ERW Self Evaluation...ERW Self Evaluation May 2015 Introduction As part of ERW’s ongoing self...

1

ERW Self Evaluation

May 2015

Introduction

As part of ERW’s ongoing self evaluation arrangements, this short self-evaluation aims to

provide an objective and evaluative base line for on-going and further improvement in the

region’s work. It aims to focus on service delivery and leadership and on process and

arrangements as well as outcomes for learners. This document brings together: the 35

recommendations of recent external reviews; the conclusions of our on-going monitoring of

the business plan; feedback from scrutiny and issues highlighted through the risk

management process. This document also reflects progress against areas for development

and progress made since the Self Evaluation Report May 2014 presented to Joint Committee

and Executive Board (June / July 2014) and subsequent updates in November 2014 and

March 2015.

The three aspects of Estyn’s inspection framework have been used as a guide.

1. Standards

2. Service Delivery

3. Leadership

2

Précis

Standards are good when compared with other regions, with performance on all indicators improving at a sustainable and consistent pace, some quicker than the Welsh average. Overall, the region performs well with pupils in receipt of fsm more likely to perform well in ERW than in other regions. There is significant space for improvement on all indicators across most LAs, but overall performance is good because school level performance overall has improved and we have regained the highest performing regional position for the Level 2 + at 57.6 %.

Since April 2015, and the inception of the National Model for Regional working, the region

has taken quick action to is to build the necessary infrastructure, skills and capacity to

respond to the need for compliance and bring about improvement in consistency and

quality in terms of process and operational support to schools. Appointing successfully to

key posts (June) will be pivotal to the region’s success and capacity in the coming 18

months.

In general, head teachers are clearer about what they can expect from the regional service

and feedback from both core visits are positive. A small number of schools remain unclear

about the range of services they should expect from the regional service/ hub. This is usually

because the individual head teacher does not fully understand the governance or scope of

regional working.

The Challenge Adviser team is a balanced and professional team, most with recent and

relevant experience. On-going professional development and feedback on their work means

that there are continuous feedback and development opportunities which has already led to

greater consistency in the quality of their work.

Overall, the leadership given to the region’s work through its Joint Committee and Executive

Board is good and effective. Joint Committee members know well the challenges for the

region for 2015-16. There is a clear understanding of the necessary actions required to make

improvements. On rare occasions, inconsistency in understanding is due to slow or unclear

communication to elected members.

The executive board has an appropriate balance of external members and directors from

the constituent LAs. There is effective peer support and challenge between directors.

Collective leadership from all local authorities has created a strong alliance which has

enabled the region to make a collective stand on many key aspects of practice. Previously,

there was a perception that some aspects of decision making had been unclear, and aspects

of democratic accountability were not clearly understood by all. There is now an improved

transparency which is increasingly known and shared. Communication capacity within the

regional team has clearly had an impact; and effective use of the website is backed up by

regular dialogue with HT associations and through the Head teacher Board. This is building

an improving and fairer reflection of the regions work amongst our most important

3

stakeholders. Relationships with some trade unions are strained and hindering the region’s

work to support teachers and schools as effectively as possible. Nevertheless, on-going

efforts to adopt different strategies to engage trade unions are beginning to yield positive

outcomes

4

Standards

Standards are good when compared with other regions, with performance on all indicators improving at a sustainable and consistent pace. Overall, the region performs well with pupils in receipt of fsm more likely to perform will in ERW than in other regions. Overall performance is good because:

school level performance overall has improved and we have regained the highest performing regional position for the Level 2 + at 57.6 %;

attendance continues to improve, with 1.2pp increase last year in the secondary sector to 93.7% in 2013/14; the primary sector increased by 1.5pp to 94.9%.

However, overall, standards across the region are adequate because the overall

performance of some LAs remains lower than the expected and the performance of efsm

pupils is too low. This however masks areas of good and outstanding practice in a number

of schools and mediocre or poor standards elsewhere. Despite recognising that

performance on the Level 2+ in ERW is better than other regions, all LAs and most schools

have clear improvements to make before reaching a ceiling. Similarly, efsm learners are

more likely to perform well in ERW than in other regions, but we recognise that we must

significantly reduce the impact of poverty on attainment. Even where schools benchmark

well and where the overall performance of pupils is good, too often the performance of

efsm pupils is poor.

Across all local authorities within the region there is sufficient ceiling for progress on all key

indicators of pupil progress.

In comparison with other regions, ERW’s performance is good, but needs to be confidently

and consistently above LA expectations in all LAs. The region should accelerate progress

away from the average national progress in order to reflect expectations within our socio –

economic context. The performance of both Powys and Pembrokeshire on the Level2+ is not

improving at a sufficient pace.

For further detail – see November analysis of data.

In order to challenge ourselves and look at similar statistical neighbours in England,

Derbyshire, Kent and Norfolk can be used –however recent changes in 2014 can make some

of the conclusions misleading. Nevertheless this year we will continue to look at these

comparisons to support improvement and aspiration. Current analysis suggests that our

performance is similar to that of these areas in England.

See annex 3 for further information.

5

Service delivery

evidence

Since April 2015, and the inception of the National Model for Regional

working, the region has taken quick action to is to build the necessary skills

and capacity to respond to the need for improvement and bring about

improvement in consistency and quality in terms of process and

operational support to schools.

The region is embedding its work to build a self improving system and is

using sustainable systems to support the process of change. The capacity of

both the region and schools to respond to change is fragile and therefore

building effectively on previous work is key to success.

Website,

Ladder of

support,

strategies

All advisers complete an annual self analysis against the National Challenge

Adviser standards. This is reviewed and assured by their line managers.

Development opportunities are identified from this process and built into

the training programme for the year. The findings of this year (2015) are

better than last year. The team has greater confidence and feel better

placed to undertake their roles. A survey of advisers in May 2015 found

that 93% were clear about their roles and responsibilities and 100% found

working within a regional team positive or moderately positive.

T&D

programme

for advisers.

Survey.

Analysis of

self-analysis

The region has further strengthened guidance and training for advisers in

order to tackle areas identified as weak: pre inspection reports to Estyn;

written data analysis; brokering. In addition updates are provided regularly

such as changes to categorisation, legislation and expectations

Training

content

The Challenge Adviser team is a balanced and professional team, most with

recent and relevant experience. On-going professional development and

feedback on their work means that there are continuous feedback and

development opportunities. Recent feedback from Estyn, WG and schools

support that the skills and competence of advisers is improved.

