20/20 vision:The next five years forChurch schools in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly

Briefing for Bishop’s Staff & school leadersJuly 2015

Simon Cade

20/20 vision20/20 vision20/20 vision

20/20 vision: The next five years for Church schools in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly

Page Section

3 Preamble and summary

5 1 Current situation: Church schools now9 2 Drivers for change: Power and money…

15 3 Diocesan priorities: Our agenda18 4 Strategic response: How we deliver our priorities

22 Appendix 1 “Nine characteristics of a successful MAT”24 Appendix 2 What I mean when I say that standards are not good enough

in Cornwall

20/20 Vision 2

20/20 vision: The next five years for church schools in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly

Preamble and Summary

This paper is a briefing for senior leaders in the Diocese of Truro, it seeks to examine:

1. The current situation for Church schools in the diocese: School standards: an inconsistent picture School status and structure: diversity and uncertainty Governance: sometimes good, sometimes not Challenge to recruit to leadership Changing diocesan structures Declining role of LA Population change High proportion of small schools Finance: increasingly a factor Unique challenges for Five Islands School Very small central schools team: failure to recruit Director for Schools

2. The key drivers for change likely to impact on Church schools in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly in the next five years:

2015 Education Act giving more powers to Secretary of State Regional Schools Commissioner being pro-active in pushing standards New measures for standards and challenging sponsor role for the

diocese Local Authority policy Population change Small schools challenges and value Tightening financial climate New partnerships

3. Diocesan priorities that will focus our leadership: Raising standards Further embedding kingdom values in our work Supporting good governance, in Church schools and beyond Discovering God’s kingdom: growing the church Cutting our coat according to our cloth

4. Given those priorities, I suggest the outline of our strategic response: Raise standards: Director for Schools and Askel Veur in partnership

with school-based professionals Promote kingdom values through the work of the DBE and the local

church Improve governance, led by the Governor Development Officer and the

work of both the DBE and Askel Veur Discovering God’s kingdom and growing the church through strong

relationships, keeping schools at the heart of our mission Cut our coat appropriately with a strong business plan.

20/20 Vision 3

The five years since the 2010 Academies Act have seen unprecedented change in the schools community of the UK. The 2015 Education & Adoption Act and the work of the Regional Commissioner are set to accelerate that change.

This briefing relates to the current situation of Church schools in this diocese and the change that is likely in the next five years. Our response to these changes will be based on clear priorities around standards, kingdom values, richer governance at all levels, and integrating our schools work further with the core work of the diocese.

To meet these priorities we will need a courageous and pro-active response at local and diocesan level. The next five years represent a very significant opportunity for our mission in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly.

20/20 Vision 4

1. Current situation: church schools now

Standards

In Cornwall as a whole school standards are too often below national average, in all key stages, but particularly in key stage 3, 4 and 5. Schools and academies in Cornwall as a group have been identified as underperforming by Ofsted and the DfE particularly for the most able children and children who receive free school meals, and not just in the higher key stages.

Performance of children in Church of England schools and academies in Cornwall is generally in line with or below Cornish averages and is well below national Church school averages. Performance of our schools in terms of Ofsted grading is on average below Cornwall and well below national Church school averages.

There are exceptions to these broad assessments and important provisos and clarifications, but in general terms; too many schools in Cornwall are underperforming and among them there are too many Church schools.

Ofsted, HMI and the DfE (in the shape of the Regional Commissioner for Schools) are looking for partners for raising standards in Cornwall. For more detail see Appendix Two.

School Organisation

Cornwall has a high proportion of academies, and as a diocese we have the highest proportion of academies in England (more than half). In common with the rest of Cornwall, diocesan academies have adopted a range of diverse structures and leadership arrangements. Most significantly there is diversity between and even within our multi academy trusts (MATs) in where operational accountability and decision making lies, for instance at school (headteacher) or MAT (principal) level. There is also diversity in the degree of mutuality between schools, for instance in how deployable staff are in practice, and in the balance of power between local school governors and trust-wide academy directors.

Our academies are themselves at different stages in their formation; some are looking to grow new partnerships having secured a degree of stability, some are still forming or reforming in membership or structures, and new potential academy arrangements are being considered.

Our policy has been to generally support local solutions, with varying degrees of scrutiny. Our approach has been to inform, encourage and permit, rather than to guide, restrain and direct. In many cases MATs have been formed around either an Ofsted judgement or a leading headteacher with a plan supported by governors.

20/20 Vision 5

Governance

The key statutory activity of the diocese centrally is to appoint foundation governors, directors and members to act as governors and directors in the first instance, and then to promote and guard the “trust” of the foundation. We do not monitor the overall picture of recruitment to this role (Eg. level of vacancies) and we do not systematically measure the effectiveness of the governors or directors that we appoint.

