1 | P a g e

North Lincolnshire Education Standards Board

Standard Operating Procedures

August 2018

Version 6 Date Author Review date Status

Amended following ESB

meeting June 2018

August 2018 Tina Page June 2019 Public

2 | P a g e

Contents

1. Background Information .......................................................................................................... 3

Context ......................................................................................................................................... 3

Purpose and Principles ................................................................................................................. 3

Statutory and Regulatory Requirements ..................................................................................... 4

Operation of the Education Standards Board .............................................................................. 5

Exceptions .................................................................................................................................... 5

Confidentiality .............................................................................................................................. 5

Appeals and complaints ............................................................................................................... 5

2. Processes of the Education Standards Board ......................................................................... 6

Overview of the process ............................................................................................................... 6

Identification of schools within scope .......................................................................................... 7

Gathering of evidence .................................................................................................................. 8

Scrutiny by the Education Standards Board ................................................................................. 9

Feedback to school ....................................................................................................................... 9

On-going monitoring .................................................................................................................. 10

Escalation options ...................................................................................................................... 11

Evaluation of External Support .................................................................................................. 12

3. Appendices ............................................................................................................................. 13

Appendix A: Definitions: Headline performance measures and floor standards ...................... 14

Appendix B: Terms of Reference for the Education Standards Board ....................................... 16

Appendix C – Signatures of Risk Evaluation ............................................................................... 19

Appendix D – School Level Report to the Education Standards Board ...................................... 21

Appendix E – Education Standards Board Feedback to School and Intervention Assessment . 22

Appendix F - North Lincolnshire Quality Standards for School Improvement ........................... 24

3 | P a g e

1. Background Information

Context

The North Lincolnshire Children’s Strategy focuses on outcomes for children and young people:

feeling safe and being safe

enjoying good health and emotional wellbeing

recognising and achieving their potential

The Education Standards Board contributes to achieving these outcomes by driving shared

accountability for education performance. Individual schools and settings remain responsible for

their own improvement, working within the model of sector-led improvement.

The locally agreed partnership ambitions within the education sector are:

ensuring a supply of strong and sustainable education places

ensuring vulnerable children achieve great outcomes

tackling underperformance and ensuring high standards

The role of the Education Standards Board in realising these ambitions is:

enabling an informed and coordinated approach to improving education outcomes within

a diverse education system

mitigating the risk of formal failure through early challenge, support and intervention for

all schools and academies to address causes of underperformance

promoting partnerships and alliances as the building blocks of a self-improving system

demanding quick turnarounds for any school or academy that falls below the standards for

‘good’

further improving inclusive practices and cooperation within the schools’ sector for

vulnerable children

facilitating open and professional engagement between local schools, academies and

academy sponsors, and with local government and the agencies of national government

Purpose and Principles

The purpose of this document is to:

ensure the local authority and its partners operate a consistent approach to all schools

with regard to monitoring, challenge, support and intervention in schools causing concern

and reporting to the Education Standards Board

to provide clear, transparent and timely processes

to communicate these processes to all stakeholders

The following key principles have been agreed:

the principal responsibility for improvement rests with individual schools

schools are expected to be discerning consumers of school improvement support – schools

should actively seek, shape and evaluate the support they need

4 | P a g e

all schools need to be ‘known’ - qualitatively as well as through performance data

schools must undertake robust, honest and continuous self-evaluation and invite external

challenge of their judgements

in keeping with ‘All our Children’, additional resources and capacity are targeted towards

schools with the greatest need for improvement - regardless of designation

These broad principles continue to inform school improvement practice in North Lincolnshire.

Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

The Education and Inspections Act 2006 places a statutory duty on all local authorities to intervene

with schools causing concern. The enactment of the Education and Adoption Act 2016 confers

additional duties and powers of intervention to Regional Schools Commissioners. The details of

these duties along with the wider legislative underpinning are set out in the Statutory Guidance

issued by the Secretary of State. This document was last updated in February 2018 and can be

read in full on the Department for Education website [Click here].

Local Authorities must have regard to the Statutory Guidance. In practice, this means that there

must be locally established procedures for monitoring, supporting, challenging and intervening

with schools causing concern.

The Statutory Guidance defines the criteria for schools causing concern. The local authority uses

these same triggers when deciding if a school is within the scope of the Education Standards

Board. When schools are within scope, the membership of the Education Standards Board will

seek assurance regarding:

the clarity of the school’s understanding about its improvement priorities

the evidence that improvement is happening at pace

the effectiveness of governance in ensuring that improvement is both swift and sustainable

the effectiveness of external support

For the purposes of identifying schools of concern, the same criteria are applied locally for both

maintained schools and academies.