Estyn report

An effective CPD programme for Challenge Advisers is helping reduce the

small number of inconsistencies in the work across the region. In addition

targeted training is showing impact already in areas of concern. This is

dovetailed with performance management for individuals.

Adviser

programme

Overall the feedback from schools about the autumn visit to categorise and Ladder of

6

broker support to schools is good or better. Similarly the second visit has

impacted positively on schools. In general, head teachers are clearer about

what they can expect from the regional service.

The twice yearly core visits to schools are pivotal to maintaining oversight

and knowledge of schools. As we develop further school to school work –

this will be maintained and will secure the maintenance of high standards

and maintain our knowledge of all schools.

support

Feedback

forms ACV

ERW’s strategy in 2013 set out the aim of developing school to school

working and creating a resilient network of schools collaborating.

A range of methodologies, interventions and projects combined to build a

body of experience across the region. This process was organic, responsive

and largely uncoordinated. However, on occasion it was organised or

brokered formally. This enabled us to formally structure a strategy and

clear model to support school to school work and formally design a

framework within which to structure the region’s work.

A self improving system is organic. Our indicative feedback from schools is

that the work is largely successful and impacts positively on morale,

capacity for leadership and systems development. The impact on learner

outcomes is very difficult to attribute, however it is possible to identify

collaboration directly as a contributing factor when schools improve.

Following this review, we will design the next stages of ERW’s system

change in light of these findings. ERW’s strategic lead for school to school

work, and a new temporary appointment to enable collaboration have

scheduled infrastructure tasks in order to maintain momentum as we

advance this way of working.

Early review

of Self

improving

system

In order to bring about a successful system change the region will need to

create the appropriate conditions for a self improving system to succeed.

Currently we are building sufficient capacity to lead, coordinate and

facilitate the necessary infrastructure. This includes embedding networks of

knowledge /index of excellence through Deialog so that an ‘introduction’ or

‘dating’ can be facilitated regionally.

Work to be developed with additional capacity will include monitoring the

impact on outcomes for learning in schools engaged formally in inter-

school, inter-department or inter-teacher collaboration; enabling organic

development of inter-school collaboration whilst structuring aspects of its

own work around the current model of eight methods and celebrating

Early review

self improving

system.

Workstreams

for Head of

Collaboration

7

success and impact whenever possible. Currently, whilst this work is

developing well – capacity and time to embed will be necessary.

The delivery of ERW’s business plan is facilitated by 16 work streams.

Curriculum support is a key work stream under teaching and learning.

The successful delivery of these work streams are through a small number

of focused working groups. There are relevant terms of reference; a clear

focus on agreed actions, and a steer given directly through the Executive

Board. Curriculum support for 14-19, Foundation Phase and to support

Welsh in education is specific and the scope of the regions work (as

opposed to the LAs work) is set out clearly and its focus again endorsed by

the Executive Board. The aim is to be clear about curriculum support and

what is a school organisation priority and stays with the LA. This makes it

easier to measure impact and for staff to manage expectations and actions.

FPh, 14-19,

Welsh in

Education –

papers to

exec

Support for core subjects at KS4 is a strength. Our GCSE support

programme is delivering high quality support to secondary schools in

English, Welsh, Mathematics and Science. Since September 2014 ERW’s

support programme included science alongside the other subjects. This

coordinated support to departments has received very positive feedback

from schools. The focus has been on building capacity and sustaining

resilient departments. This approach has been useful to focus support

where and when it is required. Our surveys of schools are positive, as are

early indications of improvement from early entry.

A successful common ladder of support and intervention has been

developed within the regional and has been refined and improve year on

year. The impact of the Ladder of Support and intervention has been

significant, bringing a common entitlement and expectation to each school.

This will be re refined again this year, as it was last year, to reflect the new

requirements of the National Categorisation system.

Core visit two is focused on teaching and learning. Building on work

scrutiny (2014) the quality of teaching and learning (2015) we have been

able to already plan the focus on identifying and sharing effective teaching

practice for 2016. The lesson observation tool has allowed us to leave

schools with a legacy. The feedback from schools was very positive and we

have sought to seek this formally immediately and build in the process of

Survey T/L

group

Visit 2

guidance

Lesson obs

tool

8

feedback digitally to the Ladder of support. The feedback on the second

visit was again positive. Overall, schools find the legacy or practices shared

from the second visit a useful addition to their schools’ improvement.

arrangements and self evaluation processes. For example, the work

scrutiny (2014) led to nearly all schools developing ongoing arrangements

to scrutinise work. This has supported ongoing assessment and provided a

relevant focus on teaching. In 2015, the focus on teaching continued, with

our work to support school leaders with their internal quality arrangements

on standards of teaching. This year we left schools with a teaching

observation tool to support ongoing monitoring of classroom teaching. This

has again been welcomed by schools as a tool to strive for excellence as

well as building basic expectations. Small variation in judgements made on

the quality of teaching were found, however positively, it was also found

that most schools could focus on a small number of activities to raise

standards of teaching.

Performance management and the quality of teaching was a regional

priority last year. The region will continue to focus on teaching this year,

building on and embedding some of the strategies available last year. The

work of the Teaching and Learning Priority Board focuses on aligning the

second visit to the region’s priorities and responding to each schools’

unique and bespoke needs. Learning from previous years’ knowledge, in

2015, all schools will discuss with their adviser from a suite of themes and

modus operand for visit 2. Last year, brokering support was a challenge for

advisers, who were unclear on occasion of the scope of delivery. The

refreshed Menu of support will ensure that regionally we make the best

use of resources and share practice systematically.

Support for Physical Literacy in the region is delegated to the University of

Wales Trinity St David’s, who run the Physical literacy programme in

conjunction with the Sports Council for Wales. ERW’s responsibility is to

maintain sustainable capacity in schools through identified PLS who will be

able to continue sharing and leading effective practice on an ongoing basis.

A common programme of support for literacy and numeracy was available

to all schools across the region last year. This provided useful and effective

training for targeted staff to improve the quality of teaching and learning

for literacy and numeracy underpinned by development of good teaching in

English, Cymraeg and mathematics.

9

Feedback from delegates was generally positive, although that was variable

across hubs. Building on the the new appointment of Quality Manager will

enable us to make sure that variable quality is eradicated.

For the next academic year the way in which support is provided to schools

has been developed further. In order to make support bespoke to schools

and to effectively target all staff in schools, the central training programme

has been reduced significantly. This will be replaced with targeted and

bespoke support to schools, brokered by Challenge Advisers and provided

as whole school development. Importantly, schools will see an increasingly

differentiated approach to support coupled with an increasing proportion

of support coming from other schools.

