School Governing

NPQH to become optional with effect from early 2012

2011-12-22T20:00:00.000Z

The NPQH Qualification is to become non mandatory from next year, prospective head teachers will be able to take a new enhanced qualification.

The current qualification – the National Professional Qualification for Headship (NPQH) – is to be overhauled to allow prospective head teachers from all types of schools the chance to develop the best skills for the job.

All first-time head teachers in the maintained sector are currently required to hold the NPQH.

As signalled in the Schools White Paper 'The Importance of Teaching', the National College was asked to review the qualification to ensure it matches the best in the world, learns from other leading qualifications such as MBAs, meets the highest standards for leadership development and is based on what is required to be an effective head teacher.

In the light of the review, Ministers have today announced that:

NPQH will become optional with effect from early 2012 – subject to the Parliamentary process – and developed for all prospective heads in both the maintained and the non-maintained sector such as academies and independent schools.

The bar for entry and assessment for the qualification will be raised.

The content made more demanding through the introduction of a core curriculum focusing on the key skills of headship including leadership of teaching and learning, and with a greater emphasis on behaviour.

The revised qualification will be launched in spring 2012 with the first participants starting in September 2012.

NGA Press Release

The NGA welcomes the announcement by the Department for Education that the National Professional Qualification for Headship (NPQH) is to be made more rigorous. A redesigned NPQH must ensure that prospective heads have the full range of skills and knowledge to lead schools effectively not only in terms of teaching and learning but in managing the organisation. School governors are responsible for appointing headteachers and the NGA is not clear how making the qualification non-compulsory will improve the quality of headship candidates.

DfE Press release http://www.education.gov.uk/inthenews/inthenews/a00200533/overhaul-of-head-teachers-qualification-to-help-train-the-next-generation-of-great-school-leaders

1,310 Primary Schools below floor standard

2011-12-21T20:00:00.000Z

The Government have announed they will target the weakest primary schools in a bid to turn around under-performance.

The announcement follows the results of more than 16,000 schools’ Key Stage 2 tests – taken by 11-year-olds this May – were published.

They show that every child in 265 primary schools not only achieved at least the expected level in both English and maths, but also made the expected progress.

The tables highlight, for the first time, the schools – some in challenging areas – which transform the life chances of pupils who were struggling at age seven but who leave primary achieving better than expected.

However, the figures also reveal that 1,310 primary schools were below the standard – and about 150 have been below the floor for five years in a row.

This year’s Key Stage 2 statistics show that:

A third of 11-year-olds are still not doing well enough in the three Rs

One in 10 boys leave primary school with the reading age of a seven-year-old

One in 14 boys leave primary school with the writing age of an seven-year-old

The percentage of children achieving the expected level in both English and maths rose one percentage point to 74 per cent. But the proportion achieving above that expected level is down in English and in writing – and by eight percentage points in reading.

DfE Press Release http://www.education.gov.uk/inthenews/inthenews/a00200915/primary-schools-test-results-released

DfE: National Curriculum Assessments at Key Stage 2 in England 2010/2011 (revised)

http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s001047/index.shtml

Recruitment of Head Teachers continues to be a problem

2011-12-20T20:00:00.000Z

Schools could be left without leaders, warns the National Association of Head Teachers union, as a new report confirms a looming recruitment crisis in senior education posts.

The 17^th Annual Report of The State of the Labour Market for Senior Staff in Schools in England and Wales says more needs to be done to “clarify issues” surrounding leadership recruitment, “…if the appointment of head teachers is not to become a really urgent issue in the near future.”

The report, produced for the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) by Education Data Surveys, part of TSL Education, highlights a decline in deputy and assistant head teacher vacancies as fewer numbers opt to leave their posts to pursue headships.

In addition, the report notes that the absence of a tail-off in retirement levels for existing heads plus the new wave of academies and free schools fuelling demand for even more new head teachers while offering higher salaries to lure experienced head teachers away from traditional schools, could result in escalating recruitment problems.

The full report can be downloaded from here

http://www.naht.org.uk/welcome/comment/key-topics/staff-management/the-state-of-the-labour-market-for-senior-staff/

Ofsted Report: ICT in schools 2008-2011

2011-12-19T20:00:00.000Z

Ofsted published a report on the use of ICT in schools 2008-2011

Key findings

The overall effectiveness ofICT was good or outstanding in over two thirds of the primary schools visited.In contrast, just over a third of the secondary schools visited were consideredgood or outstanding for the overall effectiveness of ICT. Many of theweaknesses seen in the secondary school sample, including weak use ofassessment and the degree of challenge posed by the Key Stage 4 vocationalcurriculum, echo findings similar to those of Ofsted’s previous ICT report.

Pupils’ achievement in ICT wasgood or outstanding in over half of the primary schools visited over the threeyears of the survey. Achievement was good or outstanding in 29 of the 74 secondaryschools visited, and was inadequate in almost a fifth. Achievement in thesecondary schools was adversely affected by the lack of effective challenge forhigher-attaining students and poor coverage of key aspects of the ICTcurriculum, especially at Key Stage 4.

Teaching of ICT was good oroutstanding in nearly two thirds of the primary schools visited. Teachers andteaching assistants were increasingly confident in their own use of ICT andable to support pupils more effectively. Weaknesses remained, however, in theteaching of more demanding aspects of ICT such as control and data handling. Injust under half of the secondary schools visited, teaching and learning weregood or outstanding.

The use of assessment was aconsiderable weakness in both the primary and secondary schools visited. Pupils’use of ICT in other subjects was only occasionally tracked or recorded. Forthose students in Key Stage 4 who were not receiving specialist ICT teachingthere was no systematic record of their learning in ICT and no means forteachers or pupils to know whether they had gaps in their knowledge.

The ICT curriculum andqualification routes provided by nearly half of the secondary schools surveyedwere not meeting the needs of all students, especially at Key Stage 4. In theseschools a single vocational examination course was taken by all students,limiting challenge to the more able, or ICT was offered as an option to somestudents with others not receiving the full National Curriculum. As a result, in30 of the 74 schools visited nearly half of the students reach the age of 16without a sound foundation for further study or training in ICT and relatedsubjects.

Very few examples were seen ofsecondary schools engaging with local IT businesses to bring the subject alivefor their students. This was a particular issue for girls, many of whom need afuller understanding of ICT-related career and education options to informtheir subject choices at 14 and 16 years of age.

Leadership and management ofICT were good or outstanding in over two thirds of the primary schools. Inthese schools leaders had a clear and comprehensive understanding of thecontribution of ICT to the school’s wider development and improvement. Inoutstanding secondary schools ICT was seen by the headteacher as an engine forinnovation and raising standards. In contrast, half of the secondary schoolssurveyed in which leadership and management of ICT were no better thansatisfactory had common weaknesses that included insufficient attention givento progress in ICT across the curriculum and lack of support for staff inteaching more challenging topics.

In the majority of primaryschools there were regular audits of staff’s professional development needs.The approach was less systematic in secondary schools, where inspectors saw veryfew examples of any evaluation of the impact of training on the effectivenessof teaching or on pupils’ learning.

Commissioning and procuring theright equipment, infrastructure and software were becoming more challenging forthe schools visited as their vision for ICT developed. Schools surveyed wereengaging pupils, staff, governors and parents in helping to specify needs, butonly a few had evaluated the effectiveness of previous investment or developedcosted plans for rolling future investment.

Most of the schools either hada virtual learning environment in full use or were in the process of installingone. Where schools were making regular use of a virtual learning environment,they had been able to enhance and enrich many aspects of school life, includingthe quality of learning resources, communications with parents, and assessmentand tracking processes.

All the schools visited ensuredthat pupils were well informed about the safe use of the internet and were ableto use it in a responsible and safe way in school. However, the need forcontinued vigilance was emphasised by the fact that in discussions withinspectors, pupils frequently raised the issue of the under-age use of socialnetworking sites. Staff training and support for parents need to remain a highpriority for schools.

Full Report can be found here

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/ict-schools-2008-11

Pupil Premium Update 2012-2013

2011-12-18T10:00:00.000Z

Pupil Premium

· Funding through the Premiumwill amount to £1.25bn in 2012-13.

· From April 2012 the PupilPremium will be £600 per deprived pupil in years from Reception to Year 11 inmaintained schools and academies in

England

· The indicator used fordeprivation will be those pupils on the January 2012 School Census who havebeen eligible for Free School Meals (FSM) in the last 6 years, known as “Ever 6FSM”. This will extend the Premium toanother half million pupils.

· Childrenwho have been eligible for FSM at any point in the past generally have pooreracademic results than those who have never been eligible for FSM. These pupilstherefore should benefit from the additional support the Pupil Premium fundingwill be able to provide.

· In addition, deprived pupils innon-mainstream settings who are publicly funded –Special Schools, Non-MaintainedSpecial Schools,Independent Schools, Not in School, General HospitalSchools, Pupil Referral Units and 14-15 year olds in Further Education (FE)Colleges - will also attract a Premium of £600 on an Ever 6 FSM basis.

· Children who have been lookedafter continuously for more than six months will also attract a Premium of£600.

· A Service Child Premium of £250for children whose parents are in the armed forces.

· Up to £50m of the total will beavailable to fund a Summer School Programme for disadvantaged pupils to supporttheir transition to secondary schools in September 2012.

Pupil Premium Q&A

http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/doc/p/2012-13%20pupil%20%20premium%20q%20and%20a.doc

Schools Funding Statement

2011-12-17T10:59:00.000Z

The DfE announced the school funding for 2012-13 through the Dedicated Schools Grant. Funding for 2012-13 will be pretty much the same a this year - a flat cash settlement with safeguards to ensure that local authorities with falling roll numbers do not receive a reduction in funding of more than 2% in cash terms. The minimum funding guarantee will remain at the same level as this year.

Transitional protection will continue until 2015-16 for sixth forms with a plan to fund a further 34,000 places to meet demand with the increase in the participation age.

Overall capital funding will be £800m for the shortage of pupil places (basic need) and £1.4bn for maintenance. The Department is changing the way that it allocates the funding but has pledged that no local authority will receive less than 80% of the funding they would have received on the previous method. The extra £600m announced in the autumn statement is separate to this funding and will be allocated ‘towards basic need.’

£276m has been retained to meet the maintenance needs of academies and £107m has been allocated to the maintenance and building needs of sixth forms. £59m of the sixth form money will be put into the Building Condition Improvement Fund to help fund priority building for sixth forms and colleges. £44m will be used to fund addition places within sixth forms and colleges in areas of demographic pressures.

Here is the announcement

http://www.education.gov.uk/a00200828/written-ministerial-statement-on-education-funding

Role of the Clerk to the Governing Body

2011-12-16T20:00:00.000Z

The Department for Education has been updating their School Governance section of their website in December 2011 including the Role of the Clerk to the Governing Body.

The clerk has an important part to play in making sure the governing body's work is well organised. It is helpful if the clerk is able to offer information and advice to the governing body, particularly on matters involving the law and procedures to be followed at meetings. Governing bodies should consider what level of help they will need from their clerk when selecting him or her.

Responsibility

It remains the responsibility of the governing body to decide who should act as clerk to the governing body and as clerk to any committee. This responsibility may not be delegated. Governors, associate members and the headteacher of the school cannot be appointed as clerk to the governing body. In some schools the role of clerk is traditionally undertaken by the school secretary, bursar, or other member of staff. In such cases, the individual concerned should be clear clerking the governing body is outside their normal reporting arrangements. There is no requirement that the clerk to the full governing body is also appointed as clerk to any or all committees.

A governor (but not the headteacher) may act as clerk for the purposes of a meeting if the clerk fails to attend. In that case, the governor acting as clerk may take part in discussions and vote.

Clerks who are not governors are not able to vote at governing-body meetings.

Clerks are appointed by the governing body. Some local authorities (LAs) offer a clerking service to governing bodies if they pay a subscription. The governing body has the power to remove the clerk from office. Where the school does not have a delegated budget, the LA may remove the clerk and appoint a substitute but they must consult the governing body before doing so.

Guidance

Chapter 3 of the Guide to the Law for School Governors provides an outline of the role and appointment of clerks to the governing body and its committees.

The Department recognises the importance of the contribution of the clerk to effective governance and the resulting benefit in terms of school improvement. The National Training
Programme for Clerks has been developed by Consortium 52, comprising LAs and diocesan authorities based in the north of England. The training for clerks builds on Clerking Matters, a report produced by Information for School and College Governors (ISCG) to evaluate the importance of clerks to school improvement. The main purpose of the training programme is to enable clerks to develop the competences necessary to provide the Level 2 Clerking Service, and for experienced clerks to refresh, consolidate and further develop their competences.

Clerk Employment Contract

http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/c/clerk%20employment%20contract.pdf

Complaints: Responsibilities of a Governing Body

2011-12-15T20:00:00.000Z

Responsibilities

Under Section 29 of the Education Act 2002, the governing body of all maintained schools and nursery schools in England are required to have in place a procedure to deal with complaints relating to the school and to any community facilities or services the school provides. The law also requires the complaint procedure to be publicised.