The default position outlined within the Statutory Guidance is that formal intervention occurs with

Schools of Concern. For maintained schools the intervention is the issuing of a Warning Notice. For

academies, the intervention is referral to the Secretary of State via the Regional Schools

Commissioner. Where there is no escalation in the level of intervention, there must be good

reasons not to do so.

Local authority arrangements for supporting school improvement are inspected by Ofsted under

the provisions of the Education and Inspections Act 2006. The criteria for effective monitoring,

challenge, support and intervention are set out in the inspection handbook. [Click here]

The local authority’s approach to understanding each school’s current context and performance is

set out in the Standards & Effectiveness Peer Leader Programme. Schools self-assess against one

5 | P a g e

of five levels based on the quality of outcomes for children and young people and ongoing risks

and challenges. All school level assessments remain the confidential property of the school.

Operation of the Education Standards Board

The Education Standards Board is the highest-level partnership maintained by the local authority

for ensuring that education outcomes improve at pace. Engagement by all schools in the process is

expected, regardless of status or designation. Members are required to make Board meetings a

priority and to actively participate in seeking solutions for underperformance. Harnessing this

shared commitment to further improving educational outcomes, alongside the democratic

mandate of North Lincolnshire Council, is vital to area-wide success.

The full Education Standards Board meets in November, February and June.

Exceptions

Not all eventualities can be covered by these procedures. Where it is urgent for the local authority

to act because performance or safety is at risk, then intervention may occur without following the

full process. Such occurrences will be reported at the next full Education Standards Board. The

spirit of the process as outlined will be maintained so far as is practicable.

Confidentiality

All information provided by a school to the Board remains the property of that school and is

received on a basis of strict confidentiality. Documentation of the Board is strictly confidential

unless marked ‘Public’.

Appeals and complaints

Through ensuring that a shared understanding is reached about each school in scope, it is

anticipated that appeals and complaints should be minimal.

Complaints about the conduct or competency of individual members of the Education Standards

Board should be directed to the organisation to which that member belongs.

6 | P a g e

2. Processes of the Education Standards Board

Overview of the process

Identification of schools within

scope

• Schools within scope are those that meet at least one of the triggers of concern. The Education Standards Board will seek to understand the unique context of each school and to seek assurance regarding the tackling of underperfomance.

Gathering evidence

• Schools are invited to a 'school assurance meeting' of the Board to discuss the challenges they are facing, the progress they have made and the factors that need to be addressed to accelerate progress.

Scrutiny by the Education

Standards Board

• The full Education Standards Board membership considers the School Level report alongside other evidence of performance and makes recommendations to the Chair as to the actions required.

• A view is taken on whether the pace of improvement is reasonable or if intervention should be escalated.

Feedback to school

• The school receives confidential written feedback from the Chair summarising the points made by the membership, identifying recommendations for governors and explaining the decision on whether to escalate the level of intervention, to continue monitoring or to remove from scope.

Ongoing monitoring

• For the time that a school remains within the scope of the Education Standards Board it will remain subject to ongoing monitoring.

• The frequency of monitoring takes account of each school's context and evidence of improvement.

7 | P a g e

Identification of schools within scope

Schools may be brought into scope if at least one of following triggers applies:

overall effectiveness is judged to be inadequate by Ofsted

leadership and management are judged to require improvement by Ofsted

a school’s sixth form or early years provision is judged to be inadequate by Ofsted

low standards of performance1

- school level outcomes are below the floor standard

- unacceptable low achievement of pupils from their prior attainment

- school level outcomes are well below those of comparable schools

- the coasting definition applies

- a sudden drop in performance

- low standards achieved by disadvantaged pupils

- variations in performance data between pupils of different characteristics

- sustained historical underperformance

the school has not responded robustly or rapidly enough to a recommendation for an

external review of either governance or pupil premium

breakdown in the way that the school is managed or governed2, as identified through the

use of the ‘signatures of risk’ evaluation tool (see Appendix C)

the safety of pupils or staff at the school is threatened

standards of inclusion are unacceptably low

- inclusion measures are significantly and adversely outside of the local or national

average

- a sudden change in key inclusion measures

- concerns about the effectiveness of provision for children with Special Educational

Needs and Disabilities (SEND)

- concerns about the effectiveness of provision for Looked After Children

- continued or persistently high fixed-term or permanent exclusions rates.

Identification is most effective when it is ahead of formal failure and when timely challenge,

support or intervention can make the most difference to the outcomes of children and young

people. The sources of information for a school coming within scope include:

request from a governing body, headteacher or academy sponsor to come within scope

the school leadership identify that the school meets the criteria for High Intervention on

the graduated approach to school improvement

performance data

Ofsted reports

complaints

feedback from partner schools and joint working arrangements

alert raised by a member organisation of the Education Standards Board

1 The triggers for low standards of performance are a guide to decision-making rather than a constraint to professional

judgement. Performance over time will be considered if cohorts are particularly small or subject to high mobility.