All literacy and numeracy officers have received training and worked

collaboratively to develop training modules to drive a more consistent

message and ensure delivery quality is consistently high. Schools will get a

more focused programme and will be able to access some packages to

deliver themselves.

Digital learning has been identified as a challenge for the region and we are

working to align and focus our work in this area. There is an urgent need to

focus our actions in this area to gain greatest yield. This work will be

focused on four areas: digital pedagogy, using technology effectively as a

tool for learners, regional strategic developments and advancing the use of

technology for school improvement. The first task for the new Head of

Digital Learning will be to take stock of our current position and plan our

short and medium term actions, especially where we can build on the work

of our professional learning schools and the best available practice.

Only a few inconsistencies remain in the way individual schools are

supported, monitored and challenged. Overall, effective practice is shared

and increasingly built upon well. Inconsistent performance management of

a small number of individuals impacts considerably on the quality of

delivery for a very few schools. as noted, additional training and quality

assurance arrangements reduce the inconsistencies further.

The quality of challenge and dialogue between advisers and schools is

significantly improved and the skills and competencies of advisers are

enhanced. Recruitment, professional learning and ongoing feedback has

contributed to this improvement. Our next challenge will be to secure high

quality reports which reflect fairly our work and that of schools without fail.

10

Nearly all Head teachers are clear about the support and challenge they

should receive. This has improved in the past 6 months due to consistent

communication and new strategies to inform them. Effective and

consistent communication and increasing involvement in planning service

delivery means that via the Headteacher Board and Head teacher

associations means that we have been able to improve engagement, and

satisfaction with services provided.

MFL regional work will begin in September with the appointment of a

Leader of Learning. It is too early to judge any impact.

Welsh in Education officers from the six local authorities work well

together to share and improve the quality of resources available to schools.

A joint WESP introduction has been drafted and all WM schools and

bilingual schools will have an additional data set in September to help with

the analysis of data against some of the WESP priorities in each LA.

Support for testing included random spot checks conducted pre, during and post the test period to effectively monitor schools’ implementation. Challenge Advisers and Subject Officers were used to check compliance with WG guidelines and to ensure no malpractice existed. Generally there were no issues in monitoring, where these arose advice was sought from WG and no follow up required. Nearly all schools were compliant with WG guidelines. Most schools effectively support pupils to ensure they are given the best opportunity to perform well. In cases where pupils would get extra time or additional support the correct practice was followed. LAs SEN teams worked well with schools to ensure pupils gained the correct level of support in these cases. Supported marking events were held across the region to support teachers in marking the Year 2 to 6 tests. These events were very effective in ensuring that the mark schemes were applied appropriately and provided high quality professional development for teachers. The mark scheme was well applied by staff who attended these events and will contribute to a more consistent approach across the region. However, not all schools attended these events. In order to improve this next year, schools will be targeted to ensure all schools are represented so we can ensure that in all cases the mark scheme is effectively employed. This next academic year, recommendations are to ensure all schools send staff to supported marking events next year.

11

Leadership

Overall, the leadership given to the region’s work through its Joint

Committee and Executive Board is good and effective Joint Committee

members know well the challenges for the region for 2015-16. There is a

clear understanding that all priorities and actions dovetail well with local

single plans and that the region’s work can respond to need.

The executive board has an appropriate balance of external members and

directors from the constituent LAs. There is effective peer support and

challenge between directors. There is no membership of Diocesan

authorities or faith sector but they meet regularly with the Managing

director to discuss and action common issues and areas of common

interest. Collective leadership from all local authorities has created a strong

alliance which has enabled the region to make a collective stand on many

key aspects of practice. Nevertheless, some aspects of decision making

have been unclear. Even with significant improvements to governance

arrangements with nearly every aspect of information available online,

there are some aspects of democratic accountability remain unclear to a

small minority. Similarly, school leaders’ roles and understanding of ERW’s

functions and impact is mixed. Numerous strategies have been put in place

to mitigate these risks. Despite some frustrations as a consequence of

these perceptions, overall the region is confident that over time, these will

build increasing trust and confidence amongst all partners and

stakeholders.

JC minutes

and papers

The region’s leadership has strengths in areas such establishing strategic

vision and setting principles for joint work. During the past year clear

improvements have been made in communicating these messages clearly

to stakeholders. However, there are areas for development in securing

effective delivery via operational staff and enabling all elected members to

be clear about the work of the region. Improving feedback from seminars

and scrutiny activities with all six councils are positive and demonstrates a

growing and improving perception and knowledge of the of the region’s

work.

Feedback

seminars

The region’s Directors and ERW’s Delivery board have built consistently on

the collaborative advantage gained from joint decision making previously.

Taking common approaches to challenges has led to improvements on

arrangements for operational tasks and decision making. Effective inter

local authority planning via the ERW business plan means that an

increasingly robust structure exists for further collaboration. This also

12

means that links to wider inclusion and ALN activities to support school

improvement can be systematically planned.

The lead leader, lead chief executive and lead director successfully steer

the region and have strengthened the partnership between the consortium

and the Welsh Government and strengthened our status as a region.

Categorisation and verification of teacher assessment has allowed ERW to

take lead roles on key national aspects of school improvement.

The regional approach to union engagement and specifically to pay and

conditions has been successful in enabling officers to work to agreed

parameters across the six LAs. Nevertheless the region has found trade

union engagement for school improvement activities a hurdle to progress.

Effective working relationships with some trade unions support ERW’s

efforts to support and enable school improvement. However, ERW's core

purpose, mission and strategy is based on striving for excellence and the

basic expectation of all schools, teachers and head teachers being 'good or

better'; therefore whilst other TUs publicly state that 'adequate is good

enough' and there should be a lowering of expectations, a compromise or

even effective communication is going to be very difficult on key issues of

principle and practice.

TU forum

minutes

The managing director and the central team have enabled, and on occasion

enforced, working arrangements so that pace and consistency is

maintained. This has meant that the region has made accelerated pace on

priority work streams such as professional learning and GCSE development,

since the launch of the national model.

There is clarity on accountability, roles and responsibilities between the

region and its constituent local authorities including scrutiny, risk

management and audit. It is critical that Scrutiny arrangements for school

improvement are managed and supported through individual local

authorities because the statutory functions for school improvement remain

located clearly in local government. The current arrangements for 2015-16

are being strengthened by building on the experiences of 2014-15.

In addition, resources and staff management remains local, and should be

accountable at each LA level. Nevertheless, effective arrangements are in

place for drawing together on-going self-evaluation into a regional self-

evaluation with clear areas for development feeding into the Business Plan.

