13th October 2008

Wanted ! A Real Strategy for Change

A submission from the National Union of Teachers.

Leicester City Council is currently developing its Primary and Secondary Strategy for Change. The intention is that these documents will articulate a coherent vision for the future of education in the city.

Unfortunately, rather than focussing on the necessary educational processes that need to be embedded to secure effective learning for pupils across our city schools, the council has primarily been concerned to address structural issues of governance, buildings and technology. It has, moreover, done this in a curiously mechanistic way largely ignoring the key issues of pedagogy, learning styles and curricular entitlement.

The purpose of this paper is to respond to the LA's initial draft and to indicate what we, as educational professionals, believe a real Strategy for Change would look like including the issues it would need to address.

Some Essential Background

In its initial proposals on collaborative working the teacher unions identified three core assumptions that should inform any policy for schools in Leicester. These were:

The results achieved by city schools in 2008 demonstrate what can be achieved by effective, collaborative working supported by city wide interventions. It is no accident that this year saw the biggest ever local improvement in results at Foundation Stage, KS2 and GCSE. Moreover, it should be noted that this was achieved on the basis of concerted intervention over only a short period of time. The TLL Action Plan came into being in December 2007. Much of its practical, direct support for learning did not hit the ground in schools until February or later.

This fact alone should give us enormous confidence for the future. TLL was always premised on a two pronged approach. On the one hand, there were to be short-term, urgent actions to address and meet the challenging, immediate targets imposed by the DCSF. The typical 'quick fix'! However, alongside these arrangements ran plans for developing a coherent range of more strategic, sustainable. long-term interventions that could supplement and then supplant the short term actions. This coordinated, collaborative approach was designed to effect permanent, progressive change in city schools. That was the plan we supported.

Not only did NUT support the TLL Action Plan, it actively sought to contribute to it. Amongst the proposals submitted were:

Each of these addressed an identified challenge facing Leicester schools. They were, moreover, based on a recognition that the most significant contributor to pupil performance in school, alongside the careful tracking of pupil progress, is the quality of interactions with teachers and support staff in the classroom.

Sadly, despite verbally welcoming our various proposals the Local Authority has been slow to convert ideas into actions. To date it has implemented almost none of these initiatives nor have they been incorporated directly into the TLL Action Plan. Instead, the LA has spent considerable sums of money employing consultants — each one costing many hundreds of pounds a day.

At present there is no substantive TLL Action Plan for 2008/9. The previous plan was deemed not fit for purpose at an 'away day' at the National College of School Leadership on 3rd of June 2008. However, the revised, more focussed TLL Action Plan promised has yet to materialise. Its delay is largely due to lead officers being diverted into work on the Academies proposals.

Put together, these facts place into question the extent of the Local Authority's commitment to developing a real, long-term, collaborative framework for sustainable change in Leicester. Rather, the equivocation of the LA on long term strategies for school improvement suggests that during the past year it was primarily concerned throughout with a 'quick fix' that would eliminate the threat of the Local Authority itself being outsourced. The more complex, longer term issues of school improvement would then be addressed not through coherent, collaborative interventions in schools but through removing the most 'challenging schools' from LA control via the Academies programme. This is extremely disappointing for all those who dedicated themselves to developing meaningful, creative, collaborative strategies for changing the life experiences of our young people.

Alongside the practical proposals for supporting learning the NUT along with the other teaching unions also sought to contribute to the development of a coherent LA educational philosophy. Detailed amendments were submitted to the 'Draft Principles' for the Strategy for Change. These Principles were supposed to express the LA's vision for education over the next twenty five years. The amendments submitted by the teacher unions sought to flesh out the substance of the Draft Principles and make them into a living, educational ethos rather than a tired recitation of government expectations. In the interest of consistency, the amendments also reflected the emphasis within the TLL Action Plan on collaborative approaches to learning and the need to address children in a holistic way.

Almost all of the amendments submitted were embraced and incorporated into the final Principles document produced by the Local Authority. Some also found their way into the Primary Strategy for Change which was submitted in June. Similarly, large sections of a document produced by the unions on ways of Collaborative Learning also found their way into the Primary Strategy for Change. This demonstrates the level of engagement and commitment that was offered by the unions to TLL and the development of a sound vision for the future.

