improvement;
influencing the development of a more evaluative culture within schools and helping to
tackle underperformance at an earlier stage;
challenging self-evaluation processes and leadership structures;
interpreting data effectively to guide school leaders and providing reports considered to
be of value to schools and governors;
providing advice on how to address particular priorities and capacity building senior
leadership teams to improve self-evaluation approaches;
identifying school support needs and informing LA strategies for interventions; and
signposting schools to relevant and suitable support.
x There has been a less consistent focus of SIP challenge and support relating to specific ECM
strategies, the performance of collaborative 14-19 and post-16 provision, and monitoring and
reviewing the effectiveness of support interventions.
x Aspects of the core support function are being fulfilled effectively by many SIPs. However,
there is a more mixed picture of effectiveness than that for the challenge and HTPM functions.
Differences in the role fulfilled by types of SIP, the level of school need, and issues associated
with clarity all contribute to this variance.
x There are indications that the SIP programme has successfully introduced, in many cases, a
clear change in school improvement communications with schools, away from the previous
more supportive/pastoral LA approaches. However, direct development support is still being
undertaken by some SIPs. In these circumstances, stakeholders commonly identify a potential
impact on the extent to which the SIP can retain his/her independence to play an ongoing
challenge role with the school.
SIP Challenge
1.68 There is evidence of effective challenge being provided by the vast majority of
SIPs. Whilst this is less commonly the case in the primary sector primary SIPs still
do provide effective challenge in most cases. The lower levels of challenge are due
to the SIP programme being at an earlier stage of rollout in the primary sector.
1.69 There are clearly positive perceptions amongst stakeholders, which are
corroborated by evidence from the case studies. The surveys show that:
x SIPs themselves are most commonly in agreement that they had been able
to provide informed challenge to the schools they work with (95% of those
responding), and LA representatives support this view in the majority of
cases (85% of respondents);
x 80% of secondary headteachers and 70% of primary headteachers agree
that their SIP has been able to provide informed challenge to the school; and
26
x there has been an increase in the proportion of secondary headteachers
agreeing with this statement between the 2006 and 2007 surveys (from 70%
to 80% respectively).
1.70 Figure 4.1 outlines a range of specific examples to describe the challenge being
provided by both secondary and primary SIPs based on the case study
assessments. There is strong evidence that SIPs are:
x effectively assessing the performance of schools and moderating schools’
own judgements and identification of priorities;
x challenging and supporting schools to understand performance and focus on
particular priority and improvement areas; and
x assessing and challenging the accurate setting of targets for school
improvement.
27
Figure 4.1: Evidence of Effective SIP Challenge
Assessing Performance and Moderating Judgements
o The assessment made by the SIP is assessed as high quality, valued and accurate. The SIP is highly skilled in data interpretation and analysis having been
an ex HMI inspector. He has accurately identified the key factors facing the school and affecting its performance. He has also determined whether the school
has accurately determined targets and priorities. This assessment is based on direct observation, review of SIP reports and SLT perceptions.
o There is a sustained effort by the SIP to strengthen the school’s processes to meet the needs of all pupils and to focus the school on important areas for
improvement within the curriculum. The SIP’s moderation of evidence and judgements within the Partnership Plan shows a willingness to engage critically with
the schools’ leadership where she does not feel judgements are wholly warranted.
Understanding Performance & Priority Areas
o In the meeting observed, the SIP was clearly asking regularly for the Head to justify performance and/or judgements, for example, in relation to their Year 6
SATs results, the SIP pushed the Headteacher to understand why results had declined. This meant that the Headteacher went back to review the data and
identified that there was a turnover issue (only 74% of the pupils who were in the KS1 data appear in the KS2 data – 26% had left and others had joined
between the two stages.
o Evidence from the observation suggests that the SIP has a very good grasp of the key performance issues of this school, especially in relation to data and
results (this was the focus of the meeting). This is also reflected in school perceptions and the SIP report.
o The SIP has identified a range of factors contributing to the performance of the school. This is evidenced in the interview feedback and is supported by the
document review. For example, the school's GCSE results in 2006 were higher than ever with 60% of students gaining 5A*-C and the SIP recognised that
GNVQ results in science were a significant contributor to this performance and the school’s results were likely to be adversely affected from 2007 onwards
when the GNVQ qualification ends. The SIP challenged the Head and SLT to improve their contingency plans for when the GNVQ science qualification comes
to an end.
Focus on Priorities
o The assessed evidence from the repeated/triangulated consultations and document review shows the SIP provided effective challenge in this school. There
has been a significant shift in the level of challenge provided since our initial visits last year. The SIP is keeping sustained pressure on the SLT to focus on
key issues of concern and has become increasingly strong on keeping a focus on the major weaknesses in provision, particularly in terms of basic skills, areas
of low attainment by students and use of ICT. His analysis of weaknesses in strategies adopted and the need for a whole school approach to issues keeps
the pressure on the school to improve.
o The SIP has encouraged the Headteacher to focus on an issue facing high performing schools – how to maintain higher standards while continuing to develop
the school’s leadership style (and move to baccalaureate style learning).
How to Address Improvement Areas
o The SIP provides the Headteacher with support during the visits in terms of constructive ideas to improve priority areas (the SIP is able to draw on previous
experience as LA advisor) and sharpen up actions. The SIP encouraged the school to reduce the number of aims they had set to ensure more focus and
achievability, discussed how to present data to the governing board, and talked at length about KS1 and FS and how the school could improve writing. The
SLT view is that the relationship is ‘more like a partnership compared to the previous relationship which was more inspectoral’.
28
1.71 The examples highlight the key ways in which the SIP programme and SIPs
individually are supporting school improvement approaches, by:
x providing some consistent pressure and focus;
x helping understand performance and how to tackle improvement; and
x influencing cultures and approach within schools to be more evaluative and
tackle underperformance at an earlier stage.
Target Setting
1.72 During case study visits in Autumn/Winter 2007 we observed a key emphasis on
target setting discussions from SIPs. This has been a particular focus this year in
light of new targets (those for two levels of progression and GCSEs including
English and Maths) and guidance from LAs encouraging a focus on the most
challenging FFT D figures. Some of the examples in Figure 4.2 illustrate the
approach SIPs are taking, including target-setting discussions focused on
individual pupils and ensuring that the targets are set in light of an understanding of
performance of the school generally and for particular cohorts.
Figure 4.2: Challenging Targets
o This is done through the SIP’s data analysis and from interviews with SLT. One meeting is
devoted to discussion of setting challenging targets in the context of FFT. The SIP
identified that the targets were not in line with FFT for year 11, but after discussion the SIP
agreed that there was a good reason for this (the data would have been predicting
unobtainable percentages).
o The SIP is continually challenging the headteacher on data, targets etc. The deputy
headteacher felt that the SIP was very good at engaging the school in realistic but
challenging targets. The data review observation confirmed this, with the SIP pushing the
headteacher to come back to him with reasons why individual pupils were not going to
achieve the targets set.
1.73 Nevertheless, the case studies also highlight some concerns about the extent to
which some LAs are taking a more top-down approach to the target-setting process
and including data collation requirements for non-statutory targets. This is
illustrated by the following case study assessment extract:
During the observation, the SIP was accepting of the school perception that the
target setting discussion was only necessary because of the need to tick one of the
LA boxes. The sense was of having to go through the process rather than really
understand performance issues and why/how more challenging targets could be
achieved.
Challenging Self-Evaluation and Leadership
1.74 There is also evidence from some of the case studies (though not the majority) that
SIPs are challenging self-evaluation processes and leadership and management
structures as shown in Figure 4.3. Further examples of advice, capacity building
and development support directed at these features are provided within the
assessment of SIP support outlined later in this section.
29
Figure 4.3: Challenging Self-Evaluation and Leadership Structures
o The Head describes ‘exacting conversations’ with the SIP, which had not always been there with the
previous link advisor role. The SIP is particularly challenging on the SEF, which the SIP viewed as
not specific enough, and requiring more judgements. The Head is now ‘really proud’ of the SEF,
which is more punchy.
o The SIP was responsible for challenging the Headteacher to push through some changes in middle
management – for example, reviewing their ‘tracking pupil’ practices and involving them more in
SLT. As a result there are now better tracking processes, regular monitoring and consistency across
year groups. The Headteacher states “in a busy school, having an outsider who can see the
overview is really helpful in prioritising.”
ECM Strategies
1.75 There has been a focus by many SIPs on review and understanding of factors
influencing the performance of particular pupil groups. However, there is less
consistent evidence of SIP challenge and support focused on specific strategies to
support personal development and well-being of pupils or the engagement of
schools in wider developments for integrated children’s services.
Figure 4.4: Focus on Pupil Groups

o The SIP goes through progress by individual pupil and challenges progress of borderline
pupils.
o The SIP has challenged the school on the achievement of lower and middle ability boys. The
SIP has been pushing the Head to move towards developing a more effective and
comprehensive vocational curriculum to meet their needs.
Collaborative and Post-16 Provision
1.76 Across the case studies, there has also been a less consistent focus on particular
aspects of challenge and support relating to collaborative 14-19 provision and post-
16 performance, though some emphasis has been placed on the latter by LAs and
SIPs over the past year. For example, in one LA a recent Joint Area Review
highlighted underperformance across 6th Forms and this led to renewed emphasis
on challenge on 6th Forms during SIP visits.
1.77 Amongst the case study visits, we also observed a focus by SIPs, in some cases,
on challenge and support related to 6th Form delivery. However, evidence across
the case studies is variable and the overall emphasis on post-16 performance is
considered to be inconsistent by some LAs and LSC representatives consulted
during the case study fieldwork. There is also some lack of clarity in relation to
responsibilities for challenge and intervention regarding collaborative 14-19
provision. The following extracts from case study assessments demonstrate these
points:
There is a gap in responsibilities for challenge and evaluation associated with

collaborative work-based learning programmes. SIPs are not obviously covering
this during their visits and whilst providers may be evaluating the provision
themselves this is based on self-regulation and there is no obvious external
challenge.
30
Cursory attention is given to post-16 attainment and achievement because it is not
statutory – it is not part of the data review as there are no targets to set – the SIP
stated that “its part of my role but it doesn’t have the same currency as other
areas”.
Data Interpretation
1.78 Most stakeholders agree that SIPs have interpreted data effectively to guide
schools they work with (more than 80% of headteachers, 95% of SIPs and 90% of
LAs agreed with this statement). This was confirmed through the case studies
where all SIPs were assessed (through document review, observation and
triangulated perceptions) as effective in this respect. The case studies also provide
many examples of SIPs reviewing school SEFs and other planning documents to
inform their assessment and discussions with schools.
Reporting and Feedback
1.79 Most headteachers agree that the reports produced by SIPs are of significant value
to the schools they are supporting – 66% of secondary headteachers and 56% of
primary headteachers agreed with this statement. The lower proportions in the
primary sector appear to be mainly a function of it being early days in the SIP role
being delivered in many cases (with only 10% disagreeing and the remaining third
indicating neither/nor or don’t know). In the secondary sector, 20% of
headteachers disagreed that the reports were of significant value.
1.80 There is some significant difference in the primary sector between those
headteachers with full-time LA employee SIPs and those with serving headteacher
SIPs, with the latter agreeing less often that the reports are of value. This might
suggest some difference in the skills and ability of SIP types 11 to produce quality
and valued reports. However, this is difficult to determine given that headteacher
perceptions may be as much influenced by their view of the general usefulness of a
SIP report (compared with the perceived more valuable element of the relationship
associated with challenge and discussion) as that of the overall quality of the report
writing itself. This argument may also ring true for the significant minority of
secondary headteachers who have disagreed that the reports have significant
value.
1.81 Amongst the LAs surveyed, 75% felt that the SIP reports were of significant value
to schools. The case study evidence also points to a concerted focus in many
areas to improve the quality of SIP reports through quality assurance and
continuous professional development (CPD) activities, which we discuss further in
Appendix B3. Whilst this has resulted in some improvement in overall quality
across SIPs, a small number of LAs still highlight some concerns about overall
consistency. Our own document review highlighted many good practice reports,
but also some variability across the piece. The key area for improvement relates to
the extent to which reports demonstrate a clear analytical focus with expression of
judgements, rather than description and position statements.
11
The report refers to three types of SIP – full-time LA employee SIPs (LA SIPs); SIPs employed as external
consultants to the LA (EC SIPs); and serving headteacher SIPs (HT SIPs). For clarity of meaning we refer to
individual SIP types using the full reference in the main body of the text, but use the acronyms in any
tables/figures to maximise space available. Note that both LA and EC SIPs do include both those with
previous headteacher experience (LA (w) SIPs & EC (w) SIPs) and SIPs without previous headteacher
experience (LA (wo) SIPs and EC (wo) SIPs). In some of the tables in Chapter Two and the Appendices we
distinguish further to comment on differences/issues associated with those with and without headteacher
experience.
31
Figure 4.5: Quality of SIP Reports (Assessed Case Study Examples)
Good Quality Reports
o The reports are high quality and of value. Evidence to support this comes from:
- the document review which provides examples of the range of data the SIP is accessing
to make informed judgements and of the increasing levels of challenge since the first
year reports were reviewed;
- feedback from the Head and SLT which suggests they value the SIP’s input;
- the Local Authority who identified that they are happy with the quality and rigour of the
reports provided by this SIP; and
- third party feedback from the deputy head that the governors valued the SIP input as did
the school for its independent assessment of the schools’ strengths and weaknesses.
Lower Consistency or Quality Reports
o Reports were considered to be a statement of the obvious and added no additional value to
the school.
o The Local Authority has some concerns about the quality of SIP reports generally, though
this was not an issue for the SIP included within our fieldwork.
Evidence of Less Effective Challenge
1.82 Headteacher perceptions suggest that a very small proportion of SIPs (around one
tenth) are not effectively challenging their schools in the ways others are doing.
These low numbers suggest that in the vast majority of cases the processes for
SIP accreditation, selection, management and performance review are effective.
Indeed, for one of the examples identified below, the SIP is currently under
performance review with the LA. We assess these aspects of the SIP programme
in more detail in Section 5.
1.83 There are a very small number of examples from the case studies which
demonstrate some lower levels of challenge. In these cases there appears to be
some evidence of ‘cosy’ relationships and a lack of probing, questioning and
challenge to improve schools’ understanding of performance, target setting and
focus on priority areas.
Figure 4.6: Evidence of Less Effective Challenge

o During observation, there was little discussion about whether certain subject areas might
struggle to achieve targets, or identify where other departments might be set more
challenging targets. The school has below average CVA.
o The is evidence that the SIP knows the school very well, but with the school
underperforming the SIP seems to be too easily persuaded that this is due to other ECM
issues and that their performance is acceptable. This is not the view of the local authority
and they would like to see the school setting more challenging targets to raise the
aspirations for these children.
32
SIP Headteacher Performance Management (HTPM)
1.84 The headteacher performance management function is also being delivered
effectively by many SIPs in the secondary sector. Most headteachers, SIPs and
LAs agree that SIPs are effectively fulfilling this function. Amongst the detailed
school case studies, there are a number of examples illustrating that the process is
generally considered to be good and valued by both the headteachers and
governors involved.
Figure 4.7: Views of Headteacher Performance Management

o The headteacher and governors are happy with the process. The governors commented
that they felt they had more input as a result of the SIP doing this rather than an external
person.
o The governors stated they were happier with this than the previous process. They felt the
SIP knew more and brought a 'local' comparison with him.
o The governors view the SIP as exceptional and value his contribution to helping the HTPM
process as he knows the school more than anybody. Governors feel the SIP has added
value to the previous process and has provided lot of info prior to their meetings.
o This was the headteacher’s first performance management since promotion, so nothing to
compare with, but s/he found the SIP very useful and a mediator for translating governors'
wishes into sensible objectives.
o The feedback to the SIP is that it has gone extremely well from all sides. Governors were
particularly pleased with the paperwork in advance.
o The governors felt that it was a streamlined process and the SIP knew the school better than
the previous advisor.
o The use of someone who knows the school well to carry out performance management for
headteachers is considered to be helpful and there has been very positive feedback from
headteachers and governors.
1.85 Whilst the effectiveness of SIPs in this role in the primary sector is less obvious
(only 43% of primary headteachers agree that SIPs have effectively undertaken
headteacher performance management) this is likely to be a function of the early
stage of roll out of the SIP programme and therefore it is too early for many
headteachers to comment.
1.86 In the Academy sector SIPs are not assigned for the HTPM role. In addition, there
is just one example from the case studies where a SIP is not fulfilling the HTPM
function in a secondary school (the school has requested that an external advisor
continues to play this role).
1.87 There are some stakeholders that point to the overall effectiveness of the
governing body as being a critical success factor for HTPM -“The SIP works well in
this school, governors are beginning to feel that they own the process, but it is
dependent on the relationship between governors and headteachers as to whether
the process is effective.”
1.88 There are just a small number of qualitative examples from the surveys and case
studies which suggest that SIPs fulfilling the HTPM role is less effective than the
previous external advisor system:
“There is some resistance to HTPM from headteachers who see this as a
supportive process and from some who did not previously receive a robust
process”;
33
“Feedback from local governing bodies suggests that there is no change in rigour
from that provided beforehand.”
SIP Support
1.89 Aspects of the core support function are being fulfilled effectively by many SIPs
and there are a number of examples of the positive effect this is having on school
planning and improvement. However, the evidence associated with the
effectiveness of SIPs in their support role shows a more mixed picture than that
seen for the challenge and HTPM functions. Whilst the majority of secondary and
half of primary headteachers agree that SIPs have effectively identified their
support needs, much lower proportions identified that SIPs had effectively brokered
school support needs or provided development support to meet school needs.
SIPs themselves and LA respondents are generally more positive about the
effectiveness in delivering support related functions.
1.90 Differences in the role fulfilled by different types of SIP, the level of school need,
and issues of clarity regarding the SIP support role all contribute to this mixed
picture. We comment on these factors in more detail in following sections. In this
sub-section we discuss a number of aspects of the SIP support role. We explore
the issues associated with brokering support in more detail in Section 5 and on
issues of SIP type consistency and clarity in Sections 7 and 8 respectively.
Providing Advice
1.91 Across the case study schools there are a number of examples where SIPs are
providing advice on how to address particular priorities. This tends to be more
prevalent, as you would expect, for lower performing schools, those needing to
improve CVA performance and those in more challenging circumstances. It also
tends to focus on ideas, suggestions and strategies as opposed to more detailed
advice on the most suitable intervention support (though this does occur in some
areas as discussed below).
Figure 4.8: SIP Advice on Priorities

o Through the regular meetings, the SIP plants ideas, makes suggestions which the SLT pick
up and work with over time.
o The SIP provided pointers to the school on communication with the LA about taking pupils
excluded from other schools. The SIP talked to the headteacher about not feeling forced to
take too many if this affected other issues that the school was working on (e.g. request to
take boys when there is currently a male gender bias in the school which may be affecting
girls’ choice of school and performance).
o The SIP sets an agenda of visit to focus on an area of development and provides advice and
suggestions on how to improve based on the evidence. During observation, the SIP
provided hints and tips such as, for example, shifting the balance of self-evaluation to middle
managers, and use of lesson observations as developmental rather than inspection focused.
o A range of intervention strategies were discussed with the school including Springboard for
year 3, more structure use of higher level teaching assistants to work with underachievers in
maths in year 6 and identifying children with stretching targets to help them achieve.
34
Providing Development and Support
1.92 There are indications that the SIP programme has successfully introduced, in many
cases, a clear change in school improvement communications with schools, away
from the previous more supportive/pastoral LA approaches. In particular, this is
evidenced through relatively low levels of SIPs providing development support,
which is considered by many stakeholders to be appropriate given the role of the
SIP to ensure access to suitable and effective support rather that to deliver the
support itself.
1.93 However, direct development support is still undertaken by some SIPs - around
one fifth of headteachers and one third of SIPs responding to the surveys identified
that SIPs were providing development support. It is most commonly undertaken by
full-time LA employee SIPs and external consultant SIPs (and in the secondary
sector, full-time LA employee SIPs without headteacher experience):
x around half of full-time LA employee SIPs responding to the survey said they
had provided development support, compared to one third of external
consultant SIPs and only one fifth of serving headteacher SIPs; and
x two-fifths of secondary headteachers with full-time LA employee SIPs without
recent headship experience said their SIP had provided development
support, compared to around one quarter of headteachers (secondary and
primary) with full-time LA employee SIPs with headteacher experience and
only on tenth of headteachers (secondary and primary) with serving
headteacher SIPs.
1.94 Where this activity is occurring, many national and local stakeholders believe there
is a potential impact on the extent to which the SIP can retain his/her
independence to play an ongoing challenge role with the school.
1.95 There is, however, some discrepancy in the survey responses associated the
provision of development support, which perhaps relates to the fact that there is
sometimes a fine line between what SIPs should or should not be doing as part of
their core role. Slightly higher proportions of headteachers and SIPs agreed with
the statement that “SIPs were effectively providing development support to meet
the schools’ needs” (one fifth of primary headteachers, a third of secondary
headteachers and just under one half of SIPs), than those agreeing that they
actually “provided development support” as an activity.
1.96 Amongst the case study schools, there are a number of examples (as shown in
Figure 4.9) where SIPs are undertaking direct delivery of support which appears to
be outside the intended core SIP role, though this is often on an adhoc rather than
continuous basis. Where such activities are occurring on a more consistent basis
this tends to be provided outside of the five core days allocated (and therefore is
more often undertaken by full-time LA employee and external consultant SIPs).
35
Figure 4.9: SIPs Providing Support
o The SIP has played an important part in the development of the school's year heads - a major
issue for the 3rd and 4th visits to the school this year (quality of provision and overall
leadership & management).
o The SIP discussed with the headteacher how to plan a reconfiguration of the SLT – with a
deputy about to leave, finding the money to release two SLT members for 50% of the
timetable. The headteacher clearly welcomes the ability to discuss matters like this with the
SIP.
o There is evidence of a more pastoral/mentoring relationship for this school. The head likes to
use the SIP as a sounding board for ideas and the SIP sees the role as being more
responsive – “where there are issues, the head phones me, for example in relation to staffing
issues and I don’t feel like I can turn a head down, it’s a bit off the script but I am happy to do
it for the emotional well being of the head and school.”
o The SIP has conducted lesson observations with heads of department as part of quality
assurance. The SIP will be further involved in providing training on lesson observation for
staff and how to judge whether lessons are outstanding, good etc. The school commented
that it would be good for the SIP to undertake the role again in the future to prevent them from
becoming complacent on lesson observations and ensuring external moderation.
o The SIP has worked with the SLT and middle managers to identify what constitutes effective
and ineffective teaching and learning, in order to improve standards of achievement.
o The SIP did provide some support/development to teachers around home learning, but
explicitly said to the headteacher that this was not part of her SIP role.
Capacity Building
1.97 There are also some examples amongst the case studies of what could be
considered as ‘capacity building type activities’, predominantly focused on
improving the capacity of the senior leadership teams (SLTs) and middle managers
in relation to self-evaluation approaches.
Figure 4.10: SIP Capacity Building

o The SIP has undertaken leadership support activities, for example a challenge afternoon
with assistant heads.
o The SIP has particularly helped with a move towards a more bottom up self-evaluation
culture – he has worked with the assistant head on processes in place for year 10 data
review.
o The SIP is undertaking paired lesson observations with the SLT in order to develop their
capacity and understanding of what makes a good/outstanding lesson.
1.98 There remains some uncertainty or difference in view regarding the extent to which
SIPs should be undertaking these ‘capacity building’ roles within their core support
role; whether they have the time within the 5 days allocated; or whether this activity
diverts attention away from a focus on challenge and identifying/reviewing support
strategies.
1.99 To a large extent this will depend on individual circumstances and school needs
and it is clear in some cases that these activities are valued and have contributed
to improvements in school self-evaluation and planning (as shown by the impact
examples in Section 6). In other examples, such capacity building is not necessary
as the schools are high performing and/or are strong self-evaluating schools.
36
1.100 Continuing flexibility around the SIP role at this margin (which is not evident in all
LA areas) may therefore be appropriate to enable some SIPs to maximise the
value of their support for schools they are working with. As a result, however, there
remains some uncertainty about when the “providing support line has been
crossed”, which may be contributing to some lack of clarity around the SIP support
role.
Identifying Support Needs
1.101 Most SIPs play some role in identifying support needs with schools, though the
extent to which this is an explicit and required activity varies. Whilst most SIPs (in
the survey) cite ‘identifying support needs’ as an activity they undertake and that
they have effectively fulfilled, only around half of headteachers said this was the
case. 50% of primary and 61% of secondary headteachers agreed that SIPs had
been able to effectively identify school support needs compared to 70% of LAs and
93% of SIPs.
1.102 The case study evidence suggests that this difference in perception reflects two
broad issues. Firstly, often the SIP is confirming rather than playing a significant
role in identifying support needs. This is particularly the case for well-performing,
good self-evaluating schools where there may be less of a need. Therefore, whilst
most SIP reports include detail of the schools’ support needs (and therefore SIPs
identify this as an activity), schools may not recognise the SIP has having
specifically identified those needs.
1.103 Secondly, in some LA areas (nine of our case study areas) it is an explicit
requirement to discuss support needs, whereas in others this is less obvious.
Figure 4.11: SIPs Identifying Support Needs

o The SIP helped the headteacher to recognise what support was needed, for example in
relation to assessment for learning, introduction of Assistant teachers, pro-formas for pupil
progress and reviews with staff.
o The November meeting has a particular focus to identify support needs; thereafter the SIP
regularly asks the question “does the school need support?” and will push/encourage the LA
to ensure this happens.
Informing LA Strategies
1.104 In most of the case study areas (eight), the LA has defined and operates
mechanisms giving SIPs (or their reports) a specific role to inform, but not
necessarily broker LA strategies and packages of support for the school. There is
also some evidence in a small number of cases where SIPs are playing a more
direct role to influence the LA in support choices for schools.
37
Figure 4.12: SIPs Inform Support Strategies
o The SIPs discuss school support needs and identify these in their reports. The LA use this
to provide each school with an overview of what the LA is offering that may meet their
needs, what other organisations are offering and the potential gaps. The LA officer leads
this work.
o The SIP played a role to push/encourage the LA to provide specific and necessary support
for one school causing concern – this was in relation to leadership & management and
occupational health. The SIP did not play a wider role however in relation to other specific
packages of support going into the school.
o In one case study area, the LA define a key role for SIPs to support the impact evaluation of
LA funded support – this appears to be a more explicit intended role than elsewhere, though
there is recognition that there is potential to increase/improve the extent to which it is
actually being achieved.
o The SIP helped the school to clarify that the Foundation Stage support the LA provided was
not being effective – the SIP encouraged the LA to stop the support so something more
effective could be identified.
Signpost to Support/Interventions
1.105 The extent to which SIPs signpost schools to relevant and suitable support is
variable. Only two-fifths of headteachers responding to the survey say their SIP
has done this, though SIPs themselves are more positive, with four-fifths saying
they had undertaken this activity.
1.106 Again, the extent to which this activity is undertaken is influenced by the level of
perceived need – many schools comment that they can and do sort this for
themselves. This is predominantly those that are better performing and strong self-
evaluators, but does sometimes include those considered to be lower performing
and requiring more significant support to develop evaluation and improvement
approaches.
1.107 Specific SIP activities to signpost schools to external support or to support from
other schools tend to be adhoc and dependent on the specific SIP knowledge and
approach.
Figure 4.13: SIPs Signposting Support

LA/External Support
o The SIP advised the school to contact the Maths Advisory Teacher for support in relation to
assessment for learning.
o The SIP facilitated access to ICT support from LA consultants.
o The SIP arranged additional maths support for the school via CfBT.
Other Schools
o The SIP brokered some ‘Gifted & Talented’ (G&T) support from an ex-headteacher, but only
because he knew the person. He said he would not have mentioned this to the LA although
raised the area of G&T in his report.
o From the headteacher’s perspective, the most useful part of "support" is finding out what
else is going on in other schools.
o The SIP referred key members of staff to documentation and examples of good practice in
other schools regarding lesson observation to support greater consistency in grading.
38
Monitor & Review Support
1.108 There are a small number of examples amongst the case study schools of SIPs
playing a role to monitor and review the effectiveness of support interventions,
though this appears to be an aspect of the role which has received less emphasis
to date.
1.109 Where greater focus has been placed on this aspect, it has occasionally involved
monitoring packages of support (in three of our case study areas) but more often
involves the SIP questioning and challenging the school to evaluate the
effectiveness of interventions (evidence in six case study areas). There are also
some isolated examples (in two case study areas) where SIPs are challenging the
LA on effectiveness of the support being provided (as identified earlier in this
section (Figure 4.12). In a few examples SIPs appear to be going beyond what is
considered their core role in that they have undertaken more direct evaluation
activities.
Figure 4.14: Monitor and Review Support

