Kingsmead Community School is a smaller than average 11–16 secondary school serving a large rural area.
The governing body was very well organised and its committees provided the key for challenging and supporting the leadership of the school. These committees were closely involved in drawing up the school development plan and in monitoring progress against its priorities. Governors were passionate about the school and contributed a wide range of knowledge, skills and experience.
They ensured that they were well informed about the school’s work and undertook appropriate training as necessary, for example on RAISEonline and Fischer Family Trust data provided for members of the curriculum, learning and school performance committee.
Governors expected initiatives to be considered carefully and discussed in full. They subsequently provided strong support as well as rigorous scrutiny through the most appropriate committee. The views and ideas of the students were considered carefully through the representative for the student voice on the student services and pastoral committee. Students felt that they were listened to and that they made a real contribution to improving the school.
Governors’ ‘open days’ provided planned opportunities for approximately six governors to gather first-hand information about the school at work on one day each term. Governors visited a series of lessons, usually in pairs so that they had mutual support and someone with whom to discuss and share their thoughts. Governors also met with members of staff relevant to their role and spent time visiting alternative curriculum provision. The programmes for the days were designed to ensure that every member of staff was visited in the classroom by governors once a year.
Crucial to the success of these occasions was the trust and openness which characterised
relationships throughout the school, including those between staff and governors. Governors were there to see ‘the school in action’, talk to students when appropriate and observe relationships between them and between students and staff. At the end of an open day, participating governors met informally to compare their thoughts and share ideas with the headteacher. They also fed back orally to their committees who reported in turn to the whole governing body.
These days played a key role in enabling the governing body to check on progress with improvement priorities and to contribute strongly to shaping the direction of the continuing improvement of the school.
Friday, 3 June 2011
Thursday, 2 June 2011
Effective Governing Body Case Study: Horton Grange Primary School, Northumberland
Horton Grange Primary School, Northumberland
The school is larger than most primary schools. Nearly all pupils are of White British heritage. A higher than average proportion of pupils are eligible for free school meals. The proportion of pupils identified as having special educational needs and/or disabilities is higher than average, as is the proportion of pupils with a statement of special educational needs.
In 2007 the school was judged to require special measures. It went through a turbulent period as a consequence of high levels of staff absence and staff turnover. The current headteacher is the fourth to lead the school since November 2007. In January 2008, the local authority replaced the existing governing body with an IEB. Eight teachers, the headteacher, the deputy headteacher and a member of the senior leadership team have been appointed since January 2009.
Following an Ofsted monitoring visit in 2008, members of the IEB were informed that they were not receiving accurate information about the school. They reviewed the effectiveness of the initial IEB and decided to reduce the number of members to a core group with the skills to take the school forward. The IEB took action to appoint a replacement full-time headteacher. These robust actions were significant in moving the school forward rapidly.
The members of the smaller IEB shared a common sense of purpose and determination to drive improvement. They had the essential skills of education, finance, management and administration. In addition, they had experience of working on other governing bodies. The chair of the IEB was also the chair of a federation of schools. As a result, governors received accurate information about the school so they were able to robustly monitor and challenge. The school improvement partner provided regular and comprehensive reports on the quality of teaching, learning and pupils’ progress.
The IEB placed a high priority on appointing excellent teachers and devoted significant resources to the process. The school established a link with an outstanding school in a neighbouring authority to share practice and help with implementing improvement strategies, particularly the arrangements for appointing senior leaders and teachers. The headteacher and the school improvement partner went to see applicants for the deputy head post teaching in their own schools before short-listing took place, and then all were observed teaching in the partner school. The applicants for the deputy head post were observed by the head, the school improvement partner and the head of the partner school. The local authority has provided guidance and support to the IEB and the headteacher to deal with underperforming staff, using capability procedures.
At the previous inspection, there was no school self-evaluation or quality assurance of teaching and learning. A massive change was to get staff to take greater responsibility for their own performance. Governors supported this change by regularly monitoring reports on the outcomes of observation and quality assurance of teaching and learning. They triangulated the evidence on pupils’ assessment outcomes, looking at pupils’ work and observations of teaching and learning to ensure they had an accurate understanding of the school’s performance. They also undertook ‘learning walks’ to seek the views of staff and pupils.
In December 2009, the overall effectiveness of the school was judged as satisfactory and governance was judged to be outstanding.
The school is larger than most primary schools. Nearly all pupils are of White British heritage. A higher than average proportion of pupils are eligible for free school meals. The proportion of pupils identified as having special educational needs and/or disabilities is higher than average, as is the proportion of pupils with a statement of special educational needs.
