CHURCH OF ENGLAND ARCHBISHOPS’ COUNCIL EDUCATION DIVISION

A Diocesan Board of Education for the Future

July 2013 Contents

Foreword ...... Page 1

Ten Marks of a High Performing Diocesan Board of Education ...... Page 3

A Diocesan Board of Education for the Future ...... Page 5

Appendix One: Example of a Job Description for the Chair of a Diocesan Board of Education ...... Page 17

Appendix Two: Process for Reducing the Size of a DBE ...... Page 19

Appendix Three: School-to-School Improvement Groups ...... Page 22

Appendix Four: The Role of a School Governor ...... Page 24

Appendix Five: Examples of DBE Regional Working ...... Page 25

Appendix Six: Diocesan Boards of Education Self-Evaluation Framework ...... Page 27

A Diocesan Board of Education for the Future CHURCH OF ENGLAND ARCHBISHOPS’ COUNCIL EDUCATION DIVISION

Foreword

From the Chair of the National Society and Board of Education

The Church School of the Future Review was a call to action to maintain and develop the proud history of the Church of England’s significant contribution to education in this country. Church of England schools are a key part of the Church’s mission to the nation and enable the Church to continue to work tirelessly for the common good of society.

In the light of the changing education environment, there is an increasing expectation that those who provide schools will be held accountable for the education provision within them. If a school has ’Church of England’ over the door, then the Church of England, through the Diocesan Board of Education, will be increasingly responsible for the quality of provision within the school. This being the case, we must ensure that our schools are effective as well as distinctive and inclusive. The Rt Revd John Pritchard Bishop of Oxford Included in this booklet are three significant documents which will help Diocesan Boards of Education fulfil their vital role in education, whilst making sure that their work is fully integrated into the wider life of the diocese:

• a summary document setting out ten key things a high performing DBE should have in place • a fuller document which contains ideas and detail about how a DBE should be shaped for the future • a self-review framework which is offered to enable a consistency of approach across the country as DBEs seek, in conjunction with their schools and wider diocese, to identify areas of strength and highlight areas that require development.

I commend these documents to you in the hope that, as we use them, we will learn from each other and grow our work in education.

+ John Oxon The Rt Revd John Pritchard Bishop of Oxford

A Diocesan Board of Education for the Future Page 1 A Diocesan Board of Education for the Future Page 2 CHURCH OF ENGLAND ARCHBISHOPS’ COUNCIL EDUCATION DIVISION

Ten Marks of a High Performing Diocesan Board of Education

The Church School of the Future Review urged the Church of England to acknowledge the key contribution of schools to the Church’s mission, and to confidently respond to the opportunities and challenges through clearly expressed strategic plans that underpin and promote the important place of Church schools in each diocese.

Diocesan Boards of Education fulfil a vital role in education and are expected to be able to play a full and effective role in support of Church of England schools. Diocesan plans, resources and structures should properly reflect this priority.

These ten marks of a high performing DBE are offered as a summary of the working group’s paper.

1. There is a clear and compelling statement of why the diocese is involved in education that any person in the structure can understand and recite, as well as a strategic plan for the DBE which aligns with diocesan goals and helps to deliver them. 2. A regular discussion on education takes place at least 2-3 times a year at Bishop’s Staff Team and a proper debate on an education matter occurs at synod every year. 3. There is aspiration for all diocesan schools to be rated as Good and most rated to be Outstanding with over 90% of diocesan schools actually being rated as Good or Outstanding by Ofsted and SIAMS. 4. The Education team is resourced at a level which enables the DBE to deliver its strategic plan and its advisory teams to be staffed with successful school leaders, who have experience of leading school improvement and enabling schools to prosper. 5. The Education team uses data effectively to analyse the performance of all diocesan schools, identify schools that need support and enable the brokering of support to ensure school effectiveness. 6. Diocesan expertise is used to offer high quality training to all schools so that religious education and religious worship is promoted effectively in schools throughout the diocese. 7. Governance and leadership in all diocesan schools are deemed good or better and every school has a sufficient number of high quality foundation governors in post to enable good strategic governance. 8. There is effective collaboration with LAs, HEIs, Teaching Schools, Diocesan MATs and all diocesan schools are grouped in informal, formal or structural collaborations to enable mutual challenge and support. 9. Every parish with a school receives high quality training for clergy, lay ministry teams and governors to equip all those ministering in schools. 10. The DBE uses the self-review framework to continually review its own performance and engages with its schools and parishes to enable it to do so.

A Diocesan Board of Education for the Future Page 3 A Diocesan Board of Education for the Future Page 4 CHURCH OF ENGLAND ARCHBISHOPS’ COUNCIL EDUCATION DIVISION

A Diocesan Board of Education for the Future

The working group offers this Paper and Self-Review Framework for dioceses to consider and adopt according to your context.

THE MISSION OF THE CHURCH

1. Reflecting on the opportunities and challenges facing the Church of England, the Standing Committee of the House of Bishops identified three themes which, taken together, would provide a robust framework for shaping the work to 2015: contributing as the national Church to the common good; facilitating the growth of the Church; re- imagining the Church’s ministry.

2. Challenges for the New Quinquennium (2011, paragraph 14) explains the need to hold these objectives together because “an authentic Church will always be involved in service to the community through its members as they seek to love their neighbours as themselves. And service to the community will tend to produce more members as people recognise that the wellspring for love of neighbour is love of God.”

3. The Church School of the Future Review urged the Church of England to acknowledge the key contribution of schools to the Church’s mission and to confidently respond to the opportunities and challenges through clearly expressed strategic plans that underpin and promote the important place of Church schools in each diocese.

4. Diocesan Boards of Education fulfil a vital role in education and are expected to be able to play a full and effective role in support of Church of England schools. Diocesan plans, resources and structures should properly reflect this priority.

HOW CAN WE ENSURE THE INTEGRATION OF EDUCATION WITH THE DIOCESAN MISSION?

5. Dioceses aim for every aspect of their mission and ministry to become and feel like an integrated whole, even though it is sometimes necessary to organise into different specialisms. In considering the place of Education within diocesan life, much of the discussion has focused on inputs: “What structures do we need to change to make this happen? Should the Diocesan Board of Education (DBE) be incorporated or unincorporated?” We have chosen to focus on outputs: "What might better integration look like and therefore what needs to happen to make that possible?"

6. What might better Integration of Education with diocesan mission look like? Each diocese is unique and has its own culture and context but, in general terms, integration will have the following features:

a. A clear and compelling statement of why the diocese is ‘doing’ education that any person in the structure can understand and recite. b. A strategic plan for the DBE which not only aligns to wider diocesan goals, but actually helps deliver these goals. c. Diocesan policy, particularly on matters of mission and ministry, which fully reflects the work of the DBE as a central part of the mission of the diocese.

A Diocesan Board of Education for the Future Page 5 d. Education responsibilities are seen as a normal, natural and essential aspect of parish ministry (irrespective of whether there is a church school) and fully reflected in diocesan guidance and procedures for the appointment of clergy. e. Education is fully integrated in diocesan structures for leadership and governance appropriate to the local context.

7. How will we know that this integration is being achieved? The following will be helpful indications:

a. The diocesan bishop, dean, suffragan bishops and archdeacons speak outwardly and with authority on education matters. b. The Chair of the DBE is recognised as a senior leader within the diocese. c. A proper debate on an Education matter occurs at the diocesan Synod every year and Synod gives agreement to a DBE strategic plan every 3 years. d. As the standing committee to the Synod, the Bishop’s Council will be looking at these matters in greater detail. e. The Bishop’s Staff Team will give regular attention to education issues. f. There is a clear understanding of the financial plan covering the DBE. g. Mission & Ministry strategy papers include education as a full part of the discussion and outworking. h. Clergy role descriptions routinely set out the education/schools interface responsibilities and therefore education features as part of Ministerial Development Review (MDR) conversations, and continuing ministry development interventions in the education space are available and encouraged. i. Training for clergy and lay ministry teams is regularly provided for all those ministering in schools. j. Senior staff, clergy, lay ministry teams and congregations see the relationship with their Church of England schools as being essential to their ministry.

PROMOTING THE VISION

8. The diocesan bishop has responsibility for setting and leading the diocesan vision for ministry and mission. The strategy will be specific to each diocese, but the importance of the place of education and schools in that vision might be described under the following areas:

a. Church of England schools serve the whole community: The founding principle of the National Society being universal education for the common good. b. Church of England schools provide appropriate nurture for children of the faith whilst engaging with those of different faiths or no faith; they are a resource for mission. c. Church of England schools offer a distinctive education rooted in the Christian narrative. d. The purpose of education is to fulfil human potential, meet the needs of society and transmit knowledge and culture. Fulfilling human potential rightly requires a focus on progress and achievement, excellence and high quality of educational experience, but also through offering a life enhancing encounter with the Christian faith and the person of Jesus Christ. How this is done will be determined by local context but this offer should run through the life of a school like words through a stick of rock.

A Diocesan Board of Education for the Future Page 6 CHURCH OF ENGLAND ARCHBISHOPS’ COUNCIL EDUCATION DIVISION

SCOPE OF THE DBE’s WORK?

9. Such clarity about the nature and purpose of Church of England schools, setting out the real aspiration for educationally effective and distinctive schools, will also need to be set within the wider context of voluntary and parish work with children and young people as well as the place of FE and HE chaplaincy within the diocese.

10. This paper is not setting out to be prescriptive as to whether DBEs should include these areas within their remit, but recommends that:

a. Dioceses take care to ensure that all these activities have formal oversight and governance within the life of the diocese. If ministry with children and young people or FE/HE Chaplaincy is overseen by an alternative group, it should have clear functional management in a traceable route back to the diocesan bishop. However, if there is no such accountability the DBE may well be the best place to provide it. b. If the DBE carries these wider responsibilities, then either the skill set of the DBE membership needs to include these areas, or a sub-committee structure could be deployed to oversee these activities by drawing in non-DBE members with the appropriate skills. c. Whether these responsibilities are or are not within the scope of the DBE, there should be a clear alignment of strategy, planning and resources for each area to ensure that the goals for schools are not in conflict with, but rather support these other ministries. The DDE should be responsible for assuring the bishop that this alignment is in place and the bishop may wish to ensure that there is a champion for each within his senior team.

INTERFACE WITH THE BISHOP’S STAFF TEAM

11. Bishop’s Staff Teams (BST) operate differently in each diocese. In some they almost fulfil the role of an executive board on all matters of diocesan life, in others they are more focused on appointments, whilst others focus more on ministry policy issues. BSTs in dioceses with area schemes will operate differently to those without.

