The NGA Policy Conference — the importance of

Скачать презентацию The NGA Policy Conference — the importance of Скачать презентацию The NGA Policy Conference — the importance of

129d83a50821203b64001aa188cd7699.ppt

  • Количество слайдов: 36

The NGA Policy Conference - the importance of school governance Penny Jones Deputy Director The NGA Policy Conference - the importance of school governance Penny Jones Deputy Director Independent Education and School Governance Division

What is PISA? § § Three-yearly OECD survey running since 2000 65 countries took What is PISA? § § Three-yearly OECD survey running since 2000 65 countries took part in 2009 (up from 57 in 2006) Assesses 15 -year-olds (Year 11) 2009: major focus on reading, with some testing of science & mathematics § 165 schools took part out of a possible 190 in England (including independent and academies) § Approx 4, 000 pupils tested in England

UK rankings 2006>2009 Subject 2006 57 countries 2009 65 countries § § Reading 17 UK rankings 2006>2009 Subject 2006 57 countries 2009 65 countries § § Reading 17 th 25 th Science 14 th 16 th Maths 24 th 28 th No significant change across all subjects Some fall in rankings because of new high-performing participants & faster-improving countries

Reading § § § § OECD average 493 (492) UK score 494 (495) UK Reading § § § § OECD average 493 (492) UK score 494 (495) UK no different from OECD average Total number of countries 65 (57) Number of countries ranked higher 24 (18) OECD countries ranked higher 18 (10) Significantly higher than UK 12 (11) 2006 figures in brackets

Reading: countries higher than UK Italics = non-OECD country Significant Not significant 1) Shanghai-China Reading: countries higher than UK Italics = non-OECD country Significant Not significant 1) Shanghai-China 556 (~~~) 13) Estonia 501 2) Korea 539 (556) 14) Switzerland 501 (499) 3) Finland 536 (547) 15) Poland 500 (508) 4) Hong Kong-China 533 (536) 16) Iceland 500 (484) 5) Singapore 526 (~~~) 17) United States 500 (~~~) 6) Canada 524 (527) 18) Liechtenstein 499 (510) 7) New Zealand 521 (521) 19) Sweden 497 (507) 8) Japan 520 (498) 20) Germany 497 (495) 9) Australia 515 (513) 21) Ireland 496 (517) 10) Netherlands 508 (507) 11) Belgium 506 (501) 23) Chinese Taipei 495 (496) 12) Norway 503 (484) 495 (494) 22) France 24) Denmark 496 25) United Kingdom 494 (501) (488) (495)

Mathematics § § § § OECD average UK score UK no different from OECD Mathematics § § § § OECD average UK score UK no different from OECD average Total number of countries Number of countries ranked higher OECD countries ranked higher Significantly higher than UK 496 (498) 492 (495) 65 (57) 27 (23) 20 (17) 20 (19) 2006 figures in brackets

Mathematics: countries higher than UK Italics = non-OECD country Significant 1) Shanghai-China 600 (~~~) Mathematics: countries higher than UK Italics = non-OECD country Significant 1) Shanghai-China 600 (~~~) 11) Netherlands 526 (531) 2) Singapore 562 (~~~) 12) Macao-China 525 (525) 3) Hong Kong-China 555 (547) 13) New Zealand 519 (522) 4) Korea 546 (547) 14) Belgium 515 (520) 5) Chinese Taipei 543 (549) 15) Australia 514 (520) 6) Finland 541 (548) 16) Germany 513 (504) 7) Liechtenstein 536 (525) 17) Estonia 512 (515) 8) Switzerland 534 (530) 18) Iceland 507 (506) 9) Japan 529 (523) 19) Denmark 503 (513) 10) Canada 527 (527) 20) Slovenia 501 (504)

Science § § § § OECD average UK score UK above OECD average Total Science § § § § OECD average UK score UK above OECD average Total number of countries Number of countries ranked higher OECD countries ranked higher Significantly higher than UK 501 (500) 514 (515) 65 (57) 15 (13) 9 (8) 10 (9) 2006 figures in brackets

Science : countries higher than UK Italics = non-OECD country Significant Not significant Shanghai Science : countries higher than UK Italics = non-OECD country Significant Not significant Shanghai - China 575 Netherlands 522 Finland 554 Chinese Taipei 520 Hong Kong - China 549 Germany 520 Singapore 542 Liechtenstein 520 Japan 539 Switzerland 517 Korea 538 United Kingdom 514 New Zealand 532 Canada 529 Estonia 528 Australia 527

Gaps in performance – low & high performers § Spread of attainment slightly wider Gaps in performance – low & high performers § Spread of attainment slightly wider than OECD average. § Similar percentage of low performers as OECD average at lowest levels – slightly more at highest levels.

