| 1. LA
PROCEDURES FOR IDENTIFYING SCHOOLS CAUSING CONCERN |
| 1.1 |
Regular LA monitoring
and review ensures the identification of schools
causing concern. The following systems are in
place.
|
| 1.2 |
Annual Analysis
of Ofsted, National Curriculum Assessment Data,
and Fischer Family Trust Estimates and Actuals. |
| 1.2.1 |
In September the
Ofsted and performance data of all schools is
analysed together with data from school visits
and schools are categorised as follows:
- Ofsted categories of serious weakness,
special measures, formal warning
- Schools with a significant gap between
FFT, similar school estimates, and actual
attainment
- Schools where Ofsted and/or LA identified
concerns
- Schools where the trend is below the trend
for similar schools
- Schools where particular group/s of pupils
systematically under achieves
- Schools not meeting floor targets
|
| 1.2.2 |
Key Stage 1, 2, 3,
and 4 results are analysed in September and together
with FFT and QCA information, underperforming
subjects are identified. |
| 1.2.3 |
At the school LA
meeting in the autumn, SCOs provide this information
to the headteachers of the schools concerned
so that the reasons for underachievement can
be considered and strategies to address the underachievement
developed.
|
| 1.3 |
Termly Discussion
of All Schools. |
| 1.3.1 |
Termly discussion
at Curriculum and SCO meetings about schools
between SCOs, consultants, and team leaders. |
| 1.3.2 |
These meetings identify
concerns re standards, leadership and management,
quality of teaching, progress, inclusion and
turbulence, and agree next steps. This will include
SCO discussing concerns with relevant Heads of
Education (3-11; 11-19) and inclusion. |
| 1.3.3 |
These meetings also
identify good practice, successes etc. |
| 1.3.4 |
These meetings provide
an opportunity for moderation of SES work with
schools.
|
| 1.4 |
Single Conversation |
| 1.4.1 |
School self evaluation
of standards, quality of learning, leadership
and management, identification of priorities,
and school improvement planning are reviewed
annually in the Single Conversations. These meetings
are attended by the SCO, School Improvement Partner
(appropriately experienced member of SES staff),
the headteacher, members of SMT, and the Chair
of Governors. |
| 1.4.2 |
Prior to the Single
Conversation there will be an exchange of data
and information between the school and the LA. |
| 1.4.3 |
For new heads the
SCO will, if appropriate, meet to discuss the
requirements and process in advance of the formal
meeting. |
| 1.4.4 |
At these reviews
the following areas are considered:
- Standards
- Quality of teaching
- Leadership and management
- Resources, budget, and staffing
- Systematically analysed performance data
- Analysis of QCA data
- School improvement planning and progress
|
| 1.4.5 |
A record of the agreed
outcomes of the review will be sent to the Headteacher
and Chair of Governors within 15 working days. |
| 1.4.6 |
Where there are differences
of opinion these will be noted.