At the same time, a packed public meeting at Regent College jointly organised by the unions, the local Education Forum and the Leicester Social Forum heard speakers from the DCSF, the LA and the Support Our Schools Campaign discuss the challenges facing Leicester schools. This meeting, despite obvious anxieties about the public airing of such issues, was anything but confrontational. The word 'collaboration' featured largely in virtually all speakers' contributions. So, there was the real appearance of dialogue and concurrence. Unfortunately, while it would appear that the LA liked the words used by the unions, they clearly did not understand them.

In May 2008 David Kershaw, the lead officer for TLL, advised the unions, at a hastily convened meeting following leaks to both the press and to the unions, that the LA was indeed looking at establishing a series of Academies 'because it was a government imperative'. At that time, and subsequently, it was stated that the possibility of Academies was only one of a series of options being considered for schools. No information on any other options that were being considered has ever been offered. Furthermore, none are included in the Secondary Strategy for Change even in outline form. This suggests that in practice such alternative options do not currently exist.

The Flawed Case for Academies in Leicester

The virtues of privately run Academy schools have become an article of faith for New Labour. The architect of the Academies programme is the former financial journalist Andrew Adonis. Adonis had no prior background in education, other than in terms of his own schooling, and had no direct experience of the challenges facing state schools other than as a school governor before he was appointed to be an education adviser to Tony Blair in 1998. Indeed, having spent his secondary education years in a private, fee paying Church of England Boarding School in the Cotswolds, Adonis had no personal attachment to the benefits of comprehensive education. This is a great shame.

Since1967, Comprehensive schools have hugely enhanced the learning, achievements and life chances of pupils. The year on year improvements over decades in student performance at A level and GCSE are testimony to this. But, as an unelected, appointed Minister, courtesy of his subsequent enoblement by Tony Blair, Adonis now literally 'Lords' it over others in the DCSF while driving forward his agenda for more and more private Academies, in both Primary and Secondary education.

Most Academies have been introduced to replace so-called 'failing schools'. Invariably these have been schools in areas of high social deprivation which were judged, according to constantly changing, arbitrary government measures, to be letting children down. Invariably the context of the school and the real challenges they faced were ignored or dismissed. So, in practice, as a by-product of parental choice, schools have found themselves being blamed for the consequences of child poverty and social deprivation. The fact that the government itself singly failed to achieve its own targets on eradicating child poverty — the last measure showed that the number of children living in poverty had actually increased by 300,000 — is instructive in providing an insight into New Labour's dual standards on accountability.

Blame, however, is a staple of New Labour. Teachers, doctors, prison officers, civil servants and countless others are all serially to blame for each new, claimed failing of the education, health, welfare or criminal justice systems. Indeed Ministers will no longer accept any personal responsibility, even for their own decisions. Thus, Ed Balls, the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families was happy to express disappointment at the SATs marking shambles this year, but accepted no blame for the failings of the private company he had appointed to do that marking. How gloriously convenient to be able to pass every buck like that!

Of course, even in this distorted world, Academies still have to be justified. It is interesting to note, for example, that despite mountains of government propaganda, there has yet to be a single campaign in support of having an Academy initiated by parents. Rather, up and down the country it has become painfully apparent that they are not exactly a popular solution. In Doncaster, Halifax, London and Barrow-in-Furness parents and staff mounted huge campaigns to stop Academies. In Bolton and Derby, proposals for Academies led to strike action. So there does still need to be some excuse that can be offered up as to why local authorities should have them. In fact, the government — in the form of Ed Balls, Lord Adonis and officials at the DCSF – has been at pains to make clear to anyone that asked that Academies will not be imposed on reluctant Local Authorities. Such decisions are a local choice.

Unfortunately for both the government and, as it now transpires. for the council, what Leicester had begun to develop, through the TLL Action Plan, was a radically different approach to tackling the consequences of social deprivation in education. The TLL Action Plan was premised on a recognition that child underachievement was a shared challenge across the city. It was not the problem of the individual schools located in areas of high social deprivation, but a responsibility for us all. It was also fundamentally based on an understanding that the best solutions to such challenges were ones that drew on the experience and talents of local people: Leicester solutions for Leicester problems. What emerged, therefore, was a willingness to share expertise, collaborate on new initiatives and replace competition between schools with the more positive notion of partnership. NUT supported that approach. We still do.

The results of this coordinated intervention into schools in the city were prodigious. While not sustainable in their current form, they showed what could be done. In both Primary and Secondary schools, this year's performance was the best ever obtained. Nor were these simply marginal improvements on past performance. In the language of the government's sterile target culture they were a 'step change'; 5% better year on year. It is worth looking at what this means.