12. Diocesan Bishops will want to ensure that the DBE has proper engagement with the BST. How this is achieved is for each diocese to determine, but key elements might include:

a. Ensuring a discussion (not simply a presentation) on Education is scheduled at least 2-3 times a year in the bishop’s staff meeting (with the DDE attending if s/he is not a member of BST) with a particular focus on evaluating the quality of the integration of education with the wider mission of the diocese. b. Ensuring that at least one of the members of the BST has a meaningful role with Education, for example ensuring that at least one of the bishop’s nomination places on the DBE is a member of the BST. c. Consider inviting the DDE to join the BST, particularly if neither the Chair nor Vice Chair of the DBE is a member of the BST.

A Diocesan Board of Education for the Future Page 7 EDUCATION AGENDA AT DIOCESAN SYNOD

13. The DBE is legally accountable to the Diocesan Synod: certain of its members must be drawn from the Synod (under the current Measure) and the DBE must report its activities at least annually. However, this might all be achieved in a fairly nominal way, with an annual report forming part of a busy agenda and taken through the Synod without any real engagement. To ensure a healthier relationship between diocesan synod and the DBE:

a. The DBE should prepare a strategic plan every 3-5 years and take it to Diocesan Synod for approval. b. Diocesan Secretaries should seek to schedule a debate on an aspect of the DBE’s work at least annually, with prior and more detailed discussion through the Bishop’s Council. c. Bishop’s nomination places on the DBE and Synod should be used to ensure that persons of proper skill and experience are brought on to the DBE and are also members of the Synod so that debates can be informed. d. There should be regular progress reporting by the DBE to the Bishop’s Council so that members come to expect to see and discuss something – this could be through submission of minutes of the DBE for noting (this is particularly important for unincorporated boards as it provides a route to notify DBF trustees of major transactions). e. The diocesan intercessions rota should be used to establish and underline the important place of Church schools in the life of the diocese.

BUILDING GOOD RELATIONSHIPS

14. Recognising and understanding the cultural differences in the worlds of 'Education' and 'Church' will help those working predominantly in each area to understand and relate to each other more readily and enable mutual learning. At the risk of making generalisations or being over simplistic, we have identified the following key differences:

• Accountability: Church is used to freehold and autonomy (clergy beginning to participate in MDR with no performance indicators); education used to frameworks and process (Performance management and capability procedures, league tables and inspections). • Democracy/Decision making: education used to responding to elected government and policy direction; Church used to consensus and good will. • Strategic planning and delivery: Education used to strategic development plans; Church less experienced in them. • Pace of Change: Education is responsive to swift change whereas the church tends to take much longer to reach decisions. • Doing/Being: Education seems to be focussed on 'doing' with a significant level of intentionality, whereas the church is better able to help focus on 'being' and has much to teach on this at a political level. • Measuring: In education measurability seems to be promoted as being everything and everything is measured; Church increasingly measures statistics and impact but is rightly focussed on things which are immeasurable and many in education long for such an emphasis. • Employed/Volunteers: Education is used to paying workers; Church relies on volunteers. • Challenge: Education is better at handling difficult conversations (what you must do to improve) than the church.

A Diocesan Board of Education for the Future Page 8 CHURCH OF ENGLAND ARCHBISHOPS’ COUNCIL EDUCATION DIVISION

15. Given these cultural differenceswe need high levels of trust in developing relationships which are rooted in the spiritual life of the diocese.

DIOCESAN SECRETARY/DDE RELATIONSHIP

16. The Church School of the Future review highlighted that the relationship between Diocesan Secretary (DS) and the DDE is an area for development in some dioceses. Possible ways to encourage a better quality of relationship and mutual understanding would be to:

a. make the DS a member of the DBE (or at least expect them to be a standing attendee) b. make the DDE a full member of the DBF or executive senior management of the diocese even if the DBE is incorporated c. plan joint meetings of DDE/DSs either regionally or provincially on an annual basis d. invite a DS to attend DDE annual conference and vice versa (this happens with Diocesan Secretaries, Archdeacons and Bishop’s Chaplains already)

17. Experience in the commercial world has been that an executive reporting to non- executives sometimes fails to secure proper accountability. We recommend that the DDE’s lines of accountability should be carefully considered to ensure that the bishop is fully involved in the issues and strategy of the directorate. In unincorporated Boards this will normally be via the Diocesan Secretary.

HOW CAN THE DBE BE MORE EFFECTIVE?

18. The changing education environment means that traditional models of charity governance, at diocesan Board level, are no longer fit for purpose if we are to provide strategic oversight and enable our education teams to offer the high quality of provision that is expected of them. In order to meet the challenges of the future we need more effective governance, and better equipped teams.

GOVERNANCE: SIZE AND FUNCTION

19. The current DBE Measure necessarily results in a large DBE, being as a minimum 21 members in size and potentially 31 or more. This is the consequence of a DBE Measure which seeks to make the DBE representative, while also including expert support. The legislation does provide for an alternative composition to be agreed by the Synod (with approval from the Secretary of State); some dioceses have made use of this process to good effect.

20. In the 20+ years since the Measure was introduced, the fashion in corporate and charity environments is towards smaller, more focused boards. Research by the Cass Business School in 2012 looked at the hallmarks of good governance and identified boards of 11- 15 as representing current best practice.

21. Given that the representative model has not necessarily achieved a closer relationship between Synod and the DBE, the urgent need is for Board members who can fulfil a role akin to non-executive directors: there to support and challenge, but understanding the distinction between their role and that of the DDE. Accordingly, more emphasis should be placed on sourcing people with the right skills and expertise. This might result in an advertisement and interview process and perhaps term limits and end of term reviews of board member performance (all of which are increasingly common in

A Diocesan Board of Education for the Future Page 9 the charity sector). A list of skills and expertise required should be maintained and used to ensure that the right mix of board members is established. A key role is that of the chair of the DBE and a suggested role description is included at Appendix 1.

22. The National Society (NS) intends to seek a change in the Measure, to enable Boards to restructure more effectively and will also consider whether it is appropriate to move away from the language of ‘Board of Education’ to something which reflects a more dynamic and proactive education provision. In the meantime, Appendix 2 describes the steps some dioceses have taken to reduce the size of the Board under the existing measure. An alternative temporary approach would be to establish a smaller ‘Executive Committee’.

23. The NS will seek to ensure that there is regular training for DBE Chairs and other Board members to bring clarity to the governance/executive roles.

EDUCATION TEAMS: ROLE AND RESOURCING

24. Since the Dearing Report (2001), Church of England schools have aspired to be distinctive and inclusive and a there has been a corresponding increase in confidence about what it means to be a Church of England school.

25. In the light of the changing education environment with the different role for local authorities, there is an increasing expectation that those who provide schools will be held accountable for the education provision within them. If a school has ’Church of England’ over the door, then the Church of England, through the DBE, will be increasingly held responsible for the quality of provision within the school. This being the case we can no longer talk simply about distinctive and inclusive provision but we must ensure that our schools are effective, rooted, distinctive and inclusive.

26. This focus on the effectiveness of our provision is reflected in the new Statutory Inspection of Anglican and Methodist Schools (SIAMS) framework, which makes the relationship between ethos and standards clear. Over 200 years of NS history there has been a clear recognition that the core purpose of our schools is to provide education which is of such quality that it effectively equips children by giving them the resources to learn, to test and challenge ideas and ideologies, and to have the freedom to be able to draw their own conclusions on the basis of that knowledge so that they are able to pass that knowledge and freedom to others. As the role of the Local Authority (LA) grew, the Church gradually ceded the responsibility for the quality of provision to the LA and focussed instead on the development of the distinctive character of a school. However, our firm conviction is that the ethos and character of the school is the key to improving standards and we cannot claim to be serving our children well if we are not striving for the highest possible standards of education. Education teams must redress the balance and will increasingly need to see rigorous school improvement and effectiveness as part of our pastoral carefor schools and their children.

27. In this environment, dioceses need credible professionals to foster this new relationship with our schools; the drive for the effectiveness of our provision will only be possible if we ensure that our advisory teams are staffed with successful school leaders who have experience of leading school improvement and enabling schools to prosper.

28. DBEs are not seeking to replace the role of Local Authorities, but in order to assure the quality of provision in our family of schools the Education team needs to be better equipped to ensure they understand their schools properly, analysing performance and

A Diocesan Board of Education for the Future Page 10 CHURCH OF ENGLAND ARCHBISHOPS’ COUNCIL EDUCATION DIVISION

then making sure that they broker in appropriate support in a timely fashion. This will enable the education team to be proactive about what schools actually need by way of support and to assess and identify training and development needs.

29. Education teams have traditionally operated with a model of service level agreements (SLA) whereby a school pays for services to be delivered. The new providers and Academy chains don’t have SLAs but they have a culture of membership, collaboration and participation. DBEs should move to a model where being part of the diocesan family is such an attractive proposition that schools will want to join and pay a 'membership' subscription because they know that with it will come a whole package of support.

30. There are a number of models developing as to how dioceses are building capacity for this new role, including:

a. the appointment of school effectiveness advisers b. the use of good and outstanding Church school leaders and Teaching School Alliances to provide support c. the use of consultants whom the diocese can broker to be involved in a particular school for a particular purpose d. entering into partnership with commercial school improvement providers e. the development of school-to-school, peer-led improvement groups (See Appendix 3)

31. Integration with the rest of diocesan life (as described above) should also ensure that the breadth and depth of the diocesan expertise can be offered for the building of social capital and enabling the flourishing of every child.

SCHOOL GOVERNORS

32. In order to enable the continued development of successful schools, high quality governance is essential. Sourcing such governors is urgent and diocesan bishops and archdeacons could helpfully use their position to issue a call to governance. Outlining the important role of a school governor (see Appendix 4),and asking for able people to be willing to carry out a governance function in schools and academies (based on the importance of this work as set out in their diocesan strategy) would be a significant step.The governance of our schools cannot be left to chance;schools need governors with the right skills and gifts to provide strategic oversight and direction.

FINANCES

33. Approximately 155,000 children and young people are involved in weekly church based activities in the Church of England, whereas one million children attend a Church of England school every day; dioceses need to consider their funding priorities in the light of these statistics. What would be an appropriate proportion of the diocesan budget to assign to this part of its mission? What is the right basic level and should there be an additional fund for strategic projects?

34. The need for a new level of engagement with schools will bring further demands for more high quality staff in a diocese’s education team, but the solution is unlikely to be a simple demand for a higher level of contribution from parish share. A more nuanced approach is required.

A Diocesan Board of Education for the Future Page 11 35. Present funding arrangements vary from diocese to diocese, but funding for DBEs is normally derived from a combination of:

• Common Fund / Diocesan Board of Finance (DBF ) grant / 'in kind' use of office space and facilities • Service Level agreement with schools • Lettings and buildings income • Interest from investments of historic Trust funds

36. Given the demands on voluntary income and the pressures on parish share and the wider diocesan budget, it is not right to expect the parish share to be used to fund activity which is properly the responsibility of the state. The provision of school improvement support and services which develop the effectiveness of schools of any category should be funded from the budget which is available to schools for that purpose. Historically that money was top sliced by local authorities, to enable them to provide a range of services. Budgets are increasingly devolved directly to schools for them to use to buy the services that they need and value, and the dioceses involvement in education provision at this level should be funded in this way.

