January 2000

OFFICE OF HER MAJESTY'S CHIEF INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS

in conjunction with the

AUDIT COMMISSION OFFICE FOR STANDARDS IN EDUCATION

Continued

Council Structure

24. Oxfordshire County Council has been a hung Council since 1985 with no party being in overall control. The political makeup at the start of the inspection was Conservative (27), Labour (19), Liberal Democrat (20) and Green (2). The Education Committee comprises 23 Councillors and 11 co-opted members, and there are five sub-committees including the Education Management Sub-Committee and the Schools Performance and Quality Sub-Committee. The Council has begun to consider alternative structures but there is no overall agreement on the way forward and progress has been slow. It is clear that the lack of consensus on some important issues in the Education Committee has, until very recently, impeded the development of a coherent medium or long-term strategy and caused damaging delays in areas such as the review of the three tier system in the City of Oxford.

The Education Development Plan (EDP)

25. The EDP sets out a suitable strategy for school improvement and has been approved by the Secretary of State for three years subject to the general conditions which apply to many LEAs. In the main the priorities are appropriate, reflecting the national agenda, but also drawing upon a reasonably detailed and objective local audit and providing suitable links with local priorities.

26. One of the main strengths of the plan lies in the detail of its implementation and evaluation. The priorities have been used well as a starting point for consideration about the extent to which the departmental structure is the most effective to ensure their delivery. The translation of the plan into action is through the generally high quality individual Service Plans that are cross referenced to the EDP priorities and are to be evaluated against the achievement of those priorities. This provides an effective mechanism to ensure that school improvement remains at the heart of the LEAs work and that decisions about the structures and services needed are informed by this goal.

27. The overall attainment targets set in the EDP are within the range agreed by the Department for Education and Employment but it is clear from school visits that the individual school targets used to inform this process were not established with sufficient rigour. None of the individual school targets are identified by the LEA as insufficiently challenging, although it is clear from HMI visits and recent test results that for many schools the targets were too low.

28. A report on interim progress on the implementation of the EDP was presented to Members in September 1999 as part of a formal process of evaluation. It gives reasonable detail of progress against each of the priorities, but it does not give a sufficiently clear picture of the extent to which the various targets are achievable or could reasonably be exceeded. For example, it does not indicate to Members that the target of removing all schools from special measures and serious weaknesses is unattainable in the time scale suggested.

The Allocation of Resources to Priorities and Best Value

29. The LEA has robust internal processes to target its limited resources on priorities, and a corporate performance management process which links service plans to individual job plans and to the Beacon management programme. Its structures for Best Value appear to be developing well and it aims to review all education services in four years starting with special educational needs (SEN). In this it builds on a commitment and experience of offering low cost and high quality services, compared and analysed as part of the South West Education Benchmarking Group, and reviewed with stakeholder involvement.

Recommendations

In order to ensure that the education service funding is aligned with the LEAs priorities:

implement the planned move toward funding to at least SSA to facilitate the necessary improvements to the formula, an improved level of spend on school property maintenance, and increased financial and ICT central support to schools.

SECTION 2: SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT

Implications of other functions

30. In the main this is an LEA which, with relatively low centrally retained funds, provides well focused and effective support to schools through services such as behaviour support services, the Education Social Worker Service, the Educational Psychology Service and the Governors Support Service. The impact of these services is described in detail in later sections of this report but they are, in general, assisting schools with improving standards. They have a clear mandate in terms of school improvement and raising attainment, and they are increasingly successful in evaluating their impact against their own targets and the priorities identified in the EDP. The services work well individually and, increasingly, collaboratively; guided by the same strategic aims.

Monitoring, challenge, support, intervention

31. In the main these functions are delivered through the Advisory and Inspection Service, although there are appropriate contributions from other branches such as the link officers in the Schools Branch and SEN support services from Services to Pupils Branch. The functions of monitoring, challenge, support and intervention, and the respective responsibilities of the schools and LEA in the discharge of these functions, are described clearly in recent guidance to schools. The guidance was established through appropriate consultation with all parties but there is still too much uncertainty in schools about its implementation. The mechanisms for monitoring and supporting schools are already largely effective. Challenge and intervention strategies are improving but remain unsatisfactory overall, particularly given the high level of under-performance in many schools. Strategic planning for the Advisory and Inspection Service (AIS) relates well to the priorities in the EDP, but does not sufficiently reflect variations in the level of need of the schools.

32. A reorganisation of AIS Branch in 1997 shifted the focus of its work, appropriately, toward supporting school self evaluation and raising pupil attainment. The very high level of buy-back into this service is based on positive perceptions of its quality, rather than any historic allegiance and it has enabled AIS to continue to provide specialist advice and support in all subject areas. All of the schools visited as part of the inspection felt that curriculum support and advice had made a positive impact on standards and quality and there was clear evidence to support this, particularly in the areas of literacy, numeracy and early years work. However, it was clear that there is too much variation in the quality of subject specific support, particularly in mathematics at secondary level.