Schools like Eyres Monsell Primary, which had been below floor targets for a number of years, broke out of that cul-de-sac. Braunstone Frith Junior School and Fosse Primary, judged to be in need of 'Special Measures' by OFSTED as part of their cull of Leicester Primary schools, obtained creditable results of over 70%. Similarly, in Secondary, where not long ago several city schools were achieving less that 20% for all GCSE's at Grades A-C, today, none are below 20% for the new, higher measure of 5 A-Cs including English and Maths. We should be proud of this.

New College, having gained 11% 5 A-Cs in all subjects in 2005, this year could proudly point to having secured 40%. Furthermore, this real progress is backed up, in terms of sustainability, by massively improved results in the Key Stage 3 SATs. So the future, to any but the most jaundiced, looks bright. Hamilton CC, which two years ago had 19% 5 A-C's including Maths and English, this year achieved 32%. In so doing it has effectively removed itself from the National Challenge programme.

These are not mere drops in the ocean. They are significant, real achievements secured through an unshakeable belief in the learning strategies and tracking systems put in place and through a considerable amount of sheer hard work. If progress on this scale is achievable, and we can see clearly here that it is, then we should be optimistic about the future of all our Secondary National Challenge schools and our Primary schools that are below the government 'floor targets'. Far from dictating to Leicester schools about modes of school improvement, a genuinely listening government ought instead to be learning from our school community about other meaningful ways to effect real change in schools in challenging circumstances.

Of course, set against this context of real and substantial progress, a decision by the city council to hive off some or all of the 5 National Challenge schools to become Academies makes no sense at all. The consequences of such a decision will be almost all negative. It will break up the family of local schools, fragment the system, impinge significantly on feeder Primary schools, reduce parental and student choice by leaving whole areas of the city with only Academy schools as a secondary option and will impede rather than encourage collaboration, as shown by the evidence provided to the Parliamentary Committee of Enquiry into Academies. This is a poor recipe for success.

Moreover, a move to Academies is likely to be destabilising for the individual secondary schools concerned. Proposals for Academies are generally controversial. There will be staff who may wish to remain Local Authority employees, not be passed off to a new employer like chattels. There will also be parents and members of local communities unhappy at the enforced changes to their local schools. Many Academies have faced significant campaigns of opposition to their creation. There has also, in many cases, been a significant loss of existing staff as they leave seeking to maintain their status as local authority employees. Such consequences, arising from a decision to establish Academies, can only serve to disrupt schools and disrupt learning. This does not sound like the ideal environment for securing rapid, positive change in outcomes for students and in school performance. Furthermore, current government thinking that seeks to have Academy Secondary schools served by Primary Academies has significant implications for a large number of Primary schools, their headteachers and their staff.

Furthermore, given the success of the schools and the TLL Action Plan in terms of this year's results, the Local Authority faces a conundrum. Clearly, it ought to celebrate the excellent results achieved this year. However, in order to justify its move to Academies, the council finds itself compelled to call into question the progress made by our schools, expressing doubts about its real significance, the sustainability of this year's results and, by implication, dismissing outstanding efforts by staff, pupils and schools as a 'blip'.

Thus, at the BSF board, officers were at pains to explain that deeper analysis of the results showed them to somewhat less encouraging. This bizarre repudiation of the viability of its own interventions and of the prospects for the council's own Action Plan is only necessary because otherwise logic would dictate that the current collaborative approach to school improvement should take pride of place in any Strategy for Change for city schools, to the exclusion of all reference to Academies. Of course, were the council to take this course, and support a collaborative learning model for the future, there would be no conflict between developing the next stage of the TLL Action Plan and developing the Strategy for Change because they would be symbiotic and mutually referencing.

The rationale for having more Academies, provided by the council is startling in its current brevity. Despite this it makes fascinating reading.

"The City Council recognizes that alternative forms of governance may have particular strengths that make them the most appropriate type of school in some situations. Working with the right partner may bring innovative approaches to management, governance, teaching and the curriculum. Sponsors may bring a specialist focus from their own field of enterprise. The types of organization that we may wish to work with include our higher and further education establishments, national or regional enterprises based in or around the city with a particular local interest and stake and groups of businesses represented through organizations such as the Chamber of Trade, and the Local Economic Partnership.