37. However, neither is it appropriate for the state to be funding the Church’s mission; the work that the DBE carries out to ensure that every child has the opportunity for a life enhancing encounter with Jesus Christ is properly part of the diocese’s mission and should be funded from diocesan resources, including where this relates to appropriate funding of ‘core’ professional posts in a DBE’s officer team. This is critical in affirming to schools the importance of Education in the mission of the diocese. Working out the balance of activity and the appropriate level of funding is then the task for the DBE and DBF to resolve.

38. We are presently in a period of great opportunity in which the Church can secure and enhance its provision of schools for the future; such an opportunity will only be effectively harnessed if the DBE has sufficient resource to do so.

39 . Doing nothing is not an option since it will be understood as being unwilling to take responsibility for the schools which we say that we provide. If we do not seize this opportunity we are at real risk of putting in jeopardy the precious inheritance of our Church school system because schools will look elsewhere for their support and turn to other organisations or sponsors for their services, thus weakening the relationship with the diocese.

40. The DBE will need to ensure it has a team that is able to provide the support and services which Church schools require in the new environment. In time, such additional support that this might require may be funded entirely from the schools’ contributions and those dioceses sponsoring schools to become academies are currently able to access ‘Sponsor Capacity Fund’ from the DfE, but there will also need to be an element of diocesan pump-priming in order to secure the provision into the future.

41. Dioceses often have money sitting in trust funds. The revenue in these Uniform Statutory Trusts can be used to support the management of schools and academies and the education provided at schools and academies, including the cost of employing or engaging diocesan staff for those purposes. Dioceses will already be relying on much of this income to finance the activity of the DBE, but careful management of these assets may enable more resources to be directed to the work of supporting school effectiveness through the staff of the DBE.

A Diocesan Board of Education for the Future Page 12 CHURCH OF ENGLAND ARCHBISHOPS’ COUNCIL EDUCATION DIVISION

WHAT PARTNERSHIPS DO DIOCESES NEED TO PROMOTE AND DEVELOP FOR THE FUTURE?

42. Since 1944, dioceses have operated effectively within the ‘dual system’ which meant Local Authorities and dioceses had clearly defined statutory roles in education. One of the most significant impacts of the last three years is the gradual fragmentation of the dual system. As the role of the LA changes, and as the number of other ‘providers’ increases, with a number of different academy chains now having a serious stake in the system, there is no longer the same simple statutory relationship between LA and diocese.

43. Academy sponsors and chains have demonstrated what can be achieved through ‘pump- priming’ their activity with external funding and have modelled the benefit of direct accountability to drive up standards and, as described above, there is now an expectation that the Church will take the same responsibility for ensuring the quality of provision in every aspect of its schools’ life.This will be achieved in partnership with LAs in so far as they continue to have a significant resource and capacity to offer, but increasingly the diocesan response is to build, co-ordinate or broker capacity to provide real school effectiveness support, particularly as dioceses respond to the requirement for their underperforming schools to become academies.

44. Given the historic lack of capacity to offer this type of support in most dioceses, effective partnerships are now critical. It is possible, using a model of self-improvement and tried and tested schemes such as 'challenge partners' as developed as part of London Challenge, for dioceses to develop their capacity to meet the challenges of this new context, but one of the key factors will be the ability to harness the good and outstanding practice within the schools of a diocesan family through collaboration and partnership.

45. Dioceses will not aim to replace the function of a LA, but should build a resilient and sustainable family of Church schools, which offer mutual support by encouraging effective partnerships for maintained schools and academies alike. These partnerships can be informal, formal or structural, and the table below and following definitions set out some of the possibilities in this area:

Partnership Example Benefits

Informal Informal cluster of head teachers Sharing good practice and ideas; mutual support

Formal Soft Federation or Local Pooling some resources to enable Collaborative Trust specialist provision

Structural Hard federation or Shared leadership and governance; Multi-Academy Trust joint employment of some staff; Economies of scale

46. Federations are increasingly popular within the maintained sector. Smaller schools find it difficult to attract experienced leadership, mainly due to the pressure on school budgets, and federations enable schools to work structurally together in a way which ensures all schools within the federation benefit from strong and experienced executive leadership, whilst developing other staff to take on leadership roles such as ‘head of

A Diocesan Board of Education for the Future Page 13 school’. Sharing other areas of expertise, as well as governance and leadership structures, enable the federation to be more resilient than individual small schools can be alone.

47. The increasingly important role of Teaching School Alliances (TSA) is a significant development in the training of teachers for the future, as well as providing the professional development and training support that schools need. The relationship between TSAs and the existing Higher Education Institutes (HEI) in the delivery of teacher training is a crucial one, and the NS is working to produce a separate report as to how this can be promoted, in order to develop a structure and programme for Church schools which will provide teachers and leaders into the future. Dioceses will want to ensure that they have appropriate numbers of TSAs which can act as strategic partners, as they seek to promote good practice throughout their family of Church schools.

48. Whilst many schools have converted to be ‘stand alone’ single academies, it is important that the diocese maintains a close relationship to both support and hold such schools to account for their overall effectiveness. A diocesan Umbrella Trust is a convenient way to encourage a collaborative partnership between schools and the continuation of a diocesan family network. The Umbrella Trust will also be the corporate body to make appointments of members and directors which is particularly important for unincorporated DBEs.

49. A Local Collaborative Trust (LCT) enables a more formal network of schools of any category to develop and assist one another. The governance of each school/academy is left intact, while the creation of the LCT (which is effectively owned by them all jointly) enables them to share staff, budgets and committees to whatever extent they wish. Some members of the cluster may share more than others if that is what they want. It is an excellent model to ensure local collaboration and partnership, without impacting on individual governance arrangements. However, some schools will still feel too small or vulnerable to convert to academy status on their own, even if that is in the context of a LCT.

50. A Multi-Academy Trust (MAT) provides a structural solution similar to a hard federation in maintained schools. The accountability and responsibility for the schools within the MAT is held by the members and directors of the MAT. They are accountable to the Secretary of State for the funding agreement and standards; they will delegate responsibility, as appropriate, to a Local Governing Body (LGB) for each school, but the latter only has delegated power, the MAT members being ultimately responsible. As a school improves, its LGB may be given greater delegated responsibility, but the MAT directors are able to remove delegated authority if such improvements are not sustained. By joining together structurally in this way, schools give up some of the autonomy which they would enjoy as a ‘stand alone’ academy but find a greater capacity, strength and resilience as a group and are much more likely to be secure into the future. It is proving to be an attractive model to many primary schools, as there is a recognition that they are mainly too small to be secure as ‘stand alone’ academies. Dioceses are increasingly adopting the MAT model to provide this much needed stability and security and are also using it as the mechanism by which they sponsor schools that require sponsorship. This has all been made even more attractive by the recently negotiated change in DfE policy, which now makes it possible for a community school or a voluntary controlled school to join a voluntary aided model MAT.

A Diocesan Board of Education for the Future Page 14 CHURCH OF ENGLAND ARCHBISHOPS’ COUNCIL EDUCATION DIVISION

51. In addition to these school to school partnerships, strategic partnerships should also be developed with other providers, academy chains, independent schools and Higher Education Institutions (HEI) whilst ensuring that the traditional partnership with a LA is not neglected.

52. Whilst dioceses will want to maintain a close relationship with their schools and develop their own capacity for the future, greater effectiveness can sometimes be achieved by working in partnership with other dioceses to create a regional offer for specific purposes. Examples of some regional approaches to service provision (DBE Services), procurement of services (SW Partnership) and sponsoring academies (Lichfield and Birmingham) are provided at Appendix 5.

53. Given the small numbers of Church of England secondary schools in most dioceses, the opportunities for school to school support at secondary level are limited. The Anglican Academies and Secondary School Heads (AASSH) aim to offer such support on a regional and national basis and dioceses will find it helpful to engage with and draw in expertise at secondary level from this association, giving access to a wider geographical area.

CHURCH/SCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS

54. A key partnership in developing the rounded education our schools seek to offer, which will enable the flourishing of every child and the opportunity for life enhancing encounters with Jesus Christ, is the relationship between Parish Church and school. Often this is left to individual parishes and schools to work through for themselves, albeit with some external moderation and assessment from the denominational inspection of church schools, but DBEs should take an active role in developing the school/parish relationship and providing training and support for the clergy and lay ministry teams working within them. Setting out a diocesan protocol for this relationship forms part of the DBEs support and challenge to schools and the DBE will want to ensure that effective mechanisms are in place to ensure the successful development of this relationship.

55. The Church of England is committed to working ecumenically and schools are encouraged to build a broad range of relationships with other Christian denominations. Sometimes these are formalised structurally within joint Anglican/Methodist or Anglican/Roman Catholic schools, but where such structures are not in place the relationship between schools and other denominations should be encouraged by the DBE working collaboratively with them.

56. DBEs will want to ensure that, as part of their integration into the whole life of the diocese, care is taken to ensure that excellent arrangements are in place to ensure proper safeguarding for all children and young people. Partnership with the LA Designated Officer and links to the diocesan safeguarding team and procedures are essential.

HOW CAN DBEs FACILITATE THEIR OWN CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT?

57. The introduction of a more rigorous framework for the denominational inspection of Church schools has driven the notable improvements in the Christian distinctiveness of Church schools across the country. These advances have been achieved mainly by a more formalised process of self evaluation, with senior leaders and governing bodies

A Diocesan Board of Education for the Future Page 15 undergoing a regular period of reflection and review in order to identify strengths to sustain or areas to develop.

58. Whilst some dioceses review their development plan or their past achievements when setting future strategies, there is not a consistent approach to self review or evaluation across the country; the network of Church of England schools would benefit from a more consistent approach in each diocese.

59. The context for each diocese is different, but need for effective leadership of the DBE and the ability to ensure the effectiveness of its Church schools remains a constant. Without national consistency there is a real risk that the reputation of Church of England schools will be adversely affected.

60. To enable a consistency of approach we are offering a framework for self-review that DBEs will be able to use, in conjunction with their schools and wider diocese, to identify areas of strength and highlight areas that require development.

61. The self-review framework should be used alongside this fuller paper so that dioceses can reach a sound conclusion as to the effectiveness of the leadership and management of the DBE; the effectiveness of the Church schools within the diocese; and an assessment of how well integrated Education is within the wider diocesan mission.

62. The framework provides an opportunity for dioceses to receive constructive feedback from a broad range of schools (academies and maintained, schools that are judged outstanding as well as those which are receiving intervention support from the diocesan team) as to how effectively the DBE has supported them in their journey.

