Closure of SEF and SIEF – how maintained and independent schools can save their data and information
The information below has been published on Ofsted’s online forms site reminding schools about the closure of the site and action to be taken before the closing date.
Ofsted’s online SEF/SIEF system will be available to schools until 21 July 2011 and inspectors will continue to use the SEF/SIEF in inspections for the academic year 2010/11, where a school provides one.
Schools will be able to access and enter information into their SEF/SIEF and download PDF versions of their previously submitted SEFs/SIEFs until 21 July 2011. On 22 July, the online forms website will be closed.
How can schools keep a copy of their SIEF or SEF?
To preserve the data and information in their SIEF or SEF, schools should take the following action by 21 July 2011 at the latest.
1.Save their most recent SIEF or SEF on the SEF website.
2.Submit their saved SIEF or SEF, using the SEF website. This will automatically create a PDF version of the SIEF or SEF.
3. Save the PDF of the SIEF or SEF to the school’s own electronic filing system. Guidance on submitting the SIEF or SEF and saving a PDF to the school’s own system will be available on the SEF website.
After 21 July, schools will not be able to access PDF versions of their SIEF or SEF on the SEF website. Please note that Ofsted will not retain or be able to provide a copy of a school’s SEF or SIEF after 21 July 2011.
The use of the online SEF for maintained schools and SIEF for independent schools is to be discontinued from September 2011. For further details please see the announcement on the Ofsted website at www.ofsted.gov.uk.
Implications for inspectors
From the autumn term 2011, schools will still be expected to demonstrate to inspectors that they undertake rigorous and effective self-evaluation. For inspections that take place in autumn term 2011, schools may present their self-evaluation information to inspectors in the format of their choice and will be asked to summarise their self-evaluation in a single document. Schools may provide the PDF of their final submitted SEF/SIEF from the summer term, if they wish. However, schools will not be disadvantaged if they choose not to do so.
We will consider carefully how inspectors will manage school inspections when the SEF/SIEF has been withdrawn as part of work to develop a new inspection framework during the coming year. It will, of course, be important that schools continue to evaluate their performance and can demonstrate that they act on the findings to secure continuous improvement.
Academy converter schools: access to predecessor online SEF data Following the introduction of legislation which allows the Secretary of State to approve applications by schools to become academies, we have provided the following information on how new academies can access their SEF.
Where a school has converted to become an academy under the Academies Act 2010, the school’s governing body is dissolved. The school closes and reopens with a new URN although the establishment number remains the same. These changes are reflected in Edubase, which feeds into Ofsted’s systems. As a result, the predecessor school’s previous details entered into sections A and beyond, under the old URN, will have been erased from the online SEF site.
We can provide historical SEF data to new academies in the following ways.
1. Where the headteacher of the new academy is the same headteacher from the predecessor school, we can arrange for previous SEF data to be made available. An email should be forwarded to enquiries@ofsted.gov.uk from the headteacher’s school email address confirming that they were the headteacher from the predecessor school and requesting access to the previous data.
2. Where the headteacher of the new academy is not the same headteacher from the Page 2
predecessor school, the previous headteacher at the school must email enquiries@ofsted.gov.uk giving permission for the SEF to be shared with the new headteacher. This is because an SEF is not provided to Ofsted on the basis that we could share it with another party, and it will contain personal data.
3. Where a new academy is an amalgamation of two predecessor schools, a combination of the above two options may be required.
Ofsted’s online SEF system will be available until 21 July 2011, and inspectors will continue to use the SEF in inspections for the academic year 2010/11, where one is provided.
Academies will be able to access and enter information into their SEF, and download a PDF version of their submitted SEF until 21 July 2011. On 22 July, the online forms website will be closed.
After 21 July, academies will not be able to access PDF versions of their SEF on the SEF website. Please note that Ofsted will not retain or be able to provide a copy of the SEF after 21 July 2011.