33. The LEA has established a link adviser arrangement whereby all schools are routinely allocated three days per year for visits by an adviser who is associated with the school. The link advisers cover a range of schools but are not necessarily phase specialists for all their schools.

34. One of the main roles of the link adviser, as set out in the guidance to schools, is that of annually validating the school self review; a process which includes the headteacher, chair of governors, the link adviser and a link officer for 10 the school. In its new form, which is a development of that used last year, the process is a potentially thorough one with a clearly defined structure and involving scrutiny of an appropriate range of evidence about the progress of the school. It results in an agreed written evaluation, which includes a judgement about the effectiveness of management in the school. Taken alongside the range of quantitative data available to the LEA this constitutes a useful mechanism for monitoring schools. However, the rigour of the evaluation is too variable at present and some headteachers remain sceptical about the lack of recent and relevant school management experience of some link advisers.

35. Importantly, not all schools need this degree of monitoring by the LEA. Given the relatively pressing needs of some schools in Oxfordshire it is not an effective use of resources to devote three days to every school for this function.

36. Challenge is increasingly high on the LEAs agenda and there is evidence of cases where schools, including those that are already achieving relatively well against national averages, have successfully been challenged to improve. Some schools have been encouraged to review their aspirations upward in terms of pupil attainment as a result of meetings with the link adviser but there are too many who have not. The LEA uses under-performance as one of the criteria for identifying schools that are a cause for concern. However, the LEA has not made it sufficiently explicit to all schools that this alone could lead to some form of intervention where performance is considerably lower than that for similar schools.

37. The performance management of the AIS is insufficiently well defined in terms of raising attainment. The functions of the service are outlined satisfactorily in the service plan but its contribution to school effectiveness lacks sufficient quantifiable detail to allow any rigorous evaluation of its impact.

Collection and Analysis of Data

38. After a slow start the support now provided in relation to the collection and analysis of data is effective. Before 1997, apart from gathering and analysing data at the GCSE end of the schools spectrum, the LEA had done little to collect and analyse data centrally, or to induce schools to use their own data as a basis for raising performance. The relative performance of schools in similar contexts was not shared publicly and schools were not knowledgeable about how their own performance compared with that of others. There has been a significant change for the better. Data gathering activities and analyses have been considerably expanded to provide more comprehensive cover of the school system, although the absence of any standardised test data relating to pupils attainment at the actual point of transfer from middle to upper schools is a significant weakness.

39. The LEA now provides each school with good profiles of performance and management data. The efficient centrally managed system has developed good links with schools to collect and analyse diverse sets of very useful data. As well as providing schools with a very good range of analytical information about their own performances, the detailed information about the performance and context of other schools is a useful yardstick by which schools can compare their performance. In most of the 19 Primary and Secondary schools visited, headteachers are 11 increasingly using the data well for internal management purposes, for review and for target-setting. LEA officers and advisers use the data as a factor in identifying schools in need of extra support. In a relatively short space of time, the LEA has been successful in raising schools awareness of the significance of using data as a means of raising expectations of what can and should be achieved.

40. The LEA provides training courses and guidance on the analysis and use of data. These are highly regarded by schools. Target-setting training, with the LEA promoting a combination of a top-down approach encompassing national and LEA ambitions together with a pupil-based approach, informed schools about requirements. Nevertheless, the first round of target setting resulted in schools relying on prediction and setting relatively modest targets, which many schools have greatly exceeded. Advisers were not effective enough in encouraging schools to set higher, realisable targets. The LEA is aware of this and, through link advisers, has already informed some schools of the need to raise targets.

Support for Literacy

41. The support for raising standards in literacy is generally good but the early targets were not sufficiently challenging. The support is well planned, effectively managed and suitably linked to other LEA services. It contributes successfully to better teaching and to the improvement of standards; which are rising. The LEA is increasingly providing more challenge after a tentative start.

42. In the 1999 national KS2 English tests, at level 4 Oxfordshires pupils attainment overall was 4% above the national average of 70%. The tests show that standards have risen by 8%, which is 3% above the national increase. Achievement for 1999 is almost equal to the LEAs target of 74.5% for the year 2000 and is now 11% below the LEAs target of 85% for 2002. The LEA is rightly concerned that the overall averages conceal significant differences in the attainment of individual schools. For example, in five of the LEAs 10 Middle Schools attainment is unsatisfactory with the percentage of pupils gaining level 4 or above ranging from 32% to 56%; whilst in four other Middle Schools 74% or more of pupils attained level 4 or above.

