Leadership

Improving Teaching

This Estyn report summarises evidence from inspections,visits to schools, and findings from educational research, of what makes effective pedagogy and teaching. The report outlines the strategic approaches schools have taken to improve the quality of teaching and to build teaching capacity for the future.

The report also case studies how leaders and teachers have built their capacity to bring about sustainable improvement in the quality of teaching in their schools.

Create an account to read this article

£7.00+ VAT

One-off purchase

Purchase and Download today

Register for free

No Credit Card required

Register for free
Access to 3 free articles
Free TeachingTimes Report every month

array(8) {
  ["distinct_key"]=>
  string(10) "post#60123"
  ["title"]=>
  string(38) "Professional Learning Through Enquiry!"
  ["categories"]=>
  array(1) {
    [0]=>
    string(24) "Professional Development"
  }
  ["url"]=>
  string(68) "https://www.teachingtimes.com/professional-learning-through-enquiry/"
  ["post_date_timestamp"]=>
  int(1550075880)
  ["objectID"]=>
  string(12) "post-60123-4"
  ["_snippetResult"]=>
  array(2) {
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(118) "Graham Handscomb explores the integral relationship between professional development, enquiry and research engagement."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(392) "... geared to improving student learning and support:  Secondary school in Home Counties:This secondary school demonstrated a deep and lasting commitment to research-informed professional practice, and to developing a robust and sustainable learning community.  The school has a considerable history of encouraging staff to engage in and with research ..."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
    }
  }
  ["_highlightResult"]=>
  array(5) {
    ["title"]=>
    array(3) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(38) "Professional Learning Through Enquiry!"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(0) {
      }
    }
    ["author"]=>
    array(1) {
      [0]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(16) "Graham Handscomb"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
    }
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(3) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(118) "Graham Handscomb explores the integral relationship between professional development, enquiry and research engagement."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(0) {
      }
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(5742) "learning communities” (participating teacher).   “It is hoped that further developments will occur between schools so that this professional learning through enquiry is extended within the consortium” (participating headteacher). The Local Authority has worked actively with the consortium to facilitate opportunities to disseminate outcomes within the authority and through national conferences and networks.(Adapted from Handscomb and Macbeth, 2008)Box 3: Case Study 2: Research engaged professional learning geared to improving student learning and support:  Secondary school in Home Counties:This secondary school demonstrated a deep and lasting commitment to research-informed professional practice, and to developing a robust and sustainable learning community.  The school has a considerable history of encouraging staff to engage in and with research, As a result it now has a compelling and well-articulated vision for ensuring that research is both a core value and a visible characteristic of the professional practice of teaching; there is a strong collective commitment to nurturing a sustainable learning community involving staff and students across the whole school. There is abundant evidence of a culture where research is valued and perceived to be ‘part of what good teachers do’. The school’s rationale for engaging in research is to address more thoroughly and expertly the learning needs of the students. Significant time and resources have been allocated to establishing two cross-departmental teams whose work is research-led, supports professional learning and growth, and informs the school’s strategic pedagogical and pastoral development. Membership of these teams is, and is seen as, a significant career and professional development stage for staff. Over four years, a number of action research projects have become embedded into the school’s systems, processes and practice. The mutuality and interaction of teams’ work – alongside the better use of performance data and the critical use of relevant external research – is a key feature of the school’s commitment to a self-evaluative stance.The leadership for research at senior level is highly effective. Explicit support for school-wide and partnership research activity is provided by the Headteacher. Two Assistant Headteacher posts on the senior management team include roles and responsibilities for research strategy, and both post-holders are energetic leaders of data interpretation and use on the one hand, and research-engagement for professional learning and school improvement on the other.Teachers are expected to be continually questioning and reflecting on their practice. The different possible starting points for research investigations are recognised and valued, from individual teachers’ long-standing interests or intuitive hunches to ‘commissioned’ evaluations of pedagogic interventions; systematic planning and scheduling are then built in to the way the research is conducted.There is a commitment to disseminating and sharing the outcomes of action research through a variety of means, including:during INSET days;through the Cloud-based virtual learning environment;in detailed written report;in formal presentations to colleagues on progress as well as outcomes;in professional learning / performance management dialogues and through informal conversations. Some staff are participating actively in the wider research community through, for example, ResearchEd. Since the school became an accredited Teaching School, teachers in training are supported in undertaking well-designed research projects which have a link to the school’s ongoing research effort. Student engagement in research is a strong feature of the school and there have been a number of investigations which have recruited students as researchers.Drawing on the depth, breadth and quality of its own research engagement the school shares its knowledge and expertise with other schools, and is strongly committed to creating partnerships and networks widely. Such partnerships revolve around research-based and evaluated interventions and the school provides research training to other partner schools.  Research engagement is demonstrably being used as a powerful vehicle for professional development which in turn is having direct impact on classroom practice and students’ learning. The school’s rationale for engaging in research is to address more thoroughly and expertly the learning needs of the students. Commitment to improvement of students’ learning experiences and outcomes is shown by its investment in major research projects as well as in smaller-scale investigations into how the needs of specific groups of students can be more effectively met.(Adapted from Saunders, 2015)Note: This article is developed from the following forthcoming publication: Handscomb, G. (2019, in press) Professional Learning and Research in Godfrey, D and Brown C (Ed) An Eco system for Research Engaged Schools. London: Routledge. ReferencesBaumfield, V. M. & McGrane, J. (2001) Teachers using evidence and engaging in and with research: one school’s story. British Education Research Association Conference, Leeds. ■ Bell, M. Cordingley, P., Isham., C. & Davis., R. (2010) Report of Professional Practitioner Use of Research Review. CUREE, GTC, and LSIS. ■ Bryk, A. B.; Gomez, L. M. and Grunow, A (2011) Getting Ideas into Action: Building Networked Improvement Communities in Hallinan, M (ed.) Frontiers in Sociology of Education."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "full"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(8) {
        [0]=>
        string(9) "effective"
        [1]=>
        string(8) "practice"
        [2]=>
        string(9) "improving"
        [3]=>
        string(8) "teaching"
        [4]=>
        string(11) "pedagogical"
        [5]=>
        string(10) "strategies"
        [6]=>
        string(11) "sustainable"
        [7]=>
        string(11) "improvement"
      }
    }
    ["categories"]=>
    array(1) {
      [0]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(24) "Professional Development"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