The governing body should note the following recommendations:

General parental complaints

The day-to-day running of the school is the responsibility of the headteacher, the governing body and the LA. Initially, it is recommended parents put their concerns in writing to the headteacher of the school and if this fails to resolve the issue, concerns should then be raised with the chair of governors. A complaint may be made to the Secretary of State for Education if a person believes a governing body or LA is acting unreasonably or is failing to carry out its statutory duties properly. The complaint should set out fully the concerns and reasons why the complaint is being submitted, enclosing all previous correspondence relevant to the complaint. The complaint should be mailed to the Department.

Roles and actions

Department guidance on developing and applying complaints policies and procedures strongly encourages schools and governing bodies to differentiate between concerns and complaints and in both cases, to keep procedures for dealing with them as informal as possible.

Guidance

The Department has produced extensive guidance, including example policies and procedures. Brief guidance on general complaints and curriculum complaints can be found in Chapters 3 and 6 respectively of the Guide to the law for school governors

The law

Consult the Education Act 2002 for further details.

Procedures relating to general complaints do not replace the LA's procedures relating to curriculum and collective worship complaints.
Certain forms of complaint, e.g. staff grievance or disciplinary procedures, also fall outside the scope of these general complaints procedures.
Third parties that use school premises for any purpose should be encouraged to adopt their own complaints procedures.
Schools and governors are encouraged to involve their LA and teachers' associations in drawing up these procedures:

establish a member of staff who will act as complaints coordinator and who will take the initial responsibility for handling complaints
take a two-stage (small schools) or three-stage (larger schools) formal procedure to reviewing and resolving complaints
have formal, published procedures with time limits
form a governors committee to deal with complaints that can not be resolved by the complaints coordinator or the headteacher
record complaints so the overall level, nature and outcome of complaints can be reviewed and any necessary steps taken to improve policies and procedures.

Education Act Chapter 32

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/32/contents

School Governor allowances and expenses

2011-12-14T20:00:00.000Z

Background

The Department considers that governors should not be out of pocket and should be able to claim allowances for legitimate expenses incurred in carrying out their duties. The allowances paid should relate to actual costs incurred, apart from mileage costs where any payment should not exceed authorised Inland Revenue mileage allowances. However, attendance allowance and payments for loss of earnings may not be paid.

Allowances may be paid to governors and associate members of the governing bodies by the governing bodies of maintained schools that have delegated budgets. The LA may pay allowances to governors of a maintained school that does not have a delegated budget and to persons appointed to represent the LA at an institution providing higher or further education, or on the governing body of an independent school or non-maintained special school.

Travel expenses must be paid at a rate not exceeding the maximum level of the Inland Revenue authorised mileage rate. Other governors' expenses must be paid on provision of a receipt at a rate determined by the governing body, and will be limited to the amount shown on the receipt.

Guidance

Paying allowances to school governors (from September 2003) was sent to COGs, diocese and LAs in May 2003 and was revised in August 2003 due to two minor amendments and again in October 2003 when minor changes were made to the document with regard to the payment of authorised mileage rates. This leaflet is available to download.
The HM Revenue and Collection website provides information on current Inland Revenue mileage rates for private use of cars.

Good practice

The National Governors Association (NGA) has produced the Good Practice Guide in Developing an Allowances Policy for Governing Bodies 2005. This document contains recommendations from the NGA as well as a model allowances policy. Visit their website for further information.

The law

The Education (Governors' Allowances) (England) Regulations 2003 were laid before Parliament on 12 March 2003 and came into force on 1 September 2003, revoking the Education (Governors' Allowances) (England) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/0703) from that date. Visit the Legislation.gov.uk website to view these regulations.

http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/g/paying%20allowances%20to%20governors%20%20%20october%202003.pdf

Governing body - an overview of responsibilities

2011-12-13T20:00:00.000Z

In carrying out its day-to-day work, the governing body should give consideration to certain procedures the Department of Education requires or recommends it follows.

In the case of matters relating to constitution of the governing body, this article contains information drawn from the School Governance (Constitution)(England) Regulations 2007.

Responsibility

The governing body has general responsibility for the conduct of the school with view to promoting high standards of educational achievement. This general responsibility gives rise to a wide range of specific responsibilities which in turn require the governing body to establish a range of procedures.

Allowances and expenses for governors
- Governors should have a policy on payment of governors expenses. For more information see chapter 4 of A guide to the law for school governors.
School prospectus
- Each year the governing body must publish a school prospectus for parents and prospective parents. For further information on the school prospectus see chapters 12 and 25 of A guide to the law for school governors.
Complaints (general and curriculum)
- The governing body is required to have procedures in place for handling complaints of a general nature and for applying the LA's procedure for complaints about the curriculum.
Constitution of the governing body and instrument of government
- Chapters 2 and 3 of A guide to the law for school governors provide detailed information on how the governing body is constituted, the different types of governors and how they are appointed.
Committees formation, delegation and operation
- Although there are no statutory requirements for committees other than in relation to staff grievance and pupil discipline, many of the governing body's responsibilities and functions can be delegated to committees or individuals. For more information see chapter 3 of A guide to the law for school governors.
Meetings of the governing body and its committees
- Detailed information on meetings of the governing body and its committees is available in chapter 3 of A guide to the law for school governors. This includes information on quorum and when it is necessary to withdraw due to conflict of interest.
Register of business interests of governors
- The governing body is required to keep a register of business interests of its members. Further information about business and pecuniary interests can be found in annex 2 of A guide to the law for school governors.
Standing orders and terms of reference
- Many of the requirements and responsibilities placed on governing bodies are covered by legislation and well defined by guidance and recommended procedures. The Department recommends that for other procedures, the governing body develops a set of standing orders. These should clearly define how the governing body intends to establish and review these additional procedures.

Guidance

Chapter 3 of the Guide to the law for school governors provides detailed information about governing body procedures.

The law

The School Governance (Procedures)(England) Regulations 2003, as amended, provide the statutory requirements for governors procedures.

See the School Governance (Constitution)(England) Regulations 2007.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/957/contents/made

Governor visits to the school

2011-12-12T20:00:00.000Z

While not a statutory requirement, the Department recommends that the governing body draws up a policy on governor visits to the school. This policy should take the following into account:

Governors do not have any rights of access to the school.
Visits should be undertaken as part of a strategic programme to:
- improve governor knowledge of the school, its staff, needs, priorities, strengths and weaknesses
- monitor and assess the priorities as outlined in the development plan
- assist the governing body in fulfilling its statutory duties.
Before visiting the school the governor(s) should:
- inform the school of the visit and seek approval of the arrangements
- ensure that they are familiar with health and safety procedures including what to do in the event of a fire.
After visiting the school the governor(s) should:
- complete a visit report outlining the objectives and results of the visit
- report back to the committee or governing body as appropriate
- provide constructive feedback as appropriate.

It is important that governors remember the purpose of governor visits is not to assess the quality of teaching provision or to pursue issues that relate to the day-to-day management of the school other than as agreed with the headteacher or SMT.

A manual for governing bodies and their clerks, is published by the Information for School & College Governors. It includes suggestions for a suitable school visits policy and a protocol for governor visits. You can order an updated version from the ISCG website .

The document Policy and protocol for governor visits is based on the 2003 edition of the manual and is available to download.

Policy and Protocol for Governor Visits

http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/doc/i/policy%20and%20protocol%20for%20governor%20visits.doc

http://www.governors.uk.com/

The role of governor within the governing body

2011-12-11T10:01:00.000Z

On 12th December the DfE udpated their website on School Governance

The purpose of having a governing body is to

help the school to set high standards by planning for the school's future and setting targets for school improvement
keep the pressure up on school improvement
be a critical friend to the school, offering support and advice
help the school respond to the needs of parents and the community
make the school accountable to the public for what it does
work with the school on planning, developing policies and keeping the school under review
exercise its responsibilities and powers in partnership with the headteacher and staff
not intervene in the day-to-day management of the school unless there are weaknesses in the school, when it then has a duty to take action.

A school's governing body is a corporate body. This means it has a legal existence separate from that of its individual members. As long as governors have acted honestly, without ulterior motive, and reasonably, within the law and regulations, the governing body can't be held to account as individuals for any liabilities incurred by the governing body.

Frequently asked questions

Q. As a parent (or teacher, etc.) governor, do I

a) represent and convey the views/opinions of the parents (or teachers, etc) of the school,

b) represent the views/opinions of 'a parent' (or 'a teacher', etc)?

A. As a parent (or teacher, etc.) governor, you do represent the views/opinions of 'a parent" (or "a teacher", etc.). You are on the governing body to give a parental (teacher) perspective to discussions and decisions. The governing body is given its powers and duties as an incorporated body. Individual governors have no power except where the whole governing body has delegated a specific power to that individual.

If parents (teachers, etc.) of the school wish to have their views represented or conveyed at a governing body meeting, they should be advised to contact the chair, who will put it on the agenda. As a parent (teacher, etc.) governor, you are then able to express your own views/opinions of the item from your parental (teacher, etc.) perspective, and may if you wish, voice the views/opinions that have been put forward by other parents (colleagues), but are under no obligation to do so.

If parents ask you (as a representative) to deal with problems about their particular child, you should be firm and state that governors deal with school policies affecting all children. If they have a concern about their own child, they must take it up themselves with the head or class teacher. If it can't be resolved to their satisfaction, they may then complain formally to the governors, who will programme it as an agenda item.

http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/leadership/governance/a0056625/the-role-of-governor-within-the-governing-body

School Complaints procedure toolkit

2011-12-10T10:00:00.000Z

DfE have been updating the School Governance section on their website.

Section 29 of the Education Act 2002 states the need to have in place a procedure to deal with complaints relating to the school and to any community facilities or services the school provides. The law also requires the complaint procedure to be publicised.
The majority of schools already have a school complaints procedure in place that is generally based on LA or diocesan board models. The complaints procedure toolkit, which you can download from this page, intends to help schools draw up a school complaint procedure if they have not already done so, or to review their existing procedure if they wish. The document draws from existing good practice, key messages and a framework of principles, and covers

general principles of complaints
the complaints procedure
managing and recording complaints.

Download the toolkit

http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/doc/s/school%20complaints%20procedure%20toolkit.doc

Decision planner for governing bodies

2011-12-09T20:00:00.000Z

The DfE updated their Governance section of their website on 12th December 2011

The first governing body decision planner formed part of the guidance document The Roles of Governing Bodies and Headteachers, which accompanied the Education (School Government) (Terms of Reference) (England) Regulations 2000 (SI2000/2122).

With the introduction of the Education Act 2002, governing bodies were freed from many of the restrictions placed on them. This allowed them far greater freedom to carry out their roles and duties. Therefore, rather than suggesting particular roles the governing body and headteacher might play (as set out within the previous decision planner), the updated decision planner relates to the delegation of functions by the governing body. It defines if a particular task has to be legally undertaken by the whole governing body or whether it can be delegated to a committee of the governing body, an individual member of the governing body or to the headteacher – in other words, the minimum level to which a task or responsibility of the governing body can be legally delegated.

This version of the planner aims to help governing bodies perform their strategic leadership role more effectively, by delegating tasks and decisions appropriately.

Governing bodies should be aware that if they choose to delegate a function to a committee, they must establish terms of reference for that committee and these terms must be reviewed annually.

http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/d/decision%20planner.pdf PDF Version

http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/doc/d/de%20-di/decision%20planner.doc Word Doc

DfE is undertaking a review of School Governance

2011-12-08T20:00:00.000Z

The Department for Education is currently undertaking a review of governance with a focus on the role of governing bodies in school improvement. The review is examining:

what we expect a highly effective Governing Body would do in relation to school performance;
the barriers that commonly prevent Governing Bodies from achieving this;
the extent to which changes in policy and at local authority level will impact on Governing Body effectiveness;
ways in which the DfE could influence practice.

The review, which will report in the New Year, has identified the following issues:

Lack of clear focus on raising attainment and narrowing gaps;
Difficulty in attracting and retaining the right people and removing governors who are not performing;
Difficulty in accessing and acting on information and data;
Difficulty in getting the right relationship between the head teacher and Governing Body.

http://www.nga.org.uk/News/NGA-News/Review-of-School-Governance-well-under-way!.aspx

NGA Poll: Do governing bodies have a role in school improvement?

2011-12-07T20:00:00.000Z

On NGA’s new website, there is a new monthly poll.

November’s NGA poll

Last month we asked you: Do governing bodies have a role in school improvement? 387 of you responded and of those:

91% Yes, a significant role 353
5% Yes, a small role 21
2% No role at all 9
1% Not sure 4

This question was posed because the Department for Education (DfE) is currently undertaking a review of governance with a focus on the role of governing bodies in school improvement. The review is examining:

• what we expect a highly effective GB would do in relation to school performance;

• the barriers that commonly prevent GBs from achieving this;

• the extent to which changes in policy and at local authority level will impact on GB effectiveness;

• ways in which the DfE could influence practice.

The review, which will report in the New Year, has identified the following issues:

• Lack of clear focus on raising attainment and narrowing gaps;

• Difficulty in attracting and retaining the right people and removing governors who are not performing;

• Difficulty in accessing and acting on information and data;

• Difficulty in getting the right relationship between the head teacher and GB.

