Children’s Services

Cumbria Local Authority’s programme for monitoring, support, challenge and

intervention for school improvement

Updated : December 2007

Cumbria Local Authority’s programme for monitoring, support, challenge and intervention for school improvement

This is an updated version of the previous policy to include the revised DCSF statutory guidance for Schools

Causing Concern (May 2007) which gives the statutory powers and responsibilities of Local Authorities in

Part 4 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006.

Introduction

The purpose of our programme of monitoring, challenge, support and intervention is to work with schools to

improve the five outcomes for children and young people. The programme ensures that we can:

gather up-to-date intelligence about all schools and settings;

identify and share innovative and effective practice;

identify, as early as possible, issues of concern;

act quickly where issues of concern are emerging to prevent them developing into serious

concerns; and

work intensively with schools causing concern to tackle and remove the causes of these

concerns as quickly as possible.

The DCSF Guidance reinforces that schools have prime responsibility for their own improvement and for

making the best use of the universal programme of support and challenge the LA provides to all schools.

However, the LA adopts a differentiated approach where the level of support, challenge and intervention is in

inverse proportion to the school’s success and capacity to improve. In all cases, targeted support is planned

with the objective of developing the school’s own capacity to improve.

It is the collective role of all members of Children’s Services to guarantee that no school has difficulties or

serious concerns without the LA being fully aware of the situation and to put processes in place to support

the school to bring about necessary improvements.

Objectives1. To ensure that the LA has the most up-to-date intelligence on the status of all its schools by:

sharing information about school performance from all services and teams across the LA;

considering the information;

where there is sufficient evidence, making judgements on the schools;

where there is insufficient evidence or conflicting evidence, commissioning further information

gathering or agreeing to maintain a watching brief.

3. Where concerns are confirmed, to carry out a risk assessment of the status of the school, to quantify

the support required and to agree appropriate action to secure improvements.

(for example:

by providing priority access to school improvement programmes, such as the national strategies;

by sharing the concerns with the headteacher and discussing remedial action;

by inviting the governors to address the issue with an action plan;

by carrying out a formal review of the school’s provision to provide recommendations for action).

3. To share successes identified in order to:

celebrate achievement;

provide examples for others to disseminate, adopt or adapt; and

subsequently, provide for the Director a paragraph describing the issue, the success and

those responsible, for the Director’s complimentary letter.

4. To identify trends in themes or issues, which need further attention and improvement, monitor the

inherent risks and to commission appropriate action by:

analysing the issues raised in discussion about individual schools;

identifying the common trends;

consider the risks of inaction as a criterion for LA intervention;

deciding which are priorities;

communicating this information to the School Improvement Team for them to identify appropriate

action.

5. To inform the LA planning processes from which the LA strategic plan and Improving Educational

Outcomes (IEO) Plan are defined, by feeding priorities into:

the half termly meetings of the IEO Management Group;

the annual revision of IEO and the Service Plan.

creating programmes to meet these priorities;

using reports to DMT, Cabinet and Members’ Scrutiny Panel.

Consequential Remit for all teams in the Directorate:To consider, on a half termly basis, all of the schools they have had contact with:

to discuss these schools;

to identify any issues facing the schools;

to monitor the risk to the school of failing to act;

to consider the issues against the criteria agreed for identifying concerns;

to propose, via the team’s representative on Area Schools Standards Group (SSG), an

appropriate level of monitoring, support and intervention for any school with issues which meet

the criteria, or with other issues which give rise to concerns, small or large;

to propose at the Area SSG meeting, any action they consider appropriate for their team or other

team in the LA, to provide support to a school; and

to propose for commendation any school, member of staff or of governing body, who deserves

complimenting for an achievement or success, small or large.

Intended outcomes That the LA will know all its schools well;

That any concerns affecting the potential outcomes for pupils in schools will be known to the LA;

That the LA will act resolutely on this information;

That schools in difficulties will receive timely and appropriate help to resolve the difficulties;

That schools where there are serious concerns will receive prompt help, or, if they are unwilling

to receive help, appropriate intervention, to prevent the issues from deteriorating;

That staff in schools will receive timely and appropriate commendation for collective or individual

success and that where this is appropriate, their success will be recognised by the whole

education community and used to inspire successful practice in others;

That the analysis of issues, both those causing concern and those receiving recognition for

success, will inform the planning and risk assessment process and the LA’s improvement

activities.

Principles and Processes Items relating to an individual school will usually have been discussed with the Headteacher

and/or Chair of Governors in advance of any decisions about LA action.

This discussion will be initiated by the officer who has the concern; or by their line manager. If

the officer believes, following this discussion, that the matter should be passed on to the Area

School Standards Group, they will tell the Headteacher and/or Chair of Governors that they

intend to do this.

Any decisions of Area SSG relating to individual schools will be communicated to that school

(usually by the link school improvement officer) immediately.

Outcomes resulting in a change of a school’s designated level of support will be communicated

in writing by the Principal School Improvement Officer, separately to the Headteacher and Chair

of Governors and in relevant cases the link or senior school improvement officer will attend the

next meeting of the Governing Body to explain the context of the change.

Confidentiality and Openness Members of the LA will respect the confidentiality of information gathered about a school.

All details minuted at meetings about an individual school will be shared with the Headteacher

and Chair of Governors (Governing Body) of that school.

Details on an individual school will only be shared on a need to know basis of those who will

support subsequent action, and feedback to the officer who raised the concern in the first place.

In the case of celebrating successful practice details will be shared as appropriate with the

consent of the school/teacher.

Aggregate information on all schools in the county will be reported to the Directorate

Management Team, and through DMT to the Lead Member for Children’s Services and to the

County Council’s Scrutiny Panel.

Evaluation of the LA processesThe Directorate Management Team in consultation with the schools will evaluate the impact of the LA's

action and establish the baseline position from which we are intervening through risk assessment, in order to

secure the accountability of all LA intelligence gathering through:

monitoring the long term outcomes;

comparing the LA’s information with the results of Ofsted inspections;

the success of the "no surprise” strategies; and

evaluating the effectiveness of the LA’s processes through the use of the agreed ‘Performance

Framework for Children’s Services Authority Service to Schools’.

LA POLICY FOR SUPPORTING SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT – DIFFERENTIATED MODEL

IntroductionSchools have responsibility for their own improvement and for making the best use of the universal

programme of support and challenge provided to all schools. The LA recognises that school improvement is

most likely to be sustained when school managers identify their own priorities for raising standards and are

given the maximum possible control over the resources required to achieve this. In order for this to happen,

schools need to be well developed in the practice of rigorous self-evaluation. In most schools the LA’s rôle is

simply to encourage schools in this process.

The LA has statutory responsibilities in relation to the promotion of standards. It must monitor and come to a

view about the appropriateness of standards achieved. Furthermore, it is required to support or intervene in

schools (or ensure that an appropriate external agency is commissioned to do so) in inverse proportion to the

level of success achieved. In some schools additional support is thus necessary.

Even when required to intervene, however, the LA will seek to develop schools’ capacity for self-evaluation

and sustaining their own improvement. In all schools, the aspiration is that the school should take

responsibility for its own improvement and that the school develops the internal capacity to make the

necessary improvements

StrategyThis strategy assumes that the majority of schools are successful in providing good quality education for

pupils and achieving high standards. Where this is the case, monitoring will be confined to the minimum

necessary. It is expected, however, that the many successful schools in Cumbria will additionally invite

officers to observe good practice and to provide support and challenge to the school’s own self-evaluation

procedures. The outcome of this range of visits will allow for the identification and dissemination of

successful practice across schools and for successful schools to support and help less effective schools and

colleagues..

