INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS SUPPORT FOR STATE SCHOOLS-WHAT’S THE FUTURE?

Independent schools and support for state schools

The Government wants the independent sector to support Academies

But the mood music needs changing

Comment

A leading think tank hosted a lunch seminar this week on the developing relationship between independent schools and state schools against the backdrop of David Cameron’s  recent very public encouragement for independent schools to support state schools through the academies scheme . Indeed there was a Downing street meeting recently on this very issue. Lord Adonis the architect of the academies scheme has long championed greater support from the independent sector for the academies scheme and used  emotive language to get the point across-referencing the Berlin Wall, apartheid and so on. He even claims that independent schools have a moral obligation to offer such support. Adonis in a 2011 speech said “ Successful private schools ought to be prominent among the sponsors for the next  wave of academies. Everything about academies is in the DNA of the successful  private school: independence, excellence, innovation, social mission. And the benefit  is not only to the wider community, it is also to the private schools themselves,  whose mission is enlarged, whose relative isolation is ended, and whose social  engagement, beyond the families of the better-off, is transformed.”

Given that the seminar operated under Chatham house rules I cannot give the source of the following comments and observations but the seminar attracted some leading heads  from both independent schools and  state schools, including Academies  .

What is clear is that there are divisions in the independent sector over what, if anything, to do to support the state sector. Many schools already have extensive links with neighbouring state schools and around thirty independent schools provide some form of support for an Academy. What has caused resentment is the hectoring tone of politicians telling independent schools and the governors and trustees what to do. It is after all their decision as to how they will deliver public benefit. Support for Academies  is certainly one option but there are a range of others –bursaries, specialist teaching support, access to equipment and facilities, advice on  governance, curriculum advice and support , exam method, summer schools, pupil swaps, community support  etc.     The feeling was that the tone of the debate and perceived hostility from most political quarters towards the independent sector hardly establishes a context within which  a constructive debate can take place, rather it encourages a siege mentality (particularly given the additional antics of the Charity Commission.)   One point rammed home at the meeting was that one of the key reasons for the independent sectors success was its independence, and , specifically, independent governance. So called ‘ autonomous’ and ‘ free schools’ are not actually free in the same way as independent schools are   and are still subject to  significant bureaucratic restrictions , constraints and stipulations in their funding agreements.  However, it was also pointed out that governance was a key area where independent schools really might help  ‘autonomous ‘ state schools-ie how to use their autonomy effectively and what it could mean in practice  so harnessing  the aspirational ethos of the independent sector . There could also be more exchanges between governing boards, so independents have state school Heads on  their governing bodies and vice-versa.

But it was also clear that most independent schools are keen to have greater meaningful contact  with state schools and there can be demonstrable shared benefits  from such contacts. Every independent school that has an arrangement with an Academy agreed that this relationship brought mutual benefits. And state schools can offer expertise and know- how in particular areas-not least in adapting to big resource challenges, encouraging leadership at every level-adding value and getting the best out of challenging pupils and so on. Indeed, one independent Head said that much of the really innovative thinking going on was happening in the state sector, suggesting perhaps, some complacency in the independent sector

There seemed to be agreement that the real problem with our education system is not the fact that a relatively small percentage of pupils are educated privately but in the long tail of significant underachievers in the state sector, ie  the bottom 20-25% cohort. They are the big challenge and  a drag on the system and there seems to be an assumption that Academies are the answer to addressing this problem, although evidence is not yet clear on this.

It was also remarked that rather too much is expected of the independent sector based on wrong assumptions. It educates just 7% of the school population and most schools operate on tight margins, with small surpluses. Large endowments are limited to a few.  So the idea of supporting an academy just on practical grounds with limited resources  is daunting and hard to sell to fee paying parents.  There was a suggestion that those organisations responsible for representing the sector ISC,HMC etc  might  provide centralised support  to schools wanting to get involved with Academies but it is clear that thinking in this area is undeveloped and these organisations  have ,as yet, shown no indication that they would want to get involved. (joint approaches and action from these bodies is rare).