63. This self-review process should involve the BST as part of the process and then feed into the diocesan structures to ensure that Bishop's staff and council decisions are informed by it.

64. It would be extremely helpful if, on completion of the annual self-review, the completed framework was shared with the NS so that good practice can be identified and shared with other dioceses.

With thanks to the following people for their contribution to the working group:

Barbara Lane Chair of the working group and Diocesan Director of Education, Southwark Nigel Genders Secretary to the group and Head of School Policy, National Society Helena Arnold Diocesan Director of Education, Gloucester John Ball Chief Executive and Diocesan Secretary, Chelmsford Andy Brookes General Secretary, London Brian Crosby Principal, Manor Church of England Academy, Nether Poppleton Stuart Currie Chair, Diocesan Board of Education, Worcester Andrew Day Executive Director, The Northumberland Church of England Academy David Pert Chair, Diocesan Board of Education, Bath and Wells Jon Richardson Diocesan Director of Education, Liverpool

A Diocesan Board of Education for the Future Page 16 CHURCH OF ENGLAND ARCHBISHOPS’ COUNCIL EDUCATION DIVISION

Appendix One: Example of a Job Description for the Chair of a Diocesan Board of Education

With thanks to Rochester DBE

CONTExT • Leading on the monitoring of progress of the organisation in light of its objectives and strategic The role of Chair of the Diocesan Board of Education is a direction; voluntary one, being an opportunity for a person to offer a • Reviewing and appraising the performance of the significant Christian service to the life of the Diocese: its Director. Church schools and academies, parishes and organisations. • Chairing the Board and ensuring the effective functioning of the Board, its committees and subsidiary companies. The DBE Chair plays a key role in the strategic leadership of • Ensuring that the Board annually reviews its structure, the Diocese, especially through working with the Bishop and role, relationship to staff and implements agreed changes his senior staff, the Diocesan Synod and the Bishop’s Council. as necessary. The Chair of the DBE is an ex-officio member of the Bishop’s Council. THE PERSON

The DBE Chair has an important role in communicating with The Chair will have a committed and mature Christian faith the wider diocesan family and as an advocate for our Church and will: schools and academies and spokesperson for the DBE. • have a strong commitment to church schools and the KEy PURPOSES OF THE POST work of the DBE and the values, aims and objectives of the Diocese • To work with the Bishop and members of the Board of • act fairly and impartially in the interests of the diocese Education and its committees, to shape strategic purpose and the DBE, using independent judgement and and direction for the future of Church of England schools confidentiality as appropriate and academies within the diocese. • attend all meetings of which he/she is Chair or Member, • To lead the Board in ensuring that it fulfils its or give timely apologies if absence is unavoidable responsibilities for The DBE Measure (1991) of the • make him/herself available to attend induction/training organisation and strategic direction of the Trust. events organised by the diocese or other appropriate • To work in partnership with the Director of Education bodies such as the Education Division of the Church of to ensure the strategic direction agreed by the Board is England translated into appropriately resourced activity, thus • receive feedback on his/her performance as chair via the achieving the mission of the organisation. Diocesan Bishop • have a passion for furthering the mission of the church SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITIES within the Diocese • be able to think strategically about both finance and • Ensuring that the Board sets strategy and policy mission objectives for the short, medium and long term, in • have a grounding in local parish life, ideally with PCC consultation with the director and staff; experience • Ensuring that the organisation complies with The • have a professional background in education, business or Measure, charity law, company law and any other relevant public sector work legislation or regulations and making sure that the • have experience of working with a charitable company organisation pursues its objects as defined in The • be a proven communicator Measure. • be an effective chair of meetings • Ensuring that appropriate resources (personnel, financial, • be used to working collaboratively with both staff and material) are secured and deployed effectively in order volunteers to effectively fulfil the Board’s objectives, goals and values;

A Diocesan Board of Education for the Future Page 17 SUPPORT TIME COMMITMENT

The office of chair is not remunerated, but the chair is The workload is not spread evenly through the year, but the encouraged to reclaim all travelling and similar expenses main commitments are as follows: incurred in the course of DBE business, via the appropriate diocesan routes. • Diocesan Synod: 2 Saturday meetings per year (morning only or all day) Clerical support is provided by the education administrative • Bishop’s Council: 4 evening meetings per year plus a 36- team and where the chair needs to send letters or prepare hour Friday/Saturday residential other documentation secretarial support can be provided. • Board of Education: 3 meetings per year (2 hours in The chair will have access to the diocesan website and any length, afternoon/evening) secure areas for the work of the DBE and will have a • DBE Executive Committee: 6 meetings per year (2 hours diocesan email address. in length, afternoon) • DBE Resources & Finance Working Party: 3 meetings per REPRESENTATIONAL ROLE year (time of meetings to be agreed with new Chair) • Regional meetings: maximum of 2 meetings per year Internally • Meetings with Bishop and Director of Education: arranged on an informal basis as required • To represent the Board of Education and when • Deanery and Parish visits: as and when arranged necessary be the ‘public face’ of the organisation • To be present where appropriate at relevant diocesan The chair will have the time and capacity to fulfil the role events based on an assumption that this is likely to take on average • To visit schools, academies, deaneries and parishes from 30 days per year. time to time in order to: o foster the relationship between the Diocese and its The appointment is for an initial term of three years and is schools, academies, deaneries and parishes eligible for re appointment for one further term of three o communicate DBE priorities and policies years. o receive feedback and comment

Externally

• To meet from time to time with the DBE Chairs and Diocesan Directors in the South East on an informal basis for the purpose of sharing and extending good practice

A Diocesan Board of Education for the Future Page 18 CHURCH OF ENGLAND ARCHBISHOPS’ COUNCIL EDUCATION DIVISION

Appendix Two: Process for Reducing the Size of a DBE

A number of dioceses (Manchester, York, Liverpool, A simple and appropriate process would be: Gloucester and others) have been through the process to reduce the size of their DBE. Manchester reduced from 25 to 1. Recommendation to review DBE constitution approved 15 and York from 27 to 11, citing some of the following as by DBE reasons to change: 2. Rationale shared with Bishop’s Staff 3. DBE meeting to finalise proposed constitution • The Board needs to be a reasonable size to encourage 4. Proposals presented to Diocesan Bishop discussion of detailed and sometimes quite technical 5. Proposals presented to Synod educational issues; a large body tends to debate in 6. Subject to approval, application submitted to the general terms, whereas a smaller body tends to examine Secretary of State. issues in greater depth, with more challenge to its officers; In all cases where an application has been submitted to the • The expectation placed upon a Board in the current Secretary of State to reduce the size of the Board, the educational context requires most of its members to proposal has been accepted and agreed. have relevant skills and experience which is arguably less likely under current structures; The attached document, Draft DBE Constitution (overleaf), • Most boards in the public sector now have a offers alternative models considered by Gloucester DBE to comparatively small number of members - examples reduce their size and enable a more appropriate balance of • given include the Board of the Qualifications and ‘representational’ members and those with specific skills and Curriculum Authority (QCA) with 13 members, a expertise to enhance the work of the Board. • typical Primary Care Trust (PCT) with 7 members and the Ofsted board with 7 members.

If a revised constitution is agreed by the Board of Education, it must then seek approval from Diocesan Synod to apply to the Secretary of State for Education for an amended schedule.

A Diocesan Board of Education for the Future Page 19 DRAFT DBE CONSTITUTION

• Column 1 represents the current Board of Education constitution. Paragraph A has been previously adopted by Synod (see greyed box) • Column 2 illustrates the impact of reducing the size of the Board by 50% but makes no further amendments to the way the Board is elected or constituted. • Column 3 illustrates the impact of reducing the size of the Board by more than 50%. In order to achieve this, the percentage of synodical and co-opted membership has been slightly reduced. Note in this model, I have also broadened the criteria for synodical representation. • Column 4 represents a combination of the second and third model by reducing the size of the Board by 50%, maintaining the balance of membership, but broadening the selection criteria.

Current Schedule Reducing the number by 50% Reduced the number by more A combination of the second than 50% and adjust criteria and third model

Size of Board 21-31 Size of Board 11-16 Size of Board 11-13 Size of Board 11-16 s t The Diocesan Bishop The Diocesan Bishop The Diocesan Bishop The Diocesan Bishop n e m t

n 2 Bishop’s nominations (either 1 Bishop’s nomination (either 1 Bishop’s nomination (either 1 Bishop’s nomination (either i

o suffragan bishop[s] or suffragan bishop or archdeacon) suffragan bishop or archdeacon) suffragan bishop or archdeacon) p

p archdeacons) A

s ’ p

o 2 additional bishop’s 1 additional bishop’s 1 additional bishop’s 1 additional bishop’s h s i nominations (lay or ordained) nominations (lay or ordained) nominations (lay or ordained) nominations (lay or ordained) B s

t 14-18 synod-elected Members 7-9 synod-elected Members 5-7 synod-elected Members 7-9 synod-elected Members n

e (a, b or c) (a, b or c) (a, b or c) (a, b or c) m t n i

o Either paragraph A Either paragraph A Either paragraph A Either paragraph A p

p 14-18 synod-elected Members, 7-9 synod-elected Members, of 5-7 synod-elected Members, 7-9 synod-elected Members, A

l of which there should be: which there should be: must either worship in, work in must either worship in, work in a c i or live in the Diocese, but do or live in the Diocese, but do d

o 1 Clerks to Holy Orders not, themselves, need to be a not, themselves, need to be a n • 2 Clerks to Holy Orders • y S beneficed or licensed in the beneficed or licensed in the member of Diocesan member of Diocesan synod. At Diocese synod. At least one least one representative will be Diocese representative will be a Clerks a Clerks to Holy Orders • At least 6 lay persons • At least 3 lay persons to Holy Orders beneficed or beneficed or licensed in the • At least 6 synod members • At least 3 synod members licensed in the Diocese. Diocese.

Or paragraph B Or paragraph B Or paragraph B Or paragraph C 14-18 synod-elected Members, 7-9 synod-elected Members , of 5-7 synod-elected Members, of 7-9 synod-elected Members, of of which there should be at which there should be at least 2 which there should be at least 2 which there should be at least 2 least 2 members from each members from each members who either worship members who either worship archdeaconry in the Diocese to archdeaconry in the Diocese to in, work in or live in each in, work in or live in each include: include: archdeaconry in the Diocese, archdeaconry in the Diocese, but do not, themselves, need to but do not, themselves, need to • 1 Clerk to Holy Orders • 1 Clerk to Holy Orders be a member of Diocesan be a member of Diocesan beneficed or licensed in the beneficed or licensed in the synod. At least one synod. At least one Diocese Diocese representative will be a Clerks representative will be a Clerks • 1 lay person • 1 lay person to Holy Orders beneficed or to Holy Orders beneficed or • 1 member of synod • 1 member of synod licensed in the Diocese. licensed in the Diocese.