There are long-standing and significant vacancies among foundation governors, in some schools up to or higher than 50%. Strong anecdotal evidence suggests that a minority of governors and directors are effective in fulfilling the key roles to which they are appointed: “most of the work on most governing bodies and boards is done by a minority of governors or directors”.

Analysis of Ofsted published judgements and attention to Ofsted feedback reveals that poor governance is a factor in a number of schools, however it also reveals examples of outstanding practice. This variation in the quality of governance is striking.

Leadership & recruitment

Cornish schools generally find it hard to recruit senior leaders. This problem is probably sharper in Church schools because we tend to add a faith requirement further reducing the field. We do not as a diocese monitor the effectiveness of the governor role in appointments, and although we offer to support governors in this role we do not consistently offer specific training or strong guidance.

The diocese does not systematically work to develop potential middle or senior leaders although there have been examples of strong support for school leaders by officers leading to good professional outcomes.

Diocesan structures

Reforms to the structure and work of the DBE and Askel Veur are intended to allow a strategic focus on standards and kingdom values. It is too soon to judge the effectiveness of these reforms.

20/20 Vision 6

Cornwall Council as a Local Authority

Cornwall Local Authority is rapidly withdrawing from direct resourcing of services for schools. This is in part because of the large proportion of academy conversions reducing LA funding, but is also driven by a political decision to deliberately reduce the size of the central LA exposure.

As a local authority Cornwall will soon be almost exclusively a commissioner of services to schools through third party providers, rather than a first party provider in its own right.

As a matter of policy the LA do not support the closure of small schools, but the LA is very limited in its capacity to directly support small schools in staying open.

Population change

In some parts of Cornwall there is pressure on school places because of increasing school age populations. In some other areas falling school-age populations and competition for admissions are leading to the opposite challenge.

Small schools

Cornwall and the diocese have a high proportion of small schools. A majority of Church schools in the diocese are “small or very small” by DfE measures. Small schools are often (but not always) in areas where there is little population growth and where the rural economy is already vulnerable and changing.

Small schools are particularly vulnerable to financial pressure and fragile standards, for a range of reasons. In almost all cases simply joining small schools together in federations or academy chains will be necessary but not sufficient.

Finance

It is well known that schools in Cornwall are not funded to the same level as schools in some other areas; however, generally speaking, money is not currently seen as a major problem in most schools. That said, there are a small number of (usually but not always small) church schools running a deficit budget and with dwindling reserves.

The 2015/18 school capital settlement for both academy and maintained schools is significantly less than anticipated. The non-schools element of the DfE budget is not ring-fenced

Isles of Scilly

20/20 Vision 7

Much but not all of the above is particular to Cornwall. The Isles of Scilly is a separate unitary authority and the Five Islands School is its only school. Five Islands remains our “most supported” school in terms of governance support but is moving towards a normalisation of this relationship. The local authority is deeply invested in the future of the school and attends to it very closely.

Schools Team

The schools team working from Church House currently relies heavily on the goodwill and commitment of consultancy-based colleagues. The interim DDE arrangements have become stretched by the length of time between the resignation of Sue Green and the appointment of a Director for Schools. This is a significant vulnerability which in the case of a crisis in one of our schools leaves us exposed, even without a crisis our capacity to offer meaningful support to schools is insufficient. The development work needed to impact on standards widely is very limited.

Notwithstanding our limitations in capacity the work of Jo Osborne and Irene Pooley in focussing on standards has borne significant benefit. We are able to identify direct impact from their work.

The appointment of a Governor Development Officer increases our capacity to support strong governance.

We have failed to appoint a Director for Schools in June 2015 and the administrative “back office” provision for the schools team has been significantly reduced.

20/20 Vision 8

2. Drivers for change:

The 2010 Academies Act and the work of the Regional Schools Commissioner (RSC) have been major drivers for change. Moving forward we know that the 2015 Education and Adoption Act will accelerate these changes and that the agenda of the RSC will be central to this.

Education and Adoption Act 2015

The draft bill as published in June 2015 includes measures to strengthen the Secretary of State’s powers to intervene in schools, and to force more schools to become academies. If it becomes law in its current form we can expect it to make a significant difference.

In summary the draft Bill makes the following provisions relating to schools: Requires Ofsted Grade 4 schools to be turned into sponsored academies. Gives new powers to the Secretary of State to intervene in

underperforming schools, and constraining local authorities from doing so in some circumstances.

Expands the legal definition of “eligible for intervention” to include “coasting” schools, and enabling (but not requiring) the Secretary of State to turn such schools into sponsored academies or intervene in other ways.