2 Note: the effectiveness of governance is evaluated as a corporate whole – the conduct or capability of individual governors is outside of the scope of the ESB unless the safety of pupils or staff at the school is threatened.

8 | P a g e

Gathering of evidence

The purpose of the evidence gathering is to gain a shared understanding of the issues facing each

school, the progress made in addressing the issues and what more is required to accelerate the

pace of improvement. This is an opportunity to cross-reference evidence and to ensure that all

those with responsibilities are accountable for addressing the underlying reasons for a school

being within scope. Throughout, there needs to be an honest, open and robust analysis of what is

happening. The information gathered is agreed by all those involved at this stage before being

submitted to the Education Standards Board.

The process is in four parts:

1. Identification of schools to be discussed by the Education Standards Board:

A ‘moderating panel’ made up of ESB Board Members, including a primary headteacher,

secondary headteacher, chair of governors and local authority officer, convenes at least 30

working days before the term’s full Board meeting.

The ‘moderating panel’ considers all of the available information about school

performance against the triggers on the previous page, in order to identify which schools

are in scope of the ESB and which schools are to be discussed at the full Board meeting.

Where additional information is required to enable a decision to be made, the ‘moderating

panel’ will ask a senior school improvement officer to conduct a ‘signatures of risk’ review

at the school concerned and report back to the moderating panel’s next termly meeting.

Following the meeting of the ‘moderating panel’, the Head of Standards and Effectiveness

will ensure that the identified schools are invited to school assurance meetings and that

the ‘School in Scope’ briefing paper is updated in readiness for the full Education Standards

Board meeting later that term.

2. Invitation to a ‘school assurance meeting’ of the Education Standards Board:

The headteacher and chair of governors are invited to a ‘school assurance meeting’ to take

place at least 20 working days before the full Education Standards Board meeting. In the

case of sponsored academies, the invitation includes the Chief Executive of the sponsoring

trust. The invitation will explain which of the triggers has prompted the school to come

within scope and include copies of the documentation.

At this stage, the headteacher and chair of governors will be offered the contact details for

a headteacher and chair of governors of another school that has previously been through

the process in order to gain further information and guidance if they wish.

Schools must undertake the Signature of Risk Evaluation (Appendix C) and complete the

School Level Report (Appendix D), submitting both documents ahead of the school

assurance meeting by email to Joanne.Etherington@northlincs.gov.uk .

A minimum of ten working days’ notice is given to schools of the school assurance meeting.

All communication is by email and is strictly confidential.

A link to this guidance will be provided with the invitation.

Questions regarding the invitation should be directed to the Head of Standards and

Effectiveness at North Lincolnshire Council.

9 | P a g e

3. At the school assurance meeting:

The school assurance meetings are chaired by the Director of Learning, Skills and Culture

for North Lincolnshire Council.

Also in attendance are:

- Head of Standards and Effectiveness, North Lincolnshire Council

- ESB headteacher representatives – primary or secondary phase as appropriate

- ESB chair of governors representative – primary or secondary phase as appropriate

- Diocesan representative – church schools only

The headteacher and chair of governors will be asked to present the findings of their

evidence gathering using the School Level Report template provided.

Questions will be asked to check and probe understanding about progress and the pace of

improvement.

Verbal feedback will be provided by the panel regarding the level of assurance provided.

Schools may amend their School Level Report following the pre-meeting and before final

submission to the Board.

4. After the school assurance meeting:

Within five working days, the school should send their final version of the School Level

Report by email to Joanne.Etherington@northlincs.gov.uk

The Head of Standards and Effectiveness will complete the Recommendations to the

Education Standards Board section at the end of the School Level Report.

The information in the School Level Report will be submitted to the full Education

Standards Board membership at least five working days in advance of the board meeting.

Scrutiny by the Education Standards Board

The Education Standards Board is chaired by the Chief Executive of North Lincolnshire Council. The

full membership can be found in the terms of reference in Appendix B.

The members of the Education Standards Board will consider the information from each school

ahead of the meeting. The meeting will focus on:

ensuring that all members recognise and share this understanding of the school’s position

challenging the membership where there are specific accountabilities

identifying additional next steps for governors to consider.

Feedback to school

After the Education Standards Board meeting, the Director of Learning, Skills and Culture will write

to the chair of governors at each school. This letter will be copied to the headteacher and, if

applicable, academy sponsor. Enclosed will be the confidential Feedback to School and

Intervention Assessment (Appendix E) which includes the agreed recommendations to the

governors and the reasons why the local authority is, or is not, escalating the level of intervention.

Intervention is either by issuing a Warning Notice to a maintained school or making a referral to

the Regional Schools Commissioner in the case of an academy. Where sufficient assurance has

been received, a school may be removed from scope.

