Briefing: Regional Schools Commissioners and their work in relation to Multi-Academy Trusts. February 2017

Transcription

1 Briefing: Regional Schools Commissioners and their work in relation to Multi-Academy Trusts February 2017 Background There are currently eight Regional Schools Commissioners (RSCs), between them covering every region in England. The first RSCs were appointed in 2014 and their responsibilities include: taking action where academies and free schools are underperforming intervening in academies where governance is inadequate deciding on applications from local-authority-maintained schools to convert to academy status improving underperforming maintained schools by providing them with support from a strong sponsor encouraging and deciding on applications from sponsors to operate in a region taking action to improve poorly performing sponsors advising on proposals for new free schools advising on whether to cancel, defer or enter into funding agreements with free school projects deciding on applications to make significant changes to academies and free schools RSCs are each advised by a board of headteachers of Ofsted-rated outstanding academies or experienced educational leaders. The board challenges and supports the work of the commissioner, bringing additional educational insight and local intelligence to decisionmaking. The full list of RSCs are 1 : Tim Coulson: East of England and north-east London Jennifer Bexon-Smith: East Midlands and the Humber (Jonathan Edwards RSC Designate) Vicky Beer: Lancashire and West Yorkshire Janet Renou: North of England Martin Post: north-west London and south-central England Dominic Herrington: South-East England and south London Rebecca Clark: South-West England Christine Quinn: West Midlands 1 rsc- appointed- for- east- midlands- and- the- humber 1

2 In April 2016, each of the RSCs published a regional vision statement for their region 2, covering what actions they planned to take with regard to their four core areas of work: challenging underperformance; building strong sponsors; opening high quality new provision; and facilitating collaboration. National Schools Commissioner The DfE appointed Sir David Carter as National Schools Commissioner 3 on 1 February Sir David was formerly CEO of the Cabot Learning Federation from 2007 to 2014, where he lead the growth of the federation to include 12 schools and successfully applied to become one of the first teaching schools in the country in The National Schools Commissioner works closely with the eight RSCs to support school leaders, teachers and governors in achieving the best education system possible for all children in England. The National Schools Commissioner is responsible for: holding the RSCs to account for their responsibilities and ensuring consistency in decision-making promoting the benefits of being a member of a multi-academy trust, academy conversion and the free schools programme to school leaders, local authorities, governing bodies, parent groups and community organisations developing and sharing the best school-improvement strategies with RSCs and educational leaders across the country that result in improvements in educational outcomes for all children advising ministers as they shape the future development of the academies and free schools programme, and sharing best practice that exists across the country monitoring the growth of sponsors across the 8 RSC regions and making sure that the best practice of our strongest sponsors informs RSCs decision-making encouraging and nurturing potential new sponsors from our best schools, businesses and community partnerships The role of RSCs in the accountability of multi-academy trusts In January last year (2016), the House of Commons Education Committee published its report on the role of Regional Schools Commissioners 4, which made a number of recommendations, including the need for a clearer understanding of the role of RSCs. The Department for Education (DfE) published its response to the Committee s report on 20 April , within which it agreed to address concerns around the issue of providing greater clarity on the RSC role. The DfE also ran a consultation with regard to intervening in failing, underperforming and coasting schools, which informed the Education and Adoption Act Also in March 2016, the DfE published revised statutory guidance for RSCs and local authorities with regard to schools causing concern, which reflects how RSCs will use the 2 schools- commissioners- regional- vision- statements 3 carter