The Council is actively engaged in discussion with our two universities and the FE Sector (and) to develop proposals for further academies based on the need to address the urgent challenges of our 'National Challenge' schools and quickly demonstrate positive impact and sustainable improvement."

(our emphasis — the use of the word 'may' is instructive)

No evidence is offered to support this claim that 'positive impact and sustainable improvement' will accrue from new academies. Perhaps that also should be qualified with that magic word 'may'. Suffice to say that assurances by Lord Adonis that 'Academies are a success' should be taken in the context of previous assurances that Education Action Zones and Freshstart Colleges were a 'huge success'.

The correct way to evaluate the Academies programme would be subject its outcomes to systematic analysis. That would include identifying which 'variables' within the Academies programme are having an impact. For example, where Academies have been established, which of the following is influencing learning?

NUT has consistently argued that it is only possible to properly evaluate Academies if there is a comparator control group ie state community comprehensive schools that have been offered the same financial benefits and buildings within which to undertake a school improvement strategy. The government has refused to do this.

Several important things are known about Academies, however. Academies have considerably higher rates of exclusion than other secondary schools. Academies have also been shown to use admissions procedures to skew their intakes in favour of those from higher achieving backgrounds. (MP's enquiry into Academies and Trust Schools June 2007). This is born out by analysis of the percentage of students eligible for Free School Meals in Academies carried out by researchers at Edinburgh University. This showed a persistent drop in the numbers of deprived youngsters in such schools.

Much of this would require authoritative research by a body like NFER to establish the full truth in terms of school improvement not least by comparing like for like catchments in Academies and community schools. The government has shown no interest in such research. What we can do, therefore, is ignore all the hidden advantages that Academies seek to exploit, often to the disadvantage of neighbouring community comprehensive schools, and look at the government's own reported impact of Academies.

One of the first Academies to open was the Bexley Business Academy. At the time it was much celebrated. When Leicester was first considering having an Academy on the Mary Linwood site, Allen Andres (fomer head of New College), then of the Academies division of the DCSF, came to speak to a meeting at the Linwood Centre. His main selling point was a film about the Bexley Academy. Clearly, therefore, this is a 'success' worth examining.

The results for Bexley Business Academy for 5 grades A-C at GCSE including Maths and English in the period 2004 — 2007 are as follows:

2004 — 13% ; 2005 — 15%; 2006 — 27%; 2007 — 19%.

This proves two things. Firstly, that Academies of themselves are not a guaranteed route to rapid progress. Secondly, that like other schools progress in achievement is subject to fluctuation according to cohorts.

Below is a table offering similar data for a number of other Academies operating below the National Challenge benchmark. Full details for all schools are available on the BBC website.

Academy2004200520062007
Capital City17111722
Greig City10101521
NorthamptonNA182422
Unity City761412
Manchester6122220
St Francis AssisiNANA1616
H A KnightsNANA1420
MarloweNANA57
City Bristol16191821
StockleyNA91625
West London811 2524
MadejskiNANANA5

The purpose of this is not to say that Academies cannot or do not work. Some have achieved a great deal. The question is why? We would argue that what this data shows is that Academies, of themselves, are not a solution to under-performance. Other factors, most crucially a coherent school improvement strategy, are vital if real change is to be achieved. More importantly, from the point of view of schools in Leicester, the performance of these Academies shows that what we have been achieving in Leicester though collaborative working — even in a very short time – is at least equivalent to what can be achieved through the Academy route. Finally, it should be pointed out that analysis of these results shows that opting for Academies may well fail to "quickly demonstrate positive impact and sustainable achievement." Yet that is the key rationale provided by the City Council for pursuing Academies.

So what of the actual proposals? No details are available other than that any Academies would be in partnership with the local universities and the FE sector. Neither of our universities has any experience of running secondary schools and nor does the local FE college, Leicester College. They also have no experience of direct engagement with parents and local communities for whom they would cater. Further and Higher education operates at one remove from such engagement.

The best that could really claimed for these institutions is that they have some areas of expertise that could potentially be of benefit to schools, for example in data analysis or CPD at the Universities, and in the provision of vocational education at Leicester College. But that is hardly sound grounds for giving the two universities and the FE College a direct role in the actual running of a number of local schools. Already a number of secondary schools work in direct partnership with Leicester College, New College being a fine example. Similarly, with the advent of the City Council's DataNET, we already have first class data collection and analysis facilities.