Similarly, risk management and scrutiny is effective and as similar systems

to draw together the work of six democratic organisations together to

avoid duplication.

13

The regional Scrutiny forward work plan provides an effective framework to

ensure regional work is scrutinised whilst maintaining local and regional

democratic accountability.

The region’s scrutiny committees cooperate well. Officers and members are

building effective relationships and common systems to facilitate and lead

high quality scrutiny of ERW.

Hub level working is essential to enable a diverse region to work effectively.

Further success will mean building on this approach within a common

understanding of core value, principles and working arrangements. The

capacity t lead each hub under the steer of the Managing Director has led

to eradicating the previously varied pace at which hub working was

developing. The challenge is now more complex and is about securing high

quality consistently in the work of all advisers and a common entitlement

to every school which is also bespoke and responsive to need.

Increasingly, as regional work evolves and strengthens, the need for local

solutions is highlighted due to the huge variables culturally and in relation

to capacity. This balance is managed well overall but requires ongoing

continuous engagement of key individuals. However, there are missed

opportunities to overcome the geographical and contextual differences

especially when using technology.

High priority actions are being tackled, and on occasion reflect the

recommendations of inspectorates and regulators or internal audit.

There is a strong sense of collaboration and a joint focus on improving

outcomes. Working in partnership requires transparency, trust and positive

engagement. Overall, nearly all stakeholders are fully engaged and know

and understand well the strengths of collaboration.

Where concerns or issues remain, we have and continue to respond

proactively to better inform and support ongoing engagements. In

particular working with trade unions remain challenging.

ERW’s overall joint view of performance is evaluative and honest. There

are a range of other intelligence and knowledge available which informs the

Directors group about progress, challenges and inconsistencies. The regions

self-knowledge is informed through: working groups progress; scrutiny

feedback and findings; risk management; perception surveys; internal and

external feedback and governance arrangements. This is a comprehensive

system and process, which is evolving and strengthening.

SER 1-5

14

The region is good at responding quickly to intelligence such as the above,

performance data and feedback. Feedback from schools and other

stakeholders is received positively and quickly responded to as appropriate.

This is welcomed schools and builds confidence in the region’s ability to

respond and support schools.

Communication has been a priority. Our work on this aspect has proved to

be successful. Sharing information within the region is improving with the

use of the website, despite a few schools remaining unclear about the

regions’ work streams, focus and priorities - the availability of information

will treat his risk quickly. Rebranding and securing consistent use of ERW

brand is effective.

Consistent and clear messaging has led to improvements in the knowledge

and understanding of key stakeholders about the scope, governance and

delivery functions of ERW. Whereas previously, this was having a

detrimental impact on the regions ability to function as an alliance of six

authorities, feedback from nearly al stakeholders suggest that the position

is improved.

ERW has embedded the required action and recommendations of recent

reviews to the Business plan. This report also includes an analysis of

progress. In addition, the recommendations of internal audit are recorded

and managed through an online system.

The region has made good progress overall on this aspect of work and

embedded all effectively in Local authority and regional planning

arrangements.

ERW is organisationally established as a partnership. It is non hierarchical.

However, within constituent LAs where hubs are organised, there is

traditional hierarchy. However, within the region, responsibilities are

allocated and distributed according to strengths expertise and knowledge

across traditional boundaries.

In this current LA inspection cycle, the region has no local authorities in

follow up. Similarly for school improvement services, the region continues

to have the strongest profile. An analysis of the judgements of WAO on LA

leadership position the region with good prospects or capacity to deliver on

the next stage of regional work under the national model. This good

foundation has this year enabled the region to build its governance

structures fully and strongly.

15

Conditions for success in a partnership of this nature are reflected in key

research. These include a small central team; concise agreed joint

outcomes; open transparent governance. ERW has built a sound

infrastructure for the above conditions in recent months and should be in a

strong position to succeed. ERW has in the first year after the publication

of the National model built the conditions for an effective partnership. The

next academic year 2015-16 will be a significant test for the region and the

value and impact of the infrastructure will be tested fully.

Priority

outcome

dashboards

The region’s track record as an useful alliance to support all LAs on a

journey of improvement has led to more mature joint working this year.

Effective hub working has enabled joint SMT meetings in NPT/ Swansea to

dovetail with the Hub QA arrangements. In addition, targeted work was

undertaken in Carmarthenshire to realign key priorities and capacity.

Work to dovetail aspects of LA functions which remain outside the scope of

ERW currently is varied. Some local authorities dovetail their plans well on

these aspects and make explicit links to school improvement. In the best

cases effective arrangements to manage links to inclusion and wider upport

services are mature. Also, some aspects such as attendance have received

collaborative attention, but overall there is scope to strengthen a strategic

focus on many aspects which affect schools’ capacity to improve. A key

aspect in many authorities which is have a strong impact on improvement

are the school rationalisation programmes and support services for

learners.

Inspection

outcomes;

Financial management and arrangements for the region are supported by

Pembrokeshire county council. Pembrokeshire is the lead financial

authority and has overall responsibility for financial administration and

audit. PCC support ERW to fulfil the necessary governance arrangements to

produce an annual Governance Statement. ERW adheres to a corporate

code of governance which reflect best practice as identified by CIPFA.

Insert sentence on AGS and financial panning ect.

The arrangements for financial management and audit are well developed

and this year ERW was judged to have satisfactory levels of assurance.

AGS

Financial

guidance

reports to JC

code of

corporate

governance

Internal audit

report

ERW is working on effective arrangements to demonstrate value for money

and has developed more effective ways of evaluating impact of work on

schools. this work is not yet mature enough to make judgment on it impact

SEE

ADDITIONAL

INFO VFM

16

or success. Based on last year’s financial data and outcomes ERW provides

value for money.

PAPER

Key areas for development

in school variation;

Single data system;

Regular effective communication with stakeholders, specifically trade unions

Robust quality assurance arrangements

Judging and presenting value for money

17

Annex 1

Self evaluation arrangements

Item Rationale

April

May Self evaluation report

(annual)

To aid improvement

planning for academic year

June Quarterly report on progress

against BP actions

To support progress and

monitor actions, escalate

issues

July

August

September Update and analysis of

performance against

outcomes

Quarterly report on progress

against BP actions



issues

October

November

December Quarterly report on progress

against BP actions



issues

January

February

March Quarterly report on progress

against BP actions



issues

18

Annex 2: All recomendations (41)

Final update – to Executive Board June 2015 (all recommendations are embedded within the Business Plan 2015 – 2018 / the Self Evaluation arrangements)

For next iteration of report scheduled for May 2016 an additional column judging progress against these recomendations will be included.