Members of the Education Standards Board will receive a copy of each school’s Feedback to

School and Intervention Assessment form.

10 | P a g e

On-going monitoring

The on-going monitoring by the Education Standards Board will depend on the pace of

improvement evident at each school.

1. None of the triggers for a school coming into scope now apply

Monitoring will pass to the usual school improvement processes.

The local authority will write to the chair of governors, copied to the headteacher,

explaining why the school is no longer in scope.

2. The school remains in scope because of the original trigger or because a new trigger has

been met

An assessment will be made of the progress being made by the school and the risk to pupil

outcomes. Where schools are making reasonable progress, an update report to the

Education Standards Board to validate the improvements may be sufficient. Where there is

the need for further assurance, schools will be invited to attend another ‘school assurance

meeting’ of the Education Standards Board. An update report will usually be required in

the term after a school has been discussed at the full Education Standards Board.

By exception and because of the individual circumstances of the school, sufficient

assurance may have been received to remove a school from being within scope at this

stage. This includes schools that have received a full inspection by Ofsted after coming into

scope and have been judged to be good or outstanding overall.

If a school is within a continuous period of monitoring by the Education Standards Board, the

following apply:

schools will be expected to demonstrate how they have responded to the

recommendations made by the Education Standards Board

assurance will be sought as to how quickly the school can move out of scope, with the clear

expectation that the school is demonstrating the capacity to address the underlying factors

that have triggered concern

an evaluation of the effectiveness of external support will be made against the North

Lincolnshire Quality Standards for School Improvement (Appendix E)

an assessment will be made against the escalation options

The timescale for monitoring is reset when:

a maintained school or academy becomes sponsored by an Academy Trust

a school is removed from an Ofsted category

The local authority will update the Education Standards Board on the progress of schools

discussed at the previous full Board meeting.

11 | P a g e

Escalation options

The options for escalation will be considered for each school at the Education Standards Board and

include:

Trigger Escalation

Schools already eligible for

intervention under the 2006

Education and Inspections Act

because of an inadequate

Ofsted judgement

Maintained Schools

The Regional Schools Commissioner has a duty to issue an academy order converting the school to a sponsored academy as swiftly as possible.

Academies The Regional Schools Commissioner has the power

to terminate the funding agreement with an academy trust and seek a (new) sponsor.

Leadership and management

are judged to require

improvement

A school sixth form is judged

inadequate

Low standards of performance

by pupils

The school has not responded

robustly or rapidly enough to a

recommendation for an

external review of either

governance or pupil premium

Breakdown in the way that the

school is managed or

governed

The safety of pupils or staff at

the school is threatened

Standards of inclusion are unacceptably low

Maintained Schools

‘Feedback to school and Intervention Assessment’

form (Appendix E) will be completed each time a

school appears at the Education Standards Board.

Where schools are demonstrating the capacity to

improve at a swift enough pace, a Warning Notice

may be withheld. The reasons for withholding a

Warning Notice will be clearly stated.

Where there is not firm evidence of the capacity to

improve, a Warning Notice will be issued.

If a school remains subject to ongoing monitoring

for a third occasion for the same trigger, then it is

unlikely to be demonstrating sufficient capacity to

improve and a Warning Notice will ordinarily be

issued.

Academies

As for maintained schools, but with referral to the

Regional Schools Commissioner instead of a

Warning Notice.

NB: The Regional Schools Commissioner can exercise their power to intervene with any academy or maintained school at their discretion and in line with the Statutory Guidance for Schools Causing Concern published by the Department for Education.

12 | P a g e

A Warning Notice must be given in writing to a governing body and must set out:

the reasons for concern – in detail and with explanation of the facts

the action required by the governing body to address the concerns

a fifteen working day compliance/appeals period

the action the local authority is minded to take if the governing body does not take the

required action.

Warning Notices must be copied to the headteacher and as appropriate the relevant Diocesan

authority or, in the case of foundation or voluntary schools, the person who appoints the

foundation governors.

Maintained schools become eligible for intervention if they fail to comply with a Warning Notice

and the local authority has given written notice to the governing body proposing to exercise one

or more statutory powers under the 2006 Act.

Academies are subject to intervention by the Regional Schools Commissioner. From March 2016,

the Regional Schools Commissioner has the power to intervene directly with maintained schools

where there are concerns about performance standards and safety.

Evaluation of External Support

The North Lincolnshire Quality Standards for School Improvement provide a framework for

identifying how effective the support for schools is (Appendix F). The expectation is that all

support is either effective or highly effective. Support that is partially effective should be reviewed

to understand the reasons that it is not having the required impact on the quality of provision,

leadership and management or pupils’ outcomes. Any support that is found to be ineffective, or is

likely to be ineffective should be ceased immediately and the resources redirected.