Professional Development

Professional Learning Through Enquiry!

13 Feb 2019

array(8) {
  ["distinct_key"]=>
  string(10) "post#44129"
  ["title"]=>
  string(67) "System leadership and collaboration – a new skillset for leaders?"
  ["categories"]=>
  array(6) {
    [0]=>
    string(20) "Executive Leadership"
    [1]=>
    string(22) "Leadership Development"
    [2]=>
    string(17) "Leadership Skills"
    [3]=>
    string(15) "Leadership Team"
    [4]=>
    string(17) "Middle Leadership"
    [5]=>
    string(24) "Professional Development"
  }
  ["url"]=>
  string(53) "https://www.teachingtimes.com/pdt193systemleadership/"
  ["post_date_timestamp"]=>
  int(1524050015)
  ["objectID"]=>
  string(12) "post-44129-0"
  ["_snippetResult"]=>
  array(2) {
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(348) "In this article Toby Greany describes the development of school-to-school support,networks and partnerships, focussing in particular on recent developments in England.He explores the leadership practices associated with these and argues that  schoolleaders must become adept at working in an environment that incentivises collaborative competition."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(394) "... capacity within and between schools, so that all schools improve and all children achieve their potential.  There is emerging evidence that such models can prove effective in addressing underperformance and improving outcomes, in particular in some of the most challenging schools.  However, as this article highlights, England’s ‘self-improving ..."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
    }
  }
  ["_highlightResult"]=>
  array(5) {
    ["title"]=>
    array(3) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(67) "System leadership and collaboration – a new skillset for leaders?"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(0) {
      }
    }
    ["author"]=>
    array(1) {
      [0]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(11) "Toby Greany"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
    }
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(3) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(348) "In this article Toby Greany describes the development of school-to-school support,networks and partnerships, focussing in particular on recent developments in England.He explores the leadership practices associated with these and argues that  schoolleaders must become adept at working in an environment that incentivises collaborative competition."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(0) {
      }
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(5743) "IntroductionThis article explores the development of school to school support and partnerships in England.  These partnerships have become a defining feature of what the Government calls the ‘self-improving, school-led’ system (DfE, 2010; Sandals and Bryant, 2014).  Most schools engage in partnerships that are informal and emergent, based on shared interests, concerns, or simply personal relationships.  Even partnerships that do have a more formal basis face sometimes fraught political and inter-personal adaptive challenges (Kamp, 2013).  The focus here, however, is on more formal arrangements that are structured through a policy-driven process.  These generally fall into one of the following non-mutually exclusive categories:  structural governance models, such as multi-academy trusts/academy chains and federations; designations based on formal criteria, such as National Leaders of Education (NLEs) and Teaching Schools; role related partnerships, such as where an Executive Head oversees two or more schools (but not in a formal federation).  Key to this development has been the emergence of a cadre of what are called ‘system leaders’, broadly defined as leaders who work beyond their immediate school to support the improvement of the wider system (Fullan, 2005).  The need for such lateral school to school partnerships has become apparent in the face of evidence that neither top-down centrally imposed change, nor pure competition and marketization can achieve sustained improvement across school systems (see the article by Greany and Earley which is also in this issue).  Instead, the aim has been to ask school system leaders to work together in ways which transfer knowledge, expertise and capacity within and between schools, so that all schools improve and all children achieve their potential.  There is emerging evidence that such models can prove effective in addressing underperformance and improving outcomes, in particular in some of the most challenging schools.  However, as this article highlights, England’s ‘self-improving’ system also faces significant challenges, at both conceptual and practical levels.  