From Ofsted June Newsletter
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/content/download/12355/142903/file/Schools%20and%20Inspection%20June%202011.pdf
Showing posts with label ofsted. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ofsted. Show all posts
Sunday, 17 July 2011
Saturday, 11 June 2011
Effective Governing Body Case Study: Winchcombe School, Gloucestershire
Winchcombe School, Gloucestershire
Winchcombe is a small secondary school. It has specialist status for science and leadership.
Governors and staff had a firm grasp of their respective responsibilities. This enabled the governors to fulfil their role very well. The governing body was very well organised and benefited from the detailed work of its committees in considering the progress of the school and from very good support from the clerk. Governors were extremely well informed about the work of the school through detailed reports from the headteacher and other key staff and from visiting the school themselves. As a result, governors were very well placed to ask questions about the school’s performance and seek explanations from senior staff. Questions elicited a positive response from senior leaders and resulted, where appropriate, in reviews and revisions of practice.
The governors set out to remove any perceived barriers between the school and the local community and to ensure broad local representation on the governing body. As a result, there was a good mix of governors, including several with community links, who had a wide range of skills and networks with others.
Community governors were willing to share their skills and expertise with the pupils. They had made a key contribution to the school’s regular ‘flexible days’ when the usual curriculum was set aside to support wider activities, including business enterprise. The school’s involvement in ‘Young Chef of the Year’ and in hosting 30 Chinese pupils for a term also owed much to the governors’ links to the community. The ‘Sports Hub’ currently under construction is a striking testimony to the strength of these links. The governing body agreed with the town council to provide a site for an all-weather pitch that would serve a wide range of organisations in the community and be available for pupils to use during the school day. New classroom accommodation had also been incorporated in the buildings associated with the Sports Hub, securing significant cost advantages for the school. The governors’ role in the complex discussions necessary to carry forward such a project was crucial to its success.
Winchcombe is a small secondary school. It has specialist status for science and leadership.
Governors and staff had a firm grasp of their respective responsibilities. This enabled the governors to fulfil their role very well. The governing body was very well organised and benefited from the detailed work of its committees in considering the progress of the school and from very good support from the clerk. Governors were extremely well informed about the work of the school through detailed reports from the headteacher and other key staff and from visiting the school themselves. As a result, governors were very well placed to ask questions about the school’s performance and seek explanations from senior staff. Questions elicited a positive response from senior leaders and resulted, where appropriate, in reviews and revisions of practice.
The governors set out to remove any perceived barriers between the school and the local community and to ensure broad local representation on the governing body. As a result, there was a good mix of governors, including several with community links, who had a wide range of skills and networks with others.
Community governors were willing to share their skills and expertise with the pupils. They had made a key contribution to the school’s regular ‘flexible days’ when the usual curriculum was set aside to support wider activities, including business enterprise. The school’s involvement in ‘Young Chef of the Year’ and in hosting 30 Chinese pupils for a term also owed much to the governors’ links to the community. The ‘Sports Hub’ currently under construction is a striking testimony to the strength of these links. The governing body agreed with the town council to provide a site for an all-weather pitch that would serve a wide range of organisations in the community and be available for pupils to use during the school day. New classroom accommodation had also been incorporated in the buildings associated with the Sports Hub, securing significant cost advantages for the school. The governors’ role in the complex discussions necessary to carry forward such a project was crucial to its success.
Wednesday, 8 June 2011
Effective Governing Body Case Study: The Charter School, Southwark
The Charter School, Southwark
The school was established in 2000. Students are from a diverse range of cultural, ethnic and social backgrounds. The school became a business and enterprise college in September 2005 and was awarded high-performing specialist school status in April 2009, with science as a second specialism.
Effective links had been established with key curriculum leaders and their staff through the link governor system. This allowed governors to discharge their statutory obligation to ensure that the National Curriculum was being delivered as well as being an integral part of the school’s cycle of monitoring, review and self-evaluation. The information gathered by link governors on the curriculum, teaching and learning, staffing and resource allocation helped them to undertstand the context of the school’s improvement planning and its impact on students’ achievement. By visiting the school and engaging in formal dialogue with curriculum leaders, link governors appreciated the realities of school life and the issues faced by staff and pupils. The system also helped school staff understand the role of a governor and fostered closer links with the governing body.