In certain circumstances, the local authority will commission an independent headteacher to

assess the support plan for a school and to monitor and report on the effectiveness of external

support as required. This may be appropriate when:

There are concerns that the quality of support being provided is not effective and will not

help the school to make improvements at the expected pace

There are concerns that the school lacks the capacity to use the support available.

The effectiveness of support is disputed

The independent headteacher will make a judgement on the effectiveness of support for the

school using the North Lincolnshire Quality Standards and this will be reported to the Education

Standards Board.

13 | P a g e

3. Appendices

A. Definitions: Headline performance measures and floor standards

B. Terms of reference for the Education Standards Board

C. Signatures of Risk Evaluation tool

D. School Level Report to the Education Standards Board

E. Education Standards Board Feedback to School and Intervention Assessment

F. North Lincolnshire Quality Standards for School Improvement

14 | P a g e

Appendix A: Definitions: Headline performance measures and floor standards

PRIMARY

Academic year

Headline performance measures Floor standard

2017/2018 Percentage of pupils achieving the expected standard in reading, writing and mathematics at the end of key stage 2

Percentage of pupils who achieve at the higher standard in reading, writing and mathematics at the end of key stage 2

Pupils’ average scaled scores in reading and in mathematics at the end of key stage 2

Pupils’ average progress in reading, in writing and in mathematics from key stage 1 to key stage 2

A school will be above the floor standard if at least 65% of pupils meet the expected standard in reading, writing and mathematics or if it achieves sufficient progress scores in all three subjects.

Sufficient progress will be calculated as a value-added measure from key stage 1 to key stage 2 and will be published in the September following the key stage tests being taken.

SECONDARY

Academic year

Headline performance measures Floor standard

2017/18 Progress 8 – progress across 8 qualifications

Attainment 8 – attainment across the same 8 qualifications

Basics – percentage of pupils achieving a grade 5 or above in English and mathematics

Percentage of pupils entering the English Baccalaureate

Percentage of pupils achieving the English Baccalaureate

Percentage of students staying in education or employment after key stage 4 (destinations)

Further information about how Progress 8 and Attainment 8 (and confidence intervals) are calculated can be found at Progress 8 and Attainment 8

A school will be below the floor standard if its Progress 8 score is below -0.51, unless the confidence interval suggests that the school’s underlying performance may not be below average.

1 A Progress 8 score of -0.5 indicates that the average achievement of a school’s pupils is half a grade worse per subject than other pupils with the same prior attainment.

15 | P a g e

16-19

Academic year

Performance measures Minimum standards

2017/18 Progress – a value-added progress measure for academic and Applied General qualifications, and a combined completion and attainment measure for Tech Level qualifications

Attainment – the average point score per entry, expressed as a grade and average points

English and maths progress - for those who have not achieved a good pass at GCSE at the end of key stage 4

Retention – the proportion of students retained to the end of their main programme of study

Destinations – the proportion of students going on to, or remaining in, sustained education or employment in the year after taking Level 3 qualifications

Best 3 A levels – average points per entry of a student’s best 3 A levels

AAB – the proportion of students achieving 3 A levels at grades AAB, including at least 2 in facilitating subjects

Tech Bacc – a count of all students in the provider who have achieved the Tech Bacc

Further details about the above can be found at 16-19 Accountability Measures: Technical Guide

Minimum standards are set separately for level 3 academic and Applied General qualifications using the retrospective school of college value added scores and associated confidence intervals.

A provider will be seen as underperforming if:

Its VA score is statistically significantly below the national average, i.e. both its upper and lower confidence intervals are below zero; and

It has a VA score below the threshold set by the Department for Education.

16 | P a g e

Appendix B: Terms of Reference for the Education Standards Board

Context

The Education Standards Board was established in September 2013 in recognition that the

accountability for overall education standards and outcomes, including for the most vulnerable

children and young people, is owned collectively – and not by any single organisation or agency.

The partnership ambitions of the Education Standards Board are:

ensuring a supply of strong and sustainable education places

ensuring vulnerable children achieve great outcomes

tackling underperformance and ensuring high standards

Purpose

The Education Standards Board provides the local framework for accountability for education

standards and quality in North Lincolnshire. The partnership’s ambitions are promoted by:

enabling an informed and coordinated approach to improving education outcomes within

a diverse education system

mitigating the risk of formal failure through early challenge, support and intervention for

all schools and academies to address causes of underperformance

promoting partnerships and alliances as the building blocks of a self-improving system

demanding quick turnarounds for any school or academy that falls below the standards for

‘good’

further improving inclusive practices and cooperation within the schools’ sector for

vulnerable children

facilitating open and professional engagement between local schools, academies and

academy sponsors, and with local government and the agencies of national government

Scope / Jurisdiction

The Education Standards Board is an overarching group which has the overview of education

standards and quality in schools and academies in North Lincolnshire. It has no independent

decision making powers.