The role of school partnerships in England’s quasi-market systemStrange bedfellows: autonomy, accountability, competition and collaborationGranting schools autonomy to determine how they secure improvement whilst holding them accountable for their performance has become an increasingly central tenet of international thinking and policy on school system reform (OECD, 2015).  Such approaches are frequently associated with wider quasi-market reforms, such as giving parents the right to choose which school they prefer for their child, backed by funding models which reward more popular schools.  The argument for granting schools autonomy is that it will free them up from hidebound bureaucracies and make them more responsive to their parent ‘customers’ (Institute for Government, 2012).  Quasi-markets are thus clearly predicated on competition between providers as the primary driver of improvement (Lubienski, 2009).  Of course, in practice, public education systems are not markets in the true sense of the word, since the consumer does not pay and failing providers (i.e. schools) are rarely allowed to close altogether.  England is recognised as a relatively extreme example of high-school-autonomy-high-accountability quasi-market (or neo-liberal) reform by international standards.  By the time of PISA 2009, schools in the UK were judged to be among the most autonomous in the world1 (OECD, 2011) and few would argue that they are also among the most accountable (for example as a result of high stakes inspections published by the inspectorate Ofsted).  Given this focus on quasi-markets and competition, it may seem strange that England now sees networking and collaboration as central to the success of its ‘self-improving school system’.  How and why has this happened?   The policy journey travelledOne way to assess this is through an historical lens, mapping the trajectory of policy thinking over the past three decades.  A Conservative government brought forward the Education Reform Act (ERA) in 1988, which introduced the core reforms that have shaped the system in England, such as school autonomy and accountability and funding following the learner.  Whilst subscribing to the broad tenets of the ERA, New Labour’s approach to reform from 1997 was markedly top down.  For example, the National Strategies for Literacy and Numeracy introduced and all but mandated specific pedagogic practices across primary schools, which did lead to initial improvements in pupil outcomes but then stalled in the mid-2000s.  This led to a gradual re-evaluation of the approach and a recognition that lateral networks of schools overseen by system leaders might offer more sustainable and effective ways of addressing under-performance and developing and distributing innovation between schools (Higham et al., 2009).  These ideas were picked up by the centre right Coalition government elected in 2010, which adopted the ‘self-improving system’ label and began a radical and far-reaching programme of reforms.   On the one hand, school autonomy has been radically increased with the extension of academy ‘freedoms’ to all schools.  Academies are funded directly from central government and have a range of decision-making rights that are not available to"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "full"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(8) {
        [0]=>
        string(9) "effective"
        [1]=>
        string(8) "practice"
        [2]=>
        string(9) "improving"
        [3]=>
        string(8) "teaching"
        [4]=>
        string(11) "pedagogical"
        [5]=>
        string(10) "strategies"
        [6]=>
        string(11) "sustainable"
        [7]=>
        string(11) "improvement"
      }
    }
    ["categories"]=>
    array(6) {
      [0]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(20) "Executive Leadership"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
      [1]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(22) "Leadership Development"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
      [2]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(17) "Leadership Skills"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
      [3]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(15) "Leadership Team"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
      [4]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(17) "Middle Leadership"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
      [5]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(24) "Professional Development"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

Executive Leadership

System leadership and collaboration – a new skillset for leaders?

