Bosses of under-performing schools given targeted support through the government’s RISE improvement scheme have felt “on trial” and ignored during the first few months of the programme.
Others reported feeling stigmatised and reduced staff morale after their schools were branded ‘stuck’ by the Department for Education.
Despite this, a government-commissioned evaluation of the RISE targeted support service found the programme has been “successful”.
The scheme was launched last year, with its 65-strong team of advisers – leaders seconded to work alongside officials – appointed to specific schools in their region to identify priorities and propose an outside organisation to provide support.
The programme focused on ‘stuck’ schools, those rated ‘requires improvement’ by Ofsted following an earlier inspection that resulted in a grade below ‘good’.
The study focused on a sample from the first 223 RISE schools. Further reviews are set to be conducted.
Here’s what you need to know…
1. ‘Clunky’ and anxiety-inducing
The report said RISE teams would kick off the process through “informal initial contact” with the school’s responsible body (RB), its local authority or trust. They would then send an official email.
This “generally worked well to effectively engage the RB and the school”. But some called it “clunky”, pointing to “slow formal communication [and] short timescales for responses.
A handful of heads also “reported receiving the communication on a Friday before the end of term, which they described as creating added anxiety”.
Meanwhile, a “few” leaders “expressed disappointment about being publicly labelled a ‘stuck school’ and being listed on the DfE website”. They “felt this was stigmatising” and impacted staff morale, particularly if a school had been improving.
Responding to this, the DfE said it “didn’t have much of a choice publishing the schools” as “anybody” could have worked out who they were using the government’s “very clear criteria”. It recognised “people didn’t like” the term ‘stuck’ and isn’t “using it as much now”.
2. Matching schools with advisers
The process of matching schools with advisers “was considered successful by the majority of schools”.
However, DfE staff in a “few regions” found it “more challenging” as they had fewer advisers to make the right match.
There were “a few isolated cases where relationships did not work out initially, but these were resolved,” the report said.
3. Heads ‘on trial’
Most advisers interviewed for the evaluation “referenced timescales, IT set-up and communications as the main challenges” experienced during the process to establish schools’ needs and eligibility for support.
They felt deadlines for the initial diagnosis “were unnecessarily tight and this was compounded by their own ability to respond in a timely manner” due to the part-time nature of their role. But “almost all” of them believe they had “responded well” to this.
However, early on, some heads “had concerns that too many people were visiting the school as part of RISE targeted intervention”.
“In some cases, multiple people visited at once. Some headteachers felt as if they were ‘on trial’ and other headteachers and RBs noted how the number of visitors could be intimidating and hard to explain to staff.”
Despite this, the report said this was “a necessary part” of the RISE intervention work.
4. ‘Frustration’ over support choices
In half the cases analysed, selecting a supporting organisation was said to be “a smooth process”. But “challenges were experienced in the other half”.
A “few” schools believe “their needs were ignored”. In one example, a school said it “clearly requested targeted SEND and nurture provision support” – but its plan “focused on areas like pedagogy and initial teacher training”.
“This led to frustration, as recommendations were thought to have been made without sufficient evidence or classroom observation,” the report explained.
“However, this is not to say that a schools’ own diagnosis of their support needs will always be accurate.”
A handful of advisers also “expressed frustrations with the matching process, feeling that the supporting organisations were chosen in a disorganised way, rather than being planned and selected in accordance with a clear set of criteria”.
One adviser noted: “The regional teams will come up with a few names, but it feels very arbitrary. Sometimes they don’t know the MATs particularly well. I don’t think we’ve got that bit right.”
Some found identifying a good match difficult due to the “perception of potential supporting organisations’ motives”. One adviser “had to interview five MATs” before finding the right one because “they wanted to know how it would benefit them”.
The DfE stressed it is “has learned a lot” from the first phase of the programme and is in a “much better place now in terms of [finding] matching organisations”. Advisers are also “more confident about being able to see what is really needed”.
5. Advisers operating in new areas
The report also said there were “a few cases where the school was outside of the geographic patch of the RISE adviser and/or supporting organisation” they were matched with.
One adviser didn’t “know anything about the two trusts [one of their schools] asked to be matched with” as they were in a different county. This made it “really hard” for the adviser to “know whether [they were] right”.
Another told of how one of their schools “was based across a regional boundary, where there was a complex, competitive relationship between trusts”. This precluded “the selection of the ideal match” as other MATs in the area would have “kick[ed] off”.
6. Timescale issues
According to the report, the “majority of supporting organisations, RBs and headteachers were critical of the short timescales” to develop improvement plans.
Leaders “felt this rushed process constrained the due diligence activity that they would normally undertake” before agreeing to help a school.
This was “recognised” by the DfE, which “plan[s] to improve on this for the next cohort” by building in “longer lead-times”.
7. ‘Slow’ DfE sign-off
Securing DfE’s approval for improvement plans “was considered by the majority of stakeholders to be slowing the process down… and threatening timescales”.
Some heads said this left them feeling “on hold”, while in a few instances supporting organisations “questioned the changes made” by DfE to the plans.
One “queried if this was in the best interests of the intended school, with less resources going directly” to it. Others “questioned the efficiency of the process”, which they thought risked “disempowering” them.
The report said: “Improved guidance and understanding may help with adherence to the guidance and speed up the process.
“Regional DfE staff and RISE advisers could also manage expectations of the approval process, which would help to reduce uncertainty and frustrations.”
8. Report recommendations
The researchers have told DfE to consider “clarifying communications around the role of RISE adviser[s]”.
They also argued that the department “should carefully monitor the capacity of the system” to ensure supporting organisations can help increasing numbers of schools in future RISE rounds.
“This early evidence suggests that the RISE targeted intervention was broadly successful in terms of engaging schools and partners in developing and agreeing a plan for school improvement against challenging timescales,” the report said.
“A range of lessons have been learnt from [its] first full academic term.”