In other schools where, for a variety of reasons, provision is not as good as it should be, the LA will work with

the school to identify the most appropriate means of improving matters. In the case of serious concerns,

where the school and LA cannot agree a plan, the LA has statutory powers of intervention. The LA will act in

all such cases, according to the needs of the school and for the benefit of the children in the school.

Intervention will ensure that improvement is secured as quickly as possible. It will ensure that those schools

which are less successful in aspects of their work receive additional external support.

In reality, of course, even the most successful schools can improve; even schools causing concern will have

positive features. The policy does not seek to categorise any school as wholly successful or wholly

ineffective. It is a convenient way of determining where the balance lies. In particular, it needs to pick up as

early as possible those situations in which areas for improvement outweigh strengths, either because of their

number or their significance. For that reason, in includes ‘transitional stages’ at which emergent causes for

concern will be assessed.

Any strategy for school improvement requires the LA to know where to intervene and where it can afford to

leave matters to the school. The use of descriptors matched to levels of monitoring, intervention and support

is not about ranking schools or ‘naming and shaming’. It is a means to an end; the end being to provide

additional support to schools which need it. The intention is also to enhance that support by ensuring that it

is timely and well-focused on aspects of provision needing improvement.

The policy ensures that all schools know why they are or are not receiving additional support. Any

judgements made, interventions proposed and outcomes observed will be discussed with headteachers and

governors. Indeed, headteachers are also encouraged to identify their school’s need to change category

where they are aware of it. The policy is also intended to be responsive to changing circumstances. During

the course of the year various indicators might suggest that the school’s needs should be reviewed. Schools

might thus move around the matrix during the course of a year according to particular circumstances.

If a school appears to be giving cause for concern as a result of perceptions rather than ‘hard data’ – for

example, officers’ professional judgements or persistent complaints from the local community – the LA will

investigate these concerns before coming to a judgement about whether intervention is necessary. The

school (or department in a secondary school) will be subject to a sharply focused review by appropriate

school improvement officers. The purpose of the review will be to analyse the nature and validity of any

concerns and, if appropriate, propose a programme of action to resolve them. Both the analysis and any

recommended action will be shared with the headteacher and governing body, who will be asked to prepare

an action plan indicating how they intend to remedy the situation.

Sources of evidenceThe following approaches will be maintained and developed to ensure a good evidence base is available

against which to evaluate the quality of education provided by each school:

i) analysis of external evidence (‘hard data’), including

statutory assessment and examination data

value-added analysis

school targets and schools’ achievement thereof

Ofsted reports

Raiseonline reports

evidence from the Primary and Secondary National Strategy programmes

the School Improvement Plan

attendance and exclusions data

school budget information

internal audit reports

ii) monitoring visits by link school improvement officers and others to evaluate and discuss

the schools analysis of assessment data

the school’s willingness to set appropriately challenging targets

future strategies for school improvement including target setting

the quality of school self-evaluation

progress against the school’s stated priorities and targets

areas of successful practice

causes of concern (as described above)

iii) school perceptions

outcomes of school self-evaluation (where these have been shared with the LA)

concerns raised by headteachers

OperationBasic descriptors of schools, monitoring arrangements, the criteria by which schools will be categorised and

levels of monitoring and support which will be provided are set out in the remainder of this document. The

scheme should be seen as indicative rather than definitive or exclusive. It seeks to give a clear indication of

the LA’s approach to intervention in inverse proportion…, rather than spelling out circumstances before they

arise. Clearly, any strategy needs to leave scope for proper professional judgement whether of the

headteacher or other professionals visiting the school.

The scheme has been shared with governors, headteacher, teachers, school improvement officers and other

education professionals. It is published in the belief that openness and transparency will assist in the aim of

ensuring support for schools which most need it. It will operate as follows.

Level of monitoring / support / intervention Descriptor Monitoring programme Additional support

Monitoring and support Level 1

(MS1)

Successful schools in which outcomes are good and where all aspects of provision are good.

Termly monitoring visits. It is recognised that schools in any category may, from time to time, require additional support or be subject to additional monitoring for particular reasons; for example

schools with acting or new headteachers;

schools without a deputy head;

schools employing NQTs;

schools pursuing capability issues;

schools suffering other ‘temporary turbulence’.

Monitoring and support Level 2

(MS2)

Schools which, in addition to strengths, recognise areas in which they need to improve through self evaluation and are implementing actions. Schools which, with limited support if necessary, can successfully manage their own improvement.

Termly monitoring visits.

Transition Level 1

(T1)

Schools which are underperforming/have some weaknesses, but appear to be improving – though they may need short-term support.

Termly monitoring visit. Visits from other appropriate officers, including SIOs to monitor progress.

Transition Level 2

(T2)

Schools which are underperforming/need to improve, but appear unlikely to do so without considerable support.

Termly monitoring visit. Visits from other appropriate officers, including SIOs to monitor progress. Regular reports to School Specific Monitoring Group.

Monitoring and intervention Level 1

(MI1)

Schools which Ofsted inspection gives as Notice to Improve. Schools which the LA identifies, following formal review, as causing serious concern or which, without substantial improvement, would be likely to fail an inspection.

Termly monitoring visit. Visits from other appropriate officers, plus termly monitoring visit by a team of at least two SIOs, with written report to Principal SIO, HT, GB. Regular reports to School Specific Monitoring Group.

Monitoring and intervention Level 2

(MI2)

Schools identified by Ofsted inspection as requiring special measures or schools where the LA has exercised its powers to serve a Formal Warning Notice, or to establish an Interim Executive Board to replace the governing body or to suspend the financial scheme of delegation.

Termly monitoring visit. Visits from other appropriate officers, plus termly monitoring visit by a team of at least two SIOs, with written report to Principal SIO, HT, GB. Regular reports to School Specific Monitoring Group.

Criteria – schools’ needs of monitoring, intervention and support will be periodically assessed according to the extent to which there is effective provision in place to meet the requirements of the 5 ECM outcomes and where:

Key indicators – data which are consulted when coming to a view*

Significant triggers – indicators which prompt consideration of a move to a transition stage

Pupils achieve highly and make progress in relation to their capability and earlier attainment

Assessment results / RaiseOnline, particularly contextual value-added scores, other comparative data and trends over time for whole school and for groups including gender, ethnicity, LAC, LDD and other vulnerable groups

CVA – overall and/or in individual subjects and/or groups of pupils is less than 100(KS1-2), 100(KS2-3), 1000(KS3-4) 1000 (KS2-4)

Negative statistical significance in one or more aspects

Declining trends over time

Attendance, punctuality, behaviour and attitudes to school and to learning are good

Attendance and exclusion rates

Indications of expectations and positive attitudes

Attendance below national average

Unauthorised absence and/or exclusion rates above the national average

Unsatisfactory behaviour / poor attitudes

Teaching and learning are good or better Assessments of the quality of teaching and learning

More than 8% unsatisfactory overall, or within any key stage

The curriculum (including extra-curricular provision and out of hours learning) is broad and rich and meets the needs of all learners

Curriculum analysis, in particular its appropriateness for all learners

Extent of extra-curricular and out of hours opportunities

Statutory requirements not met.