|
| 1.5 |
Other Systems
for Identifying Schools Causing Concern |
| 1.5.1 |
Serious concerns
relating to:
- behaviour
- management
- standards
may be brought to the attention of:
- Director of Lifelong Learning, or
- Assistant Director: Learning
Service, or
- Head of Management, or
- Head of Education 3-11, or
- Head of Education 11-19, or
- Head of Inclusion
by:
- other LA officers
- headteacher
- teachers
- parents
- governors
- professional associations
|
| 1.5.2 |
Where, in the judgement of the Senior
Officer receiving the information, the concern
is serious, and there is the need for a response
other than a routine SCO visit, the SCO will inform
the headteacher of the concern and the procedures
outlined below will be followed. |
| 2. CRITERIA
AND CATEGORIES FOR SCHOOLS CAUSING CONCERN |
| 2.1 |
Schools Causing
Concern |
| 2.1.1 |
The LA has 6 categories
of schools causing concern; two of which are
schools with exceptional needs (SWENs). The categories
are:
- Ofsted categories of serious weakness,
special measures, formal warning (SWEN)
- Schools with a significant gap between
FFT, similar school estimates, and actual
attainment (SWEN)
- Schools where Ofsted and/or LA identified
concerns
- Schools where the trend is below the trend
for similar schools
- Schools where particular group/s of pupils
systematically under achieves
- Schools not meeting floor targets
|
| 2.2 |
Criteria of Concern |
| 2.2.1 |
OFSTED categories
of serious weakness, special measures, formal
warning (SWEN) -
those schools which have been identified by
Ofsted as having serious weaknesses or requiring
special measures, or where the LA has issued
a formal warning. |
| 2.2.2 |
Schools with
a significant gap between FFT similar school
estimates and actual attainment (SWEN) -
those schools where FFT analysis has identified
actual attainment to be significantly lower
than expected when set against data for similar
schools. |
| 2.2.3 |
Schools where
Ofsted and/or LA identified concerns -
those schools where the Ofsted overall summary
indicates some improvement necessary. |
| 2.2.6 |
Schools where
the trend is below the trend for similar schools-
Those schools where the trend over time shows
that the improvement in attainment is below
the trend for improvement in similar schools |
| 2.2.5 |
Schools where
particular group/s of pupils systematically
under achieve/s -
those schools where data analysis identifies
that though the school overall is meeting appropriate
attainment standards, particular groups of
pupils are underachieving when compared with
similar pupils in similar schools. |
| 2.2.6 |
Schools not meeting
floor targets -
those schools not meeting DCSF Key Stage floor
targets |
| |
| 3. Strategies
to Address Areas of Concern |
| 3.1 |
Ofsted categories
of serious weakness, special measures, or LA
formal warning (SWEN). |
| 3.1.1 |
Where a school is
found to have a serious weakness, require special
measures, or a formal warning has been issued
by the LA, a SWEN (School with Exceptional Needs)
case conference of SCO, patch leader, key consultant,
Key Stage strategy manager, and key representative
are formed. Pupil support will be arranged by
the appropriate Head of Education (3-11; 11-19;
Head of Inclusion) to discuss evidence and to
agree desired outcomes, time span, and possible
actions. A senior officer will be identified
to act as designated responsible officer for
the programme. This meeting should consider whether
there are barriers to progress that are likely
to prove intractable to the school and Learning Service, and to consider what other
services and agencies should be involved to address
such barriers. |
| 3.1.2 |
The designated officer
will discuss with the Chair of Governors the
serious concerns noted and how the LA is working
with the headteacher to address these concerns. |
| 3.1.3 |
The SCO and designated
officer will work with the school to develop
the school action plan to address the key issues
within the appropriate timescale. |
| 3.1.4 |
The SCO and designated
officer will work within the education service
to develop an LA action plan to support the
school in addressing the key issues. This plan
together with the school action plan will be
discussed with the Senior Management Group (SMG). |
| 3.1.5 |
The SMG of the Education
Service will discuss the action plans and ensure
that all parts of the Service are aware of the
plans and the persons responsible for the implementation. |
| 3.1.6 |
The designated officer
will manage and contribute to the plan of action
for the school, the systematic programme of monitoring
progress, and the impact of actions on improved
quality. A written report is also to be provided
by the designated officer to the headteacher,
governing body, and SMG on a termly basis. |
| 3.1.7 |
Regular SWEN case
meetings of SCOs and key officers working with
the schools will be held by the designated officer
and the notes of these meetings will be discussed
with the headteacher, Head of Phase, and the
Assistant Director of Learning Service. |
| 3.1.8 |
It is expected that
the school will evidence progress against both