The aim of NGA’s poll in November was therefore to get an impression of how widespread the lack of focus on school improvement and children’s attainment is. The result suggests that while some governors perhaps do not appreciate their role in school improvement the clear majority do.

Please vote in December’s: The NGA and RM have just issued guidance about RAISEonline

– do you think your headteacher keeps your governing body sufficiently informed about this issue?

http://www.nga.org.uk

Are you a National Leader of Governance?

2011-12-06T20:00:00.000Z

The application round for National Leaders of Governance (NLG) will be opening soon on the National College website.

NLGs are highly effective chairs of governors who will work with other chairs to help them develop and to improve school performance. The National College is working with NGA and partners to designate around 50 NLG in this first cohort. NLGs will be deployed to areas of greatest need, where their skills can be most effectively used. It’s likely that the time commitment for an NLG would be 10 – 20 days per academic year, and this would be made up of around three to six deployments, providing a combination of face-to-face, email and phone support. The application round for the first cohort of NLG will be open until 16 January. Applicants who meet the criteria and are successful at assessment will be invited to induction and training in the Spring term.

For further information: www.nationalcollege.org.uk/chairsofgovernors

National College Grants of £2,000 for Chair of Governors Workshops

2011-12-05T20:00:00.000Z

The National College is making one-off grants ofaround £2,000 available for facilitated workshops, in order to provideopportunities for chairs of governors to share current best practice withintheir local area on school improvement. The grant application form, and details of the terms of the grant willbe on the National College website from 16 December. Applications for this limited funding must besubmitted to the College by 24 February, and successful applicants must returnsigned grant letters returned by 31 March

http://www.govas.org.uk/index.php/component/content/article/3-newsflash/119-nga-news-december-2012.html

www.nationalcollege.org.uk/membership.

Shadow Governing Body

2011-12-04T10:00:00.000Z

Six monthsprior to the planned disbandment of an IEB the LA will establish a shadow governing body accordance with The School Governance (Transition from anInterim Executive Board) (

England

)Regulations 2010. The date for thedisbandment of the IEB will be given in a further Notice by the LA served underSchedule 1A of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.

The shadow governing body will workalongside the IEB for at least six months, but may take
over some of the IEBfunctions prior to that date. Once theIEB is disbanded the shadow
governing body will be expected to act alone as thegoverning body of the school for up to
thirteen months.

During the transition from IEB to shadowgoverning body, members of the shadow governing
body will be able to attend IEBmeetings as observers.

The size and constitution of the shadowgoverning body will be set out in an arrangement made by the LA. The arrangement will also state the planneddate on which the shadow governing body will vacate office and be replaced by anormally constituted governing body. This is known as the constitution date and must be no later than thirteenmonths after the IEB ceases to exist.

The School Governance (Transition from an Interim Executive Board) (England) Regulations 2010

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/1918/contents/made

Interim Executive Boards (IEB)

2011-12-03T10:00:00.000Z

Interim Executive Boards

An Interim Executive Board (IEB) is a small body appointed on a short-term basis by a local authority to turn around a school that is judged to be in urgent need of improvement. An IEB replaces the governing body of a school that has either been placed in special measures or given notice to improve by Ofsted, or that has not complied with a warning notice from its local authority (LA).

The IEB's main functions are to secure a sound basis for future improvement in the school and promote high standards of educational achievement.

Once a decision has been taken for the LA to put in place an IEB at a school, it issues a notice which provides that from a date specified, the governing body is to consist of interim executive members. This notice may also specify the date when the IEB is to become a normally constituted governing body, or this may be specified in a later notice. The transition from an IEB to a post-IEB governance structure begins with the appointment of a shadow governing body by the local authority which works alongside the IEB for at least six months.

The School Governance (Transition from an Interim Executive Board) (England) Regulations 2010

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/1918/contents/made

Where a school is eligible for intervention there are a number of powers the local authority or the Secretary of State may use to drive school improvement. These interventions are set out in sections 63-66 of the 2006 Act in respect of local authorities and sections 67 to 69 in respect of the Secretary of State. Local authorities must give reasonable notice in writing to the governing body that they propose to exercise their powers under any one or more of sections 63 to 66.

Local authority powers of intervention

To require the governing body to enter into arrangements.

Section 63 enables a local authority to require a school which is eligible for intervention¹ to enter into arrangements with a view to improving the performance of the school. The local authority may give the governing body a notice requiring them:

to enter into a contract or other arrangement for specified services of an advisory nature with a specified person (who may be the governing body of another school)
to make arrangements to collaborate with the governing body of another school
to make arrangements to collaborate with a further education body or
to take specified steps for the purpose of creating or joining a federation.

Timeframe

Where the school is eligible for intervention as a result of being given a performance standards and safety warning notice, this power must be exercised within a period of two months following the end of the compliance period. If the local authority fails to exercise this power within this time, it can no longer be exercised and a new warning notice must be given in order to do so.

Consultation

Before the local authority can exercise this intervention power they must consult:

the governing body of the school
in the case of a Church of England school or a Roman Catholic Church school, the appropriate diocesan authority and
in the case of any other foundation or voluntary school, the person or persons by whom the foundation governors are appointed.

¹ Except where a maintained school is eligible for intervention under section 60A of the 2006 Act

The appointment of additional governors

Section 64 enables a local authority to appoint additional governors where a school is eligible for intervention. The local authority is likely to appoint additional governors when they would like a school to be provided with additional expertise and may appoint as many additional governors as they think fit. In the case of a voluntary aided school where the local authority have exercised the power to appoint additional governors, the appropriate appointing authority in relation to that school may appoint an equal number of governors to those appointed by the local authority.

Timeframe

Where the school is eligible for intervention as a result of being given a performance standards and safety warning notice, this power must be exercised within a period of two months following the end of the compliance period. If the local authority fails to exercise this power within this time, a new warning notice must be given in order to do so. Where the local authority appoints additional governors there is no requirement to consult.

The Case Against Paying School Governors

2011-12-02T18:00:00.000Z

I wrote an opinion piece for the Times on the case against paying School Governors. It was published on page 27 of today's Times (Friday 2nd December 2011)

This was my original submission before the Times slightly edited it.

The question of paying School Governors isnot a new subject but one I feel very strongly should not happen in any form.As a Chair of Governors and an Advanced Skills Governor I often run trainingworkshops to help fellow governing bodies become more efficient. The firstquestion I ask them all individually is “why did you become a governor?”Invariably the answer is something akin to “because I wanted to be part of mychild’s education” or “I wanted to put something back into the community” or “Iam passionate about Education.”

The 300,000 strong school governingcommunity are the biggest and possibly the most successful volunteer army in Britainand my concern is that, in remunerating School Governors, their independenceand passion for the role they freely do would be removed.

The key to modern governance is that agoverning body is a ‘corporate body’, sharing the responsibility, workload anddecisions. I agree the role has become increasingly more complex, demanding andtime consuming but it is also very rewarding. Although the primary goal for anygoverning body is improving outcomes for children, many governors report thatgovernance also has a beneficial impact on their personal career development.It often teaches them to take a strategic view, looking both forward andoutward and learn about skill sets they wouldn’t normally come across in theirusual day-to-day lives.

Being a chair of governors has taught me tolisten to every other point of view first around the table before putting my ownopinion last. It’s about great team work!

I believe paying individual governorsundermines this concept and could lead to people entering the profession withthe wrong motives from the start.

If school governors were paid, would it givethe tax payer value for money? Who would appoint them, who would they report toand who would carry out their performance management? These are all bigquestions that need to be addressed.

I would be very concerned if any publicmoney was diverted from the Education budget to pay for a governor paymentscheme. In these times of financial austerity I am sure the money would be betterspent elsewhere to directly benefit pupils.

There is already a legal framework forgoverning bodies to pay ‘out of pocket’ expenses to their school governors.Legitimate allowances include travel allowances to meetings & trainingcourses, cost of child care while attending meetings/training and the cost ofphotocopying/printing papers for governing body business. Many school governorsdo not claim any expenses and the main reason given is that they did not thinkthey should receive any financial ‘reward’ for their role as a volunteer.

I do believe there is room to compensateemployers with tax incentives for employees who give up their time during workhours to be school governors. Under employment law, employers must giveemployees who are school governors “reasonable time off’ to carry out theirduties. However there is no definition of reasonable and the time off does nothave to be paid. Investing money encouraging businesses to be involved in localschools would be far more beneficial to the employers, their employees and theschools.

A scan of the article can be found here and covers both the for and against arguments.

The scan of the article can be downloaded from here

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4785260/Times0212111.pdf

School Governance was judged good or outstanding in 58% of schools

2011-12-01T20:00:00.000Z

Ofsted published their annual report this month

The full report can be found here

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/annualreport1011

Here is a summary of what they said about School Governance

Ofsted Inspectionsthis year identified considerable variations inthe quality of governance across different typesof school. Governance was judged good oroutstanding in 58% of schools inspected this year overall,but this varied between 53% in pupil referral unitsand 55% in primary schools, to 64% in secondaryschools and 71% in special schools.

Although in themajority of schools the governing body acts as acritical friend, inspection findings show that wheregovernance is less effective a lack of transparencyand accurate information restricts the ability of thegoverning body to monitor the work of the schoolsystematically.

Absoluteclarity about the different roles and responsibilitiesof the headteacher and governors

underpins the mosteffective governance.

Governancesupports honest, perceptive selfevaluation by the school,recognising problems

and supportingthe steps needed to address them.

Effectivegoverning bodies are driven by a core of keygovernors such as the chair and chairs

of committees.They see themselves as part of a team andbuild strong relationships with the headteacher,senior leaders and other governors.

School leadersand governors behave with integrity andare mutually supportive; school leadersrecognise that governors provide them with adifferent perspective that contributes to

strengtheningleadership; the questions they ask challengeassumptions and support effective

decision-making.

Governors areable to take and support hard decisions inthe interests of pupils; to back the

headteacherwhen they need to change staff, or to change theheadteacher when absolutely necessary.

Governors alsohave a critical role in ensuring the success of any school merger. There needs to be a compelling rationale forthe merger and clear strategic direction. Governors need to be confident that the seniorleadership team has the vision and capability toeffect the merger successfully. In one example ofan unsuccessful merger governors acknowledgedthat the merger had not been well planned;there was a lack of continuity in governance andonly an interim principal was in post at thetime of the merger.

Full report from Ofsted at http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/annualreport1011

RAISEOnline Tutorials, Guidance & Links

2011-11-30T20:00:00.000Z

RaiseOnline Tutorials

http://www.nationalstrategiescpd.org.uk/public_content/esp/primary_raiseonline/raiseonline_tutorials.pdf

Using RAISEonline in self-evaluation. Understanding what the inspectors will see

http://www.egfl.org.uk/export/sites/egfl/categories/data/danda/_docs/raise_online/raisePri.pdf

Effectively using RAISE online for Self Evaluation

http://harrisfederation.org.uk/uploads/document/Effectively%20using%20RAISE%20online%20for%20Academy%20Self%20Evaluation.pdf

RAISEonline Guidelines for School Governors

http://www.bristol.gov.uk/sites/default/files/assets/documents/raiseonline-guidelines.pdf

Quick Guide to using RaiseOnline in Key Stage 1

https://beyonddata.co.uk/WhitePapers/Pages/usingRAISE.aspx

RAISEonline support and training materials

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/raiseonline-support-and-training-materials

How does pupil attendance compare to national averages?

2011-11-29T20:00:00.000Z

Question 5: how does pupil attendance compare to national averages?

In RAISEonline a number of analyses are provided that compare pupils’ overall absence from your school with:

• The national average for all primary schools; and

• A derived average for “similar” schools based on levels of free school meal eligibility.

This data can be viewed from the School Level Absence and Exclusions report in RAISEonline.

The report also shows the proportion of pupils classified as “persistent absentees”.

Historically they have been defined as missing at least 20% of possible sessions (half
days) during the course of the academic year. In some cases this may be due to a prolonged bout of illness. However, in other cases it arises as a result of frequent, short bouts of absence or truancy.

For 2011 a second, more stringent, measure of persistent absence has been introduced
based on missing 15% of sessions.

Taken from

http://www.nga.org.uk/getattachment/Events/NGA-Conference-and-AGM-2011/Knowing-your-school-1-RAISE-for-primary-school-governors-Nov-11.pdf.aspx

Are we relatively stronger or weaker in English compared to mathematics?

2011-11-28T20:20:00.000Z

Question 4: Are we relatively stronger or weaker in English compared to mathematics?

Just as the attainment of different groups of pupils can vary within a school, so too can attainment in different subjects.

Up to now we have focused on “threshold” measures of attainment, which quantify how many pupils “jumped the hurdle”, such as achieving at least level 4 at Key Stage 2,but provides no further information about the extent to which they either cleared it or missed it.

Average point scores are another method of summarising attainment data that take account of the full range of pupil outcomes at a School.

Levels achieved in National Curriculum Tests or Teacher Assessments can be converted into “points” using a table.

A pupil is expected to progress by one level every 2 academic years. In terms of points, the difference between one level and the next is 6 points. As there are 6 terms in 2 academic years, then one point approximates to one term’s progress. This is a useful rule of thumb when interpreting points scores.