18 Apr 2018

array(8) {
  ["distinct_key"]=>
  string(10) "post#44072"
  ["title"]=>
  string(67) "System leadership and collaboration – a new skillset for leaders?"
  ["categories"]=>
  array(5) {
    [0]=>
    string(20) "Executive Leadership"
    [1]=>
    string(20) "Independent Learning"
    [2]=>
    string(10) "Leadership"
    [3]=>
    string(17) "Leadership Skills"
    [4]=>
    string(15) "Leadership Team"
  }
  ["url"]=>
  string(68) "https://www.teachingtimes.com/slt85systemleadershipandcollaberation/"
  ["post_date_timestamp"]=>
  int(1523897258)
  ["objectID"]=>
  string(12) "post-44072-0"
  ["_snippetResult"]=>
  array(2) {
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(350) "In this article, Toby Greany describes the development of school-toschool
support, networks and partnerships, focussing in particular on
recent developments in England. He explores the leadership practices
associated with these and argues that school leaders must become adept
at working in an environment that incentivises collaborative competition."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(394) "... capacity within and between schools, so that all schools improve and all children achieve their potential.  There is emerging evidence that such models can prove effective in addressing underperformance and improving outcomes, in particular in some of the most challenging schools.  However, as this article highlights, England’s ‘self-improving ..."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
    }
  }
  ["_highlightResult"]=>
  array(5) {
    ["title"]=>
    array(3) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(67) "System leadership and collaboration – a new skillset for leaders?"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(0) {
      }
    }
    ["author"]=>
    array(1) {
      [0]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(11) "Toby Greany"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
    }
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(3) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(350) "In this article, Toby Greany describes the development of school-toschool
support, networks and partnerships, focussing in particular on
recent developments in England. He explores the leadership practices
associated with these and argues that school leaders must become adept
at working in an environment that incentivises collaborative competition."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(0) {
      }
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(5739) "This article explores the development of school to school support and partnerships in England.  These partnerships have become a defining feature of what the Government calls the ‘self-improving, school-led’ system (DfE, 2010; Sandals and Bryant, 2014).  Most schools engage in partnerships that are informal and emergent, based on shared interests, concerns, or simply personal relationships.  Even partnerships that do have a more formal basis face sometimes fraught political and inter-personal adaptive challenges (Kamp, 2013).  The focus here, however, is on more formal arrangements that are structured through a policy-driven process.  These generally fall into one of the following non-mutually exclusive categories:  structural governance models, such as multi-academy trusts/academy chains and federations; designations based on formal criteria, such as National Leaders of Education (NLEs) and Teaching Schools; role-related partnerships, such as where an Executive Head oversees two or more schools (but not in a formal federation).  Key to this development has been the emergence of a cadre of what are called ‘system leaders’, broadly defined as leaders who work beyond their immediate school to support the improvement of the wider system (Fullan, 2005).  The need for such lateral school-to-school partnerships has become apparent in the face of evidence that neither top-down centrally imposed change, nor pure competition and marketization can achieve sustained improvement across school systems (see the article by Greany and Earley which is also in this issue).  Instead, the aim has been to ask school system leaders to work together in ways which transfer knowledge, expertise and capacity within and between schools, so that all schools improve and all children achieve their potential.  There is emerging evidence that such models can prove effective in addressing underperformance and improving outcomes, in particular in some of the most challenging schools.  