SIPs Monitor Packages of Support
o The LA draws up a support plan for every school receiving support and the SIP is
responsible for monitoring the plan (although the LA always send another person to go
through it with the headteacher).
o The SIP is part of a wider package of termly monitoring and support provided by the LA over
the past couple of years due to its problems.
SIPs Challenge/ask Questions about Support/Interventions

o Evidence from direct observation and interview data shows clearly that the SIP role is one of
questioning the school on the suitability of the support they have sourced directly rather than
suggesting or planning a package of support. If the SIP felt the school were not sourcing
support to enable it to address an area highlighted as a concern he/she would raise this as
an issue in the SIP report.
o The SIP encourages the school to undertake more in depth analysis, for example, the
attendance figures were slipping despite significant measures to address this so the SIP
advised the school to understand further the factors influencing this.
o The SIP asks questions of the Governors and the headteacher/SLT to encourage them to
evaluate the effectiveness of support/interventions – “so what? is it working?”
SIPs Undertake Direct Evaluation Activity

o The recommended action in the SIP report is reviewed in follow up visits by the SIP to see
what has happened – the SIP undertook book reviews, reviewed SATs and spoke to those
providing the support.
o The SIP saw heads of department and students to get a feel for the impact of interventions.
39
BROKERING SUPPORT
Key Points
x A low proportion of stakeholders identify the SIP programme as being effective in
brokering school support needs. These perceptions are influenced by some lack of
clarity around the role of the SIP and different LA delivery models.
x Whilst clarity about the SIP role in brokering support has improved since the beginning of
the evaluation, there remains some uncertainty amongst a significant minority of
headteachers and to a lesser extent SIPs themselves. This reflects both a common view
amongst LAs that SIPs should not fulfil the brokering function; and some headteacher
comments that they can source and manage their own support needs.
x LA models for brokering support for schools requiring higher levels of intervention fall
broadly within two types – those where a clear distinction is made between the SIP role
to challenge and the LA role to broker support; and those where additional resource is
provided to some types of SIP (predominantly full-time LA employee SIPs) to monitor
progress and build capacity.
x There is the potential to increase the emphasis placed on the SIP role to ensure the
suitability and effectiveness of support interventions. Consideration is required of the
extent to which this can be achieved within the core 5 days and how LA mechanisms
could be developed in terms of:
integration of SIPs within wider LA and children’s service support areas;
placing appropriate emphasis on the SIP role to evaluate effectiveness of support
and interventions; and
creating an environment within which SIPs can appropriately challenge the LA and
others about the suitability and effectiveness of support provided.
x There is evidence in a minority of LA areas of the potential to improve the coherence of
the support offer and clarity of SIP role in relation to this:
in some LA areas, there are perceptions of duplication between SIP and other LA
staff roles and a lack of a clear and defined role for SIPs within the overarching LA
strategy for school access to support; and
there is evidence amongst a small number of case study schools that the SIP
programme (and/or the LA school improvement approach) is not consistently
providing additional support for schools that may benefit.
x More generally across LA areas there is the potential to improve the effectiveness and
consistency of LA mechanisms to ensure that there is a comprehensive understanding of
the range of support interventions available and suitability in different circumstances.
1.110 Only 26% of primary and 39% of secondary headteachers agreed that SIPs had
been able to effectively broker school support needs. There were also mixed views
amongst LA respondents with 42% agreeing and 27% disagreeing. 69% of SIPs
themselves agreed that they had effectively fulfilled this function, with full-time LA
employee SIPs identifying themselves as more effective in this respect than other
types of SIP (82% of full-time LA employee SIPs agreed that they were effective in
brokering school support needs compared to 53% and 57% of serving headteacher
and external consultant SIPs respectively).
40
1.111 These perceptions are influenced by some lack of clarity and difference of view
regarding whether brokering should be a role for the SIP Programme. As a result,
there are varying LA models of delivery for the brokering of school support. This
means that it is not possible to fully interpret headteacher responses to the
question of whether SIPs have effectively brokered their needs, given that lack of
agreement does not automatically mean that schools support needs have not been
met. Indeed, many of the case study stakeholders reflected the view that the SIP
had not brokered their support needs but that either there are other LA
mechanisms that fulfil this purpose or that they had no requirement as they could
broker their own needs.
Clarity of SIP Role in Brokering Support

1.112 The clarity specifically associated with the brokering role has improved since the
baseline assessment in March 2007, though there is still some uncertainty amongst
many headteachers and, to a lesser extent, SIPs themselves. Under half of those
headteachers responding to the survey agreed that there was clarity and around
one quarter disagreed; two-thirds of SIPs agreed and one quarter disagreed.
1.113 There is some difference in clarity by SIP type. External consultant SIPs agree
less often than full-time LA employee and serving headteacher SIPs that there is
clarity in relation to:
x the SIP role in brokering for schools (60% of external consultant SIPs agreed
compared to 66% of full-time LA employee SIPs and 71% of serving
headteacher SIPs);
x LA expectations of SIPs brokering role (54% of external consultant SIPs
agreed compared to 74% of full-time LA employee SIPs and 67% of serving
headteacher SIPs).
1.114 It is difficult to truly get underneath the issues of clarity and effectiveness
surrounding the brokering support function, given that there is considerable
variance in the specific approaches LAs adopt and stakeholder interpretations of
what is intended or meant by the term ‘brokering’. Nevertheless, there do appear
to be clear differences in both perceptions of and practice in relation to the
brokering support role that SIPs should or do play for different types of school.
Well-performing or good self-improving schools require less brokering than those
that are lower performing or causing concern. Equally, many schools state that
there is not a role for the SIP or LA to play in relation to ‘brokering support’ given
that they (the schools) source and manage their own support. This view is
reflective of the general ‘indifference’ we experienced when we consulted some
schools on the effectiveness of support brokering they experienced.
1.115 For low performing schools, schools in challenging circumstances or schools

causing concern (which may be accessing a significant range of support) there is
often a more significant role to be played associated with ensuring coherence,
suitability and effective planning and management of the support accessed.
LA Delivery Models
1.116 Outside the core challenge and support role, the breadth of support provided to
those schools requiring higher levels of support intervention varies across LAs.
This is indicated both by the perceptions of those SIPs that work across LA areas
and the different practices that LAs have adopted in allocating additional resource
for SIP functions:
41
x amongst those SIPs responding to the survey that worked in more than one
LA area, just over half reported that the breadth of support varied and that
there were different definitions of the core SIP role across LA areas; and
x additional resource is being provided by some LA areas (half of those
responding to the survey) for SIPs to fulfil specific support functions for some
types of school, but this is not always the case.
1.117 This difference is largely a function of varying definitions across LAs of where the
SIP role ends and the LA one begins. Many LAs and SIPs feel that this brokering
support function is most effectively undertaken by LAs – a common view which is
explicit in some LA areas is that “SIPs challenge, LAs broker”.
1.118 LA delivery models for brokering school support fall broadly within two types –
those where a clear distinction is made between the SIP role to challenge and the
LA role to broker support; and those where additional resource is provided to some
types of SIP (predominantly those that are direct employees of the LA) to monitor
progress/support interventions and build capacity.
Brokering Access
1.119 In most case study areas where arrangements have been clearly defined, the LA
has responsibility for the specific matching or brokering of access to the support
packages available. This is sometimes supported through mechanisms to ensure
SIPs (and schools themselves) have some awareness of the packages which
inform their discussions of support needs.
Figure 5.1: LAs Brokering Support Packages (Assessed Case Study Examples)
o There are two conversations – the SIP challenges and the Learning network coordinators
broker and coordinate – SIPs can help to identify areas of support but not the where or the
what.
o A single conversation meeting is held once a year with all schools to discuss the support
available/to be accessed. Some schools felt this was not the most effective approach given
that it is at just one point in the year and it is difficult to discuss individual support needs with
other schools round the table.
1.120 Only in three of the case study areas can the approach adopted by the LA be
considered as the SIP specifically brokering access to the packages of support,
and in one of these areas the role is fulfilled by full-time LA employee SIPs only
(i.e. these SIPs are allocated to those schools requiring greater levels of support)
Figure 5.2: SIPs Brokering Support Packages (Assessed Case Study Examples)
o The SIP identified a formal package of support from the LA, but also informed the school of
other support available within the LA that the school was not aware of (e.g. EAL, INSET).
o The SIP reviewed the ‘Contract of Targeted Support’ modules with the school to identify
areas most appropriate/useful to the school particularly in relation to the subject leaders’
role. The headteacher noted that the SIP is the official person for support, but the school will
go elsewhere for support also.
o Unusually in this LA area, the SIP does broker support for this school (a school causing
concern) by talking to the appropriate person in the LA – the school is not always clear about
who this should be. The clarity of lines of communication could be improved.
o The SIP is involved in negotiating the school support plan. Beyond the LA, the SIP relies on
his own experience and contacts, which come from 'SIPing' in seven schools across two LA
areas.
42
Management and Co-ordination of Support
1.121 The management and coordination of packages of support tends to be a role

fulfilled by LAs rather than SIPs, where necessary. This predominantly relates to
those schools in challenging circumstances or identified as causing concern, which
have a significant level and range or support being accessed. Those schools with
lower levels of support needs tend not to require specific management or they can
manage/coordinate it themselves.
1.122 There is just one case study area where the SIP (and this is usually a full-time LA
employee SIP) has been allocated to a school to enable them to undertake a
management/coordination role: There are quite a lot of meetings due to the school
being in special measures - the SIP is coordinator of the school's Priority Action
Plan. He gets more time for this role, and tries to keep it separate from the core
SIP challenge role.
Ensuring Suitability and Effectiveness of Support
1.123 The arguments for full-time LA employee SIPs or other LA staff undertaking the
specific functions of brokering access and managing packages of support are
practical and pragmatic. Serving headteacher SIPs in particular have less
capacity, given the demands of their own schools, to provide the necessary
additional resource. It seems appropriate, therefore, that for certain types of school
(those in challenging circumstances or causing concern) these specific functions,
which require resource outside the core five days, should be fulfilled by full-time LA
employee SIPs or other LA staff. However, this does not negate the need or
potential value from SIPs fulfilling the intended, though more implicit planning role
associated with support interventions, namely to:
x advise on resources and strategies which fit priorities;
x ensure that support accessed by schools meets their needs and is well
chosen/suitable;
x ensure that it is managed appropriately; and
x ensure that it has the potential to significantly impact on standards in the
school, producing the desired improvement in the school.
1.124 As discussed in Section 4, it is evident that some of these aspects are not yet
being achieved on a consistently effective basis. One of the constraints may be, in
fact, the use of the word ‘brokering’ (which is no longer explicitly mentioned in the
SIP brief but continues to have currency). The word is open to interpretation in
exact meaning and the pragmatic arguments for LAs to fulfil this role tend to focus
on the specific functions of brokering access and managing support packages
perhaps to the detriment of a more appropriate emphasis on the strategic SIP role
associated with advising, ensuring suitability, and maximising the impact of support
interventions.
LA School Support Strategies

1.125 In most LA areas, the communication associated with the definition and role of the
SIP appears to have been clearly set out with some highlighting that there are
complimentary roles to be played and the SIPs on their own cannot effectively raise
standards. However, there is evidence in a minority of LA areas of the potential to
improve the coherence of the support offer and role of the SIP in relation to this.
43
Distinction between SIP and LA Roles
1.126 There is the potential in some LA areas to improve communication with schools
about the distinction between the role of the SIPs and other LA functions. A third of
headteachers responding to the surveys agreed that there was duplication between
SIP and LA roles. The vast majority of these respondents also indicated that the
traditional LA ‘link adviser’ role still existed in their LA area, reflecting that in these
areas the LA have not fully aligned the SIP programme with school improvement
services.
1.127 In the secondary sector, these responses were less common amongst
headteachers in LAs that are in Wave 3 of the roll-out of the SIP programme,
indicating that some of the messages and lessons from early roll-out are being
addressed by those LAs engaging at a later stage (but not necessarily by those in
earlier Waves).
Coherence of Strategies
1.128 There is evidence in four of the case study areas that SIPs do not have a clear and
defined role within the overarching LA strategy for school access to support
interventions. In these areas, whilst SIP reports might identify support needs, they
are not obviously collated or informing LA strategies in a coherent or consistent
way. Any signposting, brokering and management of support packages appears to
be more independent of the SIP role. In particular, there is the potential to
improve consistency in these LA areas in relation to:
x explicit requirements and guidance for SIPs to identify support needs;
x mechanisms to build on SIP evidence and reports about school support
needs to inform LA intervention strategies; and
x the provision of knowledge and information for SIPs (and schools) about LA
support strategies and packages.
1.129 There is also some evidence amongst a small number of case studies that the SIP
programme is not consistently providing additional resource for aspects of the
support role for schools that may benefit from them. In these cases, the schools
are low performing and/or achieving low levels of CVA and might benefit from
additional capacity building, brokering or monitoring of support via the SIP or LA,
but are not obviously doing so as others amongst the case studies are.
Figure 5.3: Schools that Would Benefit from more Support

o The resource allocated does on the whole appear to be adequate for the SIP to deliver core
functions. However, it may be that this is adequate because there is no
assumption/requirement that they will deliver support brokerage and HTPM. There is
evidence from the session observed and interview with the SIP that with more time the SIP
could address weaknesses of the school more head on but there simply isn’t the time to do
this.
o There is now insufficient LA support for schools for work outside the SIP remit e.g.
appointing head teachers, supporting in SCC, seconding staff to cover school senior
managers etc. The SIP is now the only point of contact for many schools and there is no
slack in the system.
44
1.130 Additionally, some LA stakeholders point to financial constraints (as discussed in
Section 8) which may be impacting on their overall level of support for schools
causing concern.
Common Development Areas
1.131 More broadly across most LAs areas, there is the potential to improve the
effectiveness of specific aspects of LA mechanisms. This is particularly in terms of
developing a comprehensive understanding of the range of support interventions
available and suitability in different circumstances.
1.132 The extent to which schools benefit from SIPs signposting them to relevant support
interventions tends to be adhoc and dependent on the specific SIP knowledge and
approach. Whilst there are some good practice examples where “menus of
information” are provided regarding LA or National Strategies support, this is not
the case across all LA areas and there tends to be less information available about
other forms of external support or good practice from other schools (though again
there is one case study area that operates good practice in this respect).
Figure 5.4: LA Support Mechanisms – Support Options Available

o This is a priority for this LA area this year, but is a key area of weakness. Currently there is
no clear approach for gathering evidence of the support needed, aligning this with potential
options and signposting the SIP/school to appropriate support, particularly if this is more
specialist support.
o One school highlighted that they would prefer to look outside core LA support through
partnerships with other schools including those outside the LA, but they feel some pressure
from the SIP to access LA support.
o The LA identifies which schools in the area are specialists/high performing in particular
areas. This is shared with all SIPs and schools to support the identification of school links.
Whilst this may be a good practice approach to developing school collaboration, one school
in the area did feel that there was a constraint associated with accessing support from
outside of the LA area – often they were identified as the “specialists” and so there are many
calls on their expertise, and in fact they had a particular support need in an area that they
were identified as “specialist” within the LA area.
1.133 There is also evidence in some areas that schools feel that the SIP is pushing them
to take up LA support, without necessarily considering the wider options available.
Historic arrangements in some areas also inhibit the extent to which LA employees
are incentivised to look beyond the LA support (for example, in one case study
area, the LA support is operated through a traded arm and teams/departments
have targets to reach).
1.134 Other areas where LA mechanisms could be improved to facilitate the SIP support
role include:
x integration of the SIP programme within wider LA and children’s service
support areas;
x encouraging SIPs to ensure they place increasing emphasis (as the SIP
relationship is embedded) on evaluating the effectiveness of
support/interventions to ensure they are contributing to an improvement in
standards; and
45
x facilitating an appropriate relationship with SIPs to enable them to challenge
and influence LA decisions about support for school improvement - “The SIP
needs to have some detachment from the LA and have the strength of
character to enable him/her to challenge and evaluate the work of LA
colleagues (who are providing more direct support to schools)”.
Figure 5.5: Integration of SIPs

o The SIPs are outside of the LA area and are not therefore plugged into LA mechanisms of
support for wider children’s services.
o The LA has multi-agency secondary team meetings which include SIPs and they are
gradually inviting individuals across the LA to communicate directly with the SIP, for
example, head of education, and welfare on attendance. Other LA departments, however,
still tend to go directly to schools.
o The structure within the LA area has recently changed. There are four children’s service
areas and the SIP managers and SIPs are being restructured to match these boundaries.
This should provide a greater opportunity to draw in wider support from children’s services
more generally.
46
IMPACT OF THE SIP PROGRAMME
Key Points
x The evaluation case studies provide a range of evidence to show that the SIP programme is
supporting some schools to raise standards of achievement. The direct impact of SIPs
themselves is difficult to establish due to the nature of the role to challenge and support
rather than being directly engaged in school improvement activities. It is the actions of those
within the schools (SLT and other staff) that ultimately achieve improvements.
x Nevertheless, the perceptions of many stakeholders, particularly in the secondary sector, are
positive about the contribution being made by SIPs and there are a small number of
evaluation case studies which indicate a link between SIP support for school improvement
interventions and better school outcomes.
x More generally, it is clear that the SIP role is leading to better school improvement, in terms
of:
x supporting headteachers and senior leadership teams to:
understand performance issues;
effectively plan and prioritise areas for improvement;
focus on outcomes, including for particular pupil groups;
improve data use, analysis and self-evaluation approaches;
engage pupils and parents in achieving progress;
x more focused accountability for performance amongst headteachers, senior leadership
teams, middle managers and teachers; and
x aligning headteacher performance management with school priorities.
x There are more mixed views amongst LA stakeholders about the impact of the SIP role
which may reflect some difference in impact across the primary and secondary sectors. It is
also indicative of a broader perspective of the contribution that the SIP programme may have
within LA support and intervention strategies more generally.
x The SIP programme has, in some LA areas, enabled higher levels of challenge and support
for schools that do not require formal intervention. It has also contributed to improved
understanding about school performance amongst some LAs, helping them to deliver earlier
preventative interventions.
x Half of LAs responding to the survey do not agree that the SIP function is effective for
supporting schools causing concern and only one quarter agree. This is indicative of issues
highlighted in Section 5 that in these circumstances schools require additional resource to
support their improvement.
1.135 There is perceptual and case study evidence that the SIP programme is supporting
some schools to raise standards of achievement. The direct impact of SIPs
themselves is difficult to establish due to the nature of the role to challenge and
support rather than being directly engaged in school improvement activities.
Nevertheless, the perceptions of many stakeholders, particularly in the secondary
sector, are positive about the contribution being made by SIPs. The case studies
also provide a more detailed understanding of how SIPs do contribute in some
instances.
Stakeholder Perceptions
1.136 Table 6.1 identifies that 60% of secondary headteachers agree the SIP has
supported their school to raise standards of achievement. This represents a
significant increase since the survey undertaken in 2006 where only 34% of
secondary headteachers agreed with this statement. This provides some
encouraging signs for the primary sector, where the programme is at an earlier
stage in roll-out and currently 45% of primary headteachers agree with the
statement.
47
Table 6.1: Stakeholder Perceptions of SIP Impact on Standards
Percentage of responses to the statement “Our SIP has
(I/SIPs have) supported schools to raise standards of
achievement”
Agree/ strongly agree Disagree/ strongly disagree
Secondary headteachers 60% 17%
Primary headteachers 45% 18%
SIPs 78% 1%
LAs 37% 17%
1.137 There are more mixed views amongst LA stakeholders which may reflect some
difference in impact across the two sectors (LA respondents included a mix of
those working within the secondary and primary sectors and some will have
responded from a joint perspective). It does also represent, however, a broader
perspective of the contribution that the SIP programme may have within LA support
and intervention strategies more generally, as discussed later in this section.
1.138 There are some statistically significant differences in the perceptions of primary
headteachers with different types of SIP. Those with full-time LA employee SIPs
with headteacher experience agree more often (51%) that their SIP is supporting
their school to raise standards of achievement, compared to those with other types
of SIP. Those with serving headteacher SIPs agree the least (30%).
1.139 Amongst SIPs themselves, 78% think their role has contributed to raising
standards of achievement in the schools they work with. Again there is some
difference by SIP type, with full-time LA employee and external consultant SIPs
agreeing more commonly (80% or more) than serving headteacher SIPs (61%).
However, this may be as much a function of perspective as opposed to
effectiveness, with serving headteacher SIPs recognising that their impact is limited
given their indirect role in the schools they work with.
1.140 SIPs are also positive about the impact of their support both on changes in schools’
approaches to self-evaluation and the development of strategies to achieve the five
outcomes of Every Child Matters. However, headteachers and LAs had more
mixed views as shown in Table 6.2
Table 6.2: Stakeholder Perceptions of SIP Impact

on Self-Evaluation and ECM Strategies
Percentage of responses to the Secondary Primary
SIPs LAs
statement: headteachers headteachers
Support from the SIP has been a key influencing factor in changing schools’ approach to
self evaluation 12
Agree/ strongly agree 44% 25% 75% 33%
Disagree/ strongly disagree 28% 33% 2% 17%
SIPs have supported schools to develop strategies to achieve the five outcomes of Every
Child Matters 13
Agree/ strongly agree 39% 25% 68% 21%
Disagree/ strongly disagree 27% 29% 4% 17%
12
Figures do not add up to 100% as a large proportion of respondents answered neither agree nor disagree or
too early to tell
13
Cit Op
48
Case Studies
1.141 Across the case study schools, around half have seen improvements in standards
and CVA between 2006 and 2007. In many of these schools the SIP role is
demonstrated to be providing some value in helping the schools to focus on
priorities and address improvement areas, though it is not possible to definitively
attribute the SIP role to any changes and improvements made. It is the actions of
those within the schools (SLT and other staff) that ultimately achieve
improvements. Amongst those schools that have more static or declining
performance again it is evident that SIPs are often playing a more focused role in
challenging and supporting the school.
1.142 The case studies do provide some examples which help to demonstrate how SIPs
are contributing to raising standards for some schools, as shown in Figure 6.1. As
might be expected, the examples where some link between SIP activity and
improvement in standards can be made tend to be those where a SIP has
undertaken more specific capacity building or development activity within the
school.
49
Figure 6.1: Assessed Case Study Examples:
SIP Contribution to Improving Standards
o As a result of data analysis it was clear that the sixth form value added data wasn’t good
enough and some subjects were underperforming more generally. The SIP undertook a
review and interviewed students, heads of department and some teachers. The outcomes
(and suggested actions) of the review helped the Head of sixth form to understand the
underlying issues (particularly subject specific issues relating to custom/practice and views
of students). This led to a number of changes including consistency in dealing with
punctuality, slipped coursework, guidance and support. Heads of department were given
more responsibility to address the issues identified. The ALPS data now shows a change
from Low to Excellent. Last year 6 departments were not good enough – now 2 are
excellent, 3 are average and 1 is still unsatisfactory. The external nature of the SIP, the fact
that he was not from a different LA and his experience were all very important in his ability to
conduct the review.
o In the first year of SIP involvement with the school, the school was deemed to be inadequate
in terms of achievement and standards and, in particular, performance at KS4 was identified
as a cause for concern. The key aim for the SIP in the first year was to refocus the school
from the ECM agenda to improving standards and the SIP has worked hard to encourage a
greater emphasis on standards throughout the school. The SIP has challenged the Head
and SLT on its results and grading of its own effectiveness in this area. Performance that
year was good and the school improved its performance at GCSE and grades 5 A-C and the
school is considered to have shifted from inadequate to satisfactory, with targets set for this
year considered to be sufficiently challenging. It is not possible to determine whether the
improvement in KS4 performance is attributable to the SIP or whether this would have
happened anyway. However, it is noticeable that the SIP is pushing the Head and SLT to
have a greater focus and input in the area of standards.
o Performance in English has improved as a result of work the SIP did with the Literacy Team.
The review of literacy conducted by the SIP led to better marking (SMART targets, ‘close the
gap’ comments, giving pupils time to respond on comments) and ideas on how to use
resources for Reception, KS1 and KS2.
o The SIP has supported the school to improve the quality of analysis and reporting of the SEF
to ensure much sharper judgements were made and consequently acted upon. The SIP is
also supporting the school to develop the capacity of its middle leaders. The school has
delivered, with external support, specific targeted interventions in Maths and Science.
Evidence of improvements between our Year 1 and 2 visits are clear. There was a 2%
increase from the previous year in KS4 A*-C results. This seemingly small increase was due
to having a much lower ability group in 2007. The FFT D projections for the group were that
17% would achieve A*-C and the final result was 29%.”
o The SIP has challenged and worked with the governing body which were deemed to be
unsatisfactory in a previous Ofsted inspection. This time the governing body were rated as
good. The SIP helped them with organisation, challenge, and the School Improvement Plan
– “these governors are the most fantastic you could have, the SIP has done a lot of work
with them in meetings”.
6.9 Figure 6.2 provides a range of other examples where a link can be made between
SIP challenge and support and more general activity for school improvement, including:
x a focus on outcomes for individuals and pupil groups;
x more focused accountability for performance amongst middle managers and
teachers;
x engaging pupils and parents in achieving progress;
x understanding performance and how to improve;
x planning and prioritisation;
x delivering school improvement; and
x improving self-evaluation.
50
Figure 6.2: SIP Contribution to School Improvement Capacity
Focus on Outcomes and Pupil Groups
o The SIP is constantly monitoring progress - asking the school to show her the school's
attainment profile at regular intervals to ensure that they are making progress. The school is
under a huge amount of pressure to make progress & achieve 65% target in 2008 results.
The SIP reports focus on this & have culminated in 4 recommended actions which the
school will achieve before her next visit in the spring: timescales are purposively short so key
pieces of work/actions are done very quickly.”
Engaging Pupils and Parents in Achieving Progress

o The SIP instigated pupil progress meetings and developed understanding of how to evaluate
actions to provide evidence. Assessment for Learning has been promoted and strategies
have improved considerably. Children are now actively involved in their own learning and
assessment for learning. Peer and self-assessment strategies are now becoming
established. Work is consistently matched to pupil's needs and higher attaining pupils are
now suitably challenged.
Accountability for Performance

o The school's processes for self-evaluation were new or embryonic when the SIP first came
into contact with the school. The SIP has worked with the Head and SLT to encourage more
focused accountability amongst subject teachers and greater consistency on reflective
practice, data use and evaluation across the school. The SIP still feels that the school's
processes need to be more robust than they are but that things are moving “in the right
direction”.
o The SIP questioning & challenging of SLT and asking for evidence to support judgements
made has helped to develop accountability – there is an emphasis on the school responding
rather than the LA. The governors felt that the SIP had increased the school’s accountability
as SIP visits were like having 3 mini Ofsted’s a year which are very focused & keep people
on the ball - if any problems arise they are addressing them before they get out of hand, a
continual process so nothing gets through the net - “It’s good for the school & children”.

o SIP challenge on achievement and standards has encouraged the school to refocus on this
aspect. This has included developing the school's capacity to assess the quality of teaching
and learning through consistency in lesson observation and application of the Ofsted criteria.
As such the SIP has increased school staff awareness of what good teaching and learning
looks like. Evidence to support this is triangulated in feedback from the Head, SIP and
middle managers.
Planning and Prioritisation

o The SIP challenged on the low proportion of pupils achieving five A*-C including English and
Maths, the results of which had not been obvious to governors. As a result of the SIP’s
challenge and intervention a restructuring & expansion of the management team was
undertaken with greater focus on attainment.
Delivering School Improvement

o The SIP is a sounding board, for example the headteacher asks the SIP’s advice on
curriculum development – whether it is feasible, what the national perspective is. The SIP
spends a lot of time in the school and the governing body appreciate him, “he's part of the
school's success, he's given us sound advice & is always there to help us, easy to talk to,
and staff get on with him & respect his views”.
Improving Self-Evaluation
o Feedback from the SIP, Head and others demonstrates that the SIP has and continues to
provide valuable input on how to improve school self-evaluation. This includes suggestions
during visits on how to devolve to middle managers, and working with SLT to improve
consistency and accuracy of judgements on lesson observations. Evidence to support this
was gathered from the Head and teacher interviews, observation of a SIP visit to the school
and the document review. In the latest report the SIP has also agreed a number of actions
51
Figure 6.2: SIP Contribution to School Improvement Capacity
with the school to assist in self-evaluation including provision of good practice materials for
use by middle and senior leaders and information about successful strategies to monitor
student progress and provide personalised support for students who are falling behind.
1.10 As would be expected, it is much less obvious that the SIP programme is having a
direct and noticeable impact for those schools that are high performing. However,
there is evidence that in some LA areas, these schools are receiving greater levels
of challenge than was the case through previous LA school improvement strategies.
Figure 6.3: SIP Impact on High Performing Schools

o In one school (previously graded as good with outstanding features) the SIP helped focus on
underperforming subjects and did some capacity building with SLT to develop data analysis
and grading. The school is now graded outstanding with good features – the SIP focus
helped this school to move forward in a short timescale.
o In one high performing school which had become complacent, the SIP pushed the school
hard to get underneath their data and FFT showed that it was underachieving for pupils with
special needs and the lower middle ability pupils. This year the school demonstrated much
more systematic data use and analysis and are taking actions as a result.
o The head feels she is being challenged - "it's the questions they ask and your responses to
them - they know when you're winging it". However, the SIP accepts that challenge in an
outstanding school is different, and is more about negotiation than challenge. Perhaps as a
result, there is some lack of evidence to support where/how school has been challenged.
o The SIP views challenge as crucial, even for high performing schools where challenge is
about ensuring “small degrees of upward change – it’s a very delicate balance if you don’t
get the challenge and support right.
Perceptions of Limited Impact
o The headteacher felt the school had evolved quite rapidly in last couple of years in self-
evaluation & student assessment but didn't think it was because of the SIP. She'd agreed
with what they'd done but didn't feel she'd impacted.
o "The SIP reports don't tell us anything we don't already know. The SIP is useful in a school
where there is no challenge or where you need support to identify what the issues are. But
for us we have a strong governing body that provides our challenge and external validation.
The report from the SIP is just like an Ofsted report and there are no surprises in it. The SIP
programme should be seen for what it is, providing the background work for Ofsted, a
checking mechanism to check we know what we need to do, that we have in place what we
need to rectify problems."
1.11 It is too early to really comment or assess the impact of the SIP amongst some
case study schools, particularly those in the primary sector: The headteacher felt it
was difficult to comment on the effectiveness of the SIP role as it was still early
days. She felt that the previous School Improvement Advisor was less challenging
and chattier so the SIP has the potential to impact on school actions and activities.
She felt sure that he would have an impact because of the quality of the meetings
they had which were “very upbeat, official & challenging” but she had not seen any
tangible impacts yet.
52
Academy SIPs
1.12 We do not have a sufficient number of Academy sector schools in either the survey
responses or case studies to identify any differences in SIP effectiveness or impact
compared to the wider secondary sector. However a number of positive outcomes
from the Academy SIP programme were cited by stakeholders:
“SIP reports show that SIPs have helped Academies with their SEFs – they have
helped them to write more analytical documents, reduced their size, and have
challenged areas that have caused concern. In turn better SEFs have made
improvements – for example one Academy needed to improve its student voice –
now 12 students have been trained to observe lessons in pairs and provide
feedback.”
“One Academy had good overall results but actually had less that 20% achieving
A-C in English and Maths. The headteacher overlooked this in his report to
governors and had prioritised working with the community. With SIP intervention,
the Chair of Governors led a restructuring of the management team to refocus on
attainment. Two appointments were made to increase capacity to improve.”
“In the context of over-estimating the standard of our teaching, the SIP provided
some very helpful training on judging lessons. This made us realise that we had too
much focus on the quality of teaching and not enough on learning. This year our
judgements are lower, but realistic.”
Impact of SIP role in HTPM