Taken from

http://www.nga.org.uk/getattachment/Events/NGA-Conference-and-AGM-2011/Knowing-your-school-1-RAISE-for-primary-school-governors-Nov-11.pdf.aspx

How might the context of our school affect our performance?

2011-11-27T10:00:00.000Z

Question 3 - how might the context of our school affect our performance?

Decades of research into school effectiveness have shown that some groups of pupils, particularly those from less advantaged backgrounds, tend to achieve less well than other groups.

This has led to a range of Government interventions to raise attainment, including City Challenge under the Labour Government or the Pupil Premium under the current Coalition Government.

Economic disadvantage should not excuse low attainment. However, it should be recognised that apparent variations in levels of attainment between schools are influenced by variations in intakes. Such variations are often caricatured by descriptions of the areas served by schools such as “tough inner-cities” and “leafy suburbs”

Moreover, even within a school, there may be significant variation (especially in
attainment and prevalence of special educational needs) between one year group and
the next.

Simply comparing a school’s attainment to the national average will not necessarily identify those schools which are performing extraordinarily well in challenging circumstances. Nor will it identify those schools in more advantaged circumstances which could be doing better.

Such a situation arises when the composition of the school cohort is substantially different to the “average” school. For example if 60% were eligible for free school meals. This compares to a national average of 18%.

Taken from

http://www.nga.org.uk/getattachment/Events/NGA-Conference-and-AGM-2011/Knowing-your-school-1-RAISE-for-primary-school-governors-Nov-11.pdf.aspx

Do we have any under-performing groups of pupils, or are there wide gaps in attainment?

2011-11-26T10:00:00.000Z

Question 2: do we have any under-performing groups of pupils, or are there wide gaps in attainment between some groups of pupils?

There are a number of reports in RAISEonline which show attainment, progress and absence for different groups of pupils. Even in schools with above average levels of attainment there can be “gaps” in attainment between some groups of pupils. For example, the Government’s White Paper The Importance of Teaching sets out to narrow the “gap” between pupils eligible for free school meals (FSM) and their peers.

Other examples of pupil groups whose attainment you may wish to look at include:

• Boys and girls, particularly in English

• Pupils whose first language is not English

• Minority ethnic pupils

• Pupils with special educational needs (SEN), particularly comparing such pupils at your schools to pupils with SEN nationally

• At Key Stage 2, pupils of different ability levels as measured by attainment at the
end of Key Stage 1

Comparing the attainment of pupil groups is only worthwhile - and valid - if you have a sufficient number of pupils in each group. Fewer than 10 pupils in a single year would be insufficient, and any comparisons based on 10-20 pupils should be interpreted with caution. However, examination of data over a number of years may reveal a persistent pattern of atypical attainment for small pupil groups.

Taken from

http://www.nga.org.uk/getattachment/Events/NGA-Conference-and-AGM-2011/Knowing-your-school-1-RAISE-for-primary-school-governors-Nov-11.pdf.aspx

How does attainment at my school compare to national averages & the Government’s floor target?

2011-11-25T20:00:00.000Z

Question 1: How does attainment at my school compare to national averages and the Government’s floor target?

There are a number of different measures of pupil attainment and progress in RAISEonline.

For a school with Key Stage 2 pupils, the three key measures are:

• The percentage of pupils who achieved level 4 or above in both English and mathematics;

• The percentage of pupils who made expected progress in English between Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2; and

• The percentage of pupils who made expected progress in mathematics between Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2.

The majority of pupils are expected to achieve level 4 by the end of Key Stage 2 (Year 6). A small proportion of pupils do not achieve level 4 in either English or mathematics, while around a third nationally achieve level 5 or higher.

Similarly, level 2 is the expected level for the end of Key Stage 1 (Year 2).

It is expected that pupils make at least 2 levels progress between the end of Key Stage 1 and the end of Key Stage 2. So, a pupil who achieved level 1 at Key Stage 1 will be considered to have made expected progress if s/he achieved level 3 (or higher) at Key Stage 2. However, a pupil who achieved level 3 at Key Stage 1 is not considered to have achieved expected progress if s/he only achieves level 4 at Key Stage 2.

The Government’s “floor target” for primary schools is that at least 60% of pupils at the end of Key Stage 2 should have achieved level 4 or above in both English and mathematics.
However, a school will only be considered to be below the floor target (and therefore be targeted for intervention) if rates of expected progress are below the national average as well.

It should be noted that the “official list” of schools below the floor target will be produced from validated data later in the Autumn term. However, in the Autumn term you may wish to consider how close your school is to the floor target.

Firstly, check the proportion of pupils who achieved level 4 or higher in English and mathematics

In 2011, 74% of pupils reached this standard nationally according to unvalidated data.

Secondly, check the percentages of pupils who achieved expected progress in each of English and mathematics. These can be found in the Expected Progress Summary Report

Always check the number of pupils on which percentages are based. Remember that in a year group of 20 pupils, one pupil is equivalent to 5%

Taken from

http://www.nga.org.uk/getattachment/Events/NGA-Conference-and-AGM-2011/Knowing-your-school-1-RAISE-for-primary-school-governors-Nov-11.pdf.aspx

RAISEonline for Governors of Primary Schools

2011-11-24T20:00:00.000Z

An effective governing body:

• Has the right people around the table (a diverse set of people with a range of skills, experience and knowledge);

• Understands its role and responsibilities, remaining strategic and providing leadership;

• Has both a good Chair and a professional Clerk who ensure the governing body is well-informed and prioritises its business effectively;

• Has good relationships, particularly with the Headteacher built on trust, honesty and respect;

• Knows the school, and

• Is committed to asking challenging questions and making courageous decisions in the interests of the children and young people in their school and community.

Many governing bodies, even good ones, fail to challenge school leaders effectively.

This series of notes aims to make governors more aware of the data that is at their disposal and how best to make use of it, and will also cover how to gather information from parents, staff and students.

Key questions you should ask of Raise Online data

The analyses in RAISEonline are provided to inform and support discussion about
school improvement rather than to make absolute judgments about the effectiveness of
any school. The questions you can ask of the wide range of data available in your school
are almost inexhaustible. However, we limit ourselves to five key questions for this
introductory briefing note:

1. How does attainment and progress at my school compare to national averages and the Government’s floor target?

2. Are we relatively stronger or weaker in English compared to mathematics?

3. Do we have any under-performing groups of pupils, or are there wide gaps in attainment between some groups of pupils?

4. How might the context of our school affect our performance?

5. How does pupil attendance compare to national averages?

The full document is available for free from the NGA at

http://www.nga.org.uk/getattachment/Events/NGA-Conference-and-AGM-2011/Knowing-your-school-1-RAISE-for-primary-school-governors-Nov-11.pdf.aspx

I will cover the the five key questions over the next five days on this blog

Gap between the best and worst schools

2011-11-23T22:04:00.001Z

Last week in the Daily Telegraph the Prime Minister says there is a “shocking gap” between the best and worst schools and their teachers as many “coast” and “muddle through”.

He says the “secret failure” of comprehensive schools in wealthy shires and market towns is as significant as the problems facing schools in deprived, inner-city areas.

The shortcoming has been hidden from parents because league tables identify only problem schools rather than institutions achieving average results when their pupils have the potential to be top achievers.

In the article, David Cameron discloses that tackling the “coasting comprehensives” will be a top priority for the Government. Sir Michael Wilshaw, the new chief inspector of schools, is said to have them “in his sights”.

Mr Cameron writes: “Why should we put up with a school content to let a child sit at the back of the class, swapping Facebook updates? Or one where pupils and staff count down the hours to the end of term without ever asking why B grades can’t be turned into As. Britain can’t let weak schools smother children’s potential.”

“It is just as important to tackle those all over the country content to muddle through — places where respectable results and a decent local reputation mask a failure to meet potential,” he writes.

“Children who did well in primary school but who lose momentum. Early promise fades. This is the hidden crisis in our schools — in prosperous shires and market towns just as much as in the inner cities.”

In January, new league tables will be published that will show how low-, middle- and high-achieving children are performing in their schools.

In June, a new national pupil database will be introduced to show how pupils have progressed during their time in school. The data will not disclose any names but should allow parents to identify schools that are better at pushing certain pupils in different subjects.

Mr Cameron writes: “This challenge is one for all parts of the country — places where governors, parents and teachers might never guess things might be wrong. That’s why it is vital to shine a spotlight on secret failure by giving people the information they need to fight for change.

“The last government shied away from the problem. It kept huge amounts of data under wraps — focusing only on league tables which seemed to show things were getting better every year. It set a narrow definition of coasting schools which allowed many to slip through the net undetected. By contrast, this Government is going to widen it so that more average schools are pressed to do better.”

The Prime Minister says Mossbourne Academy in Hackney, one of the most deprived areas in Britain, is now achieving far higher marks than comprehensives in middle-class areas across the Home Counties.

“The point of education is to change lives — it’s not good enough for teachers in shire counties to be satisfied with half of children getting five good GCSEs, when Mossbourne Academy achieves 82 per cent in Hackney,” writes Mr Cameron.

“When people involved in education can see what needs to be done to get out of a rut — and are given the freedom to make their own choices rather than orders from above — dramatic improvement is possible. Goffs School in Cheshunt, for instance, went from barely half its pupils achieving five good GCSEs including English and maths, to almost three quarters in a single year.”

It is understood that the Government has decided against sending “hit squads” into comprehensives identified as “coasting”. Ministers instead hope that by publicly identifying failing schools, parents and governors will put staff under intense pressure to improve standards.

Sir Michael Wilshaw, the incoming head of Ofsted, previously warned that the watchdog needed to do more to tackle teachers who were coasting.

He said extra effort was needed to identify “the teacher … who year in, year out just comes up to the mark, but only just, and does the bare minimum”.

The Government is also giving permission for dozens of new free schools, effectively independent schools paid for by taxpayers within the state system, across the country. Mr Cameron says he wants these schools to be the “shock troops of innovation” who will “smash through complacency”.

The Coalition is also relaxing admissions and expansion rules for successful schools, which is expected to lead to an increase in grammar school places.

Yesterday, it emerged that some grammar schools are planning to take over schools in neighbouring towns — effectively leading to the creation of the first new grammar schools since the 1960s.

Graham Brady, chairman of the Conservatives’ backbench 1922 Committee, said it was a “small but important step”

Taken from Daily Telegraph Artilce at

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8887771/David-Cameron-goes-to-war-on-Britains-coasting-schools.html

Reply from Brian Lightman on ACSL Blog here

http://www.ascl.org.uk/opinion/blogs/high_status_profession_does_not_deserve_insults

The appalling comments by the Prime Minister in the Telegraph on Monday are evidence of one of two things: either they show how out of touch Number 10 is with what is happening on a day to day basis in schools, or they demonstrate that the Prime Minister is willing to sacrifice hardworking teachers and schools leaders to score political points. The cynic in me thinks that it’s easier to justify stripping pensions when the message is that teachers and support staff don’t deserve them in the first place.

The Government does not have a monopoly over high aspirations for our education service. School leaders are at the forefront of driving up standards and strive tirelessly to build upon the improvements that have been achieved to date.

Don’t get me wrong, we know there are examples of ‘coasting’ schools where the catchment is less challenging, where students have more advantages, yet they do not make the progress that they could or should. But these schools are hardly endemic, and to assume the problem stems from complacent and uncaring teachers is frankly an insult.

Of course there is more to do, but that work requires the support, not the denigration, of our political leaders. It also requires an understanding of the fact that not only inner city schools face challenges – some of the most entrenched deprivation is in rural and coastal areas.

The coalition government proudly states that it believes in a high status teaching profession. Assertions by the Prime Minister, of all people, that schools are content to ‘muddle through’ and accept mediocrity make a mockery of teachers’ commitment and demoralises a hardworking profession which is battling to continue the trajectory of improvement in the context of falling budgets, worsening pay and conditions and stinging cuts in front line services.

The Prime Minister and his government need to work with, not against the profession

Brian Lightman

Section 38 of the Education Act 2011

2011-11-22T20:26:00.000Z

Last Week, the Education Bill became the Education Act 2011.

Section 38 of the Act is relevant to School governors as it refers to the constitution of the governing body. Section 38 has undergone a number of changes since the original Bill was published and staff governors and local authority governors have now been reinstated. Although in the latter case Regulations may allow governing bodies to have more say over local authority governors.

The Full Education Act 2011 can be found here

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/21/pdfs/ukpga_20110021_en.pdf

This is section 38

38 Constitution of governing bodies: maintained schools in England

(1) Section 19 of EA 2002 (governing bodies) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) Regulations must provide for a governing body of a maintained school in England to consist of—

(a) persons elected or appointed as parent governors,

(b) the head teacher of the school,

(c) a person elected as a staff governor,

(d) a person appointed as a local authority governor,

(e) in the case of a foundation school, a foundation special school or a voluntary school, persons appointed as foundation governors or partnership governors, and

(f) such other persons as may be prescribed.”

(3) In subsection (2), after “governing body” insert “of a maintained school in Wales”.