However, as this article highlights, England’s ‘self-improving’ system also faces significant challenges, at both conceptual and practical levels.  The role of school partnerships in England’s quasi-market systemStrange bedfellows: autonomy, accountability, competition and collaborationGranting schools autonomy to determine how they secure improvement whilst holding them accountable for their performance has become an increasingly central tenet of international thinking and policy on school system reform (OECD, 2015).  Such approaches are frequently associated with wider quasi-market reforms, such as giving parents the right to choose which school they prefer for their child, backed by funding models which reward more popular schools.  The argument for granting schools autonomy is that it will free them up from hidebound bureaucracies and make them more responsive to their parent ‘customers’ (Institute for Government, 2012).  Quasi-markets are thus clearly predicated on competition between providers as the primary driver of improvement (Lubienski, 2009).  Of course, in practice, public education systems are not markets in the true sense of the word, since the consumer does not pay and failing providers (i.e. schools) are rarely allowed to close altogether.  England is recognised as a relatively extreme example of high-school-autonomy-high-accountability quasi-market (or neo-liberal) reform by international standards.  By the time of PISA 2009, schools in the UK were judged to be among the most autonomous in the world1 (OECD, 2011) and few would argue that they are also among the most accountable (for example, as a result of high stakes inspections published by the inspectorate Ofsted).  Given this focus on quasi-markets and competition, it may seem strange that England now sees networking and collaboration as central to the success of its ‘self-improving school system’.  How and why has this happened?   The policy journey travelledOne way to assess this is through an historical lens, mapping the trajectory of policy thinking over the past three decades.  A Conservative government brought forward the Education Reform Act (ERA) in 1988, which introduced the core reforms that have shaped the system in England, such as school autonomy and accountability and funding following the learner.  Whilst subscribing to the broad tenets of the ERA, New Labour’s approach to reform from 1997 was markedly top-down.  For example, the National Strategies for Literacy and Numeracy introduced and all but mandated specific pedagogic practices across primary schools, which did lead to initial improvements in pupil outcomes, but then stalled in the mid-2000s.  This led to a gradual re-evaluation of the approach and a recognition that lateral networks of schools overseen by system leaders might offer more sustainable and effective ways of addressing under-performance and developing and distributing innovation between schools (Higham et al., 2009).  These ideas were picked up by the centre right Coalition government elected in 2010, which adopted the ‘self-improving system’ label and began a radical and far-reaching programme of reforms.   On the one hand, school autonomy has been radically increased with the extension of academy ‘freedoms’ to all schools.  Academies are funded directly from central government and have a range of decision-making rights that are not available to Local"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "full"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(8) {
        [0]=>
        string(9) "effective"
        [1]=>
        string(8) "practice"
        [2]=>
        string(9) "improving"
        [3]=>
        string(8) "teaching"
        [4]=>
        string(11) "pedagogical"
        [5]=>
        string(10) "strategies"
        [6]=>
        string(11) "sustainable"
        [7]=>
        string(11) "improvement"
      }
    }
    ["categories"]=>
    array(5) {
      [0]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(20) "Executive Leadership"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
      [1]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(20) "Independent Learning"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
      [2]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(10) "Leadership"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
      [3]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(17) "Leadership Skills"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
      [4]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(15) "Leadership Team"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