Allows the Secretary of State to direct governing bodies and local authorities to speed up academy conversions.

Places a duty on schools and local authorities and others in specified cases to take reasonable steps towards conversion to academy.

Requires schools and local authorities in specified cases to work with an identified sponsor.

Removes the general requirement for “consultation” to be held where a school is deemed “eligible for intervention” and is being converted to be a sponsored academy.

A key element of the new arrangements is to widen the legal definition of “eligible for intervention” (EFI). EFI status triggers powers and responsibilities for both the Local Authority and the Secretary of State (now usually in the person of the RSC). EFI powers already include appointing an interim executive board (effectively sacking the governing body) or suspending the right to a delegated budget, or requiring the school to “enter into arrangements” (usually with another school or provider) or of course the power of the Secretary of State to make an academy order for that school and thus force conversion. In the case of EFI schools the Secretary of State has discretion in whether or not to issue an academy order, we understand from our RSC’s office that this will be exercised on a “case by case” basis.

The definition of EFI is extended from Ofsted 4 schools, to include schools deemed to be “coasting.” The meaning of “coasting” is not given in the Bill itself but has been published for consultation by the DfE subsequently:

A measure over three years KS2 SATs in 2014, 2015, 2016 2 years of <85% L4 RWM with 2 years of below average progress from 7 to 11 followed by a year of below “new higher expected standards of…

progress”

20/20 Vision 9

This is obviously less than clear! The expectation is that it will apply to hundreds of schools (hence the timeframe -?) The key point is that if 2014 and 2015 results are below 85% L4 (yes, that’s level 4, remember levels?) AND progress is at or below average over the same period then schools will need a significant uplift in 2016 to escape the coasting provisions. The “new higher expected standards of… progress” in 2016 have not been described.

Technically these provisions for EFI only apply to maintained schools, not to academies. However the Secretary of State already has greater powers in the case of academies through the funding agreement that she offers to an academy trust, and the provisions of the Academy Financial Handbook. We can assume that parallel EFI judgements and remedies will be applied to academies.

The Local Authority does not have the power to directly intervene with academies where there are concerns about performance, the powers held by the Secretary of State will usually be exercised through the Regional Commissioner and can be summarised thus:

Target setting and meetings with directors and/or members. Pre-warning and warning notices. Re-brokering to find a (new) sponsor. Termination of the funding agreement.

To give the context, about 100 pre-warning and warning notices have been issued to academies or academy trusts in England since 2010. We know of a handful of academies where re-brokering has taken place and a handful where in effect the funding agreement has been terminated.

There are additional powers for the Secretary of State to instruct local authorities to act in certain cases to issue a “warning notice.” The right of schools and others to make a statutory appeal to Ofsted against an LA warning notice has been removed. Non-compliance with a warning notice will make a school EFI.

In the case of schools judged inadequate by Ofsted (grade 4) the Secretary of State will be obliged under the Act to issue an academy order and most of the rights of consultation, appeal and challenge locally are removed. In the case of church schools the Secretary of State will have to consult the diocese on who the sponsor will be, but as now, the sponsor will not necessarily be the diocese.

Over the next five years we can expect more maintained schools to become academies, and that all of these new academies will be in multi academy trusts rather than stand-alone single academy trusts. The 2015 Act is not the draconian “everyone MUST convert” legislation that we anticipated, but the clear direction of travel remains. Clarity of vision and values among governors and directors will be vital as they make critical decisions about the future of our schools and academies.

We can expect that MATs will be larger than our current trusts. There is no magic “ideal” or optimum size, but to approach a combined number on roll of 1000 – 1,500 (often taken as a minimum practical and viable size range) our

20/20 Vision 10

schools will either need to enter MATs with secondary schools or with many more primary schools than we are used to. This is the sort of size that is likely to be necessary to meet expectations of a self-improving and sustainable academy trust. Unless there is strong direction from the RSC or leadership locally or from the diocese it is unlikely that any of our schools will quickly move to MAT structures of this size, a far more likely scenario is a gradually increasing average size of MAT with “mixed” church community MATs becoming the norm, and the distinctions becoming blurred.

In the case of a church school or academy becoming eligible for intervention or failing an Ofsted and requiring sponsorship, there is a steeply increasing risk of it being “lost” as a church school and having its religious designation effectively removed. Our only real remedy in this case is to secure our capacity as a sponsor and to secure strong appropriate partnerships for sponsor arrangements.