High quality written guidelines set out a clear, shared view of the link governor role and their responsibilities and duties. The purpose of the system, and how it worked, was made clear. Link governors made at least one visit during the academic year. The focus of visits was closely aligned to school improvement and curriculum priorities. The visits were fact finding with the aim of building a ‘critical friend’ working relationship. They enabled more effective and better informed governance of teaching and curriculum issues. Helpful written prompts were provided to identify what a link governor might look for during a school visit. These were very broad ranging and included reviewing: changes to personnel; the curriculum; and professional development priorities for team members and the progress made towards meeting them. A proforma to record notes of the meeting, agreed by the link governor and the curriculum leader, was shared with other governors and the results were reported on at full governing body meetings.
Governors relished the opportunity to be involved and curriculum leaders saw the process as an integral part of their self-evaluation. They valued the opportunity to celebrate success and raise issues that were relevant to their area of work.
The school was established in 2000. Students are from a diverse range of cultural, ethnic and social backgrounds. The school became a business and enterprise college in September 2005 and was awarded high-performing specialist school status in April 2009, with science as a second specialism.
Effective links had been established with key curriculum leaders and their staff through the link governor system. This allowed governors to discharge their statutory obligation to ensure that the National Curriculum was being delivered as well as being an integral part of the school’s cycle of monitoring, review and self-evaluation. The information gathered by link governors on the curriculum, teaching and learning, staffing and resource allocation helped them to undertstand the context of the school’s improvement planning and its impact on students’ achievement. By visiting the school and engaging in formal dialogue with curriculum leaders, link governors appreciated the realities of school life and the issues faced by staff and pupils. The system also helped school staff understand the role of a governor and fostered closer links with the governing body.
High quality written guidelines set out a clear, shared view of the link governor role and their responsibilities and duties. The purpose of the system, and how it worked, was made clear. Link governors made at least one visit during the academic year. The focus of visits was closely aligned to school improvement and curriculum priorities. The visits were fact finding with the aim of building a ‘critical friend’ working relationship. They enabled more effective and better informed governance of teaching and curriculum issues. Helpful written prompts were provided to identify what a link governor might look for during a school visit. These were very broad ranging and included reviewing: changes to personnel; the curriculum; and professional development priorities for team members and the progress made towards meeting them. A proforma to record notes of the meeting, agreed by the link governor and the curriculum leader, was shared with other governors and the results were reported on at full governing body meetings.
Governors relished the opportunity to be involved and curriculum leaders saw the process as an integral part of their self-evaluation. They valued the opportunity to celebrate success and raise issues that were relevant to their area of work.
Sunday, 5 June 2011
Effective Governing Body Case Study: Market Rasen De Aston School, Lincolnshire
Market Rasen De Aston School, Lincolnshire
Market Rasen De Aston School is a larger than average secondary school with foundation status. It has specialist status for mathematics and computing and serves a large rural catchment area, where 70% of pupils require transport to and from school. The school provides boarding accommodation for up to 70 pupils.
Shortly after the appointment of the new headteacher, the governors collectively, and with the support of the headteacher, identified that they could be more effective in their ways of working. Without any formal self-review scheme, they evaluated and re-shaped the work of the governing body. They noted that the committee structure had been in place for a long time and new governors were expected to join the committees where there were vacancies rather than where they had particular skills or interests.
Governors identified that they needed to focus more on the attainment and progress being made by their students, including those in the boarding provision. As a consequence, governors reviewed and improved their working practices. They restructured into more relevant key committees, which included the academic standards and quality assurance committee, the student welfare and boarding committee and the resources committee (including staffing and finance). Each committee had a specific additional responsibility for the boarding students. For example, the academic standards and quality assurance committee considered the attainment and progress of all groups, including those who were boarders; the student welfare and boarding committee was directly responsible for the boarding development plan; and the resources committee was responsible for monitoring the staffing and budget in the boarding house.
