RSC0001

Written evidence submitted by Robert Hill

Author

Robert Hill has wide experience of public services and education policy and practice. His cv includes periods as a policy adviser to Prime Minister Tony Blair and other Cabinet ministers, senior research manager for the Audit Commission, management consultant, social policy researcher.

For the last decade he has been an independent education consultant supporting schools, government agencies and other educational organisations, helping them to think about, implement and assess school improvement and education policy. His work has majored on helping schools to work together more effectively through partnerships.

In 2008 the Association of School and College Leaders published his extensive and influential study on effective collaborative working between schools: 'Achieving more together: adding value through partnerships'. Robert has co-authored two reviews for the National College of National Leaders of Education and National Support Schools.

Robert assisted in the start-up phase of Teaching Schools and in March 2012 the College published an authoritative study on the impact and leadership of academy chains prepared by a team led by Robert. He acts as an adviser and critical friend to a number of multi-academy trusts (MATs) and supports the Future Leaders training programme for chief executive of MATs.

In July 2012 the Royal Society of Arts published his thinkpiece on the role of the middle tier in education. A year later Robert undertook a comprehensive review for the Welsh Government on the delivery of education services throughout Wales. He continues to advise the Welsh Government on the implementation of the report and in May 2015 was asked to chair an Education Development Board for the City of Cardiff Council.

Robert has also recently been involved in projects on partnership working in small rural primary schools and the leadership of great pedagogy in teaching school alliances. Robert speaks frequently at school governor seminars, headteacher and local authority conferences and leadership development workshops. In April 2012 Robert was appointed as a Visiting Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Education and Professional Studies at Kings College London.

Background

1. In a thinkpiece for the Royal Society of Arts in 2012[1] I argued for the introduction of Schools Commissioners. The introduction of eight Regional Schools Commissioners (RSCs) by the Coalition Government from September 2014 was not exactly in line with the model for which I argued but should in principle be seen as a progressive reform.

2. The advent of RSCs was a recognition by the Department for Education (DfE) that it was unrealistic to centrally monitor, manage and, where necessary, intervene on all academies and academy trusts as the numbers continued to grow to represent over 60 per cent (over 2,000) of secondary schools and around 15 per cent (2,500) of primary schools[2].

3. It is early days for the RSCs and any new system will inevitably take time to bed down. My conversations and work with leaders of academy trusts across the country suggests that on the whole the new arrangements are welcomed as bringing more coherence to the oversight of academies and multi-academy trusts. However, there are a range of issues that need consideration as the remit of RSCs is to be broadened under the terms of the Education and Adoption Bill currently being considered in Committee by the House of Commons. Some of the issues are more in the form of teething problems while others are of a more substantive and fundamental nature.

Issues for consideration

    What the role of Regional Schools Commissioners currently is, how this might change as the academies landscape evolves, and what the role of RSCs should be

4. The DfE lists the responsibilities of RSCs as being to[3]:

• monitor the performance of the academies in their area;

• take action when an academy is underperforming;

• decide on the development of new academies;

• address underperformance in local-authority-maintained schools through sponsored academy arrangements;

• make recommendations to ministers about free school applications; 

• encourage organisations to become academy sponsors; and

• approve changes to open academies, including:
• changes to age ranges
• mergers between academies
• changes to multi-academy trust arrangements

5. The roles as set out above are essentially a mix of two functions: regulatory (monitoring and addressing underperformance of academies, approving changes to open academies and advising on free school applications) and promotional (encouraging organisations to become academy sponsors). However, a number if not all of the RSCs conceive of their role in a broader fashion. Two examples illustrate the point.

6. First, a number of RSCs are interpreting their regulatory remit to mean that they (and/or their representatives) should visit academies that are deemed to be struggling or performing poorly and offer a critique of the academy’s improvement strategy and indicate the steps they should take to improve outcomes (which in some cases includes detailed pedagogical advice). The advice is contained in letters sent to academy leaders after visits to schools (the letters seem to be a prior step to the issuing of the more formal pre-warning notice or warning notice letters that have been sent to academy trusts about poor performance in their trust). This has led some to refer these letters as a ‘shadow Ofsted inspection regime’ and there must be more than a theoretical risk that an RSC’s critique/advice could conflict with the judgments of Ofsted. Moreover not all RSCs have had experience of being heads or leaders of teaching and learning and so if this practice is going to become the norm there is a question of whether they are in a position to sign off such advice. Moreover as the number of academies, academy trusts and the types of schools over which RSCs have responsibility continues to expand, the practicality of continuing and resourcing this role will also become an issue. In many respects the exercise of the function appears to be like a reversion to the old model of local authority inspectors, link advisers or school improvement partners, and seems to jar with the government’s stated strategy of moving to a more school-led improvement system. RSCs would be better focused on ensuring that struggling academies either have appropriate improvement plans and means of support for making improvement (via another academy trust, strong school, teaching school alliance or other source) or, where the circumstances warrant it, are transferred to a new sponsor.