Action complete 100%

Have done everything planned so far, but action carries on i.e. rolling programme 100%

Haven't quite completed everything 75%-100%

Action off target <75%

Action not due to commence yet

Estyn: Recommendations (14) Recommendation Comment

1.a Improve performance management arrangements by:

planning for the medium term to ensure a strategic approach to school improvement

Business Plan 2015 – 2018 and framework for operational planning in place. This builds on regional best practice, internal audit feedback and WAO best practice report on governance (2015). Ongoing arrangements to monitor and refresh planning in line with financial year 2016-17.

Ongoing and on schedule. In BP

1.b ensuring that plans contain actions that are specific and measurable, with appropriate targets, costings and milestones for delivery

ERW BP informed by SPs, and sets strategic direction for local delivery plans according to local need. Arrangements for outcome focused EIG useful and Business Plan. Priority outcome dashboards highlight the key outcomes, setting clear aspirations. Clear arrangements to dovetail LA and regional planning.


1.c capturing, sharing and using data (from pupil level up) efficiently and effectively

New system to capture the support, challenge and intervention work in place. However, the lack of a common pupil tracking system could hinder our ability to respond to recommendation. Directors discussion planned June 2015

In BP

1.d monitoring the progress of pupils and schools Data dashboards in business plan provide strategic oversight of outcomes and all Ongoing

19

regularly

schools are monitored, both for support needs, Estyn situation, outcomes, intervention and if causing concern

and on schedule. In BP

1.e taking a more robust approach to identifying and managing risks

Clear arrangement in place to support the BP 2015-18. Cross LA escalation arrangements led/ coordinated by NPT CBC. Three tier approach reported to Exec and JC as standing agenda items. Work required to get to necessary standard.


1.f realistically self-evaluating their strengths and shortcomings

ERW self evaluation arrangements as part of annual cycle on second iteration. Supported by 4 stages taken during year. Annual report provided in May with updates provided for Challenge and Review Process and performance updates provided in September

Ongoing and on schedule.

1.g tightly managing the individual performance of their staff

ERW performance management arrangements governed by internal policy of each LA. Supporting documentation ect. All linked to BP priorities. MD line managed by Lead Director. Clear line of sight between regional priorities and local employment. Risk of in adequate performance management in LA managed with clear expectations set out for all staff regionally. Regional risk where local arrangements not robust.

LA action required.

2. Secure greater consistency in the quality of challenge advisers’ evaluations of schools, particularly in relation to teaching and leadership

Robust QA arrangements in place at Hub level with clear step by step approach for all advisers for core / key tasks. Additional targeted training in place. Annual Self Evaluation by advisers guiding programme of CPD. Clear guidance and support in place. Targeted training in particular for higher risk inspections and advisers.

Ongoing with continuous work required with flexible workforce

3 Develop clearer strategies to address the impact of deprivation upon education outcomes and ensure all actions are coherent in this purpose

Collating and sharing best practice. Highlighting priority in core work and identifying leading schools through PLS. Specific training on use of PDG and guidance o use of resources for schools and LAs.


4.a Develop clearer strategies for maximising the potential of school-to-school support

Strategy in place. Capacity build centrally to enable and enforce work plan and support the work around Dialog and PLS

Ongoing and on

20

schedule. In BP

4.b Provide better support, either directly or through brokerage, for teaching and learning in non-core subject areas

Support for non-core subjects facilitated largely through school to school work, such as that of MFL and Welsh second language or through cross curricular work such as on digital learning


5. Involve diocesan authorities effectively in the strategic planning and evaluation of regional services

Discussion on data and performance with Managing Director termly in built to work programme.

6. Local authorities should: R7 Support their regional consortium to develop medium-term business plans and ensure that all plans take account of the needs of their local schools

Effective dovetailing of local plans with regional arrangements to make sure all schools receive required support from within the LA’s own core services and from regional arrangements . These need to be built into each LAs plans/ recommendation monitoring arrangements


8. Develop formal working arrangements between scrutiny committees in their consortium in order to scrutinise the work and impact of their regional consortium

Clear arrangements in place at time of review. These are now further embedded and improved to take account of region wide considerations. These need to be built into each LAs plans/ recommendation monitoring arrangements


WAO: Recommendation (10)

1. Regional consortia should develop improved arrangements for sharing practice and supporting efficiency (for example, one consortium could take the lead on tackling an issue or have functional responsibility for the development of a policy).

WG are reviewing this idea for consideration , a joint SLT will be scheduled for the autumn. Similarly the regions are working on joint tasks such as

21

2. Local authorities should collaborate to support the professional development of senior leaders and to ensure appropriate performance management arrangements are in place for senior leaders

The coordination of leadership development for school leaders is part of a regional programme *opportunity to run “LA” senior leader development however this is not a current priority. Discuss at Directors Group

3.a Local authorities and their regional consortia should:

improve their use of self-evaluation of their performance and governance arrangements and use this to support business planning and their annual reviews of governance to inform their annual governance statements;

See above Estyn recommendations. All arrangements for AGS and BP arrangements in place in line with expectations as outlines in Code of Corporate Governance. In addition, self evaluation arrangements effective and strengthening over time as cycle matures.


3.b improve performance management including better business planning, use of clear and measurable performance measures, and the assessment of value for money;

We have improved business planning and built on the monitoring processes of 2014 – 2015. Assessing value for money is a challenge and we are continuing to work at more effective ways of demonstrating this whilst collating the right information. Initial work on value for money underway. This aspect of vfm requires further work.

Further work needed

3.c make strategic risk management an integral part of their management arrangements and report regularly at joint committee or board level;

See above Estyn recommendation. Clear arrangement in place to support the BP 2015-18. Cross LA escalation arrangements led/ coordinated by NPT CBC. Three tier approach reported to Exec and JC as standing agenda items. Work required to get to necessary standard.

Further work needed

3.d develop their financial management arrangements to ensure that budgeting,

All appropriate arrangements in place, including further guidance for LAs and schools on grants, external audit and internal audit.

Ongoing in need of

22

financial monitoring and reporting cover all relevant income and expenditure, including grants funding spent through local authorities;

embedding – no additional / new work required

3.e develop joint scrutiny arrangements of the overall consortia as well as scrutiny of performance by individual authorities, which may involve establishment of a joint scrutiny committee or coordinated work by local authority scrutiny committees;

Clear FWP in lace taking on board all recommendations. Strong cross LA teams. Ongoing in need of embedding – no additional / new work required

3.f ensure the openness and transparency of consortia decision making and arrangements;

All arrangements set in place for providing all relevant minutes online and for ensuring all stakeholders are fully engaged.