An annual, full governing body business meeting was introduced. This meeting reviewed the work of the previous year, agreed roles and priorities, confirmed committee membership and identified training needs for the forthcoming year. The programme for all meetings was agreed and the objectives from the school improvement plan were allocated to the committees. This process ensured that the terms of reference for each committee had strong links to the school improvement plan. Each full governing body meeting included reference to each of the objectives and progress towards achieving the committees’ agreed priorities.
Market Rasen De Aston School is a larger than average secondary school with foundation status. It has specialist status for mathematics and computing and serves a large rural catchment area, where 70% of pupils require transport to and from school. The school provides boarding accommodation for up to 70 pupils.
Shortly after the appointment of the new headteacher, the governors collectively, and with the support of the headteacher, identified that they could be more effective in their ways of working. Without any formal self-review scheme, they evaluated and re-shaped the work of the governing body. They noted that the committee structure had been in place for a long time and new governors were expected to join the committees where there were vacancies rather than where they had particular skills or interests.
Governors identified that they needed to focus more on the attainment and progress being made by their students, including those in the boarding provision. As a consequence, governors reviewed and improved their working practices. They restructured into more relevant key committees, which included the academic standards and quality assurance committee, the student welfare and boarding committee and the resources committee (including staffing and finance). Each committee had a specific additional responsibility for the boarding students. For example, the academic standards and quality assurance committee considered the attainment and progress of all groups, including those who were boarders; the student welfare and boarding committee was directly responsible for the boarding development plan; and the resources committee was responsible for monitoring the staffing and budget in the boarding house.
An annual, full governing body business meeting was introduced. This meeting reviewed the work of the previous year, agreed roles and priorities, confirmed committee membership and identified training needs for the forthcoming year. The programme for all meetings was agreed and the objectives from the school improvement plan were allocated to the committees. This process ensured that the terms of reference for each committee had strong links to the school improvement plan. Each full governing body meeting included reference to each of the objectives and progress towards achieving the committees’ agreed priorities.
Saturday, 4 June 2011
Effective Governing Body Case Study: Linden Lodge School, Wandsworth
Linden Lodge School, Wandsworth
Linden Lodge is a large day and residential special school for pupils aged 2–19 years with a wide range of visual impairment and other complex needs, including severe, profound and multiple learning difficulties. The school also provides: mobility training; a range of therapy, including physiotherapy; occupational therapy; speech and language therapy; and music and play therapy. A nurse is on site to cater for pupils’ medical needs. Pupils come from a wide catchment area that includes 28 local authorities.
Trusted and valued members of the school, governors were exceptionally involved in all aspects of school life. The chair of the governing body stressed the importance of communication, trust and integrity. Governors were encouraged to be open and honest with each other, and with staff, parents and partners, and to openly express their opinions. There was a strong emphasis on providing informed challenge and holding leaders to account. Governing body meetings were characterised by robust, high-quality debate and discussion. New initiatives were always fully debated, and the consequences and outcomes anticipated and evaluated.
Governors learnt from past experience of managing projects and painstakingly assessed what could have been done better. They used the knowledge gained from these assessments to inform and plan future development. For example, the local authority raised a proposal to include pupils with profound and multiple learning difficulties and disabilities at the school, who would be accommodated in a new custom-built centre. The governing body reached a consensus to accept the proposal and, using a calm, measured and thorough approach, they challenged at every stage. They made sure that they gathered accurate information and sought the views of all those involved, including parents, students, health professionals and staff. The governing body visited provision in other schools and consulted partner schools. They negotiated certain conditions with the local authority so that management of the new provision rested with the governing body and the school budget was not compromised. The governing body stipulated the timescale for building work so that an existing project, the installation of the hydrotherapy pool, would not be adversely affected.