The Regional Schools Commissioner (RSC)

The RSC has published “nine characteristics of a successful MAT” (see Appendix 1) and told us that these drive his agenda to raise standards as well as his scrutiny of conversion arrangements. (They replace his earlier distributed “five characteristics”)

The “nine characteristics” make it clear that the quality and impact of leadership, governance, self-improvement, and sustainability expected of MATs will be well beyond that expected in maintained schools hitherto: although our best maintained schools do embody many of these characteristics.

The RSC (and Ofsted) increasingly expects successful academies to be net contributors to the education economy: there is pressure to use strength to raise standards elsewhere in a school to school model of school improvement.

A critical element implied by emerging successful MAT structures is the principle that the MAT is a single educational community with a clarity of purpose and vision: the individual schools are not independent units benefitting from economies of scale, pooling resources where appropriate; rather they are parts of a whole, each dedicated to the common purpose. Staff are likely to be deployable across the MAT and grow ownership of the whole. Such a model is significantly different to the prevailing culture in some of our MATs (not all) and in many schools considering their future. The implied model allows for a range of strong local leadership structures, but with real accountability and leadership held at the centre. Such a mutual model may be attractive on many levels, however a mixed MAT between church and community schools will present a whole new order of challenges and opportunities for a highly dynamic and integrated leadership.

Standards

20/20 Vision 11

The 2015 Act will introduce powers for the RSC to compel more schools to become academies with some form of “sponsorship”. It is likely that this will be a compelling driver of change in a number of Cornish schools.

The diocese will need the capacity to act in, or to broker, a “sponsor” role in more schools than hitherto. We had anticipated that the standards agenda would be very important and are already investing in a standards professional lead and the structures necessary to support it.

Existing church academy trusts would probably need the approval of the DBE/Askel Veur to act as sponsor in their own right (the change in function of “the company” triggering a decision for Members). At least one of our academy trusts could act as a sponsor in its own right almost immediately, others are further away from this but could certainly within five years have that role. Such a relationship would introduce some complications but far more opportunities for an academy trust’s relationship to Askel Veur and the diocesan family.

We know that the RSC is exercising powers to remove under-performing academies from their existing trust arrangement and will consider terminating a denominational designation to do so if necessary. It is possible that the “coasting school” provisions in the 2015 Act could trigger the removal of an academy from an existing MAT, indeed the existing arrangements following an Ofsted Section 5 inspection probably already allow this. More worryingly, new developments nationally may see an entire MAT being re-constituted, and potentially losing its denominational designation.

It is likely that Ofsted will introduce some kind of “whole MAT” and sponsor specific inspection frameworks in the next twelve months. There are already a number of examples of whole MAT inspections that have taken place under existing or previous Ofsted frameworks. The shape of such a framework is yet unclear, but the implications are apparent. Holding a number of potential sponsors within the diocesan family, or at least in close relationship, would seem wise. Alongside this the urgency for increasing the capacity of Askel Veur is highlighted.

Local Authority policy and operational activity

Cornwall is becoming a less significant partner as a local authority, but we should not underestimate the importance of its ongoing role at least in the short and medium term. In two particular policy areas there remains real impact, and in two key operational areas the LA remains a major player.

Cornwall’s policy on small schools means that officers are restricted in their consideration of any school re-organisation that might lead to the closure of small schools. However there is no corresponding strategy (or resource) aimed at helping small schools to flourish. The impact of this policy is that there is little scope for ambitious local planning for consolidation of places, such as that which led to the establishment of deanery schools, and that Cornwall does not engage in helping small schools to stay open. The second key policy area is the deliberate plan to move to a commissioning model for services to schools. This

20/20 Vision 12

model could offer significant opportunity to the diocese to be a partner in raising standards beyond church schools if we are able to take advantage of it.

Operationally Cornwall still has a role in identifying areas where additional capacity is required, either expansion or new schools. Even when the solution is likely to be a new Free School the LA is taking a formal role either through officers or members. Secondly the DfE nationally and at RSC level is continuing to make it clear that LAs still have a responsibility for standards in maintained and academy sectors. This operational role is under resourced in both Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly and will be further outsourced. However in some way both councils will continue to be partners in raising standards. It is possible that both LAs may need to revisit some of their assumptions in the light of the developing RSC policy.

The role of the Isles of Scilly Council is critical for Five Islands, as is any future funding settlement for a possible academy. The council, local community, and many stakeholders are exceptionally sensitive to this agenda.

Population change.

Population growth is a factor in several parts of Cornwall and will lead to the building of new schools and expansion of existing schools. The pattern is complex, however, and flat or even declining school-age population profiles are seen in some more rural areas.

If some small church schools close, while large new community schools (Free Schools) are opened in areas of growth, then the proportion of church school places in Cornwall will decrease. If we are to maintain the proportion of church school places in Cornwall we are likely to need to open at least one new church school in the next five years. We do not currently hold the central capacity to bid for and open a new school.

