CASE STUDY >> >> October 2012

Strategies to Challenge and Support School Performance in the United Kingdom

Simon Day and Sue Hackman

Education in England is overseen at the national level by the Depart- will be split off to establish an inde- pendent regulator of exam stan- ment for Children, Schools, and Families (DCSF). Within the state dards to be known as the Office of system, schools have a high degree of autonomy and are largely Qualifications and Examinations responsible for setting their own budgets, managing their own admis- Regulation. The Training and Devel- opment Agency (TDA) for schools is sions, and choosing how to teach the curriculum. A Local Education a national agency responsible for the Authority — somewhat akin to a local school district in the United recruitment, training, and develop- ment of the entire school workforce. States — has an oversight role for schools in its geographic area, including a responsibility to intervene in the case of a school’s poor Approximately 93 percent of school children in England attend schools performance. There are 150 local authorities in England and their size funded by the state. Under the varies considerably from small metropolitan inner-city areas to large Education Act of 1996, Chapter 56, children aged 5–16 must receive a rural counties. The number of schools they are responsible for varies full-time education. Compulsory significantly as well but averages around 25 secondary schools and primary education covers students 125 primary schools per local authority. ages 5–11, and compulsory second- ary education covers students ages In addition to DCSF, there are a number of other national entities that influ- 11–16. In 2007, 17,361 state primary ence schools. The Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services, schools served 4,107,680 students, and Skills (Ofsted) is the official body for inspecting schools in England. The and 3,343 state secondary schools National College for School Leadership1 (NCSL) is funded by the government served 3,268,490 students (DCSF, to offer head teachers and other school leaders2 opportunities for leadership 2007). The Education and Skills Act development and, as described in more detail below, deploys effective school of 2008 states that, starting in 2013, leaders to work with underperforming schools. The Qualifications and Cur- riculum Authority (QCA) maintains and develops the National Curriculum and associated assessments. It also oversees the work of the awarding bodies, who Editor's Note develop and sell to schools qualifications and examinations, to ensure that the This is one of four case studies related administration, grading, and awarding procedures run smoothly. Sub- developed in mid-2009 for the ject to legislation currently going through Parliament, part of the Authority U.S. Department of Education that focus on how countries other 1 Subsequently the National College for School Leadership has been renamed the than the United States have been National College for Leadership of Schools and Children’s Services. addressing the challenge of turn- ing around their low-performing 2 Head teachers and heads are used interchangeably in this document to refer to schools. The other three case stud- the leaders of schools. They are akin to a high school or elementary school prin- ies focus on Australia, Canada, and cipal in the U.S. The term “other school leaders” refers to other staff who occupy New Zealand. This case study has management positions within the school, likely including deputy or assistant heads not been updated since it was ini- and school bursars. tially developed.

1 WestEd >>

the approved leaving age for com- introduced the annual publication wasn’t included initially in the pulsory education or training will of school-level results achieved on floor target but was subsequently be raised to 17 and, starting in 2015, standardized assessment tests and included.) At the secondary level, it will be raised again, to age 18. national exams. students were expected to achieve five Good“ ” General Certificates of England’s National Curriculum, Publication of these data at a national Secondary Education (GCSEs) by introduced in the Education Reform and local level and subsequent use of age 16. Achieving these came to be Act (1988) is intended to ensure that related student-level data at the local seen as the key criterion for student all students in compulsory educa- authority level and the school level success, with the initial floor target tion are taught according to the have played a key part in the drive set at 25 percent of students meeting same content standards. Changes to improve school performance. this criterion.4 to the secondary curriculum were The data have given schools and published in September 2007, with those that hold them to account Ofsted has a statutory responsibil- new programs of study designed for a clearer picture of the individual ity under section 5 of the Education progress being made by students. each subject by the QCA. These new Act 2005 for inspecting schools at The availability of these data has programs of study were intended least once every 6 years. Schools are to give teachers a less prescriptive, also helped ensure that schools are judged against a four-point scale: more flexible framework for teach- both challenged and supported on a outstanding, good, satisfactory, and ing, along with more opportunities more informed basis. For example, inadequate. Schools are inspected for coherence and relevance, such at a national level they have allowed on the principle of proportional- as linking learning to life outside both absolute and contextualized ity, with the schools that are judged school, making connections between comparisons of school performance, outstanding or good inspected once subjects, and infusing cross-curric- and at the local authority level ular themes and dimensions. Func- and school level they have allowed www.qcda.gov.uk for description of tional skills for English, mathemat- schools to evaluate the impact of what these levels mean. ics, and ICT (i.e., information and different student-level interventions. communications technology) have 4 GCSEs are national subject-level been built into the new curriculum. The government has also used these assessments taken at the end of Alongside these is a framework for data to set benchmarks for judging secondary education by nearly all personal learning and thinking skills school improvement. At the primary students. They are graded on a scale (PLTS), which has been embedded in level, judgments about a school’s of A*-G, with grades A*-C seen as the new programs of study under the performance were made on the top-end performance and grades National Curriculum. basis of students’ performance in C-G seen as lower-end performance. standardized assessment tests taken Because the measure of five GCSEs at age 11, at the end of primary A*-C came to be seen as a passport to school, in English, mathematics, further learning, schools were judged Policy Context and science. For primary schools, on the proportion of their students for Tackling Poor the “floor target” — that is, the who achieved this level. The measure School Performance minimum acceptable level of school was subsequently strengthened to performance — was set in 2002 at require students to achieve grades 65 percent of students achieving A*-C in both math and English as The policy context for dealing with certain scores in English and part of their five GCSEs A*-C. Prior poor school performance in England mathematics3 by 2006. (Science to this, students could achieve these was set in the early 1990s with the grades in any combination of subjects advent of a regular school inspection 3 The primary tests were assessed including vocational subjects, which cycle to be led by an independent according to the achievement of were given equivalence to a number inspectorate, the Office for Standards different levels within the National of GCSE grades. See http://www.qcda. in Education, Children’s Services, Curriculum. Level 4 was the expected gov.uk for descriptors of different and Skills (Ofsted). This same period level for students at age 11. See http:// grade criteria.

2 CASE STUDY >> STUDY CASE are defined below. defined are concern” causing of “schools egories judged were they which in inspection the of ayear within re-inspected cally typi are and visits monitoring receive to continue categories measures cial as known category aprevious replace to 2005 September in introduced to improve notice as known (commonly improvement nificant — categories one of two into placed inadequate as judged Schools inspection. last of their years three within re-inspected normally judged Schools http://www.ofsted.gov.uk Inspection 5 » » progress. subsequent ment of their assess annual an and judgment inspection previous their to ing accord frequently more inspected schools other and years six every » » sary improvement in the school. the in improvement sary neces the secure to capacity the not demonstrating are school the orgoverning managing, leading, for responsible persons the and of education, quality acceptable an students its give to failing measures Special performing significantly less less significantly performing but is of education able quality accept an provide to not failing orit improve; to is capacity the demonstrating is but education of quality acceptable an provide to failing it is either: because improvement significant requires to improve Notice Schools in spe in Schools weakness. serious special measures measures special Framework for Framework Ofsted's See inadequate from September 2009 at at 2009 September from notice to improve). notice or notice to improve to improve notice . These two cat two . These satisfactory satisfactory category was was category : the school is is school : the or : the school school : the requires sig requires The The are are are ------5

satisfactory satisfactory only be to judged but are categories lowest of these either in not fall do that schools years, recent more efforts improvement school authority of local focus the as well paper, as this in later described be will that initiatives and programs government of the focus the been their funding agreements. funding their through of Education Department national the to accountable directly are instead, and, authority local of a purview the under operate but donot schools other like body have agoverning Academies failure. of school case the in intervening for and performance school for overseeing responsible legally is which Authority, Education Local of a purview the under operate also schools Most achievement. of educational standards overall and achievement, for student targets setting management, financial school’s the staff, and head school’s of the management and appointment the for responsible body, is which governing own its has school state-run Each attainment. of their terms in added value- have orto poor coasting be to seen are that on schools focusing programs of government a number with improve, to pressure increasing successive Acts of Parliament that that of Parliament Acts successive passed has government The national or of category the into fall to by Ofsted judged Schools efforts. of turnaround need in be to considered are schools critical in determining whether These expected to perform. to expected be reasonably it might than well notice to improve to improve notice