Linden Lodge is a large day and residential special school for pupils aged 2–19 years with a wide range of visual impairment and other complex needs, including severe, profound and multiple learning difficulties. The school also provides: mobility training; a range of therapy, including physiotherapy; occupational therapy; speech and language therapy; and music and play therapy. A nurse is on site to cater for pupils’ medical needs. Pupils come from a wide catchment area that includes 28 local authorities.
Trusted and valued members of the school, governors were exceptionally involved in all aspects of school life. The chair of the governing body stressed the importance of communication, trust and integrity. Governors were encouraged to be open and honest with each other, and with staff, parents and partners, and to openly express their opinions. There was a strong emphasis on providing informed challenge and holding leaders to account. Governing body meetings were characterised by robust, high-quality debate and discussion. New initiatives were always fully debated, and the consequences and outcomes anticipated and evaluated.
Governors learnt from past experience of managing projects and painstakingly assessed what could have been done better. They used the knowledge gained from these assessments to inform and plan future development. For example, the local authority raised a proposal to include pupils with profound and multiple learning difficulties and disabilities at the school, who would be accommodated in a new custom-built centre. The governing body reached a consensus to accept the proposal and, using a calm, measured and thorough approach, they challenged at every stage. They made sure that they gathered accurate information and sought the views of all those involved, including parents, students, health professionals and staff. The governing body visited provision in other schools and consulted partner schools. They negotiated certain conditions with the local authority so that management of the new provision rested with the governing body and the school budget was not compromised. The governing body stipulated the timescale for building work so that an existing project, the installation of the hydrotherapy pool, would not be adversely affected.
Tuesday, 31 May 2011
Effective Governing Body Case Study: Debden Park High School, Essex
Debden Park High School is a specialist performing arts school, serving an urban area which contains pockets of deprivation. The school is part of the Kemnal Academies Trust and is actively involved in a partnership with local schools.
The school was judged to require special measures in January 2007. Leadership and governance were inadequate and the school had a deficit budget. The Trust was asked by the local authority to provide support to the school, which began in March 2007. A period of significant change followed, including a change of headteacher and a new chair of the governing body. Improvement was rapid and the school was removed from special measures in October 2007. The substantive headteacher initially joined the school on a six-month secondment from the Trust. Key tasks for the new leadership were to build governors’ trust, provide them with accurate information about the school's performance, and establish systems and structures which used time effectively and helped governors to maintain a clear focus on improvement.
Two governors from the Trust brought with them a wealth of experience and expertise in school improvement. They used this to work with the governing body. They demonstrated how to use information that the school provided to ask insightful questions. Governors were provided with a wide range of information about the school’s performance, which was presented in a way that was easily accessible to them. Each governor was linked to a specific aspect of the school’s work, such as ensuring high levels of pupil attendance. Governors were also linked to a named member of staff who had responsibility for an aspect of the school’s work, and a process of regular reporting was established between the two. Reports were then discussed at committee meetings and reported back to the full governing body.
The meeting structure was also streamlined. Two committees, one focused on resources and the other on educational standards, were established. Each had clear terms of reference and a timeline of events throughout the year to ensure that all their statutory duties were met. Meetings were agenda-driven, had a clear focus and were conducted in a business-like way so were not too long. This way of working ensured that governors understood their strategic role and did not stray into operational matters. They understood their roles and responsibilties because there were clear induction procedures. All governors were provided with a governor handbook and there was an initial meeting for new governors with the headteacher, chair of governors and clerk.
Expectations were made explicit. Minutes of meetings recorded challenging questions and action points clearly. The school leaders took time to ensure that governors understood the information they were given. They encouraged all governors to ask questions and listen to what they had to say, providing more information, which included some from external experts. These processes built trust and confidence among governors who understood their role of ‘critical friend’ and were able to make informed decisions about the direction of the school.
The overall effectiveness and governance of the school were judged outstanding when inspected in September 2009.
The school was judged to require special measures in January 2007. Leadership and governance were inadequate and the school had a deficit budget. The Trust was asked by the local authority to provide support to the school, which began in March 2007. A period of significant change followed, including a change of headteacher and a new chair of the governing body. Improvement was rapid and the school was removed from special measures in October 2007. The substantive headteacher initially joined the school on a six-month secondment from the Trust. Key tasks for the new leadership were to build governors’ trust, provide them with accurate information about the school's performance, and establish systems and structures which used time effectively and helped governors to maintain a clear focus on improvement.