It was agreed ,though, that the aim for any academy engagement must be for it to be cash neutral. You cant ask hard pressed fee paying  parents to fork out additional money  to support engagement with the state sector, whatever its perceived merits. Raise funds separately so  that  the support operation is ring- fenced.  And ,of course, don’t rule out pro-bono support because, it was agreed, some of the simplest most straightforward advice can pay the biggest dividends in return.

My view is that most independent schools want to knock down perceived barriers between the sectors and agree that there are mutual benefits at stake but this is a view that is not always reciprocated in the state sector. Support for Academies is certainly one  mutually rewarding  route and maximises public benefit in a way that bursaries clearly don’t. (indeed by removing the brightest from a state school you can damage that school) But Academy engagement carries some risks, reputational and otherwise, and is by no means the only way that schools can fulfil their public benefit requirement. Academy engagement will suit some schools but not others. If the government seriously wants more independent schools involved it should help them  more in practical ways, for example by providing a matchmaking service,  rather than  hectoring them claiming that there is a moral imperative involved, which is entirely counter-productive and  just bad politics.

NEED FOR LEADERS IN A SELF-IMPROVING SCHOOL SYSTEM

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

Report focuses on importance of  system leaders for a self- improving school system

Comment

Recent research by the NCSL studied system leadership development and school-to-school support, particularly the leadership skills required for these roles and the level of interest in them. In this report, Educational Consultant Robert Hill comments on some of the key lessons learnt from this research and its relevance to the schools white paper agenda. System Leaders are those who work beyond their own school to support others across the system.  Hill finds that improving school to school support starts from a strong base. There is varying understanding of different system leadership roles. School leaders are motivated to undertake system leadership roles by a strong sense of moral purpose. Becoming a professional partner is a good way into system leadership. There are substantial levels of interest in taking on the more demanding system leadership roles.  Experience of being a Headteacher, communication, presentation, interpersonal skills and strategic thinking ability are seen as the most important skills to fulfil system leadership responsibility. Once these Heads take on a broader role they are likely to sustain that commitment and the role of the National College in support of these leaders was said to be valued.  The main factors inhibiting school leaders taking on broader roles are fear that it will detract from their role as Head and a lack of experience.  Hill concludes that given the positive experience of existing system leaders it would make sense to use them to champion the broader system leadership roles and address concerns and reservations. And to ensure development support is available to school leaders to encourage and equip them to take on broader responsibilities including providing opportunities for them to observe   and be mentored by other system leaders. Obstacles include the reluctance of some governors to allow their heads to take on these executive roles and a lack of executive heads positions in their area. The aim is to establish a ‘self- improving school system’ but this requires a critical mass of school leaders who are willing and able to take  system leadership roles

http://www.nationalcollege.org.uk/docinfo?id=153443&filename=system-leadership-illuminas-research.pdf

 

SCHOOL ADMISSIONS FORUMS-ON THE WAY OUT

Admissions forums

Campaigners seek to save Admissions Forums

Comment

Currently, all local authorities are required to establish an Admission Forum. This is a vehicle for admission authorities and other interested parties to discuss the effectiveness of local admission arrangements, to consider how to deal with difficult local admission issues and to advise admission authorities on how arrangements can be improved.  Their key role is to ensure a fair admission system.   In the White Paper preceding the Education Act 2002 Act the (Labour) Government said that school admission forums had played a valuable role in making sure admission arrangements served the needs of local children and parents and they were made compulsory in the Education Act 2002. The current School Admission Code identifies the role of the School Admissions Forum as– to provide a vehicle for admission authorities and other key interested parties to discuss the effectiveness of local admission arrangements, consider how to deal with difficult admission issues and to advise admission authorities on ways in which their arrangements can be improved. Their main focus is to consider the fairness of arrangements in their local context. Admission authorities of all maintained schools and Academies, when exercising their functions, must have regard to any advice offered by the Forum. The forums bring together school governors, parents, churches and local authorities in a statutory body to monitor admissions in their areas.  Current regulations stipulate that membership is to be no more than 20 with at least one representative of community, voluntary aided, voluntary controlled, foundation and academies and CTCs in the relevant area, representatives of each of the religious bodies involved in any of the local schools, at least one parent and at least one community representative. School representatives must be heads or governors but not local authority governors. The school white paper said that legislation would remove requirements for local authorities to establish an Admissions Forum and provide annual reports to the Schools Adjudicator.   Instead the Government want local authorities to set up arrangements that work best for their area.    The white paper also  said that the Schools Adjudicator will focus on specific complaints about admission arrangements for all schools, including academies and free schools.