A far more sensible option would be to co-opt all three institutions — along with our three sixth form colleges – into a working partnership with the city council and all of its schools. That way the whole city can benefit from whatever expertise the universities and colleges can offer. There is no need for this to be institutionalised in the form of the more restrictive option of Academies?

In practice, the council's assertion that Academies are a guarantee of success appears to be more a statement of acquiescence to government thinking designed to appease Lord Adonis than an expression of real conviction based on well founded, scientific probability. That it also carries with it the potential prospect of yet further Academies in the future, both Primary and Secondary, makes it even more disturbing. Education policy in Leicester should be based on what is best for Leicester schools and Leicester children, regardless of government preferences.

It is also worth considering the wider implications of inviting the Further and Higher Education sectors into the running of local schools. One thing that characterises the management of both sectors is a predilection for the use of short term contracts of employment for teaching staff. This casualisation of employment is an ongoing issue for unions in both sectors. We doubt that this sort of 'innovative approach to management' would sit well with effective school improvement strategies. Nor would it be acceptable to staff.

The council also has a duty to consider how far its Strategy for Change is really contributing to 'diversity' in provision. At present Leicester has 4 faith schools, two of which are catholic while the other two are a C of E Academy and a Muslim High School. The city also has two single sex comprehensive schools. Our secondary schools offer specialisms ranging from languages and Performing Arts to Enterprise, Science/Technology and Sports. That already constitutes a breadth of provision.

The LA also seems to be blind to the notion of diversity within schools. Yet that is precisely what comprehensive schools are all about. Offering a range of curricular and other opportunities for students that relate directly to their needs, aptitudes, interests and abilities is comprehensive education. The personalisation agenda and the new vocational diplomas lend themselves directly to steps towards offering greater diversity within schools.

The creation of a series of new Academies would not increase real choice. In practice it would reduce it, because in Leicester, unlike in the county, our schools are neighbourhood specific. The effect of creating a number of new Academies would be to create a large segment of the city where there was no local, neighbourhood alternative for parents and students to that of privately run Academy education. For children living in the western outer ring of the city, in the worst case scenario, all that would be available for our most deprived communities would be Academies. That is not choice.

Furthermore, the current Academies proposals would be de facto create a two tier system of education in the city. There would be Academies for working class children but community neighbourhood comprehensive schools for the middle class. The echoes of secondary modern schools within this configuration are bound to cause concern. Moreover, such a two tier system of education provision fits very poorly with the Council's current 'One Leicester' campaign which is widely advertised throughout the city. However, the solution to this mismatch is simple. 'One Leicester' – one family of Leicester schools.

What parents want are good, successful local schools for their children to attend. They want their children to be happy at school, safe at school and to feel fulfilled at school. Some of our greatest successes have in fact been achieved in some of our worst buildings. Taylor Road school was condemned two years ago as unfit for use. Hamilton CC is hardly a state of the art building. Creating happy, successful schools is not contingent upon the type of school or indeed on the past reputations of schools. The rise in student admissions at New College since it was transformed by the successful intervention of Jane Brown and David Kershaw demonstrates this. We should recognise that, courtesy of this year's successes, we have a significant opportunity to revitalise our relationship with parents across the city by offering a guaranteed supportive framework for learning across all city schools.

Finally, we should note that none of the building proposals for BSF come carrying an 'Academy use only' tag. The proposals for a Learning Village at New College were developed outside of any plans for Academies. The rebuilding of Fullhurst was undertaken as a BSF project without recourse to Academy funding. Plans for a West Leicester Vocational Learning Centre have a sound educational logic in their own right. We want the best possible facilities for our children and young people, but to suggest having such provision but controlled by an outside body, even if it included the city council, is likely to generate problems of prioritisation and access rather than facilitate the widest possible access arrangements.

All of which leads us to conclude that the City Council's current consideration of Academies is both unwise and educationally unsound. It is diverting attention away from the main task which should be consuming officer's time and energies: transforming learning in city classrooms. Rather than attempting to rationalise a poor idea and embroiling staff and communities in lengthy and contentious consultation processes over a period of months, the council would serve local communities better by energetically pursuing the options for supporting learning in schools and ensuring that the barriers to learning that have been identified are being met with well resourced interventions to overcome them. That would be the responsible way for the City Council to discharge its duties to local people. It would also be in line with corporate council policy.