judgments by Ofsted are are by Ofsted judgments also have come under under have come also special measures measures special often have have often . In In tion powers to Local Education Education Local to powers tion interven giving to addition In ment networks. improve school of areawide part be standing, judged schools to given is support and resource authority local little Very coasting. as ized character be might performance satisfactory judged schools on supporting efforts and resources focused have also authorities local Some categories. of these any into of falling at risk schools includes This targets. floor ment’s national govern below the orare to improve weakness in either are that schools with deal to on efforts centrated these resources have been con years recent in cases most but in authority, local of the effectiveness and size the to according varies port sup of this nature and The range students. for their outcomes cation edu improve to efforts their support and schools work to with resources and staff improvement school own have their authorities local Most Secretary of State (DCSF, of State 2007). Secretary the and Authorities Education Local to given powers recent most the 1summarizes Exhibit school. failing a improve to action necessary the take to fails Authority Education aLocal if directly intervene to power the of Education) Department national of England’s minister chief (i.e., the for Education of State Secretary country’s the given also have of Parliament Acts failure. prevent to order in points earlier at intervene to them push but also concern, causing schools in intervene to Authorities Education Local power of the strengthen not only or have been given a given or have been although they will often often will they although >> October 2012 >> October or out good or whose or whose serious serious notice notice ------

3 Strategies to Challenge and Support School Performance in the United Kingdom WestEd >>

Exhibit 1: Education and Inspections Act 2006 “a new relationship with schools,” which was designed to give schools greater autonomy and responsibility Powers given to Local Education Authorities for raising their own performance. » Providing early intervention and warning notices to a poorly performing As part of the “new relationship” a school new role of “‘School Improvement » Compelling a poorly performing school to work with another school, Partner (SIP)” was created. This was a college, or a partner body for the purposes of school improvement a role typically filled by experienced » Appointing additional governors to the school’s governing body head teachers — in many instances they were either recently retired or » Applying to the Secretary of State to replace the entire governing body of nearing the end of their careers. the school with an Interim Executive Board » Taking back the school’s delegated budget SIPs were recruited nationally by Powers given to the Secretary of State the National College of School Lead- ership to ensure a certain standard » Appointing additional governors to a school’s governing body and level of performance in the role, » Appointing an Interim Executive Board but were deployed locally to work on behalf of Local Education Authori- » Closing a school in special measures ties to help provide challenge and support to their schools. All schools in England had a SIP, but the amount of time the SIP spent with Authorities, the government has achieving the expected level of per- a school depended on the school’s established the National Strategies, formance increased by 12 percent- current level of performance — which was both a national program age points in English and 10 per- those schools with the greatest with dedicated staff and resources centage points in mathematics. challenges were given more time at national and local levels as well Based on this success, the National with their SIPs. SIPs were provided as a set of prescriptive — though not Strategies approach was expanded with detailed data to benchmark compulsory — strategies for schools into secondary education, and its a school’s performance against to use in raising student perfor- focus was broadened to encompass that of other schools with compa- mance, particularly in the core sub- teaching and learning and pedagogy rable student populations and were jects of English and mathematics. beyond the initial focus on literacy asked to engage in a professional The strategies were established in and numeracy into other subject dialogue with their fellow heads to the first term of the Blair govern- areas and to deal with issues such focus on what a school’s priorities ment by Michael Barber, and their as behavior and attendance and spe- for improvement should be and how initial focus was on literacy and cial educational needs. they were going to achieve them. numeracy standards at the primary- school level. Schools were expected As the Blair government moved into The SIPs also reported to their to devote a specific number of min- its second term, the debate moved on school’s governing body their views utes each day to developing stu- to how to build on the initial success on the school’s targets for improve- dents’ literacy and numeracy, and of the national strategies — which ment and current performance; teachers were given and expected to had been seen as highly central- in doing so, they were part of the use detailed guidance and programs ized, top-down, nationally driven formal performance management aimed at enhancing students’ skills strategies — to how schools could process of head teachers by gov- in these two key areas. The National drive more progress themselves by erning bodies. As well as provid- Strategies yielded considerable working collaboratively and spread- ing challenge to the head and the success in many primary schools: ing the impact of the most success- school about their current perfor- At a national level, between 1997 ful school leaders. In 2004 the gov- mance and what they needed to do and 2000 the number of students ernment established what it called to improve, the SIP was also asked

4 CASE STUDY >> STUDY CASE existing head and his or her school. school. orher his and head existing an to support and challenge tional addi by providing capacity advisory a more in role out the have carried others own; their in as well as school that in achieved outcomes for the assuming formal responsibility basis, orpermanent on atemporary schools of other Heads Executive have become Some ways. different of anumber in function out this ried have car NLEs ornationally. locally schools of other improvement to ute contrib also but would school, own their in achieved outcomes for the responsible be to continue would they which in role leadership system on a taking as envisaged were NLEs roles. leadership challenging most the in succeeding who were tion of educa leaders of national group anew identify to Leadership School for College National the ment asked for All Schools Better Standards, Higher (NLE). tion of Educa Leader of aNational that was period, time general same the in created newrole, other Another support. who offer viders pro of private anumber are — there needed of support type get the might orshe he else where head the to directly recommending be it could or for aschool, providing be should it support on what authority local the to back reporting mean might This need. might aschool that port sup on the advise and helpto broker performance in England comes from from comes England in performance school around turn to of efforts impact of the evidence The main The Evidence Base (DfES 2005), the govern 2005), the (DfES

In its 2005 white paper paper white 2005 its In ------its performance. performance. its around turn to of efforts focus the be to likely is categories of these any in school A targets. floor national set government’s the do not reach that schools describes target,” floor below the “schools term, second The framework. inspection Ofsted’s from comes concern,” causing “schools term, The first formance. per school reverse rapidly to tions interven and failure school with associated typically are of which both target,” floor below the “schools and concern” causing “schools as such terminology, other dent in evi is performance their improve dramatically to needing of schools However, schools. to concept the reference in England in used monly The term The term English the in Definitions interventions and initiatives. turnaround of individual impacts relative the to identify difficult is interventions and initiatives that it of range such a by influenced are concern causing schools that (2004) observed Sammons and Matthews on schools, inspections of Ofsted effect of the study their In England: in schools around turning at aimed initiatives and policies for be can evidence impact any how about conclusive of caution however, First, anote types. three all from evidence the considers section This Families. and Schools, for Children, Department by the conducted research and initiatives; of policy impact of the evaluations academic independent Ofsted; inspectorate, national by the reports independent of sources: types three