Needs of significant numbers/groups of pupils not met

Inclusion is promoted well: the education of vulnerable children, those with disabilities and those with additional needs is effective

Curriculum analysis and organisation

Assessments of additional or specific support (eg IEPs, GEPs, PEPs)

Statutory requirements not met

Provision for particular groups or individuals is ineffective

Care, support, guidance and well-being of pupils are good Existence/implementation of effective, appropriate policies

Care, support and guidance inadequate

Well-being of pupils cause of concern

Good relationships are maintained with parents, partners and the community at large

Extent/use of communication and consultation with parents

Extent/quality of links and collaboration with partners including other schools

Significant numbers of complaints

Poor or ineffective links

Leadership, management and governance are effective Experience and skills of the headteacher and other leaders

Work of governing body

Clarity/focus of school’s vision

Effectiveness of processes/systems/structures

Statutory requirements

Weakness in headteacher or other key leaders’ skills

Lack of decisive leadership in tackling improvement issue

Weakness in governance

Ineffective processes/systems/structures

Failure to fulfil key statutory duties

Clear linkage between self evaluation processes, judgements about outcomes and provision and actions in the school improvement plan

Validity of self-evaluation processes

Quality of planning : School Improvement Plan

Lack of or poor self evaluation processes

Judgements inaccurate or unreliable

Lack of or poor school improvement plan

The school manages its budget effectively Budget position

Relationship between budget and educational priorities

Surplus of more than 10% for no apparent reason.

Deficit which cannot be repaid within three years or budget recovery plan which is not being adhered to

Professional relationships within the school are good Recruitment/retention, deployment and workload of staff

Low morale among staff

Poor relationships between staff

* These are a summary of the indicators which will be found in the Ofsted framework for inspecting schools. For a fuller account or explanation of the key indicators please refer to the relevant framework.

THE MONITORING PROGRAMME

Data analysis: the role of the Performance Review and Information Management TeamThe LA’s Performance Review and Information Management Team (PRIM) will collect and analyses a range

of statistical data. This will contribute to the monitoring and evaluation of performance. This data will include

academic performance, attendance, exclusions, FSM, behaviour, financial performance, leadership and

management. Following analysis and evaluation, the key information will be entered onto the Schools

Database and hence make a contribution to strategies for improvement and recognition of good practice.

LA Monitoring Programme — the role of the School Improvement Team (SIT)A major aspect of the LA’s strategy for monitoring school performance will be to gather and use information

from direct observations of school practice. Each school is assigned a school improvement partner (SIP) and

a link school improvement officer (LSIO) whose primary functions are to have a clear understanding of the

overall performance of the school and to provide appropriate advice in respect of those areas which require

improvement. SIPs / LSIO will visit schools regularly and with a frequency determined by the level of need.

They will draw upon the information available to them from each of the areas of monitoring activity described

earlier.

All visits made by SIPs / school improvement officers will result in a Note of Visit Report (NOV), which will be

sent to the head teacher and entered into the Schools Database. Head teachers will be advised to share

these NOV with their governing body.

Monitoring through other LA contactsMany of the other LA services have close contacts with schools and where these are on a formal basis,

information about their specialist aspect will also add to the information available on which a judgement will

eventually be made.

All visits made by LA officers will result in a Note of Visit Report (NOV) which will be sent to the head teacher

and entered into the Schools Database. Head teachers will be advised to share these NOV with their

governing body.

Specific concerns or celebrations will be shared with the school by the officer and also shared with the link

school improvement officer for the school.

Monitoring through Ofsted Inspection Reports

Ofsted inspection provides evidence from direct observation that gives rise to shared judgements about the

administrative, academic, professional, leadership, managerial and financial strengths and weaknesses of

the school.

Following an Ofsted inspection, information from the inspection, the strengths and weaknesses of the school

and major issues noted in the report will be acknowledge by the Director of Children’s Services in a letter to

the school. The reports will also be logged onto the Schools Database to inform other LA monitoring and

support activities.

The status of these issues will be updated periodically by the routine monitoring visits made by LA officers.

Identifying, reporting on and sharing successful practice

The first source of evidence of successful practice in schools will be the Directorate School Database. Many

visits to schools will result in “successful” or “good” practice being identified and the database will record

aspects of schools’ work which is deemed by school improvement officers or other LA officers to be

“exemplary in this school” or “exemplary in the LA”.

The database also contains reports from all school improvement officers’ visits, visits by other LA officers,

findings of Ofsted Inspections, and an analysis of Key Stage and GCSE performance. Professional

judgements, particularly on the quality of teaching and the ability of senior and middle management

successfully to address specific issues, will be translated to the database and retained as a record for

dissemination.

AREA SCHOOL STANDARDS GROUPS (AREA SSG)

PurposeTo ensure that every child receives the high quality of education to which he or she is entitled. To do this,

the LA will ensure through its area teams that it always has up-to-date intelligence on the status of all its

schools and of other Foundation Stage providers. It is the collective role of members of all service and unit

area teams to guarantee that no school has difficulties or serious concerns without the LA being fully aware

of the situation and to put processes in place to support schools to bring about necessary improvements.

Area SSG Principles and ProcessesIn each of the four areas of the county there is an Area SSG. The Area SSGs will meet every five weeks.

The role and remit of the Area SSGs are to bring together judgements about schools based upon secure

evidence held by the teams of the different services in the Directorate and to make recommendations about

school levels to the PSIO. These judgements will have been discussed during the service/unit specific area

team meetings held immediately prior to the Area SSG meetings and through individual discussions between

officers and their senior officer/manager.

Concerns and issues relating to a school which may not previously have been shared with the head teacher

may be raised at Area SSG of a school. However, following any decision by the Area SSG to record these

concerns or issues and to raise them with PSIO, the originating officer or a more senior officer from the same

service will raise the concerns or issues with the headteacher of the school before letters are sent. This

process should be followed so that any decisions made by PSIO about a school do not come as a surprise to

the head teacher.

Membership of Area SSGsSenior officers/Line managers from services and units from across the whole Directorate will constitute the

membership of the Area SSGs.

Area SSGs will be chaired by the Senior SIO for the area who will issue agendas, arrange for minutes to be

taken and distributed and take recommendations about school levels to the PSIO for confirmation.

Area SSG attendees will include:

School Improvement Team - Senior School Improvement Officer - Chair

Special Educational Needs

14-19 Partnership

Education Psychology Service

Educational Welfare Service

Specialist Advisory Teacher Team

Early Years / Foundation Stage

Children’s Social Care and Family Support

Looked After Children Education Service

Ethnic Minority / Race / Equality Unit

Governor Support Team

Extended Schools / Children’s Centres

Finance Team

HR

Any change of a school’s designated level of support proposed by the Area SSG will be submitted by the

Senior SIO for the area to the PSIO for approval.

Remit1. To ensure that the LA has the most up-to-date intelligence on the status of all its schools by:

sharing information from all services and teams within the area;

considering the information collectively;

where there is sufficient evidence, making judgements on the schools;

where there is insufficient evidence or conflicting evidence, gathering further information or

maintaining a watching brief.

2. Where concerns are confirmed, to recommend to the Principal SIO (PSIO) that a risk assessment of

the status of the school be carried out, that the support required be measured and that appropriate

action be agreed, to secure improvements. For example by:

by recommending priority access to school improvement programmes, such as the primary

national strategy;

by directly sharing the concerns with the headteacher and discussing remedial action;

by inviting the governors to address the issue with an action plan;

by recommending that a formal review of the school’s provision be carried out.

The area senior school improvement officer, is empowered to proceed with necessary actions

relating to individual schools and then to get retrospective approval from PSIO at the earliest

opportunity.

3. Where successes are identified, to share those with the area team in order to:

celebrate achievement;

provide examples for others to disseminate, adopt or adapt,

and subsequently provide for the Director a paragraph describing the issue, the success and

those responsible, for the Director’s complimentary letter.