(4) After subsection (4) insert—

“(4A) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (3)(c) in relation to a maintained school in England may include provision for eligibility criteria for the school’s local authority governor to be such as may be specified by the school’s governing body.

(4B) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (3)(e) in relation to a maintained school in England may include provision allowing the head teacher of the school to resign from office as a governor (and to withdraw any such resignation).”

The Rise of the Professional Parent

2011-11-21T20:19:00.000Z

While the focus on ‘problem parents’ has received renewed intensity in the wake of the riots, it is also an expression of a steady trend towards ever-greater scrutiny of parenting. Parenting has become one of the most charged political and cultural subjects of our age. As the evidence about the decisive impact that the quality of parenting has on children’s outcomes continues to grow, parents have come to be seen not just as the cause of many society’s ills but also the key to unlocking positive change such as improved social mobility.

This scrutiny of parenting has led to the idea of a parenting ‘deficit’ and the view that there are a growing number of parents who are incapable. Yet, this focus on parenting skills is not matched by conclusive evidence about a decline in our standards of parenting. It also acts as a distraction it risks diverting our attention away from the mounting pressures which modern society creates for parents. The challenge for policy now is to find the right balance between supporting parents in developing their skills and capabilities and working to lessen the pressures parents face. To do this successfully, a positive framework for supporting parents needs to be created and concrete steps taken towards creating a more family friendly society.

Full report from Family and Parenting Institute can be found here

http://www.familyandparenting.org/Parenting/Katherine+Rake

The protection of children online

2011-11-20T20:14:00.000Z

The protection of children online: a brief scoping review to identify vulnerable groups

Ninety-nine percent of children aged 12-15 use the internet, as do 93% of 8-11 year olds and 75% of 5-7 year olds. New media technology means that the ways in which children are accessing online content are changing and ever evolving. Policy makers need research evidence to inform policies that articulate children’s online risks, safeguard them from harm and promote their welfare.

The Child Wellbeing Research Centre was commissioned by the Department for Education, working closely with the UK Council for Child Internet Safety (UKCCIS) to explore what is currently known about children’s vulnerability to harm from online activity or interactions.

The scoping review explores levels of intended and unintended exposure to specific risks, the impact of harm suffered by children, and the characteristics of children who may be at highest risk.

The scoping review document can be downloaded from

https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/publicationDetail/Page1/CWRC-00085-2011

Ofsted publish the results of assessments into Local Authority services for children

2011-11-19T20:07:00.000Z

Ofsted published the results of assessments into Local Authority services for children. 28 Local Authorities (LAs) provided excellent services, an increase of 40% on the previous year. 25 LAs have improved, 11 of these from adequate to performing well

You find the result of your Local Authority here

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/inspection-reports/find-inspection-report/results/type/44/any/any

My Local Authority Surrey was graded 3 which means it performs well

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/local-authorities/surrey

Voluntary and community organisations to play a key role in helping children with special educational needs and disabilities

2011-11-18T20:03:00.000Z

Voluntary and community organisations will help deliver key reforms to support children with special educational needs (SEN) and disabilities, and their parents.

The Children's Minister Sarah Teather announced contracts involving voluntary and community organisations which will deliver the support, including the Council for Disabled Children and I CAN, the children's communication charity.

The Department for Education is providing funding of around £6 million a year for two years to deliver the support.

The organisations will support the delivery of short breaks, provide greater information and help to parents, and help disabled young people and those with SEN prepare for employment, training and independent living after they leave school.

The successful contractors will provide knowledge and support on the delivery and improvement of local services and help the 20 SEN Green Paper pathfinder areas test some of the Government's key reforms.

The organisations and contracts are:

The IMPACT consortium (SERCO in partnership with the Short Breaks Network): to help local authorities deliver their legal obligations to provide short breaks and involve parents in how short breaks are provided.
The Council for Disabled Children: to support local parent partnership services across England that provide parents with clear information about their rights and responsibilities under SEN legislation, along with local information about options and choices to meet their child's SEN.
A consortium led by the National Development Team for Inclusion: to improve outcomes for young people with SEN and disabilities. The consortium will work with local authorities, schools, young people and their femployment, training and independent living after they leave school.
The ES Trust with the National Children's Bureau: to extend the successful Early Support programme to improve the quality, consistency and coordination of services for disabled children over five years old (the programme is currently designed from birth to five years old) and help develop key worker training.
The Early Language Consortium, led by I CAN, the children's communication charity: to introduce Early Language Development Training for people working with children up to five years old. The training amilies to raise aspirations in secondary school and plan for will focus on the importance of early language development to improve communication and language skills for all children, particularly those with SEN.

http://www.education.gov.uk/inthenews/inthenews/a00199898/voluntary-and-community-organisations-to-play-a-key-role-in-helping-children-with-special-educational-needs-and-disabilities

Shortage in pupil places

2011-11-17T20:00:00.000Z

The DfE have announced an allocation of extra £500 million to address the shortage in pupil places

The Department for Education plans to address the shortage in pupil places being experienced by some local authorities, and reduce the level of prescription and unnecessary guidance which are a feature of the school premises regulations and hamper the deve.

In July 2011, Michael Gove announced that an extra £500 million would be made available, this year, to local authorities experiencing the greatest need in managing shortfalls in providing pupil places. This additional funding has been made available from efficiencies and savings identified in BSF projects that are continuing.

Over one hundred local authorities will receive a share of the funding. The allocations have been calculated using figures provided to the Department for Education by local authorities through the 2011 School Capacity and Forecast Information returns. By using the most up-to-date information available we are making sure the savings identified are being targeted to local authorities experiencing the most severe need.

DfE claims the funding means that in 2011-12, a total of £1.3 billion will have been allocated to fund additional school places. The Government already announced an allocation of £800 million funding in December 2010.

DfE say they would like reassure those local authorities whose needs were not as severe as others - and which, therefore, did not receive a share of this extra £500 million - that future capital allocations for basic need and maintenance pressures will be announced later in the year.

They are also launching a twelve week consultation on the revision of school premises regulations. The consultation document sets out how the Government intends to deregulate and end the confusion and unnecessary bureaucracy surrounding the current requirements.

From

http://www.education.gov.uk/inthenews/inthenews/a00199879/allocation-of-extra-500-million-to-address-the-shortage-in-pupil-places

TEACHERS’ PENSIONS STRIKE – GUIDANCE TO GOVERNORS

2011-11-16T20:00:00.000Z

TEACHERS’ PENSIONS STRIKE – GUIDANCE TO GOVERNORS FROM NGA

The National Governors Association has published guidance for School Governors on Teachers' Pension Strikes scheduled for 30th November 2011

The guidance can access from the NGA Website from the link below

http://www.nga.org.uk/getattachment/Members-Area/NGA-Newsletters/NGA-News-Briefing-11-11-11/NGA2011PensionsStrikeGuidance101111v2.pdf.aspx

Directly employing individuals during Industrial Action in Schools

2011-11-15T20:00:00.000Z

Directly employing individuals

Whilst the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations 2003, prevent a supply agency from supplying teachers employed by the agency to cover absence during industrial action - an employer can directly employ individuals to cover employees on strike.

An employment agency can supply these workers, as long as the employer - such as a school or local authority (LA) - directly employs them.

In employing someone for a day, a school or LA would need to consider:

Employment contract - the moment an applicant unconditionally accepts an offer of a job, a contract of employment comes into existence.
The terms can be oral, written, implied, or a mixture. If no written contract is issued there is a legal obligation to provide the employee with a written statement of employment within two months of the start of their employment.
In the event of employing someone for one day, it would be advisable to issue a fixed term contract clearly setting out the length of the employment.
Pay - the employer needs to tell anyone they employ the day/date they would be paid, and how they will receive payments.
The employer may need to check with their payroll provider on how to do this.

Insurance - Employers Liability Insurance will already be in place, so employers would not need to do anything further.

Under the terms of the Teachers Pension Scheme, a teacher employed for only one day would be entitled to the same pension benefits as other employees.

General employment rights would apply.

http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/adminandfinance/emergencyplanning/b00199934/advice-for-handling-industrial-action-in-schools/appropriate-staff-cover

Using volunteers during Industrial Action in Schools

2011-11-14T20:00:00.000Z

Using volunteers during Industrial Action in Schools

The arrangements set out in Safeguarding Children and Safer Recruitment in Education allow schools to:

Use existing members of the school volunteer workforce - for example, parents who regularly come in to help with reading - the school will have already carried out CRB and other checks.
These volunteers could work unsupervised with children during a strike day, just as they may already do if a school allows them to do so.
Use volunteers who have a CRB disclosure from another walk of life - for example, as a sports coach or scout group helper.

The risk assessment should include factors such as, how recent the CRB disclosure is, the nature and duration of the contact with children, the ages of the children, what other checks can be carried out and what further information is available in assessing suitability.

http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/adminandfinance/emergencyplanning/b00199934/advice-for-handling-industrial-action-in-schools/appropriate-staff-cover

What to do if Head teacher goes on strike

2011-11-13T10:00:00.000Z

Head teachers taking strike action should delegate their duties to another member of the senior management team.

If the whole senior management team is on strike, the governing body can approach another person to carry out their duties - for example a senior teacher, or a known trusted retired head teacher.

For Academies - the governors or directors of the Academy Trust will decide how, and through whom, it wishes to run the Academy.

http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/adminandfinance/emergencyplanning/b00199934/advice-for-handling-industrial-action-in-schools

Staff Deployment during Industrial Action in Schools

2011-11-12T10:00:00.000Z

Staff deployment

Where teachers are employed under the School Teachers Pay and Conditions document, they cannot be compelled to provide cover for other teachers - unless the circumstances are unforeseen.

Provisions within teachers’ terms and conditions, such as ‘rarely cover’, do not, however, prevent head teachers from asking other teachers to cover the classes of those taking industrial action.

Cover supervisors - or teachers who are employed wholly or mainly to provide cover and are not taking industrial action themselves - can be directed to provide cover during industrial action.

The Specified Work Regulations ensure teaching in maintained schools is only provided by those qualified to do so.

However, the Regulations;

do not prevent schools from using support staff to provide cover supervision, or oversee alternative activities
allow for some teaching assistants - in certain circumstances - to carry out teaching roles
apply to Academies through their Funding Agreements - but not to Free Schools.

http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/adminandfinance/emergencyplanning/b00199934/advice-for-handling-industrial-action-in-schools/appropriate-staff-cover

Advice for handling industrial action in schools

2011-11-11T20:00:00.000Z

Advice on Industrial Action in Schools

Responsibilities

Maintained schools - whilst the governing body has general responsibility for conduct of the school, the decision to open, partially open or to close a school is an operational one, and therefore falls to the head teacher.

Academies - the Academy Trust has overall responsibility for running the school, but in practice the decision to open, partially open or to close a school may be delegated to the head teacher.

It is best practice for head teachers to consult parents and governors before making a decision.

Head teachers normally ask staff in advance, if they intend to strike. This enables them to make an informed decision and plan how to manage the strike.

Recording attendance when schools are closed

Where a school is forced to partially close due to industrial action, sessions for those pupils unable to attend should be marked in the register using the Y code - this will mean it is not counted as a possible attendance.

Health and safety

Under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, the employer in a school must take reasonable steps to ensure staff and pupils are not exposed to risks to their health and safety. This applies to activities on or off school premises.

The Department has recently issued simplified and clearer guidance about health and safety which is available on the Health and safety pages in this section of the website.

Head teachers and Academy Trusts should take account of this guidance in considering how to manage any risks in the arrangements they make to keep schools open.

http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/adminandfinance/emergencyplanning/b00199934/advice-for-handling-industrial-action-in-schools

Teachers to Strike on 30th November

2011-11-10T21:53:00.000Z

Teachers, lecturers and leaders in Northern Ireland and Scotland, and non-academic and support staff in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, balloted by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL), have voted to strike over plans to cut their pensions.

1,554 members in Northern Ireland were eligible to vote. Of those in the Northern Ireland Teachers' Superannuation Scheme (NITSS), 43% voted, and of these 69% voted to strike, and 31% voted against.

Of those in the Northern Ireland Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS), 31% voted, and of these 68% voted to strike, and 32% voted against.

Of the 416 teachers, lecturers and leaders balloted in Scotland in the Scottish Teachers' Superannuation Scheme (STSS), 23% voted, and of these 71% voted to strike, and 29% voted against.

Of the 13,032 non-academic and support staff balloted in England and Wales in the Local Government Pensions Scheme, 26% voted, and of these 73% voted to strike, and 27% voted against.

78,342 teacher, lecturer and leader members of ATL in England and Wales were balloted on the government's plans to change the Teachers' Pension Scheme (TPS) in May and June. Eighty-three per cent of those who returned their ballot papers voted for industrial action, and they took part in the first national strike in ATL's 127-year history on 30 June.

Despite being encouraged by the government's revised pensions offer last week and its move towards real negotiations, ATL still has major concerns about the proposals. On Saturday (Nov 5), the ATL executive committee voted unanimously for members to go on strike on 30 November on the Trades Union Congress organised day of action.