Context turnaround is not com is - - - - a turnaround school a turnaround constitute would improvement of level to as what definition common no is there categories, one of these in falls nolonger school the so enough performance its improved having aschool than Other school? aturnaround constitutes What also produces regular thematic thematic regular produces also (Ofsted). Ofsted Skills and Services, Children’s Education, in Standards for Office by the basis a regular out on carried inspections by the provided is turnaround school to lead might what about information of general source important An Services, and Skills Children’s Education, in Office for Standards the from Evidence continue on an upward trajectory. trajectory. upward on an continue performance school’s the see to ultimately, and, of years a number for sustained level of performance higher this see to want one might school, aturnaround it as labeling Before math. and English including graded A*-C, GCSEs five achieving students of its percent of 30 target floor the have to exceeded enough not be it might around, turned having as considered be to school for asecondary For example, target. floor abovethe of performance levels sustained to refer others achieved; been has improvement sustainable of categories performance Ofsted the below to use referred studies of the some Therefore, around. turned been has performance say to its enough may not be one year in performance improving simply fluctuation, significant to subject is schools of these many in performance or good outstanding >> October 2012 >> October . to show that show to that Because the 5 Strategies to Challenge and Support School Performance in the United Kingdom WestEd >>

reports that look in more detail at from the category and had been student assessment and the track- certain aspects of school improve- re-inspected within the same time ing of student academic progress as ment. Ofsted’s 2008 report, Sustain- frame. At the inspection points in key factors in raising student per- ing Improvement — The Journey 2005–06 or 2006–07, inspectors formance. Refining assessment and from Special Measures, examines judged 3 of the schools to be out- tracking systems yielded better data successful improvement efforts at standing and 11 to be good. Looking to guide interventions, both for indi- 14 schools that had been placed in for actions that had the most signifi- vidual students and for groups of its lowest performance category cant impact on transforming out- students. In addition, involving stu- of special measures on the basis comes, the review identified some dents and parents in the improve- of inspections before April 2003.6 common themes: ment effort helped build a coali- These schools were all subsequently tion for change. Students’ greater Changing leadership. At 11 of the 14 removed from this category of con- engagement in school life had a sig- schools, the head teacher changed cern in either the 2003–04 or 2004– nificant influence on improving out- in the time between the school going 05 academic year on the basis of re- comes in almost all of the schools into and coming out of special mea- inspection. All were inspected again surveyed. Parents were similarly sures designation. At 5 of the schools, in either 2005–06 or 2006–07, and engaged. In many instances, schools the head teacher changed again, or those inspections showed that the needed external support from local for the first time, between removal schools remained at the higher level authorities, other schools, or private of the special measures designation of performance. In short, they could organizations in order to accom- and the school’s first subsequent re- be said to have turned around. plish their improvement goals, but inspection. The willingness of the that support needed to be tailored head teacher to accept the need for The schools were selected for this to the school’s individual needs change and that individual’s ability study because their outcomes for to ensure the school wasn’t over- to deliver difficult messages to other students showed incremental and whelmed by multiple sources of sup- school staff were seen as vital to continuous improvement across two port and didn’t become distracted school improvement. inspection points. They were not from its core priorities. The Ofsted inspection and re-inspection pro- chosen because they were removed Building teaching capacity. Recog- cess was also seen as being helpful from special measures designa- nizing that they were not making to these schools in ensuring they tion especially quickly, but because the best use of many of their cur- were focused on the right priorities the actions they took during their rent staff due to capacity deficits, and were making sufficient progress time in special measures laid a the schools paid close attention to in their journey out of special mea- strong foundation for sustaining improving the skills of their staff. sures designation. their improvement. Following the Schools also gave a high priority to removal of special measures desig- recruiting new staff with the skills to nation, these schools continued to enhance the school’s education team. Evidence from Recent improve more rapidly than other In all schools, a strong focus on staff Academic Literature schools that also had been removed training and improving the quality of teaching and learning was combined A range of studies have looked at 6 Schools are identified as requir- with effective monitoring, review, the impact of different initiatives on ing “special measures” as a result of and evaluation of impact. This effort turning around the performance of judgments made by Ofsted during shifted unsatisfactory teaching to failing schools in England. This sec- inspection visits. Therefore, the cat- good teaching — or, in two cases, to tion provides some detail from two egory does not correlate explicitly to a outstanding teaching — within two such studies: Survival of the Weak- certain level of performance, but one years of the school’s special measures est: The Differential Improvement of would expect to see significant weak- designation being removed. Schools Causing Concern in England nesses in the quality of teaching, lead- (Matthews and Sammons, 2005) ership, and management and, in all Developing the right systems and and the more recent System Leader- but a few cases, student outcomes. processes. All 14 schools identified ship in Practice (Higham, Hopkins,

6 CASE STUDY >> STUDY CASE likely to prompt the radical and and radical the prompt to likely measures special of the seriousness the that posed Sammons and Matthews failing. be to not judged are technically, which, weakness serious to pared com action immediate and decisive more take to schools these prompts argued, they shock, that category; lowest performance this in placed at being “shock” initial an encing to to part, in difference, this attributed However, level. at also ahigher they performing be to deemed schools than funding and support greater measures special on part in based is difference this The researchers hypothesized that category. performance higher next the in of schools 69 percent only to compared results, GCSE their measures special of percent Eighty-six improvement. that sustain to and improve to capacity greater demonstrated schools, schools, to compared as that, suggesting evidence found ers research the comparison, this in But improve. to capacity leadership not have to the judged were schools because schools than issues ous seri more having as seen were improve category by the replaced as tified sures as identified been had that those of schools, groups two improvementsbetween compared (2005) Sammons and Matthews around. turned cessfully have suc that England in of schools features consistent of the some light high 2009). Both Matthews, and special measures special and those that had been iden been had that those and ). schools schools measures Special special measures special (now (now weakness serious judgment is more more is judgment schools improved improved schools schools receiving receiving schools serious weakness weakness serious serious weakness weakness serious special measures special schools experi schools special mea special schools schools notice to to notice schools, schools, ------

form performance. performance. form trans to needed action decisive » are: factors common the of leadership, change initial to an addition improvement. In of ajourney sustaining and related to initiating, developing, schools, turnaround these in found factors key common some identify Matthews and Hopkins, Higham, failing. as judged being previously after for over 10improvement years, sustained demonstrated had schools turnaround of these Each schools. other around help turn to leadership now providing are that areas disadvantaged serving schools of turnaround studies case in-depth (2009) at three have looked Matthews and Hopkins, Higham, for change. need the accept to involved of all willingness the and improvements, to secure needed action the school, individual for an of failure causes the identifying in possible as precise as be to need the turnaround: school addressing to whenit comes point a wider supports evidence Sammons’ and Matthews Arguably, improvement. for needed actions painful, often but avoid to necessary, room the less schools the give to intended level —anotice performance that to improve notice prescriptive and detailed amore- introduced instead, and, framework inspection its of category the abolish to decided Ofsted why explain to argument this used Sammons and Matthews » schools the need for change was was for change need the schools improvement. for narrative a Developing category for schools at for schools category serious weakness serious In all three three all In in in - » » especially important during during important especially sary, redeveloped neces if and, evaluated, reviewed, regularly also were activities ment improve improvement. Second, for drive the sustain to helping team management senior school’s work by the of student toring moni and observation lesson with guide, lesson good school whole- own its developed school learning and teaching of quality the improving was there First, themes: central three having as activities these summarize ers The research again. forward them move helped that systems and activities whole-school developed then The schools afew years. after stalled improvements, progress performance generated initially activities. improvement key the Organizing port of the leadership. leadership. of the port sup the had they that recognized school at the who remained staff other and teachers those changes, staffing required often this While results. exam improve to order in learning and of teaching quality the improve to need on the early focused schools the Also, operate. co- to unwilling who proved staff and students — both removing necessary if —and challenging directly and debate the in munity com wider the and parents, dents, stu engaging involved this Often improvements. of expectations transparent made which rative, nar reform a clear developing meant This for change. urgency generate to and for action ciples prin clear —into improvement is, — that newmission the late trans to was clear. The challenge Though the schools schools the Though a whole-school focus on on focus a whole-school . For example, one one . For example, >> October 2012 >> October ; such review was was review ; such ------