Small school viability

Five years ago we confidently predicted that significant numbers of small church schools would not survive an austerity government. We were wrong. Pressures have grown, there are certainly a number of small church schools facing very difficult financial challenges, but the whole-scale closures we feared have not materialised. Austerity has not gone away, it is hard to see how manifesto spending plans can support the current estate.

Finance is not the only challenge facing small schools. Maintaining standards presents a whole different set of pressures with very small numbers, as does recruiting staff and offering a broad and balanced curriculum.

Ever more complex collaborations either through federations or academy trusts are unlikely to be sufficient, although they may be necessary. Small schools may find it difficult to meet the due diligence expectations of multi academy trusts; in other parts of the country diocesan MATs have been unwilling to

20/20 Vision 13

accept small schools because the appropriate “top slice” will not meet their share of the cost of the central resource.

Finance

Conservative manifesto commitments to the funding of schools will probably mean real terms cuts in funding for most schools. Unless the Free School arrangements are reformed it is likely that more money will be diverted from the existing schools economy. Small schools will be most vulnerable in this climate but all schools are likely to face a financial challenge. Most current school leaders will not have experience of managing education “cuts” in the way that was commonplace in the early 1990s. In this environment the place of “kingdom values” in decision making will be particularly important.

Well placed DfE officers note that the schools element of the departmental budget is “protected,” and in the same breath suggest that schools plan for a 10-15% cut in spending power over the next five years.

Partnerships

It seems evident that identifying and committing to appropriate partnerships will be a significant driver of change for our work, and for our schools. Some of these partnerships may be new and unexpected. Again, understanding and articulating our values will be important as we explore new partnerships.

It is likely that new partnerships will grow both at diocesan level but also at MAT and school level. If this is the case then our schools estate will become more diverse and asymmetric making coherent policy making and close working more difficult but potentially more rewarding.

Finding a strong mainland partner for Five Islands will present a set of bespoke challenges. The expected funding disparity, geography, the potential for suspicion of mainland motives, and lack of understanding of the unique context of the islands, are among the areas where creative working will be at a premium.

20/20 Vision 14

3. Diocesan Policy : Priorities

A shared understanding of our priorities in education will be important during a time of change. These priorities should help us to form policy and can be used to measure the effectiveness of our leadership. We have identified immediate priorities for our work and key reporting areas, which come together as follows:

Standards

An absolute obligation to children is that they should receive the very best education within our gift. The standards agenda is therefore our clear priority. This is a Gospel priority because it springs from honouring the created and God-given potential of each child. We mean more than what Ofsted and league-tables measure, but we absolutely include what Ofsted and league-tables measure.

This priority is simply expressed in the phrase “to be a significant partner for raising standards in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly.” However a far more nuanced and subtle articulation of this priority will be needed. Saying “more than Ofsted or SATs” will be necessary but not sufficient.

We want Cornwall & the Isles to be the best place in the UK for children to be educated, and for church schools to be leaders among those schools. We want to achieve this while ensuring that Cornish schools and church schools are great places to serve, work and lead. We want our schools to be places where all the God-given potential of every child is revealed and nurtured; academic God-given potential, and also their potential to be happy, safe, healthy, wonderful, worshipping, significant, and creative.

Some measures, such as Ofsted categorisation and end of key-stage outcomes for groups of children, are easily available and easy to consider. We need to find richer and more nuanced measures, sometimes in data form, sometimes perhaps in narrative or other forms. Being a significant partner for raising standards will include:

Seeing outcomes for children improve – we need to make a difference Seeing Ofsted judgements and data evidence for schools improve Effectively fulfil our role as sponsor Standards-led, child-focussed decision making when considering strategic

changes at a diocesan or foundation level Nurturing talent and opportunity among the whole school community Driving a rich standards agenda that attends to the whole child, including

but not limited to academic achievement Impact beyond the immediate church school estate

20/20 Vision 15

Kingdom Values

Diocesan policy in this area has often been seen in an insistence that new governance arrangements maintain a majority of “foundation” appointments; but then too often failing to appoint to those places, or being unclear about what we expect foundation appointees to “do,” or to whom they are accountable. We have easily used phrases such as “protect and promote the foundation” without unpacking what that means or how we measure the effectiveness of that protection and promotion.