4. To identify trends in themes or issues in schools in the area, which need further attention and

improvement, monitor the inherent risks and to commission appropriate action by:

analysing the issues raised in discussion about individual schools;

identifying the common trends within areas and sharing these across areas;

consider the risks of inaction as a criterion for LA intervention;

deciding which are priorities;

communicating this information to the IEO Managers Group for them to identify appropriate

action relating to the IEO Plan.

5. To inform the LA planning processes from which the LA strategic plan and IEO Plan are defined by

feeding priorities into the meetings of the Directorate senior management group for forwarding to:

the half termly meetings of the IEO Managers Group;

the annual revision of IEO and the Service Plan.

Consequential Remit for all area based teams in the Directorate:To consider, prior to the Area SSG meetings, all of the schools they have had contact with:

to discuss these schools;

to identify any issues facing the schools;

to monitor the risk to the school of failing to act;

to consider the issues against the criteria agreed for identifying concerns;

to propose, via the team’s representative on Area SSG, an appropriate level of monitoring for any school

with issues which meet the criteria, or with other issues which give rise to concerns, small or large;

to propose through the Area SSG meeting any action they consider appropriate for their team or other

teams in the LA to provide support to a school; and

to propose for commendation any school, member of staff or governing body, who deserves

complimenting for an achievement or success, small or large.

Area SSG: Intended outcomes That the LA will know all its schools;

That any concerns affecting the potential outcomes for pupils in schools will be known to the LA;

That the LA will act resolutely on this information;

That schools in difficulties will receive timely and appropriate help to resolve the difficulties;

That schools where there are serious concerns will receive prompt help, or, if they are unwilling to

receive help, appropriate intervention, to prevent the issues from deteriorating;

That staff in schools will receive timely and appropriate commendation for collective or individual

success and that where this is appropriate, their success will be recognised by the whole education

community and used to inspire successful practice in others;

That the analysis of issues, both those causing concern and those receiving recognition for success, will

inform the planning and risk assessment process and the LA’s improvement activities.

Confidentiality and OpennessMembers of the Area SSGs will respect the total confidentiality of information shared at the meetings. No

details on an individual school will be shared outside of the Area SSG except on a need to know basis of

those who will support subsequent action, and excepting feedback to the officer who raised the concern in

the first place. In the case of celebrating successful practice details will be shared as appropriate with the

consent of the school/teacher.

Evaluation of the Area SSG

The PSIO will evaluate the impact of the Area SSG action and establish the baseline position for intervention

through risk assessment, in order to secure the accountability of all LA intelligence gathering through:

monitoring the long term outcomes;

comparing the area team’s information with the results of Ofsted inspections;

the success of the "no surprise” strategies in the area; and

evaluating the effectiveness of the area team’s processes.

LEVELS OF MONITORING, SUPPORT AND INTERVENTION

Basic allocationThe LA will allocate time for monitoring, support and intervention to schools according to need within its

differentiated model of levels of monitoring, support and intervention. All schools will receive three

monitoring visit per year from their School Improvement Partner (SIP) to focus on the outcomes of the desk-

based review of school performance, to agree targets for attainment and to discuss and agree improvement

priorities, actions and support needs. Schools in need of high levels of support at T2 and above will also

receive additional visits in line with the LA policy for differentiated support from SIOs and other officers from

across the Directorate assigned to the school.

Enhanced levels of monitoring, support and interventionSome schools will, from time to time, need an enhanced level of monitoring and support. The LA has clear

criteria to identify these cases and additional time is allocated to the school, from those officers most relevant

to the issues identified.

The LA’s IEO indicates the ways in which the LA is committed to supporting schools which are under-

performing.

The LA will provide both centre-based training programmes and in-school support to secure the development

of staff in schools. SIPs will draw head teachers’ attention to the provision of all relevant training programmes

and access to school-based developments where the school has not already identified them. SIPs, will also

assist the schools in the selection processes connected with identifying best value in terms of purchased

support.

Monitoring and Support Level 1 (MS1)Schools identified as Monitoring and Support Level 1 (MS1) will receive only the basic entitlement of three

visits per year. They may opt for further visits by their link school improvement officer to share some

interesting practice or to have an aspect of their school self evaluation validated.

Monitoring and Support Level 2 (MS2)Many schools may have low level or temporary development issues, which require some extra LA monitoring

and support. Schools identified at this level will be given an opportunity for enhanced link school

improvement officer monitoring and support in response to low level or temporary development issues.

Transition Level 1 (T1)Schools at this level will receive three visits per year by the SIP. Schools at this level will already be in

discussion about the issues for improvement with their link school improvement officer or other officer. They

may have drawn them, or other issues causing them concern, to the attention of the LA as a result of their

regular self-evaluation.

Schools will be required to indicate how they intend to effect relevant improvements and may be

recommended to seek external support. However, at this level the LA is confident that the school can deal

appropriately with the issues with a small amount of additional support within an appropriately short

timescale. The standard Note of Visit will confirm the SIP’s conversation with the headteacher. The PSIO

will recommend to the chair of governors that the item is routinely included on the agenda of meetings of the

governing body while the school remains at T1. The SIP’s Note of Visit will routinely refer to the school’s

progress in improving the aspects identified.

Schools at this level will have a SSMG chaired by the school’s link school improvement officer and include

the headteacher and chair of governors. The group may also include any other officer whose expertise is

relevant to the identified concern. This group will meet termly (or more frequently where deemed necessary)

to review progress against the revised school improvement plan and agree the report to the PSIO.

This level is a transition level and is time limited. Schools which do not show appropriate improvement within

a specified time will be reviewed formally by a review team of school improvement officers and a member of

the school senior staff. This team will consist of at least two school improvement officers and may also

include officers from other services as appropriate to the issues of concern. Following this review a decision

will be made by the PSIO either to extend the period for improvement within T1 or to recommend moving to a

higher level of monitoring, support and intervention. The headteacher and chair of governors will be

informed in writing about the decision of the PSIO.

Transition Level 2 (T2) Schools at this level will receive three visits by the SIP per year. Schools at this level will already be in

discussion about the issues with their link school improvement officer or other officer. They may have drawn

them, or other issues causing them concern, to the attention of the school improvement officer as a result of

their regular self-evaluation. Schools will be required to indicate through a formal action plan how they intend

to effect relevant improvements within a specified timescale and may be recommended to seek external

support. However, at this level the LA is not confident that the school can deal appropriately with the issues

without additional monitoring and support. Hence schools at this level will receive up to one additional visit

per term from the link school improvement officer or by another LA officer determined as relevant to the

nature of the concern.

Schools at this level will have a SSMG chaired by the school’s link school improvement officer and will

include the headteacher, chair of governors, other senior staff, other governors and other officers whose

expertise is relevant to the identified concern. This group will meet termly (or more frequently where deemed

necessary) to review progress against the revised school improvement plan and agree the report to the

PSIO.

This level is a transition level and is time limited. Schools which do not show appropriate improvement within

a specified time will be reviewed formally by a review team of school improvement officers and a member of

the school senior staff. This team will consist of at least two school improvement officers and may also

include officers from other services as appropriate to the issues of concern. Following this review a decision

will be made by the PSIO either to extend the period for improvement within T2 or to recommend moving to a

higher level of monitoring, support and intervention at level MI1. The headteacher and chair of governors will

be informed in writing about the decision of the PSIO.

Monitoring and Intervention Level 1 (MI1) Schools at this level are deemed to be causes of concern within the LA, additionally they may have been

served a Notice to Improve at their Ofsted inspection.