7 Strategies to Challenge and Support School Performance in the United Kingdom WestEd >>

a period when performance had »» Changing institutional cultures. schools in England, conclud- reached a plateau and it was nec- Developing cultures and values ing that, to be effective, a head essary to identify action needed to that supported effective learning teacher’s leadership style needs make further progress. For exam- and professional development was to be attuned to the specific con- ple, one school’s initial focus on also seen as key. First, staff sup- text of the particular school. Dis- borderline students had produced ported and encouraged students’ tributed leadership was also a an immediate impact in improved positive attitudes to learning, with key theme that emerged. In his student performance, but when a firm discipline policy that engen- study of schools located in for- mer coalfield sites in England, this improvement hit a plateau dered in teachers a greater respect Harris (2003) added to the evi- the school had to widen its efforts for the views of students, as evi- denced through greater efforts to dence that distributed leadership to standardize the whole-school listen carefully to what students is effective. approach to teaching, grading, had to say. Second, a culture of and behavior support. Finally, professional action reduced the »» High expectations. High expecta- this review-and-rethink approach need for excessive managerial tions are consistently mentioned was supported by the develop- in the research as a way to raise pressure and control over teachers ment of highly reliable school sys- attainment. In her review of wanting to work hard to provide tems and clear leadership roles, leadership strategies adopted by the best for their students. such as the use of data, student effective head teachers in chal- progression targets, and student Evidence from the lenging circumstances, Keys progress tracking systems, which (2003) identified the impor- played a particularly crucial role Department for Children, tance of head teachers having by monitoring student progress Schools, and Families high expectations of both staff throughout the year. Students and students. Harris (2003) also The final set of evidence comes were tested every half term, data emphasized “a climate of high from Department for Children, were recorded in a standardized expectations” both for students Schools, and Families research and for teachers. format, and heads of department on factors that make schools in were responsible for identifying deprived areas effective (DCSF, »» Data use for understanding prob- progress — or a lack of progress 2008). Again, this evidence does lems. Creemers (2005), general- — against individualized targets. not look at the precise question of izing about all schools, empha- what leads to school turnaround. sized the need for a school to »» Focusing on professional learning. Rather, this research considers be able to assess and diagnose Each school’s improvement strat- what makes some of these schools its own issues. Keys (2003), too, egy identified the professional in deprived areas more effective cited the need for the leader- development needs of school than other schools in the same kind ship within the school to be able staff. Training sessions outside of areas. The research finds there is to make an accurate diagnosis of school hours and regular peer no obvious link between the level of of the school’s problems and to observation became common fea- deprivation and the differing per- identify the school’s strengths tures in these schools. Moreover, formance of these schools. Factors and weaknesses. But she also innovation started to emerge, identified by the research include: acknowledged that failing with individual subject matter schools may not be capable of departments developing their »» Leadership. Effective leadership using data to design their own own approaches based on what has been commonly identified improvement strategy. However, worked. Schools also started to as a characteristic of improving use of data can be effectively sup- share effective practices inter- schools in urban and challenging ported centrally. One example is nally and became more open to contexts. Keys (2003) produced the Families of Schools policy, introducing ideas from the out- an analysis of the evidence to part of the London Challenge ini- side that teachers had discovered. date on leadership in challenging tiative (DfES, 2006).

8 CASE STUDY >> STUDY CASE » » » » the school. school. the work of and life the in parents involve to effort every make also schools Successful community. external and internal the within relationships positive build areas deprived in schools cessful suc that (2003) asserted Harris school). the in for adults facilities orICT centers (e.g.,ties health facili newcommunity locating involved of which —many school the improve to solutions local ing find into community local the and parents of drawing tance impor the emphasized schools OCTET of the (2005) evaluation MacBeath’s areas. deprived in success achieve to helping in community local the and ents - par of involving importance the demonstrate evidence research community. the and parents with Partnership 2005). (MacBeath, support central with decision-making local rying ways of mar identify when they and of improvement, ownership assume to personnel of key ity capac the build when they egies, strat improvement own schools’ to complementary as when seen effective most are support and intervention external that cluded con schools eight support to program OCTET DCSF of the evaluation the For example, needs. particular aschool’s to improvement approaches degree, some to at least of tailoring, tance research emphasizes the impor Much of the Tailored support. Several pieces of pieces Several ------» » » » » type: of each one example with turnaround, school address to intended interventions of types five approaches. Broadly, it identifies differing of the disadvantages and merits the considers and turnaround school to contribution greatest the have to made claim can that of initiatives a number It examines over evolved time. has England employed in methods and initiatives government of range at how the looks section next This Evolved? England School Failure in Approaches How Have » » » » » schools to transfer and share share and transfer to schools and leaders school effective most strategies Lateral Programme). Schools (e.g., Improving ment programs improve orsubject-specific school grams pro improvement School-based Challenge). tives/sanctions (e.g., National incen and investment nificant by- sig backed improvement, to major national-level approaches strategies imperative National (e.g., Challenge). London areas schools/ individual to approaches strands/tailored multiple with programs ment improve “multiple” Area-based emies Program). (e.g., market Acad local up the shaking and school of the nature and governance the changing solutions Structural — more traditional whole- traditional — more

to Tackling Tackling to — utilizing the — programs — radically — - - - - - between £20 million and and million £20 between of investment by government matched then was which million, up £2 to contribute to who had sponsor external an from expertise of fresh injection the with created, was Anewschool change. wider much involved new academy of a creation teacher, the head school’s the replaced simply which policy, start” “fresh the But unlike communities. disadvantaged most the in of schools performance the around on turning afocus with U.S. the movement school in charter ways the to many in similar was Program Academies the — term first government’s Blair the in introduced was that program for another direction the set policy start” The “fresh no longer tolerate school failure. failure. school tolerate no longer would government that expectation aclear set —but it also head” “hero —the head individual of the role the on much emphasis too for placing criticized heavily was policy This school. of the closure turnaround, school achieve to unlikely judged were two approaches first these if body, or, governing its replacing teacher, head the replacing involved start,” “fresh as policy, known This taken. be would action decisive and one year, radical within of improvement showed signs they unless that, said and failing be to judged of schools alist published 1997, government power in Blair the to coming after Shortly initiatives. successful less out of earlier, grew performance school around turning in successful proved ultimately have that initiatives of the Many Education). of ment (e.g., Leaders National improve school in practices best >> October 2012 >> October . This program program . This - 9 Strategies to Challenge and Support School Performance in the United Kingdom WestEd >>

£30 million to support capital improvement has increasingly endowment fund with its initial £2 investment in new buildings. As evolved to make greater use of the million; its proceeds were spent by discussed below, the replacement best school leaders and schools the academy trust — the academy’s of a previously failing school with through the National Leaders of governing body — on measures to an academy often brought about Education program. Each of the counteract the impact on education rapid and decisive improvements above-mentioned programs is of deprivation in the school’s in these schools — although there explained in more detail below. feeder communities. In addition was debate about whether this to the £2 million funding from the improvement could have been The Academies Program sponsor, most academies received achieved by other means and what additional capital funding — about Academies — which are similar impact these new academy schools £20 million to £30 million — from in nature to charter schools in the had on neighboring schools. central government to pay for the U.S. — are state-funded schools physical rebuilding of new schools The government was also keen to for students of all abilities that are (some were built on new sites, others develop solutions that focused on established and managed by a wide replaced failing schools which had providing support to all schools range of sponsors: individual phi- been located there before). operating in the most challenging lanthropists, businesses, universi- circumstances. Its Excellence ties, successful schools and colleges, The first academy was established in Cities program, for example, voluntary providers, and faith com- in London in 2002. Since then the provided additional funding for munities. Academies receive their program has expanded substantially, groups of schools to work together day-to-day funding directly from the with 133 academies open by on school improvement. The Department of Education rather than September 2009, and an additional government also developed tailored through local authorities. Initially, 167 expected to have opened individual packages of support for they were exempt from a number of subsequently. Most academies schools below the floor target that rules and regulations that apply to replace existing underperforming were struggling to improve. All of other schools — for example, having schools, although others have been these approaches — the replacement greater freedom regarding teach- created to provide high-quality of head teachers, opening of ers’ pay and conditions and require- schools in areas that need additional new academy schools, greater ments about what they should teach school seats. In addition, a small collaboration between schools, as part of the National Curriculum. number of academies have opened and more tailored support — were As discussed below, however, some of as a result of mergers between high- subsequently developed on a more these freedoms no longer exist. performing schools and weaker systematic basis, initially in London schools as part of national or local through the London Challenge At the start of the Academies school-improvement strategy. program, and then countrywide Program, sponsors had to commit High-performing schools were through the National Challenge. £2 million of their own money to support the establishment of a new often incentivized to do this by At the same time, the lessons that academy, but that requirement has the significant additional capital had been learned in the Blair since been dropped and sponsors funding they would receive, as government’s first term about can simply offer their own expertise well as by their commitment to improving students’ performance in to the running of the school. supporting other local schools. literacy and numeracy in primary Academy sponsors were brought Finally, some academies were schools through the national in — not just to provide the initial created simply by the conversion of strategies were applied even more funding — but to use their outside another older category of schools — systematically to primary schools expertise to challenge traditional City Technology Colleges established below the floor target through the thinking on how schools are run under the Thatcher government in Improving Schools Program. Finally, and what they should be like for the 1980s — which already enjoyed as noted above in the policy context students. When establishing an many of the freedoms of academies section, the approach to school academy, the sponsor sets up an and as such simply converted their