Gaps in performance – low & high performers below L 2 L 4 -L Gaps in performance – low & high performers below L 2 L 4 -L 6 mean England OECD average Shanghai-China Finland Singapore Australia 18% 19% 4% 7% 12% 14% 28% 54% 45% 41% 43% 495 493 556 536 526 515 Note: Level 2 = baseline level of proficiency in PISA at which pupils begin to demonstrate the literary competencies that will enable them to participate effectively and productively in life.

Gaps in performance – low & high performers Spread in performance below L 2 Gaps in performance – low & high performers Spread in performance below L 2 L 4 -L 6 mean England OECD average Shanghai-China Finland Singapore Australia 18% 19% 4% 7% 12% 14% 28% 54% 45% 41% 43% 495 493 556 536 526 515 Note: Level 2 = baseline level of proficiency in PISA at which pupils begin to demonstrate the literary competencies that will enable them to participate effectively and productively in life.

Higher aspirations - secondary § NCSL speech on 16 June § Wolf review found Higher aspirations - secondary § NCSL speech on 16 June § Wolf review found schools ‘gaming’ qualifications § White Paper raised floor target to 35% 5 A*-C including english and maths § In 2012 floor target will rise to 40% and by 2015 to 50% § This is a basic minimum entitlement: remember that Singapore is already achieving 80%

Higher aspirations - primary § White Paper expectation that 60% pupils achieve Level 4 Higher aspirations - primary § White Paper expectation that 60% pupils achieve Level 4 in english and maths at KS 2 § More than 200 schools under this target for 5 years or more § Urgently seeking Academy sponsors by September 2012 § Education Bill provides power for Df. E to intervene directly § Want LAs to turn round 500 schools below floor target for 3 out of 4 years § Many LAs have persuasive plan

 § § § § Key statutory duties placed on maintained school governors conduct § § § § Key statutory duties placed on maintained school governors conduct of the school promotion of high standards of educational achievement control of school premises employment and dismissal of staff (if relevant) provision of a broad and balanced curriculum behaviour, discipline and welfare of pupils various duties in relation to admissions School Governance

 § § White Paper - concerns about current arrangements GBs lack information to § § White Paper - concerns about current arrangements GBs lack information to challenge and support head not focused on strategic direction lack good advice wrong skills mix School Governance

Stakeholder model § § § parents (elected) staff (elected) community (appointed by GB) local Stakeholder model § § § parents (elected) staff (elected) community (appointed by GB) local authority (appointed) foundation or partnership (appointed) sponsor (from financial supporters) School Governance

Changes in Education Bill § Clause 37: two parent governors, the head teacher and Changes in Education Bill § Clause 37: two parent governors, the head teacher and (where relevant) foundation governors will be mandatory § Will add one staff member and one governor appointed by the local authority. The governing body will be able to veto the LA apppointment § No school will be forced to change its constitution § Purpose is to assist governing bodies to recruit the most skilled people possible § Role of School Governors One Stop Shop

10 Key questions for governors to ask 1. What are the school’s values? Are 10 Key questions for governors to ask 1. What are the school’s values? Are they reflected in our long term development plans? 2. 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? 3. Have we got the right staff and the right development and reward arrangements? 4. Do we have a sound financial strategy, get good value for money and have robust procurement and financial systems? 5. Do we keep our buildings and other assets in good condition and are they well used?

6. Does the curriculum provide for and stretch all pupils? 7. Do we keep 6. Does the curriculum provide for and stretch all pupils? 7. Do we keep parents well informed and take account of their views? 8. Do we keep children safe and meet the statutory health and safety requirements? 9. How is pupil behaviour? Do we tackle the root causes of poor behaviour? 10. Do we offer a wide range of extra-curricular activities which engage all pupils?