Executive Leadership

System leadership and collaboration – a new skillset for leaders?

16 Apr 2018

array(8) {
  ["distinct_key"]=>
  string(10) "post#39887"
  ["title"]=>
  string(42) "Evaluation Of The City Challenge Programme"
  ["categories"]=>
  array(1) {
    [0]=>
    string(10) "Leadership"
  }
  ["url"]=>
  string(62) "https://www.teachingtimes.com/city-challenge-programme_090712/"
  ["post_date_timestamp"]=>
  int(1341500914)
  ["objectID"]=>
  string(12) "post-39887-0"
  ["_snippetResult"]=>
  array(2) {
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(330) "... and a retrospective review of the London Challenge 2003-08. The aims of the evaluation were to assess: the City Challenge programme in relation to its key objectives, the efficacy of different approaches to the improvement of school performance, and schools systems in conurbations.
Leadership Briefing issue 7.01(73)"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(393) "... effects.· Tackling school improvement at area level (rather than national level or individual school level) has considerable benefits.· It takes time to bring about sustainable improvement across an area, and three years was perhaps too short.· Different forms of support are effective in schools at different stages on their improvement ..."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
    }
  }
  ["_highlightResult"]=>
  array(4) {
    ["title"]=>
    array(3) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(42) "Evaluation Of The City Challenge Programme"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(0) {
      }
    }
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(424) "This DfE research sets out the findings of an evaluation of the City Challenge programme 2008-11, and a retrospective review of the London Challenge 2003-08. The aims of the evaluation were to assess: the City Challenge programme in relation to its key objectives, the efficacy of different approaches to the improvement of school performance, and schools systems in conurbations.
Leadership Briefing issue 7.01(73)"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(1) {
        [0]=>
        string(11) "improvement"
      }
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(5813) "ResourceEVALUATION OF THE CITY CHALLENGE PROGRAMMEOriginal DocumentEvaluation Of The City Challenge Programme. This DfE research sets out the findings of an evaluation of the City Challenge programme 2008-11, and a retrospective review of the London Challenge 2003-08. The aims of the evaluation were to assess: the City Challenge programme in relation to its key objectives, the efficacy of different approaches to the improvement of school performance, and schools systems in conurbations.KeywordsCity Challenge, school performance, schools systems, disadvantaged children, school staffSummaryThis DfE research sets out the findings of an evaluation of the City Challenge programme 2008-11, and a retrospective review of the London Challenge 2003-08. The aims of the evaluation were to assess: the City Challenge programme in relation to its key objectives, the efficacy of different approaches to the improvement of school performance, and schools systems in conurbations.Key findings about the programme in relation to its objectives:· To reduce the number of underperforming schools. The number of schools below the floor target showed a significantly greater reduction than was the case in the rest of England. The programme to improve underperforming schools was successful; a regression-based analysis showed a positive impact on the proportions of pupils achieving expected levels. A fair measure of impact is tracking year-on-year change in results relative to what is typical for schools with similar previous results. After the start of the intervention, secondary school performance on this measure was approximately two per cent better than it had been before intervention, and for primary, approximately five per cent better (over a shorter time period).· To increase the number of Good and Outstanding schools. The number of such schools increased, despite changes to the Ofsted framework which made this target harder to achieve.· To improve educational outcomes for disadvantaged children. The attainment of pupils eligible for Free School Meals (FSM) increased by more than the national figure. However, attainment gaps between FSM pupils and their peers narrowed only for London primary and secondary pupils and Greater Manchester primary pupils.A great many factors contributed to these improvements, including national policies and strategies and the considerable efforts of headteachers and staff. However, these factors apply everywhere in the country. The most plausible explanation for the greater improvement in Challenge areas is that the City Challenge programme was responsible. The vast majority of stakeholders at all levels who contributed to this evaluation attributed the additional improvement (over and above improvement in other parts of the country) to the work of City Challenge.Key findings about effective approaches to school improvement in City Challenge:· Working at area level meant that each area could use its local identity to try and unite all those concerned with education in raising aspirations. It also provided an opportunity for learning across Local Authority boundaries.· City Challenge supported schools to become more outward looking, and created structures through which school staff were able to learn from practice in other schools.· The expert roles created, Challenge Advisors and National and Local Leaders of Education, were extremely effective.· The use of bespoke solutions enabled the specific issues facing each school to be tackled, and gave a sense of ownership to headteachers and staff.· It was recognised that individuals and school communitiesLearning points:· It is important for area and school level strategies to have clear and achievable objectives, and also to recognise that targets can have perverse effects.· Tackling school improvement at area level (rather than national level or individual school level) has considerable benefits.· It takes time to bring about sustainable improvement across an area, and three years was perhaps too short.· Different forms of support are effective in schools at different stages on their improvement journey.· There is a role for a team of school improvement experts, based on the Challenge advisors, both in working in the weakest schools, and in working with LAs at strategic level. Expertise can also be found in NLEs and LLEs and other headteachers, LA officers and consultants. The system leadership role of NLEs and LLEs is an effective one, and benefits both the schools that they support and their own schools and staff.· Bespoke solutions are important both in tackling the specific issues faced in each school, and in giving school leaders and staff a sense of ownership, rather than ‘being done to’.· Arrangements that enable school leaders and teachers to share effective practice are extremely beneficial. These include conferences; a stronger school supporting a weaker one (which may also include soft Federations); groups of three, led by the headteacher of a more successful school; Families of Schools which had similar intakes; hub schools or knowledge centres; and the Improving Teacher Programme and the Outstanding Teacher Programme.· There is a need for leadership at area level to broker such partnerships and groupings, and ensure that all schools are outward looking.· The most effective strategies to improve teaching and learning take place in schools, and involve observing excellent teaching; opportunities to reflect with colleagues; and coaching in the teacher’s own classroom. All teachers should have regular"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(7) {
        [0]=>
        string(9) "effective"
        [1]=>
        string(8) "practice"
        [2]=>
        string(9) "improving"
        [3]=>
        string(8) "teaching"
        [4]=>
        string(10) "strategies"
        [5]=>
        string(11) "sustainable"
        [6]=>
        string(11) "improvement"
      }
    }
    ["categories"]=>
    array(1) {
      [0]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(10) "Leadership"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

Leadership

Evaluation Of The City Challenge Programme

5 Jul 2012