A more coherent and detailed understanding of what we mean by kingdom values will need to be developed and led by the DBE. The effectiveness of this will be seen in outcomes such as:

Informed leadership from those appointed to represent the foundation, particularly when schools and academies are taking long term decisions about school status, leadership, and partnerships

Genuine engagement and accountability between the DBE and those appointed to represent the foundation, particularly around kingdom values

Tangible support for teaching as a vocation across the career path between Executive Principal and volunteering to hear children read

Leadership in schools and academies around resourcing (and cuts) that is informed by kingdom values

Growing confidence on the part of the DBE as it leads in kingdom values in education for the diocese

Increasing awareness in the wider diocesan family of the place of education in discovering God’s kingdom and growing the church

Articulate a rich and theologically informed standards agenda that attends to the whole child, including but not limited to academic achievement

Promoting the place of Religious Education in schools and public discourse Ensuring that small schools, particularly when they are in vulnerable

communities, have a strong voice in policy

20/20 Vision 16

Governance

A key statutory function of the diocese (in the form of the DBE) is to appoint foundation governors, directors and members. Alongside this statutory function in many parishes the diocese (in the form of clergy and lay leaders) serves a vocation to work as governor or director in community schools.

Priorities that arise from appointing and providing many governors include:

Exceeding best practice in appointing to governor and director roles Meeting the expectations of partners in timely appointments Ensuring outstanding governance through training, challenge,

development and encouragement Effective succession planning for governance particularly in leadership

roles

Discovering God’s kingdom, growing the church

Attention to the relationship between our work in schools and the core activity of the church is important in a number of ways.

Schools work closely identified with core work of the diocese among officers and diocesan governance

Schools team effectively resource parishes and deaneries for work in all schools including community schools with no formal church relationship

Schools work increasingly related to discipleship activities Provision of church school places, as a proportion of all in Cornwall and

the Isles of Scilly, is at least maintained

Cutting our coat

The diocesan family directly resources our work with schools in a number of ways. Not least among them is the budget from the DBF to fund part of the central schools team. Other funding from within the schools estate either from Education Trust Funds or directly from schools is money rightly focussed on outcomes for children. Ensuring that our work and ambition are of the highest quality, sustainable, and best-value is an appropriate priority.

20/20 Vision 17

4. Diocesan Policy : Strategies for delivering our priorities

Strategy for raising standards

The appointment of a Director for Schools is critical to this aspect of our strategy. Once the appointment is secure we must ensure that the role is successful and resourced appropriately. The role sits within a new framework for Askel Veur, holding this new dynamic appropriately to account will require significant leadership from the vice chair of the DBE and the chair of Askel Veur.

Failure to appoint to the role, at least in a significant interim phase, by early in the autumn term of 2015 will require us to urgently review our overall strategic response and our expectations of what can be achieved by the central diocesan resource.

Engaging well with partners for raising standards will be vital. The most important partnerships are with schools and academies themselves. No centrally appointed officer, however brilliant, and no panel or trust board however skills-rich will itself have an impact on children’s flourishing without the engagement of schools and teachers. However and whoever the appointment is made this will mean growing a new model of mutual accountability and focussed engagement in the interests of children. The centre (DBE and Askel Veur as well as officers) must expect to be more accountable to our schools, as schools will expect to be more accountable in their turn.

Growing new partnerships for standards will be important. Our central resource will always be limited, but in the model proposed it will have to hold in-depth knowledge of the strengths and capacity at local level. We should be open to the possibility of unexpected partnerships while holding the capacity to be properly diligent in both standards and values.

Askel Veur will need to be led by outstanding professionals at officer and board level for it to be an effective partner in raising standards. It will be for these professionals to develop detailed strategies and operational activity that serves these purposes. It will be for the Board of Education to hold Askel Veur to account for this work.

For the Diocese, this posture of actively resourcing the raising of standards will be a new and sometimes uncomfortable exercise of vision and commitment.

20/20 Vision 18

Strategy for promoting Kingdom values

The principle work of the DBE will be to articulate, embody and promote the values that are fundamental to our identity as the church, and our mission among children. This must be built on a renewing foundation of prayer. This will mean:

A new commitment to prayer around our work in schools on the part of the DBE. In particular a systematic diary to encourage members of the board, and others, to pray for schools in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly and the work that goes on among them.

A new focus for deaneries and parishes, encouraging more in our diocese to pray regularly around the work of our schools.

An ongoing and lively conversation at the DBE relating to values in education, the board should naturally be a forum for such theological reflection. Members of the DBE should be encouraged and able to articulate those values clearly.

A deepening expectation that Foundation appointees to governing bodies and boards of directors should also engage in a lively conversation relating to values in education. This conversation will need modelling, encouraging and resourcing by the DBE.

A review process for the work of the DBE should consider the way in which the activity and decisions of the board relate to the values which it articulates. A parallel exercise should be encouraged in the boards to which we appoint foundation members, directors or governors.