10 CASE STUDY >> STUDY CASE with another. another. with school one failing replaces simply academy of an creation the that way, claim this critics In schools. of other admissions the skewing and students best the by recruiting them around schools local on other impact have anegative academies that argue also Critics have received. academies that level of resources same the given or change to time enough given been schools those had have been would replaced they that schools the than effective no more are academies the that argue Critics years. recent in debate academic and political of intense subject the been has Program Academies of the impact the U.S., the in schools charter with As Authority. Education Local their and schools local other with work closely most and 2008, from Curriculum National core the to relation in schools other as requirements same the to subject made were newacademies all fact, 2008). In (PricewaterhouseCoopers, missing been previously had that thinking fresh and leadership strong the with newschool abrand establishing in inherent freedom the from rather of use the from not necessarily come has schools of these success of the Butmuch schools. for the advantage a great as seen was freedom Such control. Authority Education Local and staff, for teaching conditions pay and national requirements, curriculum national with dealing in freedoms greater granted were initially of school, a type as above, academies, noted As did. some though funding, capital additional any receive academy. didn’t Most an to name those particular freedoms, but freedoms, particular their children. children. their for schools private-sector choose ents par London more many country, the of parts other in parents to compared because, also and London in school to children their sent journalists and politicians many because schools onLondon’s attention media and cal politi considerable also was 7 There forming. - underper were schools many which in of deprivation areas many with city populated adensely it is because program of the focus the as chosen city. was London nation’sthe capital in schools of secondary performance the at improving aimed was 2003, in government national by the launched was which Challenge, The London The London Challenge decades of school failure. failure. of school decades have ended communities, deprived most of the many in and, England in schools of failing number the reducing in have played role amajor to said be can therefore, Academies, 2007). Office, Audit National 2008; (PricewaterhouseCoopers, place available for every applications three receiving now typically staff,” and parents with popular proving are “academies and schools; other in profile student the affecting and admissions own their by skewing schools on neighboring impact have negative academies that evidence outstanding be to by Ofsted judged have been academies many nationally; schools of other rate the at twice improving show academies examination GCSEs in Results impact: positive have a academies that of sources anumber from evidence now strong is there criticisms these Despite 7 The program’s multistrand multistrand The program’s or good ; there is no no is ; there - - » » start: the at included approach improvement support it needed. A triage system system Atriage it needed. support tailored the receiving was school each that ensuring but also progress on checking schools, the work with to appointed —were inspectors or heads former experienced were of whom —most advisers Challenge London senior experienced Highly support. consultancy external other and strategies national the like programs on existing drawing often school, for each of support apackage negotiate to school the and authority, local the Department, the held between were conferences case identified, were schools the Once term. first government’s Blair the during target floor below the schools with work dealing earlier authorities’ local and Department’s the from learned lessons the on based is approach This » » » » (described as the the as (described so of being at risk be to judged or five GCSEs percent, 25 A*-C of target floor below the was that school secondary on any A focus schools); ing costs. hous by supporting recruitment teacher with helping and students, for activities cultural promoting management, and leadership ing - improv including schools, funded state- for all on support focused activities of pan-London A series improvement in; secure to important most cally politi and deprived nomically eco most performing, poorest largest, the as selected were that on five A focus >> October 2012 >> October Keys to Success Keys key boroughs key - - -

11 Strategies to Challenge and Support School Performance in the United Kingdom WestEd >>

identified which schools within the There was also a focus on building their student intake and previous program were causing the greatest capacity within the key boroughs’ performance. The program further concern, and Local Education own school improvement services sorts schools by “contextual” fac- Authorities were challenged to come in order to ensure their own sup- tors, identifying all schools that, for up with radical solutions for these port for their schools made a bigger example, have significant propor- schools. Solutions could include a impact and therefore helped to sus- tions of students who speak English change of leadership, partnership tain any immediate improvements as a second language and/or have with another more successful that might be delivered through the high student mobility. Identification school, closure, or conversion to involvement of the London Chal- of these “families” enables schools academy status — the list of options lenge. Each key borough was there- to compare themselves to and share was similar to the federally approved fore given a London Challenge proj- their experiences with schools with options for failing schools in the U.S. ect manager — which also provided similar characteristics. a vital feedback loop to the Depart- The focus on five key boroughs was ment on whether the boroughs’ The impact of the program has been intended to support and enhance capacity was improving or not. very positive. Within two years, the the focus on Keys to Success schools performance of London’s schools across all London boroughs. This Underpinning this specific focus on had exceeded the national average, meant a focus within these key bor- particular schools and boroughs with the strongest contribution com- was the London Challenge’s city- oughs — not just on their own Keys ing from the Keys to Success schools wide approach to developing stron- to Success schools — but also on the and the schools in the five boroughs ger leadership and management for performance of all schools and how that had been targeted for support. all schools. A London leadership to achieve areawide transformation Moreover, the early improvements center was established to provide in educational quality. The launch have been sustained and built on tailored and specific training pro- of the key boroughs strand of work since (Exhibit 2). Perhaps the stron- grams to head teachers and other coincided with the government’s gest evidence of program impact school leaders. There was also a national program for capital invest- comes from an independent report London-wide cultural offering for ment in schools, Building Schools by Ofsted (2006), which found that students — which guaranteed a cer- for the Future,8 which was rolling performance — as measured by tain number of cultural experiences out at this point. Any local areas — performance in GCSE examina- for students, like theater trips, and both inside and outside London — tions — in poorly performing Lon- gave schools additional resources to don schools had risen faster than in seeking capital investment for their pay for these, as well as establishing similar schools nationally. In inner schools were required to produce a a teacher home-buy initiative to help London, 89 percent of secondary compelling vision and plan for how recruit more good teachers by help- schools below the floor target of the capital investment would be used ing with housing costs. to transform education. So the Lon- having 30 percent of their students don Challenge provided support to One of the most interesting aspects achieve five GCSEs graded A*-C, each of these boroughs to help them of the London Challenge was the including English and math, had prepare their proposals and plans. approach it developed to data anal- made improvements in the num- ysis. The Department developed bers of students achieving five A*-C 8 Building Schools for the Future “families of schools” so that schools grades at GCSE between 2001 and was the government’s program for with similar intakes but differing 2005, compared with 73 percent of capital investment in schools. It was levels of performance were encour- secondary schools nationally in the undertaken in a number of phases with aged to benchmark their perfor- same period. Inspection evidence local areas having to put in proposals mance and work together to identify confirmed this improvement trend. for their long-term education vision actions to improve their perfor- The proportion of schools graded for their local areas and how they mance. Each family of schools sorts as good or better was significantly would spend the capital investment to schools across a city region into sta- higher than the national average help achieve this. tistically similar groups based on (59 percent compared to 49 percent).