3 powers in the Education and Adoption Act to turn around failing schools and to challenge coasting schools and other cases of underperformance 6. Academies deemed inadequate As a result of the Education and Adoption Act 2016, the RSC (on behalf of the Secretary of State) will be able to terminate the funding agreement of an academy that has been judged inadequate. Where termination is appropriate, the RSC on behalf of the Secretary of State must first give the proprietor of the academy an opportunity to make representations. Where a supplemental Church agreement has been entered into, alongside the funding agreement, the RSC will also notify the appropriate diocesan authority and consider its representations. The RSC must comply with any other terms specified in the supplemental Church agreement regarding termination. When an academy s funding agreement has been terminated because the academy has been judged inadequate, the RSC will usually identify a new sponsor to take on responsibility for the academy, and will enter into a new funding agreement in respect of that academy. If the academy that was judged inadequate was previously a standalone academy, this will generally mean it will join a multi-academy trust (MAT) and the academy will remain open. In some exceptional cases, where the academy is not considered to be viable in the long term, its funding agreement may instead be terminated in order to close it. Academies deemed to be coasting As a result of the Education and Adoption Act 2016, where an academy has met the coasting definition, and the RSC on behalf of the Secretary of State has notified the academy that it has fallen within the coasting definition, then the Secretary of State is ultimately able to terminate the funding agreement for that academy and move the academy to a new trust. Before terminating the funding agreement on the grounds that the academy is coasting, the RSC must first give the academy proprietor a termination warning notice. Such a termination warning notice will require the academy proprietor to take specified action to improve the academy by a specified date. Where a supplemental Church agreement is in place alongside the academy s funding agreement the RSC will notify the appropriate diocesan authority that the academy has fallen within the coasting definition. Where an RSC has considered it necessary to terminate an academy s funding agreement as a result of the academy having been coasting, that does not necessarily mean that the academy must close. Usually the RSC will identify a new sponsor to take on responsibility for the academy and will enter into a new funding agreement in respect of that academy. Where the academy that was coasting was previously a standalone academy, this will require it to join a multi-academy trust (MAT), and the academy will remain open. There will be cases where the RSC does not consider it necessary to issue a termination warning notice to an academy that has met the definition of coasting, for example because the RSC is satisfied that the academy already has a sufficient plan to bring about the necessary improvement, or because the RSC has agreed the academy s request to join a multiacademy trust which the RSC considers will ensure the academy makes the necessary improvements. Academies causing concern Arrangements for academies to be issued with a warning notice where they have not been judged inadequate by Ofsted, and have not met the coasting definition, but are otherwise 6 causing- concern

4 causing concern, are specified in their academy funding agreements. Warning notices might be given due to low standards of performance, where there has been a serious breakdown in management or governance, or the safety of pupils or staff are threatened. RSCs are responsible for addressing underperformance in academies, so will take action in line with the funding agreement for the academy in question. Where a local authority has concerns about standards, management or governance, or safety in an academy, it should alert the relevant RSC. RSC decision making framework In December 2016, the DfE published the RSCs decision making framework 7, which specifically sets out the roles and responsibilities of RSCs, as well as looking at each of their core functions in more detail. This framework provides updated information regarding the role of the National Schools Commissioner in taking the lead in working with a small group of large academy sponsors. The NSC will provide a single point of contact with these trusts, and will have a regular conversation with them and lead on matters concerning overall performance, multi-academy trust (MAT) governance, the trust s capacity and growth. However, intervention and performance issues concerning individual academies or free schools within the MAT will continue to be managed by the RSC for the area in which the trust is located. In addition, another group of large cross-regional sponsors will be allocated a lead RSC by the National Schools Commissioner. The lead RSC will be responsible for negotiating any strategic decisions or approaches that have a direct implication for multiple regions. Sustainable growth of MATs In December 2016, the DfE published its non-statutory guidance Multi-academy trusts: establishing and developing your trust 8 which gives advice on what RSCs look for when they assess and approve the establishment of new MATs, as well as what they look for in terms of the growth of existing MATs. The document looks at: how the system can grow the number of academies within it with care; governance; supporting school improvement; people and leadership; financial sustainability; and risk management. The RSCs have a role in approving MATs or standalone academies, acting on behalf of, and being accountable to, the Secretary of State for Education. The guidance sets out what RSCs will look for with regard to the key functions of multiacademy trusts: Governance The role of the RSC is separate to that of the EFA. RSCs will, however, expect a MAT s governance arrangements to be in line with any mandatory requirements before approving any new academy arrangement. In addition, when agreeing whether a MAT has the capacity 7 ng_framework_december_2016.pdf 8 academy- trusts- establishing- and- developing- your- trust 4