1.13 There are more mixed views amongst both secondary and primary headteachers
about the extent to which HTPM being fulfilled by the SIP has resulted in this
activity being sharper and more closely tied to the priorities of the school. 49% of
secondary and 23% or primary headteachers agree, 20% and 17% respectively
disagree, with the remainder not expressing a clear view. This picture reflects the
fact that SIP HTPM is not yet operating in all schools (particularly in the primary
sector).
1.14 In the minority of cases where headteachers disagree, this predominantly reflects a
view that the previous system was just as effective, rather than any dissatisfaction
in the role played by the SIP. There are just a small number of comments in the
survey that suggest otherwise.
1.15 The case studies provide a number of examples where stakeholders identify the
SIP’s role in sharpening schools’ focus both through the specific HTPM activity and
more generally in providing feedback and engaging governors in school
performance issues.
53
Figure 6.4: SIPs Help to Sharpen Focus on School Priorities – Case Study
o “Without exception governing bodies are saying that this is a much tighter and more
informed and challenging process. It is the one SIP function that we rate most highly and feel
will ultimately bring about change and as a result raise standards.”
o “It has brought greater rigour in a number of schools where school priorities are at the centre
of objectives.”
o “I was impressed by the honesty, level of challenge and enthusiasm for the task – he is
clearly aware of the issues facing the school and its constraints.”
o “The Governors value very much the feedback provided by the SIP – these are new
governors and the SIP has seen them 2 or 3 times to introduce himself, target set and to
deliver a general report.”
Impact of SIP Programme on LA School Improvement

1.16 There are low levels of agreement amongst LA survey respondents about the
extent to which the introduction of the SIP programme has had an impact on LA
approaches to school improvement, as shown in Table 6.3.
Table 6.3: Views of the impact of the SIP Role on the LA

Percentage of LA responses:
Agree or Disagree or Neither agree
Statement
strongly agree strongly disagree nor disagree
School improvement has become more
effective in schools that do not require 33% 33% 29%
formal intervention from the LA
The SIP function is effective for supporting
25% 48% 21%
schools causing concern
LA influence over school improvement has
25% 54% 15%
reduced
LA decisions over when, how and how
much to intervene in schools are more 13% 60% 21%
effective
1.17 It is evident that for some stakeholders the response to these questions is not
necessarily indicative of the view that the SIP programme is not of value, but that
the programme itself fits within wider LA school improvement strategies which are
equally important to raising standards and achievements. The following comment
from a respondent to the LA survey illustrates some of the contextual issues
surrounding responses to this survey question.
“SIPs in this authority provide a very good service and are effective in raising
standards of attainment and achievement. However, this is only because of our
work with SIPs and the way we have provided complementary Link Inspector
support. I believe that the SIP role on its own cannot be effective in raising
standards or providing the appropriate challenge and support to schools. This is
particularly so if the SIPs are serving headteachers who perform the SIP role in
their 'spare time'. I believe the implementation of this programme should have been
managed on an inverse proportion to success. The model does not enable
differentiation on LA success / failure in school improvement.”
54
Schools not Requiring Intervention
1.18 LA agreement is strongest in relation to the impact of the SIP programme on

school improvement approaches for schools not requiring more formal intervention
(one third of LA respondents agree). There are some examples from the case
study areas that support this view (as illustrated earlier in Figure 6.3). However, a
similar number of LA respondents disagreed. This mix of view is likely to be a
function of the different perspectives that LA respondents will be responding from.
Opinions will be influenced by their views of how effective LA approaches and
strategies for school improvement were before the SIP programme was introduced.
Influencing School Improvement
1.19 In the majority of cases, LA respondents to the survey did not agree that LA
decisions over when, how and how much to intervene in schools are more effective
as a result of the SIP programme. However, there are some qualitative examples
from the survey and the more detailed case studies which show positive
perceptions of the impact of the SIP programme alongside other NRwS
developments. These include contributions to improving levels of understanding of
school performance across LA areas, broadening knowledge of support
interventions and helping to ensure earlier preventative interventions.
Figure 6.5: Positive Perceptions of Impact on LA School Intervention Strategies

o “The SIP service to schools is comprehensive and provides greater depth of support and
challenge than was previously possible. Some schools see this as more challenging but it
also enables support to be more effective.”
o “In 2006 there were a dozen schools in the ‘at risk’ category. We expect there to be just
three or four by Christmas 2007. This demonstrates some positive impact of the SIP
programme in terms of improving the LA’s knowledge of when to intervene before schools
enter a category. The SIP reports and feedback provide an early alert system.”
o “There is evidence from the SIP trial in 2006/07 that judgements following section 5
inspections match LA judgements for around 95% (compared to 62% nationally).”
1.20 Concerns that the introduction of the SIP programme has had a negative impact on
LAs’ ability to influence school improvement are only apparent for 25% of the LA
respondents. Such concerns were echoed amongst schools and LAs in just two of
the case study areas, particularly relating to concerns about loss of linkage through
a SIP from outside the LA area.
Figure 6.6: Concerns about School Links with LA

o “There is some nervousness about LA contact with schools – due to the second hand nature
of LA/school staff contact. There is some dependency on those from outside the LA to brief
on school issues.”
o “The perceptions are that the SIP is not linked into the LA strongly enough, so the school
doesn’t feel that they are that accountable – they never hear anything from the LA. They feel
that although the SIP knows the school well, the old Link Officer spent more time in school.
The LA also did indicate that they probably don’t know the schools as well as they used to.
However the reports from the SIP are good and thorough, so they have no concerns about
the school.”
o “The headteacher does not perceive that the SIP and LA discuss the school much because
it’s in ‘a safe pair of hands’. The headteacher said that the LA never comments on the SIP
reports back to the school and that the SIP cannot be their advocate.”
55
1.21 These perceptions are likely to be a function both of the extent to which the SIP
programme is embedded within particular LAs and levels of effectiveness in
general communication with schools regarding the SIP programme. Evidence cited
in previous sections shows that in a minority of cases, there is the potential to
improve the effectiveness of LA communication with schools about the role of the
SIP and the function of SIP visits.
1.22 In other LA areas, the line management and report review structures put in place
by LAs (as discussed in Section 8) are ensuring that they maintain an effective link
and understanding of performance across schools in the area.
Schools Causing Concern
1.23 Half of LAs responding to the survey do not agree that the SIP function is effective
for supporting schools causing concern and only one quarter agree. This is
indicative of issues highlighted in earlier sections which identify that in these
circumstances schools clearly require additional resource to support their
improvement and that the wider LA intervention and support strategies will be
critical to effectiveness. Equally, in some LA areas there are concerns that
financial constraints impact on their ability to support schools causing concern
effectively.
56
CONSISTENCY OF SIP PROGRAMME
Key Points
x There are differences in the support role played by different SIP types, with full-time LA
employee SIPs more commonly capacity building, monitoring progress, brokering and
managing support than serving headteacher SIPs. A key factor influencing this is that the
latter are more constrained than other SIP types to deliver additional resource for schools or
be more flexible to emerging demands.
x This lack of consistency is, as you would expect, influencing perceptions of the effectiveness
and impact of SIP types. Those headteachers with serving headteacher SIPs less
commonly identify that their SIP has effectively brokered support needs or been a key
influence in changing approaches to self-evaluation.
x Headteacher perceptions suggest generally lower levels of SIP effectiveness and impact in
the primary sector across a series of indicators. This is likely to be largely a function of the
SIP programme being at an earlier stage of roll-out. However, these perceptions also reflect
some resistance to change with a more significant culture shift required by the introduction of
SIP challenge in the primary sector (given the previous tradition of strong pastoral LA
support).
x There are also some differences in primary headteacher perceptions of overall effectiveness
and impact of SIP types. Those with full-time LA employee SIPs indicate more commonly
that their SIP has the capability, is effective and is having an impact compared to those with
serving headteacher SIPs. Again, these perceptions are influenced by the flexibility that
serving headteacher SIPs have within available resource to deliver the breadth of support
that other SIPs are providing. However, some LA stakeholders also identify that serving
headteacher SIPs can potentially face more constraints in terms of the breadth of their
knowledge and experience of challenging and coaching others.
x There are some differences in the Academy SIP Programme which should be borne in mind
given the planned expansion of the sector. This includes:
the potential limits associated with HTPM and brokering support functions not being
fulfilled by Academy SIPs;
as Academies mature and there is less intensive support from DCSF Academy Advisors,
SIPs will be better placed to play a critical role in maintaining challenge and continued
improvement;
the process of rapid transformation amongst some Academy schools means that the
standard SIP resource may not be sufficient to support effective change;
high skills and experience levels amongst Academy Leaders demand that their SIPs
require equally high levels of experience and credibility.
Consistency and Effectiveness of SIP Support Role

1.24 There is some inconsistency in the support role played by different types of SIP,
with full-time LA employee (and to a lesser extent external consultant) SIPs more
commonly capacity building (and in some cases directly delivering support
interventions), monitoring progress, brokering and managing support packages
than serving headteacher SIPs. In the primary sector, the role of serving
headteacher SIPs in identifying support needs also appears (based on
headteacher perceptions) to be less significant than for full-time LA employee SIPs.
1.25 Some LAs provide additional SIP resource for predominantly full-time LA employee
SIPs to monitor progress and support interventions. Whilst this may be a function
of the explicit matching considerations by the LA (that is, allocating those schools
that might require additional resource the SIPs that have the flexibility to undertake
such a role), this is not always the case. There may therefore be cases where a
school has a serving headteacher SIP who does not fulfil a monitoring function due
to limited flexibility of the SIP rather than the needs of the school.
57
1.26 Additional resource is also being delivered in a minority of cases to enable SIPs to
provide capacity building support. However, this type of support is not commonly
achieved through an explicit allocation by the LA; rather the SIPs have the flexibility
within their job role to provide more support in some circumstances. In these
cases there is evidence of the value that capacity building activities can provide,
though there remains some uncertainty about whether it is appropriate for SIPs to
undertake such activities within the core days allocated.
1.27 As discussed in Section 8, a key factor influencing these trends is that serving
headteacher SIPs are more constrained than other types of SIP, both in terms of
delivering additional support resource for schools that may benefit and in
responding in a flexible way to emerging national, local or school demands.
1.28 The survey findings suggest that this lack of consistency is influencing perceptions
of the effectiveness and impact of different SIP types. This is across both primary
and secondary sectors in relation to brokering and providing support, but more
generally in the primary sector across a range of indicators (as discussed later in
this section). It is interesting to note that in the secondary sector it is full-time LA
employee SIPs without headteacher experience (rather than those with
headteacher experience) that are perceived to be effective in brokering and
providing development support more commonly than serving headteacher SIPs.
1.29 Whilst we have also sought to identify any significant differences by type of school
across the headteacher surveys, the sample numbers are often too small to
indicate any statistically significant differences. Nevertheless, there is one
significant difference found in the primary headteacher survey which suggests that
some schools with low CVA but relatively high performance are benefiting less
often from effective SIP brokering of support than others (low CVA/low
performance and low performance/high CVA).
1.30 There is also some evidence from the case studies that some schools (that are low
performing and/or achieve low added value) are not benefiting from the same
levels of capacity building and brokering of support as others in similar
circumstances. This may be minimising the potential impact the SIP programme
could have on the pace of school improvement in these cases.
58
Table 7.1: SIP Type Differences for Support Role 14
Secondary Headteachers with.. Primary Headteachers with.. SIPs
HT EC(w) EC(wo) LA(w) LA(wo) HT EC(w) EC(wo) LA(w) LA(wo)
HT EC LA
SIP SIP SIP SIP SIP SIP SIP SIP SIP SIP
The SIP has effectively ...
..identified support needs 60% 59% 55% 61% 68% 39% 48% 49% 56% 50% 86% 90% 97%
..brokered schools’ support needs 28% 38% 34% 42% 50% 14% 22% 25% 31% 28% 53% 57% 82%
..provided development support 23% 32% 29% 35% 46% 12% 20% 17% 25% 23% 33% 38% 55%
SIP support has been a key influence
37% 43% 44% 49% 54% 13% 26% 27% 29% 27% 62% 76% 78%
on self-evaluation
14
HT SIP = serving headteacher SIP; EC (w) SIP = external consultant with previous headteacher experience; EC (wo) SIP = external consultant SIP without previous
headteacher experience; LA (w) SIP = full-time LA employee SIP with previous headteacher experience; LA (wo) SIP = full-time LA employee SIP without previous headteacher
experience.
59
Sector Differences
Primary Sector
1.31 The survey responses indicate generally lower levels of SIP effectiveness and
impact across the series of indicators in the primary sector. This is likely to be a
function of the SIP programme being at an earlier stage of roll-out than in the
secondary sector and there is evidence to support this amongst the case study
schools. The positive change in perceptions amongst secondary headteachers
between the 2006 and 2007 surveys gives some encouraging sign that similar
changes might be observed in the primary sector once the programme has been
further embedded.
1.32 Nevertheless, these sector differences are also likely to reflect, to some extent, the
more significant culture shift being required by the introduction of SIP challenge in
the primary sector (given the previous tradition of strong pastoral LA support).
Some LA perceptions and evidence from some case studies indicate more
resistance to such change amongst primary headteachers.
1.33 There are also some perceptual differences between the sectors in relation to the
effectiveness of certain SIP types. In particular, in the primary sector there are
more significant differences between the perceptions of headteachers with full-time
LA employee SIPs compared to those with serving headteacher SIPs – the former
indicating higher levels of ability, effectiveness and impact than the latter.
1.34 Again, these perceptions are influenced by the flexibility that serving headteacher
SIPs have within available resource to deliver the breadth of support that other
SIPs are providing. However, some LA stakeholders also identify that serving
headteacher SIPs can potentially face more constraints in terms of the breadth of
their knowledge and experience of challenging and coaching others (as discussed
further in Section 8).
60
Table 7.2: Primary Sector SIP Type Differences 15
Primary Headteachers with..
EC(w)
HT SIP EC(wo) SIP LA(w) SIP LA(wo) SIP
SIP
The SIP...
..has the necessary knowledge
and information to discuss 55% 64% 59% 74% 71%
packages of support
..has skills and experience
have been effectively matched 59% 66% 59% 73% 60%
to the school
..has an effectively relationship
70% 75% 74% 84% 80%
with the headteacher
..is able to interpret data
73% 77% 80% 84% 84%
effectively to guide the school
..reports are of significant
49% 60% 54% 60% 58%
value to the school
..has supported schools to
raise standards of 30% 41% 42% 51% 45%
achievement
..has supported schools to
develop strategies to achieve 14% 25% 25% 30% 25%
ECM outcomes
1.35 It is important to note that these figures indicate that many primary headteachers
with serving headteacher SIPs do agree that their SIPs are effective, but they do so
less often than those with other types of SIP.
Academy Sector
1.36 SIPs have only been in operation in Academy schools for one whole year and as
such there has not been the same opportunity as in other sectors to assess
effectiveness of the programme. The consultations we have undertaken do,
however, highlight some differences in the Academy SIP programme compared to
the wider secondary sector, which should be borne in mind for the planned
expansion of the sector.
Functions of the Role
1.37 Academy SIPs do not fulfil the HTPM function which may inhibit the extent to which
there is a link to school priorities, depending on how well they take account of SIP
reports. However, were SIPs to take on this role, it may not fit with the function of
sponsors.
1.38 Academy SIPs are not responsible for brokering support (a function which is
fulfilled through the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust (SSAT), although they
may advise the Department). This may impact on the extent to which the SIP can
play a role in ensuring the suitability and effectiveness of support that a school
receives.
15
HT SIP = serving headteacher SIP; EC (w) SIP = external consultant with previous headteacher experience;
EC (wo) SIP = external consultant SIP without previous headteacher experience; LA (w) SIP = full-time LA
employee SIP with previous headteacher experience; LA (wo) SIP = full-time LA employee SIP without
previous headteacher experience.
61
Nature of Role
1.39 In the early stages of an Academy being launched, there is potential for duplication
within the DCSF Academy Advisor function. In the medium term, as Academies
mature and there is less intensive support, the SIP will be better placed to have a
critical role to play in maintaining the level of challenge and ensuring continued
improvement.
1.40 Given that most Academies are in a process of rapid transformation, the three-visit
structure may not be frequent or flexible enough to pick up on arising issues. In
this fast moving, complex and challenging context, SIPs must be particularly sharp
at picking up issues and priorities as soon as they arise.
1.41 Fast tracked Academies have even greater needs for intense support and
challenge because they have not benefitted from the 18 month lead in time that
‘normal’ Academies receive to effect cultural change/embed planning. SIPs may
not have the resource that is required to support fast track Academies to make
effective change.
Experience and Skills Required
1.42 Senior leaders within Academies have often been fast-tracked (so they have the
skills set but not necessarily the breadth of experience). The SIPs challenging and
supporting them need to be highly experienced and astute to ensure that they can
add value to this strong base. In other circumstances, Academy leaders are
examples of excellence and therefore need a SIP of equivalent capability to be a
credible challenge.
62
MANAGEMENT AND DELIVERY OF SIP PROGRAMME
Key Points
x The vast majority of stakeholders are clear about the core SIP role and there has been an
improvement since the surveys we undertook in 2006. There are lower levels of clarity in
relation to SIP accountability and the SIP role in brokering support and delivering the Single
Conversation.
x Most stakeholders are satisfied with LA guidance on the function of SIP visits. However,
there remains some uncertainty regarding the appropriateness of some of the moderation and
capacity building activities (involving greater interaction with wider school staff and pupils) that
some SIPs are undertaking.
x The average five-day allocation for SIPs is, on the whole, sufficient for the core SIP role to be
fulfilled. However, the backdrop of continually developing national priorities and initiatives
provides a challenge for SIPs to ensure an appropriate balance in the use of their time. There
is evidence that they may sometimes require more flexibility in resource to respond to
nationally or locally driven agendas.
x The guidance and direction for SIP visits provided by some LAs (and sometimes national
agencies) and stakeholder expectations of a ‘Single Conversation’ can also impact on the
extent to which SIPs can contain the role within the core allocation.
x The vast majority of SIPs appear to be equipped to undertake their role in terms of
background experience; accreditation; and skills and knowledge. There is some perceptual
evidence in the primary sector that serving headteacher SIPs may be equipped less often
than full-time LA employee SIPs with headteacher experience.
x Successful management of the SIP programme is evidenced:
most LAs have developed effective approaches to the recruitment, deployment and
performance management of SIPs;
the National Strategies SIP Coordinators (SIPCos) are perceived as positively
contributing to LA management of the programme;
changes in the approach to SIP support and training have been introduced which place a
greater focus on CPD tailored to the local context and individual needs;
the quality of available SIPs is generally considered to be high.
x In a small number of LA areas, there is the potential to improve the effectiveness of
communication and the message being received by schools, particularly in relation to the
accountability of SIPs; the function of SIP visits; use of SIP reports to inform LA support
strategies; and role of the SIP in communicating local priorities and issues. There is also
some perceptual evidence (from LA stakeholders) of the potential to improve the consistency
of National Strategies SIP Coordinator (SIPCo) support in some LA areas.
Nature and Scope of SIP Role
Clarity of Role
1.43 The vast majority of stakeholders are clear about the core SIP roles of challenge
and support and there is an improvement in overall proportions of respondents
being clear since the surveys we undertook in 2006. 80% of headteachers said the
role of the SIP to challenge is clear (an increase from 73% in 2006) and 90% of
SIPs and LAs agreed with this statement.
1.44 The majority of stakeholders also agree that the SIP role in supporting school
improvement is clear. 75% of headteachers and 90% of SIPs agreed that the role
is clear. As discussed in Section 4, however, there is the potential for greater
clarity and consistency at the margin, specifically in relation to the fine distinction
between “direct delivery” of support and “capacity building”.
63
1.45 There is less clarity and more uncertainty amongst headteachers in particular in
relation to:
x who SIPs are accountable to for the advice they provide (47% of primary and
42% of secondary headteachers agree and 25% and 34% respectively
disagree);
x the role of SIPs in brokering support (45% of primary and 38% of secondary
headteachers agree and 27% and 24% respectively disagree);
x the distinction between the SIP role and other local authority advisory roles
(50% of headteachers agree and 30% disagree); and
x the role of the SIP in delivering the Single Conversation (47% of primary and
53% of secondary headteachers agree and 19% and 35% respectively
disagree).
1.46 There is most uncertainty about the accountability of SIPs amongst primary
headteachers that have external consultant SIPs without headteacher experience
and amongst secondary headteachers with serving headteacher SIPs. SIPs and
LAs, however, indicate high levels of clarity. This perhaps indicates potential for
more effective communication by LAs with schools about the role of the SIP.
1.47 In Section 5 we presented the issues associated with brokering support and the
distinction between LA and SIP roles. We discuss findings associated with the
single conversation in Section 9.
SIP Visit Structures and Activities
1.48 Most LAs have set a common structure for SIP visits, which tend to include one
visit per term for core SIP business and an additional visit for headteacher
performance management (HTPM).
1.49 Stakeholders are predominantly satisfied with the extent to which LAs have
provided clear guidance on the function of SIP visits. This is particularly the case
amongst SIPs and LAs themselves (around 95% agreed). Most headteachers also
agreed but in lower proportions (63% of secondary headteachers and 71% of
primary headteachers) and as many as 20% of secondary headteachers (and 13%
of primary headteachers) felt that clear guidance had not been provided.
1.50 The exact nature and focus of discussions varies by LA area and school needs.
Nevertheless there tends to be a common pattern with Autumn meetings focusing
on data review, overall assessments of performance, identification of priorities and
setting of targets, and later visits addressing more specific issues, for example:
x SEF/School Development Plan review and moderation;
x audit/review of quality of teaching and learning;
x review of leadership and management;
x identification of support needs; and
x review/evaluation of the effectiveness of interventions.
1.51 To fulfil these functions, most SIPs spend the majority of the time at school in
meetings/discussions with headteachers, members of SLT and governors. This is
sometimes supplemented (often at the beginning of the SIP relationship) with brief
tours of the school. A minority of SIPs also interact more widely with schools staff
and pupils to undertake moderation activities.
64
Figure 8.1: SIP Moderation and Assessment Activities
o The SIP identified inconsistency in marking, target setting and lesson observations resulting
in variable performance across the school. The Headteacher stated “you can’t hide anything
from our SIP – the SIP was amazing in what she/he picked up in a short learning walk. She
found that there was no consistency in our marking and target setting across the school,
very astute”.
o The SIP undertook pupil progress meetings which demonstrated that despite the target
books, pupils were unable to articulate what their targets meant.
o In the second term the SIP agreed to run pupil conferencing in order to compare school’s
own judgements with views of pupils. He selected pupils himself and asked questions about
learning and how they fed back issues to the school. Overall it was very positive, and gave
confidence to the school that their judgements were correct. This demands a lot of trust from
the school.
1.52 These types of SIP activity are much more apparent amongst the primary school
case studies. This indicates some difference in the delivery of the Primary SIP
programme, compared to that in the secondary sector and may reflect historical
LA/primary school relationships which have traditionally provided strong pastoral
support.
1.53 Nevertheless, as the SIP role embeds, there is evidence in some secondary case
study schools of its changing in nature but not necessarily growing in scope, in
terms of for example:
x some SIPs are interacting more with wider school staff and pupils, rather
than purely with the headteacher and senior leadership team; and
x some SIPs are able to focus more on capacity building and advice for
particular priority areas for the school concerned.
Figure 8.2: Changing Nature of the SIP Role – Stakeholder Comments

o “Once trust and a working relationship has been established involvement in more aspects of
school life has grown with it.”
o “Greater understanding of the school and how it works leads to more detailed and in-depth
support. No item of the development in school operates in isolation. This impacts on other
areas which are then drawn into the equation when planning and supporting.”
o “As the NRwS has developed in practice the role has inevitably changed. The demands of
getting familiar with a school in a limited timescale in order to deliver appropriate challenge
and support are time-consuming.”
1.54 There remains some uncertainty over the extent to which some of the moderation,
capacity building and direct provision of targeted intervention support (which is
provided by SIPs in a minority of cases) is appropriate and whether this impacts on
the extent to which the SIP can remain focused (within available resource) and
independent to effectively challenge the school.
65
Figure 8.3: Views of Appropriate SIP Activities
o “We have deliberately separated the support role of providing training etc from the SIP role
as we feel this would be inappropriate. If a SIP recommends certain practice then it is more
difficult to objectively review the success of the school.”
o “SIPs can't 'support' anything, in practical terms. They're not there long enough. They can
challenge and make evaluations. The potential reasons for any failure to make an impact
are too many and complex to be evaluated from a discussion in the head's office. SIPs
aren't allowed to go too much beyond the challenge role.”
o “The apparent ban on gathering first-hand evidence may mean that the SIP process is an
unhelpful return to the old days of meetings in the headteacher's office. We shall encourage
our SIPs to get involved in order to get a real sense of the school. This appears to be
discouraged by the briefing and training received so far.”
1.55 As highlighted in earlier sections, there is also evidence that the SIP programme is
not consistently delivering aspects of the support role associated with ensuring the
suitability and impact of support interventions. Whilst an increased emphasis on
this aspect of the SIP role is required, consideration also needs to be given to the
extent to which it can be achieved within the 5 days. To some extent SIPs may
have more capacity within the prescribed meetings to focus on these evaluation
aspects as the SIP relationship matures. There is, however, also a strong
dependence on the effectiveness of LA mechanisms to support knowledge,
information sharing and communication/integration. Improvements in these
elements may result in more time required by SIPs to keep up to speed and make
appropriate links.
Scope of SIP Role
1.56 Stakeholder perceptions about changes in the scope of the SIP role are very
mixed. Half of LAs and SIPs agree the scope of the role has grown over the last
two years, whereas two-fifths think that it has stayed the same. These perceptions
will be influenced by the specific LA context and approach to the allocation of
resource and management of the programme overall. It may also be influenced by
the stage of development in each LA, with some approaches to delivery still
‘unravelling’.
National Demands
1.57 Of those identifying a growth in the role, most put this down to the demands of
DCSF and the continuing stream of national initiatives and agendas that SIPs need
to keep track of. The backdrop of continually developing national priorities and
initiatives provides an ongoing challenge for SIPs to ensure an appropriate balance
in the use of their time. SIPs need to able to provide challenge which is focused on
addressing a particular school’s priorities but within the context of the agendas that
the schools themselves are responding to.
1.58 There is evidence that SIPs may require more flexibility in resource to respond to
particular issues, for example, to provide appropriate challenge and support in line
with nationally or locally driven agendas (such as, for example, the recent change
in requirements for target setting and HTPM reporting to governors). There are
also some significant current agendas, including the integration of children’s
services, review of curriculum in the primary sector and introduction of diplomas in
the secondary sector which may be perceived as demanding more SIP time to
effectively challenge and support schools’ performance in light of these ongoing
developments.
66
1.59 Within their core role, SIPs are expected to keep up to date knowledge and
information about policies, initiatives and priorities at national and local level; ensue
effective integration and communication with relevant stakeholders across the LA;
and understand how these wider agendas and priorities might impact on school
improvement for the schools they are working with.
Figure 8.4: Stakeholder Views - Demands of Specific Agendas/Policies

o “The Remit has grown around Performance Management, there are complexities associated
with the mass of data/evidence and there is a wide ranging spectrum of initiatives from
national to local perspectives. Keeping abreast of these means reading/research and the
ability to have access to what outstanding looks like.”
o “My answer to the scope question is that the role seems likely to increase according to
signals conveyed at the last nationally convened SIP Conference. If SIPs are to provide
support/advice to schools relating to the new secondary curriculum then the role is bound to
expand.”
o “More is being added to the list of things to explore with the school. E.g. the last training
session I attended we were told to look at the national languages strategy and the Disability
Equality Scheme - 2 enormous areas. Even though I have the knowledge to tackle such
areas, I do not have the time during a limited visit.”
o “As DCSF and Ofsted have broadened their remit regarding schools' need to interact and
provide community cohesion, so the SIP has had to look beyond tangible data and explore
other areas of the leader's role in extending the school's own development. Extended
Schools and introduction of the Equalities' agenda has also raised the necessity for schools
to respond to this in order to be deemed effective. This means targets must not only include
statistical data on achievement and progress but must also look, especially in Headteacher
Performance Management, to this wider picture.”
1.60 The effectiveness of LA mechanisms to support SIPs in these tasks will influence
both the perceptions of the scope of the role they have to fulfil and actual resource
commitments required.
Local Demands
1.61 Many SIPs (57%) also identified that growth in the scope of the SIP role was a
function of LA demands, citing high expectations from both LAs and National
Strategies of the number and range of activities and issues that they can cover
during their visits.
1.62 The guidance and direction for SIP visits provided by some LAs (and sometimes
national agencies including National Strategies) can inhibit the extent to which
some SIPs can effectively deliver (within five days) a challenge and support role
focused on schools’ own priorities. In seeking to address wider national and local
priorities, LA guidance for SIP visits has sometimes included requirements for data
collection, monitoring progress or discussion of particular issues/agendas, which
can detract from the ability of the SIP to focus his/her challenge on the school
context.
Figure 8.5: LA Demands – Stakeholder Views
Pushing Local Agendas

o “LA's in the worst cases are using SIPs to push their own agenda and the expectation in
these instances far outweighs capacity.”
o “Each and every new piece of legislation and advice appears to now come with a tag line
about how SIPs will be looking at this area in their visits. There are too many instances of
this - to name just financial management is an interesting case in point. There is not enough
central funding for a SIP to complete all of the existing role and new role. i.e. not enough
days are funded to fulfil the role properly.”
67
Figure 8.5: LA Demands – Stakeholder Views
Data Collection, Monitoring, Reporting (LA)

o “The LA expects us to communicate on their behalf too, relating to local and national
priorities and their need for information/action. The admin time necessary to maintain this is
not feasible within the paid hours”
o “The LA has increasingly used the SIP to gain information from schools about specific
developments that impact on LA priorities e.g. healthy schools agenda, post 16 staying on
rates and % NEET, support for looked after children.”
Data Collection, Monitoring, Reporting (Other Organisations)

o “There has been a shift to assuming that a SIP can address all the current National Strategy
priorities in their visits; there are mixed messages about the role - to some it is increasingly
inspectorial, to others it is a "catch-all" conduit for picking off different agendas (Gifted &
Talented provision, 14-19, Modern Foreign Languages strategy). The word "partner" is
increasingly ignored and school's priorities are not always given sufficiently high priority.”
o “There is an increasing demand from national bodies for SIPs to become involved in new
areas of work. This is often not supported by adequate advice and guidance to SIPs (e.g.
Specialist School re-designation). Communication to SIPs from the centre is poor. LAs and
schools are more willing to ask the SIP to become involved in supporting schools or assisting
in school improvement planning e.g. I have been asked to perform the SIP role with the
educational provision of a Young Person's Secure Centre.”
Reporting Demands
o “Extra time commitment for additional meetings, e.g. to attend LA annual reviews of schools.
Lack of streamlining of reporting has led to an accumulation of additional reports, some of
which duplicate or overlap with previous reports (e.g. reporting on specialist status and the
annual report to governors). Could there be one report, to which the SIP adds at relevant
points of the year, leading to a composite document?”
School Demands
1.63 40% of SIPs and 27% of LAs identified that the growing scope of the SIP role was
a function of school demands on SIPs time. This includes responding to individual
school circumstances/needs (such as additional requests for support/information at
the time of inspection); and some school (and LA) expectations surrounding the
Single Conversation which can impact on the requests made of SIPs.
Figure 8.6: Responding to School Specific Needs and Demands