Objectives

To deliver these aims, the Education Standards Board will:

agree the criteria that will be used to judge the performance of schools in North

Lincolnshire

use a range of information about schools, including pupil achievement data and Ofsted

outcomes, to identify those that are performing well and those that are underperforming

hold schools, academies and key partners to account for education standards and quality,

including in pre-meetings with headteachers and chairs of individual schools and

academies

17 | P a g e

come to a shared view about the most effective way of addressing any underperformance

and who will be responsible for taking this forward

make recommendations about the next steps to be taken to effect timely improvements in

individual schools and academies

make recommendations about congratulating schools that are performing well

monitor progress with implementing actions agreed in meetings, and evaluating the impact

of these on individual school performance.

Membership**

Chair: NLC Chief Executive NLC Cabinet Member: Children, Families

and Learning***

Primary Headteachers Consortium

representatives* (3)

Secondary Headteachers and Principals

representatives* (3)

Chair of governors from North Lincolnshire

Association of Governing Bodies executive (1)

Chairs of governors in North Lincolnshire

who are National Leaders of Governance (2)

Virtual Headteacher for Looked After Children Chair of North Lincolnshire Schools Forum

Independent Chair of the Fair Access and

Inclusion Panel

Teaching School Alliance representative

Church of England Diocese: Director of

Education

Catholic Diocese representative

Ofsted: Senior HMI DfE: Regional Schools Commissioner

NLC Director of Learning, Skills and Culture NLC Director of Children and Community

Resilience***

NLC Head of Standards and Effectiveness

* Headteachers’ consortia will agree who their representatives will be at the start of each year.

** Substitutions are permitted and names should be forwarded to the chair prior to meetings.

***The Education Standards Board supports the statutory assurance requirements of the Lead

Member for Children and the Director of Children’s Services.

Role of the Chair

Education Standards Board meetings will be chaired by North Lincolnshire Chief Executive. The

role of the chair is to ensure that the business of meetings is conducted efficiently and effectively,

and that decisions are made and noted as required.

Taking account of the views of Board members, the Chair may make recommendations to

stakeholders including governing bodies. These recommendations are independent of the

constituent Board members.

18 | P a g e

Secretariat

This role is provided by the local authority. Materials are circulated at least one week in advance

of meetings and will be treated as confidential. Minutes are circulated within one week of

meetings. All communication outside of meetings is conducted by email.

Deliverables

The specific outputs required of the board include:

minutes of meetings

communications to stakeholders on key issues, concerns and recommendations

Accountability and governance

The Education Standards Board is a partnership convened by the local authority. Individual

members are responsible to the accountability and governance arrangements of their own

organisations.

Confidentiality

All documentation including reports and minutes relating to the Education Standards Board are

strictly confidential unless marked public. School Level Reports remain the property of the

submitting school and are strictly confidential.

Resources and Budget

The board does not hold a budget. Venue costs for meetings are met by the local authority.

Staffing costs for attending Education Standards Board meetings are met by each organisation.

19 | P a g e

Appendix C – Signatures of Risk Evaluation

Signature of risk RAG

SAFEGUARDING COMPLIANCE

1 The school is not compliant with Keeping Children Safe in Education 2016 - systems for recording compliance are weak; governors fail to seek assurance regarding compliance

LEADING THROUGH CHANGE AND ADVERSITY

2 Significant building programme planned, on-going or newly completed

3 Governors have not set a strategic direction to ensure that the school can be strong and sustainable into the long term

4 Succession management is weak – consequently, the school becomes immediately vulnerable when long standing leaders or key governors leave or retire

5 Lack of support provided for new leaders, including Headteachers, Principals and Chairs of Governors

6 Unresolved medium and long term gaps in staffing, including leadership roles

PERFORMANCE CULTURE

7 Stagnation in governance – the governing body lacks renewal in capacity, methodologies or thinking

8 Governors do not effectively and systematically hold school leaders at all levels to account for standards of performance – scrutiny and challenge may be directed only at the headteacher

9 Minutes of Board of Governor meetings do not evidence sufficient challenge or consideration of strategic issues

10 Financial oversight is weak – it is unclear how the use of resources is driving the pace of improvement in standards of learning outcomes

11 School leaders use excuses (e.g. levels of deprivation) to reinforce a culture of low standards and expectations

12 School does not seek or sustain effective external validation of its performance

13 Self-evaluation is largely descriptive and lacks analysis and evaluation – evidence and benchmarking lacks rigour

14 The School Improvement Plan is insufficiently detailed, lacking specific success criteria and milestones by which governors can hold leaders to account for implementing the intended actions