Towards a Real Strategy for Change

Innovation means being different. It means stepping outside of the expected to offer a new way of responding to challenges. Above all it means not being constrained by the current orthodoxy. When the county developed its Leicestershire Plan for Comprehensive schools in 1953 it was initially regarded with suspicion. It was, however, the model for the future. Pursuing an Academies model means following a five year old solution that has produced at best mixed results. Far better to be genuinely innovative and truly radical.

There are 6 strands to our proposals to the council for a real and effective strategy for change. These proposals begin from the 3 assumptions printed at the beginning of this document and then seek to codify these into practical initiatives that can have an impact on both learning in schools and the relationship of schools to their communities, parents and each other. Together they set out a model for the future.

  1. A re-invigorated curriculum.
  2. Overcoming barriers to Learning.
  3. Deepening collaboration between schools.
  4. Provision of CPD for quality learning.
  5. Engagement with parents and pupils
  6. Succession training for successful management.

We are making no specific proposals on buildings because we believe that such proposals should come from the schools themselves.

1. The curriculum

When asked about school many pupils and students reply that it is 'boring'. Staff, conscious of this perception, are inclined to respond that they are following the set curriculum and the set 3 part lesson model that they are required to follow. We have to be able to think beyond this. We need to recognise that learning can and should be exciting. But that means integrating this 'excitement' into the curriculum on a regular basis.

The current Draft of Strategy for change pays lip service to the curriculum, but the section on page 3 dealing with student entitlement is extremely weak. There is no recognition of the importance of the Expressive and Creative arts as a vital component of any entitlement, despite OFSTED research showing that this is the area which most contributes to enhancing the self-esteem and learning of children from socially deprived backgrounds. Nor is there any mention of an entitlement to residential and other out of school experiences. Finally there is no mention of a broad and balanced curriculum. As a city, Leicester should be resisting any moves towards providing a curtailed, narrow curriculum for our most vulnerable young people.

Instead, we should be working to extend innovation in the curriculum. Many Primary schools have introduced days or weeks when the National Curriculum is suspended or delivered in a different way through projects and cross curricular activities. These special arrangements are almost invariably regarded by both staff and students as the 'best' bits of school. We should learn from this. Learning can and should be interesting and fun. The Beaumont Leys School African History Day added a new dimension to learning in its widest sense. The New College Second World War day provided a stimulating and exhilarating model for cross curricular learning. Such activities should not be occasional exceptions but should be integral to the curriculum. To facilitate this, the LA should develop a Curriculum Task Force to look at ways in which these and other curriculum initiatives can be shared across school, their use extended within the current curriculum and also to provide a hub of expertise to support schools. As an authority we should have a goal of making new ways of learning in our schools something that is celebrated and promoted.

2. Tackling Barriers to Learning

Section 1 of this document outlined many of the proposals we have already made. Appendix 1 presents some of these and our proposals for incorporating these into collaborative structures diagrammatically. It is our contention that systematic intervention to address literacy and communication needs across all Key Stages and the Foundation Stage, to tackle the language needs of new arrivals and to support children with complex special needs in mainstream schools (especially in Early Years and Key Stage 1) can, of themselves, create a new learning environment. Not in the sense of the physical environment but in terms of the affective environment that children experience.

Timely, supportive interventions to address individual needs make pupils feel valued and respected. This in turn feeds into pupil attitudes to their school and to schooling in general. Moreover, it is entirely possible to establish mechanisms for funding these which render them sustainable. The Funding Formula Review Group has already begun to look at the establishment of a Foundation Stage Buffer to support interventions in Early Years. A similar model could be applied to support literacy interventions at Key Stage 3. With additional National Challenge funding now available to a number of schools, new collaborative arrangements to support the teaching of English and Maths at Key Stage 4 are not only feasible but a logical next step.

3. Building a Collaborative Infrastructure

Collaboration between schools is a key engine for change. By drawing on best practice around the city and ensuring it is both shared as widely as possible and readily available to schools facing particular, immediate difficulties, we create a climate of support. NUT has supported the development of federations as a practical means of addressing issues in schools and also to better manage significant recruitment problems. However, such moves are rightly governor and school led. We have no wish to see schools forced into Federations.

In our view collaborative arrangements can and should go far beyond the formal federations supported by the DCSF. We have groups of schools that have faced an influx of new arrivals over recent years, whether that be the newly developing Tamil community, the Somali community or new arrivals from eastern Europe. We need to address this collaboratively by enabling these groups of schools to have access to resources and support that they can deploy so that collectively they are able to address the needs of these new communities rather than being left to work in isolation.