Number of Maintained Primary Schools (includes Middle schools) Number of State funded Secondary Schools Number of Maintained Primary Schools (includes Middle schools) Number of State funded Secondary Schools School Governance

Academy Programme § Progress so far, (as of 1 June 2011) § § § Academy Programme § Progress so far, (as of 1 June 2011) § § § 704 open Academies. 430 schools have converted to become Academies since September (330 secondary and 100 primary). 814 more schools are in the pipeline. 274 sponsored Academies have replacing underperforming schools, 71 have opened since September. 1244 formal applications 831 Academy Orders have been issued by Ministers

Chains of Academies § § Collaboration is a proven way of raising standards Promotes Chains of Academies § § Collaboration is a proven way of raising standards Promotes joint working, the sharing of best practice and resources No set model – Discuss your ideas with the Department Consider the split of roles between different levels, clear accountability and the proposed structure is flexible and reactive enough to take account of future needs. § You will need to demonstrate the capacity to improve schools within the proposed chain arrangements that are close to the floor targets § Schools below the new floor standard or in an Ofsted category will be encouraged to be partnered by a strong Academy sponsor through the multi-Academy Trust Model.

Hard Federations § Greenfield VC Lower School & Pulloxhill Lower School § Both schools Hard Federations § Greenfield VC Lower School & Pulloxhill Lower School § Both schools serve their local villages and the surrounding rural area. § Ofsted reports that: “Key strength of Pulloxhill is the federation that has been established with Greenfield school. This link has brought many benefits that have had a positive impact on teaching and learning, pupils’ achievement and on the leadership and management of the school. Expertise among staff has been shared and this has supported the development of teaching extremely well. “

Collaborative Partnership § A newly formed chain due to convert in July, includes, Reid Collaborative Partnership § A newly formed chain due to convert in July, includes, Reid Street Primary (Good), Alderman Leach Primary (GWOF), Hummersknott School & Language College (GWOF). § Provide support to one another and a Ofsted satisfactory school outside the chain, Skerne Park Primary. § Another school, The Federation of Mowden Junior and Infant Schools will provide further support within this partnership and may convert by joining schools in this chain at a later date. § Hummersknott will be supporting Alderman Leach by improving teacher effectiveness through implement the Teacher Effectiveness Enhancement programme (TEEP) and Skerne Park Primary School (non-chain) also by implementing TEEP and increasing the effectiveness of Pastoral Continuity of pupils transferring from Skerne Park to Hummersknott.

Benefits of Academy status: Use of freedoms § § § § Pay and Conditions Benefits of Academy status: Use of freedoms § § § § Pay and Conditions Capital City Academy (sponsored, London) The ability to set their own pay and conditions has enabled Capital City Academy to develop a rich extra-curricular offer - over 150 different academic, creative and sporting activities run at lunch time, after school and at the weekend, available to all students, who choose as many as time allows. The Harris Federation (sponsored, London) The ability to set their own pay and conditions has made it easier for the Harris Federation to transfer staff to support neighbouring schools and allows them to appoint outstanding staff to work across more than one school. Harris also offers a one year professional development programme for taking teachers from satisfactory to good, and a two year programme for taking them from good to outstanding. They also have a masters programme to develop future leaders, which is delivered with the London University Institute of Education, and subsidised by 50 per cent. Unusual within teaching, Harris benefits include: private medical cover, interest free loans for season tickets and bicycle purchase. There is also a range of financial incentives and bonuses for good performance, including for attendance and examination performance.

Use of freedoms (cont) § § § ARK Academies (sponsored, nationwide) ARK has a Use of freedoms (cont) § § § ARK Academies (sponsored, nationwide) ARK has a comprehensive programme of staff development. Staff (both teaching and non-teaching) across all ARK Academies are offered a wide range of targeted training – relating both to teaching skills as well as ‘soft skills’ like communication, team work, managing conflict and time management. Subject groups are also in place across ARK Academies to provide the opportunity to share best practice. ARK also has programmes for aspiring heads. The United Learning Trust (sponsored, nationwide) Several ULT principals have completed programmes at Harvard Business School in the USA. There also a range of ULT programmes to help develop future principals. Many teachers undertake MAs in Educational Leadership and Management at the University of Warwick and their People Development Programme provides 50 days of training per year for all categories of Academy staff. Several partners support ULT’s professional development programmes: Honda deliver a day on our Warwick MA on Business Leadership; the Mo. D has invited all ULT Principals to participate in the partnership day of the Defence Strategic Leadership Programme; Trinity Hall Cambridge providing bespoke science conference for ULT Science Heads of Departments (Ho. Ds) and teachers; St John’s College Durham holding places for ULT Ho. Ds at their annual Religious Studies Conference