The Admissions Code will be simplified to make it easier for schools and parents to understand and act upon, while maintaining fairness as the Code’s guiding principle. So, the abolition of the forums, is envisaged in the Education Bill currently before the Commons- Clause 34(2) Admission Forums. Clause 34 seeks to make a number of changes to the school admission provisions contained in Part 3 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.  The requirement on English local authorities to establish an Admission Forum for their area would be removed.  The powers of the School Adjudicator would be restricted by repealing section 88J of the SSFA 1998 so that the School Adjudicator’s remit is limited to direct complaints about an admission policy.  Currently the Schools Adjudicators, upon referral of a specific matter concerning a maintained school’s admission arrangements, is required to consider whether it would be appropriate for changes to be made to any aspect of those admission arrangements in consequence of the matter referred.  They can also consider whether any other changes to the arrangements are appropriate.  The requirement under section 88P of SSFA 1998 for local authorities to provide to the School Adjudicator reports on admissions to schools in their area would be removed.  The power of the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing the content of such reports is also removed, and the Explanatory Notes state that instead the School Admissions Code will contain the requirements for reports on school admissions in their area.

The abolition of admission forums will, critics say, reduce direct parental involvement as parent governor representatives are part of the required membership. Importantly parent groups come to the meetings of the forum to make representations. It is regarded as easier in the first instance for parent groups to attend a local forum than to approach the Adjudicator. Additionally if the role of the Adjudicator in changing admission criteria, following what may be a parental complaint is reduced, this too will result in a reduced parental role in the system. The White Paper said that instead of the current provisions local authorities’ role will be to make the process as fair and simple as possible for parents and pupils, setting up local arrangements which work for that area. The White Paper claimed that making changes would ‘end the bureaucratic requirements’ on local authorities.  There is not much evidence either way on the effectiveness of these forums although anecdotal evidence suggests that some are more effective than others. An NFER report in 2010 surveyed LA admission officers on the whole process of admissions, and views on admission forums were mixed but positive comments appeared to outweigh negative ones. Campaigners from ‘Comprehensive Future’ are lobbying MPs to save these forums.  Evidence is strong, they claim, that schools that are their own admission authority do not take the proportion of children on free school meals represented in their communities. That some schools, deliberately or through failing to be aware of the legal requirements in the Admissions Code, have failed to admit children from disadvantaged backgrounds, has been evidenced by research (for example from the Sutton Trust 2006 and listed in Allen, West and Coldron for a DfE Research Report in 2010 ). This makes effective local scrutiny even more important.

Note 1: Clause 60 of the Bill amends Chapter 1 of Part 3 of SSFA 1998 to allow School Adjudicators to consider and to determine eligible objections or referrals relating to the admissions  arrangements of academies, as they do in respect of maintained schools

Note 2

The Government will shortly launch a national consultation so that parents and other interested parties can respond to its proposals to enable a simpler, fairer and more transparent admissions framework.

Rudd.P, Gardiner C and Marson-Smith,H (2010) Local Authority Approaches to the School Admissions Process (LG Group research report) NFER