12 CASE STUDY >> STUDY CASE City Challenge Challenge City the through Country Black the and Manchester —like try coun of the areas other in developed first it was that government the by successful so as seen was lenge Chal London of the The approach The National Challenge Challenge. City the called anewprogram through cities English other and schools primary to extended now been has approach Challenge The London teaching). 51 to pared 57 and management 58to (73 significantly improved had of teaching quality the and management, Leadership, of London 2: of Schools London Impact on Performance the Exhibit Challenge the PERCENTAGE 40 60 30 50 20 10 0

percent for leadership and and for leadership percent 1997 ne odn-EM ue odn-EM Grea Outer London -E&M InnerLondon -E&M

Performance ofLondonvs. NationalSchools199 percent for quality of of for quality percent

percent compared compared percent 9819 0020 0220 0420 0620 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998

percent com percent - - - below the target. target. below the of being at risk be to orjudged target below this is that England in school on every focuses Challenge National The mathematics. and English both A*-C, including grade GCSEs more or five achieving students of its cent country will have at least 30 have at least will country 2011, every secondary school in the the in school 2011, secondary every by that, ensure to focus a specific with schools secondary in formance per higher secure to government national from strategy top-down driven, acentrally is 2008, June in government by the launched gram, the called program anational through country the across adopted was subsequently then —and program National Challenge te r London-E&M YEAR 7– . This pro . This 2007

at5 per London Challengebegan - - - Ke A* y Boroughs -E&M -C includingEnglishandMath school’s performance or accelerate or accelerate performance school’s the transform to intended how they for plans provide to asked were ties Authori Education Local schools, Challenge National the of For each results. school overall down dragging been has areas these in performance because ematics math and English in performance on focused has attention schools, many behavior. In and learning and teaching of good basics of the grasp astrong as well as leadership, tive effec has school every that ensuring on is focus the Challenge London the with As Challenge. National the in adopted have been Challenge City the and Challenge London of the success the to critical as seen elements Many in 2003 >> October 2012 >> October England -E&M - - - 13 Strategies to Challenge and Support School Performance in the United Kingdom WestEd >>

current improvements. Participat- replaced by an academy or National was in place for each participating ing schools were assessed by the Challenge Trust. In other instances school; many structural solutions Department on the basis of the local where schools were judged not to had been implemented; and school authority’s plans to identify the level require such a radical solution, a progress assessments from National of support they require. All of the National Challenge school may have Challenge Advisers identified posi- schools then had a National Chal- received support by working with tive progress for the clear majority lenge Adviser appointed to work a National Leader of Education of schools. with them to support the school (described in more detail below). directly and to broker additional This leader, who has been successful The Improving Schools support tailored to the school’s indi- in leading his or her own school, was Program vidual needs. designated by the National College of School Leaders, along with the The Improving Schools Program The Department made an leader’s home school — a National (ISP) began in 2002 as the assessment of the level of the Support School — to help improve a Intensifying Support pilot project support needed for each school — low-performing school by providing run on behalf of the government by and their chances of turning around additional leadership capacity and the National Strategies. It has since their performance. On the basis of by sharing many of the systems and been further developed as a national this assessment most attention was processes that has made the leader’s program by the National Strategies focused on the lowest-performing own school successful. to focus on primary schools below schools or schools judged least likely the floor target. At the heart of to be capable of turning around Significant additional resources the ISP approach is the concept their performance on their own have been committed by the of tracking student performance or with the support of their local government to supporting the on an individual basis and using authority. These schools were then National Challenge program — that information to challenge and likely to be subject to a structural £400 million in total: £40 million advance schools’ understanding solution with a similar list to that to pay for the National Challenge seen in the London Challenge and in Advisers and National Leaders of the action needed to improve the U.S.’s federally approved options of Education working with these student outcomes. to turn around schools — namely a schools; £100 million committed The program is applied flexibly in change of leadership, becoming an for teaching, learning, and study each school so it meets the priorities academy, or closure. support; £195 million to pay for identified by data analysis and new academies; and £65 million to In addition to the structural pay for National Challenge Trusts. softer intelligence, but it does then solutions that had been applied and The precise distribution of the commit the school to a process of tested before by the Department, a funding depended on the detailed specific, intensive, and rigorous new option of becoming a National plan agreed upon with the Local planning of remedial actions across Challenge Trust was offered to Education Authority for each school. every student cohort, every subject these schools. This was similar and teacher. It comprises a vigorous to becoming an academy but It is too early to assess the detailed “top-to-toe” model, involving every simply involved the leadership and impact of the National Challenge layer of the school’s management governance of the school being because school-level results for the and staffing. It is a truly whole- taken over by an external partner — first full year of the program were school model. typically a more successful school not available at the time this case The aim of ISP is to raise the or other education provider like a was written. However, despite some college or university. early criticism of the program from quality of teaching and learning, some school staff who felt their to accelerate progress, and to The government has stated that any school had been unfairly labeled as build sustainable improvement at school that has not achieved the failing, program implementation participating schools. Although ISP floor target by 2011 will close and be was proceeding well. A detailed plan started as a program specifically

14 CASE STUDY >> STUDY CASE around core elements that provide provide that elements core around and term of asingle course over the place takes that cycle improvement aschool- around built is The program school. the across effectively more leadership develop distributed to heads enabling governance, and of leadership strengthening supports also program the learning, on focus its Complementing cycle. improvement school of the stages at various introduced be can approach responsive and structured the because schools for all suitable it is schools, at turnaround aimed 3:Exhibit School Improvement Cycle which schools set targets, constantly constantly targets, set schools which with plan attainment” a “raising implement develop and also Schools quickly. made be can changes that so learning student to barriers any and make students progress the both identify to tracking student of use the been has program of the aspects effective most the Among impact. review and on learning, focus priorities, able identify to is whole school the elements, core the Exhibit to secure and sustain progress (see progress sustain and secure to needed structures and systems the

3). By using the cycle and and cycle 3). the using By work to understand the issues, share share issues, the work understand to level of shared ahigh staff amongst means This community. learning a as school development of the the emphasizes program the involved, is whole school the Because accordingly. targeted is for staff development professional and term for the priority the becomes writing in progress aweakness, is writing student show that data school’s a if for example, awhole. So, as school orfor the of staff members for individual either useful, most be would that development professional the identify and progress, evaluate >> October 2012 >> October 15 Strategies to Challenge and Support School Performance in the United Kingdom WestEd >>

the problems, and strive together to another type of support provided schools supported by NLEs have turn around the school. to schools facing difficulty. An experienced a 5–6 percentage point NLE is a head teacher of a highly increase in the number of students One of the most positive benefits of successful school who has agreed achieving the expected level in this schoolwide commitment is the to support other heads and/or English or mathematics. Secondary evolution of a new ethic among staff schools. Typically a head teacher schools supported by an NLE for that they are learning together how will do this in conjunction with more than 6 months have improved to improve, sharing their experi- support from his or her own by a 3.9 percent age point increase ences, and pinpointing what works. school, which can become what in the number of students achieving Staff can be seen to be entering a is known as a National Support five or more A*-C grades, an new period of staff development School (NSS). NLEs and NSSs are improvement that, in many cases, that is more deliberately cooperative designated as such by the National raises the school above the floor and focused on professional learn- College of School Leaders, which target. Hill and Matthews (2008) are ing. This is commonly referred to provides ongoing support to NLEs more cautious in their assessment of as the professional learning com- and their schools and matches the impact of NLEs, stating that “not munity, which stands the school in them with low-performing schools all the effect, whether positive or good stead, even after a successful in need of their support. England’s negative, is necessarily due to NLEs turnaround has been achieved. It is cadre of NLEs grew from 68 when and NSSs,” and noting the broad one of the best legacies of ISP. the program was introduced in range of support from which these autumn 2006 to 180 two years later, schools often benefit. Nonetheless, The program has evolved over the and there are plans for continued Higham, Hopkins, and Matthews years, and many schools have vol- expansion of the program. (2009) argue that the data show that, untarily adopted ISP elements. Par- in most cases, NLE involvement is NLEs and their schools are ticipating ISP schools have consis- associated with improvements in deployed in different ways. In tently achieved double the national the schools being supported. rates of progress in results in the 2008, about a third were used externally assessed examinations in executive headship roles where the NLE assumes formal at the end of primary school with School Case: Debden 6 percent improvement annually in responsibility for the leadership of the number of students achieving another school as well as his or her Park High School the expected standards in English own. In some cases existing heads will continue serving under the and mathematics. Evidence from Debden Park High School in Essex Executive Head, in others they will a wide range of sources, including be replaced by a new head or the is a specialist performing arts students, schools, Ofsted, and Local Executive Head may be the only college, occupying new facilities Education Authorities, confirms head of the school for a period. But built for that purpose. In 2004, the the sustainability of the improved the majority of NLEs support other school’s results were slightly above progress rates. Schools identify schools without assuming formal the national average, but then they the positive impact on the quality leadership responsibility, providing declined sharply. The school failed of learning and teaching and the advice and support to the existing an inspection in January 2007 and development of the whole school as or new head of the school they are was placed in special measures. a learning community. supporting (Higham, Hopkins, and Unacceptable student behavior Matthews, 2009). was rife and, that summer, GCSE National Leaders of results plunged to 23 percent Education According to the National College of of students achieving five A*-C School Leaders (2008), NLEs have, GCSEs including English and The lateral transfer of best practice on average, helped move schools mathematics. These results were through the work of National out of special measures within 9 to well below both the level previously Leaders of Education (NLEs) is 10 months of deployment. Primary attained and the national average,