In 2007 the school was judged to require special measures. It went through a turbulent period as a consequence of high levels of staff absence and staff turnover. The current headteacher is the fourth to lead the school since November 2007. In January 2008, the local authority replaced the existing governing body with an IEB. Eight teachers, the headteacher, the deputy headteacher and a member of the senior leadership team have been appointed since January 2009.
Following an Ofsted monitoring visit in 2008, members of the IEB were informed that they were not receiving accurate information about the school. They reviewed the effectiveness of the initial IEB and decided to reduce the number of members to a core group with the skills to take the school forward. The IEB took action to appoint a replacement full-time headteacher. These robust actions were significant in moving the school forward rapidly.
The members of the smaller IEB shared a common sense of purpose and determination to drive improvement. They had the essential skills of education, finance, management and administration. In addition, they had experience of working on other governing bodies. The chair of the IEB was also the chair of a federation of schools. As a result, governors received accurate information about the school so they were able to robustly monitor and challenge. The school improvement partner provided regular and comprehensive reports on the quality of teaching, learning and pupils’ progress.
The IEB placed a high priority on appointing excellent teachers and devoted significant resources to the process. The school established a link with an outstanding school in a neighbouring authority to share practice and help with implementing improvement strategies, particularly the arrangements for appointing senior leaders and teachers. The headteacher and the school improvement partner went to see applicants for the deputy head post teaching in their own schools before short-listing took place, and then all were observed teaching in the partner school. The applicants for the deputy head post were observed by the head, the school improvement partner and the head of the partner school. The local authority has provided guidance and support to the IEB and the headteacher to deal with underperforming staff, using capability procedures.
At the previous inspection, there was no school self-evaluation or quality assurance of teaching and learning. A massive change was to get staff to take greater responsibility for their own performance. Governors supported this change by regularly monitoring reports on the outcomes of observation and quality assurance of teaching and learning. They triangulated the evidence on pupils’ assessment outcomes, looking at pupils’ work and observations of teaching and learning to ensure they had an accurate understanding of the school’s performance. They also undertook ‘learning walks’ to seek the views of staff and pupils.
In December 2009, the overall effectiveness of the school was judged as satisfactory and governance was judged to be outstanding.
Wednesday, 1 June 2011
Effective Governing Body Case Study: Hexham Priory School, Northumberland
Hexham Priory is a community special school for pupils aged 3 to 19 years with severe learning difficulties, often in association with medical or other complex needs. The school serves a large rural area and the number of pupils has grown steadily over the last decade.A significant proportion of pupils are dual registered and also attend their local mainstream school on a part-time basis. The school moved into new purpose-built premises in September 2009 and has a full complement of 12 governors. The full governing body meets termly, supported by three committees for curriculum and standards, finance and premises.
Governors had a wide range of skills and had high expectations for the school and its pupils. Many governors were former parents who wanted to give something back in recognition of the progress that their children had made while at the school. These members understood the needs of parents and could provide high-quality guidance to other governors on the requirements of children with special needs and their families.
The governing body established a way of working where members felt valued and able to make a contribution to meetings. Governors were equally determined to achieve a successful school and to improve their own performance as governing body members. They established an excellent mechanism for strategic planning and self-review of their performance. An annual ‘Away Day’ was used to review the performance and impact of governance on the school. A key element of the day was to build a team of governors who worked effectively together. The outcomes were short- and long-term priorities for the school that fed into the school improvement plan. The day allowed governors the time to have an open discussion about the issues that were important to the school away from the formal agenda of the full governing body meeting and committees. From the Away Day, they produced notes and an action plan which reviewed achievements during the previous year and analysed where governors wanted to be in the future in areas such as relationships with parents, inclusion and the emotional health of pupils. Highly developed team- working by the governing body was evident in the building of new accommodation for the school.
Governors had a wide range of skills and had high expectations for the school and its pupils. Many governors were former parents who wanted to give something back in recognition of the progress that their children had made while at the school. These members understood the needs of parents and could provide high-quality guidance to other governors on the requirements of children with special needs and their families.
The governing body established a way of working where members felt valued and able to make a contribution to meetings. Governors were equally determined to achieve a successful school and to improve their own performance as governing body members. They established an excellent mechanism for strategic planning and self-review of their performance. An annual ‘Away Day’ was used to review the performance and impact of governance on the school. A key element of the day was to build a team of governors who worked effectively together. The outcomes were short- and long-term priorities for the school that fed into the school improvement plan. The day allowed governors the time to have an open discussion about the issues that were important to the school away from the formal agenda of the full governing body meeting and committees. From the Away Day, they produced notes and an action plan which reviewed achievements during the previous year and analysed where governors wanted to be in the future in areas such as relationships with parents, inclusion and the emotional health of pupils. Highly developed team- working by the governing body was evident in the building of new accommodation for the school.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)