In the outer ring of working class social housing we have identified, common issues with regard to language communication and literacy skills and also in relation to personal social skills. These are not the problems of individual schools. They require a collective response. The council should establish a schools network of outer ring schools, both Primary and Secondary, to consider and address these issues. It should also provide to this network sufficient funding to enable the schools, in collaboration with the council, to undertake cross school interventions to tackle the learning and social needs of pupils and students.

Some of our schools are extremely successful, often in very different ways. Rushey Mead Secondary school was judged outstanding by OFSTED. Taylor Road Primary has repeatedly scored high on value added. Eyres Monsell Primary, through careful application of the IAPPS programme, has been able to lift pupils above government thresholds. Hamilton Secondary school, despite serving a heavily socially deprived catchment, has managed to lift itself above the National Challenge benchmark. We need to draw upon these varied experiences in a systematic way, through work-shops and training and guidance materials.

We also need to establish coherent school to school partnership arrangements, with successful schools — including schools that themselves face challenging circumstances – working directly with other schools that are causing concern. This could range from simple mentoring at different levels to more formal arrangements for joint CPD, inter-change of staff or joint school activities. NUT has already submitted proposals to officers for ways in which pupils and students could be actively and constructively involved in these interchanges. (See Appendix 2)

4. Provision of CPD to support Quality Learning.

Much of the current CPD offer to schools is piece meal. There is a plethora of providers and frequently the quality of the CPD is an unknown prior to the training. We need to move away from this 'hit and miss' approach to staff development. The establishment of the Hub and Spoke model was welcome because it structured a common approach to student learning needs, drawing on best practice. The current successful model needs to be extended to cover other curriculum areas because whilst English and Maths may loom large in government targets, what matters for students is their learning at GCSE in the subjects that matter to them.

Alongside this, we need to develop and promote CPD for middle managers and middle management succession. The model developed by NUT nationally in the London Challenge provides important examples of how this can be undertaken. It would also allow the LA to identify particular groups of teachers that are currently under-represented in middle management who can be groomed for future responsibilities.

There needs to be a programme of CPD for Headteachers, Principals and Deputies that draws on immediate local experiences, not on esoteric National College of School Leadership orthodoxies. This should be provided by local leaders who have direct experience of meeting local challenges and can offer real insights into successful strategies for tracking pupils, coordinating interventions (with staff as well as pupils) and enhancing the learning environment in schools. (See final paragraph page 10) In addition, the LA needs to ensure that there are consistent, supportive mentoring arrangements for both Headteachers/Principals and for Deputies.The goal for the LA should be to ensure that all Headteachers are confident in their skills and knowledge, able to manage change in a caring and supportive way and capable of lifting staff to higher levels of performance.

While the Hub and Spoke model may adequately serve secondary colleagues, we need to look at alternative approaches for our primary colleagues where there are far more schools. The establishment of a LA Primary Best Practice team of high quality, experienced teachers who can go into schools to work alongside teachers, provide short term interventions into individual schools and also provide CPD for groups of schools on a 'needs' basis can do much to support high quality teaching in Primary schools.

We should also seek to identify areas of Primary excellent practice that can be shared across the city through development groups. This should include all curriculum areas as well as non-curricular activities that are of benefit to children. Many schools offer pupils 'Golden Time' or 'Choices Time' where pupils have a degree of autonomy in the selection of their activities. We should explore how this can best support both learning and the child's social and emotional development.

5. Engagement with Parents and Pupils

Parents and pupils were largely missing from the process that led to the formulation of the TLL Action Plan. They are also absent from any involvement in the currently emerging Strategy for Change. That may be understandable in the context of short DCSF deadlines, but it needs to be born in mind that at the heart of the Action Plan are concerns and proposals that impinge directly on both. In many respects parents and pupils currently operate as passive recipients of the education service offered. They are rarely consulted, often only when it is a statutory requirement.

To secure real transformation of learning in Leicester we need the increasingly active engagement of both parents and pupils in educational decision making. That means looking at new and innovative ways of bringing together the whole of the education community in the city in a positive, contributive forum where concerns can be aired, issues discussed and new priorities identified.

NUT believes that the establishment of a Leicester School Board would be a constructive way of achieving this. A School Board, which drew together politicians, parents, governors, headteachers, teachers, non-teaching staff and pupils in an active dialogue about education in the city and was open to the press and media so that all could be aware and informed, would provide a vital forum in terms of both accountability and openness. It would also offer all those within the education community a sense of ownership in decision making processes.