Two governors from the Trust brought with them a wealth of experience and expertise in school improvement. They used this to work with the governing body. They demonstrated how to use information that the school provided to ask insightful questions. Governors were provided with a wide range of information about the school’s performance, which was presented in a way that was easily accessible to them. Each governor was linked to a specific aspect of the school’s work, such as ensuring high levels of pupil attendance. Governors were also linked to a named member of staff who had responsibility for an aspect of the school’s work, and a process of regular reporting was established between the two. Reports were then discussed at committee meetings and reported back to the full governing body.
The meeting structure was also streamlined. Two committees, one focused on resources and the other on educational standards, were established. Each had clear terms of reference and a timeline of events throughout the year to ensure that all their statutory duties were met. Meetings were agenda-driven, had a clear focus and were conducted in a business-like way so were not too long. This way of working ensured that governors understood their strategic role and did not stray into operational matters. They understood their roles and responsibilties because there were clear induction procedures. All governors were provided with a governor handbook and there was an initial meeting for new governors with the headteacher, chair of governors and clerk.
Expectations were made explicit. Minutes of meetings recorded challenging questions and action points clearly. The school leaders took time to ensure that governors understood the information they were given. They encouraged all governors to ask questions and listen to what they had to say, providing more information, which included some from external experts. These processes built trust and confidence among governors who understood their role of ‘critical friend’ and were able to make informed decisions about the direction of the school.
The overall effectiveness and governance of the school were judged outstanding when inspected in September 2009.
Thursday, 26 May 2011
Recruitment, induction and training
Recruitment, induction and training
40. Over half of the governing bodies in the small sample had a full complement of governors at the time of the visits. Five of the remainder had a parent vacancy and one had a local authority vacancy. In one of the schools the governing body had been replaced by an interim executive board (IEB) when the school was judged to require special measures in 2007. In December 2009 the school’s capacity to improve was judged to be good and governance outstanding. At the time of the inspector’s visit, the IEB was implementing a transition plan to move from an IEB to a full governing body.
41. No difficulties were reported in recruiting governors in 11 of the 14 schools visited. Those with vacancies were confident that they would be filled. The headteacher of a special school saw changes of governing body membership as positive, bringing in new ideas, skills and expertise. Two secondary schools had experienced difficulties in recruiting parent governors. One reason for the difficulty was that parents felt that they did not have the time to commit to the role. In one of these schools, the size of the governing body had been reviewed and subsequently reduced from 18 to 14, including five parent governors. The number of committees was also reduced to two and the length of meetings restricted to no more than one and a half hours.
42. Typically, governors used their external contacts and networks to encourage others to put themselves forward to be governors. Governors who had initially become parent governors often remained on the governing body, for example as a community governor, when their term of office expired and they were no longer eligible to be a parent governor.
43. All new governors in the 14 schools visited received some form of induction. Typically new governors were given an induction pack which provided information about the school and explained the roles and responsibilities of governors. In some cases, this information was given to prospective governors to help them decide whether or not they wanted to become governors.
44. Attendance at training for new governors, for example, provided by the local authority, was another common feature of the induction process. In two cases, this had been provided in common with other local schools to avoid the difficulties encountered by some governors in travelling long distances across a local authority area.
45. More than two thirds of the schools visited held formal meetings for new governors with the headteacher, clerk and the chair of governors to support their induction. Typically these meetings took place before the new governor attended a governing body meeting. It helped to ensure that the new governor understood the protocols and procedures and had an opportunity to ask any questions. Over half of the 14 governing bodies allocated a mentor or buddy to new governors.
46. Governors in the schools visited undertook training, depending on their other commitments as well as the timing and location of training events, to update their knowledge and skills. In addition to induction training, governors undertook training on subjects such as special educational needs and the use of RAISEonline data. Typically, training was provided by the local authority. In one special school, governors who found it difficult to attend training events in the evening were exploring e-learning opportunities.