We will express these values in the policies we develop, in the focus of our investment through people and resources, and in the priorities we set for our work. The DBE will need theological resources as well as educational knowledge to achieve this. These foundations will allow the board to properly lead and exercise its function.

The training, resourcing and accountability of those appointed to promote kingdom values will be built on the resource held by the Board of Education. New opportunities and structures for training, resourcing and accountability will need to be established quickly.

20/20 Vision 19

Strategy for improving governance

The appointment of the Governor Development Officer is of course central to our strategy for improving governance. The appointment will allow us to train and resource those active in governance in schools and academies, both church and community. We know that we will need to develop metrics and frameworks for measuring the effectiveness of governance.

Improving governance in the new environment for schools will require us to engage in a new way with some academy proposals. There may be occasions when our usual posture of inform, encourage and permit will need to be nuanced more towards guide, restrain and direct. The former posture properly respects the local knowledge and commitment of those with the most direct investment in governance proposals. It is fundamentally the right approach and the one towards which we should work. However we know from experience that sometimes the latter more directive approach will be necessary and not only when some crisis has been precipitated by Ofsted. Our willingness and capacity to be a convenor, broker and leader in this area will have to grow. This will be uncomfortable territory and we will need to develop structures and accountability to allow it.

Among the policy areas related to governance where the Board of Education will need to take a view will be the way in which schools entering a MAT will be required to “pool sovereignty,” rather than maintain the status quo, and in the crucial question of foundation representation in mixed church / community MATs.

The long-running question over the relationship of deanery schools to their home parish and wider deanery will again be highlighted as deanery schools seek conversion. We will be pro-active in leading this discussion with deaneries, parishes and deanery schools.

Working directly with church leaders and members who are governors or directors in secular schools or academies will be a significant area of development. Working up “deanery education plans” should serve as a catalyst for some of this work.

We will explore what “paid for” services we might appropriately offer schools to improve governance, in particular the feasibility of a diocesan clerking service.

20/20 Vision 20

Strategy for “Discovering God’s kingdom, growing the church” through schools work

We will further integrate the work of the schools team with the work of Church House generally, initially through “back office” and finance functions. The appointment of a Director of Education & Discipleship in some ways embodies the integration of our work. Exploring new ways for this to be made real will be a medium term aspiration.

The work of the DBE and Askel Veur will need to be better communicated to schools and parishes. This should be genuine communication and so mechanisms to allow feedback and challenge will be embedded.

The more traditional work of promoting RE and the distinctive church school agenda will continue to be resourced and celebrated.

We will also find ways of investing in the pastoral support of headteachers, initially through developing a network of “bishops’ chaplains to headteachers”.

We will be alert to the possibilities offered by new school building as a result of identified basic need and seek to at least maintain the proportion of church school places available in the diocese through expansion or new build. We are likely to require additional (commissioned) capacity to meet the opportunities offered for new schools.

Sustainability: cutting our coat according to our cloth

We will operate within a clear and properly monitored business plan. Part of this will be to seek when appropriate to offer more “paid for” services to schools that are of a high quality. Income generation will not in itself be an aim for officers, but equally it will not be an aim to offer excellent support or guidance always at no cost to the school. We will explore models of funding used by other dioceses.

We will plan for a flat funding profile from the DBF at best.

20/20 Vision 21

APPENDIX ONEOur Regional Commissioner’s “Nine characteristics of a successful MAT”

Characteristic 1A well communicated strategic vision that moves from implementation to impact

Leaders lead at pace but use the strategic plan as a touchstone Every strategy is mapped against its impact on outcome for children Every Academy contributes to the MAT vision and the MAT vision supports

the development of the academy

Characteristic 2A Trust wide school improvement strategy that enables progress to be sustainable

Trust wide data management enables intervention to be targeted and quick

There are essential Trust wide educational leadership roles Mobility contracts enable staff to move easily between schools to add

capacity or develop their own professional capacity Peer Reviews of practice to inform Trust wide Self Evaluation & sharing of

effective practice

Characteristic 3A plan that enables Expansion to take place without compromising the quality of education that children already educated in the trust receive

Capacity is built ahead of need Mobility clauses are written into staff contracts to facilitate movement

between the schools that build capacity and backfill Due Diligence processes are strong and indicate what support will be

needed in a new partner academy

Characteristic 4 Accountability is clear to every stakeholder

The CEO/EP and the Chair of Board is accountable to the RSC The CEO/EP is accountable to their board for standards and The Principals are accountable to the CEO/EP for all standards in their

schools The Academy staff are accountable to the Principal and CEO/EP for

classroom standards and student outcomes

Characteristic 5 Transparent models of Financial and Resource Management and Accountability