7. Second, a number of the RSCs are interpreting their role in a bolder and more encompassing fashion by developing school improvement strategies for their region (sometimes in partnership with Teaching School councils) and by taking initiatives to support the quality and capacity of academy trusts – particularly multi-academy trusts. In effect they are acting in line with a role that Monitor, the regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts, exercises. Monitor has to make sure that[4]:

“independent NHS foundation trusts are well-led so that they can provide quality care on a sustainable basis”

8. Consequently one of Monitor’s priorities for 2015/16 is to:

“provide support, alongside partner organisations as appropriate, to NHS foundation trusts to improve their institutional and individual capabilities”

9. There is a strong case for RSCs having a capacity building function in relation to the academies sector as the number of approved academy sponsors has grown rapidly and as at July 2015 stood at 739[5]. Most of the new sponsors are schools that are just beginning to operate as fledgling multi-academy trusts. However, if RSCs are to have this function it would be sensible and appropriate to formally recognise this by including the role within their remit.

         What evidence exists on the early operation of RSCs in terms of their impact, and how this impact should be measured

10. The introduction of RSCs has helped the government to address the legacy of the over-rapid expansion of some academy chains after the 2010 election. Between January 2012 and August 2014 58 pre-warning or warning notices were issued by ministers to academy trusts[6]. The period from September 2014 (when RSCs formally took up post) to July 2015 has seen the pace pick up with the issuing of a further 42 notices. RSCs will no doubt be able to provide examples of how they have contributed to this acceleration and have transferred some academies from one trust to another.

11. In December 2014 Schools Week reported that one of the key performance indicators (KPI) for RSCs as being “the percentage of eligible schools issued with an academy order”[7]. Eligible schools are defined as those not currently below the government’s exam floor standards or with an Ofsted rating of inadequate. There is as yet little evidence of a correlation in improved performance and academy status and making the volume of academisation as an end in its own right is, therefore, a rather crude and inappropriate KPI. However, some of the other reported KPIs (such as those that relate to the development and strength of academy chains and the progress of poorly performing schools that have been taken on by a sponsor) are more fit for purpose. As more attainment and progress data builds up RSCs should be judged by the sustainability, rate of improvement and added value provided by the academies in their region. For example, the metrics contained in the recent reports published by the Sutton Trust[8], the NfER[9] and the DfE’s own consultation for reporting on the performance of academy chains[10] could over time provide a way of measuring the impact of academisation on a regional as well as a national basis.

12. In terms of the early operation of RSCs and their oversight role particular arrangements have been made for those multi-academy trusts (MATs) that have academies that fall within more than one region. In these instances a lead RSC has sensibly been designated to co-ordinate work with each respective MAT. However, in conversations with some MAT leaders it has been suggested said that responding to information requests from RSCs has been complicated by virtue of them operating different ‘reporting’ requirements. The Committee will be able to test the validity of this claim in its oral evidence sessions.

13. A further issue that has arisen from the early operation of RSCs is the interaction with the Education Funding Agency. In some instances academy sponsors are having to manage conflicting pressures. For example, a RSC may be encouraging a sponsor to take on a school or another academy that has difficulties. The sponsor may be willing in principle to do this but as part of their due diligence process reluctant to take on the academy if there is a financial deficit – arguing, quite properly, that as trustees for the existing schools in a MAT they should not disadvantage current pupils by using funds intended for their education to pay off the debts incurred in another institution. However, the EFA is, for understandable reasons, reluctant to write off deficits and there can then be a disjuncture between the request from the RSC and the financial prudence of the EFA.

         Whether there are sufficient RSCs and Headteacher Boards to fulfil their expanding role, and whether they have adequate resources

         What relationship RSCs should have with Ofsted, local authorities, the DfE, individual schools and local communities

      How RSCs should be held to account in their role

14. I have grouped together these aspects of the Committee’s terms of reference as I see them as being inextricably linked.