The ballot results mean that ATL members from around the UK will be joining colleagues from up to 13 other education unions and other unions taking industrial action on 30 November.

http://www.atl.org.uk/media-office/media-archive/ATL-members-vote-to-strike-over-pension-cuts.asp

Head Teachers vote to Strike

2011-11-09T20:00:00.000Z

The NAHT result of the industrial action ballot in England and Wales over pensions is as follows:

Total no of votes cast: 13101 (53.6% turnout)

Thosevoting ‘Yes’: 9919 (75.8% of valid vote)

Those voting ‘No’: 3169 (24.2% of valid vote)

Total no of spoiled voting papers: 13

Members of the National Association of Head Teachers have voted to strike over proposals to cut pensions.

NAHT’s National Executive say they are reviewing this result and considering what further action should now follow. Further information with be sent to each NAHT member in due course.

Press Release

http://www.naht.org.uk/welcome/comment/key-topics/pensions/ballot-result-shows-overwhelming-yes-vote/

The Department for Education released updated their Industrial Action Advice Yesterday

http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/adminandfinance/emergencyplanning/b00199934/advice-for-handling-industrial-action-in-schools

Procedure for schools wishing to federate

2011-11-08T20:00:00.000Z

Where a governing body are considering federation, they must first consider a report on the proposal.

The report must be specified as an item on the agenda for the meeting of which notice has been given in accordance with regulation 11(4) of the Procedures Regulations.

(1) Where a governing body propose that they should federate with the governing body of a

federation, they must give notice of the proposal to the governing body of the federation.

(2) Upon receipt of the notice, the governing body of the federation must consider whether they

should—

(a) give preliminary consent to the governing body joining the federation or

(b) determine that the governing body should not join the federation.

Where a governing body decide that they should federate with one or more other

governing bodies and, where necessary, preliminary consent has been given, they must jointly with the other governing body or bodies publish proposals for federation.

The proposals must contain the following—

(a) the name or names of the governing body or bodies with which the governing body propose to federate and confirmation that that governing body, or those governing bodies,

have resolved likewise to federate;

(b) the proposed size of the governing body of the federation;

(d) the proposed arrangements for staffing the schools within the federation;

(e) the proposed federation date;

(f) the identity of the admission authority or authorities for the schools within the federation;

(g) the date, not less than 6 weeks after the publication of the proposals, by which written

representations may be made to the governing body regarding the proposals and the

address to which they should be sent; and

(h) such other matters as the governing bodies consider appropriate.

(3) The governing bodies proposing to federate must publish the proposals by sending them to—

(a) the relevant authorities;

(b) the head teacher of each school;

(i) the foundation governors; and

(ii) any trustees of a trust relating to the school;

(d) where any of the schools are designated under section 69(3) of SSFA 1998 as having a

religious character, the appropriate diocesan authority in the case of a Church of England

or Roman Catholic Church school, or the appropriate religious body in the case of any

other such school;

(e) all staff paid to work at any of the schools;

(f) every person known to them to be a parent of a registered pupil at any of the schools; and

(g) such other persons as the governing bodies consider appropriate.

(4) A copy of the proposals must be made available for inspection at all reasonable times at each

school.

The governing bodies proposing to federate must jointly consider any responses to the

proposals and each governing body must determine whether—

(a) to proceed with the proposals for federation as published;

(b) to proceed with the proposals for federation with such modifications as the governing

body consider appropriate; or

(2) The modifications referred to in paragraph (1)(b) may not include a change in the identity of

the governing bodies proposing to federate.

(3) All the governing bodies that have determined to proceed must jointly give notice of that fact

to the relevant authority or authorities.

Full regulations can be found at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/960/contents/made

Ofsted Report: Governance in Federations

2011-11-07T20:00:00.000Z

Governance in federations

Allthe hard federations visited by Ofsted in their survey had a single governing body supported bycommittees with responsibility for particular aspects of work. In the majorityof cases the committees dealt with cross-federation issues. For example, thegoverning body of one federation of primary schools had committees that weremade up of governors who all had a link role with one of the schools formonitoring and evaluation purposes.

Nineof the federations visited had separate committees overseeing the work of eachschool. In four cases, this was finance-driven because of the requirement tohave separate budgets. In the other federations, it was to ensure that equal attentionwas paid to each school. Finances were strictly divided along school lines.

Governingbody committee structures in the schools visited had evolved as governorslearnt that the structures that they had originally put in place at the time offederation could be made more efficient. One federation, for example, foundthat its committee meetings were too long and focused on a wide cross-phaseremit covering attainment across all key stages. Consequently, the structure hadbeen reshaped so that there were now three committees with a primary, secondaryand federation-wide focus respectively.

Governingbodies were instrumental in establishing federation arrangements successfully.In all the federations visited, governors were very clear about the purpose offederation and the reasons for embarking on this course of action.

A small, highly skilled and strategicgoverning body of 12 had played a key role in the development of a federation betweena secondary and a primary school. The governors had confidently stepped beyonda single school model and embraced fully the notion of wider federation. Thequality of succession planning and the ability to see the strategic picture ofeducation in the local learning community were complemented by the governors’ attentionto meeting the differing needs of each school. A central tenet of thefederation, right from the beginning, had been that regardless of size bothschools had an equal say and would be treated as equal partners. This was a realstrength of the federation and one of many reasons for its success.

Forsome governing bodies, particularly where a successful school was federatingwith a weaker school, there had been a need to be very sensitive to the chargeof taking over the other school. In one federation for example, nearly allmembers of the governing body of the weaker school had resigned as a result ofthe decision to federate. This was demoralising for the school in the shortterm, but had the effect of removing governors who had been ineffective inaddressing the school’s weaknesses. Seven federations visited had solved thisproblem effectively by inviting all existing school governors to be part of thefederation governing body. This meant that they had large governing bodies, butgovernors believed that all schools in the federation were represented equally.

In17 of the 29 federations visited, inspectors found that the governing bodieswere particularly effective at holding leaders to account for the work of thefederation. Their attention was very well focused on improvements toachievement and provision as a result of federation. In one particularly strongfederation a very experienced governing body continually challenged the highlyrespected headteacher who readilyused the body as a critical friend. In the remaining 12 federations, however,while the governing bodies all gave leaders good support, they were lesseffective at systematically holding them to account. For example, in onefederation, the governing body contributed to the strategic direction bydrafting the school improvement plan with the headteacher at the inception ofthe federation. However, the rapid pace of change over the last three years, andthe greater demands of governance of more than one school, had resulted in lessrigour by governors in the evaluation of improvement. Governors in threefederations visited reported that the major challenge for them had beenlearning to take a federation rather than a school perspective of strategicdevelopment. In other federations, assertions made by headteachersabout the success of the federation were not sufficiently challenged by thegoverning body. For example, in one federation visited, claims that standardswere rising were accepted by governors without any evidence being offered tosupport this.

Onemajor advantage of federation governance was the improvement in the governanceof weaker schools as a result of having shared arrangements. This eitherhappened as governing bodies of the stronger school shared good practice withthose in the weaker school through their amalgamation, or where governance wasenhanced by the stronger governing body taking on the role of governance forthe federation as a whole.

More information from Ofsted at http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/leadership-of-more-one-school

What makes federation work? Features of effective leadership

2011-11-06T10:00:00.000Z

Models of leadership in Federations

Themajority of federations surveyed were led by a single headteacher or executiveheadteacher. This was the case in 23 of the federations visited and 98 thatresponded to the questionnaire. In addition, all but one of the federationsusing the executive headship model had senior leaders within each federatedschool. The reasons given for this by governors and headteachers were: toensure that parents recognised the school leader; to maintain the individualschool characteristics; or because of the distance between schools.

The leadership structure of one federationincluded the headteacher who spent50% of his time at each school. Federationenabled the appointment of an additional senior leader; previously at oneschool there had been no deputy headteacherfor three years because of a budget deficit. The deputy headteacher andassistant headteacher both had senior leadership roles, one at each school.This structure was adopted to achieve greater clarity about roles of seniorleaders and to give a visible presence of senior leaders even if the headteacher was located at the other school. Thishad helped to resolve an initially negative perception by some parents whobelieved they had lost their headteacherto the other school.

Innearly all the federations visited, leadership structures were evolving tocapitalise on the opportunity to make better use of expertise and resources.This opportunity was often taken when leaders at various levels left theschools and, increasingly, new appointments were made to the federation ratherthan to individual schools. The headteachers spoken to reported that thisenabled them to achieve greater flexibility in the use of resources. Below aretwo examples that illustrate how differing leadership structures had beentailored to meet the needs of the particular schools in the federations.

One federation was formed so that asuccessful school could support one that was causing concern. The leadershipstructure was changed to ensure a mirror image in each school with the weakerschool adopting the structure of the stronger school. There was a single headteacherwho divided his time equally between both schools. A deputy headteacher in eachschool, supported by a third band of leaders known as ‘senior developers’,managed major aspects of each school such as pupils’ progress and teaching andlearning. This model was adopted to ensure that there was strong leadership inboth schools in the absence of the headteacher.

Another federation consisted of a secondary and primaryschool. Its purpose was to create a single learning community and improveeducational outcomes for the local community. At the start of the second year,the federation leadership group was reshaped by the joint headteachers,following evaluation of the first year of federation.

The group nowcomprised a number of teams of leaders who were cross-phase and took responsibilityfor one of the following:

n raising attainment,particularly in English and mathematics and for the more able

n quality of teaching andlearning

n cross-phase curriculumdevelopment

n personal development andwell-being

n developing community cohesion.

Federation leaders believed that thecurrent model of leadership was much better than the former structure of twoseparate schools as they could already demonstrate the benefits for pupils particularlyat, or approaching, transition between Key Stages 2 and 3.

Inthe federations visited, Osfted inspectors found no evidence to suggest that anyparticular leadership structure was more effective than any other. Moreimportant to success were the effectiveness and the strength of leaders and howwell the structure was tailored to meet the individual circumstances of theschool in each federation. In the best examples, careful attention had beenpaid to ensuring that the leadership structure met the requirements of thepurpose of federation and also reflected the individual circumstances of thecommunity within which the schools were located. Comments made by 28 leaders offederations in their questionnaire responses made it very clear that strategicplanning and vision for leadership were crucial to their reported success.Where insufficient attention had been paid to the purpose of the leadership ofthe federation, then the impact in terms of benefits to pupils was lessapparent. The following example illustrates this point.

A federation between a primary school, anursery and children’s centre was preparing to move to amalgamation. At thetime of the survey visit, the federation was led by one headteacher and anacting headteacher. Before this, the federation had been led by the twoheadteachers. This approach was to some extent designed to allay concerns ofparents. The headteachers only collaborated over the Early Years FoundationStage, but worked separately on school improvement. Consequently, federation developedslowly and had little impact on improvement. With hindsight, school leadersthought that one leader from the start would have been a better solution,insofar as, it may have led to faster improvement of the schools, providedgreater clarity about federation and smoothed and speeded the path toamalgamation. The new arrangements had brought about a greater level ofteamwork.

More on Federations http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/leadership-of-more-one-school

Does federation work?

2011-11-05T10:00:00.000Z

Does federation work?
The impacton provision and outcomes

Inall the federations visited by Ofsted inspectors it was found that aspects of provision andoutcomes were improving, albeit at varying rates. Trends could be identifiedthat linked specific improvements to provision and outcomes directly to thereason for federation. Where a successful school was federated with a weakerschool, for example, the greatest improvement was always in teaching andlearning, achievement, behaviour and often attendance. This did not mean thatother aspects of provision were neglected, but demonstrated the effectivenessof leaders who prioritised and drove improvements in areas that were the mostimportant to the federation and their reason for formation.

Inthe federations formed to protect the quality of education in the community, thepriority was to enrich and broaden the curriculum and to make the proceduresfor care, guidance and support more flexible and responsive to need. In thesefederations the improvements in outcomes tended to be reflected in theachievement of different groups, such as pupils whose circumstances made themvulnerable; this included those with special educational needs and/ordisabilities. In addition, pupils’ enjoyment of school and confidence wasincreased as a result of improvements to aspects of their personal developmentand well-being.

Themain reason some schools federated was to improve the quality of education in thecommunity by establishing much stronger links between schools in differentphases. The priority in these cases was to improve the continuity and progressmade by pupils in their learning. Academictransition procedures in these federations were a particularly strong feature, whichresulted in less disruption to the progress made by pupils.

More from Ofsted at http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/leadership-of-more-one-school

Reasons for federation

2011-11-04T16:57:00.000Z

Theterm ‘federation’ describes collaborative leadership and governancearrangements between schools. There are two main types of federation: hardfederations consist of a single governing body; and soft federations retainseparate governing bodies in each school but have joint governance throughcommittees with delegated powers.

Reasons for federation

There werethree main reasons why the schools visited had decided to federate.

n Thefirst related to successful schools that were approached, often by the localauthority, and took the decision to federate with a school causing concern.

n Asecond category consisted of small schools in danger of closure, or that couldnot retain or recruit high-quality staff, that entered into federation in orderto protect the education of pupils in the community. This was particularly thecase for small primary schools often in rural locations.

n Finally, there were examples of cross-phasefederation, for example between primary and secondary schools, in an attempt tostrengthen the overall education of pupils across communities.