5 to grow, or when approving a MAT arrangement, RSCs will pay particular attention to whether, and the extent to which: the board has a clear and realistic vision for the future size and structure of the MAT the board has conducted a thorough, preferably external review of its own effectiveness and readiness for growth and in particular has a clear view of the skills it will need in its next phase of growth and robust plans in place to fill any gaps through training or recruitment there are or will soon be common information management and reporting standards and processes across all schools in the MAT to enable comparison and aggregation of data at board level Supporting school improvement There is no expectation that all academies or trusts should pursue the same approach to supporting attainment and school improvement. They will, however, be expected to have the capacity to run strong and improving schools. Before approving an academy arrangement, RSCs will use their professional expertise to judge the capacity of the trust. In doing so, they will take into account the particular circumstances and maturity of the trust. When agreeing whether a MAT has the capacity to grow, or when approving a MAT arrangement, RSCs will want to explore with the trust: the plans for medium and long-term development of the trust and how they build capacity within their trust and their schools how it intends to support school improvement and whether this is underpinned by a clear school improvement model what the needs and development challenges are for all the schools within the trust, irrespective of current performance levels whether the trust s model of due diligence enables the depth of the operational and strategic challenge to be fully understood how the trust will contribute to wider system improvement and develop and retain good links with other MATs, teaching schools and a wide range of stakeholders. MATs that want to support the improvement of schools that are performing poorly, will need to apply to be an approved sponsor, if they are not one already. Sponsors need to demonstrate a strong track record in supporting school improvement, or have ready access to sufficient school improvement expertise. People and leadership The Academies Financial Handbook requires that the board of trustees of the academy trust has appointed, in writing, a senior executive leader, who may act as an ex officio trustee. This is a mandatory requirement. In standalone academies this will be the principal of the school; in MATs this will be a chief executive or equivalent. The role must be a permanent, not a rotating one. RSCs will not approve any arrangement where this is not the case. For schools within any trust to be as effective as possible, they should have systems in place that support the development of each and every member of staff, and manage the talent within their trust. They should also have systems in place that hold staff to account for delivering for the pupils attending the schools within the trust. RSCs will not prescribe what these arrangements will look like, but they will want to be assured that a trust has the capacity within its workforce to deliver what it wants to achieve. When agreeing whether a MAT has the capacity to grow, or when approving a MAT arrangement, RSCs will want to be reassured that: 5

6 leaders understand the challenges the trust will face and have clear plans for tackling these the trust understands how the roles of individual leaders will need to change as the trust grows teaching expertise and other forms of best practice will be effectively spread through the trust the trust is equipped to withstand turnover in personnel, and especially a change in leadership the trust has plans to recruit the finance, human resources and business experience appropriate to the size of the trust though is some cases, outsourcing will be appropriate/necessary Financial sustainability For a trust to be successful, and deliver the curriculum and results it wants for its pupils, it must have strong and sustainable finances. Before agreeing that a MAT can expand the number of schools it runs, or a standalone academy can create or join a MAT, RSCs will assess whether: the plans to grow the size of the trust are credible and that the trust understands that while growth can bring about economies of scale, there are also costs associated with centralising functions. Where a trust s plans are such that they want to remain small (e.g. below 1,200 pupils for primary trusts and 2,000 for mixed or secondary trusts), the RSC may recognise the financial limitations and be more cautious. They may ask to see more detailed plans, including how the trust s senior leadership team will be funded from across the schools plans to secure efficiency savings through economies of scale are realistic and have been benchmarked against other trusts any central functions are properly costed and sustainable, and that there are clear plans that set out how these functions will be paid for, for example, through a charge or topslice to individual schools within the trust these centrally delivered functions deliver value for money for constituent schools the trust s financial processes are sufficiently robust to withstand the increased responsibility of the trust, and in particularly the need to ensure propriety and value for money across a wider number of schools Risk management When determining whether to approve an academy arrangement, either a standalone academy or MAT, RSCs will take in to account what is known about the way successful academy trusts manage risk. In particular they will test whether: the trust has the capacity to fulfil the mandatory requirements set out in the Academies Financial Handbook especially if, having consulted with the Education Funding Agency (EFA), they know that it has not fulfilled those responsibilities in the past there are effective procedures in place to identify, monitor and mitigate at both school and trust level - risk management is not a box-ticking exercise its scheme of delegation makes clear what risks are managed at what level so no issues fall between the gaps 6

7 the trust has a clear idea of how the way it manages risk may need to change as the trust grows, and has made a balanced assessment of the risks expansion and opportunities might pose to its existing schools the trust has access to appropriate due diligence expertise so that they can be confident the trust knows what it is taking on (both in terms of benefits and risks) when an additional school joins it the trust has capacity to manage the estate for which they are responsible Next steps The House of Commons Education Committee has recently published the report of its inquiry into MATs 9, which states that: The role of Ofsted and Regional Schools Commissioners (RSCs) in holding MATs to account is crucial to the development of the MAT model. The relationship between Ofsted and RSCs, both nationally and regionally, remains unsatisfactory and we believe there is still more work to be done to clarify the distinction between Ofsted inspections and RSC visits. During their inquiry the Committee heard that the continuing crossover between the role of Ofsted and RSCs is confusing for trusts, individual schools and parents. MAT growth checks In its report, the Committee welcomed the introduction by the DfE of a MAT growth check and said it looked forward to the Department publishing further details on what measures will be part of the check and the process by which the check will be used. It stated that the government must place tight restrictions on the growth of MATs and use their growth check to ensure that MATs are only permitted to take on more schools when they have the capacity to grow successfully