Consultation on changes to the School Admissions framework Friday 27 May 2011 to Friday Consultation on changes to the School Admissions framework Friday 27 May 2011 to Friday 19 August 2011

Aims of the revised Admissions and Appeals Codes § Written from the assumption that Aims of the revised Admissions and Appeals Codes § Written from the assumption that all schools seek to comply with the Codes. § The Codes have been simplified with duplication removed. § We have removed references to things that admission authorities ‘should’ or ‘should not’ do – as these can be confusing and leave the Codes open to interpretation. § We have sought to reduce burdens and bureaucracy by removing unnecessary, sometimes costly, prescription. § This is not about weakening the admissions system. The revised Codes will still ensure that all school places are offered, and all appeals are heard, in a fair and lawful way.

Key policy changes – the Admissions Code § In-year Coordination – remove the requirement Key policy changes – the Admissions Code § In-year Coordination – remove the requirement on local authorities to co-ordinate in-year admissions. Delays have resulted in some children being out of school for long periods. § Published Admissions Number (PAN) – the Government wants to make it easier for popular school to increase in size. Own admission authority schools will no longer need local authority approval to admit above PAN. § Random allocation – use of this oversubscription criterion will be restricted to individual schools. Local authorities will not be able to use it as the principal way of allocating places across their area.

Key policy changes – the Admissions Code § Infant class size – twins (and Key policy changes – the Admissions Code § Infant class size – twins (and other children of multiple births) and children of service personnel will be allowed as exceptions to the class size limit. § Consultation - admission authorities will only be required to consult on their admission arrangements every 7 years (rather than 3 currently) where they are not making any changes. § Pupil premium - where their funding agreement allows, Academies and Free Schools will be able to prioritise children who attract the Pupil Premium.

Key policy changes – the Admissions Code § Children of staff – admission authorities Key policy changes – the Admissions Code § Children of staff – admission authorities will be able to prioritise children of staff. Currently may only do so where there is a demonstrable skill shortage, which may mean some schools losing out on valuable members of staff. § Objections to the Schools Adjudicator – the deadline for objections will be 30 June, rather than 31 July, to allow more time for them to be resolved before the admissions round. Anyone in the local community will be able to object.

Key policy changes – the Appeals Code § Removal of prescriptive detail, for example Key policy changes – the Appeals Code § Removal of prescriptive detail, for example – – No longer required to advertise for lay members every three years – Panels’ discretion as to when training updates are required – Appeals may be heard in school premises, avoiding costly and unnecessary venue hire – No longer required to rehear all appeals in a multiple appeal if a panel member withdraws. Will be required to postpone remaining appeals until the third member returns or is replaced.

Key policy changes – the Appeals Code § Three stage process – rather than Key policy changes – the Appeals Code § Three stage process – rather than current two stage process for reaching decisions on appeals. Will clarify and separate the matters a panel must consider. § The appeals timetable – more flexibility, within certain limitations, to set a timetable that takes account of local circumstances – parents must have at least 30 working days to lodge an appeal. Current 10 day deadline forces parents into lodging an appeal rather than considering alternatives.

Changes in the Education Bill (not part of the admissions consultation) § Role of Changes in the Education Bill (not part of the admissions consultation) § Role of the Adjudicator – able to consider objections about Academies and Free Schools – it will be the responsibility of the admission authority, not the Adjudicator, to amend unlawful arrangements, but the Adjudicator’s decision will still be binding. § Local authority reports – LAs no longer required to report annually to the Adjudicator on fair access. Report will be aimed at the local community to ensure better local accountability. § Admission Forums – will be voluntary rather than mandatory.

Next steps § The consultation is available at www. education. gov. uk/consultations until Friday Next steps § The consultation is available at www. education. gov. uk/consultations until Friday 19 August. § We will publish final versions of the Codes and the response to the consultation in September. § New Codes and regulations will come into force in early 2012. § They will first affect admission arrangements in 2013.




  • Мы удаляем страницу по первому запросу с достаточным набором данных, указывающих на ваше авторство. Мы также можем оставить страницу, явно указав ваше авторство (страницы полезны всем пользователям рунета и не несут цели нарушения авторских прав). Если такой вариант возможен, пожалуйста, укажите об этом.