(Note: there are 2 archdeaconries (Note: there are 2 archdeaconries (Note: there are 2 archdeaconries (Note: there are 2 archdeaconries in Gloucester Diocese) in Gloucester Diocese) in Gloucester Diocese) in Gloucester Diocese)

A Diocesan Board of Education for the Future Page 20 CHURCH OF ENGLAND ARCHBISHOPS’ COUNCIL EDUCATION DIVISION

Current Schedule Reducing the number by 50% Reduced the number by more A combination of the second than 50% and adjust criteria and third model

) Or paragraph C This option would not be This option would not be This option would not be d e

u 14-18 synod-elected Members, possible as you would breach possible if possible as you would breach n i

t of which there should be: the maximum number by two, the number of synod-elected the maximum number by two, n

0 unless it was amended to read: Members was reduced to unless it was amended to read: o c

( • 2 synod members (1 to be a 7- 9 synod-elected Members, of between 7-9 synod-elected Members, of

s

t Clerk to Holy Orders which 1 person must be elected 5-7. which 1 person must be elected n

e beneficed or licensed in the by each deanery synod from its by each deanery synod. Elected m

t Diocese and 1 to be a lay own members. Amongst the Members must either worship n i

o person) nine representatives there must in, work in or live in the p

p • 1 person elected by each be 2 members of Diocesan deanery. Amongst the nine A

l deanery synod from amongst synod (1 to be a Clerk to Holy representatives there must be 2 a c i its own members Orders beneficed or licensed in members of Diocesan synod (1 d

o the Diocese and 1 to be a lay to be a Clerk to Holy Orders n y

S (Note: there are 9 deanery synods person) beneficed or licensed in the in Gloucester Diocese) Diocese and 1 to be a lay (Note: there are 9 deanery synods person) in Gloucester Diocese) (Note: there are 9 deanery synods in Gloucester Diocese)

s Not less than 4 or more than 8 Not less than 2 or more than 4 Not less than 2 or more than 3 Not less than 2 or more than 4 r e

b members co-opted by the members co-opted by the members co-opted by the members co-opted by the

m Board of whom: Board of whom: Board of whom: Board of whom: e M

d

e • 4 members shall be persons • 2 members shall be persons • 2 members shall be persons • 2 members shall be persons t

p with experience of church with experience of church with experience of church with experience of church o -

o schools in the diocese schools in the diocese schools in the diocese schools in the diocese

C • Other members (if any) shall • Other members (if any) shall • Any other member shall be a • Other members (if any) shall be persons with experience be persons with experience person with experience of be persons with experience of other areas of work with of other areas of work with other areas of work with of other areas of work with which the board is which the board is which the board is which the board is concerned. concerned. concerned. concerned.

A Diocesan Board of Education for the Future Page 21 Appendix Three: School-to-School Improvement Groups

Andrew Day (Executive Director, The Northumberland Church of England Academy) proposes a model for school-to- school, peer-led Improvement Groups (with thanks to Challenge Partners as ideas have been drawn from their outstanding programme that has transformed education in London and other parts of England.)

INTRODUCTION • Promote the Christian ethos within the schools as a catalyst for change and improvement The current educational landscape, in England, is one of accountability and targets which means that schools are CSPs will be established around a cohort of headteachers required to meet nationally-driven standards and face serious and schools within and across dioceses focused on: consequences, such as “forced academisation”, should they fail to meet those targets. Headteachers are increasingly 1. Improving the quality of teaching and leadership, challenged by the number of centrally-generated policies and 2. Leading school improvement performance indicators that have increased over the past few 3. Ensuring better outcomes for children and young years, whilst support from local authorities has been people. squeezed to its limits. It is a perceived consequence that DBEs could be held accountable for the performance of The CSPs will lead on school-to-school mentoring Church schools, even where the Measure (1991) does not programmes through: provide for the DBEs to lead on school improvement. • Annual reviews of schools’ performance It is envisaged, therefore, that DBEs should become brokers of school-to-school support, peer-led by school leaders in all • First phase: primary and secondary headteachers sectors to ensure the school improvement agenda is driven panels to scrutinise annual data and identify causes by those closest to the coal-face. These School Improvement for concern; schools at risk Partnerships will collaborate within and across Dioceses to • Second phase: critically-friendly school reviews provide the critical friendship needed to ensure that all conducted by OfSTED trained Additional Inspector Church schools are the very best they can be. and a team of trained reviewers, both external and internal The Church Schools’ Partnership is a collaborative of Church • Third phase: assist with the development of of England schools, within or across dioceses, which aims to strategic planning, development planning and action raise standards of education. Many Church schools and planning to set the strategic direction for academies are outstanding examples of educational practice, improvement in schools (peer mentored). but there are many that are vulnerable and in which support is required. If Church schools are going to be at the forefront • Whole school improvement of educational excellence then these partnerships need to ensure the success of all schools within the family of Church • Strategic development support schools. • Teacher development – through Teaching Schools’ Improving Teacher Programme (ITP) and Outstanding The Church Schools’ Partnerships (CSPs) will exist to: Teacher Programme (OTP) (currently available through Teaching Schools / NCSL) • Increase our children’s performance in public • Specialist practice brokerage; outstanding examinations, above the national average practitioners and practice identified and brokered for • Increase the number of partner schools accorded school improvement “outstanding” grades and which meet the National • Outstanding Practice Register Teaching School criteria • Improve all the Partnership’s schools’ OfSTED ratings

A Diocesan Board of Education for the Future Page 22 CHURCH OF ENGLAND ARCHBISHOPS’ COUNCIL EDUCATION DIVISION

• School-to-school mentoring To achieve these aims the DBE should establish primary and secondary reviewing panels. These panels sit during the • Mentoring of leaders by others (NLEs; LLEs; SLEs) academic year to review annual data and OfSTED reports of • Leadership development opportunities through all Church schools in the diocese to identify those schools secondment and placements that are vulnerable, especially those in “requires • Senior Leadership exchanges improvement”, “inadequate” or other categories. The panels should then assist in the identification of the key areas of • Closing the gap weakness in those schools and assist in developing the strategic route to success. This process should be proactive • Challenging under-achievement, inequality and and the intent should be that no school within the Anglican deprivation through educational improvement, family of schools should ever find itself without a neighbour especially those on FSM and those CLAs. willing to help and support.

THE ROLE OF THE DBE • A QA Review will be a team of internal and external QAs, trained to OfSTED standards, who will review The DBE and its officers work towards the introduction, practice in Church schools. development and implementation of the programme outlined • QA Review teams to be led by an OfSTED-trained above. The officers of the boards could act as brokers of inspector, possibly employed by the DBE as part of the outstanding practice and school-to-school support. The education team. education team should encourage outstanding leaders to • The team will consist of up to five reviewers: The Lead; work as SIPs, reviewing practice across the diocese, through two external reviewers and two senior leaders from the QA panels, reviews of current practice, support for schools, host school leadership development, mentoring. • The Review Lead will develop the Pre Review Briefing (PRB) will highlight areas for the review panel to explore. The Officers could (and some may already be doing this!): • The PRB will include a review of data; identified strengths and weaknesses; schedule of lesson observations; 1. Set up the review panels – primary (possibly in clusters), interview groups secondary, special, chaired by the DDE 2. Contract a group of HMI / AI to lead reviews (must be The quality assurance process will be supportive of the sympathetic to the Christian ethos of schools) school being visited and respectful of its point in its journey 3. Train reviewers to excellence. The QA panel will develop its review through a 4. Develop the annual review calendar / cycle dialogue with the reviewed school using SEFs, school data, 5. Establish a Register of Excellent Practice and PRBs. The QA will normally be conducted over two days 6. Broker school-to-school support and will feed back to the school on the afternoon of the 7. SIAMS to be included in review process second day. QA can be whole school, departmental, subject- specific, or a review of practice in support services. A formal THE QUALITy ASSURANCE (QA) PROCESS written report will be sent to the school within two weeks.

Annually, every school in the Church Schools' collaborative undergoes a critically-friendly QA review. These reviews aim to:

1. Assess the current position of the school 2. Review the self-evaluation process 3. Conduct a review of the school’s practices and procedures in line with an OfSTED practice 4. Report to the school’s leadership on areas of concern and development, as well as areas of good practice.

A Diocesan Board of Education for the Future Page 23 Appendix Four: The Role of a School Governor

School governors provide strategic leadership and of three times a year. Meeting dates are usually set well in accountability in schools. Governors appoint the advance and meetings generally last between two and three headteacher and are involved in the appointment of hours. Governors are expected to be well prepared for these other staff. It is governors who hold the main meetings and attendance is expected, with apologies only for responsibility for finance in schools, and it is good reasons. Some governing bodies will also have an annual governors who work with the headteacher to make ‘away day’ type event to review the previous year’s strategy, the tough decisions about balancing resources. and to set the following year’s priorities.

(The National Governor Association website) Many governing bodies meet more frequently than this, and most also delegate work to committees and/or working The role of the governing body is a strategic one; its key parties and task groups which meet between the governing functions are to: body meetings. Governors will be expected to play a full role in agreeing how their governing body works, and then in • set the aims and objectives for the school supporting this. In addition some governors volunteer to fulfil • set the policies for achieving those aims and objectives specific roles, such as being the Special Educational Needs • set the targets for achieving those aims and objectives governor, or the Health and Safety governor, or the link • monitor and evaluate the progress the school is making governor for a particular year or subject. towards achievement of its aims and objectives • be a source of challenge and support to the headteacher Most governors arrange a couple of shorter visits to school and classrooms, focusing on key priorities so that they can In addition to this, Foundation Governors have a particular see how the school is addressing issues identified for role and are expected to bring to the Governing body an development. In addition, informal visits to special events informed regard for the Church nature of the foundation of such as drama productions and sports day are generally the school, to ensure that its Christian ethos is preserved encouraged. and developed, and the religious worship reflects the tradition of the Church of England. Governors do not need specific skills, but many of the tasks they are required to undertake can benefit from general Governing bodies are required to meet formally a minimum business knowledge such as understanding management systems, budget planning and HR functions.