GOVERNING BODIES AND SCHOOL GOVERNANCE

GOVERNING BODIES  AND SCHOOL GOVERNANCE

Important role but rarely appreciated

Government wants to replicate Academy model of governance

Comment

Our school system relies heavily on volunteering governors to   enable it to function .If you want to see the ‘Big Society’ at work, maybe  its worth looking at  what  the army of volunteer governors do, day in day out.  The recent White Paper described School governors  as “ the unsung heroes of our education system”. There are some 300,000 school governors, which makes them one of the largest volunteer forces in the country.  A report published by CfBT Education Trust (The ‘hidden givers’: a study of school governing bodies in England, University of Bath 2010)  found that school governors give an enormous amount to the education system in England, though their contribution is largely hidden from public view. It also  found, reinforcing the message that governing bodies role is  vital, that ‘the lack of a capable governing body is not a neutral absence for a school; it is a substantial disadvantage.’  Good governance and leadership at school level is regarded by the Government as a key driver in achieving better educational outcomes. They look to the Academies model to provide examples of smaller, high-powered governing bodies that can  demonstrate rapid improvements in standards. It is interesting though, as the CfBT Education Trust  report found, that  ‘Notions of ‘challenging the headteacher’ and ‘calling the headteacher to  account’ did not match the practices of the governing bodies studied for the report. The  focus, instead,  tended to be on scrutiny – of information, decisions, plans and policies.  Indeed the report found  ‘The governing task was only rarely described in terms of ‘performance’; it was  always talked about in terms of the ‘school’. It  continued ‘The extent to which the governing body focused on the performance of the  school and how performance was considered varied under a range of influences.’

The Government, though, sees the  arrangements for academy governance as a means of improving outcomes ,allowing  for greater levels of flexibility in the number and category of governors than in maintained schools, while ensuring that essential groups, such as parents, are always represented. Which is why it is legislating through the Education Bill, now in the Commons, to allow all governing bodies to mirror the academies model  in requiring  to have at least two elected parent governors and the head teacher, unless the head teacher chooses not to take up his position as a governor. Academy governing bodies have built-in safeguards to prevent particular categories of governor from dominating the governing body; for example, staff governors cannot exceed one third of the total membership, and charity law prevents those connected with local authorities from having more than 20% of the membership of a governing body. The CfBT Education Trust  report  found, in respect of LA representation on governing boards , that  the role of the local authority governor is ‘ unclear and in some ways can be  unsatisfactory’.  It added  ‘There was very little evidence  for instance of the responsibility or the link with  the authority being used in any productive way’.

Evidence points too to the need for Governing bodies to clearly set out the Strategic Direction of schools.  In the White Paper, “The Importance of Teaching”, the Government  set out a series of 10 key questions for governors to ask to assist them in setting their schools’ strategic direction and holding them to account:

What are the school’s values? Are they reflected in our long term development plans?

How are we going to raise standards for all children, including the most and least able, those with Special Educational Needs, boys and girls, and any who are currently underachieving?

Have we got the right staff and the right development and reward arrangements?

Do we have a sound financial strategy, get good value for money and have robust procurement and financial systems?

Do we keep our buildings and other assets in good condition and are they well used?

How well does the curriculum provide for and stretch all pupils?

How well do we keep parents informed and take account of their views?

Do we keep children safe and meet the statutory health and safety requirements?

How is pupil behaviour? Do we tackle the root causes of poor behaviour?

Do we offer a wide range of extra-curricular activities which engage all pupils?

The WP also  said ‘ Parents, governors and the public will have access to much more information about every school and how it performs’ and  ‘the Government  will help governing bodies to benefit from the skills of their local community in holding schools to account.’ It continued, ‘ The Government will work with  ‘the Education Employer Taskforce, Business in the Community, the Institute for Education Business Excellence, the School Governor’s One Stop Shop, and others to encourage business people and professionals to volunteer as governors.’ The Education Bill, which has just received its Second Reading in the Commons,   allows for the establishment of  smaller governing bodies, with appointments primarily focused on skills. From early 2012 the Government  will ‘ allow all schools to adopt this more flexible model of school governance if they choose to, while ensuring a minimum of two parent governors. Schools which currently have a majority of governors appointed by a foundation (often faith voluntary aided schools) will continue to do so.’

http://www.cfbt.com/evidenceforeducation/pdf/6CfBT_HG_web.pdf

http://www.education.gov.uk/b0068570/the-importance-of-teaching/accountability/governing-bodies

ARE NEW ACADEMIES A RETURN TO GM SCHOOLS ?

ARE  NEW ACADEMIES   A RETURN TO GM SCHOOLS ?

Baker sees  a return of GM-but is it the same?

Comment

Mike Baker in a comment piece on the BBC education web site sees the Coalition Governments Academy scheme as a return to  the Tory GM schools initiative that ended in 1998.