In 10 ofthe federations visited by Ofsted, and 42 of those that responded to the questionnaire, aschool that had experienced difficulties or was causing concern had federatedwith a successful school. The most commonly perceived benefit for successfulschools that federated with schools causing concern was that it enabled them toretain an effective headteacher as aresult of the enhanced professional challenge offered by the extraresponsibility for leading more than one school.

Themost common reasons schools gave during the Osfted survey for federating were those ofpragmatic and economic necessity. This was the case in 13 federations visited. Thesereasons arose from schools, governing bodies and local authorities endeavouringto maintain and protect the quality and existence of education in the localcommunity. Two sets of circumstances were related to this.

n Schoolsthat were too small to be sustained and were threatened with closure. This wasparticularly the case in rural communities. This did not necessarily result inmajor cost savings, but greater flexibility in the deployment of finances meantthat schools benefited from a broader range of resources.

n Small schools that were having difficultyin recruiting high-quality leaders or in retaining those of proven ability who werelooking for greater leadership responsibility in larger schools. In these cases,federation was aimed at making recruitment a more attractive prospect or enablingschools to offer more responsibility and financial reward to existing leaders.

One primary school visited was very smalland vulnerable to closure. Its partner primary school had experienced a fallingroll and concerns were heightened when the school was unable to appoint a headteacher. Consequently, a decision to softfederate was made with the headteacherfrom one school taking over leadership of both schools. The formation of thefederation allowed an additional teacher to be appointed because of savings inleadership salaries and it was possible for both schools to maintain twoclasses.

Oftenthe decision to hard federate was a compromise or alternative course of actionfrom the one originally proposed. In seven federations visited, the localauthority had initially planned a school closure or amalgamation. This decisionhad been met with opposition from local communities and the schools. As aresult the decision to federate was made.

One federation consisted of two smallprimary faith schools in villages situated two miles apart. The federation wasthe outcome of negotiations with the local authority and diocese, the formerhaving initially proposed a merger of the two schools. There was significantlocal opposition to merger in both villages; neither wanted their schools toclose. Both schools, with vociferous parental and community backing, opposedthe plans. Federation offered apragmatic solution to the local authority proposals. Funding levels werebecoming very challenging and the notion of a shared headteachermade the possibility of maintaining both schools more viable.

Federation can also be used to provide greater progressionbetween phases, thus strengthening pupils’ education across schools. This wasthe case in six of the federations visited and in nine that responded to thequestionnaire survey. In four of the federations visited, the schools were inareas that experienced high social deprivation. Federation,therefore, was perceived by governors and school leaders as a means ofimproving the education of pupils across these communities. Strong features ofsuch arrangements were more effective transition arrangements between schools,as well as the ability to better support vulnerable pupils right through theirschool education as a result of consistent procedures for care, guidance andsupport throughout the federation.

More from Ofsted at http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/leadership-of-more-one-school

Ofsted: Leadership of more than one school

2011-11-03T20:00:00.000Z

Ofsted carried a survey to evaluate the impact, structure and practice of federatedleadership arrangements on pupils’ education in a small sample of establishedschool federations. Within federations the leadership and governancearrangements of more than one school are shared. The survey considered thereasons for federating and the barriers encountered during the journey. Featuresof successful federation leadership were also identified.

BetweenOctober 2010 and February 2011, inspectors visited 61 schools in 29 federationsthat shared leadership. During the visits, theyscrutinised school assessment information and pupils’ work, observed lessonsand met with pupils and staff. Inaddition, they examined questionnaire returns from the leaders of 111federations and analysed inspection judgements from 102of the schools within these federations that had been inspected by Ofsted threeyears after federation.

At thetime of the survey, there were around 600 known schools where leadershiparrangements were shared through federation arrangements. In the large majorityof cases, these were characterised by the establishment of one senior leader acrossmore than one school. Incomplete data prior to 2009 makes it difficult to judgewhether the rate of schools entering into federation arrangements isaccelerating.However, evidence gathered during the survey showed that governing bodies andlocal authorities were likely to consider federation routinely, particularlywhen there was a change in school leadership.

Theschools taking part in the survey had federated for one of three main reasons.

n In 10 ofthe federations visited, high performing schools had been approached, often bythe local authority, to federate with a school causing concern.

n Thirteenfederations consisted of a number of small schools that had been in danger ofclosure or were unable to recruit high-quality staff. The aim of federation inthese cases was to increase capacity and protect the quality of educationavailable across the schools.

n A further six federations combined schoolsacross different phases in an attempt to strengthen the overall education ofpupils in the community.

Governingbodies were also instrumental in the successful establishment of a federation,although their impact once the federation was established was more variable. Inthe best federations visited, governing bodies were very effective at holding headteachers to account for the strategicdevelopment of the federation. In other federations the strong record of schoolleadership meant that governing bodies did not challenge headteachers andsenior leaders with sufficient rigour.

The schoolleaders and governors spoken to were generally very positive about the benefitsof leading more than one school in a federated arrangement. They sawprofessional development, staff retention, greater availability of resourcesand the ability to attract high-quality leaders as the key reasons behindimprovements to provision.

Key findings

n Teaching and learning, achievement andbehaviour had improved in all 10 of the federations visited where schoolspreviously judged by inspection to be weak had been federated with a moresuccessful school. The quality of provision and outcomes had been maintained inall 10 of the successful schools.

n In all cases, a single system of assessingand tracking pupil progress was used in these federations. This was always anextension of the existing procedures in the stronger school and was one of thefirst steps taken by leaders who needed accurate information to identifyweaknesses in learning.

n One major advantage of federationgovernance was the improvement in the governance of weaker schools as a resultof having shared arrangements.

n In 11 of the 13 federations where schoolshad federated to protect the quality of education, pupils were now enjoying an enrichedcurriculum and a greater range of opportunities and extra-curricularactivities. In the two federations of this type where leadership was judged tobe only satisfactory, insufficient attention had been paid in the early stagesto the strategic purpose of the federation beyond protecting schools fromclosure. In these circumstances, leaders lacked sufficient vision and had notchanged or adapted well enough from a single school model; the federatedschools had been slow at making the best of new opportunities, such as theflexible use of resources or the sharing of good practice.

n In eight of the 13 federations whereschools had federated to protect the quality of education, there was greatercapacity to meet pupils’ needs flexibly and swiftly. This was particularly thecase for pupils whose circumstances made them vulnerable, such as those withspecial educational needs and/or disabilities. This was because of theeffective pooling of resources and expertise and central coordination by a singlespecial educational needs coordinator.

n In all six federations where the federatedarrangements enabled pupils to transfer from one phase to another, academictransition was greatly enhanced by a common approach to teaching, learning and assessmentbetween schools. As a consequence, when pupils started their new school,provision was better tailored to meet their needs.

n In all the federations visited, effectiveleadership was critical to their success in building good capacity forsustained improvement. There was no evidence to suggest that any particularleadership structure across the federated schools was more effective than anyother. More important was how well the structure was tailored to meet theindividual circumstances of the school in each federation.

n The 27 federations where the leadership wasjudged by inspectors to be good or outstanding exhibited some common features: aclear vision and good communication of the benefits that federation brought topupils, driven by the headteacher, but shared by others; well-developedstrategic plans with success criteria shared with all staff; rigorousprocedures for monitoring and evaluating the federation and holding staff toaccount; well-established procedures for, and a belief in the importance of,developing and coaching leaders at all levels; and continued professionaldevelopment of staff.

n The impact of governance was varied. In 17federations visited, good or outstanding governance was instrumental in holdingleaders to account for the strategic ambition for the federation. In theothers, governing bodies were less effective at challenging leaders to beaccountable for strategic development.

n The biggest potential barrier to federationresulted from concerns from parents, pupils and staff about what the changeswould mean to them. Nearly all the federations visited had avoided or overcomethis difficulty by effective communication and consultation in the early stagesof federation.

n In 17 of the federations, the localauthority facilitated the process of federation effectively, particularlyduring the early stages where it provided valuable expertise and guidance. Insix more federations the local authority had been the driving force behindpersuading governing bodies and headteachers to embark on federation.

Recommendations

Schoolsembarking on federation should:

n ensure that the strategic purpose of federationand the subsequent planning to achieve it are sharply focused on the benefitsto pupils’ education

n make sure that governing bodies establishrigorous procedures to hold leaders to account for their work that go beyondthe initial steps taken to establish the federation

n consult and communicate effectively withparents, staff, pupils and the community at the earliest stage when consideringfederation so that barriers that may arise as a result of concern about changeare avoided.

The Departmentfor Education should:

n provide details of a range of established federationsto local authorities and governing bodies to enable them to learn from goodpractice and to avoid the pitfalls others had experienced on the road tofederation.

More information from Ofsted at

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/leadership-of-more-one-school

Changes to the Admissions Code

2011-11-02T20:00:00.000Z

The Department for Education have confirmed that the proposed Admissions Code and draft regulations will be laid before Parliament in December 2011, in order to come into force in February 2012, and thereby affect the allocation of places for children starting school in September 2013.

Key Admissions proposals include:

Giving adopted children who were previously in care the same, highest priority for places as looked-after children
Introducing a ‘national offer day’ for primary places, mirroring that for secondary offers
Giving greater freedom to schools to increase the number of places they are able to offer to parents
Allowing schools to prioritise the children of staff employed there for two or more years, or who will meet a skills shortage
Allowing infant classes to exceed the statutory limit where the 31st child is a twin or from multiple births, or of armed forces personnel
Allowing academies to prioritise disadvantaged children who are eligible for the Pupil Premium
Allowing schools to take direct applications from parents to help reduce delays in finding a school place once term starts.

More information from

http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/adminandfinance/schooladmissions/a00199845/departmental-response-to-the-consultation-on-changes-to-the-admissions-framework

Consultation on The School Governance Constitution Regulations

2011-11-01T20:00:00.000Z

The Department for Education are consulting on ammendments to The School Governance (Constitution) Regulations 2007

1. The School Governance(Constitution) (

England

)Regulations 2007are amended as follows.

2. In regulation16 (qualifying foundation schools) after paragraph (1) insert—

(1A) A parent of a formerregistered pupil at the school can only be appointed in accordance withparagraph (1)(f) if it is not reasonably practicable to appoint sufficientpersons for the purposes of that provision who are parents of registered pupilsat the school.

(1B) A parent of a child under or of compulsory school age canonly be appointed in accordance with paragraph (1)(f) if it is not reasonablypracticable to appoint sufficient persons for the purposes of that provision whoare parents of registered pupils at the school or of former registered pupilsat the school..

3. In regulation18 (voluntary aided schools) after paragraph (1) insert—

“(1A) A parent of a former registered pupil at the schoolcan only be appointed in accordance with paragraph (1)(e) if it is notreasonably practicable to appoint sufficient persons for the purposes of thatprovision who are parents of registered pupils at the school.

(1B) A parent of a child under or of compulsory school agecan only be appointed in accordance with paragraph (1)(e) if it is notreasonably practicable to appoint sufficient persons for the purposes of thatprovision who are parents of registered pupils at the school or of formerregistered pupils at the school.”.

The Consultation can be found at

http://www.education.gov.uk/consultations/index.cfm?action=consultationDetails&consultationId=1780&external=no&menu=1

The Consultation finishes on 18th November 2011

Institute for Fiscal Studies: Trends in education and schools spending

2011-10-31T20:00:00.001Z

All areas of public education spending are expected to see real-terms cuts between 2010–11 and 2014–15, but the severity of cuts will differ.

Current spending on schools will see the smallest real-terms cut (about 1% in total). The areas seeing the largest real-terms cuts will be current spending on higher education (40% in total) and capital spending (more than halved). However, reforms to tuition fees will increase total resource spending – via public and private contributions – on higher education. Spending on the early years and youth services is expected to be cut by over 20% in real terms in total.
Planned cuts to age 16–19 education spending are likely to be of a similar magnitude.

The government has chosen to create a Pupil Premium from 2011–12 onwards. This will add somewhat to the already considerable additional money provided for the poorest pupils by the current school funding system. The government has announced a cash-terms freeze in other per-pupil funding. As a result, only the most deprived schools are likely to see real-terms increases in funding per pupil in 2011–12.

Compared with economy-wide inflation or an estimate of schools specific cost inflation, the majority of schools are expected to see realterms cuts in 2011–12. Although spending on the Pupil Premium will grow to £2.5 billion by 2014–15, given the continued freeze in other per-pupil spending this pattern looks set to continue up to 2014–15.

Until recently, education spending has enjoyed healthy year-on-year increases, but that is set to change. Along with most areas of government spending, education spending is set to shrink over the current Spending Review period. What will be the size of the total cuts and how will they be shared across different areas of education spending? Somewhat surprisingly, the answers to these questions cannot be easily found in current data published by the government.

Looking ahead, education spending will almost certainly fall in real terms during the period covered by the 2010 Spending Review. Under our calculations, it will fall by 3.5% per year in real terms between 2010–11 and 2014–15, or 13.4% in total over the four years. This would be the largest fall in education spending over a four-year period since at least the 1950s. If these forecasts are realised, then education spending as a share of national income will fall from 6.2% in 2010–11 to 4.6% by 2014–15.