A Diocesan Board of Education for the Future Page 24 CHURCH OF ENGLAND ARCHBISHOPS’ COUNCIL EDUCATION DIVISION

Appendix Five: Examples of DBE Regional Working

1. DBE SERVICES • the provision of a Total Property Management service, currently used by 300 schools, including some non- DBE Services is a Company established by the dioceses of Church schools; Blackburn, Carlisle, Chester, Liverpool and Manchester in • the production of advice on school leadership 2005, subsequently joined by the Diocese of York in 2008. It appointments, governance, admissions and SIAMS; had previously existed for a number of years as an informal • the regular meetings of officer groups, which report to group, sharing ideas, resources and generating income. Its the Board and provide a valuable forum for sharing ideas purpose is to support the work of the 6 Diocesan Boards of and practice. Education and their schools, providing economies of scale and formalising collaborative work between the boards in DBE Services is a not for profit company which distributes which the expertise of each can be pooled for the benefit of financial surpluses to the member Board of Education on an all. It seeks to promote Christian Values in its working annual basis to assist them in their work. In 2012 the methods and is committed to helping and encouraging Company’s turnover was just over £2 million, of which Church schools to play their part at the centre of the £422,000 was distributed between the member DBEs, Church’s mission to the nation. The concept of DBEs roughly in proportion to the income provided by their needing to work closely together and share resources is now schools. This additional income makes a significant accepted fully in member dioceses, especially as local contribution to the capacity of each member DBE to support authorities withdraw from being providers of certain its schools: in 2012, for example, one member DBE received services. in excess of £90,000 from this source and two others received in excess of £70,000 each. The Company has a small full-time staff, led by a Chief Executive who was previously an experienced Diocesan It must be recognised that DBE Services exists to support Director of Education, under a Board consisting of the Chairs member DBEs, not to replace them, and that each individual of each Diocesan Board of Education and each Diocesan DBE continues to make and implement its own policies for Director of Education from the member dioceses. One of its own schools, with policies sometimes differing significantly the strengths of the company is that it regularly brings between dioceses. There is no doubt, however, that the together the DBE Chairs to share thoughts, ideas and benefits for all member DBEs have been substantial, not least concerns, in addition to the regular meetings of Directors. through the shared expertise and mutual support brought by DBE Services. Nor is there any doubt that the formal nature The sharing of ideas and resources under the Company’s of working through a company has proved better than the name includes the following: earlier experience of informal partnership, not least because this has given a structure that ensures some priority is given • the provision of INSET for school leaders and teachers, to the partnership. planned and delivered regionally by staff from member dioceses, organised through the Company (not all 2. SOUTH-WEST PARTNERSHIP dioceses have been involved in this way because of geographical considerations); The South West Partnership consists of 5 Diocese: Bath and • the provision of a Framework for Religious Education in Wells, Bristol, Gloucester, Salisbury and Truro. They have CE Secondary Schools throughout the DBE Services been working together to support each other, particularly area; with regard to establishing academies. In the first instance, • the provision of a Year-long Christian Leadership ‘Making this involved a joint meeting between the Directors of a Difference’ Course, devised and delivered by staff from Education, the Chairs and Vice Chairs of the Boards of the member dioceses, with initial support from the Education, in order consider the opportunities and University of Chester; challenged faced by successive government legislation • the facilitation of buildings consultants, brokered by the affecting schools. individual diocese, for all VA schools in the region, to supervise capital projects and asset management In order to ensure effective working partnerships with DfE planning; colleagues working across the South West they have

A Diocesan Board of Education for the Future Page 25 convened joint meetings with Academy Brokers. This has Wolverhampton will bring its own strength as a major helped facilitate effective communication across the region academic institution and Sponsor, its school improvement and a mutual sharing of concern. Whilst working individually capacity through Education Central, and the academic with the DfE on specific projects, the sharing of policy and benefits of the University’s School of Education (degree and strategy together has been of mutual benefit and Dioceses CPD courses, research etc.). They have particular capacity to coming together 'as one voice' has helped to demonstrate to lead and support dioceses with recruitment and retention, the Department regional capacity. the development of a Professional Development Framework and Entitlement for staff Church schools and, importantly, a The partnership has also jointly employed an experienced Growing Church School Leaders for the Future strategy. project manager who has led the Dioceses through a tendering activity to procure project management and school The proposal is to establish a joint Umbrella-type Trust – The improvement for the South West. This has resulted in a Church of England Central Education Trust – whose number of companies now being on a South West members would be the respective dioceses and University Framework, ensuring that, collectively, the dioceses are (with majority diocesan membership). The functions of the complaint with European Procurement Regulations should Trust would be: they need to call on the expertise of these companies. a) to act as the Sponsor for underperforming CE schools 3. A STRATEGIC ALLIANCE BETWEEN (unless the respective dioceses approve alternative or BIRMINGHAM AND LICHFIELD DBE s, THE more local sponsorship arrangements); DRB GROUP AND THE UNIVERSITy OF b) to perform the usual functions of an Umbrella Trust, i.e. WOLVERHAMPTON acting as one of the members of all CE academy trusts (including MATs) established in each diocese, and Discussions have been taking place between the Diocesan appointing an agreed number of “foundation” governors; Directors of Education for Birmingham and Lichfield about c) to act as the strategic commissioning body for the the two dioceses working together more closely, in order to procurement of services to CE academies; build capacity and share good practice. Both DBEs have d) to develop a strong accountability framework for school partnerships with The drb Group (which provides a whole improvement, with appropriate intervention powers; school improvement service) and a strong relationship with e) to develop a common approach to school improvement Wolverhampton University. An alliance between these for the respective dioceses, from which all CE schools partners would bring additional capacity at both strategic and can benefit; operational levels into the work of the DBEs. f) to provide a forum for the sharing of good practice across the respective dioceses; They have committed themselves to formalising the existing g) to develop a network of high performing schools, partnerships and to developing an overarching trust for both teaching school alliances and leaders of education who Dioceses, that will support the establishment and can provide support to others, particularly vulnerable development of academies, but also provide a mechanism to and weak schools; progress the system development of all schools in both h) to provide a suite of training programmes for teachers: dioceses. There are over 250 schools/academies in the two from early career induction through to leadership dioceses. Other dioceses may also wish to join the alliance. positions, including system leadership; and training for Governors. This strategic alliance would enhance and focus the provision i) to formulate a joint estates strategy; and of education in the respective dioceses to deliver a robust j) to support policy development across the respective approach to school improvement, intervention and the dioceses. prevention of school failure. It would provide new educational opportunities for pupils, staff and governors The respective partners will work together to support the across the Midlands region. The dioceses will bring into this work of the Trust. They envisage that the Trust will be alliance their respective strengths as statutory bodies, and financed by applying an appropriate management fee to the their expertise in promoting a distinctive approach to academies directly sponsored by the Trust. They will also education in maintained schools and academies in every charge a management fee for converter academies within the phase across a very diverse set of local authorities and socio- Umbrella Trust arrangement. An appropriate levy may also be economic contexts. The DRB Group will bring its expertise charged for maintained schools that benefit from the Trust’s in the provision of financial management, technical and school services. As dioceses, they are committed to providing Best improvement services (having worked with c. 600 schools Value to all schools where charges are concerned, so that all since the inception of the company) with a particular capacity school funding is used to improve outcomes for children and to lead on school quality assurance. The University of improve every school’s performance.

A Diocesan Board of Education for the Future Page 26 CHURCH OF ENGLAND ARCHBISHOPS’ COUNCIL EDUCATION DIVISION

Appendix Six: Diocesan Boards of Education Self-Evaluation Framework

The following pages contain copies of the DBE Self-Evaluation Framework (SEF) document.

Electronic copies of the SEF will be made available to the dioceses for completion.

A Diocesan Board of Education for the Future Page 27 , s f . n o o t ; a

t

l o n

e e h s p a s d

s

c t e a y n r s n c d r c u o a n

a e o ; s h p i o e g d e s c c d e m h

d s

c

n e r t i r i a r

u a e m o

j h l

i l o u n

. h t u s g

y i a

y t q l s e ( s D n

n t

l n

e

i h r e ’ . n E r n r a a c o n s o i

E

l i

f a e r o . t o h t t B

m o t d u o o e a a a t h i i e

r s o f c D r o h c h r j h

t p e t w h

n s u

o

c

g s c c p r o d l s s s p r i h n s l l a o c i a e

e o

u i e c

f o o r e d r h d h o

m o h r o o

o t n u t t r h

c

a C

h h h s a

h

c r y o l n c c c t a d f s i c c e l u g s s

a r h

n

n h h n , h e g e o a e t h i m

e c

E d t

c l P

h t

f

c e n r

f n e f t h i s r g

i o h

u h n o o g o

u i t s n i i

s e

g . h i

l i e a s s h n c h t h 6 t d s

c o C e a i n i o c H 0 C

l n i e d

t o e r

i c s t s 0 e t

m a c n h a t

e u ; r r

s i 2 a a a s f c

h h

s e

o ’ u r m f s s t t n s o

e

r h

p h p C

l c o n f e t o t

d h

c s p i

f b c o g o s A r t d c n i k

u a

d o s n r o t c a u r n s s

s i n n

e e c u t a n a s h n s d a e s

r n r n h

u

e t o e a f C M h i e s i u e o s

n

o l t C f h t v

i s

h p

e i T e f n c o m

f t a t t v

n p i E f h e

. o e e i o

o c

t

a u t T f

B n d p

d h ‘ s e e i s h

c e f s o e

a

c o a t f h D

e ; t e c

n c t s

n t n f e e I ;

e

c i h a e

r f a

e r l o

s s t s ( e h e i e e h l i a

e h d

f p e

s t . t e c

f l c

h t s i o d h n s a e e

l c y t t r a u t o f a n o

c n c y

h s i w e n o o r

o l

a

i y t t h

u e a o o , l f x

n o t e i i ; c d t r n e d r e e d t v o

h n o s d E r i v

u e

s i e e

c

i c e o e t

s t f s e r o B t d p s t e n c i h n r a h n

e h o c p s

a t f h u t y e D i

c t v

o e i f e f t

p

o s s

f

f o n m u

n n d t f i

e ’ n s i n w e

o

r n d o a , n

t e

e h i i e t

o i o

e t e s

E a e

t t r

g

l

e

c s f v s c w s d h t y u f l u

n o e t b t r e e e n o o t o s i a

b o o

i l h l i o c c g a p

o r u h i

l e t

r e o

i

t s h l t o

o F p b h t l i i e g

h d n c e o a e o o c w r n u d h t d r s c i a e

e

t r f

t a s

o

s e h h m o

s r

l y e h h a m t c a d r h e a o

e

n n c h o w , c e

t e i f b s r

r t r y y a

s d i

)