– Stakeholder Views
o “Schools want more than the 'SIP package' - for example, governors expect the SIP to
support the appointment of a new headteacher and to be present at Ofsted feedback.”
o “Some schools need further time and explanation about how SIPs are working. For some
heads it’s been difficult to reconcile how the new role of SIPs has developed on from the
Link Inspector model. Requests about staffing and governance issues for example I
understand were tackled by the previous Link Inspectors. New systems are being put in
place and this may take a little time for Heads to be clear about 'who does what when'.”
68
Resource for SIP Role (Further Detail in Appendix B1)
1.64 The evidence suggests that, on the whole, the average five day allocation to SIPs
is sufficient for the core challenge and support role to be fulfilled in most schools.
Nevertheless additional resource is allocated by some LAs to fulfil specific support
functions for some types of school. This is not being consistently provided across
LA areas. As discussed in Section 5, there are also differing views and
perceptions of whether this should be a more general LA function or whether SIPs
should be playing a role.
SIP Capabilities (further detail in Appendix B2)

1.65 The vast majority of SIPs appear to be equipped to undertake their role based on
stakeholder perceptions (from the surveys) and corroborated through our
triangulated assessments at the case study level (through repeated consultations,
document reviews and observations). This is in terms of:
x background experience - most SIPs have either experience of being a
headteacher or of working within a LA school improvement service, and
many have experience of both;
x accreditation - all practicing SIPs are accredited ensuring that a minimum
level of skills and knowledge is evident;
x specific skills and knowledge – most stakeholders agree that skills and
experience have been effectively matched and that SIPs:
– have a clear understanding of the school circumstances;
– have an effective relationship with headteachers;
– respect school autonomy; and
– have the knowledge and information required to discuss packages of
challenge and support.
1.66 There is some perceptual evidence (particularly in the primary sector) that serving
headteacher SIPs may be equipped less often than full-time LA employee SIPs
with headteacher experience. The qualitative evidence also identifies that serving
headteacher SIPs potentially face more significant constraints than other types of
SIP in terms of their resource/time, breadth of knowledge and experience of
challenging and coaching others.
SIP Type Differences
1.67 There is some difference in SIP and headteacher perceptions about the extent to
which different SIP types are equipped with the knowledge and information
required to discuss packages of support. In particular, external consultant SIPs are
less commonly identified than full-time LA employee and serving headteacher SIPs
as being equipped in this sense:
x external consultant SIPs less commonly identified that they have the required
knowledge (69%), compared to serving headteacher SIPs (81%) and full-time
LA employee SIPs (93%);
x headteachers in the primary sector that have full-time LA employee SIPs
most commonly identify that their SIPs have the required knowledge (over
70%), where as those with serving headteacher SIPs and external consultant
SIPs do so less often (54% and 60% respectively); and
69
x headteachers in the secondary sector with external consultant SIPs without
headteacher experience are less likely to identify that their SIP has the
required knowledge than those with other types of SIP (50% of compared to
around 70% for headteachers with other types of SIP).
1.68 In addition, there are some statistically significant differences in perceptions
between headteachers in the primary sector with different types of SIP. This is
particularly evident for primary headteachers with full-time LA employee SIPs
compared to those with serving headteacher SIPs – the former more commonly
agree that their SIPs are equipped in terms of:
x effectively interpreting data;
x understanding circumstances within the school;
x having the knowledge and information to discuss package of support and
challenge; and
x producing reports that are of significant value to the school.
1.69 LA and SIP comments regarding SIP’s experience highlight some perceptions of
the constraints that serving headteacher SIPs may face which may be influencing
some of these trends, including:
x resource/time – the lower levels of flexibility for serving headteacher SIPs
compared to other types of SIP is evident in particular in relation to elements
of the support role (brokering, managing, monitoring and capacity building),
as discussed in earlier sections;
x specific challenge and coaching skills – whilst serving headteacher SIPs
are perceived as more credible than those without direct experience as they
have practical experience of delivering school improvement, they do not
automatically have the skill set required to challenge and coach others to do
similar; and
x breadth of knowledge – equally, serving headteacher SIPs may not have
the broader range of experiences that others may have from working with
schools in a number of experiences.
70
Figure 8.7: Stakeholder Perceptions of Constraints
for Serving Headteacher SIPs – Stakeholder Views
o “SIPs need to have a variety of experiences. In terms of credibility there is as an undoubted
advantage in having been a headteacher BUT these skills are only transferable if the
individual has experience of providing challenge and support to schools. Serving
headteachers often know what works in their own school but have very little experience of
what might work in other situations. In this way their experience of effective school
improvement can be narrow whilst those who have worked in a school improvement service
have a breadth of experience which can be vital in challenging schools in a variety of
situations.”
o “There is a lack of skill and quality of ex headteachers to challenge and support schools in
the manner of a LA School Improvement Officer. Ex heads are too sympathetic (rather than
just empathetic) to issues and 'excuses' raised by headteachers.”
o “Knowledge of school improvement across more than one type of school is essential. Recent
or current headship should not be a deciding factor - the skills of the individual in terms of
analysis and evaluation should be the major concerns.”
1.70 There are also differences in perception between primary headteachers with full-
time LA employee or external consultant SIPs with headteacher experience and
those with SIPs without experience:
x primary headteachers who have full-time LA employee SIPs with
headteacher experience more commonly (than those with all other types of
SIP) identify that their SIP’s skills and experience have been effectively
matched to the school and that they have developed an effective relationship
with headteachers; and
x primary headteachers with external consultant SIPs with headteacher
experience more often agree that their SIP has a clear understanding of the
circumstances of their schools than those with external consultant SIPs
without experience.
SIP Recruitment, Selection and Deployment (Further Detail in

Appendix B3)
1.71 The vast majority of LAs responding to the survey consider that the recruitment,
deployment, management and communication processes for SIPs are effective.
These positive perceptions are supported overall by the National Strategy
assessments of LAs’ SIP recruitment, deployment and performance management.
1.72 Generally, the quality of available SIPs, in terms of knowledge, skills and
experience was reported to be sufficient by respondents. However, the picture is
not consistent across all LAs. The less positive perceptions are influenced to some
extent by the views of those respondents in Wave 1 LA areas and they may
sometimes reflect some early concerns with the accreditation programme, which
have subsequently been addressed.
1.73 Where issues are being faced by LAs in the recruitment and deployment of SIPs
they have related to recruitment and retention issues for particular types of SIP
(serving headteacher SIPs in the primary sector in particular), managing school
expectations and levels of satisfaction, and financial and resource/capacity
constraints.
71
1.74 The financial and capacity issues raised by LA stakeholders identify two key
concerns. Firstly, that some stakeholders feel that the overall funding for the SIP
programme is insufficient to attract and support the number and quality of SIPs
required and ensure that appropriate management structures are in place.
Secondly, some stakeholders identify additional school support and improvement
activities that LAs should be fulfilling but for which overall funding levels are
constraining the extent to which they can be achieved.
1.75 Evidence from the cases studies provides some detail behind the performance
management processes in place in some LA areas, which include clear line
management structures, quality assurance of reports, shadow visits and annual
performance review systems. There are also some examples where LA
management and review processes have been effective in identifying and
addressing SIP performance issues. Whilst these processes were comprehensive
in many areas, there were a couple of case study areas where systems appeared
to be less robust.
1.76 There is some evidence from the stakeholder surveys and case studies that there
is the potential in some LA areas to improve the effectiveness of communication
and the message being received by schools. This includes clarifying the messages
and mechanisms surrounding the accountability of SIPs; the function of SIP visits;
use of SIP reports and feedback to inform LA support strategies; and the role of the
SIP and LA in communicating local priorities and issues.
1.77 The National Strategies SIP Coordinators (SIPCos) are perceived by most LA
stakeholders as positively contributing to LA management of the SIP programme.
There are more mixed views across LAs about the effectiveness of SIPCos in
supporting the development of effective deployment strategies, reporting
frameworks and robust performance management systems.
72
Chapter Three: Other NRwS Strands
73
PROGRESS TOWARDS NRWS POLICY INTENT
Key Points
x Some strands of the NRwS, both independently and collectively, are contributing towards the
achievement of the intelligent accountability framework envisaged when the policy was
announced. These developments are resulting in more focused accountability amongst
schools and more effective approaches to raising standards and achievement.
x There are some concerns about the extent to which national guidance and some LAs are
taking a more top-down approach to the target-setting process and including data collation
requirements for non-statutory targets.
x The impact from the NRwS on changing perceptions about the levels of bureaucracy for
schools is minimal. Nevertheless, stakeholders recognise some improvements in the
alignment of national and local priorities including the coherence achieved across the SEF,
SIPs and the Inspection Framework.
x Areas where stakeholders feel there are still significant burdens include changes in
policies/initiatives; duplicate requests for data/surveys; and issues associated with specific
initiatives/activities including funding, IT, health and safety and assessments for teachers.
x Some schools are experiencing a single rather than multiple points of communication for
school improvement (particularly for higher achieving schools though also for some of those
requiring higher levels of intervention).
x However, there is a tension between the concept of SIPs enabling a ‘Single Conversation’
and their ability to provide focused challenge within the average five-day allocation. There is
the potential for improved clarity about the intended SIP role in this respect and the
coherence of LA mechanisms which might support it.
x Continued efforts at the national level are required to work towards more coherent policy
development and delivery across all ECM services, including steps to:
achieve greater consistency in and consider the appropriateness of some of the
demands placed on schools (including those associated with volume, pace of change,
requests for information and reporting requirements);
deliver more coherent responses to supporting schools in the delivery of current
significant developments, such as reform of the secondary curriculum, Building Schools
for the Future (BSF), integrated children’s services and any required response to the
outcomes of the primary sector curriculum review;
improve the coherence of communication mechanisms, including developing more
effective presentation and signposting of critical information.
Intelligent Accountability
1.78 There is clear evidence that some strands of the New Relationship with Schools,
both independently and collectively, are contributing towards the achievement of
the intelligent accountability framework envisaged when the policy was first
announced. This is in terms of:
x improved data availability and use, with many schools undertaking sharper
data analysis supporting a greater focus on outcomes for pupils overall and
for specific groups;
x increased emphasis on school self-evaluation mechanisms resulting in more
informed improvement actions, engagement of pupils and parents in
achieving progress, and more focused accountability for performance
amongst middle managers and teaching staff;
74
x a new inspection framework – whilst not a focus for this study, the evaluation
undertaken by NfER in 2007 16 found that the vast majority of schools were
satisfied with the inspection process, it was generally perceived to contribute
to school improvement and it was valuable to confirm SEF findings;
x effective challenge and support provided by the majority of SIPs, supporting
schools to assess and understand performance, set realistic targets and
focus on priority improvement areas; and
x in some cases, the SIP programme has also helped move towards more
focused channels of communication for schools and greater coherence and
suitability of support interventions.
Table 9.1: Impact of NRwS School Autonomy and Standards

with Statements
Secondary Primary
Statements: The NRwS has.... SIPs LAs
..helped to raise standards in school 49% 35% 61% 44%
..increased the autonomy of schools 41% 25% 55% 62%
..the potential to achieve intended policy
50% 35% 62% 40%
objectives in the future
1.79 Taken together these developments are resulting in more focused accountability
amongst schools for their performance and the development of more effective
approaches to raising standards and achievement. Half of secondary
headteachers and one third of primary headteachers agree that this is helping to
raise standards in schools. There is also evidence from the case study areas (as
presented in Chapters One and Two) that these aspects of NRwS are contributing
to overall improvements in quality and standards for schools and LA areas,
particularly in the secondary sector.
“Key Stage 4 results for the authority have been improving year on year with the last year
showing the most significant improvement. This has been achieved through a sustained LA
approach to improve school self-evaluation and through the SIP programme ensuring
appropriate and early intervention. We are now in a position where there are no surprises
when Ofsted undertakes inspections. SEF, Ofsted and SIP assessments are increasingly
the same.”
1.80 There is also some evidence that the approaches delivered through aspects of the
NRwS are providing schools with more autonomy to address school improvement
areas in ways that suit their specific circumstances. However, stakeholder
perceptions of the extent to which the NRwS has increased the autonomy of
schools are mixed and levels of agreement are particularly low amongst
headteachers themselves.
1.81 As highlighted later in this section, these views are strongly influenced by the
demands placed on schools by government policies and organisations. At the local
level this includes, in some areas, a less inclusive approach to target setting which
has an impact on headteacher perceptions of the level of school autonomy being
achieved. Nevertheless approaches are being developed across a number of LAs
which enable a greater focus on a partnership-based approach to target setting.
16
Evaluation of the Impact of Section 5 Inspections, NfER, McCrone et al, 2007
75
Figure 9.1 – Top Down or Bottom Up Target Setting – Stakeholder Views
Top Down
o “The 2009 government targets are a nonsense and definitely not bottom up target setting.
The government need to trust teachers more and let them do their own assessments. The
targets are imposed centrally, e.g. 2 levels of progress and 30% A*-C GCSE including maths
and English.”
o “The headteacher is not convinced that a bottom up target setting system exists and is
concerned that department guidance on FFTD targets runs counter to this policy.”
More Inclusive Approaches

o “I can see a shift in culture in that the government are now trying to give the structures and
planning to schools but there is still a top down push at the moment on standards through
National Strategies work and Ofsted.”
o “The LA has defined a bottom-up approach whereby the schools and SIP make judgements
based on where the school is at and then work towards targets.”
Bureaucracy
1.82 The impact from the NRwS on changing perceptions about the levels of
bureaucracy for schools is minimal. Around a quarter of most stakeholders (and
lower levels of primary headteachers) agreed that the policy objective of reducing
the unnecessary bureaucracy surrounding school planning systems had been
achieved. The majority of headteachers state that there are still significant
bureaucratic problems which continue to impact on them.
Table 9.2: Stakeholder Perceptions of Impact of NRwS on Bureaucracy

% of Respondents Agreeing or Strongly
Agreeing with Statements
Secondary Primary
Statements: The NRwS has.... SIPs LAs
..reduced the unnecessary bureaucracy surrounding
23% 11% 25% 27%
school planning systems
..aligned local and national priorities 40% 33% 58% 50%
..produced greater certainty and predictability on future
17% 17% 28% 35%
funding
..reduced requests to provide duplicate information 27% 18% 32% na
The DCSF fortnightly email is significantly better than a
58% 38% na na
monthly paper mailing would be
The potential to miss information has been reduced by the
40% 28% na na
use of e-mail in preference to paper
x There are still significant bureaucratic
problems which continue to impact on 82% 77% 64% 63%
the schools
Positive Changes
1.83 Some stakeholders recognise that improvements have been made and to some
extent policy intent realised in terms of greater alignment of national and local
policies. This is, for example, through:
x the coherence achieved across the Self-Evaluation Framework, SIP
Programme and new Inspection Framework, including the links made with
specialist school designation;
76
x the improved data available and more effective Self-Evaluation paperwork
mean that, whilst there are increased workloads in responding, perceptions
are that this is a more effective and purposeful use of time;
x the delivery of the SIP programme itself alongside developing LA strategies
for school improvement; and
x for some schools a single rather than multiple points of communication for
school improvement (particularly for higher achieving schools though also for
some schools subject to a wider range of support intervention).
1.84 There is also some positive recognition of general improvements in communication
from DCSF and LAs and the simplification and rationalisation of funding support for
school improvement.
Figure 9.2: Positive Perceptions of Reducing Bureaucracy

o “There has been no reduction in bureaucracy as there is more to analyse. However, it is more
useful bureaucracy.”
o “One of the greatest achievements has been to link specialist school re-designation with Ofsted
and the Single Plan. That’s been a massive step forward.”
o “The new inspection regime has reduced the burden considerably. It is based on a single
document which is useful from the school’s point of view.”
o “We have seen a reduction in what is requested as evidence required on other programmes.
For example, for the healthy school award previously we would spend hours compiling
information for the annual review. However, this has changed this year and the burden has
been reduced by requiring an assessment every three years as opposed to annually and by
evidence being based more on self-assessment.”
Continuing Burdens
1.85 However, the responses from the survey and case studies suggest that such
achievements are not consistently recognised or achieved and that significant
further development is required to reduce bureaucratic burdens across the school
sector. Around one fifth of headteachers disagreed that the NRwS had resulted in
more aligned national and local priorities and half disagreed that the NRwS has
provided greater certainty and predictability on future funding.
Volume and Demands from Policies & Organisations
1.86 Stakeholders most commonly identified the burdens associated with the number,
coherence, pace and demands of policies, initiatives and the organisations
introducing them. Many stakeholders pointed to a general lack of a joined up
approach across all organisations responsible for the ECM services, with some
highlighting the number of organisations involved and some not responding
effectively to the spirit of the NRwS policy intent.
77
Figure 9.3: Incoherent Response from Government Agencies
– Stakeholder Views
o “There remains a lack of joined up responses from services to the ECM key themes which
results in duplicated information.”
o “Government initiatives are driving us all mad and having to bid for things is not very NRwS:
the 14-19 'gateway' is a shambolic attempt to control something that should be accessible to
all. There are still too many initiatives at one time e.g. 14-19 diplomas, revised NC orders,
healthy schools, revised PM, workforce reform.”
o “You get the impression that the right hand does not speak to the left hand with the deluge of
demands and orders. Many come from the different areas of the Department, some come
from the local authority. I do not think the new move towards Children's Services has helped
schools. With the universal service so much pressure is laid at our doors it is little wonder
that people no longer want to be headteachers.”
1.87 The vast number of initiatives and pace of change demanded from them is a real
challenge for schools. Examples were cited of policies that schools are currently
required to respond to including 14-19, Building Schools for the Future (BSF),
diplomas, new KS3 curriculum, social cohesion, healthy schools, race and gender
equality duties, admissions codes, workforce reform, re-designation for specialism,
extended schools and financial management standards. Many stakeholders also
pointed to unnecessary and unreasonable demands of some of the statutory
requirements which do not always have relevance in particular school contexts.
Figure 9.4: Volume and Demands of Initiatives – Stakeholder Views

o “The number of new initiatives continues unabated - whose bright idea was it to introduce new
KS3 and new A levels at the same time? It makes nonsense of reducing teacher workloads!
Also, whilst workforce reforms have reduced the admin burden on teachers, Senior Leaders
continue to be increasingly snowed under.”
o “Targets: statutory targets acceptable; optional targets increase the needless demands. There
are still too many external agencies impacting on schools: Local Authorities, DCSF, SSAT,
Ofsted, SIP etc. There are still too many statutory initiatives.”
o “Frequent changes to policy and DCSF guidelines. Introduction of initiative after initiative even
before current ones have been embedded. Use of LA to communicate changes in government
policy causes huge delays in being prepared (e.g. changes in attainment measures).”
o “Vast amounts of legislation and regulation which make little real difference to children but
require consultation, re-writing of policies and endless production of documents and statistics
e.g. New Admissions Code, new appeals code, new attendance regulations, gender equality
duty, race equality duty, community cohesion, healthy schools, new uniform guidance, BSF,
diploma gateways, reform of national curriculum, extended schools - and that's just the last six
months.”
o “Sudden emergence of priorities from DCSF, which seem to be rushed add-ons at times with
deadlines that are unachievable (e.g. DDA, Race Equality Policies). Sudden changes to Fire
regulations which involve a huge burden on our small organisations.”
1.88 Reporting, consultation and paperwork demands from a range of initiatives and
organisations are also considered by stakeholders to be unreasonable and
sometimes lacking in clear and coherent instructions or support. This includes in
some cases (as discussed earlier) LA requirements for responding to and reporting
on non-statutory targets and a non-inclusive approach being taken to the
determination of appropriate school level targets.
78
Figure 9.5: Reporting and Paperwork – Stakeholder Views
o “The requirements of Health and Safety are almost ridiculous now. It does feel as though we
are simply ensuring that fewer claims can be brought by people who just have accidents! We
will soon be asked to have a policy for breathing! Far too much policy being required by
government legislation.”
o “The sheer amount of information required for various bodies is still an issue; so much
repeated work with no clear feedback about the difference that it makes or the manner in which
it can inform school improvement. I think we lose sight of the children and the needs for the
development of staff. Far more emphasis on appropriate funding is required - way too
constrained and hindered.”
o “Running the school as a business is necessary but creates much extra work which is not
focussed on teaching and learning. HR, risk assessments, the demands of new financial
reporting, etc. are amongst the issues generating this work.”
o “Too much paperwork; too many conflicting requests for information; far too little joined up
thinking. Letters arrive late with then impossibly short deadlines; different organisations want
different information on the same day.”
o “LEAD group requirements, 14-19 diploma development, termly attendance data, LEA risk
assessments for minor trips and simple activities, LEA data processing, government LAC
reports and PEPs – they ask for the same information repeatedly”
o “The expectation that schools complete a SEF to the government’s format rather than the
school's own. (DCSF) Apply to expand a successful school (DCSF). Apply to develop grass
sports fields even when the development is sports related (DCSF). The need to complete a
range of documentation in relation to specialism’s (DCSF). The new performance management
framework (DCSF). Termly attendance returns (DCSF). Financial Management Standard
(DCSF). I could go on!!!”
Communication Mechanisms
1.89 Communication with schools from the range of national and local organisations is
commonly considered to be inefficient and to place unnecessary demands on
schools.
1.90 Just under half of headteachers disagreed that the potential to miss information
had been reduced through the use of email communication. Whilst some welcome
greater email communication, many headteachers felt that this had made no
change to the amount of information received and that email communications can
make it more difficult to identify and priorities the information they really need to
read.
1.91 A number of stakeholders suggested the introduction of systems to more effectively

signpost headteachers to the important information including better presentation of
the communications themselves including brief summaries and identification of key
deadlines. Some suggested the need for more support for schools in developing
their ICT capacity to help them manage the information received.
1.92 Others recognised the attempts from DCSF to streamline and clarify
communication mechanisms but felt that this was not always being achieved by
other organisations.
79
Figure 9.6: Volume of Communications – Stakeholder Views
o “Vast amounts of paper post and e-mail. The potential to spend hours every day reading and
responding to e-mails is worrying. Organisations such as the SS&A Trust send huge numbers
of e-mails and send far too much printed post as well!”
Suggested Signposting
o “Information can easily become lost when sent by email. There is little to differentiate it from all
other emails and printing is costly to the school. There should be a much simpler method of
alerting headteachers of the important information whether it be by email or post but putting
information on a website and hoping it will be spotted is unsatisfactory.”
o “The total amount of information from LA and government and other agencies that hits my desk
every day takes me away from teaching and learning. At least start all documents with a
synopsis, level of urgency and any deadline for action. Help for headteachers in initial
prioritisation of documents. I spent all day Sunday and half of Saturday this week on
paperwork. Work life balance for headteachers stinks!!!!! Plus I am asked to complete a
questionnaire nearly every week.”
Schools’ Capacity to Respond

o “Lack of funding to employ support staff and keep up with electronic communications which can
be easily missed.”
1.93 The duplication of requests for data and surveys continue to be a significant
frustration for many schools. Half of headteachers disagreed that there had been
reduced requests for duplicate information.
Figure 9.7: Duplicate Requests – Stakeholder Views

Data
o “Still too many returns asking similar questions. PLASC, GTC, 618G, FMSIS, Food standards
etc... the list is endless and not reducing. Termly PLASC has increased bureaucracy, the
nonsense of doing PLAMS for one year and the cost of it.”
o “Requests for stats on individual cohorts of students (e.g. Looked after, travellers etc) of from
the EWO when it is already available on SIMS and available to authority. Requests from
School Nurse.”
Surveys
o “There is still duplication - e.g. LA has asked for an evaluation of the SIP impact as have you -
why couldn't we have just done one? There are a lot of surveys commissioned from
independent commercial organisations which we are asked to complete.”
o “Another main problem is the number of surveys (electronically or over the telephone) from
different organisations e.g. NCSL, DCSF, LA (and including this one). All take longer to
complete than the providers say.”
o “Requests for surveys on everything that moves under the sun (NFER, Travel plans from LA,
NCSL on leadership).”
Impact on Unproductive Relationships

1.94 Perceptions are generally that the SIP programme has had little impact on reducing
the number of unproductive external relationships that schools have. However,
there is evidence of some positive steps being made, particularly in terms of the
role of SIPs to provide headteacher performance management and more general
improvements in the focus of the conversation about school improvement.
80
Table 9.3: Stakeholder Views of SIP Impact on Unproductive Relationships
% of responses to “the time spent on unproductive
relationships has significantly reduced as a result of the SIP
role” 17
Agree/ Strong Disagree/Strongly Neither Agree nor
Agree Disagree Disagree
Secondary headteachers 33% 35% 29%
Primary headteachers 14% 33% 38%
SIPs 21% 22% 32%
LAs 12% 29% 29%
Figure 9.8: Positive Perceptions of a Reduction in Unproductive Relationships

o “With the SIP undertaking HTPM, bureaucracy has reduced since schools no longer need to
send information to an external advisor. The SIP knows the school and can look at the areas
to measure. The process feels much more measurable.”
o "The SIP role is helping to reduce bureaucracy to some extent as conversations are more
streamlined. I believe it saves the school a lot of time and going over old ground as used to
happen with the external advisor. The SIP knows the school."
o “The SIP identified challenging the LA about how they use collective intelligence to influence
issues outside of school improvement, for example how the Children and Young People’s
Board use SIP intelligence.”
1.95 One of the key reasons for the low levels of achievement is that the concept of a
‘Single Conversation’ (where SIPs provide a conduit for a range of relationships)
was never a reality given its inconsistency with the intent of the SIP programme to
effectively deliver a role within the average five days of resource allocated. Few
stakeholders disagree that the Single Conversation is a good idea but not feasible
in practice.
“It is impossible in a school like ours where needs are so complex and we are
working with such a wide range of partners to address issues of school
improvement. I’m not so sure I want a single conversation – what’s the point of
setting up brokerage structures in a LA if we can only have one conversation?”
1.96 A more significant driver for any reduction in perceived unproductive relationships
would be greater alignment in national policies and initiatives and more coherent
interaction of national and local organisations in their dealings with schools (as
discussed earlier).
1.97 Whilst there are generally negative views of the feasibility of the ‘Single
Conversation’ in its broadest sense, many stakeholders do agree that they are
clear about the specific role of the SIP in delivering the Single Conversation
(though there is more uncertainty amongst headteachers).
17
Totals do not add to 100% as some respondents said ‘don’t know’ or ‘too early to say’.
81
Table 9.4: Stakeholder Views about the Single Conversation
% respondents to statements
Statements: Secondary Primary
SIPs LAs
headteachers headteachers
The Single Conversation is a good idea but not feasible in practice
Agree/Strongly Agree 52% 28% 48% 71%
Disagree/Strongly Disagree 27% 21% 28% 18%
Neither Agree nor Disagree 19% 38% 21% 14%
The role of the SIP in delivering the Single Conversation is clear
It is possible for a SIP to act as the main point of communication regarding issues relating to school improvement
1.98 These views tend to be based on a more refined view of what the concept of the
Single Conversation means for SIPs (which has developed through the roll-out of
the programme), namely that SIPs can provide a single point of communication
for school improvement. Half of headteacher and SIPs agree that this more
refined concept is feasible (though only one third of LAs agree and half disagree).
Figure 9.9 A coherent point of communication about School Improvement –