3.g recognise and address any potential conflicts of interest; and where staff have more than one employer, regional consortia should ensure lines of accountability are clear and all staff are aware of the roles undertaken; and

Register of business interests set up for key staff/ elected members. Ongoing in need of embedding – no additional / new work required

23

3.h develop robust communications strategies for engagement with all key stakeholders.

Communication and marketing plan successfully working with clear arrangements for sharing communication. July will see launch of newsletter in new format.

Ongoing in need of embedding – no additional / new work required

Robert Hill : Recomendations (11)

Recommendation Comment

1. Develop a high level data dashboard for Elected Members

As part of the 2015 – 2016 Business Plan, this is in place in a refreshed way. As part of quarterly reports 2014 – 2015. This is already in place

2. Increase the degree of external representation on the Executive Board

We have increased external representation. ERW Executive has three external representatives, two Headteacher Board representatives, Welsh Government and Estyn observers

3. Develop some cross-hub and cross-authority inquiries as part of the scrutiny process

There is a comprehensive forward work programme in place across the region. A network for sharing practice and knowledge is in place. All enquiries and findings of task and finish groups are shared. All arrangements signed off by JC.

4. Promote the use of tools and reports from various organisations to reduce the impact of poverty on educational attainment

Already in operation. Developing improved bespoke tools not appropriate to promote private organisations. Sharing the most effective practice between schools as part of professional learning Schools network

5. Continue to develop and expand coaching programmes for teachers and middle leaders

In place and underway. The comprehensive programme of leadership development is now further embedded and includes some aspects in partnership with Higher Education

6. Use the link and the evaluation programme ERW has established with the University of Wales

The programme is strengthening as the partnership develops. Key leadership programmes as well as OTP/ ITP included.

24

Trinity St Davids

7. Maximise the expertise and resources of ERWs strongest schools to create local networks of teaching excellence

In place at time of review. Is now more formally embedded through PLS and Dialog. This is not only focused on teaching but on leadership and interventions.

8. Build on the existing training ERW is providing for the Leaders of Learning

In place at time of review. Leaders of Learning are facilitating training for others.

9. Move ahead with the plans to use the Leaders of Learning as the basis for creating a wider pool of expert practitioners

In place at time of review. Is now further embedded. This model is not new to ERW and has been used to facilitate work between schools for some time, mainly in literacy and numeracy and teacher assessment.

10. Ensure that headteachers are kept up to speed with the work and understand what is expected of them as the accountable leaders of the school

Communication strategy and increased capacity in place. New website and additional communication capacity available in central team

11. Agree with CfBT how their respective roles can dovetail to provide the maximum support to schools

In place at the time of review. Not applicable now

Monitoring points from Spring 2015 review and challenge (6)

Ref Action Who Comment RAG

Rating

ERW (03/15)13 The consortium should continue to ensure the consistency of

Challenge Adviser effectiveness with a focus on improving and

increasing awareness of deprivation and FSM learner outcomes in

particular.

ERW Challenge Adviser Programme of training each academic year

Recruitment arrangements more stringent and consistent

Transient recent and relevant workforce

Code of conduct

Training to advisers from schools on effective use of PDG

Challenge Adviser Handbook refined annually

Green

ERW (03/15)14 The consortium should continue to monitor and review the impact

and effectiveness of its school to school support programmes,

ensuring that provision is strengthened and presents best Value for

ERW Early review finalised March 2015 and shared with Estyn as

part of their review

Findings fed into self evaluation and Business Plan 2015 –

25

Money. 2018

Value for money arrangement for all ERW work includes developing a self improving system. Draft paper for discussion by Directors (June) and Joint Committee in September

Green

ERW (03/15)15 The consortium should continue to monitor its performance data

for all key stages of learning (including FSM) and review early

outcome indicators along side forecast outcome targets.

ERW As part of core visit programme, effective data analysis and

challenge is included

Regional data sets specific the outcomes at all levels of accountability

Amber

ERW (03/15)16 The consortium should continue to drive a consistent and

embedded approach to book scrutiny and moderation processes

across the region. Feeding back to Welsh Government accordingly.

ERW Highly effective work on teaching is undertaken annually and

this includes book scrutiny

The successful legacy of work undertaken regionally has left

useful arrangements for schools to cascade and duplicate

Similarly, Lesson Observation Tool has enabled same legacy and useful analysis

Green

ERW (03/15)17 Welsh Government and the consortium should ensure an ongoing

dialogue in relation to sharing intelligence on key stage four early

data outcomes. For example where there is a mismatch between

early entry results for Maths and English learners.

WG &

ERW

Minister briefed and informed of situation

External Delivery Board minutes reflect the questions

This note does not fully reflect the issue

ERW (03/15)18 Welsh Government and the consortium to engage in a national

discussion around the development and implementation of a

national system to support digital technology and learner tracking.

WG &

ERW

ERW built capacity in this area in order to lead and sustain good practice

27

Annex 3

Key Stage 4 Performance 2013/14

L2+ comparisons against regression line, and FSM pupils’

performance

Publication date:

22/05/2015

28

Powys Individual schools’ L2+ performance: 2010/11 - 2013/14

Comparison of L2+ performance against the regression line, and FSM pupils’ performance: 2013/14

67.3 67.4 69.0 67.3

54.859.9

52.658.8

53.856.8

70.3 72.1

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Caereinion Llanfyllin Llanidloes Bro Hyddgen Newtown Welshpool Llandrindod Builth Wells Maesydd Brecon Gwernyfed Crickhowell

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

29

Individual schools’ L2+ performance shown against their FSM%. Blue points show the schools’ whole cohorts’ performances, and red points show FSM cohorts’ performance of same school directly underneath.