Since such a body could not be fully representative of all schools in the city, simply on grounds of size, it might be appropriate to have the School Board as the pinnacle of a network of Neighbourhood School Boards that matched the current configuration of development groups. This approach to engagement with communities would seem to be broadly in line with the aspirations of the 'One Leicester' project which seeks to empower communities and develop a contract between the council and local communities. It would also be an obvious contributor towards the goal of community cohesion.

Similarly, NUT would also favour an active engagement with pupils and students in all our schools on curricular issues. If the curriculum is to reflect and address the varying aspirations of pupils and students then there needs to be dialogue within schools about what that curriculum should include. Frequently curriculum change is based either upon staffing expediency or on assumptions about what is appropriate. It would be far preferable for us to know what those sitting in the classrooms would value, even if we are not able to deliver it immediately.

6. Succession Training for Successful Management

In some respects this could be seen as a sub-section of Section 4 on CPD. Indeed aspects of Heads and Principals training were addressed in that section. However, the issue of school leadership looms so large in Leicester at present that it is important that it is accorded sufficient priority in all future planning. We have a 'crisis of leadership' in Leicester. Headships are advertised but receive responses from only one or perhaps two applicants. Headteachers leave or are taken ill and there is no immediate, suitably experienced successor. This is not a tenable situation.

We need to establish a systematic structure for identifying and then training future school leaders, at all levels. This needs to be backed up by high quality training — with the costs underwritten by the Local Authority — early mentoring arrangements and the establishment of a Deputies Network and a matching Senior Leadership Network where staff can exchange experiences and learn from each other. Future leaders need to be able to draw on experiences from a range of schools, not just their own current institution. The sad fact that teachers, including managers, often comment that the best part of a CPD course was 'the chance to chat to colleagues doing the same job' is illustrative of the gap we need to fill.

The LA also needs to offer clear incentives to staff prepared to undertake such training. Being a senior manager in a school today is enormously demanding, emotionally draining and often frustrating. Whilst there are obvious financial rewards to being a Headteacher of Senior Manager we need to recognise that with the advent of the Threshold, Upper Pay Spine and TLR's these are often not quite as great as is imagined. Financial support for staff willing to take an MA in Educational Studies might be one obvious way for providing an incentive to staff with aspirations to school leadership.

Conclusion

The City Council is currently on the cusp of making decisions that will affect education for the foreseeable future. The handing over of schools to become Academies, whoever the sponsors may be, is an irreversible one. It means that the ownership of land, buildings and playing fields passes into new, private hands. No one can predict the future, but such a step lays open the possibility that some of these facilities may, over time, pass out of public use.

In 1998, at the time of the Secondary Review, government orthodoxy supported larger schools and the closing of small sixth forms. The city council acquiesced in this and closed a number of secondary schools, thereby depriving some communities of local neighbourhood education. It also closed two school sixth forms, at Beaumont Leys and at Babington. Six years later, the pendulum had shifted. Smaller schools were once again acceptable and the absence of a secondary school in Eyres Monsell was recognized as a mistake. Now, again under pressure from Lord Adonis, there is an increasing drive to give even small schools sixth form provision.

The lesson of this is that in seeking to provide quality local education Leicester should always begin from what is best for its children rather than what conforms with the current fashion in government circles. Bending to the whims of government policy is neither innovative nor is it a successful way of relieving government pressure on schools or the authority.

NUT believes that the collaborative model for school improvement developed via the TLL Action Plan offers an innovative, radical way of addressing the needs of local schools and local children. We want to see it extended and deepened. NUT is happy to support and promote such solutions as the central thrust of our Strategy for Change.

NUT regards any proposals for more Academies in Leicester as educationally unsound, divisive and inappropriate. NUT will resolutely oppose all such proposals, regardless of who the Academy sponsors may be.

Given the failure of the leaders of the council to actively promote a collaborative way forward for our schools, the current drive towards Academies and the absence of any publicly presented alternative options by the officers of the council NUT can only conclude that Leicester City council has no real commitment to the collaborative approaches that we support.

In the light of this, NUT is no longer able to support the next phase of the TLL Action Plan and will be advising its members of this forthwith. NUT will also be drawing attention to the right of members to decline to undertake any activities which go outside their contracted hours or their contracted conditions of service.

NUT September 2008