Ed Balls has labelled the  Coalitions Academies scheme  as a perversion of the Labour initiative (invoking the GM model)  introduced by Tony Blair  which was targeted almost exclusively at disadvantaged areas. He claims that that fast tracking outstanding schools to Academy status is against the philosophy behind the last Governments Academy scheme and is  in effect shifting the focus  and resources away from the most disadvantaged  .  The central allegation made against GM schools was that they cream skimmed the best pupils, badly affecting neighbouring schools  many of which ended up as sink schools. This is what seems to fuel Ed Balls  opposition to the new Academies scheme.  The irony of course is that Balls himself  has been criticised by many in the Academies  movement of  perverting the  ’Blairite’  Academy vision, by re-establishing Local authority influence over academies, so  undermining their independence, a crucial element of the Blairite vision, articulated  by Andrew  Adonis.

Academies developed out of previous Conservative Governments’ City Technology Colleges (CTCs) established in the mid-1980s, and city academy programmes. CTCs, which were established under the Education Reform Act 1988 were the first state schools to be free from local authority control. That Act also enabled local authority maintained schools to opt out of local authority control by becoming Grant-Maintained (GM) schools. The Labour Government’s School Standards and Framework Act 1998 overhauled the categories of school and brought GM schools back into the local authority maintained system.  The Learning and Skills Act 2000 made provision for the creation of city academies, subsequently renamed academies under the Education Act 2002. The 2002 Act permitted academies to be set up in any area, not just in urban areas. The first academies opened in 2002, with just over 200 now  up and running.

Initially, it is true  academies were established to replace poorly-performing schools, but subsequently the programme included new schools in areas that needed extra school places and in this  latter period there was  less focus on whether or not an Academy was   being set up  in a demonstrably  disadvantaged area. So,  Balls outrage  and accusations about social engineering  looks, in this context,  somewhat contrived and  overblown.

Baker points out that the political philosophy behind GM schools was to recreate the recipe for success that existed in the private sector – autonomous institutions led by confident and entrepreneurial head teachers. And the stark difference between Labour’s academies and the new version lies in the underlying philosophy according to Baker. The former were about central government intervention to rectify the problems of market failure. (although its hard  to   see how   the schools system at the time could be described   as a ‘market’)  They rescued children who were left in the schools that few parents would choose. By contrast, the new generation of academies are about releasing market forces in the belief that autonomous schools responding to parental choice will raise standards. But the important point about this new initiative the Government argues  is that it  is seeking ultimately to offer  Academy freedoms to all schools. The idea is that it is permissive rather than coercive. No school will be forced to change status but they should all ultimately  be given that opportunity.  But, crucially, they  will not be disadvantaged by not changing their status, and certainly not financially. Indeed the Government has indicated that it doesn’t believe that most Primary schools will take up the autonomy  offer and is easy with that. If the GM initiative could be accused of  not   fully taking  into account the possible impact on neighbouring schools, which some critics argue was the case,  the Government  counters  by   saying that   new academies will be expected to support weaker neighbours, and indeed this is written into the funding agreement .  Before a free school is established there will also be an assessment of its possible impact on neighbouring schools. Academies  will have to comply with the national admissions code, and the pupil premium will give extra aid to schools in deprived areas. Indeed on SEN support the Government argues that changes brought about by the new  Act will ensure that pupils with SEN will be better protected and supported now than they were under the last Governments Academies legislation.

Baker takes particular exception to the perceived lack of parental involvement in decision-making over status change. There is  one important difference between the old GM schools and today’s new academies he says  - the former required majority support in a secret ballot of parents, the latter do not even need a show of hands at a parents’ meeting.  “With GM Mark II, it seems, the parental voice has been forgotten.” However the Government has made it clear that a school wishing to change status must consult with ‘appropriate’  interested parties  and  have explicitly stated that this will include parents. For free schools anyone wishing to establish a free school must demonstrate that there is a demand for such a school in that particular area. Of course one can quibble about the detail of  how this will be done   but  one has to trust school governors and yes parents, often one and the same, to make these kind of judgements and if we really want decision-making from the bottom up rather than the  top down this seems a  good  enough place to start.