16 CASE STUDY >> STUDY CASE it ranked the school as as school the it ranked it from removed not only Ofsted that evident so was recovery school’s the 2007 October 2007, in but by on results impact appreciable have to an late too came These the for leadership provide He would results. in improvement for an body governing school’s the to accountability and responsibility direct with Head, Executive as appointed was NLE the instance, out of come Park help to Debden necessary capacity-building and leadership the provide to expected was College, Technology Kemnal school capacity high- current his help from with who, (NLE) of Education Leader aNational engaged Authority Education Local the confirmed, was result inspection the after Soon program. Challenge National the in enrollment school’s the to 2008, July in leading, agreed upon with all staff. staff. all with upon agreed were targets performance student and development opportunities improving steadily. Professional attendance and dramatically resulting in expulsions dropping implemented, immediately was policy behavior anewstudent Also, work. school’s of the areas all in procedures were implemented evaluation and monitoring robust newleadership, of this arrival the With lacked. previously had school the leadership on-the-ground daily, provide to Park Debden to teacher anewhead appointed NLE the such As school. own his in time of the some and Park Debden in time of his some spend would so school, own his lead to continuing special measures special positive changes at Debden at Debden changes positive special measures special special measures special school while while school . In this this . In good good , the transformation. the about positive very were Parents education. enjoyed more their once students and quickly; rising was quality teaching restored; been had morale staff behavior. Crucially, student good and standards, in rise asignificant procedures, tracking student- excellent with progress, outstanding made had school the that noted Ofsted lowest category. the from emerging for aschool verdict rare exceptionally — an results for 2009 show the impact impact show the for 2009 results Provisional made. been since has progress similar which in schools, additional of two performance the around turn to Debden, including schools, of four of a group part as working have been trust the and The NLE support. provide to authorities local and schools other by directly with contracted be could that entity legal constituted a formally was The trust schools. of number greater even an to College Technology Kemnal and NLE the from support provide to established was Trust Kemnal the Debden’s performance, in turnaround the Following average. national the exceed to on track put Debden and decline athree-year reversed trend The history. six-year its in achieved had Debden best the were results These 42 to percent. percent 23 from improvement, 19-percentage-point a was there mathematics, and English percent). Including 60 to 29 (from doubled than more graded A*-C GCSEs ormore five achieving students of percentage the 2008, to 2007 From impressive. more even been and continued measures special from emerged school the Since , progress has

percent percent mathematics. and of English subjects key the in particularly performance own aschools’ help improve to also can schools other to support providing these measures, suggesting that on rise point 10and percentage point a 3 percentage with progress of rate own its maintained also has College Technology Kemnal Interestingly, measures. same the on points 10 and percentage points of 18 percentage arise exhibited school The other mathematics. and 5A* English in rise including point 5A*-C in 9 percentage and rise point 18 an percentage recording one school work with trust’s of the leadership team and teaching teaching and team leadership Debden’s to senior appointed were managers middle Two talented turnaround. the to critical as seen also was staffing school the of rest the in change Significant for improvement. school the within drive day-to-day the to vital been having as teacher new head of a appointment his sees Debden with working The NLE school. a rescue to teacher head “hero” on a single reliance than rather leadership of distributed value the demonstrates also example The Debden Kingdom. United the in examples other and this in demonstrated been has one school than more support to head excellent an of utilizing value the scarce, are heads school when effective at atime especially and, essential is leadership Good performance. in turnaround school’s the to critical was undoubtedly NLE by an provided The leadership elsewhere. efforts turnaround to applicable potentially are study case this from of lessons A number >> October 2012 >> October 17 Strategies to Challenge and Support School Performance in the United Kingdom WestEd >>

staff. A lot of work was undertaken teaching staff — worked with staff Lessons for Other by the NLE, his school, and the at Debden to collect data on student Countries new Debden staff, with the rest progress and set ambitious targets of the middle management team, for improvement, sharing both the to raise morale and address data and improvement targets with »» Effective leadership is a necessary performance concerns. Of the parents. They also removed any but insufficient condition for suc- 45 staff members working at cess. Clearly it is no coincidence non-teaching responsibilities from Debden when the NLE arrived, that in an estimated two-thirds of Debden’s teaching staff, telling 19 subsequently left, unable to schools with the special measures them to focus exclusively on the cope with the pace of change designation there is a change of needed to transform the school’s quality of their own teaching in the leadership before they emerge performance. Moreover, while the classroom. Information technology from this status. But it is also difficulty of recruiting good staff is systems were established to simplify clear from the English experience used as an excuse for poor student processes as much as possible that good leadership is not itself performance by many schools for staff. And a system of quality enough to turn around schools. in challenging circumstances, assurance and lesson observations The model of the hero head drag- Debden was not allowed to use this was put in place to make sure ging a school up from failure is excuse. Typically schools in need teaching standards were high at all an outdated one. Models of dis- of turnaround struggle to recruit tributed leadership appear key to times. Any weaknesses were quickly good new teachers, but the Kemnal success, as does getting the rest of addressed through a program Trust employs a model wherein the staff on board and prepared of professional development for one individual is appointed to for the changes needed to turn manage staff recruitment across all staff — common weaknesses around performance. all schools in the trust, and and issues were addressed by following adoption of this model, program for all staff, but tailored »» System leadership roles — where the number of open staff positions development was provided to meet heads and schools support the at Debden Park plummeted. By teachers’ specific individual needs. turnaround efforts in others focusing early on the recruitment schools — can help turn around of good new staff, Kemnal was The drive for sustainable school performance, as demon- able to ensure that Debden’s staff improvement has really taken off strated by the impact of NLEs. shortages did not become a barrier with the support provided through Again though, it is not only about to improving results. the role of excellent heads sup- the Kemnal Trust, and herein may lie porting or leading other schools the greatest lesson for an approach It is also evident that much of the but also about the support, sys- to turnaround schools: Trust status support received by Debden — and, tems, and structures these leaders once the trust was established, by has allowed Kemnal, the school, to bring with them from their own other schools as well — has come not devote more of its own resources successful schools. from the NLE personally, but from to supporting other schools, and his home school, Kemnal, working the schools in the trust are now »» Self-assessment is a critical factor as an NSS. Many of Kemnal’s sharing staff and expertise on a for schools seeking to turn around. proven systems and processes were In the examples of programs given regular basis. The role of national introduced to Debden to support, above, the importance of schools government initiatives has been to for example, data collection, the and heads understanding their make sure the schools most in need use of information technology, and strengths and weaknesses and quality assurance. The Kemnal of support, identified through the what they need to do is clearly evi- team — which included other senior National Challenge program, are dent. Inspection has an important leaders such as the deputy and receiving what they need from an role to play here, but in England assistant heads as well as subject experienced head and his school. an increasing focus has been on