40. Over half of the governing bodies in the small sample had a full complement of governors at the time of the visits. Five of the remainder had a parent vacancy and one had a local authority vacancy. In one of the schools the governing body had been replaced by an interim executive board (IEB) when the school was judged to require special measures in 2007. In December 2009 the school’s capacity to improve was judged to be good and governance outstanding. At the time of the inspector’s visit, the IEB was implementing a transition plan to move from an IEB to a full governing body.
41. No difficulties were reported in recruiting governors in 11 of the 14 schools visited. Those with vacancies were confident that they would be filled. The headteacher of a special school saw changes of governing body membership as positive, bringing in new ideas, skills and expertise. Two secondary schools had experienced difficulties in recruiting parent governors. One reason for the difficulty was that parents felt that they did not have the time to commit to the role. In one of these schools, the size of the governing body had been reviewed and subsequently reduced from 18 to 14, including five parent governors. The number of committees was also reduced to two and the length of meetings restricted to no more than one and a half hours.
42. Typically, governors used their external contacts and networks to encourage others to put themselves forward to be governors. Governors who had initially become parent governors often remained on the governing body, for example as a community governor, when their term of office expired and they were no longer eligible to be a parent governor.
43. All new governors in the 14 schools visited received some form of induction. Typically new governors were given an induction pack which provided information about the school and explained the roles and responsibilities of governors. In some cases, this information was given to prospective governors to help them decide whether or not they wanted to become governors.
44. Attendance at training for new governors, for example, provided by the local authority, was another common feature of the induction process. In two cases, this had been provided in common with other local schools to avoid the difficulties encountered by some governors in travelling long distances across a local authority area.
45. More than two thirds of the schools visited held formal meetings for new governors with the headteacher, clerk and the chair of governors to support their induction. Typically these meetings took place before the new governor attended a governing body meeting. It helped to ensure that the new governor understood the protocols and procedures and had an opportunity to ask any questions. Over half of the 14 governing bodies allocated a mentor or buddy to new governors.
46. Governors in the schools visited undertook training, depending on their other commitments as well as the timing and location of training events, to update their knowledge and skills. In addition to induction training, governors undertook training on subjects such as special educational needs and the use of RAISEonline data. Typically, training was provided by the local authority. In one special school, governors who found it difficult to attend training events in the evening were exploring e-learning opportunities.
Wednesday, 25 May 2011
Strengthening leadership through governance: Making a difference
Strengthening leadership through governance
Making a difference
39. These effective governing bodies strengthened leadership by:
providing an external view and asking questions which challenged school leaders, encouraged alternative solutions to be found or tested proposals before they were adopted
having high aspirations for pupils, staff and the wider community
approving and monitoring priorities, ensuring policies were focused on the key priorities of teaching and learning, and increasing the pace of improvement
supporting the development of leadership potential within the school through effective training and development opportunities
using their skills, expertise and external networks to complement those of the school leadership team in improving provision and outcomes for pupils
supporting the appointment and retention of the best staff and actions to address underperformance. For example, in two of the secondary schools, governors participated in all senior and middle leadership appointments. One primary school included a governor on the appointment panel for all posts.
Making a difference
39. These effective governing bodies strengthened leadership by:
providing an external view and asking questions which challenged school leaders, encouraged alternative solutions to be found or tested proposals before they were adopted
having high aspirations for pupils, staff and the wider community
approving and monitoring priorities, ensuring policies were focused on the key priorities of teaching and learning, and increasing the pace of improvement
supporting the development of leadership potential within the school through effective training and development opportunities
using their skills, expertise and external networks to complement those of the school leadership team in improving provision and outcomes for pupils
supporting the appointment and retention of the best staff and actions to address underperformance. For example, in two of the secondary schools, governors participated in all senior and middle leadership appointments. One primary school included a governor on the appointment panel for all posts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)