HEADTEACHERS LEADERSHIP PROGRAMME -ACCELERATE TO HEADSHIP

ACCELERATE TO HEADSHIP

Fast track leadership scheme seeks to attract successful managers to Headships

Comment

Accelerate to Headship is an intensive leadership development programme run by the National College for School Leadership for ‘ outstanding individuals with the ability and commitment to follow this accelerated route to becoming a headteacher’. There are two main routes through the Accelerate to Headship programme.  First, Tomorrow’s Heads. Teachers, former teachers and other non-teaching professionals who have the drive to lead primary, secondary or special schools in England should apply through Tomorrow’s Heads. If you’re not a qualified teacher, you’ll need at least two years’ suitable management experience to take part in Tomorrow’s Heads. So, Non-teachers could be taking up heads’ positions in primary and special schools within just four years. Classroom experience will not be a prerequisite for those participating in this new fast-track course, being developed by the National College.  The NCSL also wants people to apply who have experience of working with children, perhaps as a business manager or governor, or have worked in children’s services. About 170 people a year will participate in the programme, which is made up of one-to-one coaching and residential courses.

The second route is through Future Leaders. Current or former teachers committed to managing a challenging urban secondary school in London, the North West, the West Midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber, Bristol, or on the south coast are advised to  apply for Future Leaders.  The first route prompted a shock Daily Mail Headline this month  ‘Managers with no teaching experience will be given headteacher posts’. The policy of putting non-teachers in charge of schools was kicked off by a Government-commissioned study into school leadership three years ago, which suggested that splitting the tasks of administrative head and head of teaching and learning would make the job of school leader more feasible, as well as enabling the senior teacher to focus on their role as lead practitioner.

The National Association of Headteachers, however, has campaigned against appointing school leaders with no classroom experience. Mike Welsh, NAHT vice president, claimed the course was an attempt to ‘cut corners’. He said: ‘Those who are not trained teachers will not be able to raise standards. This is a way of having a “chief executive” style role, which is wrong. ‘It’s all in the name “headteacher” – they should lead teaching and learning. Recruitment difficulties are a separate issue and the best way of solving that is to give heads more support and make the job more attractive.’  Both routes are described as ‘ intensive, demanding, three-year leadership development programmes, which will give you all the knowledge and experience you need to apply for the National Professional Qualification in Headship (NPQH), the mandatory qualification for headship.’

On completion of NPQH, they will then be eligible to run a school – and as the NCSL puts it ‘change thousands of children’s lives’. Applicants who apply have to pass cognitive ability tests, a one-day assessment process, give personal references and submit an essay. They will also need a reference from a head.  Those selected will then spend three years training, supported by a “leadership development adviser”. They will receive one-to-one coaching, work experience in outstanding schools and residential courses.  Both programmes are built around individuals personal development needs, with an emphasis on school-based activity, learning on the job, and coaching and mentoring. Throughout, individuals receive one-on-one support from their own personal leadership development adviser who will act as a ‘critical friend’ and coach.

This is the first attempt by the National College to run a fast-track course since a previous version ‘Fast Track Teaching’ was dropped two years ago. Fast Track was a programme developed and funded by the  then Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (eventually becoming the responsibility of the NCSL) and sought to identify, develop and retain talented individuals from within the  teaching profession by offering an enriched professional development route to early positions of senior school leadership .Although evaluations of this  programme determined that  it was broadly meeting its objectives, it was nonetheless  judged to be too expensive – costing £43,000 per participant.  Tomorrow’s Heads will cost around £11 million a year. About 170 people a year will participate in the programme.

WHAT MAKES A SCHOOL SUCCESSFUL?

WHAT MAKES A SCHOOL SUCCESSFUL?

That’s easy isn’t it…

Comment

The old chestnut-what makes a school successful -has been subject to countless studies.

Some are rather more illuminating than others. Certainly, a good Head and   having control of your intake helps, as does offloading badly behaved and  even poorly  performing pupils, and  don’t forget  poorly performing teachers  too( if you are allowed which in state schools, more often than not, you aren’t).

And of course school autonomy,  freed from the interventions of  meddlesome politicians and bureaucrats.

One factor, of course, that stands out in studies is the need  for a good Head , and  clear leadership, and not just from the SMT but  throughout a school. All staff  need to believe in what the school is doing and where it is  going.The vision thing.