It will always be the case that the head teacher will be aware of the increasing concerns which the LA has

about the school. The principal and senior school improvement officers will arrange for a formal review to be

carried out. Where the outcomes of the formal review indicate serious concerns a recommendation will be

made to move the school to MI1. In this case the link school improvement officer and/or senior school

improvement officer will discuss with the head teacher the move to MI1 and whilst the views of the

headteacher will be taken into account, the LA’s view will prevail.

Decisions about the need to use this enhanced level of monitoring are confirmed by PSIO. A letter will be

sent to the headteacher and chair of governors confirming the need to move the school to MI1. The PSIO

may, in specific circumstances, commission the link school improvement officer and senior school

improvement officer to meet with the headteacher and chair of governors.

Schools at this level, as a base allocation, will receive three visits by the SIP per year and up to two

additional visits per term from the link school improvement officer or by another LA officer determined as

relevant to the nature of the concern.

Schools at this level will have a SSMG chaired by the area senior school improvement officer and will include

the headteacher, chair of governors, other senior staff, other governors, link SIO and other officers whose

expertise is relevant to the identified concern. This group will meet half termly (or more frequently where

deemed necessary) to review progress against the revised school improvement plan and agree the report to

the PSIO and DMT.

Monitoring and support for schools at MI1

All schools identified at this level will be required to revise their School Improvement Plan within four working

weeks of the receipt of the letter notifying the governing body of the cause for concern and the move to MI1.

This revised SIP should be agreed by the governors of the school. The link school improvement officer is

responsible for liaison with the school to seek to ensure that principal school improvement officer can agree

the plan. Other (specialist) school improvement officers should be called upon by the link school

improvement officer to provide advice at this stage, as relevant.

The school will be supported in this action planning by intensive work with the link school improvement

officer. The support to be provided by the LA will be negotiated by the senior school improvement officer and

provided by the appropriate LA services. A formal LA Statement of Action will be completed. Schools will

also be able to access support from other public, private or voluntary organisation and the link school

improvement officer will be able to advise on the selection process.

Schools will be able to purchase support from the LA’s CCPD Service. All support and monitoring activities

provided by the LA for such schools will be agreed by the SSMG.

The area service teams will discuss the progress of all such schools at each of their meetings and senior

officers from each service will bring the judgements and evidence of progress to the Area SSG meetings.

Discussions will be recorded and any outcomes and recommendations noted in the minutes of the Area SSG

Meeting which will then be reported to PSIO by the senior school improvement officer.

MonitoringAt MI1, schools will receive at least one visit per term from a review team of school improvement officers and

other officers as appropriate to the issues of concern. The review team may also include a member of the

school’s senior staff and/or an ‘associate’ headteacher. The findings of the termly visit will be reported in

writing to SSMG and to the principal school improvement officer. The SSMG will recommend to the chair of

governors that the item is routinely included on the agenda while the school remains at MI1. The termly

report will include recommendations for future action by the school and for the LA.

The PSIO will consider the evidence and consider appropriate action. This may be that the school will revert

to T2 or even to T1 or MS2. Alternatively, if a school has not made sufficient progress after two terms it may

receive a further term’s monitoring.

MI1 Reviews

SSMG will be advised of the date the review. The review team will spend:

a day each in primary and special schools;

two days in a secondary school.

Confirmed dates for review visits should be logged on the Schools Database to make them available to all

relevant staff.

The review team will report to the area senior school improvement officer and the principal school

improvement officer by sending the report electronically within 7 days of the visit. A copy will then go to the

school for factual checking. If there are issues to be raised this may delay the usual two week agreement for

receipt of the final report in school.

The timescale allocated for each school to improve its identified issues is between two terms and one year. If

the recommendation is that the progress made by the school is unsatisfactory, this may result in a

recommendation that the school be issued with a formal warning notice.

Secondary School Department monitoring:

There are cases when a secondary school does not meet the criteria for MI1 monitoring and support, but

where one or two departments are showing intractable problems which have not responded to the support

given to the school at lower levels. In these cases, the PSIO may decide that the individual department(s)

requires monitoring and support at MI1 and similar procedures apply.

There will be a meeting between the link or senior school improvement officer, the specialist school

improvement officer, the head teacher and the head of department. The department will be required to

prepare a department improvement action plan, identifying the action to be taken and any support which is

needed.

The specialist school improvement officer will be available to provide support for the creation of the action

plan and to provide or negotiate any support the department may identify. The principal school improvement

officer and the senior school improvement officer will agree this action plan and on acceptance of the plan

support can be allocated from appropriate officers.

A timescale for improvements will be agreed and an LA school improvement officer will make regular visits to

monitor the department and the school’s response to managing the improvements. These visits will be

reported to PSIO.

The area senior school improvement officer will establish a Department Specific Monitoring Group (DSMG)

chaired by the link or senior school improvement officer and attended by the relevant specialist school

improvement officer(s), the school’s head teacher and the relevant head of department. This group will meet

termly in school and will provide a written report to SSG including the specialist school improvement officer’s

half termly NOV and the area’s view of the school’s management of improvement. After the agreed

timescale, a decision is made by the PSIO about the continuing status of the department and/or the school.

Primary Schools at MI1 longer than 2 terms / Secondary Schools at MI1 longer than 3 terms.

An appropriate Committee of the Governing Body should receive a termly report from head teacher and a

report from the relevant school improvement officer (usually a copy of the termly NOV).

The LA strongly advises that at this stage the Governing Body adopts the practice regarding special interest

governors. A governor should be attached to each Key Issue to monitor progress and report back termly to

the full Governing Body.

A school improvement officer will attend the meeting of the governing body to advise about the issues once

the 2 term/3 term limit is past. The LA may decide to use its powers of intervention including serving a

Formal Warning Notice (FWN) or establishing an IEB.

Monitoring and Intervention Level 2 (MI2)A school will be placed into this level of monitoring and intervention where the school is identified by an

Ofsted inspection as requiring special measures or schools for which a formal warning notice has been

issued by the LA. Schools at this level, as a base allocation, will receive three visits by the SIP per year and

as many additional visits from the link school improvement officer or by another LA officer determined as

appropriate to the nature of the concern.

Schools at this level will have a full service SSMG, chaired by the principal school improvement officer, and

will include the headteacher, chair of governors, other senior staff, other governors and other officers from

across all relevant units of the Directorate. This group will meet monthly to review progress against the

revised school improvement plan and agree the report to DMT.

Reviewing the evidence The link school improvement officer, supported by the principal school improvement officer, will review the

evidence (from LA or Ofsted findings) with the headteacher and the governing body and the agreement

reached will form the basis of the further involvement of the LA. In the case of an Ofsted inspection this will

take place as soon as possible after the feedback to governors with a second meeting taking place after the

publication of the report.

Every attempt will be made to achieve a consensus about the action which needs to be taken. The LA will

provide guidance for the structure and contents of the Action Plan.

The link school improvement officer or other designated LA officer will work closely to support the

headteacher and the governors in preparation of a revised School Improvement Plan which the LA believes

will remove the causes of the weaknesses identified. This work should begin immediately the Key Issues

have been identified and should not be delayed until the publication of the final report. The link school

improvement officer will provide the school with as much support as the senior school improvement officer

decides is appropriate. The school’s improvement plan will be sent to the principal school improvement

officer for agreement. The senior school improvement officer and link school improvement officer will then

draw up the LA commentary which will comment on the school’s action plan and will detail the support that

the LA will provide. The principal school improvement will agree this commentary and forward it to Ofsted.