15 Weaknesses in staffing are tolerated too long without formal action

16 There is an over-reliance on intervention activities to compensate for deficiencies in quality first teaching - the effectiveness of specific intervention activities is not well evidenced and understood

17 Outcomes for vulnerable and disadvantaged children are not improving swiftly enough

ENGAGEMENT

18 Insularity or isolation – the school does not participate in effective collaborations or partnerships

19 Persistent or concerning levels of parent dissatisfaction with the school – which may be evident in complaints, Parent View, community feedback and other sources

20 Pupil transfers out of the school are high overall, or, for specific groups of children

20 | P a g e

ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS

School:

Date:

Assessment overseen by:

name:

position:

Analysis of key risks:

GUIDANCE NOTES

The Signatures of Risk are based on the learning from the first three years of the North

Lincolnshire Education Standards Board. These are the recurrent issues and risks found when

calling school leaders and governors to account for the weak performance of their school.

Unaddressed, these risks will contribute to poorer performance.

The Signatures of Risk is not intended to be an exhaustive list of risks against which schools can

assess their performance. Governors and school leaders need to be familiar with the detail of the

Ofsted School Inspection Handbook which can be found at

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/school-inspection-handbook-from-september-2015

The Signatures of Risk approach requires a high level consideration of the prevailing culture and

leadership practices of the school.

The assessment of risk and how well it is being managed and mitigated needs to be

supported by evidence. As an assessment of risk, borderline decisions should normally fall to the

lower category. E.g. a borderline decision between GA and AR is likely to be evaluated AR.

Enter the relevant RAG code (G, GA, RA, R) in the boxes.

Green (G) Green/Amber (GA) Amber/Red (AR) Red (R)

No evidence of this risk

Risk is evident – management and mitigation is timely and effective

Risk is evident – management and mitigation is timely and partially effective

Risk is evident –management and mitigation lacks pace or is not effective enough

NOTE: this information is strictly confidential and remains the property of the person or organisation undertaking the

assessment

21 | P a g e

Appendix D – School Level Report to the Education Standards Board

School/Academy

Headteacher/Principal

Chair of Governors

Why is the school in

scope?

What are the success

criteria for removing

the school from

scope?

SCHOOL’S SUBMISSION

Outcomes Date Overall Achievement/

Outcomes

Teaching/

TLA

B&S/

PDBW

Leadership &

Management

Ofsted grade (1-4)

SEF grade (1-4) Headings used will depend on date of last inspection and which Ofsted framework was in place at the time.

TLA = teaching, learning & assessment; B&S = behaviour & safety; PDBW = personal development, behaviour & welfare

What are the key performance issues that the school is facing? What are the limiting factors

that need to be overcome for improvement to happen with sufficient pace? Please include any

risk factors identified through the Signatures of Risk assessment.

What is the impact of the actions the school has taken to improve outcomes?

If applicable, how has the school responded to previous recommendations of the Education

Standards Board?

How effective is external support in contributing to improving outcomes?

How are governors actively monitoring and evaluating the rate of improvement?

What else is required to further accelerate the rate of improvement?

RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE EDUCATION STANDARDS BOARD

From the pre-meeting, what are the key points that the Board need to be aware of? What

options should the Board consider? What is the recommended action for the Board?

Report produced from pre-meeting discussion involving: Headteacher; Chair of Governors;

Director of Learning, Skills and Culture; Head of Standards and Effectiveness; ESB Headteacher

and Chair of Governor representatives.

22 | P a g e

Appendix E – Education Standards Board Feedback to School and Intervention

Assessment (Confidential)

Education Standards Board Feedback to School and Intervention Assessment

This feedback statement should be read alongside the School Level Report agreed by the school

and the Standard Operating Procedures of the North Lincolnshire Education Standards Board.

Attention is drawn to the Statutory Guidance for Schools Causing Concern (Department for Education, February 2018).

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/schools-causing-concern--2 Local Authorities must have regard for this

guidance under section 72 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006.

Name of School

Chair of Governors

Headteacher

Date of Board meeting

The school is within the scope of the Education Standards Board because:

What are the success criteria for removing the school from scope?

Points raised by members of the Education Standards Board:

A. The report produced by the school following the school assurance meeting was provided.

B. The following observations and recommendations were provided in writing based on the pre-

meeting:

C. Additional points made at the Board meeting by members:

Recommendations for the Board of Governors (and Academy Sponsor if applicable)

23 | P a g e

Is the level of intervention being escalated at this time? Yes/No

The reasons for this decision are:

For maintained schools only: Does this assessment relate to the issuing of a Warning Notice under section 60 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006?

Yes/No

For academies only: Is this assessment being referred to the Regional Schools Commissioner in line with Statutory Guidance and the Statutory Duties of the Local Authority?