Clear school leadership is personified by Catherine Myers. She is  Executive Head of Bishop Challoners school , a   successful state school  wrapped  up in a  Federation, that  puts  to shame  some,   in fact rather too many, of its peer schools, with similarly  disadvantaged intakes .

The Times profiled Myers last  week. It pointed out that nearly 90 per cent of BC girls obtain five GCSEs at grades A-C, and that the school is in the top 2 per cent of state secondaries.  A level of performance achieved despite the fact that more than half the pupils receive free school meals, 27 per cent have special needs, and they speak a total of 73 mother tongues.

It would be churlish, of course, to quibble over the Times performance figures for the school.   They appear to relate to the original pre-federated girls school. If, instead ,you look at the league tables for 2009 they show that 47% of the girls, and 42% of the boys, at the Federated  Bishop Challoners  school achieved 5 A-C grades including Maths and English. Quibbling or not, the figures still represent a noticeable achievement, particularly given the deprived intakes of these schools.

Myers is shortly to retire. She will be greatly missed.  She oversaw the schools transformation into the Federation, comprising a girls’ school, a boys’ school, the sixth-form college and the community programmes, with 1,700 pupils and 354 staff. In effect, she formed a system that the Government now uses to save failing schools.  So, what is the Myers secret for success and is it replicable? The Times made a list:

1. Educate girls and boys separately. It’s not just girls that do better in single-sex schools. “That’s an assumption that is generally made, but if boys have teaching geared towards them, they will achieve.”

2. Let them do it their own way, as long as they do it. Encourage pupils to analyse and develop their own style of learning (eg, last-minute, in groups). “Children should learn what they like and like what they learn,” says Myers.

3. Don’t see vocational subjects as second best — they are not. Think beyond the British school tradition, to the more vocational Scandinavian model. “As a mother I know that if you spend half your life making them do what they don’t want to do, you only make your life difficult. Everyone should leave school qualified for something.”

4. Set targets. Try not to compare your child to others — but set individual targets that will stretch his or her particular abilities. Respond quickly and collaboratively if the targets are not being met.

5. Get respect by giving it. “You have to like children and believe that they can achieve”.

This looks at first glance great. Almost motherhood and apple pie.  High expectations of pupils, setting personalized targets for them and so on.  But then one thinks a bit and  begins to have some doubts. Sure, vocational subjects should not be regarded as second best and it is generally good to invoke the Swedish model, but we are some way from  applying that  model here or  for that matter  offering their vocational  qualifications , so it  is hard to work out how this is all  relevant to Bishop Challoners and Myers secret to success .  We know for instance that some schools here use vocational qualifications (ours not Swedens) to inflate their league table positions with too many lacking rigour. Indeed, an expert witness in a recent Select Committee hearing claimed that a vast majority of state schools are now “eagerly eyeing up BTECs-vocational qualification equivalents to GCSEs-as being far more beneficial for them, because they are easier in terms of grade equivalents.” Is this really what we want from our schools?  And, what about separating the sexes, and single sex schools?  There are, of course, excellent single-sex schools and excellent co-educational schools in both sectors. The only safe conclusion though to draw, based on the evidence currently available, is that they are excellent for reasons other than that they separate, or bring together, the sexes for their education. As Professor Alan Smithers has astutely observed “The paradox of single-sex and co-education is that the beliefs are so strong and the evidence is so weak.”

And as for letting pupils to  ‘ do it their own way’ sounds , on the face of it, like a recipe for chaos,  a reversion back to,  perhaps,  the dreaded   ‘discovery’ learning philosophy . One strongly suspects that pupils at the school are told very clearly what to do by their teachers. And are not, on an average school day, busily finding themselves and exploring learning styles that best suit them, with their teacher and their peers keen to accommodate them. And we won’t get started into the merits and demerits of truly large schools. That Myers is a successful Head and leader is beyond doubt. She deserves huge credit for what she has achieved throughout her professional life.  But whether others can replicate her success, based on what she believes are the key elements that drove her success, and whether she has discovered a paradigm that can deliver systemic transformation, well, that’s another matter.