g o

i i

d o a p a n e u v d a p a l

y h d n i n

m e k o h w i d

n n p n c b d

i

y a e

h

c

a a a s e t

m e n s o

e d

d i o a d . h h m r t a g o h t E n o t e m d r t

c n c a t n r

t n o

a a

a

f n n B i n n

u a

o e

d i c s r t o a i l e a o w s e d d l t k D a n l p u

c s e

s g b

B g e ) n f c s r a s o c e d o e

a d i e

e a f n 1 a

o e u g f c n

E e e o v

p i h E l

9 b i e d i m a o e n h f o o t

h d i

s i i 9 f d

b s t n h c w c f r g o

n e n u

d s e t 1 i e o

u s l l

o e a ( o e

s

o r b

o e c c d

t

t s t e f e t n , r h n e t r

i

o n e r e p a e h k i c e i a

d a o a r e e d d t h o c h r s c d s a h

d v t o u t e h e

c a i m e u o r

s

e t t

s n

i

t l n B e c

r r m s h e r c c a

a y c d o g h

e e h n o i p o

e e e t o n n i t C u t t

s r

a

r n d

i f a p a h l l r f r d f s M a

d e

t a s t o n

a x p u

a i i

w o t o s e t n

n d e f

e

t e

l i n r e a

c n

c s n s o e a h n o l i n l d b o

o

t e r e w e e o c o i g

g o

i o

i o n s d r p d v a t i c i d u y e i n

s n i a t

d e a t a o e p t a i t

D

d s E ; c c e

e a ‘ h c o h n u a c

a e d t t e f v n n n m n r s r

u c b

r

e i i

r E

n . u

t f s

e u s o e e o d e e f n s j y

a

s i u l n p i v d r e c u t l

E c a i t e s n h i h r e

o h

n

u t n u o n a e d i f a r c c t r a o i f s r a f c n t i r c

o

e r

r e

o k o g c o

a i e o i s i n s o

c

e u u e u f f d l t w e

o s r s a f M

e

n r h r o d h h a h t e

i n e s t p v e d s t

d a o

c r e M s c i s ,

r r r i

s

o C

e g t o s f f f u s

e e e a s s p

i o e e h n e a i n a s d B e r o o o t h t s d i x o h

n h , i o

h t u e t e h n i e

e h t

t

s B i

e y s

n n n d t t

t

p c

e t

g o w

n h b o

a y o o o o k g i n o l

t c o h i i i t t d n r h

c i s

. t

n t t t t a r n : i e d

e t c i

o s e o l u e s d s d y a n r l r l o o o f

t d g y

v a n u

s d E e i a e e a r l

r y r r e

o u s l

e c m m m E e e

B a a r r a o n u d r n c b o

l d

c f l -

o o o o

r e l o m , a m o B i o w

d

y D e t r r r i a r e t

h l a s t

h w B

y s b e e s r t n p p p r g

e n D r e

s t e i t

a a e a

f u i o

i b u i e

r o u c e h l

v a l o

b e e e e e l n o d f v

s t r

c p e r c b r l e o o i . r

h h h a i h e u

e g n r a h a s a s o n t t t t b

f d t o t o

o l t t t d

e f r e

R h o h n t i t

r o o i e F s i

r t h f t

n

n n n d o s p n l r t c

o i i i e l n d

o i

e r c e e n

i e

d

i

s

a i e u h r u y t p d e t t t d h f

f t s s e d s r l t h e l f ’ i

t r c s s s n m u o B p l

u n

i i i n

n e g n w u t a d a n o n h w e s s s o o g e y

w

o o u p n r

o u

o i

s o i s s s u t o

s s c d i

a e o s

w t o F o e p i t h a a a n F l o B e t

n - s

s l k n s

c e d s o

a e

a c i

e r r r a e r e

a a o k e s n o n e w w B n

a

c s t s

v o h

h c o o o a o

h t u s e i h h s e s o s t a

e u e f i

t i c t e i t t h

l n

d r

h

w

e e e e m h f d s v d

h

c n f t r a

a i t t t t s a u o e d f E l l e E n t o i a h e l l t e v u n a o

o o o o r n t o B f

l o c e a a c m - h l

o e o o a c u s f m r l s a c i t

o a t o m m m m h h

r u l c

D

t l

n n s e e r l s s s r

n o p e o o o o o w n f

n s t a

t u

a i o e

e s r r r r e f r w h a i i c o s e d d d a s

h k

n

e

h t p p p p t

c c r s r r o r u d w i r s c

m t

e

)

f c o . d S a a a

i e

d n s t a o n v s t u

o h o o o o f e i n f

t n t s o s o o e s t e t t t t e u

r c n h v o g a a u r w x e t s B B B f

i

k c u e e E n n

s f

e r e e s r r s i r k

t s n e e e - c t m o a - r e u d o e f m a o n a h h h l c u e

p p ) ) ) o h ) o f ) n a h s i ) w o r e n p i t T T f e d c b a T r a o o l e d l M w f s c C e u t a h

o

c

e s

t t o e e e e e e m t i e v o d s a e i a h h h h h h u e . . . n e h h r 3 2 T 1 T o T a t T T d f W r D D S T t

A Diocesan Board of Education for the Future Page 28 CHURCH OF ENGLAND ARCHBISHOPS’ COUNCIL EDUCATION DIVISION r s y e s t i e d l s f l i r

c o b i o t g s

l t a h h n s o s t o c i r e r e e / n t a o c e k p s a

u m e a c h n ’ t

i n g t s o a c s f s r a t s f e

s c l e

/

o n s m f o c g f

f P

r e

s a o a e s o r t / s l i

t o

n l t f t m o n e a h i a n f r o : l n a r t e e

d d

t o e e e

P e u s i C r

u a r m P t / g d n e t ’

i a c s m o a E r p a i f u e u

e f s s

s l d l

e n

l

s l g u b c B o t I c a c g i l n t e e o n o e o r i n r n a a u n e c t C D c c i o o t

o o

n a v i n s a a n

u n i o s s A h h p e s r i i a e r n d d i d e p A c t l c t e i h i D D d L I s D D r S t s M J o A S D V u i u u v o • • • • G • • • • • c E G ? E B D

e h t

f o

t n e m e g a n a m

d n a

p i h s y r r e a t d n a e e l

m e m h o t

c

e e r h a t

t e r v s y y y i o r h t r r p a t c t a a p g t t n e u f n e s n n f

e e e e m o r

t t

m m m w S n o

o c o m m y i

s o H o e e

: u h l C K C t t c

n f n i e o

r t m o s n f t s e , i

e i a l

s s . g

l ? c r e a h i u n m e r i g o a k o l t g , o ? r f r p u

i n o s n

e b i t t e o l o e t i h o n r a c n a p i l t o i c a b w a o ; u d o a e o r

s i t l I h r c t r

M s v s n m h t

e i t

s t C m e a i s a s e c i a

v a v

)

t A e e

d s f

s , i p e d l r h r

t e

c

w ? m s d i f o c n d D x s o g

e

r ( I

n i

e e f t a e i t f e i

a ( t

y t e s u n

h t n e

h s o i i s

c t n b a o t e s i

i h e l e o

l l

p l

f d o t s i d p r i r n m

i i f u p o d p r r d n t s a e a o c i y o h i o e o i i e w

u

m a t

c a E a t t

v s i

e h e

n s n s o

p

f

r c a w d t t r c e

f d a n p s c c i l t i f o a r r i

s

e k

u o o e n ,

t

d n l s p g o

a g e g l d

r y l a n f d r d e d s l o e e e n p a ’

e

i e c o r a t e

)

t t o e v a i b g u

r i E m r

a

a d s f f a r m C o n o f e s e i r e B e

s ( e n n o w l i t e y l e c V ] y h

a h o L

. s

e u / s D c p t

t e t o r

d

t

e c d

E s A x t o D : a t e x r n e n a m r n

s e s

t e i B V

e x d m l e a 1 o h t

r ( a d a

i

a

, t e m o n

i e a a e D e a n s

y n T v e i s

r s

o o t ? u f n l r h o b t a l N A v a h e s h c s s i p t h o e ) o

c o

l , n

F t

i r d h o h

e e t n c o s s s )

o T i r

d

M r t i O d r s

o e l c s c d p c e

i c o F l A l / h , o I

r i

n B a f h i E t i n i p n c f s u : : ) l F L a t c T t h

u

d e

a o t e B a h

m p a T ; o p s t

n n o

s o c l

, s f , o c e b s

c U e o e a i c e

h i r p r t D f f

s S e n o [ a o o E E

b i n t

h

t n u h n

l l r u f t

a o o e e s i u l l a d i B B r i E ( n e s o

l o t t t g a u h a n h t r ? e e a

r r r q y n x d c r a h n t ? n n n n D s D s i

a m C r p / i u t s d e e e

U

l s s a e

? w w o l

s l i

e e e e - e

u e l a o

n d b b b e o e r

e e e n e s r e r s a a o g t d h e a c s Q a u o t e s i h h h w w t c o e

l a

m m m i t

p m m m i e t t t a o a v i c b h h

r o o a c o a i o n e

e : s c a r l p r i u u c u t l c i e o c y l o s s s E s n m m l h h i I v a I D o c u R s d n n H p a f n I D H s D o - o e o E P o o A i T f

t

i l

• • • • • • • • • • C • • d • • C W C K

o

e ) ) ) a b N D S c

A Diocesan Board of Education for the Future Page 29 E ? s r l g d s D A s o d a e n f e s l s L i e -

n e s D n r t l l s e r i

S k l a e e l c o o

b e v

r l e m f e l u i a g g l n . e y a s

] i e t

a a c d h a a o q l l r o

e

s s p

f b n a n

t L c – r r n d s e

i r o o o s c s s

e l w s E o n

i l e r e e e u

s d a s s

e e [ o o o a o

t s

o

k k b f l t

o g t t c l a e n e c p n c

f i e h h

i p y

? i s e o i n o o

n n a o f h r s d a o g u g k c c s p i s p v i r r . n s h g a e h e r a h s s p a ? t e i e ? d o n a r u v

o

c b b s e - e

n h t t c p a f e r l f n n d a

i g e m s p m t r l

o c h l l l c s a

o g s n ? g a

a e o o

n S t r e a g e l p n w t f f

r t p i o

? a e o o

r

e n

d y y - d i t v

l

p f n e p d e s a o n l i o o g l e n h i o o

l n s

l o e d s n n t

d s n

o a g i m t i o e

e a c o y - o c d h h g i b a a r r

e

r n d x t e

l o e i i o e e r p n l l s s D a c c i a o v g r n y r t e e a t a p e m e g l l v

t c e t m

a

m m a s s r

o a a e E c h a n u b b n

e l t d e ? - - h o o t i o a t e n n h e n m a k s c c d d t r r g T t e y m i e r m s n u i a c t s a i

o o e d r m m w w c a n l i I S f a a n r e e r t r a v S h i l g p s i h v o v e a f h h r t c t f u u e o o o h a l g t e d u d o o f u e n r t c d t c c h i f

n n n w m n d o t I n I w I A E e • • • i S w N a d W H H C a V m s s N s O e

r

e u e t r e s o t o d n • • • • • • • • s i i t p u T • • • • G ? s e g e l l o c