15. The number of schools becoming academies continues to increase and it has been suggested that by the end of the Parliament that not just the overwhelming majority of secondary schools but most primary schools could be academies. This poses fundamental issues for the number, role and operations of RSCs. 

16. However, irrespective of whether this scenario comes about there is a need to rationalise the relationships and roles of local authorities and RSCs. The current system results in overlaps and some duplication of roles. It is difficult for parents and the public to understand whom to hold to account. The arrangements are likely to become more confusing as under the Education and Adoption Bill both RSCs and local authorities will end up being able to exercise powers in respect of ‘coasting’ schools and schools ‘requiring improvement’. The Bill is even having to legislate to sort what happens if a local authority and the Secretary of State (through RSCs) both issue warning notices and/or use their intervention powers concurrently in relation to a particular school.

17. From my observation of the scene and from conversations with local authorities it would seem that RSCs are for the most part pragmatically leaving local authorities and schools to their own devices in areas where they judge oversight of schools (and academies) is working well. They are then focusing on academies and geographical areas where there is either a systemic problem with school performance or there is weak oversight. However, the role being played by local authorities in school improvement, notwithstanding their diminished resources and the rise of academisation, is more considerable than one might expect. In areas such as Wigan, North Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, Birmingham and the London borough of Harrow have developed or are developing agreed arrangements with schools and school leaders for tracking school performance and commissioning improvement support. These arrangements apply irrespective of whether the schools are maintained or academies.

18. A more rational way forward nationally would be to agree a division of labour between RSCs and local authorities – since without this we are either going to have divide the regions and have many more RSCs or existing RSCs will have to appoint deputies. In both scenarios they will need to substantially expand their staff and/or their use of educational consultants and make more extensive use of their headteacher boards. There is a risk of creating a costly form of bureaucratic oversight. Already the RSC for the East of England has established three sub boards to support the main headteacher board “because we think it’s going to have lots more work to do”[11].

19. Rather than set up a parallel field force RSCs could delegate oversight functions to local authorities (or groups of authorities) and their schools where they judge they have the systems, skills and maturity to undertake this role. Increasingly in a school-led system one would expect localities to use accredited peer review models rather than external consultants or advisors as the basis for challenging and supporting the development of schools. RSCs should require delegation to localities to be based on an integrated oversight model – in other words an agreed set of arrangements for all schools in an area irrespective of their status. One of the conditions for such a delegation could also be an agreed remit for a local headteacher board – or its equivalent – in line with the current practice of the most progressive authorities in establishing improvement or commissioning boards led by school leaders.

20. If the RSC judged that the authority(ies) and heads in area were not competent to undertake local oversight responsibilities they could either exercise the role themselves or they might issue invitations for other authorities or agencies to undertake the role. This would enable RSCs to exercise a more strategic function in relation to school improvement for their area and quality assuring local oversight arrangements rather than trying to manage everything themselves.

21. This arrangements would also be more likely to result in local authorities and RSCs agreeing on where new or free schools were needed – either to meet pupil place demand and/or to act as stimulus to improve performance.

22. The legal basis for operating something akin to this system will soon potentially exist as the Government’s Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill contains clauses that would allow the Secretary of State for Education to delegate, subject to certain conditions, the functions she exercises through Regional Schools Commissioners to the new elected mayors and the combined authorities[12].

23. The agenda established by the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill also provides two other helpful pointers for the future evolution of RSCs. First in the medium term it would be more sensible to align the boundaries of the RSC regions with economic sub-regions as the links between education, skills and the economy become more entwined. Such an arrangement would encourage curriculum models and progression routes that supported the local economy and worked across the school/further and higher education divide.

24. Second, the devolution agenda could also help with improving the accountability making RSCs accountable to city mayors as they are established. Where city regions or combined authorities are not in place then local authority cabinet members for a group of local authorities might apply to the Secretary of State to be given a greater role in steering the work of RSCs and holding them to account.

25. One final word of caution is needed. Irrespective of the structures and arrangements the success of the RSC model is dependent on having people in post with the right blend of strategic leadership, school improvement and people management skills. The DfE should put in place a talent management system that ‘spotted’ and developed a cadre of leaders that were then ready to take on this role as vacancies arose and/or the numbers expanded.

July 2015