Action planning and securing improvements

The school’s link school improvement officer will act as the key adviser to the governing body and:

support the school in making a detailed analysis of the Key Issues and the body of the report;

provide guidance for the creation of the action plan and exemplars of good practice. In particular, the

link school improvement officer will support the head teacher and governors as they:

o identify the most significant actions required for each key issue;

o identify the methods to be used to monitor progress;

o specify detailed success criteria by which the school may measure progress.

provide critical appraisal of the structure, content and timescale for the action plan;

provide guidance on the support mechanisms the LA which can bring to the action plan. Information

about resources from the additional school improvement grant in the Standards Fund will be made

available so that the school may make representations to the LA to supplement its own resources in

implementing its action plan. The LA will make available the expertise of specialist school

improvement officers and curriculum support consultants and teachers and negotiate their

deployment in a support package as appropriate to the needs identified, including the allocation of a

partner school.

The principal school improvement officer will provide quality assurance of the school’s improvement plan and

for the LA’s commentary.

Statutory duties of the LA

In the case of those schools identified by Ofsted as requiring special measures, the LA will prepare a

commentary following completion of the school’s action planning process. In accordance with the Schools

Causing Concern Circular (May 2007), the LA will:

assess the scope for closure and transference of pupils to neighbouring better performing schools;

confirm its view that the action plan will address the issues satisfactorily within the given time

periods;

describe, following discussion with the school, its arrangements for evaluating and monitoring the

effectiveness of the school’s actions and the LA support.

Intervention at MI2 / MI1Any school placed in Special Measures or given a Notice To Improve by Ofsted will receive immediate

assistance on the construction of the revised School Improvement Plan from the link school improvement

officer. This process will also be overseen and supported by the area senior school improvement officer who

will report directly to the principal school improvement officer.

The statement of planned LA action and commentary on the school’s action plan, including for school

requiring special measures, a statement on the school’s viability and target date for the removal from special

measures, will be produced by the relevant link school improvement officer and the senior school

improvement officer in consultation with the principal school improvement officer.

Target dates for removal from special measures will be within the timescale set by Ofsted.

Any decisions regarding the appointment of additional governors, or the suspension of financial delegation,

FWN or IEB will be taken:

initially, if necessary, during the preparation of the LA statement of action; or

after an initial period of LA support, if these issues remain/become a cause for concern.

In both instances, the principal school improvement officer will make recommendations to the Directorate

Management Team who will then decide the appropriate course of action.

During a period of special measures, all schools will receive regular visits by the link school improvement

officer to monitor the progress of the action plan. The SSMG will receive copies of the NOV and any review

team reports. It may also be necessary to allocate additional staff to the school in the form of advisers or

consultants. This will be requested by the SSMG.

In addition, alongside HMI monitoring visits, the LA will provide focused evaluations of key issues through a

review team of two or more school improvement officers and, where appropriate, an ‘associate’ headteacher,

making in-school observations and reporting to the senior managers of the school.

During OFSTED monitoring visits, the link school improvement officer will liaise with the visiting HMI and also

represent the LA at feedbacks. If appropriate, the senior school improvement officer or principal school

improvement officer will also be in attendance. Following each monitoring visit, the LA will review its planned

monitoring and support arrangements with the school.

Liaison with the relevant Diocesan bodies will be carried out in respect of Foundation schools.

Establishing monitoring and support An LA Review Team made up of two school improvement officers and where appropriate an ‘associate’

headteacher will visit the school at least termly for a day in primary and special schools or two days in

secondary schools to report on the progress made by the school.

A support team will be identified related to the support allocated in the LA commentary, according to the

needs in the Action Plan, and will include staff from the School Improvement Team (school improvement

officers, primary or secondary consultants, Consultant Leaders, ASTs, leading teachers), the CCPD Service

and other services within the Directorate. A partner school will be identified to work with the school. This will

be funded by the school and in some cases supported by the Standards Fund grant for targeting to schools

causing concern.

The PSIO will agree an individually tailored package of support for schools at MI2 which will be eligible for

the funds allocated through the Standards Fund grant for targeted schools.

The Action Plan and associated package of support will be agreed if it is in line with the issues identified and

consistent with the criteria laid down in the Standards Fund Circular. Schools at this level may be directed

towards sources of support within and outside the LA.

Once the action plan is in place the link school improvement officer will co-ordinate an evaluation of the

effectiveness of the support package and of the school’s internal review of progress against the timescale

prescribed.

Initial decisions and consideration of the need to issue a formal warning. It is to be hoped that by use of the foregoing processes within the scope of the DCFS Code of Practice, a

consensus will be reached on the actions which should be taken. If it proves impossible to reach an agreed

course of action with the Governors and head teacher, the LA will use its powers to issue a formal warning to

the school. This could enable the LA to consider the need to:

appoint additional governors;

establish an IEB

suspend the school’s right to a delegated budget and other delegated powers;

impose and fund an action plan from the targeted Standards Fund;

make recommendations to the governing body on any action related to the position of headteacher.

The area senior school improvement officer supported by the principal school improvement officer will

present the decisions taken to a specially convened governing body meeting.

When agreement has been reached on the action to be taken by the school and by the LA, the Authority’s

involvement will be in two strands:

monitoring and evaluation of improvement; and

action planning and school support.

Monitoring visits

The first monitoring visit by the area team will take place within one term of the identification of the concerns

with a written report being made to the senior school improvement officer, the school, the SSMG and the

PSIO and DMT. The review team will then visit the school termly to evaluate progress. A member of the

review team may be invited to attend the SSMG meeting to present the report.

The following formal reports will be made termly to the PSIO, who is in a position to make decisions about

the future recommendations for the school:

the senior school improvement officer will report about the school’s management of improvement

and improvements effected;

the link school improvement officer will report via the senior school improvement officer on the

effectiveness of the support provided to the school through the negotiated support package;

the review team will report via the principal school improvement officer at the SSMG and DMT about

the school’s progress.

The PSIO will consider the evidence and commission appropriate action. For a school with a Notice to

Improve (NTI) the school will be expected to remove the causes of the weaknesses within one year. The

school’s improvement plan and the LA statement of support should reflect this.

For a school where a formal warning notice has been issued, the LA will expect the school’s improvement

plan to indicate a timescale that is commensurate with the compliance period of the notice.

If at any time the recommendation of the monitoring teams is that the progress made by the school is

unsatisfactory, the principal school improvement officer will report the matter to the Head of Schools and

Learning with the recommendation either that additional powers are required or that Ofsted be requested to

make a further inspection.

Schools facing Challenging Circumstances

A number of schools have been identified by the DCSF as being “in challenging circumstances”.

Many of these schools are likely to have been identified within the LA as needing the higher levels of

monitoring and intervention provided by MI1. In these cases, the existing MI1 procedures remain in place

with a possible time adjustment for completion of the action plan (known for these schools as the Raising

Achievement Plan - RAP).

For those schools which had not been identified by the LA as needing the MI1 intervention, the LA’s MI1

requirements are modified.

These schools are required to produce a RAP during the summer term, which has to be agreed by the LA

before the funding is released.

The schools MUST use a ‘third party’ to support their developments. This ‘school improvement adviser’ (SIA)

may be a senior manager from another school or the services of an LA associate head teacher. Schools

may use the budget allocated to their RAP for this purpose.

The LA is required to monitor the implementation of the RAP. Therefore, the following MI1 modified

processes will operate:

support for the creation of the RAP (if requested) from the link school improvement officer or a ‘third

party’;

link school improvement officer to receive a copy of the RAP;

support for the implementation of the RAP;

monitoring termly by the area team;

a termly SSMG (LI, SI and HT) held in school, reported via a NOV;

termly reports to the LA SST; and

reporting annually to the Governing body about the outcomes achieved.