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0

30

Ceredigion Individual schools’ L2+ performance: 2010/11 - 2013/14


54.3 54.0

72.568.0

57.4 56.3

68.6

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Aberaeron Aberteifi Tregaron Penglais Penweddig Dyffryn Teifi Bro Pedr

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

31


0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0

32

Pembrokeshire Individual schools’ L2+ performance: 2010/11 - 2013/14


60.3 63.2

51.7

38.0

50.2

71.0

53.646.7

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Sir Thomas Picton Dewi Sant Greenhill Milford Haven Pembroke Preseli Tasker Milward Bro Gwaun

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

33


0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0

34

Carmarthenshire Individual schools’ L2+ performance: 2010/11 - 2013/14


70.7 71.7

57.8

44.849.2

56.660.0

51.8

62.2 60.6 59.4

72.3

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Bro Dinefwr Bro Myrddin Bryngwyn Coedcae Dyffryn Aman Dyffryn Taf Emlyn Glan y Mor Maes Y

Gwendraeth

Queen

Elizabeth

St John Lloyd Strade

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

35


0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0

36

Swansea Individual schools’ L2+ performance: 2010/11 - 2013/14


44.6

60.6 58.3

83.1

60.4

44.2

35.1

64.4

79.8

50.8

74.6

44.3

51.8

74.5

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Birchgrove Bishop Gore Bishop

Vaughan

Bishopston Bryn Tawe Cefn

Hengoed

Dylan

Thomas

Gowerton Gwyr Morriston Olchfa Pentrehafod Penyrheol Pontarddulais

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

37


0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0

38

Neath Port Talbot Individual schools’ L2+ performance: 2010/11 - 2013/14


31.1

55.2

33.3

51.2

69.4

52.5

66.4

53.2

68.7

47.2

66.4

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Cymer Afan Glanafan Sandfields Dyffryn Ystalyfera Cefn Saeson Cwmtawe Llangatwg Dwr-y-Felin Cwrt Sart St Joseph's

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

39


0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0

40

Foundation Phase Performance 2013/14

LA comparisons within ERW and across Consortia

Publication date:

21/05/2015

41

If a figure is coloured green, that LA was the highest performer in that subject in that year. If a figure is coloured red, that LA was the lowest performer in that subject in that year.

Powys '11/12 '12/13 '13/14

FPI 79.3 84.7 89.6

LCW 80.8 82.2 91.6

LCE 84.4 88.2 91.0

MDT 85.9 88.7 91.3

PSD 90.2 93.8 96.2

Pembrokeshire '11/12 '12/13 '13/14

FPI 79.8 84.5 88.7

LCW 82.7 85.5 91.8

LCE 83.8 87.0 89.4

MDT 88.0 88.4 91.6

PSD 88.7 94.0 95.7

Swansea '11/12 '12/13 '13/14

FPI 77.6 80.1 83.9

LCW 85.8 89.4 89.0

LCE 81.3 81.6 85.5

MDT 84.8 85.7 87.1

PSD 89.8 93.2 94.1

Ceredigion '11/12 '12/13 '13/14

FPI 81.4 85.9 87.9

LCW 86.1 88.1 90.6

LCE 80.0 85.0 88.1

MDT 89.0 90.7 90.5

PSD 91.0 96.0 95.9

Carmarthenshire '11/12 '12/13 '13/14

FPI 82.0 81.6 84.1

LCW 85.4 86.2 89.2

LCE 83.8 81.0 81.1

MDT 86.8 85.9 88.1

PSD 92.7 93.0 94.0

NPT '11/12 '12/13 '13/14

FPI 77.2 81.7 84.2

LCW 85.2 87.4 91.8

LCE 81.0 84.1 84.2

MDT 84.5 85.4 87.6

PSD 89.7 93.3 94.3

ERW '11/12 '12/13 '13/14

FPI 79.3 82.4 85.7

LCW 84.8 86.6 90.2

LCE 82.4 84.0 86.2

MDT 86.1 86.9 88.9

PSD 90.4 93.6 94.7

Wales '11/12 '12/13 '13/14

FPI 80.5 83.0 85.2

LCW 85.9 86.7 89.8

LCE 83.4 85.2 86.6

MDT 86.6 87.4 88.7

PSD 90.8 93.0 94.2

42

GWE '11/12 '12/13 '13/14

FPI 81.7 83.5 84.5

LCW 86.6 86.3 88.4

LCE 84.1 86.3 86.5

MDT 87.8 88.2 88.9

PSD 92.0 94.1 94.5

CSC '11/12 '12/13 '13/14

FPI 79.3 81.9 84.1

LCW 86.8 87.1 91.4

LCE 82.3 84.5 85.7

MDT 85.4 86.3 87.8

PSD 90.0 91.7 93.6

EAS '11/12 '12/13 '13/14

FPI 84.1 86.2 88.2

LCW 86.3 88.4 90.8

LCE 87.3 88.5 90.3

MDT 89.3 89.8 90.9

PSD 92.5 94.1 95.2

43



Publication date:

21/05/2015

44

If a figure is coloured green, that LA was the highest performer in that subject in that year. If a figure is coloured red, that LA was the lowest performer in that

subject in that year.

Powys '11/12 '12/13 '13/14

CSI 84.8 86.4 88.3

Welsh 87.9 84.3 92.9

English 87.5 88.5 90.3

Mathematics 88.3 89.1 90.3

Science 90.6 90.8 92.1

Pembrokeshire '11/12 '12/13 '13/14

CSI 82.7 82.8 88.7

Welsh 84.3 86.7 87.6

English 86.6 86.5 90.7


Science 90.3 90.7 93.2

Swansea '11/12 '12/13 '13/14

CSI 83.6 84.3 87.3

Welsh 90.6 91.2 89.5

English 86.2 87.4 88.8


Science 88.7 88.7 90.8

Ceredigion '11/12 '12/13 '13/14

CSI 86.4 87.3 89.1

Welsh 84.8 83.4 88.8

English 88.2 90.4 91.2


Science 91.5 91.7 93.6


CSI 83.9 85.4 87.4

Welsh 83.2 84.5 84.4

English 85.7 87.2 90.0


Science 89.9 90.7 91.1

NPT '11/12 '12/13 '13/14

CSI 80.7 82.0 84.1

Welsh 87.3 91.0 87.7

English 83.7 85.5 86.3


Science 87.4 87.8 87.6

ERW '11/12 '12/13 '13/14

CSI 83.4 84.5 87.3

Welsh 85.2 85.8 87.3

English 86.1 87.3 89.3


Science 89.5 89.8 91.1

Wales '11/12 '12/13 '13/14

CSI 82.6 84.3 86.1

Welsh 84.0 86.7 88.1

English 85.2 87.1 88.4


Science 88.5 89.7 90.3

45

GWE '11/12 '12/13 '13/14

CSI 83.6 85.5 85.7

Welsh 82.4 86.3 87.2

English 85.8 88.2 88.5


Science 89.8 91.0 89.9

CSC '11/12 '12/13 '13/14

CSI 80.9 83.3 85.8

Welsh 84.7 88.0 90.6

English 84.0 86.4 88.0


Science 86.5 88.5 89.8

EAS '11/12 '12/13 '13/14

CSI 84.1 85.7 87.0

Welsh 86.7 90.8 90.0

English 86.4 88.2 89.3


Science 90.1 91.1 91.9

46



Publication date:

21/05/2015

47

If a figure is coloured green, that LA was the highest performer in that subject in that year. If a figure is coloured red, that LA was the lowest performer in that subject in that year.