The full Trends in education and schools spending Report from The Institute for Fiscal Studies can be found here

http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn121.pdf

Children with Special Educational Needs (SEN): An analysis in 2011

2011-10-30T10:00:00.000Z

The Special Educational Needs (SEN) Information Act (2008) required the Secretary of State to publish information about children in England with SEN to help improve the well-being of these children.

The publication includes new information on pupils with SEN alongside further interpretation of existing findings. There are new sections on activities at ages 16, 18 and 19 for young people with SEN. All figures are provided at national level, with some Regional and Local Authority level information. The publication is divided into the following five key themes with data derived from a range of sources, including the School Census and National Pupil Database:

Theme 1: Characteristics of pupils with SEN
http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/STR/d001032/osr20-2011c1.xls
Theme 2: Attainment of pupils with SEN
http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/STR/d001032/osr20-2011c2.xls
Theme 3: Progression of pupils with SEN
http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/STR/d001032/osr20-2011c3.xls
Theme 4: Activities up to age 19 for young people with SEN
http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/STR/d001032/osr20-2011c4.xls
Theme 5: Absence and exclusions from school of pupils with SEN
http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/STR/d001032/osr20-2011c5.xls

Taken from DfE Website at http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/STR/d001032/index.shtml

Reform of the Teachers' Pension Scheme

2011-10-29T10:00:00.001+01:00

With further likely hood of industrial action from head teachers and teachers the government has updated the department for Education website explaining the proposed changes to the Teachers' Pension Scheme.

What changes is the Government proposing for the Teachers’ Pension Scheme?

What will stay the same:

Teachers will continue to receive a guaranteed income in their retirement, unlike the majority of people with private sector pensions.
Teachers will keep the pension and lump sum they have already earned and this will remain linked to their final salary on retirement.
Teachers will retain options to retire at any age between 55 and 75.

What is proposed to change:

Moving from a final salary pension to a career average pension scheme.
A phased increase to teachers’ Normal Pension Age in line with changes to the State Pension Age.
A rebalancing of employee and employer contributions to provide a fairer distribution between members and other taxpayers.

Why is Government proposing a move from a final salary scheme to a career average scheme?

A career average scheme is a fairer way of calculating pension benefits because everyone gets broadly the same amount of pension for every pound put in. Under final salary schemes, the most highly-paid employees take out more than is proportional to their contributions because their benefits are based on their last few, high-earning years.

Lord Hutton estimated that the most highly-paid employees can receive almost twice as much in pension payments as those with lower salary growth.

When will these changes be introduced?

The increase in employee contributions is proposed to be phased in from April 2012. The rest of the changes will not be introduced before 2015.

The changes to the Normal Pension Age will be phased over a much longer period with a Normal Pension Age of 68 not expected until 2046.

More information from:

http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/careers/payandpensions/b00198901/reform-of-the-teachers-pension-scheme

The protection of School children online

2011-10-28T20:00:00.001+01:00

This scoping review explores levels of intended and unintended exposure to specific risks, the impact of harm suffered by children, and the characteristics of children who may be at highest risk.

Cyberbullying

• Between 8-34% of children and young people in the UK have been cyberbullied

• 30% of a large sample of secondary school pupils in England have been deliberately targeted, threatened or humiliated by the use of mobile phones or the internet

• Girls are twice as likely to experience persistent cyberbullying than boys

• Vulnerable groups at greater risk include children with special educational needs (SEN), children in receipt of free school meals (FSM), children from Black and minority ethnic (BME) groups, children of Gypsy-Roma, Traveller of Irish Heritage,

European and East European groups, children from Chinese groups and children of mixed ethnicity

• Exposure to cyberbullying results in significant levels of distress and stress with the highest levels reported in children aged 9-12

• Cyberbullying evokes stronger negative feelings, fear and a sense of helplessness than offline bullying and is linked to school failure, depression, anxiety and psychological problems

• The impersonal nature of online communication means that not all perpetrators intend to cause distress

Meeting online contacts offline, sexual solicitation and grooming

• A large US survey shows that one in 10 children and young people receive sexual solicitations of a distressing or aggressive nature

UKCCIS brings together government, industry and charities to work in partnership to keep children and young people safe online by creating a safer online environment, improving online safety education and raising public awareness of how to enjoy the internet safely.

• US chat room users are four times more likely to receive unwanted sexual solicitations than other groups of children and young people

• UK chat rooms are mostly used by lower socio-economic groups and older teenagers

• 69% of online sexual solicitations involve no attempt at offline contact

• Offenders rarely pretend to be teenagers or deceive victims about their sexual interest; most victims who meet offenders expect to engage in sexual activity

• Young people may be more vulnerable in early adolescence as they become more sexually curious and experimental

• Young people defined as sensation seekers are four times more likely to have met someone offline following online contact

• Victim typologies do not conform to any specific stereotypical assumptions of vulnerability; victims are a heterogeneous group with a range of characteristics

• Some victims of grooming would not be perceived as vulnerable offline

• Understanding the interaction between the offender, online environment and young person is essential to understanding the nature of online grooming, particularly the role of disinhibition.

Pornography and other harmful content

• A US survey reported 42% young people aged 10-17 being exposed to online pornography in a one-year period; 66% of this exposure was unwanted

• 11% of 9-16 year olds reported exposure to pornography in the UK; 24% of these children and young people were not bothered or upset by the experience

• rates of ‘unwanted’ exposure to pornography are higher amongst teenagers, young people who report being harassed or sexually solicited online or victimised offline, and those who are borderline or clinically depressed

• ‘Wanted’ exposure rates were higher for teenagers, those who talked online to unknown persons about sex, used the internet at friends’ homes, or appeared to have a significant level of rule breaking behaviour

• There is a lack of adequate research on the impact that unwanted or unexpected exposure to pornography has on children and young people

• Seeing violent or hateful content was the third most common risk to young people

• Gaps in the evidence base include research on hateful or racist content, sites promoting self-harm, anorexia or suicide

The full report can be found at

https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/Online-vulnerability-Report.pdf

UK sex and relationships education fails to prepare young people

2011-10-27T20:00:00.001+01:00

New research released this month shows 47% of secondary school pupils think their school’s Sex and Relationships Education (SRE) does not meet their needs.

The lack of relevant sex and relationships education in schools and at home means 81% of teenagers are getting most of their sexual health knowledge from less reliable sources, leaving them vulnerable and ill-prepared to navigate their way through relationships.

The study of over 2,000 14-18 year olds, commissioned by Brook, the country’s largest young people’s sexual health charity illustrates the impact on young people that the country’s lack of commitment to good Sex and Relationships Education, out of date guidelines for schools and a lack of support for well qualified teachers is having.

The survey finds that young people rely on often ill-informed sources, such as peers, for information resulting in the spread of dangerous sex myths which can lead to poor decisions and unwanted outcomes. The five most commonly shared sex myths amongst peers are:

59% of young people have wrongly heard from their friends that a woman cannot get pregnant if the man withdraws before he ejaculates

58% of young people have wrongly heard that women cannot get pregnant if they are having their period

35% have wrongly heard that women cannot get pregnant if they have sex standing up

33% have wrongly heard from their friends that a woman cannot get pregnant if it is the first time she has had sex

25% of young people have wrongly heard that you can only catch HIV from gay sex.

Schools are not required to consult with their pupils to shape SRE lessons, and 78% of young people confirm they have never been consulted. As the government recently announced a review of Personal, Social, Health and Economic Education (PSHE), 82% of young people said they want schools to take their views into account to help make SRE relevant for the 21st century.

The research identified the scale of the SRE problem:

One in four (26%) secondary pupils get no SRE in school whatsoever.

A quarter (26%) of those who do get SRE say the teacher isn’t able to teach it well.

Only 13% of 14-18 year olds learn most about sex from their SRE teacher, and just 5% from Mum and 1% from dad at home.

The sex information void is being filled by friends their own age (36%), their boyfriend / girlfriend (10%), TV programmes (8%) and online porn (5%) – none of which are reliable sources of honest, useful information.

SRE fares particularly badly when it comes to teaching pupils about relationships, with only 6% saying they get the information on relationships that they need in SRE lessons.

More Information at:

http://www.brook.org.uk/professionals/application/brookpr/index.php?option=com_brookpr&view=article&id=91&Itemid=640

GCSE & English Baccalaureate (EBacc) Results

2011-10-26T20:00:00.000+01:00

Provisional GCSE results published last week show a rise in achievement in sponsored academies was double the rise in other schools;

In academies the percentage of pupils achieving 5 or more GCSEs including English and maths rose from 40.6% to 45.9%, an increase of 5.3%.

In all maintained schools, including Academies, the percentage of pupils achieving 5 or more GCSEs including English and maths rose from 55.2 % to 57.8%, an increase of 2.6%.

The English Baccalaureate (EBacc) faired marginally better than last year: there was a rise in entry of 0.7%. 16.5% of pupils achieved the award, compared to 15.6% last year.

In maintained schools, including academies, 21.6% entered and 15.2% achieved the EBacc. In City Technology Colleges 42.5% pupils were entered and 33.7% achieved the EBacc while other Academies entered 11.6% pupils and 8% pupils achieved it.

The full publication from DfE can be found here

http://www.education.gov.uk/inthenews/inthenews/a00199453/academies-see-double-the-increase-of-other-maintained-schools-at-gcse

The true picture of school absence

2011-10-25T20:00:00.000+01:00

New figures released from the Department for Education show that 450,330 children – 7.2 per cent – were absent from school for 15 per cent or more of the autumn 2010 and spring 2011 terms. This is the equivalent of missing a month’s worth of lessons in a year.

The figures also reveal that more than a million pupils (16.4 per cent) missed half a day or more of school per week, equating to 10 per cent of school time missed.

This is the first time that a new, tougher, persistent absence measure has been recorded, giving a clearer picture of the problem in our schools. The figures have failed to improve on last year.

Children who miss 15 per cent or more of school time are now recorded as persistent absentees. Previously, children had to miss 20 per cent of school to be viewed as persistent absentees. This is equivalent to more than six weeks of missed lessons in a school year.

With this new threshold, the Government is asking schools to step in to tackle absence sooner – before the problem really takes hold.

The latest figures show that, compared to autumn term 2009 and spring term 2010:

Across state-funded primary schools and secondary schools, the percentage of pupils classed as persistent absentees increased, from 7.0 per cent to 7.2 per cent.
In state-funded primary schools, the percentage of pupils classed as persistent absentees increased, from 5.0 per cent to 5.2 per cent.
In state-funded secondary schools, the percentage of pupils classed as persistent absentees increased, from 9.3 per cent to 9.5 per cent.

Taken from

http://www.education.gov.uk/inthenews/inthenews/a00199392/new-data-highlights-true-picture-of-school-absence

National Audit Office Report on Oversight of financial management in Schools

2011-10-24T20:00:00.001+01:00

The National Audit Office have published a report on Oversight of financial management in Local authority maintained schools.

School Governors Role in the Schools Financial Value Standard

3.14 Governors support schools’ financial management through strategic oversight. Their importance and influence are likely to increase as schools become more autonomous. The Department has recognised the importance of the support and challenge provided by governors. It expects governors to ensure that their schools properly complete the self-assessment against the new Schools Financial Value Standard.

3.15 We nevertheless found widespread concern about the extent to which governors, particularly in primary schools, have the necessary financial expertise to fully support and challenge their schools. Twenty-seven per cent of respondents to our survey of local authorities thought that only a few of their primary schools had governing bodies with sufficient financial expertise. Some primary schools replying to our online survey considered that their governing body could benefit from improved expertise.

3.16 The Department plans to support governing bodies’ financial expertise through new training for chairs of governors that includes a discretionary module on financial management. It has also funded the National College to develop a programme for high-performing chairs of governors to mentor other chairs. It plans to amend the regulations covering the make-up of school governing bodies to make it easier to select governors on the basis of their expertise, and has made the new Schools Financial Value Standard easier for governors to use (paragraph 2.9).

You can find the full report here

http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1012/schools_financial_management.aspx

Schools trial new approach to exclusions

2011-10-23T10:00:00.000+01:00

Hundreds of children who are permanently excluded from school are to be part of a new trial to improve their education.

One in ten secondary schools – around 300 schools – from across England will be part of the trial in which headteachers will be responsible for ensuring that the pupils they exclude continue to receive a decent education. It will also help pupils who are at risk of being excluded by encouraging schools to intervene earlier.

Headteachers who permanently exclude a pupil from their school will now be able to choose the alternative provision, rather than the local authority. The school will also receive the funding instead of the local authority.

Schools in the trials will then be better able to monitor both attainment and attendance of the pupils. The trial will also help encourage schools to intervene early with children who are at risk of being excluded.

In 2009/10, 5020 pupils were permanently excluded from their secondary school. Most were sent to alternative provision such as Pupil Referral Units. Latest statistics show that only 1.4 per cent of pupils in alternative provision achieved five good GCSEs including maths and English. The Government believes this is not good enough.

More information at

http://www.education.gov.uk/inthenews/inthenews/a00199305/schools-to-trial-new-approach-to-exclusions