18 CASE STUDY >> STUDY CASE » » » » schools approach. approach. schools afamily-of- adopted Challenge London the and data, progress student- through for learning assessment effective more moted pro have Strategies National The it most. need that schools in data of use and quality the improving on therefore, dom have focused, - King United the in ment’s efforts govern Much of the needed. is way that the in data use to tise or exper capacity have the sarily do not neces schools performing but poorly turnaround, to key is progress student track to data of use effective the Promoting sense, for example, the National National the for example, sense, one In support. local and central between balance the been has England in turnaround school at attempts of recent feature ing interest An solutions. applicable for locally need the thus and texts, con their and schools between difference the (2005) emphasizes Thrupp schools; failing helping in not practical and not applicable is model aone-size-fits-all that (2005) asserts Creemers schools. failing in schools of effective strengths the replicate not to it is or on how easy focused has around turn and improvement on school literature academic the in debate Much of the important. is support local and central between Balance self-assessments. own of their quality on the schools have focused ment Partners Improve of School role the and schools with a newrelationship The development of assessment. self- effective through nesses weak and strengths own their understand schools sure making ------

and A-level teaching. A-level and needs special development, writing theory, literary skills, basic literature, English span which publications, her for known well also is Hackman Strategies. National the of Director National the was she service, civil the joining before Immediately 3Strategy. Key Stage the of Director National later and Strategy, Literacy National the in director asenior became then She Team. Strategy Future the of part as 1997 in (DfEE) Employment and Education of Department the in secondment on worked She 3. Key at Stage Examiner aChief been has and syllabi A-level written has She college. form 6th including education, of phases all in worked has She inspector. (Ofsted) Skills and Services, Children’s Education, in dards Stan for Office an and adviser, English teacher, aclassroom been had Hackman 2006, January in DCSF the in arriving Before personalization. and progression on work new DCSF’s oversees She assessment. Curriculum National and Trust, Academies and Schools Special Strategies, National the of management the are remit her Within work. standards and pedagogical, improvement, school ment’s depart the leads She Kingdom. United (DCSF), Families and Schools, Children, for Department the at Standards School for Adviser Chief the is Hackman Sue Sue Hackman initiative. to Success Access the through gaps success and access closing on education higher with and the program to Race Top the implement to efforts states’ to support helping U.S., the in Institute Delivery Education established newly the of associate an as working been also has He 19. age at people young of and work on secondary school improvement, and participation and attainment skills, adult and education higher on work Unit’s Delivery the led also Day mance. program and other national programs to transform secondary school perfor Challenge London DCSF’s on worked he where Unit Delivery Minister’s Prime the in worked he to that Prior Kingdom. United (DCSF), Families and Schools, Children, for Department in program 14–19 the for Implementation and Strategy of head was he Previously, sector. public the for solutions developing in cializes spe that company independent an Partnership, ISOS of aDirector is Day Simon Day Simon About the Authors school within their jurisdiction jurisdiction their within school failing for each plan action an up with coming for responsible Authorities Education Local with schools, for individual solutions contextualized developing on of emphasis deal agreat places also Challenge National But the solution.imposed structural oracentrally closure face will or years three within standard defined anationally reach will either schools that expectation aclear with strategy top-down centralized, ahighly is Challenge developed for individual schools. for individual developed are solutions right the that ensure to Authorities Education Local with work to closely expected are and employed locally but are trained and appointed centrally have been they local; and tral cen between balance this strike themselves Advisers Challenge Even National the needs. ticular par its addresses that support of package atailored it receives ensure to school individual every with working Advisers lenge Chal National individual and >> October 2012 >> October ------19 Strategies to Challenge and Support School Performance in the United Kingdom WestEd >>

References Harris, A., Chapman, C., Muijs, D., Challenging Circumstances” project. Russ, J., and Stoll, L. (n.d.). Improv- University of Cambridge Faculty of ing schools in challenging contexts: Education http://www.standards. Creemers, B., and Reezigt, G. (2005). A Exploring the possible, school effec- dfes.gov.uk/sie/documents/octete- comprehensive framework for effec- tiveness and school improvement. val.doc tive school improvement. School Higham, R., Hopkins, D., and Mat- Matthews, P., and Sammons, P. (2004). Effectiveness and School Improve- thews, P. (2009). System leadership in Improvement through inspection: An ment, 6(4), 407-424. practice. Berkshire, UK: Open Uni- evaluation of the impact of Ofsted’s Davies, B. (2005). The challenge of lead- versity Press. work. London: Ofsted/Institute of ing schools in coastal communities. Hill, R., and Matthews, P. (2008). Education. Nottingham, UK: NCSL. Schools leading schools: The power Matthews, P., and Sammons, P. (2005). DCSF. (2007). Statutory guidance on and potential of National Leaders of Survival of the weakest: The differ- schools causing concern. London: Education. Nottingham, UK: NCSL. ential improvement of schools caus- Author. Keys, W., Sharp, C., Greene, K., and ing concern in England. London Grayson, H. (2003). Successful lead- Review of Education, 3(2), 159-76. DCSF. (2008). Research evidence on ership of schools in urban and chal- school level characteristics that make Matthews, P. (2008). Emerging patterns: lenging contexts: A review of the litera- schools effective in deprived areas. Aspects of the NLE/NSS initiative after ture. Nottingham, UK: NCSL. London: Author. 18 months. Nottingham, UK: NCSL. Lupton, R. (2005). Social justice and DCSF. (2009). Your child, your schools, National Audit Office. (2007). The Acad- school improvement: Improving emies Programme. London: Author. our future: Building a 21st century the quality of schools in the poorest schools system. London: Author. neighbourhoods. British Educational National College for School Leadership. (2008). Asking more of national lead- DfES. (2006). Families of schools. Research Journal, 31(5), 589-604. ers of education. Nottingham, UK: Retrieved August 31, 2009 MacBeath, J. (2005). Responding to chal- Author. from: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/ lenging circumstances: Evaluation of londonchallenge/ the “Schools Facing Exceptionally Ofsted. (2006). Improvements in Lon- don’s schools, 2000–2006. London: Author. Ofsted. (2008). Sustaining improvement: The journey from special measures. This case study is based on work conducted for the U.S. Department of Education under London: Author. Contract Number ED01CO0129. Its content does not necessarily reflect the views or poli- PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2008). 5th cies of the U.S. Department of Education, nor does the mention of commercial products annual evaluation of the Academies or organizations imply endorsements by the U.S. government. The inclusion of such infor- mation is for the reader’s convenience and is not intended to endorse any views expressed Programme. London: Author. or products, programs, models, or services offered. Purkey, S., and Smith, M. (1983). Effec- tive schools: A review. The Elemen- © 2012 WestEd. All rights reserved. tary School Journal, 83(4), 426.

Suggested citation: Day, S., and Hackman, S. (2012). Strategies to challenge and support Rutter, M., Maughn, B., Mortimore, P.,

school performance in the United Kingdom. San Francisco: WestEd. and Ouston, J. (1979). Fifteen thou- sand hours: Secondary schools and their effects on children. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Sammons, P., Hillman, J. and Morti- WestEd — a national nonpartisan, nonprofit research, development, and service more, P. (1995) Key characteristics of agency — works with education and other communities to promote excellence, effective schools. London: Institute of achieve equity, and improve learning for children, youth, and adults. WestEd has Education/Ofsted. 16 offices nationwide, from Washington and Boston to Arizona and California, with its headquarters in San Francisco. For more information about WestEd, Thrupp, M. (1999). Schools making a dif- visit WestEd.org; call 415.565.3000, or toll-free (877)4-WestEd; or write: ference: Lets be realistic! Berkshire, WestEd | 730 Harrison Street | San Francisco, California 94107-1242. UK: Open University Press.

20