Intervention in schools where there has been a sudden unforeseen crisisInstances of an unforeseen crisis may occur with consequences that are wide ranging and long-lasting.

While most of the above actions apply, the situation may be more intractable and the LA may have to extend

the timescale while still maintaining close monitoring and providing an intensive support package for the

school.

In this case the LA’s response is closer to the plans for supporting a school requiring special measures and

the timescale for improvement is two years.

Powers of Intervention of LA– see May 2007 guidance

The full guidance and related documents can be accessed at

www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/sie/si/SCC/ .

Consideration of use of LA Powers of Intervention to secure school improvement

DMT

Intervene by Requesting Action

DCS / HoSL/ PSIO

Appoint additional governors

OrSuspend delegated budget

OrSuspend GB set up IEB

OrSuspend Headteacher

DCS / HoSL / PSIO

Issue directions where discussions have broken down

DCS

Action

Action Not Taken

Action Not Taken

Action Taken

Monitor

Action Taken

Monitor

Remove FWN

DCS

SSMG

Serve Formal Warning Requiring School to Take

Action

DCS / HoSL/ PSIO

Monitor

Cease use of powers

DCS

SCHOOL SPECIFIC MONITORING GROUP (SSMG)

School Specific Monitoring Groups (SSMG) will be established when interventions at Transition Level 1

and 2 (T1 and T2) and at Monitoring and Intervention Level 1 and Level 2 (MI1 and MI2) are judged to be

necessary.

The SSMG will review and coordinate the support that the school needs and ensure that, while addressing

the immediate priorities, the school is still able to keep a longer term perspective and can build the internal

capacity to manage further improvement. The SSMG will monitor the implementation of the amended school

improvement plan and LA support. Specifically through the chair, the role of the SSMG is to:

Secure the writing and implementation of the action plan

Hold the school leaders, governors and LA to account for progress of the action and support plans

Determine the focus for periodic monitoring visits by an LA review team.

Receive reports of progress from all the main parties.

Make judgements about the school’s up-to-date position.

Agree and secure appropriate next steps for the school.

Monitor improvement and recommend changes to Level.

This role is set within the context of an appropriate action plan prepared by the school.

All SSMG meetings will review progress against the identified key issues of concern in the school and

actions agreed in the action plan. Each issue will be reported upon by the schools’ Senior Management

Team, the Governors and the LA review process in order to secure an all round view.

Transition Level 1 (Temporary fixed period intervention to remove an initial concern)

Chair : Link SIO, (Senior SIO Monitoring as necessary)

Membership : Headteacher, Chair of Governors

: Other members for specific needs

Purpose : A fixed term phase to monitor, support and assess the school’s capacity for

sustained self improvement and to recommend subsequent needs.

Meetings : Held in the school and sufficiently regular (at least termly) to ensure closely

monitored improvement.

The work of the SSMG will be monitored by PSIO through reports from Link SIO/SSIO and periodic

attendance at SSMG

Transition Level 2 (Temporary fixed period intervention to remove an initial concern)

Chair : Link SIO, (Senior SIO Monitoring as necessary)

Membership : Headteacher

: Chair of Governors

: SLT colleagues (as appropriate)

: 2 other governors

: Other LA officers as appropriate and relevant to concerns

Purpose : A fixed term phase to monitor, support and assess the school’s capacity for

sustained self improvement and to recommend subsequent needs and to determine

the need for (and consequent focus of) LA Review Team visits.

Meetings : Held in the school and sufficiently regular (at least half termly) to ensure closely

monitored improvement.

The work of the SSMG will be monitored by PSIO through reports from Link SIO/SSIO and periodic

attendance at SSMG

Monitoring and Intervention Level 1 (Schools Causing LA Concern / NTI)

Chair : Senior SIO Monitoring

Membership : Headteacher, Chair of Governors

: SLT colleagues (as appropriate)

: 2 – 4 other governors

: Link SIO

: Other LA officers as appropriate and relevant to concerns

Purpose : To monitor and support the school towards achieving sustained self improvement

and removal from this level of concern and to determine focus for regular monitoring

visit by LA Review Team.

: The LA’s duties with regards to NTI schools are set out in May 2007 Guidance

Meetings : Held in the school and sufficiently regular (at least half termly) to ensure closely

monitored improvement.

The work of the SSMG will be monitored by PSIO through reports from SSIO and periodic attendance at

SSMG

Monitoring and Intervention Level 2 (Special Measures and LA Formal Warning Notice/ IEB etc)

Chair : Principal SIO

Membership : Headteacher

: Chair of Governors

: SLT colleagues (as appropriate)

: 2 -4 other governors

: Link SIO

: LA officers from all appropriate services in Directorate

: Other members for specific needs

Purpose : To monitor and support the school towards achieving sustained self improvement

and removal from SpM or removal of Formal Warning Notice.

: The LA’s duties with regards to these schools are set out in May 2007 Guidance.

Meetings : Held in the school or appropriate offices and sufficiently regular (monthly initially and

then at least half termly) to secure closely monitored improvement.

The SSMG will also determine the focus for regular monitoring visits by an LA review team in line with the

key issues identified by the Section 5 Inspection or LA review and by the issues identified by subsequent

monitoring by HMI and/or the LA.

The work of the SSMG will be monitored by Head of Service of Schools and Learning through reports from

PSIO and periodic attendance at SSMG.

Status of SSMG and the Standards TeamThe powers of an SSMG are vested in it by the DMT which will require a report on progress of all such

schools to ensure that the school makes progress at the appropriate rate and where relevant to be cleared of

its Ofsted category within the specified time.

Constitute review team and set dates. SSIO(m)s identify lead SIO and team SIO(s) and others as appropriate including

school senior staff and/or ‘associate’ headteacher. lead SIO contacts review team members to confirm date(s) lead SIO informs SSIO(m)-area and SSIO(m)–line manager of dates. SSIO(m) informs SSMG and link SIO of dates

Inform School of DatesSSIO(m) sends letter to

Headteacher Chair of Governors SSMG Chair

Information Pack for Review TeamSSIO(m) prepares pack and sends to Review Team.Includes:

Last 3 link reports (including last NOV target setting) ARSP Last Ofsted report summary (contextual information) and/or previous

review reports Review Focus in MI2 = KI from inspection, in MI1and T2=SSIO/SIO brief

or KI from previous review Other relevant data where appropriate – eg SSMG minutes Protocols

PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCTING LA REVIEWS OF SCHOOLS AT T2, MI1, MI2

REVIEW

Written Report Lead SIO prepares draft in collaboration with review team members Lead SIO sends draft to (a) SSIO(m) – area for

(b) PSIO editing Amendments returned to lead SIO Final report submitted for agreement to PSIO SSIO (area) sends final report with covering letter to headteacher and

chair of governors, with copies to PSIO, link SIO, (Diocese) and to SSMG chair. Electronic copy of report also placed in central file. All other material relating to review destroyed.

Reporting cycle completed – 5-7 working days from end of review

Lead SIO contacts school to make arrangements for review and for feedback

LA POLICY FOR SCHOOL REVIEWS

School Review Teams and Guidance on the format of Review Reports This document summarises the procedures relating to the establishment of Review Teams and provides

guidance in respect of the reporting format for the outcome of Review Visits for schools at T2, MI1 and MI2

The purpose of establishing Review Teams is to strengthen the LA’s monitoring and evaluation procedures,

particularly in relation to judgements as to whether sufficient progress is being made towards the intended

outcomes in amended School Improvement Action Plan.