Stakeholder Views
o “The position of SIP as central to the school improvement dialogue between school and LA
is generally accepted by all. In well-performing schools, the issue of multiple conversations
on schools improvement has never really been an issue, while those who struggle seem to
accept that their position will always come with a lot more LA intervention and interest.”
o “There shouldn’t be an absolute requirement for the SIP to be the only conduit all the time –
the SIP role as monitor of support is crucial.”
o “The role of the SIP should be more along the lines of a check and balance of the school’s
performance, not necessarily the conduit/communication link between school and LA.”
1.99 There remain, however, different expectations and applications of the concept
across LAs and schools. Some of the approaches taken imply that the SIP will be
the single point for communication of a wide range of issues including some that
could be considered (depending on one’s interpretation) as not directly relating to
school improvement. For example, information about policies, initiatives and
monitoring/reporting requests. As discussed in Section 8, where LAs are adopting
such approaches (and schools are expecting them in some instances), this may be
inhibiting SIPs in their ability to focus challenge and support within the days
allocated.
“The SIP has raised concern about what happens if the SIP becomes the catch all
for everything.”
1.100 There is evidence in other LA areas that the concept of a coherent conversation
regarding school improvement is being achieved through the SIP role. This
appears to be particularly achievable for higher performing schools, though the
impact here may be minimal given that they are less likely to have experienced
multiple relationships in the past.
82
1.101 For schools experiencing higher levels of support intervention, full-time LA
employee and external consultant SIPs have often been allocated resource to
provide brokering and management of support, which has helped in some cases to
ensure some coherence in the interactions of external support organisations with
the school. Serving headteacher SIPs have less capacity and flexibility to
undertake similar roles in schools they support.
1.102 Where other LA staff fulfil a role to access and manage packages of support for a
school this clearly impacts on the potential to achieve a ‘single conversation’ with
schools regarding school improvement. As highlighted in Section 5, there is
evidence of the potential to improve the coherence of communication with SIPs
where they are not directly undertaking these roles.
“The SIP questions the 5 days resource for schools in special measures – there
are many additional issues to cover, meetings to attend, if the SIP wants to retain
the role as primary conduit of school and LA communication, this proves difficult in
the case of those schools in special measures.”
“Brokerage is a challenge, especially if you’re a SIP from elsewhere and don’t
know the full LA context.”
“Even in a case study area where SIPs have been more closely linked to the
matching process, some case study schools commented that the SIP did not have
sufficient understanding of the support packages available and we might as well
have spoken to the LA ourselves.”
1.103 Nevertheless, there are also some examples of good practice where, whilst a
‘single conversation’ may not be being achieved as such, the coherence of
communication with the school is achieved through mechanisms to “keep the SIP
in the loop”.
Figure 9.10: Examples where Coherent Communication is Achieved

o The SIP receives copies of all Notes of Visit from within the LA, which helps them keep an
overview of the interactions with the schools regarding school interventions and improvement.
o The two roles (LA and SIP) knit together very well and the main focus is on successful
coordination/avoiding duplication, retaining a clear line between the roles of the two systems.
o Coherent communication is evidenced in the SIP report – there is an agreement between the
school, SIP and LA strategy consultant on a programme of brokered support for the coming
year (the LA broker the support but the SIP is clearly involved/engaged in the communication
loop).
83
SCHOOL PROFILE
Key Points
x 80% of schools report that they have completed the School Profile. Positive comments about
its effectiveness include simplicity and ease of completion, graphical presentation and ease
of comparison across schools.
x Less than 50% of the headteachers surveyed thought that the data provided an accurate
picture of the school – secondary schools were significantly more negative (44% disagreed
compared to 27% of primary schools). Wider concerns include bureaucratic burden,
duplication of existing information and technical and formatting difficulties.
x Only 25% of headteachers thought the Profile was an effective method of communication
and a number of concerns were raised. These included the use of data from the previous
years; and the availability of the same information through other sources (newsletters,
parental visits and Ofsted reports) considered to be better for engaging parents. Parents
tended to agree that these other sources were more useful.
x Despite generally low awareness of the Profile, internet hits on all school profiles increased
from 63,000 to 100,000 between July 2007 and January 2008. Positive parental comments
were often from families who were moving areas.
x Parental concerns (when shown the document) included difficulties in understanding
graphical representations of CVA data, terminology, lack of access to the internet and lack of
accessibility for those with low levels of English.
x Some Governors felt that the School Profile reduced their accountability to parents because
it had removed a direct link between them and parents.
1.104 The School Profile, which replaces the Annual Governors Report (AGR), aims to
provide high quality, up to date and accessible information for parents and the
public. Completion of the Profile is a statutory requirement of all schools. The
standard template aims to allow parents to compare the information on different
schools in a consistent way. The Profile allows for the provision of a mix of
quantitative and qualitative information. The data elements of the Profile are pre-
completed by the DCSF.
Completion of the School Profile

1.105 Most schools visited and surveyed have an online School Profile completed or
started. Just one fifth of both primary and secondary headteachers who responded
to the surveys reported that they had not completed it.
Table 10.1: Completion of the Profile by Schools

% of Respondents Agreeing with Statement
Secondary Primary
Statements
I have completed the School Profile 56% 62%
I have started but not completed the School Profile 23% 17%
I have not completed the School Profile 21% 20%
No response 0% 1%
1.106 Views on ease of completion were mixed. One half of primary headteachers and
one third of secondary headteachers thought online completion was quick and
easy. Around half of all respondents thought there was sufficient space to add
relevant information. Positive views reported were in relation to the simplicity of the
form and ease of completion compared to the AGR.
84
1.107 Around half of the headteachers responding to the survey reported that they
considered the Profile to be less of a burden to complete than the previous AGR.
However, a majority of headteachers consulted in the case studies expressed
concerns about the additional bureaucratic burden created. Concerns relate to the
fact that the Profile duplicates existing information and a range of technical
difficulties experienced by headteachers.
Figure 10.1: Headteacher views on Completion of the Profile

Positive Views
o “It’s concise and simple. I like the fact that some of it is pre-populated.”
o “It’s much easier to complete than the AGR and overlaps with the SEF.”
Negative Views
o “Our newsletters provide much more detailed information on what this school is all about. The
Profile tries to duplicate this in a more watered down manner.”
o “I’ve had problems in inputting information and have lost lots of data.”
o “It’s restrictive - it doesn’t give the opportunity to outline the school’s character”
Value and Quality of the Profile

1.108 On balance, the views of headteachers and governors consulted through the
surveys and case studies were that the School Profile is of limited effectiveness.
Less than half of the headteachers surveyed thought that the data did provide an
accurate picture of the school. Secondary headteachers were more negative than
the primary headteachers - 44% of the former thought that the data did not provide
an accurate picture compared to 27% of the latter.
Table 10.2: Stakeholder Perceptions of the School Profile

with Statements
Secondary Primary
The data in the School Profile
37% 45%
provides an accurate picture of the 36% 31%
(44% disagree) (27% disagree)
school
The Profile is a more effective way of
29% 25%
conveying information to parents than 39% 44%
(43% disagree) (49% disagree)
the governors’ annual report
1.109 Just over one quarter of headteachers thought that the Profile was a more effective
method of communication than the AGR. SIPs and LAs were slightly more
positive. Positive views included:
x the ease of comparison across different schools;
x the use of graphs to provide trends in performance;
x the simplicity of the format.
1.110 However, a significant number of headteachers consulted through the case studies
raised concerns:
x the graphs/data in the Profile refer to the previous year, whilst the
commentary is about the current year;
x the information presented is out of context;
x newsletters and parents visits to the school are better sources;
85
x Ofsted reports provide a more objective assessment that parent’s trust.
Figure 10.2 Headteacher Views on the Value and Quality of the Profile
Positive Views
o “It provides useful comparator information and is clearer than the AGR.”
o “The graphs are helpful for the governors.”
o “It’s concise and simple.”
o “It provides a rich picture of what the school has to offer.”
Negative Views
o “Information is provided out of context and is too harsh.”
o “The data is old – we’ve moved on since last year.”
o “Parent’s trust Ofsted. I think they’d question this more because it’s written by us.”
o “The focus is on results. There’s limited space given to ECM which is what we’re all about.”
1.111 Some governors consulted felt that the School Profile did not provide a vehicle
through which governors’ themselves could report back to parents. This meant the
profile was not an accountable document as the AGR had been.
“The School Profile has taken over from what I believed, as did my governors, was
an important part of their accountability to the community we served. Who are
governors now accountable to and who is measuring their performance?”
Parental Access and Views

1.112 Over the period between July 2007 and January 2008, there were on average
63,000 hits per month on School Profiles 18 , increasing to almost 100,000 in
January 2008.
1.113 During the case study fieldwork we consulted with just under 100 parents. A small
number of those consulted who had seen the Profile expressed some positive
views about its’ potential use. These comments mostly referred to the value of the
document when choosing a school for their child, in particular if the family was
moving area.
Figure 10.3: Parental Views of the Profile

Positive Views
o “It’s a useful source particularly when you’re moving to another part of the country and don’t
know anything about the schools.”
o “You can look across two schools and compare what they’re about.”
o “When I read the Profile I can see the achievements the whole school has made and this fits
with the improvements I’ve seen in my child.”
o “I like the bit about parents having their say.”
o “I received the annual governor’s report and read it, but it was very long and boring. This
School Profile is better than, but not as good as the newsletter.”
18
Source: Google Analytics
86
1.114 However, there was low awareness about the School Profile amongst most parents
and carers consulted. Just one third of primary headteachers and one quarter of
secondary headteachers agreed that parents and carers were aware of the Profile.
This was the case even in the small number of schools where the headteacher had
taken specific action to promote the Profile. One school had promoted the Profile
through the school newsletter and another had printed and sent the Profile to all
governors and parents. The parents we consulted in this latter school did not
remember receiving the Profile or reading it.
1.115 When shown the document, parents highlighted some issues associated with the
accessibility of the Profile. These were:
x difficulties in understanding the graphical representation of CVA data;
x the terminology used in the document;
x lack of accessibility for parents without internet access; and
x lack of accessibility for parents with low levels of English.
Figure 10.4: Parental Views of the Profile

Negative
o “I can’t imagine parents choosing a school based on CVA.”
o “If it’s supposed to be for parents they should cut out all the education jargon.”
o “It’s dull and lifeless. Testimonials from parents and pupils would be better.”
o “It doesn’t give the sense of what this school is about. It’s all about the data.”
o “We would need to get it translated into more than thirty different languages and send it out to
parents to be accessible.”
1.116 The added value of the school profile to parents is not clear. When parents were
shown the school profile they felt the information was of some interest. However,
many thought that existing communication mechanisms, such as newsletters and
pupil updates, provided them with the information they needed.
Figure 10.5: School Profile: Views of Added value

o "I think everything on here already exist in a better format somewhere else. You can get data
and a view on results and performance from Ofsted, feedback from the newsletter and from
our own school website."
o "For comparative information across schools, parents will still go to Ofsted. That's because
people trust Ofsted and see the information as impartial. The School Profile is still compiled
by the school even though it has national data in it.
1.117 On balance, the School Profile was considered to work contrary to the aim of the
NRwS policy, to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy. Whilst it was considered that
the document was of some value to parents when choosing a school, the vast
majority considered that other sources of information were more useful. Ofsted
reports provide a trusted resource on performance, whilst schools’ own
communication mechanisms are better for conveying their ethos. Additionally, the
Profile was not felt to have addressed the issues of accessibility of the AGR, as too
few parents were aware its existence.
87
Appendix A: Case Study and Survey Evidence Illustrating Key
Messages
The figures in this Appendix provide a series of assessed case study

examples (as opposed to quotes from stakeholders). These are based on
individual school case study assessments, drawing on the range of
evidence sources (triangulated consultations with a range of staff within
schools, expert document assessment, and observations).
88
EVIDENCE FOR SECTION 2 OF MAIN REPORT: EFFECTIVENESS AND IMPACT OF SCHOOL SELF-EVALUATION
Figure A2.1: Case Study Examples of Data Use and Analysis
School/Cohort Level
x The schools' target setting is very sound, involving full use of value added data. The monitoring and evaluation plan provides a
lot of data evidence which feeds into SEF. Targets are set every October for the coming year using a range of data including
previous year’s results and predicted grades. (Secondary School)
x They provided me with a traffic light analysis for year 10 that shows a 2007 predicted grade analysis by subject, by grade
groupings and effort grades; this analysis is then cut by tutor group to show predicted grades by tutor group. This identified tutor
groups where additional support may need to be provided by the tutor. (Secondary School)
x There are clear systems to ensure that all teaching is informed by data which contributes to achievement & progress. Rigorous
data analysis by the assessment coordinator identifies pupils not making satisfactory progress – this is shared with the SENCO
for appropriate action to be taken. (Primary School)
x During the observation, it was interesting to see how the Head moved from school-level data (RaiseOnline sheets and graphs)
to class work results in order to drill down into issues, for example by bringing out Key Stage mark sheets to show the progress
of individuals who had perhaps not made their expected grades, mentioning contributory factors (such as problems at home),
etc. (Primary School)
Subject/Department Level
x Analysis is undertaken by subject/class levels and comparisons are made between subjects, pupil groups and individual pupil
level as well as compared to national performance – Heads of department accept this pupil level analysis now - it is in job
descriptions. The Assistant Head holds school improvement groups with clusters of dept headteachers once a term to share
practice on using IT and interpreting data. (Secondary School)
x Evaluation systems are designed to measure that progress is being made, not just checking to see if they are meeting targets
that are easily achievable. For example, some departments have already met their FFT target so they are now using data to set
aspirational targets, which, in turn, allows more powerful conversations about strategies to achieve those targets. (Secondary
School)
x The analysis of data for each Phase leader is provided and this is discussed with the Department Head. The Phase
Leader/Curriculum leader discusses the data with 'their' staff. (Primary School)
x The school clearly identified the areas for improvement in subject areas – Mathematics in particular - and in the areas of raising
standards and achievement overall, pupil progress and challenge for the more able. Literacy, Science and Maths leaders
analyse RaiseOnline data for their areas and use it to inform areas for development, targets and planning. (Primary School)
x The document review highlights that all staff with key stage / department responsibility have appropriate understanding of the
school's data and are using it to evaluate teaching and learning. Subject leaders are working more effectively across the school
89
Figure A2.1: Case Study Examples of Data Use and Analysis
to improve planning. (Primary School)

Class, Teacher and Pupil Level
x Teachers are provided with data which shows expected grades for each child based on prior attainment and using FFT data.
Teachers then set targets. Teachers have ownership of the class data. (Secondary School)
x They conduct an achievement day analysis of predicted grades/effort - these are discussed with pupils and parents, and an
analysis of progress KS2-3 at individual level - which highlights good/satisfactory/unsatisfactory progress being made. This is
analysed by gender/ethnicity. (Secondary School)
x Data is analysed by the headteacher, then the deputy and head together, and then it is shared with staff (individual class
teachers first and then whole staff) at staff meetings. There is a formal data review meeting with all staff three times a year. Data
is used to track pupils progress on an individual, class & school level. The school also monitors the progress of particular groups
for example boys, FSM, SEN etc. All teachers have tracking sheets for pupils. (Primary School)
x There was no data analysis prior to the arrival of the current head in 2005. She introduced a whole school system to review
pupils’ progress in all core subjects involving subject and class teachers. Ongoing assessments, optional SATs, PAT, KS1, FS1,
P-scales, Pivots and school monitoring systems all inform target setting. Numerical targets are set annually for reading, writing
and Maths for all pupils in KS1 & FS. Class teachers, subject leaders & SENCO are set specific targets for pupils this
information is shared with parents. (Primary School)
x Layered targets are monitored half-termly to ensure pupils are moving through the appropriate sub-levels to achieve L4 at end
of Y6. Every teacher has a Mapping Attainment Grid (MAG) for reading, writing & numeracy. Teachers monitor progress termly
& SLT Performance Management Teams also meet with staff to monitor progress: half termly for targets & termly for MAGs.
(Primary School)
90
Figure A2.2: Pupil Monitoring and Progress

Pupil Tracking Systems
x There is a comprehensive system for tracking all pupils’ progress and identifying where they need support (Form Tutor link with
Year Heads or Heads of Subject Departments depending on what kind of support is needed). The headteacher felt that they were
now acutely aware that one of the key agents for improvement was monitoring and tracking pupils and supporting those falling
behind and not achieving. (Secondary School)
x The headteacher introduced a comparative tracking system that monitors the progress of every child through the school (there
was no tracking in place when she arrived). They assess children three times a year in writing, reading and Maths, for example
every half term children do an unaided piece of writing which is collated termly, levelled and then put on to a Mapping Attainment
Grid (MAG) so that you can see progress across sub-levels across the year. The deputy and headteacher collect that information
and produce data sets comparing levels of progress of particular groups of children that need additional intervention. There is a
traffic light system ensuring children are making sufficient progress. A new electronic version of MAG has just been introduced so
the school can monitor progress throughout the year rather than retrospectively or once a year. (Primary School)
Assessment for Learning

x The school has introduced a comprehensive approach to monitoring and reviewing pupil progress through AfL. The results from
this are collated by the SLT and progress in all classes is reviewed on a half-termly basis. Based on this, if any classes /
teachers are considered not be making sufficient progress across the cohort, the head of department will introduce performance
review and provide support to raise achievement. (Secondary School)
x The school and individual departments are using assessment for learning to identify where pupils may need extra support. They
also have been given credit in the LA for developing a good practice model of intervention plans. (Secondary School)
x More generally, they use assessment for learning, so there is close work with teachers/subject teachers to ensure learning is
child centred. (Primary School)

x The SEF explains that there are procedures in place for monitoring teaching and learning. It refers to the lesson observation file
and Sec 5a explains in detail just how systematic it is. Training has been provided for teachers on what is a good lesson and
paired observations have also taken place. Observations are supplemented by work scrutiny. As a result, weaker areas of the
curriculum (e.g. resistant materials) have been identified through observations and measures put in place to address them.
(Secondary School)
x The Moderated School Self Review (MSSR) process is used to moderate results. Work Scrutiny and Unit Analysis are also
91
Figure A2.2: Pupil Monitoring and Progress

undertaken. Pupil progress tracking takes place (previously bi-annually and from Sept 07 three times year) for reading, writing
and numeracy. Pupil work scrutiny and pupil discussions using monitoring and subject leader files are undertaken. There is a
visual tracking chart for the whole school introduced in November. Lesson observations/teacher assessments take place
(informal - weekly); formal twice yearly against performance management objectives and School Improvement priority areas).
(Primary School)
92
Figure A2.3: Embedded and Whole School Approaches

Whole School Approaches
x The process comprises departmental reviews - an interview by the Assistant Head with each Department Head which leads to
an action plan. Underpinning the interview is a curriculum review that is undertaken by the Head of Department including
review of academic achievement data, lesson observations and a work sampling trawl. There is a focus on bringing together
academic and pastoral teams to identify what the issues are underpinning the evidence. SLT staff pull together overall
messages and write sections of the SEF. The SEF is formally updated annually, although in practice it is updated more
regularly where appropriate. Departmental SEFs exist and departmental action plans stem from those. (Secondary School)
x There is evidence from SEF, School Improvement Plan and the SIP that the whole school is involved in self-evaluation and
they are now being given the vision and provided with the evidence to focus on the main issues for improvement and
development. The SEF states that the School Improvement Plan has been developed through rigorous self-evaluation, data
analysis, Ofsted key issues, monitoring, curriculum team action plans, leadership team focused sessions and work in staff
meetings. All staff have been consulted, governors have agreed it and parents have been sent a summary’. (Primary School)
Accountability of Middle Managers and Teachers
x All elements of the school are involved. There is broad based and collaborative leadership through the headteacher and SLT;
increasing accountability and direction from middle management, and an increasingly active governor body under a new chair.
(Secondary School)
x Self-evaluation is heavily devolved to middle management - SLT have the responsibility for drafting the SEF, but they use
middle managers as a 'reality check', and the focus of self-evaluation is at the year and department level. (Secondary School)
x The headteacher has various meetings with curriculum teams/cross curricula teams. They do mini SEFs (which include the
results of parent /pupil questionnaires) and the process is linked to performance review. As part of the review process Phase
Leaders have performance reviews first, followed by all teachers and assistants who have professional development
interviews. There is a merging of personal priorities (from these interviews) and whole school issues (from the mini SEFs).
LA/Government priorities feed in through staff meetings. (Primary School)
x The school this year is promoting greater devolvement of self-evaluation to lower tier staff. This is intended to shift the
responsibility for self-evaluation and outcomes to all staff rather than just being a top down approach. Feedback from the
teacher interviews shows that staff are aware of weaknesses, the actions they need to take and they feel accountable for
results. (Primary School)
Teacher Performance Management
x Everything the school is trying to achieve is focused on raising accountability of teachers to deliver improved standards. A key
mechanism is tracking the progress and value added for individual teachers and linking this to performance review.
93
Figure A2.3: Embedded and Whole School Approaches

(Secondary School)
x Observations are also undertaken as part of teachers Performance Management – the headteacher devised a form based on
Ofsted criteria and this is then discussed following observations. (Secondary School)
x Regular monitoring of staff performance (reflected in performance management targets) has had a significant impact on
achievement. (Primary School)
x Pupil progress against sub-levels is monitored and linked to the performance management of staff. (Primary School)
Pupil/Parent Engagement
x Information is shared with parents at the year 10/11 transition meetings the school holds to consider pupil requests for extra
support. This then subsequently helps planning for subject leaders to raise attainment. Low level maths results have pushed
for more cross-curricular ways of raising standards and improving motivation. Maths and vocational staff now plan jointly.
(Secondary School)
x Target setting is an integral part of home/school partnership, involving parents, children and the school in improving outcomes.
A Foundation Stage parent profile meeting is undertaken during the first half term to facilitate parents as key participants in
their child's learning. Half termly curriculum meetings are held in each class to share learning activities that will be covered
during that period. This also helps parents who find understanding curriculum letters difficult due to limited English or poor
literacy levels. (Primary School)
x The school has recently adopted good procedures to assess and monitor pupils’ academic progress. This is used well to
identify pupils with learning difficulties as early as possible and to set class and individual targets so that most pupils have a
growing understanding of how well they are doing and what they need to learn next. The pupil tracking systems are beginning
to be used to link assessment information to targets for individuals and groups allowing staff to tell pupils how well they are
doing and what they need to do to improve. (Primary School)
94
Figure A2.4: Developing Self-Evaluation Practices

Less Consistency Across the School
x Self-evaluation is extremely patchy and variable if examined bottom up. Whilst some departments are very strong others are
very weak. Evidence to support this comes from the headteacher and SIP feedback and the document review. The interview
with the one Head of Department demonstrated clearly a detailed approach to tracking and understanding performance,
resulting in interventions that were impacting on GCSE achievements. Another Head of Department demonstrated key naiveté
and limitations in the approach to self-evaluation. This was borne out through interviews with other member of staff, the
headteacher, SIP and SLT. (Secondary School)
x Departmental structures include lesson observations, work scrutinies, curriculum review, moderation etc. but there is variability
across middle managers use of these (Secondary School)
x Data is used in performance management at SLT and middle manager level. All teachers receive a formal personal review but
it's not clear what data is discussed within these. (Primary School)
x The school is moving towards greater embedding with the focus being shifted to teachers/subject leaders, but it is gradual as
extent of change required is considerable. (Primary School)
Lower Accountability amongst Staff
x More needs to be done to ensure subject departments and teaching staff take ownership of the targets set. Currently these are
set by SLT and not negotiated. The SIP is working with the school and has suggested that this would be better if negotiated and
devolved to subject level in order that targets are both data based and realistic. (Secondary School)
x The SIP report also suggests there are some inconsistencies in target setting at the teacher and individual child level across the
school. (Primary School)
x The school undertake a range of activities including good analysis of data and subject scrutinies including lesson observations /
review of marking etc. However, these don’t appear to be clearly linked to performance management, and tends to be more of
a once a year type activity, rather than an ongoing process of development. (Primary School)
95
Figure A2.5: Case Study Examples: Potential to Improve SEFs

and Link to School Improvement Plans
x The SEF is linked to school plan but in reverse, the school plan drives the SEF and not the other way round. This is currently
identified as a key constraint to the effectiveness and rigour of school self-evaluation (based on document review and SIP
feedback). It also explains why the School Improvement Plan has been updated but the SEF has not (Secondary School)
x The SEF is mostly descriptive with some issues of judgement missing. There are examples of where the document is thin on
strategies to address some really major issues are. The 2008 prediction for GCSE A*-C is marked down by 20 percentage points
but there is nothing in the SEF which sets out a strategy to offset this dramatic fall in attainment. Statements can be found in the
SEF which are not borne out in practice. For example, in teaching and learning there is a statement ‘good use of ICT in lessons’.
However, the SIP reports that ICT is a major issue of concern for the school. (Secondary School)
x The self-evaluation framework could be further strengthened by identifying the individuals who are responsible and accountable
for delivery and by setting dates for achievement within the term. This would bring it in line with the School Improvement Plan
and better enable links to be made between the two documents (Primary School)
96
Figure A2.6: Acting on Pupil and Parent Feedback

x In response to feedback from students that they wanted more involvement in decisions in the college and the community, the
college has strengthened the college council and trained students. Four students now sit on the governing body and seven on
the local authority youth council. (Secondary School)
x The school has restructured the way they handle transition from KS2 to KS3 as a result of feedback from parents and students -
in 2004 they instigated a Transition Project to ease the difficulties faced in moving between primary and secondary stages.
(Secondary School)
x Pupils were consulted on lessons and highlighted they wanted to be challenged more. As a result of greater SE and pupil
progress tracking, targets are set for all pupils and these are discussed with parents at parents evening/target setting day. Also,
identified that parents with children on SEN register were not happy, and felt they were not getting the same rights as part of
extended schools agenda. The HMI SEN advisor and disability officer came in. The school formed a SEN parents group which
meets monthly. This has greatly improved situation for SEN pupils. (Secondary School, EC SIP)
x The Parent survey showed that parents wanted more information about their child's learning. Pupil progress meetings are now
undertaken with parents regularly to monitor individual progress and this feeds into teacher performance assessment (Primary
School, LA SIP)
x Examples of consulting and acting on feedback from parents and pupils include:
Black History Month provision is actively supported and has been developed by parents in cooperation with the Humanities
Team;
School Council was active in making recommendations for improved playground facilities;
views of parents regarding security measures around the school were acted upon, with new electronic entry system,
fencing, security cameras and staff awareness;
a staggered intake, which included full time pupils going home for lunch and returning for the afternoon session;
an action point from the Disability working party (including parents and staff) has been that school newsletters and key
dates will soon be accessed via the school phone system. (Primary School)
x There are a range of processes for consulting parents and pupils including questionnaires to parents, talking to children, School
Council, pupil and staff questionnaires. The questionnaire to parents given out at the parents evening who wouldn't normally fill
a questionnaire in. Actions as a result of parental feedback include extended uniform outlets, provided after school club,
breakfast club and hot dinners. Previously there was only 50% uptake on homework and this has improved through a launch for
parents and now there is a 90% uptake. (Primary School)
97
Figure A2.7: Impact of Self-Evaluation on School Improvement

School Planning, Prioritisation and Focus on Outcomes
x ‘School improvement planning is well focused on the priorities needed to improve pupil performance. SLT felt they had
changed the nature of school planning – it was always rigorous but having to quantify it in the SEF has sharpened the focus –
we’ve got rid of sweeping statements that we made in past. Governors agreed that they can see where the school is going and
it’s always moving on – self-evaluation provides the yardstick to measure advance. Also shows if the school has met it
objectives and if not it prompts them to ask why not. (Secondary School)
x Slightly disappointing GCSE results in Summer 2007 have resulted in beefed-up SMT intervention, scripted meetings and
better feedback to mentors. Supported through a planning board in the staffroom identifying all of the key pupils (Secondary
School)
x Planning for Maths and English is being developed to focus on the areas that have been identified as weak through tracking
and unit analysis. Layered targets are used to help ensure that work is challenging. Recent monitoring shows that children
know their targets and are working on them. (Primary School)
x The headteacher commented that weaknesses are identified through the self-evaluation process and interventions are put in
place to address those weaknesses. ‘It’s easy to slip but self-evaluation keeps the school focused as we are looking at it
termly and if something is not being done we can address it there and then’. (Primary School)
Accountability of Performance and Progress
x There is evidence from the interviews with teaching staff that they have felt an increasing sense of pressure to be accountable
for performance in their subject areas. (Secondary School)
x There is raised awareness among departments as a whole. We are now asking more questions of people (teacher). It has
brought everyone together - made everyone questionable and answerable (governor). (Secondary School)
x The Deputy headteacher said that the biggest help to teachers was the target framework/grid enabling them to compare the
progress of groups of children. Staff had less ownership before now they can see where the 'reds' are for children, and they
can also see data for individual subjects across the whole school. They now have a rigorous whole school approach to
tracking which did not have before. (Primary School)
x The introduction of curriculum teams means everybody has the opportunity to take professional responsibility. The SIP report
states that there is now a new structure in place to give all teachers a role in leading improvement. (Primary School)
Focus on Pupil Outcomes

x The value added data has made a big difference to the school because they realised that despite good achievement, their
added value wasn't good enough. They introduced an estimated grade into KS4 (each term) for better tracking and for
98
Figure A2.7: Impact of Self-Evaluation on School Improvement

example in science they identified a group of students who needed additional support. (Secondary School)
x Data from assessments draw attention to specific areas, for example, a pupil in Y6 may have high reading score but lack skills
in comprehension – this allows teachers to tailor individual work (Primary School)
x Data is used to set targets and action planning, which is undertaken in teams. Interventions are targeted at Y3 as well as
Y5/6. Reasons for progress/lack of for certain pupils is discussed and explained so interventions are tailored effectively
(Primary School)
x The school has reviewed its target setting system across the school. This has resulted in targets being more stretching for the
most able pupils, in order to increase the number of those reaching higher levels. Previously, if pupils had met their target part
way through the term, they would not be pushed to achieve more. This has resulted in more differentiation in the classroom.
(Primary School)
x Analysis of FFT, Key Stage results and fine grade data has consistently identified the relatively poor performance of lower
ability boys as a key issue. Discussion between the SIP and the SLT has identified that it is necessary to broaden the
curriculum at 14-19 in order to provide more appropriate learning opportunities for the cohort. This is a priority for 2008.
(Secondary School)
x As a result of greater analysis across subjects, it has been easier to pick up coasting subjects or those not performing as well
as other areas. There are new support and challenge measures given to underperforming departments. (Secondary School)
x There is evidence from the interviews (and verified by SIP report) that learning walks are enabling staff to better identify
weaknesses and what needs to be done to address these. A learning walk and scrutiny of pupil books across the school
showed that methods for marking varied and did not relate to the targets set for children. This is now leading to the
development of strategies to tackle whole school. (Primary School)
x The school had received some complaints from parents of SEN pupils that their children were not getting sufficient resources
to progress appropriately at school. Improved data provision allowed the school to track achievement back to individual pupils
and demonstrate that they were actually doing very well. Interesting example of data being used to prove or disprove external
comments and criticisms. (Primary School)
99
Figure A2.8: Self-Evaluation Leading to Targeted Interventions