Strong internal auditing processes and evaluation Outstanding leadership from well qualified financial professionals Clear financial delegated framework and approval systems Medium term “imagining” of more challenging financial landscapes Strong HR policies and oversight

Characteristic 6Skilled Management of the Trust Risk Indicators

Awareness that risk exists and that it drives action and accountability

20/20 Vision 22

Quality systems that are outcome driven and not process led Leaders can horizon scan to anticipate change & Challenge The Trust Risk Register is live and owned by key leaders with authority to

calculate risk

Characteristic 7Clear Delegated Framework for Governance at Trust and Local Governing body level

Strong understanding of the different roles of members and directors Board tests the Trust strategy Board holds the CEO to account for outcomes Board decides what authority to delegate to LGB LGB are “guardians” of standards in their academy and not the traditional

governor

Characteristic 8A planned approach to Succession for all of the key roles in the Trust

The CEO The Chair of Board Directors of FD, HR, & IT Sponsors, members and directors Principals and Vice Principals

Characteristic 9Commitment to making a contribution to local, regional, & national system leadership

Building strong partnerships beyond the MAT to work with schools who might never be formal partners

Enabling Academies to maintain their own networks that are unique to them

Contributing to school to school support beyond the MAT Mentoring and Supporting new MATs

20/20 Vision 23

APPENDIX TWO

What I mean when I say that standards in schools in Cornwall are not good enough…

The 2014 Ofsted south west regional report makes it clear that the picture of standards in Cornwall (as in other authorities) is complex. Any sweeping “good enough” or “not good enough” statement will need considerable clarification and focus to be meaningful and to avoid damning examples of outstanding work or obscuring work that needs to be better.

87% of Cornish primary pupils attend a good or outstanding school; that is 85% of Cornish schools. Nationally this places Cornwall in the mid 40s out of 150 local authorities and above the national average of 81% of pupils, 82% of schools.

With 43 Church of England schools in Cornwall and one on the Islands, direct comparisons are difficult. Of our 44 schools, 34 (or 78%) are good or outstanding. We can say that broadly in Ofsted section 5 inspections Cornish primary schools tend to do well, church schools in Cornwall are slightly behind this, but we are significantly behind the Ofsted performance of church primary schools nationally which tend to outperform community schools.

Two specific areas of underperformance in Cornish schools have been identified by HMI and Ofsted and are very much on the agenda of those agencies and the Regional Commissioner. These are the performance of children who receive free school meals and the performance of the most able children.

From published Ofsted figures presented across the south west this year by HMI:

Looking at children who receive free school meals: KS1 attainment in reading, for children with FSM, improved between 2013 and

2014 to very close to national average, and better than the south west average. However other authorities then out-perform us and the “gap” between FSM children and others widens faster here than elsewhere so that Cornwall soon falls behind when measured against other authorities in further key stages.

In Cornwall among FSM children, attainment of L4+ RWM at end of KS2 has fallen year on year 2012/2013/2014: in all other southwest authorities, except one, these have improved. In Cornwall we are not closing the gap for FSM children as fast as other authorities, in fact we are falling behind.

In common with most south west authorities Cornwall is below national average in 5A*-C EM for the achievement of FSM students at GCSE, however we are also below the national average for all students.

It is not all bad news, Cornwall was top of the southwest table for value-added for best 8 at GCSE for FSM children, however in value added for non FSM in the same table we are close to the bottom of the table. In the south west, Cornwall is third from the bottom in key measures showing improvement or decline over time in attainment at GCSE for all pupils.

We have the capacity to turn this around, among our Church of England schools are examples of some of the very best outcomes for children who attract the

20/20 Vision 24

pupil premium, but we can also identify significant weaknesses in this area in some other schools among us.

For high achievers, Cornwall also under-performs:

Of 15 authorities in the southwest Cornwall is 5th from bottom in KS1-KS2 Value Added scores for previously high attaining pupils, and well below the national average.

Among previously high attaining pupils KS2 to KS4 Cornwall is 5th from the bottom of the table and well below national average.

At end of KS5 Cornwall is bottom of the southwest table. In Cornwall 4% of pupils get 3 A*-A or better at A level, in the top performing LA (Torbay) that number approaches 20%. Pupils achieving AAB or better in Cornwall is about 9%, nationally 17%, Torbay 28%.

Analysis of Ofsted Section 5 inspections in the Ofsted regional report highlights “weak middle leadership and governance” as a hindrance to improvement in too many schools. Analysis of Section 5 inspections in our own schools reveals that, unsurprisingly, we too often share this weakness, hence our investment in governor development as a first step.

20/20 Vision 25