SCHOOL GOVERNANCE IN A CHANGING POLICY ENVIRONMENT

POLICY IMPERATIVES AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOL GOVERNANCE

School governance in transition -traditional governance model beleaguered, according to a report

Comment

The Governments current schools agenda is focused on the need for partnerships and collaboration, both with other schools, including in the independent sector, and colleges, and with a range of other  agencies and services that provide for the well-being and welfare  of children and their families. Since September 2007 schools have been under a duty by the Education and Inspections Act 2006 ‘to promote community cohesion’. And there is a major push to encourage schools to deliver extended services.

  But what are the implications of all this for schools governance?

 The short answer is that the governance landscape here is changing rapidly and is in a state of flux. The traditional model of school governance is seemingly under threat. New demands are being made on governors because of the ambitious political agenda, fuelled by    an increasing numbers of directives that require action from governing bodies which can struggle to keep pace, particularly so given the voluntary nature of their jobs.  And with  new collaborative arrangements  being encouraged to enhance joined up service delivery  there appears to be increasing pressure to ‘professionalise’   the role of governors. Some see these developments as essential for progress. Others as an attack on local accountability and the traditional stakeholder  model of school governance.

 Schools should be community hubs, the government believes, seamlessly delivering a range of extended services to help deliver this cohesion with a joined up , holistic approach to  addressing social and educational challenges  delivering its equity agenda .These   extended services can include childcare, adult education, parenting support programmes, community- based health and social care services, multi-agency support teams and after-school activities.’ Because all the services and curricular opportunities required by these policies cannot, self-evidently, be provided by each institution alone, they need to be offered in consortium arrangements. But this is clearly leading to fundamental changes in local education and governance

  There has been growing recognition in government that these changes necessitate not only new  frameworks of professional leadership but also governance. Indeed, the Government has provided legislative frameworks and guidance to support schools in developing forms of governance appropriate for this new system leadership, including, for example, education improvement partnerships, federations and clusters of schools. A delayed  white paper on schools governance is awaiting publication

 However a new report ‘Towards a new governance of schools in the remaking of civil society’ published by CfBT  Education Trust and researched by  Stewart Ranson and Colin Crouch of the Institute of Education and  the  Institute of Governance and Public Management, at the University of Warwick, suggests that insufficient attention has been paid  by policymakers to the governance of these  new school  partnership arrangements.

 Governors, it is claimed, are becoming pawns in the battle to impose political agendas. The report  says that the position of the governing body is in danger of changing profoundly through a variety of pressures, from the advent of academies and trust schools  and  from this drive for schools to co-operate with one another.

 What the report found, in  the light of examinng  three case studies in detail ,  was that the  traditional stakeholder  model of school governance, with its roots firmly in local democratic accountability, is now , in practice, “beleaguered “.

 Governing bodies  are  more dominated  now  by professionals who might   appear better placed to understand and apply  detailed policy requirements. Added to this is the growing list   of centrally driven policy directives from  central government that must be delivered in schools in rlation for instance to the standards agenda.These  new demands and  the complex challenges that go with them   are leading  to the development  of alternative,  but , in effect, less “democratic”, forms of school  governance, the report states.

 The reports analysis of school governance, apart from confirming the importance of school governance and the importance of governors direct links to local communities, demonstrates a distinctive trajectory of change in the growth of partnership governance, the expansion of professional power at the expense of elected volunteers, and the corporatising of school ownership, as new Trust and academy schools have become the vehicles for new  forms of ownership of schools. The authors suggest there has been a lack of sufficiently systematic thinking about how governance can work in this  new evolving , more complex policy environment, and that governance arrangements need to be re-thought in a ‘multi-layered’ way, with new models of working at each of three ‘layers’: neighbourhood, locality and local authority.

 Stakeholders have got to decide whether these new developments are a good thing and whether this  trajectory is sound. In opting for smaller, more professional governing bodies isn’t one breaking a vital bottom up link with localities and parents, so important for  local  accountability and  cohesion?

  The Tories too have also got to establish whether they approve of these developments and if not what they would wish to change. Their new free schools initiative, liberalizing the supply side, although broadly welcomed by many stakeholders   will present new challenges for governance while  the autonomy of these schools, critics suggest, has the potential to  conflict  with  other policy aims such  as  promoting community cohesion , and delivering joined up  Children’s services, unless,  that is, robust  safeguards are put in place.

CFBT Report