Developing Staff
x The use of residuals had identified some concerns regarding the performance of a particular member of staff and so work was
done to provide additional support and CPD to that member of staff as well as targeted interventions for some students (extra
support from a teaching assistant). (Secondary School)
x In terms of identifying priorities the headteacher always looks at data first to 'identify weaknesses’ for example last year writing
was identified as a particular problem: there was a 30% difference between L5 writers and readers. As a result the school is using
a renewed framework and developing visual literacy, the curriculum team leader has been trained on visual learning techniques
and they have delivered staff training and discussed in staff meetings. They are also improving the ICT structure as a result as
there is a need for interactive whiteboards with sound so they can play film clips etc. (Primary School)

x Self Evaluation has increased knowledge on those who perform well and those who don't and why. This helps to define
improvement areas. It has also contributed towards the drive towards knowledge expansion for teachers. Teaching and
Learning and Innovation groups have been set which teachers can attend voluntarily - sharing of good practice. (Secondary
School, EC SIP)
x Examples include: a) Writer in residence in which a male writer was employed to work across the school on creative writing and
particularly to promote enjoyment of creative writing amongst boys (identified as underachieving); b) Target SEN pupils identified
as underachieving through placing pupils into ability groups for extended writing and science; c) strategies to improve outcomes
in basic skills through engagement with the Creative Partnerships initiative (Ofsted partially attributes improvements in basic skills
to this intervention). (Primary School)
x Self-evaluation identified that boys' achievement is not as high as girls and as a result a number of strategies have been put in
place to address this. Evidence to support this comes from the doc review, Ofsted report and stakeholder interviews. Individuals
quoted examples of subject specific or whole school initiatives to drive up standards and/or address identified areas of weakness.
One example is where the whole school are working together to try and boost progress in school. This has included a dedicated
one afternoon per week on extended writing and one afternoon per week on extended Science. (Primary School)
Individual Pupil/Group Support

x Based on FFT data, it was identified that a significant proportion of KS4 pupils would be unlikely to achieve Grade C or above in
100

maths at GCSE. The school has introduced an intensive Maths intervention programme, bringing students in after school and in
holidays to support progress. (Secondary School)
x The school looked at set 2 GCSE data, Yellis and KS2-4 projections and identified a group of 15 pupils who would benefit from
greater support. As a result, it was agreed that these pupils would be given additional support from the Assistant Headteacher.
(Secondary School)
x There is evidence from interviews with teachers, SIP and document review that once issues are identified, action is undertaken to
introduce/implement intervention strategies. This includes strategies to improve weaknesses in pupil performance (e.g. in
September residuals are analysed to identify which cohorts of students may benefit from additional support from a teaching
assistant or latterly in the year from catch up sessions for example that are run every Monday. (Secondary School)
x The school is using Assessment for Learning and there is evidence that school is using data to identify and track key cohorts of
pupils. For example, data was used to identify a group of 15 students who were underachieving in English when their
performance was compared to other subject areas. As a result 6-7 of these students have been targeted for extra support from
the Assistant in two periods a week. These students are also monitored in terms of their attendance and given access to PCs
where they can make use of the exam revision materials available on line. (Secondary School)
x Data analysis showed that the performance of boys was below that of girls at Level 3 in all subjects in the end of KS1 SATs. As a
result, booster groups were held in the spring term. In addition, male and female Y2 children were placed in ability groups for
English and maths on mornings over a 4 week period in Jan and Feb. (Primary School)
x Year 5 took a Year 6 SAT at the end of the year in order to help analyse their preparedness. On the basis of the results, teachers
divided pupils into three ability groups. Issues were addressed both through science and also in literacy, where vocabulary was
identified as an issue. Children understood vocabulary but weren't using it – they had discussions with pupils which led to key
words being put up in classrooms and a greater insistence on their use. SAT results delivered 98% at Level 4 and above. Pupils
are more aware of their own understanding and school has a better understanding of cross-curricular links. (Primary School)
Evaluating Interventions
x Targeted intervention has taken place over the past few years, in particular through a peer mentoring scheme for borderline (C-D)
pupils. This has been effective in the past at pushing up GCSE results, but less so in Summer 2007. Direct intervention is now
planned across the board for borderline pupils. Peer mentoring will stay, but only for relatively able pupils. (Secondary School)
x Self-evaluation has led to a number of changes. Most significant is the 6th form which has been restructured as a result of a
review conducted out of the data analysis from the SEF. As part of the self-evaluation process it was identified that the
achievement levels in the 6th form were poor, so the school wanted to review the quality of teaching. They set up a clear
101

programme of self review, including detailed analysis of results, lesson observations, marking, attendance, and punctuality. They
found that the teaching was good, but attendance and punctuality were poor. They implemented policies addressing attendance
(more signing in etc). Results still fell the next year. They focussed on unpicking other factors through talking to pastoral staff and
6th formers. It transpired that there were a number of issues, not least the distraction of shopping. Their entry & school guidance
policy was also reviewed - too many girls were taking inappropriate subjects just to stay on at the school. They have now
tightened entry requirements for 6th form and have started to broaden curriculum to include vocational courses. (Secondary
School)
x School has a 'Provision Map' which is an A3 sheet of paper which identifies any children they are concerned about. Teachers
then compile an intervention package for those children (for example work with them more or get more TA support). This is
tracked & monitored and last year those children receiving intervention had made good progress – they monitor whether the
intervention is making any difference and the data shows how many sub-levels they've improved by etc. Generally it has made a
difference but where it hasn't TAs have been provided with additional training. (Primary School)
x The school took part in the SEAL programme and took a whole school approach, as it was on the School Development Plan and
linked to teacher Performance Management. They undertook their own evaluation linking which found the programme to be very
successful but that some elements not suitable for particular ages. They changed the focus to make it more suitable – they were
only able to do this from the knowledge they had of children through self-evaluation. (Primary School)
102
Figure A2.9: Impact of Self-Evaluation on Quality and Standards

Standards and Achievement
x The Head of Science uses AfL and a traffic light system to highlight pupils who need extra support or particular targeting. This
has led to an improvement in standards. Performance in science in particular has been a major contributor to the school
achieving it highest ever performance in A*- C grades. (Secondary School)
x In 2006/7 value added data was showing that the 6th form was 'coasting', so they conducted a 6th form review. Out of the 6th
form review there are now more consistent learning strategies & practices for getting coursework in on time. Very effective
working with SIP and 6th form is now in top 25% ALPs. (Secondary School)
x At KS4 self-evaluation showed that results for science results were relatively poor in relation to other departments, partly as a
result of the head of department being absent for over five months on sick leave. As a result additional support and challenge
was provided to science teachers (lesson observations, support from other teachers). In 2007 the results have improved and the
SIP notes The science results were greatly improved on those achieved in previous years and indicates that the support and
challenge that the school exercises for department that fall behind has a positive impact. (Secondary School)
x One third of Y7 were identified as having a reading age of 7 or below. A strong intervention programme was introduced to
tackle this including an entirely new curriculum for some, with others receiving support through the mainstream. The result was
that every targeted child improved by between 1 and 2.5 reading years in 7 months (Secondary School)
x The school created topic folders to address the issue of learning not being embedded which was having a detrimental impact on
results. SLT & subject leaders review three topics a term and focus them on the needs of the community and children's learning.
Improvements with topic-focused work were observed (and before lots of work were not completed). RaiseOnline data shown
that school made a 20% increase in its L3s in writing last year (improvement in boys' writing was a key priority last year) – the
headteacher felt this showed the impact of self-evaluation going on in school and that this was helping the school achieve its
targets. (Primary School)
x In the Foundation Stage the school have the best results for three years. There has also been improvements at KS2 in reading
and writing at L4 which were respectively 33% and 21% higher than the previous year. A key change to achieve this has been
a shift in the quality of teacher. Last year 10% were good and 80% satisfactory, this year 43% were good and 57% satisfactory.
This has been achieved through a detailed programme of lesson observations, individual training and CPD. (Primary School)
x The directed time used to help marking of writing has resulted in higher English scores and an outstanding in the Ofsted
Inspection. Improvements in science provision resulted in higher scores: 100% of Y6 got L4 and 74% got L5. (Primary School)
x As a result of analysing SAT results, it was highlighted that science scores weren't as high (i.e. in the 90s) as Maths and
103

English. By undertaking conversations with pupils and book scrutinies it was identified that children lacked the necessary
vocabulary in Science. Improvements were made to teaching approaches and planning to ensure vocabulary was a key
element. They are moving towards enquiry based science. Science scores are improving. (Primary School)
Pupil Groups
x The LA tracker highlighted that children with SEN were under-achieving. A literacy booster programme was introduced. All
SEN pupils in this particular cohort improved by two sub-levels in the academic year. A phonic programme was introduced for 7
children in Y2 who were dropping off - they made progress by two sub-levels after completing programme. (Primary School)
x Data analysis highlighted that not all weaker pupils were catered for. Provision has been made for those in lower bands to sit a
lower level GCSE which is a short course. Some pupils do a citizenship course - two units of Public Service qualification to help
them gain GCSE equivalents. Some are taken off timetable for extra support which aids motivation. This department has seen
standards rise as a result. (Secondary School)
x Across several classes and year groups, pupil progress tracking has highlighted groups of pupils with borderline grades. The
school recognises that many pupils do not have the right environment at home for study and that barriers need to be removed
before standards and achievement can be affected. Intervention groups have been set up for example workshops on particular
elements of the curriculum, Easter school with revision classes, summer school. The school has made use of its extended
school status and has evaluated the impact on pupils attending by analysing predicted grades and achievement of those
attending the school and those who don't. Evidence suggests pupils are achieving targets or over if they attend revision classes
etc. (Secondary School)
x Nearly a quarter (105) of all children were on the SEN register. The impact of a successful intervention programme and major
improvements in special needs provision and tracking procedures has reduced this by 20 children (20%). (Primary School)
Teaching and Learning

x Analysis of pupil performance showed that the school could do more on helping gifted & talented. Results over Summer 2007
showed that these pupils achieved almost a whole level more than target in their SATs. (Secondary School)
x Self-evaluation highlighted that certain subjects weren't working for certain children who were lacking in motivation for
'compartmentalised' subjects such as Geography and History where they only had one hour a week. Teachers were given three
days of planning outside of the classroom to work on cross-curricular planning. As a result changes have been made to the way
in which these subjects are presented and taught. Teachers have noticed improvements in motivation and attitude towards
these subjects. (Primary School)
104

x Data showed that children were coming into Foundation Stage below average and making less than average progress. SLT
made the decision based on prior attainment data to restructure Foundation Stage provision. There has been a change in the
staffing structure, a new teacher appointed, and rigorous monitoring and CPD for staff has been provided. They have a more
structured approach, reverting back to nursery and two reception classes (previously combined). There is also rigorous
monitoring and work scrutiny, including visits and lesson observations by the LA's Early Years Consultant and Improvement
Advisor who have highlighted significant improvements in the quality of environment and teaching and learning compared with a
year ago. Work with parents and CPD with NNEBs and TAs (including visits to best practice schools) has also had a positive
impact. This new structure has had a significant impact on standards. (Primary School)
Attendance
x There has been a key focus on addressing the very poor attendance record of pupils at the school, through effective use of the
SIMS package, policing of classes to ensure pupils are in classes and not just registering, and through effective use of the
EWOs. Attendance has increased from 80.3% in 2005 to 93.7% in 2008 (Secondary School)
x One member of SLT leads on pastoral side gathering evidence and documentation on attendance and punctuality. He stands
the at door and 'collars' youngsters who he knows have not been in for while. There is also an electronic registration system
with automated text messaging service to parents’ mobile phones when their kids are not in school. Attendance figures show
unauthorised absence had reduced from 5.8% to 0.8% over four years (Secondary School)
105
EVIDENCE FOR SECTION 3 OF MAIN REPORT: FACTORS INFLUENCING EFFECTIVENESS OF SELF-EVALUATION
Figure A3.1: LA Data Systems and Support for Schools

x The LA has worked hard for years on class profiles and tracking systems – schools are good at it now (Primary SIP Manager)
x The LA tracker can be accessed by pupils and teachers – this shows analysis of current pupils and is colour coded. It was
used by at least four of the schools visited. It’s very easy to spot issues with cohorts/year groups and individual pupils/
teachers can then plan accordingly as they can see what is needed to improve. (Case Study LA)
x A comprehensive data package provided to all LA schools. (Case Study Area)
x LA provides to each school its own data compared to others in the LA and nationally (lots of comparative data on 'groups' of
pupils in each school for example achievement by subject by gender, ethnicity). Schools get it more quickly that ROL. (Case
Study Area)
Effective IT and CPD within Schools
x In the SEF 2006 they identified strengthening their data processes as a development area - in response they have introduced
development activities on use of IT for data and interpretation for department heads and staff, have introduced new systems
(SIMS - allows direct access for all staff to baseline/minimum predicted grade data) and have introduced new pupil level
analysis and traffic light system. (Secondary School)
x There is a lot of evidence to suggest that the self-evaluation leads to action. For example they set up clusters to share practice
across departments in the use of IT to analyse data/skills in data interpretation. They run three a term for different 'clusters' of
departments. (Secondary School)
x The school has instigated a cluster training system more generally to share practice across departments which seems to be
really good practice. (Secondary School)
x The data manager is very knowledgeable. There is an established data management action group with representatives from
all curriculum and pastoral areas. (Secondary School)
x The assessment coordinator acts as bridge between SEF and data. Staff do use data and have a lot of training to bring up to
speed. (Primary School)
x The school is always looking at how members of staff can be developed in terms of data analysis. They look for staff to take
responsibility for a particular subject. (Primary School)
x A new ICT based monitoring, assessment & target setting system sets FFT D based target levels for each year and learners
are colour coded according to achievement. (Primary School)
106
Figure A3.3: Perspectives on RaiseOnline

Positive Views
x Tracking is done using RaiseOnline- they like the assessment pack and have found that it really helps them understand their pupils.
(Secondary School)
x The headteacher felt that RaiseOnline was better than it used to be and much more user-friendly. It's visually easier to understand with
colours and symbols: more obvious with arrows and colours (red, green). (Secondary School)
x The headteacher likes RaiseOnline – its useful to see trends, groups of specific children, etc. But there is a risk that you can become
too data-focused and spend all your time looking at it. (Primary School)
x The headteacher felt that RaiseOnline is easier to understand as time gone on – the 'people' on forms are now easier to understand.
(Primary School)
Poor Timing, Reliability and Validity
x The data on RaiseOnline comes out too late to be of use for children we are currently teaching – the LA tracker is more useful for
children still teaching. RaiseOnline is useful to identify trends, but to not plan interventions. (Primary School)
x KS1 data is not available – we get this from the LA. (Primary School)
x The data is too complex and too late. For example, KS3 data is not out until January and schools need data in September. (Secondary
school)
x An example was provided where the school has roll of 104 but RaiseOnline data was based on 280 so it was ‘nonsensical'. (HT SIP)
x Data is unreliable and late coming out – it’s not yet ready for us to use but we are expected to use in our role. (LA SIP)
x The data manager felt there was an overreliance on technology that did not work and RaiseOnline was a good example of that. There
are some issues that is often not on line which has a negative impact on self-evaluation processes because we are unable to access
data to feed into process. (Primary School)
x It is still early days for RaiseOnline and the data came so late we had to do our own analysis anyway. KS3 data was nine months late
and we are wanting to look at next year’s data now. (Secondary School)
Training Needs
x The headteacher but doesn’t think he uses it well enough in terms of its analytical functions and tends to just hit the 'print' key. (Primary
School)
x RaiseOnline is easy to navigate and there’s loads on it but we need more training to use it fully. (Secondary School)
x We have received very little training on RaiseOnline. (Secondary School)
107
Figure A3.3: Perspectives on RaiseOnline

x The Maths leader said that she would value guidance papers with the data provided in a graphical format providing information on how
to interpret the information. She thought the data was useful but some of it was not very relevant for example the pages on ethnic
minority pupils which 'don't tell us anything about our context' because they have so few. (Primary School)
108
EVIDENCE FOR SECTION 4 OF MAIN REPORT: EFFECTIVENESS OF SIP CORE ROLE
Figure A4.1: Evidence of Effective SIP Challenge

Assessing Performance and Moderating Judgements
x The observation corroborated other evaluative evidence of effective challenge by the SIP – the SIP pushed the Head to justify
or explain certain performance issues. (Primary School, LA SIP)
x The Document Review provides detailed assessment of the school. The Headteacher confirmed that the SIP had asked
intelligent questions in relation to performance over the last year. (Primary School, EC SIP)
x The SIP makes judgements in each area and broadly agrees with both Ofsted and the school. (Secondary School, EC SIP)
x There is evidence of constructive and professional dialogue, confidence from SIP that college making right choices for
continued progress. The SIP uses meetings to affirm positive progress and critically examine the colleges’ foci for continuing
action. (Secondary School, LA SIP)
x The SIP has continued to be a steady hand on the tiller – respecting and encouraging the Headteacher’s and now increasingly
the SLT’s abilities to move the college forward, keeping a critical eye on the evidence for improvement and steering them where
necessary. (Secondary School, LA SIP)
x The assessment made by the SIP is assessed as high quality, valued and accurate. The SIP is highly skilled in data
interpretation and analysis having been an ex-HMI inspector. He has accurately identified the key factors facing the school and
affecting its performance. He has also determined whether the school has accurately determined targets and priorities. This
assessment is based on direct observation, review of SIP reports and SLT perceptions. (Secondary School, EC SIP)
x There is a sustained effort by the SIP to strengthen the school’s processes to meet the needs of all pupils and to focus the
school on important areas for improvement within the curriculum. The SIP’s moderation of evidence and judgements within the
Partnership Plan shows a willingness to engage critically with the schools’ leadership where she does not feel judgements are
wholly warranted. (Primary School, HT SIP)
x The SIP has undertaken a full and detailed review of the school’s documentation to understand it’s priorities for achievement .
(Primary School, EC SIP)
Understanding Performance & Priority Areas

x As part of the slicing through he undertook a 6th form review and very clearly identified areas for improvement – for example,
marking and working practices, punctuality, lack of guidance and support. They made heads of department more responsible
for these areas. ALPs data now shows the sixth form as ‘Excellent’ instead of low. More generally he has been a sounding
board for the Head on priorities and development planning. (Secondary School, LA SIP)
x In the meeting observed, the SIP was clearly asking regularly for the Head to justify performance and/or judgements, for
109

example, in relation to their Y6 SATs results, the SIP pushed the Headteacher to understand why results had declined. This
meant that the Headteacher went back to review the data and identified that there was a turnover issue (only 74% of the pupils
who were in the KS1 data appear in the KS2 data – 36% had left and 26% had joined between the two stages. (Primary School,
LA SIP)
x Some very robust discussions about the science department, where data was suggesting there was significant room for
improvement. (Secondary School, LA SIP)
x Definitely one of the genuine challenges: challenging school judgements, asking for evidence to support this, how do you
validate evidence etc. We challenged on pupil attainment through use of all of the data ‘why are they like they are? And what
are we going to do about it?’ It’s made us much more hard-nosed about how to tackle underperformance in T&L. SLT
commented that when HT fed back to them on outcomes from SIP meetings it was clear he’d been asked some challenging
questions and HT will ask them to look at areas challenged on. (Secondary School, LA SIP)
x Evidence from the observation suggests that the SIP has a very good grasp of the key performance issues of this school,
especially in relation to data and results (this was the focus of the meeting. This is also reflected in school perceptions and the
SIP report. (Primary School, LA SIP)
x The SIP has identified a range of factors contributing to the performance of the school. This is evidenced in the interview
feedback and is supported by the document review. For example, the school's GCSE results in 2006 were higher than ever
with 60% of students gaining 5A*-C and the SIP recognised that GNVQ results in science were a significant contributor to this
performance and the school’s results were likely to be adversely affected from 2007 onwards when the GNVQ qualification
ends. The SIP challenged the Head and SMT to improve their contingency plans for when the GNVQ science qualification
comes to an end. (Secondary School, EC SIP)
Focus on Priorities
x The SIP challenged the school’s quality of provision and put some urgency on addressing the issues – the Headteacher felt
there was a morale issue underlying the problem, but the SIP said that recognising this was not sufficient and pushed the
Headteacher to proactively deal with it.
x The SIP encouraged the school to prioritise Maths and writing – the summer 2007 results showed a 27% improvement in
Maths, when previous year results had been below floor targets. (Primary School, LA SIP)
x The SIP highlighted the need for a whole school push on basic skills and literacy to achieve improvement in core subjects.
(Secondary School, EC SIP)
110

x The SIP report demonstrates that the SIP has asked the school to review its behaviour management procedures (I think she
believes that this area is falling between management tiers at present, and is not leading to improved behaviour standards).
x The assessed evidence from the repeated/triangulated consultations and document review shows the SIP provided effective
challenge in this school. There has been a significant shift in the level of challenge provided since our initial visits last year.
The SIP is keeping sustained pressure on the SLT to focus on key issues of concern, has become increasingly strong on
keeping a focus on the major weaknesses in provision, particularly in terms of basic skills, areas of low attainment by students
and use of ICT. His analysis of weaknesses in strategies adopted and the need for a whole school approach to issues keeps
the pressure on the school to improve. (Secondary, EC SIP)
x The SIP identified key areas for action which needed to be completed before the next visit – s/he keeps the school focused on
raising achievement all the time and is not distracted by other things. (Primary School, LA SIP)
x The SIP has encouraged the Headteacher to focus on an issue facing high performing schools – how to maintain higher
standards while continuing to develop the school’s leadership style(and move to baccalaureate style learning). (Primary School,
HT SIP)
x The school welcomed SIP’s challenge which helped them focus on the ‘so what’ i.e. the meaning of the data and what they are
going to do about it. The SIP challenged the HT to get sufficiently on top of the challenges faced by the school, which he was
perhaps overlooking due to other commitments at the LA. (Primary School, LA SIP)
How to Address Improvement Areas

x For example, the SIP has challenged the school to address weaknesses with the strategy for improving literacy, in particular
that there needed to be more of a focus across all year groups and that it was reliant on staff who do not have literacy as their
major responsibility. (Secondary, EC SIP)
x The SIP helped the SLT to focus in on priorities and ‘dig deep’ to highlight what they needed to do to impact on progress.
(Primary School, LA SIP)
x The SIP provides the Headteacher with support during the visits in terms of constructive ideas to improve priority areas (the SIP
is able to draw on previous experience as LA advisor) and sharpen up actions. The SIP encouraged the school to reduce the
number of aims they had set to ensure more focus and achievability, discussed to present data to the governing board, and
talked at length about KS1 and FS and how the school could improve writing. The SLT view is that the relationship is ‘more like
a partnership compared to the previous relationship which was more inspectoral’. (Primary School, LA SIP)
111

x The SIP has challenged the school in a number of areas:
grading of leadership and management and standards of achievement in the SEF. In the first year the head had graded
these as good and satisfactory; whereas the SIP graded L&M as satisfactory and achievement and standards as
inadequate overall;
challenged the SMT on their assessment of the effectiveness of T&L as graded by lesson observations;
challenged the school on its literacy focus which is only considered partial but which the Head sees as integral to improving
standards across the board;
challenged school on participation rate and the fact that a significant proportion of pupils leave school with no passes. In
SIP’s view this is not helped by fact that a key number of difficult students are educated or crowd controlled in segregated
lessons;
quality and processes for SSE and planning which the SIP considers are back to front. The SEF has not been updated this
year which the SIP has highlighted as a key area of concern. (Secondary School, EC SIP)
112
Figure A4.2: Challenging Targets

x The SIP effectively assessed whether the school had accurately set targets, recognising that the targets accounted for the
future impact of the demise of GNVQs on results. Current performance against the new target including English and Maths is
significantly below the national average and should be of concern to the school. (Secondary School, EC SIP)
x This is done through the SIP’s data analysis and from AH/HT interviews. One meeting is devoted to discussion of target setting
in the context of FFT and setting challenging targets. The SIP identified that the targets were not in line with FFT for Y11, but
after discussion the SIP agreed that there was a good reason for this (the data would have been predicting unobtainable
percentages). (Secondary School, HT SIP)
x The SIP has encouraged the school to set Y9 targets at FFT level D for next year, given recent results and anticipated
improvements. (Secondary School, EC SIP)
x The SIP pushed for harder target setting at pupil level, resulting in higher Key Stage 1 targets overall and they are now looking
at a range of strategies to support this achievement. (Primary School, EC SIP)
x The SIP focused on the school setting realistic (but challenging) targets, looking at how they were going to meet those targets,
and understanding reasons for not meeting targets. The SIP asked about the positives as well, what they were doing well in
certain areas and then using that information to address why they were not doing so well in others (Primary School, LA SIP)
x The SIP is continually challenging the headteacher on data, targets etc. The deputy headteacher felt that they were very good
at engaging the school in realistic but challenging targets. The data review observation confirmed this, with the SIP pushing the
headteacher to come back to him with reasons why individual pupils were not going to achieve the targets set (Primary School,
LA SIP)
113
Figure A4.3: Challenging Self-Evaluation and Leadership Structures

Self Evaluation
x The SIP identified that the school could do more to monitor and track pupils to ensure good progress can be maintained.
x The Head describes ‘exacting conversations’ with the SIP, which had not always been there with the previous link advisor role.
The SIP is particularly challenging on the SEF, which the SIP viewed as not specific enough, and requiring more judgements.
The Head is now ‘really proud’ of the SEF, which is more punchy. (Primary School, HT SIP)
x In the middle managers review that the SIP undertook, the SIP asked very detailed questions of phase leaders about the use of
data to track pupils’ progress. The phase leaders found it very challenging (and the document review agrees) – and it resulted in
more consistent practices. (Primary School, EC SIP)
x The SIP challenged hard on the SEF, which the SIP regarded as too wordy with not enough data – ‘delivered a harsh message
very nicely’ (Head). (Secondary School, LA SIP)
x The SIP encouraged in-depth analysis of attendance figures which had slipped despite significant measures to combat
absenteeism. (Secondary School, EC SIP)
Leadership and Management
x The SIP was responsible for challenging the Headteacher to push through some changes in middle management – for example,
reviewing their ‘tracking pupil’ practices and involving them more in SLT. As a result there are now better tracking processes,
regular monitoring and consistency across year groups. The Headteacher states in a busy school, having an outsider who can
see the overview is really helpful in prioritising. (Primary School, EC SIP)
x The SIPs questioning challenged SLT to reflect on judgements better and encouraged them to get departments to do similar –
gave guidance on how to encourage middle managers. (Secondary School, EC SIP)
x The Headteacher invited staff to meetings to hear the messages from the SIP. (Primary School, EC SIP)
x The SIP has played an important part in the development of the school’s new Phase Leaders (Year head equivalent) – seems to
have been a major issue for the 3rd and 4th visits to the school this year (quality of provision and overall leadership &
management). (Primary School, EC SIP)
114
Figure A4.4: Focus on Pupil Groups

x The SIP goes through progress by individual pupil and challenges progress of borderline pupils. (Primary School, LA SIP)
x The SIP challenged the school about the SEN figures – asking them to look for reasons behind the data to establish whether it
was a teaching issue or related to SEN. (Primary School, LA SIP)
x The SIP has challenged the school on the achievement of lower and middle ability boys. The SIP has been pushing the Head to
move towards developing a more effective and comprehensive vocational curriculum to meet their needs. (Secondary School,
HT SIP)
x The SIP clearly helped the Headteacher to identify key factors around performance, such as the performance of key cohorts
(EAL, SEN) and getting her to focus on them. (Primary School, LA SIP)
Figure A4.6: Evidence of Less Effective Challenge
x During observation, there was little discussion about whether certain subject areas might struggle to achieve targets, or identify
where other departments might be set more challenging targets. This may have occurred outside of the meeting but this was
not obvious. There was also significant debate about how to manipulate data to ensure the best outcomes were achieved with
the figures. This didn’t to me, appear to focus on school improvement, or outcomes for children. The school has below average
CVA. (Secondary School, HT SIP)
x We think the SIP has got to know the school very well, but the school is underperforming and the SIP seems to be too easily
persuaded that this was due to other ECM issues and that their performance was acceptable. This is not the view of the local
authority and we would like to see the school setting more challenging targets to raise the aspirations of these children. (Primary
School, EC SIP)
x There are question marks over the extent of challenge provided by the SIP - the questions are asked, but answers are taken at
face value, the SIP does not push for evidence. (Secondary School, EC SIP)
x Whilst the SIP encouraged the school to change its grading on standards this was explained as a function of meeting LA criteria
on CVA rather than challenging the school to understand how value added could be improved. (Primary School, EC SIP)
x The overall judgements have been corroborated with the school, though the SIP didn’t challenge the school on their judgement
on teaching and learning which was picked up during inspection. (Secondary School, EC SIP)
115
Figure A4.7: Views of Headteacher Performance Management
x The headteacher and governors are happy with process. The governors commented that they felt they had more input as a
result of SIP doing this rather than and external person. (Primary school, LA SIP)
x The governors stated they were happier with this than the previous process. They felt the SIP knew more and brought a 'local'
comparison with him. (Secondary school, HT SIP)
x The governors view the SIP as exceptional and value his contribution to helping the HTPM process as he knows the school
more than anybody. Governors feel the SIP has added value to previous process and has provided lot of info prior to their
meetings. (Primary school, LA SIP)
x This was the headteacher’s first performance management since promotion, so nothing to compare with, but s/he found the SIP
very useful and a mediator for translating governors' wishes into sensible objectives. (Secondary School, HT SIP)
x The feedback to the SIP is that it has gone extremely well from all sides. Governors were particularly pleased with the
paperwork in advance (Secondary school, LA SIP)
x The governors felt that it was a streamlined process and the SIP knew the school better than the previous CEA advisor.
x The use of someone who knows the school well to carry out PM for HTs is helpful and there has been very positive feedback
from HTs and governors. (LA stakeholder)
116
Figure A4.8: SIP Advice on Priorities