In accordance with the Monitoring, Support and Intervention for Improvement document, DMT commissions

through the principal school improvement officer, the establishment of a Review Team.

The Review Team consists of not fewer than 2 school improvement officers. Some teams may also include

other LA officers as appropriate. The review team may also include a member of the school’s senior

leadership team and a headteacher from a school outside the area in which the school is situated. The

composition of the Review Team will be decided by the area senior school improvement officer and agreed

by the principal school improvement officer.

Schools at T2: Reviews are commissioned at the discretion of PSIO. A visit is usually required where, after 2

terms, and termly thereafter, it is considered that sufficient progress has/may not have been made towards

the intended outcomes in the School Improvement Action Plan or Rapid Improvement Action Plan.

Schools at MI1 and MI2: Reviews are commissioned in every case to visit termly.

For all review visits the time allocation is:

Primary and Special Schools - 1 day per school improvement officer and other LA officer and 1 day per

school senior leader and/or ‘associate’ headteacher. (SSMG may specify greater frequency in

exceptional circumstances).

Secondary Schools - 2 days per school improvement officer, other LA officer, school senior leader and/or

‘associate’ headteacher.

The standard Notes of Visit (NOV) reporting format should be used and should be recorded on the Schools

Database as a NOV for each visit.

Review visit reports may be subject to Freedom of Information requests and should be written in a style,

language and quality which take note of this factor.

Remit of Review Teams To report on progress and barriers to progress towards the intended outcomes of the amended School

Improvement Action Plan and, where appropriate, to report on other emerging issues.

To inform the recommendation by SSMG concerning the appropriateness of the school remaining at the

same Level or a change of the Level of support and intervention.

A report of the findings of the review is commissioned by the principal school improvement officer. The focus

of the Review Visit will be associated with the key issues identified either through an Ofsted Inspection or

with regard to the reasons the school was assigned the level. The wording of the report will remain draft and

confidential until it has been agreed by the area senior school improvement officer in which the school is

situated and finally by the principal school improvement officer who will have the final editorial decision

concerning content and style.

Collection of EvidenceFirst hand evidence is crucial for all monitoring visits and reviews. Review team members must gather their

evidence from a range of members of staff and by observing teaching in classrooms wherever possible. All

visits will be expected to include a majority of time spent on observation of practice. Use of Ofsted evidence

forms and guidance should be the norm. Where other evidence collection is preferred, the agenda for the

visit must so state.

Background Information Members of Review Teams should familiarise themselves with background information such as the contents

of the Rapid Improvement Action Plan, reasons for the school being at a particular level, progress to date,

etc. This background information will be supplied to the Review Team by the area SSIO.

Length of the Review Report It is suggested that reports should be approximately 3/4 sides of A4. The report, in the format detailed,

should be included within a NOV and recorded on the Schools Database. It should be shared with the

school as draft – for factual checking - only after it has been agreed by the principal school improvement

officer. Please see information below concerning sharing the outcomes with the Headteacher at the

conclusion of the Review Visit.

Reporting Requirements/Timescales Final reports must be supplied to the principal school improvement officer within one week of the Review

Visit and copied to the link school improvement officer and area senior school improvement officer.

Written reports, in the format attached, should be considered at the next meeting of the SSMG.

If the next meeting of the SSMG is within a few days of the Review Visit, an oral report should be provided to

the link school improvement officer in order that outcomes may be reported to SSMG.

In the interests of openness and partnership, at the conclusion of the Review Visit, the outcomes, including

judgements, should be shared orally with the Headteacher. The Headteacher should be asked to share the

outcomes with the Chair of Governors at the earliest opportunity.

Retention of material relating to review visitOnce the final report has been agreed, completed and circulated to the appropriate people, all hand written

rough notes and observation records should be destroyed along with all electronic notes and draft versions

of the report. The final report should be stored on the central database with a hard copy on the school file.

No other notes, evidence or materials either written or electronic relating to the review should be retained

centrally or by individual officers.

Format of Reports of Review Visits Reports should be word processed with the standard conventions. All reports should be in Arial 10 Pt,

justified. Paragraphs should be numbered sequentially from 1. Pages should be numbered (Centred in

Footer, Arial 8 Pt). The Footer should also contain the school name and date of visit (left positioned in Arial

8 Pt).

Reports should be saved onto the central document store within the appropriate Folder and with the school

DfES code as part of the title.

Report Section 1 - Introduction This section should include factual/contextual information, including:

The name of the school.

The current Level of support the school is receiving

The membership of the Review Team.

The date of the visit.

Timescales, i.e. how long the school has been at that particular level, how many previous Review Visits

have taken place.

The reasons why the school has been placed at the current level, e.g. outcomes of Ofsted Inspection,

identification of areas causing concern.

Report Section 2 - Findings A sub-section should be included on each key issue, but the main focus of the report will be identified in

advance by the SSMG through the senior or principal school improvement officer. This is relatively

straightforward if concerns have been identified through an Ofsted Inspection. Otherwise, these should be

identified with regard to the reasons the LA has assigned a certain Level to the school; the resulting key

areas identified as requiring improvement and included in the amended School Improvement Action Plan will

form the basis of each sub-section.

Each sub-section should include:

A judgement on the appropriateness and quality of the amended School Improvement Action Plan and

the LA Statement of Action.

A description of the current position and the Team’s judgement concerning progress made since

amendment of the School Improvement Action Plan or previous Visit. (Likely judgements would be

‘inadequate’, ‘limited’, ‘satisfactory’, ‘reasonable’, ‘good’, ‘very good’ … progress)

The Review Team’s views concerning the effectiveness of the actions of the school and/or of LA support

in relation to achieving intended outcomes.

If appropriate, each sub-section may also include:

A recommendation for future variations/additions to the strategies being deployed to address the issue.

This would be particularly helpful if the Team considered that adoption of additional or alternative

strategies would help the school to make speedier progress in relation to achieving intended outcomes.

Details of any emerging issues or concerns not previously identified as areas of concern and any

evidence relating to this. Details may also be included of the Team’s views concerning suitable

strategies to improve the situation.

Report Section 3 - Summary of Findings and Conclusion This section should summarise the previous aspects of the report. It should be relatively brief but sufficient

to inform the SSMG of:

the Team’s judgement concerning whether progress in each Key Issue and overall ; and

details of continuing concerns, slow progress or new, emerging issues.

Children's Services Directorate

REPORT OF LOCAL AUTHORITY MONITORING VISIT

School: Name of school

Date of visit: Date

Review team: Name of team member, title

Name of team member, title

1. CONTEXT

(1) The visit was carried out in line with Cumbria Local Authority (LA) policy for differentiated

support and intervention. The school currently receives monitoring, support and intervention at

(level in full). Text continues.

(2) Text.

2. EVIDENCE BASE

(1) X school improvement officers (SIOs) spent the equivalent of n days in the school.

During that time, discussions were held with text. A range of documentation was

scrutinised including text. X lessons were observed.

(2) Text.

3. FINDINGS

(1) Overall the school is making judgement progress in addressing the key actions for

improvement.

(2) Text.

4. SUB-HEADING FOR SPECIFIC ASPECT

(1) Text.

(2) Text.

Recommendations

Text.

Text.

5. SUB-HEADING 2

(1) Text.

(2) Text.

Recommendations

Text.

Text.

6. SUB-HEADING 3

(1) Text.

(2) Text.

Recommendations

Text.

Text.

7. CONCLUSIONS

(1) The school is making ? progress with its improvement agenda. It has the capacity to

improve with continued support from the LA.

(2) Text.

NAME OF AUTHOR SSI/SIT/author ref/sec ref

Title Date