Powys '11/12 '12/13 '13/14

CSI 76.8 83.0 86.5

Welsh 87.8 90.2 94.2

English 82.9 87.3 90.3


Science 86.4 90.5 94.4

Pembrokeshire '11/12 '12/13 '13/14

CSI 76.9 80.0 81.1

Welsh 87.0 90.2 95.3

English 83.3 85.1 85.8


Science 85.6 89.2 91.2

Swansea '11/12 '12/13 '13/14

CSI 73.3 76.4 80.6

Welsh 88.6 87.6 89.9

English 80.2 82.3 85.1


Science 83.1 85.9 89.8

Ceredigion '11/12 '12/13 '13/14

CSI 81.7 83.8 89.0

Welsh 88.1 89.4 89.8

English 85.9 89.1 90.5


Science 89.4 91.7 93.5


CSI 74.3 77.1 84.5

Welsh 83.2 83.6 88.7

English 81.6 83.1 88.5


Science 84.6 86.2 91.1

NPT '11/12 '12/13 '13/14

CSI 68.8 73.1 73.1

Welsh 80.3 85.5 86.0

English 75.6 79.1 80.6


Science 79.2 82.8 84.3

ERW '11/12 '12/13 '13/14

CSI 74.4 78.1 81.7

Welsh 85.5 86.8 90.0

English 81.0 83.6 86.3


Science 84.1 87.1 90.3

Wales '11/12 '12/13 '13/14

CSI 72.5 77.0 81.0

Welsh 84.2 87.6 90.1

English 79.3 82.9 85.9


Science 83.6 87.0 90.4

48

GWE '11/12 '12/13 '13/14

CSI 75.6 78.6 83.8

Welsh 84.3 88.6 89.9

English 81.9 84.4 88.3


Science 86.1 88.7 92.1

CSC '11/12 '12/13 '13/14

CSI 70.2 76.1 80.3

Welsh 81.9 87.2 91.1

English 77.4 82.1 85.2


Science 81.9 86.1 90.0

EAS '11/12 '12/13 '13/14

CSI 70.8 75.7 79.0

Welsh 83.8 86.5 88.7

English 77.9 81.7 84.6


Science 83.4 86.7 89.7

49



Publication date:

21/05/2015

50

If a figure is coloured green, that LA was the highest performer in that subject in that year. If a figure is coloured red, that LA was the lowest performer in that

subject in that year.

Powys '11/12 '12/13 '13/14

L2+ 61.5 58.1 59.6

L2 78.5 82.6 86.5

L1 95.1 94.9 96.4

CSI 58.2 53.2 56.2

CapPoints 342.0 346.0 351.6

Pembrokeshire '11/12 '12/13 '13/14

L2+ 56.1 51.9 53.3

L2 75.8 78.1 83.1

L1 92.3 93.5 94.9

CSI 53.2 49.3 49.8

CapPoints 328.3 336.0 344.5

Swansea '11/12 '12/13 '13/14

L2+ 54.6 55.3 59.2

L2 74.6 79.3 85.4

L1 92.8 93.8 95.5

CSI 52.5 52.9 56.1

CapPoints 328.8 338.8 349.7

Ceredigion '11/12 '12/13 '13/14

L2+ 52.1 62.0 61.4

L2 77.6 83.4 88.1

L1 94.5 95.4 97.1

CSI 52.0 59.4 59.8

CapPoints 338.8 351.5 360.3


L2+ 51.1 53.9 58.7

L2 69.5 78.0 84.7

L1 92.7 94.8 95.7

CSI 48.7 50.6 56.1

CapPoints 326.7 342.1 352.3

NPT '11/12 '12/13 '13/14

L2+ 54.1 56.0 55.8

L2 82.3 87.0 89.4

L1 95.5 95.9 96.6

CSI 50.8 52.6 53.7

CapPoints 339.0 350.3 351.4

ERW '11/12 '12/13 '13/14

L2+ 54.8 55.6 58.0

L2 75.8 80.9 86.0

L1 93.6 94.6 95.9

CSI 52.3 52.4 55.2

CapPoints 332.7 343.0 350.9

WALES '11/12 '12/13 '13/14

L2+ 51.1 52.7 55.4

L2 72.6 77.8 82.3

L1 91.8 93.2 94.0

CSI 48.9 49.2 52.6

CapPoints 323.7 333.2 340.8

51

GWE '11/12 '12/13 '13/14

L2+ 53.2 56.0 57.1

L2 75.9 81.1 83.9

L1 93.6 94.6 95.1

CSI 51.2 52.9 54.8

CapPoints 332.8 341.6 346.9

CSC '11/12 '12/13 '13/14

L2+ 47.8 49.4 54.1

L2 69.9 75.8 81.1

L1 91.0 92.8 93.5

CSI 46.7 46.8 52.2

CapPoints 315.6 326.2 336.5

EAS '11/12 '12/13 '13/14

L2+ 46.4 49.0 52.2

L2 68.7 73.4 79.6

L1 90.5 92.1 93.7

CSI 44.9 45.8 50.0

CapPoints 314.7 323.1 333.7

52

Annex 4

Statistical comparisons beyond Wales

ERW Schools Pupils 5-15 %FSM %EAL

Primary 450 75k 18 4

Secondary 60 53k 16 2

Derbyshire Schools Pupils 5-15 %FSM %EAL



Kent Schools Pupils 5-15 %FSM %EAL

Primary 450 113k 15 10


Norfolk Schools Pupils 5-15 %FSM %EAL



53

Lancashire Schools Pupils 5-15 %FSM %EAL

Primary 480 92k 17 12


Dyma ddata L2+ Derbyshire:

Wrth gwrs, ma’r newidiadau yn 2014 yn neud hi’n amhosib really i gymharu!

Hefyd:

Eto, y dip yn 2014 yn gamarweiniol.

ERW Self Evaluation...ERW Self Evaluation May 2015 Introduction As part of ERW’s ongoing self...

Documents

Transcript of ERW Self Evaluation...ERW Self Evaluation May 2015 Introduction As part of ERW’s ongoing self...