General Self-Evaluation
x More generally the SIP has been a x The SIP sets an agenda of visit to focus on an area of development and provides
sounding board for the headteacher advice and suggestions on how to improve based on the evidence. During
on priorities and development observation, the SIP provided hints and tips such as, for example, shifting the
planning. (Secondary school, LA balance of self-evaluation to middle managers having greater roles and
SIP) responsibilities, use of lesson observations as developmental rather than inspection
x Through the regular meetings, the focused. (Academy School, EC SIP)
SIP plants ideas, makes x The SIP advised the school to introduce internal support from SLT for staff on
suggestions which we pick up and tracking and moderation. (Primary School, HT SIP)
work with over time. (Primary x The SIP advised on the introduction of tracking sheets for the whole school.
school, EC SIP) (Primary school, HT SIP)
x During observation, the SIP advised Improving Teaching & Learning
the school on the presentation of its x The SIP made suggestions, for example, the introduction of targeted support in the
data for Ofsted, drawing on his form of additional writing workshops for Y2 and Y3 pupils, and accessing a specific
experience from other inspections. intervention for guided reading. (Primary School, LA SIP)
(Secondary school, LA SIP) x A range of intervention strategies were discussed with the school including
Springboard for Y3, more structure use of higher level teaching assistants to work
with underachievers in Maths in Y6 and identifying children with stretching targets to
help them achieve. (Primary school, EC SIP)
Improvement Planning
x The SIP provided advise on developing an action plan for Foundation Stage. (Primary School, LA SIP)
x The SIP has provided some support for the development of 14-19 Collaborative planning. (Secondary School, EC SIP)
x The SIP provided pointers to the school on communication with the LA about taking pupils excluded from other schools. The
SIP talked to the headteacher about not feeling forced to take too many if this affected other issues that the school was
working on (e.g. request to take boys when there is currently a male gender bias in the school which may be affecting girls’
choice of school and performance). (Academy, EC SIP)
117
Figure A4.9: SIPs Providing Support

General Support Leadership & Management
x In the primary sector, some additional support has x The SIP discussed with the headteacher how to plan a
been provided by LA SIPs outside of their core role – reconfiguration of the SLT – with a deputy about to leave, finding
the SIPCO has made clear that NS are not happy with the money to release two SLTs for 50% of the timetable. The
this arrangement, so may change. (LA area) headteacher clearly welcomes the ability to discuss matters like
x The SIP undertakes tasks linked to special measures this with the SIP. (Primary school, LA SIP)
and the priority action plan, though this is not formally x The SIP is helping the HT in how to restructure the SLT.
part of the SIP role. (Primary school, LA SIP) (Secondary school, HT SIP)
x The SIP is also undertaking additional bit and pieces of x The SIP supported the school to identify a replacement deputy.
support which he has the time to do as a LA advisor (Secondary school, EC SIP)
(not certain an external SIP could do these activities x The SIP was involved in supporting the appointment of new
without charging more. (Secondary school, LA SIP) members of SLT. (Primary school, EC SIP)
x The document review suggests that the SIP is acting x The SIP has undertaken 360 degree reviews to evaluate the
more like an LEA advisor used to, providing more time leadership team and identify strengths and weaknesses.
than is normally allowed and becoming more involved (Secondary school, EC SIP)
in the life of the school. (Secondary school, EC SIP) x The SIP has supported the headteacher in monitoring and
x The SIP was provided with five additional days to developing subject leaders in the school. (Primary school, LA SIP)
support this school causing concern. (Primary School, x The SIP got quite involved in helping the school to select a new
EC SIP) head of music. The headteacher found his involvement absolutely
great, though clearly this is beyond the normal definition of the SIP
Staff Development
role. (Secondary school, LA SIP)
x The SIP helped the HT to plan for INSET days and
Pupil Engagement
training sessions for AfL. (Primary school, LA SIP)
x The SIP is due to run a pupil conferencing event in order to
x The SIP has played an important part in the
compare the school's own judgements with views of pupils. The
development of the school's year heads - seems to
SIP has selected the pupils, will ask questions about learning and
have been a major issue for the 3rd and 4th visits to
how issues are fed back to the school. Overall very positive, and
the school this year (quality of provision and overall
gives confidence to school that their judgements are correct.
leadership & management). (Primary School, EC SIP)
Demands a lot of trust from the school. (Primary, EC SIP)
x The SIP will be undertaking two evening events for
teachers to discuss school results. (Primary School,
LA SIP)
118
Figure A4.9: SIPs Providing Support

Supportive/Pastoral
x The SIP is on the end of the phone and had many
phone calls/supporting mopping of brows through a
difficult period for the headteacher – the SIP questions Self-Evaluation Activity
whether a HT SIP would have had time to do this. The x Book scrutiny is undertaken by the SIP to assess pupil progress
SIP and LA did some data analysis for the school and awareness of targets. (Primary School, LA SIP)
showing that some groups were doing better than the x The SIP has conducted lesson observations with heads of
overall satisfactory grading. This and other SIP time department as part of quality assurance. The SIP will be further
helped to facilitate improved relationships with another involved in providing training on lesson observation for staff and
school. (Primary School, LA SIP) how to judge whether lessons are outstanding, good etc. The
x There is evidence of a more pastoral/mentoring school commented that it would be good for the SIP to undertake
relationship for this school. The head likes to use the the role again in the future to prevent them from becoming
SIP as a sounding board for ideas and the SIP sees complacent on lesson observations and ensuring external
the role as being more responsive – ‘where there are moderation. (Secondary school, LA SIP)
issues, the head phones me, for example in relation to x The SIP provided training for staff on lesson observations.
staffing issues and I don’t feel like I can turn a head (Academy School, EC SIP)
down, it’s a bit off the script but I am happy to do it for x The SIP has provided some development support to middle
the emotional well being of the head and school’. managers on for example interpretation and use of data, support
(Secondary School, EC SIP) on specific development areas, matching them up with other
x The SIP provided enormous support at the time of the colleagues in the authority – the focus has been very operational.
Ofsted inspection. (Primary school, HT SIP) (Secondary School, EC SIP)
x The SIP has supported the headteacher with how to x Through specific support for the head of 6th form, and undertaking
deal with parents reactions about reform of the 6th a Y10 use of data review, the headteacher feels the SIP support
form. (Secondary School, HT SIP) has been outstanding. (Secondary School, LA SIP)
x The SIP has provided support on staffing issues with
Science and Maths departments. (Secondary School,
EC SIP)
Improving Teaching/Learning
Evidence of SIP support in the development of the International Baccalaureate approach to learning. (Primary School, HT SIP)
x The SIP has worked with the SLT and middle managers to identify what constitutes effective and ineffective teaching and
learning, in order to improve standards of achievement. (Secondary Schools, EC SIP)
x The SIP did provide some support/development to teachers around home learning, but explicitly said to the headteacher that
this was not part of her SIP role. (Primary School, EC SIP)
119
Figure A4.10: SIP Capacity Building

General Self-Evaluation SLT and Middle Manager Self Evaluation Capacity
Processes x The SIP has undertaken leadership support activities, for example a challenge afternoon
x The SIP visits focused on self- with assistant heads. (Primary School, LA SIP)
evaluation processes to sharpen x The SIP has particularly helped with a move towards a more bottom up self-evaluation
them in preparation for culture – he has worked with the assistant head on processes in place for year 10 data
inspection – this contributed to review. (Secondary school, LA SIP)
the achievement of a Grade 1 at x The SIP is undertaking paired lesson observations with the SLT in order to develop their
inspections. (Secondary school, capacity and understanding of what makes a good/outstanding lesson. (Academy
HT SIP) school, EC SIP)
x The SIP has provided support as x Paired observations have been undertaken with SLT to help train on use of pro-formas
part of his/her wider self- and moderate judgements. (Primary school, LA SIP)
evaluation role within the LA – x The HT invited staff to meetings to hear the messages from the SIP. (Primary School,
for example, validating lesson EC SIP)
observations, participating in SSAT Re-designation
work sampling, challenging SLT x The SIP helped with the school’s SSAT re-designation, but has not provided substantive
hypotheses. (Secondary school, intervention support – the SIP felt that it was not the role of the SIP to be involved in
EC SIP) delivering specific training in school improvement. (Secondary School, EC SIP)
x The SIP has supported the
school through a learning walk
focused on assessment for
SEF Development
learning – the SIP was able to
x The SIP has provided a commentary which was used to help a school rewrite their SEF.
encourage the school to adopt
(Secondary school, EC SIP)
the learning walk model into its
x The HT and Deputy asked the SIP for support on writing their department plans – both
self-evaluation processes and
were new and relatively inexperienced in writing strategic documents (Primary School,
demonstrate to the school where
LA SIP)
marking was inconsistent in
x The SIP has given support to the vice-principal, particularly around SEF writing and has
order for the school to see where
done some work with heads of department on SEF writing within departments
Ofsted had derived its
judgements (in suggesting this
was an area for improvement).
120
Figure A4.11: SIPs Identifying Support Needs
x LA guidance for the first meetings outlines the requirement for SIP to discuss required support. (SIP Manager)
x The SIP identified key areas for development, including for example training for the SLT in relation to classroom observations.
(Primary school, HT SIP)
x The SIP helped the headteacher to recognise what support was needed, for example in relation to assessment for learning,
introduction of AST teachers, pro-formas for pupil progress and meetings and reviews with staff. (Primary School, LA SIP)
x The November meeting has a particular focus to identify support needs, thereafter the SIP regularly asks the question does the
school need support? and will push/encourage the LA to ensure this happens. (Secondary School, EC SIP)
121
Figure A4.12: SIP Reports Inform Support Strategies

x SIP reports have recommended action. (Primary Sector, Case Study Area)
x The SIPs discuss school support needs and identify these in their reports. The LA use this to provide each school with an
overview of what the LA is offering that may meet their needs, what other organisations are offering and the potential gaps. The
LA officer leads this work. (Primary School, LA SIP)
x The SIP produces a partnership plan for each school – this is shared with and reviewed by the LA to identify areas of support
needs for particular schools. (Case Study Area, Primary Sector)
x The LA review and collate the SI reports which identify support needs. A letter is then sent to each school outlining the potential
sources of support linked to their needs. (Primary School, LA SIP)
x The areas of support required by the school are identified in the SIP report – this is collated by the LA centrally to identify which
other schools in the LA have ‘good practice’ and schools can then access support from the other school ‘specialists’ in the area.
(Primary Sector, Case Study Area)
Influencing the LA on School Support Needs

x The SIP has been involved in helping the headteachers to transform a failing school into a quickly improving one in just a couple
of years – since Ofsted, levels of support have been gradually reduced, in discussion with the Head and SIP – the SIP has been
very influential in the school. (Primary School, EC SIP)
x I played a role to push/encourage the LA to provide specific and necessary support for one school causing concern – this was in
relation to leadership & management and occupational health. I did not play a wider role however in relation to other specific
packages of support going into the school. (Secondary school, EC SIP)
x In one case study area, the LA define a key role for SIPs to support the evaluation of impact of LA funded support – this
appears to be a more explicit intended role than elsewhere, though there is recognition that there is potential to
increase/improve the extent to which it is actually being achieved. (Case Study Area)
x The SIP helped the school to clarify that the Foundation Stage support the LA was provided was not being effective – the SIP
encouraged the LA to stop the support so something more effective could be identified. (Primary School, EC SIP)
122
Figure A4.13: SIPs Signposting Support

LA/External Support
x The SIP advised the school to contact the Maths Advisory Teacher for support in relation to assessment for learning. (Primary
School, HT SIP)
x The SIP facilitated access to ICT support from LA consultants. (Secondary School, HT SIP)
x The SIP arranged additional maths support for the school via CfBT. (Secondary School, LA SIP)
x The SIP arranged for some G&T support through an existing contact or link, though this was an adhoc arrangement and the SIP
said he didn’t really know where to go to get the support. (Primary School, EC SIP)
x The SIP is an instant contact to others who can provide support – instant contact, will get back to the HT asap. (Secondary
School, LA SIP)
x Beyond the LA, the SIP relies on his own experience and contacts, which come from working in seven schools across two LAs.
x The Head describes the SIP as signposting support - making suggestions about the type of external support available and how
it might be relevant. (Primary School, LA SIP)
Other Schools
x The SIP makes links with other schools – a cycle of three meetings over the year with other schools has been set up.
x The SIP provided links with other schools doing AfL so that best practice could be shared (Primary School, LA SIP)
x Middle leaders in the school have visited the SIP’s school (Secondary School, HT SIP) The HT and head of 6th form paid a visit
to the SIPs school to see their 6th form and speak to staff. (Secondary School, HT SIP)
x The SIP facilitated a visit from his school on subject inspections which was invaluable (Secondary School, HT SIP)
x Visits have been arranged to the SIPs own school to review policies for behaviour and attendance monitoring (Secondary
School, HT SIP)
x This SIP has provided opportunities for members of the staff in this school to visit his school to observe and shadow his staff in
key areas where the school wanted to progress. This has included speaking with staff responsible for the behaviour policy and
for monitoring attendance. (Secondary School, HT SIP)
x The SIP arranged for a headteacher from another school to come in and talk about subject inspection - this was invaluable to
the school. (Secondary School, LA SIP)
x The SIP brokered some G&T support from an ex-HT, but only because he knew the person. He said he would not have
mentioned this to the LA although raised the area of G&T in his report. (Primary School, EC SIP)
123
x From HT perspective, the most useful part of support is finding out what else is going on in other schools. (Primary School, EC
SIP)
x The SIP referred key members of staff to documentation and examples of good practice in other schools regarding lesson
observation to support greater consistency in grading (Secondary School, HT SIP)
Figure A4.14: Monitor and Review Support
SIPs Monitor Packages of Support

x The LA draws up a support plan for every school receiving support and the SIP is responsible for monitoring the plan (although
the LA always send another person to go through it with the headteacher). (Secondary School, EC SIP)
x The SIP is part of a wider package of termly monitoring and support provided by the LA over the past couple of years due to its
problems. (Primary School, LA SIP)
SIPs ask Challenge/ask Questions about Support/Interventions

x Evidence from direct observation and interview data shows clearly that the SIP role is one of questioning the school on the
suitability of the support they have sourced directly rather than suggesting or planning a package of support. If the SIP felt the
school were not sourcing support to enable it to address an area highlighted as a concern he/she would raise this as an issue
in the SIP report. (Academy School, EC SIP)
x The SIP encourages the school to undertake more in depth analysis, for example, the attendance figures were slipping despite
significant measures to address this so the SIP advised the school to understand further the factors influencing this.
(Secondary School, LA SIP)
x The SIP asks questions of the Governors and the headteacher/SLT to encourage them to evaluate the effectiveness of
support/interventions – so what? Is it working? (Primary School, LA SIP)
SIPs Undertake Direct Evaluation Activity
x The recommended action in the SIP report is reviewed in follow up visits by the SIP to see what has happened – the SIPs
undertake book reviews, review SATs and speak to those providing the support. (Primary Sector, Case Study Area)
x The SIP saw heads of department and students to get a feel for the impact of interventions – he digs deeper and validates
existing work. (Secondary School, EC SIP)
124
EVIDENCE FOR SECTION 6 OF MAIN REPORT: IMPACT OF SIP PROGRAMME
Figure A6.2: Case Study Examples: SIP Contribution to School Improvement Capacity
Focus on Outcomes and Pupil Groups
x The SIP worked closely with the English department to show how data form Y7 could be used to prevent the stereotyping of
badly behaved students as ‘no hopers’. There has been a change of culture as a result. (Secondary School, HT SIP)
x Helped look at combined targets (English, Maths, Science) and 2 levels of progress targets. The SIP encouraged a mid-term
review of data so can intervene early (which has been embedded). (Secondary School, HT SIP)
x The SIP is constantly monitoring progress - asking the school to show her what the school's attainment profile at regular
intervals to ensure that making progress. The school is under a huge amount of pressure to make progress and achieve 65%
target in 2008 results. The SIP reports focus on this and have culminated in four recommended actions which the school will
achieve before her next visit in the spring: timescales purposively short so key pieces of work/actions done very quickly.
x Discussions between the SIP and data manager were observed where the SIP provided suggestions on how he could improve
the integrity and value of his data analysis. This included suggesting that performance of cohorts of students were placed into
colour-coded bands, enabling a quick visual representation of weaknesses and where action needed to be taken. (Secondary
School, EC SIP)
Engaging Pupils and Parents in Achieving Progress
x The SIP suggested learning walks and a parent survey - the survey showed that parents wanted to be more involved. As a
result, the school now holds fortnightly celebration assemblies where parents – ‘a great success, parents love it’. (Primary
School, HT SIP)
x The SLT has instigated training, use of pro-formas during observations and pupil progress meetings as result of SIP. (Primary
School, LA SIP)
x The SIP instigated pupil progress meetings and developed understanding of how to evaluate actions to provide evidence.
Assessment for Learning has been promoted and strategies have improved considerably. Children are now actively involved in
their own learning and assessment for learning. Peer and self-assessment strategies are now becoming established. Work is
consistently matched to pupil's needs and higher attaining pupils are now suitably challenged. (Primary School, LA SIP)
Accountability for Performance
x The SIP has made an impact by talking to each Curriculum Team leader about their SEF. This really galvanised people and
helped them see that the things I was demanding of them were national expectations. It helped de-personalise the resentment!.
125
(Headteacher, Survey)
x The SIP has been excellent in encouraging a sense of accountability amongst middle managers, through explaining statistical
data and undertaking developmental work. He has also validated and improved the school's methods of self-evaluation
x The school's processes for SSE were new or embryonic when the SIP first came into contact with the school. The SIP has
worked with the Head and SMT to encourage greater accountability amongst subject teachers and greater consistency on
reflective practice, data use and evaluation across the school. The SIP still feels that the school's processes need to be more
robust than they are but that things are moving 'in the right direction.' (Secondary School, EC SIP)
x Through instigating the learning walk model the SIP is aiming to encourage increased responsibility for targets setting and
consistency in marking across all staff. In this way all staff in the school feels accountable for improvement. This is verified
through feedback from staff themselves. (Primary School, LA SIP)
x The SIP questioning & challenging of SLT, asking for evidence to support judgements made, and challenging some of school's
made the school more accountable – there is an emphasis on them responding rather than the LA. The governors felt that the
SIP had increased the school’s accountability as SIP visits were like having three mini Ofsteds a year which are very focused
and keep people on the ball - if any problems arise they are addressing them before they get out of hand, a continual process
so nothing gets through the net. It’s good for the school & children. (Primary School, LA SIP)
x The role of the SIP is useful as a management tool as you can say to colleagues ‘your results are not as good as they should be
and as the head of this organisation I'm answerable to the SIP and the SIPs going to want to know why they're not good
enough, what I'm doing about it and what the future holds’. The presence of the SIP legitimises that conversation. (Secondary
School, LA SIP)
Understanding Performance and how to Improve

x SIP challenge on achievement and standards has encouraged the school to refocus on this aspect. This has included
developing the school's capacity to assess the quality of teaching and learning through consistency in lesson observation and
application of the Ofsted criteria. As such the SIP has increased school staff's awareness of what good teaching and learning
looks like. Evidence to support this is triangulated in feedback from Head, SIP and middle managers. (Secondary School, EC
SIP)
x The SIP challenged teachers on their quality of teaching ratings. Many thought they were good because they had a good rating
by Ofsted six years ago – the SIP challenged this them suggesting that they were only satisfactory and identified ways in which
they needed to improve. The teachers indicated that they respected him for this challenge. The SIP also challenged the
headteacher on data and helped develop a vision and way forward for the school. (Primary School, LA SIP)
126
x The SIP has worked with the school to build capacity to undertake learning walks, is being developed to help the school identify
what it needs to do to improve. (Primary School, LA SIP)
x The SIP is working with the school to improve the consistency and rigour of lesson observations. This is considered by SIP and
Ofsted to be integral in assisting the school to take action and prioritise based on evidence rather than assumption. (Secondary
School, EC SIP)
x The SIP has focused the SLT on identifying why there is a drop in performance between KS3 and KS4 and looking beyond the
core subjects. Self-evaluation is at the core. (Secondary School, HT SIP)
x Quite simply being there for me and the team and in turn we have allowed him to walk the school unaccompanied to capture our
climate for learning ...our relationship is based on trust and mutual respect but is anything but soft. Therefore, I have been
asked pithy sharp questions with no 'wriggle room' which have made me realise I need to know more about certain aspects of
our current school life. He has joined me in my mission to enable us to become robustly satisfactory and then aim to be good
...he has helped me understand the value of sharp performance management targets and I’ve set out to achieve this!.
Planning and Prioritisation

x After discussion with the SIP a number of things were identified to go in the next School Improvement Plan. The headteacher
had identified them but the SIP helped to confirm they were on the right tracks and to develop more fine-tuned targets (rather
than general statements about raising standards in maths, focusing on actions at foundation and KS1). (Primary School, HT
SIP)
x The SIP has helped with prioritising, through thoroughness of data analysis, by checking that the SEF relates to the SDP (and
identifying where they don’t have coherence) and by raising the issue of succession planning with SLT (Secondary School, HT
SIP)
x The SIP challenged the school on the low proportion of pupils achieving five A*-C including English and Maths, the results of
which had not previously been obvious to governors. As a result of the SIP’s challenge and intervention a restructuring and
expansion of the management team was undertaken to provide a greater focus on attainment. (Secondary School, EC SIP)
x As a result of SIP discussions, the school are developing an action plan for Foundation Stage provision, which the school had
identified as an issue but hadn't taken forward. The SIP also identified that the improvement plan was not clearly linked to the
priority areas identified by Ofsted and has encouraged the headteacher to make this more explicit including timescales and
responsibilities. (Primary School, LA SIP)
127
Delivering School Improvement
x The SIP is a sounding board, for example the headteacher asks the SIP’s advice on curriculum development – whether it is
feasible, what the national perspective is. The SIP provides invaluable feedback & if he hasn't got the answers will know
someone who has, responding within 24/48 hours. The SIP spends a lot of time in the school and the governing body
appreciate him, he's part of the school's success, he's given us sound advice & is always there to help us, easy to talk to, and
staff get on with him & respect his views. (Secondary School, LA SIP)
x The SIP fought the school's corner with the LA on accessing funding for the schools buildings, the adverse state of which
impacts negatively on the school's ability to provide adequate time for PE -as a 'good school' in a reasonable area we cannot
attract the levels of funding associated with schools in deprived areas and the SIP is supporting us with the LA. (Secondary
School, HT SIP)
Improving Self-Evaluation
x The self-evaluation process has become embedded – the SIP has helped this by supporting the headteachers to push though
change with governors, by advising/being a sounding board on developing processes. (Secondary School, HT SIP)
x The SIP has supported the headteacher in developing a systematic lesson observation regime to ensure quality of provision.
x The SIP report and consultation feedback from headteacher and SIP indicate that the SIP has provided developmental support
to the school to build the school's capacity to use the learning walk model in its processes for self-evaluation. (Primary School,
LA SIP)
x The SIP has supported headteacher in writing SEF more concisely and with less narrative. (Primary School, LA SIP)
x The SIP described the school’s previous approach to self-evaluation as turning the handle. With support from him, the process
has become more sophisticated and this is especially true among classroom teachers understanding that self-evaluation has
come of age. This has been driven by the external validation process, through the SIP and LA. (Secondary School, EC SIP)
x Feedback from SIP, Head and others in the school demonstrates that the SIP has and continues to provide valuable input on
how to improve school self-evaluation. This ranges from suggestion during visits on how to promote greater devolvement to
middle managers, to working more closely with SLT to improve the consistency and accuracy of judgements with regards to
lesson observations. Evidence to support this was gathered from the Head and teacher interviews, observation of a SIP visit to
the school and the document review. In the latest report the SIP has also agreed a number of actions with the school to assist in
self-evaluation including provision of good practice materials for use by middle and senior leaders and information about
128
successful strategies to monitor student progress and provide personalised support for students who are falling behind.
x The SIP has helped us be more succinct in writing SEF & helped us restructure. Also asking school to qualify statements in the
SEF & look deeper. (Primary School, LA SIP)
129
Figure A6.4: SIPs Help to Sharpen Focus on School Priorities

x Without exception governing bodies are saying that this is a much tighter and more informed and challenging process. It is the
one SIP function that we rate most highly and feel will ultimately bring about change and as a result raise standards. (LA
Stakeholder)
x It has brought greater rigour in a number of schools where school priorities are at the centre of objectives. (LA stakeholder)
x Initial reports suggest that the debates have been robust and linked to the school priorities/achievement (LA stakeholder)
x I was impressed by the honesty, level of challenge and enthusiasm for the task – he is clearly aware of the issues facing the
school and its constraints. (Primary School, EC SIP)
x The governor thought that the SIP helps to focus us. Governors make suggestions and the SIP tries to codify, provide
guidance, and focus on the school's priorities. (Secondary School, LA SIP)
x All sides were happy with HTPM. The headteacher felt the SIP provides a level of robustness, ensures that it would be very
hard to set inappropriate objectives, and acts as an antidote to maverick governors. Governors felt the SIP’s guidance was
invaluable. (Secondary School, EC SIP)
x The SIP has been involved in discussing Self-Evaluation with Governors, the headteacher has encouraged the SIP to have
active engagement with the governors. (Primary school, LA SIP)
x The Governors value very much the feedback provided by the SIP – these are new governors and the SIP has seen them 2 or
3 times to introduce himself, target set and to deliver a general report. (Secondary School, HT SIP)
x The report and presentation to governors was highly regarded. (Secondary School, EC SIP)
x Governors view SIP reporting as very fair. (Primary School, LA SIP)
130
Appendix B: Aspects of SIP Programme
Management and Delivery
131
APPENDIX B1
Resource for SIP Role
1. There are mixed views amongst stakeholders about the extent to which the resource
allocated for SIPs is sufficient for them to effectively challenge and support the schools
they work with:
x around half of headteachers agree that this is the case (52% of primary
headteachers and 53% of secondary headteachers), with 20% of primary and
26% of secondary headteachers disagreeing;
x in the primary sector there are lower levels of agreement (and higher
disagreement) amongst those headteachers with external consultant SIPs
without headteacher experience; and
x around 60% of SIPs and LAs agree that resource is sufficient with one third
disagreeing (full-time LA employee SIPs tend to agree the most, particularly
compared to external consultant SIPs).
2. However, these perceptions are difficult to disentangle given that LAs operate different
approaches to the allocation of resource (with many allocating additional resource to
fulfil activities outside the core role). Some SIPs (particularly full-time LA employee
SIPs) are also able to be more flexible with their time and do not therefore stick rigidly
to the core days allocated.
3. Perceptions also vary depending on the type of school and the level of support they
require. A common view is that the standard 5 days is sufficient for challenge and
support of those schools that are performing well and have good self-evaluation
processes (with only one or two stakeholders identifying that the role could be fulfilled
with these schools with less than 5 days).
Additional Resource Allocated
4. For some types of school (those requiring higher levels of support and intervention)
some LA areas explicitly provide additional resource to fulfil specific support roles,
though this is not always the case. Half of the LAs responding to the survey said that
they allocated additional resource for SIPs to fulfil activities outside the core role. In
one of the case study areas, an explicit differentiation in allocated resource is made
based on bands of schools (with weaker performing schools or those causing concern
being allocated up to 13 days of SIP resource and higher performing schools 6-7
days).
5. Where LAs have indicated in the survey that they allocate additional resource (over the
5 days), this ranges from between 1 to 20 days for secondary schools and 3 to 30
days for primary schools:
x in the primary sector the additional resource has generally been focused on
monitoring progress and support interventions;
x in the secondary sector, the additional resource has allowed for a mix of
monitoring and capacity building support for senior leadership teams; and
x in a minority of cases in both sectors, the additional resource has been used for
pastoral support, improving self-evaluation processes and undertaking targeted
intervention support.
6. Across both sectors, additional resource has predominantly been provided for schools
causing concern or in challenging circumstances - indicated by lower performance in
133
terms of progress, CVA, achievement, or those subject to an Ofsted or LA category
(Notice to Improve, Special Measures etc). In some cases it is also allocated to
schools that have a recently appointed new headteacher or have experienced other
senior leadership team changes.
7. The monitoring of progress and support is more commonly undertaken by full-time LA
employee SIPs and to some extent external consultant SIPs, as opposed to serving
headteacher SIPs. Whilst this may be a function of the explicit matching
considerations by the LA (that is, allocating those schools that might require additional
resource to SIPs that have the flexibility to undertake such a role), this is not always
the case. There may, therefore, be cases where a school has a serving headteacher
SIP who does not fulfil a monitoring function due to limited flexibility of the SIP rather
than needs of the school.
Resource Flexibility
8. Additional resource is also being delivered in a minority of cases to enable SIPs