d n a

s l t o n o e h c m s

p s ’ o l e e s s v y e h e r c t a o D g i t

n r n D e

o e f r e

t m s h S t a

m e y e r o e r a A C K

e v i t c ? r y r , l e o t e e e s r f f ? o k

e v n f e k u s i s n s n o i r s t g i t s e

r n l e e

h

o c f o e a o a

l I t b a c o e t l e r i e

r

l g s h m w s

, f o o s l w

l t ? e o

i f e e o l s n s o t e r

t r o h i c r I M o v e c h c e s d e / m

D

c s m ? a e o

l d t t e E r e

a

o s c t i s s r l a e e E i w l i a E h o H ? u o l u t

a e f l

r r h e l

e b H c o e d o B c : f B o e o d y d t h c

g v t c

u , s a

d l a

o i t

l t h o o

o

b

l s t l n

n D s i D ? a

r

e l n

n r r i c h u

h l

n r e a n a a d r

s v o e A n s o o e a c g c

t i t e a i o e

d f e e

o o n e c i p L d s c

t s i t s i d

i n

i n ) h r

y h

p

f r i a f c t s f t a s r

d m s h o f i d r

r i d i p h f ? e

l o ( m

f r e t t s t n g e f E n f l o e o o i p n o f i i t s d o n t w r i T

t n e n

m n

t o a a o s h o t

i a i u i e o o s e l A g

w s h

t e e

v m ’ f t n g s t l e ? n f n i n

k s s p h d i d

n

o r ? a

d o s o e E c i e e E

o b o r u i n l c

r M o i t i s a i i d d o

l t

v o n t

f d g m d

B w s d e t B o o s e s r e f e r e i r

l r i e p e

o o s e h l n u n o a n d a l e o t o i l t s c D

v u v o D t e o r b e ’ e

d c

a

a a r n s

m t n h a s e e s r o e

n g p g e w a p

e

s

y r

/ d e e r c e e u r e

l t t b b l s o d e l A p e s s n p E n o e s o

e s v l

h d e

s e o i l h p ? i

a i l e

c i

a o t e v s s t

i u

s b s o B t s : s d d ? n n h i l h

c

o o t r r c o i s p

a e t r t M

t e c g n a i i e e m t n o s i

e 2 e c o o l D

s n r p a u i

r l o o h

h k e

g o

t A

e v v e o

a o a a i t

f D

f t n e I e r e /

g o o p u n l

t e i t e f

b a r o r a

D h , r g o r

g

t S o

r s d a c

N

c e m o s e

o h r s c

o m h d a h

o p l n e e e l a E

a n t c t g F e i

l

o n a w s s l d o e d r e l p .

v o p i

o

d e y y y y f a n O B n h t e d h u l e o c g l

l l l s s f i n o o

e

p o t I t a f o a B s r a c n u t a : o e e e e e e

e s

c n d

o i c k D

a m l i u h

s h G

r

r n

r

v v v v v

r g e o o T h a u n s u

n c m i

n d i i i i i c o d r c r j s o d e

e

o t t t t t c n y i s d d

a e q e a n n D f e S e s n e S o c i m

s c c c c c n m r p

h n t i s a

l l e d w h o n

v o

e t t b E r l l f e i o e e e e e e E a e

r ? t p t r

m g u

s h r a f e a o l f f f f t f g

a

o

e e c T v

d s r e t y n f f f f f u e c e g f n

m i n t g o s s a a n i u d e

S s U l s r i t s a r e i e v

b e e e e e w e w b s o l i u

u f f t

e

t n d

e

r h r c o r e o e e n g t l t s i u a a l o d a n c e t e d u Q d o O P O P N O g i i h h v w w w w w r w w n e a a l m

r v f h s e i t d t u a v e r h g c l o o o o o o o o o h h

c a l s e a n e h o c e e e y u s s s E m • • • • • • • F D w s I r H p T H c a H u H e n I H h W I r w H f H s - o E o f i l • • • • • • • C • • • • • K e D S

A Diocesan Board of Education for the Future Page 30 CHURCH OF ENGLAND ARCHBISHOPS’ COUNCIL EDUCATION DIVISION

n i / s n

y h s s i n d l e l l a l s

E r a

v e i e e s a i o h : s t B e l r t ? d s t ’ c o c d e w c a a r y o e m c i r -

D h c e

h e f p s u g s e

e d o f u n i c d i

r l c c p o l e q e f t r n h i h n t o o s a e o S t

o u e

h f a c

o u f c g a d s n a e d

t

o

s d h - o

e h

? r

r h f o s

s ? e n s a

e t t

s n n s y g e r w i c l s

o w l e i e i l

b C l s

l o r g h t i

r

n o /

s e

i s o k k e / h ? i t o t l f e i r F n a o t r e i E

t e t r n r e r o

v i n / w

o

/ o i e o a v p t w a o n w v r h o e y o R k i

o t

i o n

s i e h h w b t

o t t h h e u o r e t ? ? s e c t m t

r d v c o E w t g m t w i r o h c

c c v i ?

H r a i o

a d

e h e m

s e o n

r t g e n s c s f t B e r e

n s d s o u g g i t e e ?

f

w f H u l d a h i s c l w a t o e

d a f t

e s

g

o e s

c c i n l C a e n t h r D n c e a

l e c ? f a r t

s p c l e

e n

l o o b r a e n n a c a e

t o l T - h s c r u l d o h r g o p i r e e a n e i r m l u r e e s e p s w

l

m t a d e s o i o o

l w N o t C a r T S A U a h h u a e d d e x o s g v r d n t t e i i i o p e n h i i h o o h e

d a r r n v v e n o y c e h i H s s s P C M C • • • • • • • • • • C P g t H p e p e s r a I s I e m c I u • • • • • • • • • • G ? n o i s s i m

n a s e c o i t t d

n n e e e h t m m

p p h t o o i l l e e w s

v v y h n e e r t o a D i D g t

t n r r n a e o o e c f f r

u t m s s d S a a

e m e e y

r r o s e i

A C K A d e t a y r s – l e c

g i s o l ’ h n

t e o o p n s o

s ’ e

t i s h p o y f t a g p

e c e n

s o i b h o a E l i a s l o h d

h s i d

r

c i o B c t s b h l n d r e

u r t u l t s B e o e a i e D y d f

o m u a d

h h e

r d h B b g c o a t e e i e r h c n t

a

s s v n n s w o f o o i C e

d e i g s c n

i o e l

, s o d h e e s r / n o a n

e b s t t i t r

s a w u l e t u p

i

l

r n a s a

s d o ? o t o s n c r r n E o

o s l

m i n o e d o e y o n b

e t p o i m i s n

D a h H r b e d c

t t o

, o p

o e l i a i c

: E e D a r a s t c v s p s h u s e / i

m d c

n e r e s p c c o n e i l i r i

f h E o

u e h s

k c e o r l d s o

w s E E d c B i d D o r t

r / o o p i r h o

m s n B B t c E

e o D o b c u

o e

s r e ? a

D e e

r h i D D h s

v h h r o t e k s

l h W i n u t c

u e d w r t p C h

e e f o s a h M

e

o e t h D o

v e i p

d : n s o h h

t c f i h n C

n :

t t

n g : e w u

e e i

i n o g r s h t e

w l f s c r

w m t t s s 3 h e w

? u e i a n e s o

o t e a c e o e e

a a i ” u e

o

i

e a v l w w R o o r A s e w t i i s r f h n t s

k v N D t c t e d d h f f d n o e r v

i o n e e i n c F

t e i i r o o e n o f o c v

o

e t

b o y y e O

t i

l l e

e f v o o R e I B y y p i t E w ? D i x f n

e

: e e R h g s e t t

r

s e

i i a s t e e B d v v t a f T h c l l s e ? n n i i

o

’

c e s c

i

s t o f s t t i t c l n a a r i s D

f S n n o e h E u k E c c

t ? o a a a e

e u u e a r s n a i l h a n d B e e i E i B e

l c t r e t h a

a p q q f f o i L t

r e e c s

e e D f f h t a

e n D s

D v i

w u

a t

U l s s w f f c i r

e e e n e e

r

l r r

t e

t e

p e o ? x ? e e e h h h e e s c o o o o

c a e a f e c h i Q o

e E c h h w w “ u f e h T T T T s m t

i e d l h t t o v t n h f

f o o e e f i o B a

o c

n f f f l t e c y t t s s E n s m • • • • • • a c s H s o I D I i i o s D H W e D - a a o E o f i l D D • • • • • C • K e D S

A Diocesan Board of Education for the Future Page 31 ? ? ? e e e n n n o o o d d d

e e e b b b

o o o t t t

s s s n n n i i i a a a m m m e e e r r r

t t t a a a h h h W W W t t t c c c a a a p p p m m m I I I

] ] ] d d d e e e n n n r r r a a a

e e e s s s h h h s s s

e e e y y y r r r r r r g g g a a a o o o r r r m m m P P P

m m m ? ? ? t t t u u u s s n n s n

e e e s s s u u u m m m c c c p p p o o o o o o l l f f l f

e e e t t t v v v n n n e e e e e e d d d

m e e m e m h h h p p p t t t

o o o l l l n g g g e e e n n n o i i i v v v i r r r e e e t u u u d d d c c c

a t t t e e e c s s s r r r

e e e s s s u s s s d d d d r r n n r n I I I t a a a [ [ [ E

: w w :

w : r f o o o k 1 2 3 t t t

r

o

o s s s

o d d d u u u e e e p s w v v v c c c e d e e e e i i o o i o r m h h h F F F

c c a a

c R t t r t a a a

o F n n n n n n

s e e e e B e e n

s e e e o i b b m b m m n

t e s s s p p p a a a a a r o o u o s l h h l l h l

a g e t t e t e e v a a a v v c v E o h h h e e e - o f r i l W W D D W D e D S P

A Diocesan Board of Education for the Future Page 32 CHURCH OF ENGLAND ARCHBISHOPS’ COUNCIL EDUCATION DIVISION

e h t

n i

d e i f i t n e d i

s a e r a

t n e m p o l e v e d

y e e k v

o e b h a t

t F s i E S L

E E B B D D

e e h h t t

f f o o

t t c c a a p p m m i i

n n i i a a m m

e e h h t t

e e s s i i r r a a m m m m u u E S S B D

E E e B B h t D D

f e e n o h h

o t t s

i f f s t o o

e a s s n s s c e e e u n n v i e e d t v v i i c t t E

c c e f f e e k f f f r f f o E e e

o

l l l s l l l w a a e a d r r r r e e m e v v a a o o v r

o F e e

O h h

B : n t t

y o e e i n r t s s i i a a a r r u s a a l m a e m m v c m E m m - u o u u f i l S S S e D S

A Diocesan Board of Education for the Future Page 33 Notes

A Diocesan Board of Education for the Future Page 34 CHURCH OF ENGLAND ARCHBISHOPS’ COUNCIL EDUCATION DIVISION

Notes

A Diocesan Board of Education for the Future Page 35 Notes

A Diocesan Board of Education for the Future Page 36 CHURCH OF ENGLAND ARCHBISHOPS’ COUNCIL EDUCATION DIVISION CHURCH OF ENGLAND ARCHBISHOPS’ COUNCIL EDUCATION DIVISION

A Diocesan Board of Education for the Future

Archbishops’ Council Education Division, 2013 www.churchofengland.org/education