plans within six months. Also to successfully
evidence by the end of four terms that the causes
of special measures or the need for formal warning
are no longer present within the school. |
| 3.1.9 |
Where insufficient
progress is made, the need for further intervention
will be discussed and agreed with the Director
of Lifelong Learning. |
| 3.2 |
Schools with
a significant gap between FFT similar school
estimates and actual attainment (SWEN) |
| 3.2.1 |
This concern will
be discussed at the Single Conversation and the
school's improvement plan will be expected to
include specific strategies that the LA agrees
will address the concerns. |
| 3.2.2 |
The LA will provide
an appropriate support programme through the
national strategies (Primary, Key Stage 3, EMA,
Playing for Success, Attendance) and local strategies. |
| 3.2.3 |
Regular SWEN case
meetings of SCO, key officers working with the
school, will be held by the designated officer
and the notes of these meetings will be discussed
with the headteacher. |
| 3.2.4 |
Progress on the implementation
and impact of the plan will be monitored termly
by the SCO and Head of Phase or their representative,
and a report written to the headteacher and the
governing body. |
| 3.3 |
Schools where
Ofsted and/or LA identified concerns |
| 3.3.1 |
Where an Ofsted report
identifies areas where improvement is necessary,
the SCO will monitor at the Single Conversation
and through the regular monitoring visits to
ensure the post Ofsted action plan/school improvement
plan addresses these areas effectively and that
progress is made and sustained. Progress will
be noted in SCO notes of visit. |
| 3.3.2 |
Schools may be placed
in this category if the LA has reason to believe:
- standards and progress in the school,
- the quality of teaching and learning,
- leadership and management,
- behaviour and attendance,
to be less than satisfactory (Ofsted criteria),
where evaluation of the above would lead the
LA to consider the school to be underachieving
(Ofsted criteria). |
| 3.3.3 |
In some instances
a school, through its own system of self-evaluation,
will identify concerns and consider them sufficiently
serious, the school will be placed in this category. |
| 3.3.4 |
In these cases the
SCO will work with the school to develop an action
plan which will address these concerns, and will
monitor the implementation of the plan and its
impact through the Single Conversation and regular
monitoring visits. |
| 3.4 |
Schools where
the trend is below the trend for similar schools-
Those schools where the trend over time shows
that the improvement in attainment is below
the trend for improvement in similar schools |
| 3.4.1 |
In those schools
where data analysis identifies that the trend
is below similar schools, this will be discussed
at the Single Conversation with the school by
the SCO and, where appropriate, the school improvement
plan will be expected to work on addressing the
need for greater challenge for the pupils. |
| 3.5 |
Schools where
particular group/s of pupils systematically
underachieve/s |
| 3.5.1 |
In those schools
where data analysis identifies that through the
school overall is meeting appropriate attainment
standards, particular groups of pupils are underachieving
when compared with similar pupils in similar
schools, this will be discussed with the school
by the SCO and the school improvement plan will
be expected to address the causes of underachievement. |
| 3.5.2 |
The LA will make
available appropriate support programme through
the national strategies (Primary, Key Stage,
EMA, Playing for Success, attendance) and local
strategies. Progress in addressing the causes
of underachievement will be monitored by the
SCO and the patch leader. |
| 3.6 |
Schools not meeting
DCSF Key Stage floor targets |
| 3.6.1 |
Where schools are
not meeting the DCSF floor targets the Head of
Performance and Assessment will analyse the data
against FFT predictions for similar schools. |
| 3.6.2 |
Where the data demonstrates
that the pupils are progressing appropriately,
this will be confirmed with the school at the
Single Conversation and no further additional
support or action will be taken by the LA. |
| 3.6.3 |
Where the data demonstrates
that the pupils are underachieving this will
be discussed at the Single Conversation and the
school improvement plan will be expected to address
the causes of the underachievement. The LA will
make available appropriate support programmes
through the national strategies (Primary, Key
Stage, EMA, Playing for Success, attendance)
and local strategies. |
| 3.6.4 |
Progress in addressing
the causes of underachievement will be monitored
by the SCO and the patch leader. |
| 4. |
Where progress is
unsatisfactory and evaluation indicates that
the school improvement plan is not impacting
sufficiently on the causes of concern, a SWEN
case conference will be held by the Head of Phase,
a recommendation for a LA monitoring visit to
take place, and report of this visit to be provided
to the headteacher, the Chair of Governors, and
the Director of Lifelong Learning. |