(predominantly full-time LA employee and external consultant SIPs rather than serving
headteacher SIPS) to provide capacity building support. In these cases, there is
evidence of the value that capacity building activities can provide, though there
remains some uncertainty about whether it is appropriate for SIPs to undertake such
activities within the core five days allocated.
9. However, this type of support is not commonly achieved through an explicit allocation
by the LA, rather the SIPs have the flexibility within their job role to provide more
support in some circumstances. There is, therefore, inconsistency in the level and
amount of support provided by different SIPs and some schools may benefit from a
greater focus in this respect.
134
Figure B1.1: Resource Flexibility of Some SIPs
o The SIP is the SIA and so brings with him whatever support is needed. The school
have not experienced a 5 day SIP but feel there would be lower impact.
o The resource is viewed as adequate for the core role. Additional support is provided
by the LA role.
o The SIP views the 5 days as sufficient, but clearly dips into his LA advisor time when
more resource is needed around the edges. External SIPs in the LA have to be more
rigid with their time due to financial issues.
10. Serving headteacher SIPs are more constrained than other types of SIP both in terms
of delivering additional support resource for schools that may benefit and in
responding in a flexible way to emerging national, local or school demands.
Figure B1.2: Serving headteacher SIP Resource & Flexibility Constraints
o “The remit continues to grow as the personalised learning agenda quite rightly expands
and as LAs shrink school improvement services due to budget demands and the
growing role of the SIP. However, this means that too little time is allocated to SIPs to
adequately do the job and other aspects then fall back to the LA. As a LA employee
within the LA where I SIP, it is easy to remain on top of what's happening within the
school. This would be impossible if I were not already based in the LA.” (SIP
Stakeholder, Survey)
o “The constraints for serving headteacher SIPs include their availability and flexibility to
support/meet schools at a mutually convenient time and their capacity to keep ringing
and to make appointments.” (LA Stakeholder, Survey)
135
APPENDIX B2
SIP CAPABILITIES
Background Experience
1. Most SIPs have experience of either being a headteacher or of working within a LA

school improvement service and many (up to half) have experience of both:
x Headteacher experience: Based on the most recently available data from
national strategies across all LAs, on average 85% of primary and 72% of
secondary schools have been allocated a headteacher experienced SIP;
x Experience of/understanding of LA school improvement services: Based
on the headteacher surveys we undertook, we estimate that at least 50% of
secondary SIPs and 66% of primary SIPs have LA experience (these represent
the proportions of headteachers responding to the surveys that have full-time LA
employee SIPs). There may also be additional SIPs with school improvement
service experience amongst the external consultant SIPs (30% of secondary and
21% of primary headteachers responding to the surveys had external consultant
SIPS);
x Experience of both: Again, based on the surveys at least a quarter of
secondary SIPs and two-fifths of primary SIPs are likely to meet both these
criteria – 28% of secondary and 41% or primary headteachers have full-time LA
employee SIPs with headteacher experience. The actual proportion may rise to
half of all SIPs if we include external consultant SIPs with headteacher
experience (an additional 24% of secondary and 10% of primary headteachers
have external consultant SIPs with headteacher experience) some of whom are
also likely to have LA school improvement service experience;
x Experience of neither: Only 6% of secondary and 11% of primary
headteachers responding to the surveys had external consultant SIPs without
headteacher experience. It is not possible to say how many of these also do not
have LA school improvement service experience though we would not expect
this to be a high figure given that LAs would be looking for some relevant
background experience amongst external consultant SIPs.
2. These background experiences are considered by most stakeholders to be important
factors contributing to the extent to which practicing SIPs are equipped to undertake
their role.
136
Table B2.1: Stakeholder Views on the Required Experience of SIPs
Secondary
Primary
Headteacher SIPs LAs
Headteachers
Statement s
% of survey respondents agreeing with
statements
It is important for a SIP to be a current or
78% 84% 52% 37%
recent headteacher
It is important for a SIP to have worked in
a school in similar circumstances to those 63% 72% 40% 40%
they are supporting
It is important for a SIP to have experience
and knowledge of working within school 66% 53% 58% 63%
improvement services
All SIPs are accredited and that is all that
18% 26% 28% 24%
is required to be credible
Personality is the main factor in being an
25% 37% 35% 29%
effective SIP
Headteacher Experience
3. A higher proportion of headteachers compared to SIPs and LAs place importance on a
SIP having both general experience of being a headteacher and specific
understanding of working in a school in similar circumstances as shown in Table B2.1.
4. This is not surprising given that we might expect headteachers to feel a SIP can relate
to their needs more effectively if they have a more direct understanding. As discussed
in Section 7, however, these views are not always reflected in headteacher
perceptions of the actual effectiveness and impact of their SIP.
Experience of LA School Improvement Service
5. Most stakeholders consider experience of a LA school improvement service as
important for a SIP, though this is less significant amongst secondary headteachers
compared to SIPs, LAs and primary headteachers (see Table B2.1 above).
6. There are some differences in perception by type of stakeholder which are likely to be
a function of respondents identifying with those things that they have most knowledge
or understanding of themselves:
x amongst headteachers the proportions in agreement with this statement are
lower than those agreeing that headteacher experience is important;
x similar proportions of SIPs agree with both statements regarding experience of
being a headteacher and of a LA school improvement service; and
x more LA respondents agree that LA school improvement service experience is
important than those that identify headteacher experience as important (only
37% of LA respondents agreed with the latter).
7. The survey findings also show, however, that many stakeholders place equal
importance on headteacher and LA background experiences. Whilst this may be an
ideal scenario, it is likely that the potential pool of SIPs would be restricted if this was
sought in every instance.
137
Figure B2.1: Stakeholder Perspectives on Background Experience
o “Headteachers (as SIPs) have practical experience of leading and managing schools.
This is helpful. They are not always good, however, in challenging peers, interpreting
data or evaluating the impact of support. LA advisors are generally better at the latter
issues but often lack the credibility of having led schools. Unless you are fortunate
enough to have a SIP with extended experience in both fields, the provision is always
likely to be flawed in one direction or the other.” (LA stakeholder, survey)
o “My view is that in order to be an effective SIP, the person involved must have had
experience as a Headteacher. To have been a senior/middle leader in a school is not
enough. To have had both experiences as a Headteacher and as a School
Improvement Advisor/Officer is valuable and credible experience.” (SIP stakeholder,
survey)
Skills and Knowledge
8. Whilst background experience is an important consideration in the selection of SIPs

(particularly influencing credibility in relation to direct headteacher experience) it does
not automatically provide you with the skills and knowledge to be well equipped in the
role. Personality (and its match to the headteacher) is also a criterion for many
stakeholders, though most do not agree that this is the main factor in being an
effective SIP (see Table B2.1 above).
9. In addressing the question of whether SIPs are equipped in their role, therefore, it is
necessary to also consider the specific skills and knowledge of a SIP, together with the
effectiveness of the LA matching processes.
138
Accreditation
10. The fact that all practicing SIPs are accredited provides one indicator of the SIPs
abilities by assessing specific elements of their skills and knowledge. However, most
stakeholders disagree that this is all that is required to be credible (more than 60% of
headteachers, SIPs and LAs responding to the surveys disagreed with this statement).
Many of the qualitative responses to the survey elaborate on stakeholder views that
the accreditation process establishes a minimum skill level and it does not ensure that
a SIP will be good at his/her job in any particular circumstance.
“The SIP accreditation process clearly helps establish a minimum skill level, but it does
not, unfortunately, mean that the SIP will be good at their job. The variation in the skills
of accredited SIPs is enormous. Neither does having been a Headteacher nor having
worked for an LA automatically mean that a SIP will be effective. The personality and
skills of the individual and their match to the personality of the Headteacher and
circumstances of the school are the most critical factors.” (LA Stakeholder, Survey)
11. Most SIPs are positive about the accreditation process itself; identifying that they are
clear about the skills and expertise that it is designed to assess and that it is effective
in evaluating them.
Table B2.2: Stakeholder Views on Accreditation

SIPs LAs
Statement % of survey respondents 1
Agree Disagree Agree Disagree
I am clear about the skills and expertise that the
90% 5% 79% 15%
accreditation process is designed to assess
The accreditation process is effective in
evaluating the skills and expertise required to be 68% 21% 46% 33%
a SIP
Only those who have the appropriate skills have
19% 54%
been successful in the accreditation process
Not Asked
The accreditation process has failed people I
38% 17%
think would make effective SIPs
1
Total percentages for agree and disagree do not add to 100% as some respondents answered neither agree
not disagree or don’t know.
139
12. LA respondents have more mixed views, with a third disagreeing that accreditation is
effective. Significant proportions indicated both that some accredited SIPs did not
have the appropriate skills and that the process had failed others they thought would
make effective SIPs.
“In the secondary field we have had to actively manage one of the 'recent headteacher'
SIPs due to his lack of challenge to schools and his lack of preparation.” (LA
“The SIP did not provide much in the way of challenge. The SIP report offers little in
this area. It is mostly a statement of where the school is and what its priorities are. He
brought up issues which he knew needed addressing for last year, and asked how
things were going, but did not set anything in the way of challenging targets to address
next time. The SIP has not been obstructive but has served to be little more than a
middleman reporting back to the LA.” (Case Study evidence)
13. The more negative views about accreditation are slightly more prevalent (though not
solely) amongst LA areas that were in wave 1 of roll-out of the SIP programme. There
are also differences between Waves in LA views of the extent to which SIPs are
equipped to have challenging conversations and provide clear advice to governors on
headteacher performance management.
Table B2.3: LA and SIP Views on Preparedness for Role

LAs 2
SIPs
Statement All Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3
% Respondents Agreeing with Statements
SIPs (I feel) are equipped to have

challenging conversations with 73% 42% 77% 93% 99%
headteachers
SIPs (I feel) are equipped to provide

75% 42% 78% 86% 95%
advice and guidance on HTPM
2
The small number in the LA wave samples means that it is not possible to assess whether these differences are
statistically significant.
140
14. These findings suggest that some of the Wave 1 LA perceptions might be influenced
by earlier experiences of the accreditation process, issues for which were highlighted
in earlier rounds of the evaluation. Changes in the accreditation process were
implemented in response to feedback provided by those involved in the earliest rounds
and perceptions amongst Wave 2 and 3 LAs suggest that they have had some positive
effect.
Other Indicators of Skills and Knowledge
15. Positive stakeholder perceptions and evidence from the detailed case studies provide
further indications that most SIPs are equipped to fulfil their role. As shown in Table
B2.4, most stakeholders are positive about the extent to which the skills and
experience of SIPs have been effectively matched to the schools they work with and
that SIPs:
x have a clear understanding of the circumstances in which the schools they are
supporting are operating;
x have an effective relationship with headteachers;
x respect the autonomy of the schools they work with;
x are able to interpret data effectively to guide schools they work with; and
x have the knowledge and information to be able to discuss packages of challenge
and support with schools (though perceptions are more variable in relation to this
statement, with LA stakeholders having more mixed views).
16. Whilst agreement amongst primary headteachers is at lower proportions than in the
other surveys, this tends to be due to greater uncertainty rather than because they
disagree (which is a function of the SIP programme being at an earlier stage in roll out
in the primary sector).
Table B2.4: Stakeholder Views on SIP Skills and Knowledge
Primary Secondary
Headteach Headteacher SIPs LAs
Statement ers s
% of survey respondents agreeing with
statements
The skills and experience of SIPs have been
effectively matched to the schools they are working 65% 78% 93% 92%
with
SIPs have a clear understanding of the
circumstances in which the schools they are 78% 87% 98% 96%
supporting are operating
SIPs have an effective relationship with
78% 86% 97% 88%
headteachers
SIPs respect the autonomy of the schools they
73% 83% na 88%
work with
SIPs are able to interpret data effectively to guide
80% 84% 95% 88%
the schools they work with
SIPs have the knowledge and information to be
able to discuss packages of challenge and support 61% 70% 83% 48%
with schools
141
17. Figure B2.2 provides some more detailed case study evidence to support these
positive perceptions. The figure also includes examples where SIPs are considered to
be less well equipped, though this was only in isolated cases.
Figure B2.2: Case Study Evidence of SIP Skills

Well Equipped
o General feedback from Head and SMT is that they see the SIP as highly credible,
knows what he's talking about and able to challenge the school. This is corroborated by
the assessment made in the document review.
o The skills and knowledge of the SIP attached to this school are viewed and
demonstrated to be more than adequate. This is demonstrated through document
review, feedback from school SLT and direct observation which showed the SIP to be
highly skilled in how he questioned staff in order to tease out the issues and draw out
areas of development.
o The SIP is highly skilled in data interpretation and analysis having been an ex HMI
inspector. He has accurately identified the key factors facing the school and affecting
its performance. He has also determined whether the school has accurately
determined targets and priorities. This assessment is based on direct observation,
review of SIP reports and SLT perceptions.
Less Well Equipped
o Whilst technically competent, the SIP does not have the skills to challenge the school
as it progresses.
o The HT and SIP have conversations about where they are at and discuss priorities
which they largely agree on. The HT is however not very open to the SIP role and
feels that due to the fact that he is a very experienced head there is little a SIP can
offer unless he was as experienced as he.
142
Appendix B3
SIP Recruitment, Selection and Deployment
LA Models
1. The vast majority of LAs responding to the survey (80% or more) consider that the
recruitment and deployment processes for SIPs are effective in terms of:
x Deployment Model: Stakeholders agree that the overall deployment model is
effective and that:
LAs have an effective strategy for supporting schools that are in a complex
situation (for example causing concern);
SIPs have been deployed to specific locations or for specific purposes (for
example to cover a cluster of schools);
x Processes: Stakeholders agree that:
the LA has established clear criteria for the selection of SIPs;
processes are in place to match SIPs to schools;
headteachers have been involved in recruitment, including seeking school
views on the suitability and deployment of SIPs.
x SIP experience: Most LAs have achieved the target of 3 out of 4 secondary
SIPs being current or former headteachers and stakeholders agree that some
SIPs have substantial recent experience of work outside of the local authority
area.
2. The ways in which schools have been consulted on recruitment and deployment of
SIPs include headteacher meetings/panels as part of selection; nominations of
headteachers for SIP roles; involving headteachers in evaluation, feedback and review
processes; and consulting schools on the final decision.
3. The positive perceptions about overall recruitment and deployment models amongst
LA themselves are supported overall by the National Strategy assessments of LAs’
SIP recruitment and deployment. NS assessments from 2007 identified that most of
the secondary SIP programme recruitment and deployment approaches were good or
outstanding (in 112 of the 150 LA areas). Just six LA areas were identified as
requiring substantial improvement in recruitment and deployment for the secondary
SIP programme and the remaining 32 as requiring some improvement. Only one of the
31 LAs that had started to roll-out the programme in the primary sector was identified
as requiring substantial improvement.
143
Quality of SIPs Available
4. Generally, the quality of available SIPs, in terms of knowledge, skills and experience
was reported to be sufficient by respondents. 62% of LA survey respondents agreed
that the quality was high and 50% agreed that there were sufficient SIPs available to
meet their needs. However, the picture is not consistent across all LAs:
x 21% of LA survey respondents disagreed that the overall quality was high;
x 29% felt that there were insufficient SIPs with the required knowledge, skills and
expertise to meet their needs;
x 23% felt that the National Strategies’ database (SIPmanager) of accredited SIPs
was not an effective tool to support the recruitment process.
5. The less positive perceptions relating the overall quality and number of available SIPs
are influenced to some extent by the views of those respondents in Wave 1 LA areas
and they may therefore reflect some of the issues highlighted in Appendix B2
regarding the accreditation process.
Recruitment and Deployment Constraints
6. Where issues are being faced by LAs in the recruitment and deployment of SIPs they
have related to recruitment and retention issues for particular types of SIP, managing
school expectations and levels of satisfaction, and financial and resource/capacity
constraint. Recruitment and retention issues include:
x 31% of LA respondents said they had problems recruiting headteacher SIPs in
the primary sector; and
x some of the qualitative responses to the survey identify that retaining external
consultant and serving headteacher SIPs in the primary sector is an issue.
7. As a result of these issues, some areas have experienced constraints associated with
the continuity of SIPs for some schools. Whilst 69% said they had contingency plans
in place, 13% felt they did not.
Figure B3.1: Recruitment and Deployment Issues Faced
Recruitment and Retention

o “It has been more difficult to match Primary School SIPs to schools, due to the limited
amount of information available from the national database and competition for high
quality SIPs leading up to Summer 2007. Some SIPs have had to reduce workload for
personal reasons. We have a need for a contingency pool of flexible SIPs to account
for uncertainty.” (LA Stakeholder, Survey)
o “Changes of SIP have caused some disruption and the use of external consultants
makes this more likely.” (LA Stakeholder, Survey)
School Expectations and Satisfaction
o “Providing the school with what they perceive they have lost with the SIP programme
(pastoral support) has been an issue. Still working with schools to help them
understand the support mechanisms that have been put in place. May take more time
before fully embedded.” (LA Stakeholder, Survey)
Financial and Capacity Constraints
o “The quality of the SIP service assumes that there is an LA service to provide support,
development and intervention based on findings. Funding does not facilitate this.” (LA
144
Figure B3.1: Recruitment and Deployment Issues Faced
o “Due to the size of the authority all SIPs are external consultants and we do not have
sufficient grant funding to cover the cost and as such will have to make redundancies
to cover deficit.” (LA Stakeholder, Survey)
o “SIPs are not contracted to carry the range of duties that SIOs used to carry out eg
support with teacher capability, additional support for schools causing concern, writing
references for HT and DHTs, headteacher appointments; involvement in role as LA
adviser re redundancies. With a reduced core team it is very difficult to cover these
duties satisfactorily. Scope to employ enough officers to do this work is severely
limited due the cost of the SIP programme. It also means there needs to be a "double
conversation" with some of our schools because they have a SIP, and an additional
(LA direct employee).” (LA Stakeholder, Survey)
8. The financial and capacity issues raised by LA stakeholders identify two key concerns.
Firstly, that some stakeholders feel that the overall funding for the SIP programme is
insufficient to attract and support the number and quality of SIPs required and ensure
that appropriate management structures are in place. Secondly, some stakeholders
identify additional school support and improvement activities that LAs should be
fulfilling but overall funding levels are constraining the extent to which they can be
achieved.
LA Partnerships for SIP Deployment
9. A key feature in some LAs is that they have developed partnerships with other areas
as part of their recruitment strategy. This is more commonly apparent in LAs involved
in Wave 1 of the SIP programme roll-out. One of the benefits of this approach is that
LAs have access to a wider pool and mix of experiences of SIPs for recruitment.
10. However, there are also some concerns (amongst both LA stakeholders and schools)
that the use of LA employed SIPs that are from outside the authority area (and hence
are more akin to external consultant SIPs) inhibits more effective communication
between the LA and schools. This is particularly compared to LA ‘owned’ SIPs, as
they are more directly linked to other LA developments and support and have a better
understanding of the local context.
LA Management of SIP Programme
11. The perceptual evidence suggests that LAs have effective structures in place for SIP
induction, management and communication. Again these perceptions are supported
by National Strategy assessments across all LA areas, with the latest assessment
identifying 124 of the 150 LA areas with good or outstanding secondary SIP
performance management structures. O nly one area is identified as requiring
significant improvements and 24 some improvement in secondary SIP performance
management. 32 of the 36 LAs that have rolled-out the programme in the primary
sector are assessed as good or outstanding and 4 require some or substantial
improvement.
145
Table B3.1: Stakeholder Perceptions of Performance Management and
Communication Structures
SIPs LAs
% of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing
with statements
LAs (we) have developed clear
structures for communicating priorities to 88% 95%
SIPs
I am (we are) able to keep (SIPs) up to
90% 87%
date on local priorities
The SIP Coordinator effectively
communicates national priorities (e.g.
84% 73%
Primary National Strategies, 14-19
developments)
Effective induction processes are in
86% 92%
place
The approach to performance
72% 81%
management of SIPs is effective
12. Evidence from the detailed cases studies provides some detail behind the
performance management processes in place in some LA areas, which include clear
line management structures, quality assurance of reports, shadow visits and annual
performance review systems. There are also some examples where LA management
and review processes have been effective in identifying and addressing SIP
performance issues.
Figure B3.2: LA Performance Management and QA Arrangements
Process in Place
o All reports are read and quality assured by the SIP Manager. A shadow visit of the SIP
is undertaken once a year and external SIPs have extra supervision. External SIPs are
only paid on receipt of an agreed SIP report for each visit. There is a formal annual
performance review of the SIP, preparation for which includes the SIP Manager having
a 30 minute interview with the relevant headteacher and the SIP and headteacher
completing a questionnaire.
o The SIP meets the SIP manager about twice a year to talk through issues, quality of
reports etc. A strong element of the last feedback was on making judgments, and
ensuring that as an external SIP he keeps an eye on other school improvement visits
to the school.
Addressing SIP Performance Issues
o In one case study area, issues were highlighted with two SIPs and they are now no
longer employed within the SIP programme locally – one had not produced a report
and the other was cutting and pasting report findings.
o In another area, two SIPs have been placed under performance review, one for
‘talking’ about underperforming schools in too open a way and another for not having
challenged the school sufficiently.
146
13. Whilst these processes were comprehensive in many areas, there were a couple of
case study areas where systems appeared to be less robust. For example in one
area, a review of reports was only undertaken when specific areas of concern for a
school were identified. However, this was a function of capacity constraints and the
SIP Manager is planning to introduce a more triangulated review process for the future
(involving review of reports, data and interviews with headteachers).
Communication with Schools
14. 92% of LA respondents said that schools are clear about the type, nature and volume
of support they can expect from their SIP. However, there is some evidence from the
other stakeholder surveys and case studies that there is the potential to improve the
effectiveness of communication and the message being received by schools in some
areas. This includes clarifying the messages and mechanisms surrounding the
accountability of SIPs; the function of SIP visits; use of SIP reports and feedback to
inform LA support strategies; and the role of the SIP and LA in communicating local
priorities and issues.
SIP Support and Training
15. As reported in earlier phases of the evaluation, there are significantly higher levels of
satisfaction with the SIP training that is delivered locally by LAs than that delivered by
National Strategies nationally.
Table B3.2: Views on Training and CPD

Percentage of respondents:
Agree or Disagree or
Neither agree
Statements: strongly strongly
nor disagree
agree disagree
SIPs LAs SIPs LAs SIPs LAs
Training/CPD provided at the
national level was effective in
36% 15% 41% 58% 13% 23%
developing my skills and
knowledge
Training/CPD provided at the local
level was effective in developing 90% 87% 4% 6% 5% 4%
my skills and knowledge
The typical allocation of four days
73% 63% 15% 21% 10% 13%
for training or CPD is enough
16. As a result, changes have been implemented over the last year to place a much
greater focus on activities to support continuing professional development (CPD) at the
local level. This provides the opportunity for LAs to tailor their support and training to
address issues relevant to the local context and individual SIP needs.
17. Most SIPs and LAs feel that the allocation of four days per annum for CPD activities is
sufficient though a significant minority (particularly LA stakeholders) disagreed.
147
18. The SIP manager database has been used by most stakeholders at least once or
twice, though one quarter of SIPs had not used it at all. Usage was highest amongst
LA staff and lowest amongst serving headteacher SIPs. Of those using the database,
most LA staff and half of SIPs agreed that it was an effective tool. There are high
levels of indifference amongst those that do not agree rather than significant levels of
disagreement.
19. Use of the Knowledge Bank is also relative high, with most stakeholders having used it
at least once or twice, and around a third of SIPs not using it at all. Usage tends to be
more occasional than regular. Serving headteacher SIPs and primary sector SIPs are
the least likely to have used the Knowledge Bank. Again most SIPs and LAs that have
used the Knowledge back think that it is effective, with very small proportions
disagreeing that this is the case.
20. The HTPM online module is the least commonly accessed support tool by all
stakeholders, though just over half of SIPs have used it at least once or twice. Again
serving headteacher SIPs are least likely to use this tool. Around half of those
accessing the module agree that is effective and one third neither agreed nor disagree.
SIP Coordinator Support
21. The National Strategies SIP Coordinators (SIPCos) are perceived by most LA
stakeholders as positively contributing to LA management of the SIP programme.
Most LA respondents agreed that the SIP Coordinator had:
x provided effective support in the implementation of the programme;
x developed effective networks to share ideas and joint solutions to common
issues across local authorities;
x provided informed challenge to the LA on the roll-out of the SIP programme; and
x supported LA officers to quality assure the work of SIPs.
22. There are more mixed views across LAs about the effectiveness of SIP Coordinators
in supporting the development of effective deployment strategies, reporting
frameworks and robust performance management systems.
148
Table B3.3: LA Views of National Strategies Support
Percentage of LA Survey Respondents:
Disagree or
Agree or Neither agree
Statements: strongly
strongly agree nor disagree
The SIP Coordinator has.... disagree with
with statement with statement
statement
..provided effective support in the
73% 10% 12%
implementation of the SIP programme
..developed effective networks to share ideas
and joint solutions to common issues across 67% 8% 19%
LAs
..provided informed challenge to the LA on the
71% 15% 10%
roll-out of the SIP programme
..assisted in the development of strategies to
48% 29% 19%
ensure effective deployment of SIPs
..supported LA officers to quality assure the
69% 13% 13%
work of SIPs
..supported LA officers to develop robust
58% 19% 19%
reporting frameworks
..supported LA officers to develop robust
56% 25% 15%
performance management systems
149
Copies of this publication can be obtained from:
DCSF Publications
PO Box 5050
Sherwood Park
Annesley
Nottingham
NG15 ODJ
Tel 0845 6022260

Fax 0845 6033360
Email dcsf@prolog.uk.com
Ref: DCSF-RR050
ISBN: 978 1 84775 231 4

© York Consulting LLP 2008
www.dcsf.gov.uk/research
Published by the Department for
Children, Schools and Families

New Relationship With Schools Evaluation

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

New Relationship With Schools Evaluation

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Research Report DCSF-RR050

New Relationship with Schools

© York Consulting LLP 2008

1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW ...................................................................... 1

CHAPTER ONE: SCHOOL SELF-EVALUATION AND DATA-USE

CHAPTER TWO: THE SIP PROGRAMME

CHAPTER THREE: OTHER NRWS STRANDS

Acronyms which have been used throughout this study are:

Impact on Standards and Quality

Other Areas of Progress

Nature and Scope of SIP Role

Table 1.1: Number of Survey Responses

In-depth Case Studies

1.16 Consultations were undertaken with a range of national stakeholders throughout

Chapter One: School Self- Section 2: Effectiveness & Impact of Self-Evaluation

Effectiveness of School Self-Evaluation and Data Use

Data use and Analysis

Figure 2.1: Data Use and Analysis

Class, Teacher and Pupil Level

Whole School and Embedded Approaches

Figure 2.3: Embedded and Whole School Approaches

Teacher Performance Management

Figure 2.4: Developing Self-Evaluation Practices

Evaluative Assessments and SEFs

Figure 2.5: SEF Quality

Evaluative SEFs linked to School Improvement Plans

Table 2.3: Acting on Pupil and Parent Feedback

Figure 2.6: Acting on Pupil and Parent Feedback

Impact on Improving Self-Evaluation

Table 2.5: Stakeholder Perceptions of the Impact

School Planning, Prioritisation and Focus on Outcomes

Accountability of Performance and Progress

Focus on Pupil Outcomes

Understanding Performance and How to Improve

Figure 2.8: Self-Evaluation Leading to Targeted Interventions

Quality of Teaching and Learning

Individual Pupil/Group Support

Standards, Value Added and Quality of Learning

Figure 2.9: Impact of Self-Evaluation on Quality and Standards

Standards and Achievement

Teaching and Learning

Catalysts for Improving Self-Evaluation

Table 3.1: Headteacher Perceptions of Catalysts

Table 3.2: Stakeholder Perceptions of SEF Guidance

Data Availability and Systems

1.53 In a minority of cases, LA developed data systems have supported schools’

Figure 3.1: LA and School Data Systems

Effective IT and CPD within Schools

Consistency across Schools

Case Studies Requiring Significant Further Development

Common Development Areas

Data Development Needs

Figure 3.2: School Data Development Needs

Table 3.3: Perceptions of RaiseOnline

Figure 3.3: Perspectives on RaiseOnline

Poor Timing, Reliability and Validity

Figure 3.4: Data Issues Raised by Survey Stakeholders

Challenging Self-Evaluation and Leadership

Figure 4.4: Focus on Pupil Groups

Collaborative and Post-16 Provision

There is a gap in responsibilities for challenge and evaluation associated with

Reporting and Feedback

Evidence of Less Effective Challenge