N/A

When is the latest date by which this decision will be reviewed? Feb/June/Nov

Approved by: Head of Standards and Effectiveness

Date:

Circulation: Chair of Governors Headteacher/Principal Academy Sponsor if applicable Members of the Education Standards Board

24 | P a g e

Appendix F - North Lincolnshire Quality Standards for School Improvement

As we progress towards a self-improving schools system in North Lincolnshire, support for school

improvement will be provided in many different ways. There is already a rich tapestry of school

improvement work ongoing, including: School Improvement Partners; Learning Networks; school-

to-school partnerships; local authority officers; academy sponsors; local collaborative trusts; multi-

academy trusts; National and Local Leaders in Education; Advanced Skills Teachers, Specialist

Leaders in Education; external consultants commissioned by schools; and other sold services,

training courses and conferences from the local authority and the wider market of school

improvement

The purpose of these Quality Standards is to provide a shared language for planning and

evaluating approaches to school improvement, for sharing sources of effective support between

schools and with the local authority, and for increasing accountability on all providers of school

improvement services.

Descriptors are a guide to inform a professional judgement and a best fit approach should be used.

Highly effective (1)

• There is compelling evidence that the school improvement work is leading to significant

improvements in the quality of provision, accelerating pupil outcomes, and building leadership

capacity.

• Key aspects of the school improvement work exceed the criteria for effective (2).

Effective (2)

• There is firm evidence that the school improvement work is leading to improvements in pupil

outcomes, quality of provision and leadership and management in the school.

• Contracting with the school is effective. The school improvement approach draws on credible

professionals with relevant experience of educational leadership and school improvement; individuals

possess effective leadership, interpersonal, analytical, evaluation and ICT skills. The planned

improvement work is designed to the unique context and priorities of the school(s) as part of each

school’s wider improvement strategy. Measurable and challenging success criteria are agreed from the

outset. The timescale reflects the level of priority afforded this work by school leaders. Roles and

responsibilities within the agreed improvement work are well defined. The chosen methodologies draw

upon the best practice already evident within the school(s), whilst challenging that which is less

effective. Support is differentiated to account for all starting points.

• Communication and ongoing engagement is effective. School leaders and other staff engage well with

and are positive about the school improvement work. Methodologies are flexible and engaging.

Feedback on actual practice ensures that improvements embed. There is an ongoing dialogue between

all the professionals involved that acknowledges progress, overcomes obstacles and maintains a focus

on the success criteria. There is an appropriate balance of challenge and support. In any interactions

with governors, the person providing the school improvement work gives an objective view of the

school, so that governors feel well supported in their role as critical friend. Communications focus on

the key issues for the school, providing timely and succinct summaries of the main points; they model

evaluative rather than descriptive writing, include clear judgements and recommendations which are

backed up by evidence, and identify next steps for school improvement. Changes to the status of the

school, including pupil outcomes and current risks and challenges are reported.

25 | P a g e

• Impact demonstrates effectiveness: There is evidence of capacity building: the quality of provision is

measurably improved, leadership of learning has developed and self-evaluation is accurate.

Professionals recognise how their practice has changed and the impact on pupils’ learning. Due to the

motivation and engagement of the staff involved, the improvements become self sustaining. Leaders

and staff feel empowered. There is evidence that the success criteria have been met. Success is

celebrated. An exit strategy is agreed that secures further improvement once the support is withdrawn.

The effectiveness of the support provided is agreed with the school leadership.

Partially effective (3)

• There is evidence that the school improvement work is beginning to have a positive impact on pupil

outcomes, quality of provision or leadership and management at the school.

• However, key aspects of the school improvement work are not yet effective.

Ineffective (4)

• There is no evidence to suggest that the school improvement work will lead to improved pupil

outcomes, the quality of provision, or, leadership and management at the school.

• Contracting is ineffective. The person(s) providing the school improvement work lacks credibility and

does not have the relevant experience, knowledge, understanding or expertise to carry out the role

effectively. School leaders and other staff do not feel that the school improvement work was

appropriate to the context of their school. The work lacks focus and urgency. Success criteria are not

agreed.

or

• Communication and ongoing engagement is ineffective: The balance of challenge and support provided

is inappropriate. Professional development activities do not engage staff or governors and there is little

evidence that learning is acted on or leads to better practice. Communications do not support

improvement. The person providing the school improvement work does not recognise and act on

important changes in the status of the school.

or

• The work lacks impact: Improvements are superficial or short lived. The work is not seen through to a

conclusion.

SAFEGUARDING GUIDANCE:

Everyone associated with children and young people has a duty to promote safeguarding.

Schools should report to the local authority any provider that does not meet safeguarding requirements or

promotes approaches that are incompatible with ensuring the safety and wellbeing of children, staff or the

wider community.