The government has been urged to clarify where accountability for school improvement sits under its new intervention model to target support to those who need it most.
The Confederation of School Trusts has voiced renewed concerns over where responsibilities will lie in the system, amid fears it will also undermine the “legal status” of academy chains.
The Department for Education announced further details of how its regional improvement for standards and excellence (RISE) teams (formerly known as regional improvement teams) will work during a webinar yesterday.
Government is recruiting school leaders to work with civil servants in the new teams, which will commission targeted support from bodies like trusts, councils or federations.
Decisions over which schools require the tailored help will be based on new thresholds for intervention, informed by Ofsted report cards.
But this morning, Confederation of School Trusts CEO Leora Cruddas raised concerns in a briefing to members, noting the approach “fails to understand or articulate a theory of regulation”.
‘Who is responsible?’
Questioning “where accountability for improvement sits in this approach”, she wrote: “Who decides? Who is responsible? Who is accountable to whom and for what? These concerns felt exacerbated by the webinar yesterday.”
She said DfE officials said last night “that where a supporting organisation is being paid to provide support to a school, then that organisation would be responsible for the provision of that support”.
It will also be “accountable for the public money it has been given, but accountability for improving the school will remain squarely with the responsible body”.
But CST is now seeking “written reassurances and a clear articulation of responsibilities and accountabilities”.
Cruddas also added that the approach “articulated in the webinar yesterday seemed to elide the governance and legal status of a trust. If enacted without amendment, this would be very serious.”
Officials also offered her “assurances that the governance and legal status of trusts is fully recognised” to the department.
But she added: “All of this stems once again from an approach which fails to understand or articulate a theory of regulation and fails to define the respective roles of state actors and responsible bodies.
“CST will continue to speak out against any attempt to weaken the legal status of trusts.”
DfE has also stressed that a number of the specifics surrounding the RISE team plans are still being developed.
This comes after Labour clashed with CST over plans to re-instate the support staff negotiating body (SSSNB) through the employment rights bill, which was introduced to Parliament last month .
Cruddas noted today that her organisation remains “concerned about the proposal” as it would “would be binding on trusts, and potentially restrict the ability of employers to develop, remunerate and deploy support staff”.
Following discussions with legal firm Stone King, CST “agreed a strategy to raise our concerns officially” through a submission to the Public Bill Committee, which will scrutinise the legislation “line by line”.