43. Oxfordshires training for the National Literacy Strategy (NLS) was very successful despite the initial reservations of some headteachers and governors about the need to implement the strategy. Most but not all of this reluctance has dissipated. The literacy hour is well established and well managed in the majority of schools visited and the majority of schools are successfully implementing the strategy.

44. The LEA is taking strong action to support low achieving schools. The intensive support provided is of very good quality and progress has often been good. The schools involved report that they derive great benefit from the work of the consultants, which includes very good help with planning, well-focused extra training, helpful demonstration lessons and observation of teaching with constructive feed back.

45. Most schools receive appropriate light touch support for literacy. Extra training or guidance has been provided for a range of groups, for example for Volunteer Reading helpers, for teachers of children with English as an additional language and for teachers of children with special educational needs. A useful special schools literacy network has also been established.

46. Schools know well that raising standards in literacy is a key priority of the LEA. Nevertheless, in the initial round of target setting, the targets which schools set for themselves were often too low. In this years national tests 40% of primary schools beat their own KS2 targets by 10% or more, demonstrating that the expectations of what could be achieved were too modest. Many schools have already met the targets for the Year 2000 cohort with the 1999 cohort.

Support for Numeracy

47. The LEA has effectively introduced the National Numeracy Strategy (NNS). Support for numeracy is well organised and planned, and is adequately resourced. The activities undertaken by the LEA are helping to raise standards. However, the rate of increase needs to be expedited and the LEA needs to set more challenging targets.

48. At KS2 standards in numeracy are slightly above the national average but the rate of improvement is lower than the rate nationally. The 1999 national tests show that at KS2 the percentage of pupils gaining level 4 or above increased by 9% whilst the national standard rose by 10%. Overall, at KS2, 70% of Oxfordshire pupils achieve level 4 or above compared with the national average of 69%. The LEA needs to increase its performance in mathematics by 6% to reach the target of 76% by the year 2002. Many schools have already met or exceeded their year 2000 targets with the 1999 cohort. Over half of the schools are in this position, with 78% of schools exceeding or within 10% of their target. Schools have underestimated what teachers and pupils can achieve and targets need to be raised.

49. The numeracy team is suitably focusing its main efforts on giving intensive support to forty three lower achieving schools. HMI visits indicate that the support so far is very good with consultants giving expert attention to providing extra training for teachers, giving help with planning, observing and commenting helpfully on the quality of teaching, giving demonstrations of good practice and responding to issues relevant to individual schools. Although these initiatives have been implemented only recently, the action taken is already having a positive effect on schools.

50. In non-intensive support schools, the numeracy team is successfully disseminating good practice through the work of partnership and subject networks. The team is giving good advice to schools on audit processes and action planning. Link advisers have been suitably trained and briefed about their roles in the implementation and monitoring of the strategy. For example, schools provision for homework is to be monitored by link advisers. Schools have good information about the LEAs leading mathematics teachers (LMTs) but are generally not yet making use of their services, partly because of logistical reasons but also because the age range or context of the schools in which LMTs are based are not thought to match the schools needs. The LEA is aware of the issues and plans to address these in the coming year.

Support for ICT

51. The LEA is now providing satisfactory support to improve standards in ICT, albeit from a low baseline. Attainment in ICT is low in Oxfordshire schools, particularly at KS2 where fewer than 10% of pupils achieved level 4 in 1998. Analysis of inspection findings indicates particular weaknesses at KS3. ICT resources in schools are generally poor with little up to date equipment. The LEA has recognised this as a weakness. 52. The ICT Development Plan sets out a clear vision for phased development of ICT and is linked to Priority 3 in the EDP. It is based on a comprehensive audit of need and is differentiated according to phase with a major emphasis being placed on the Early Years and KS2. The plan also seeks to integrate curriculum and administrative applications although difficulties have been experienced as a result of other Council advice to schools. Central Information Technology (IT) services were outsourced in the early 1990s bringing a subsequent lack of IT expertise in corporate strategic thinking and policy. This has now been rectified but the LEA has come late to the game in this respect. Although the integrated LEA IT service is well-managed, central staff are under considerable pressure of time and this is felt by non-National Grid for Learning (NGfL) schools and in secondary schools where the LEA strategy has not been well understood. Good links are made with SEN advice and support functions, and with the NLS and NNS. Plans to link all schools via an intranet have fallen behind schedule.

53. Schools that have received the benefit of NGfL funding and accessed the advice and training available to them have made good progress. However, the gap between NGfL and non-NGfL schools is widening, with a growing sense of frustration in schools that have to wait their turn. Although the phased strategy was one that was agreed in consultation with schools, this frustration is understandable given the low base in terms of equipment and teacher expertise in many schools. The high level of demand upon the central team is understood by schools but means that advisers have little time to communicate overall strategy and direction to all schools and frequently present schools with very tight deadlines to be met for the submission of plans and bids.

54. The LEAs strategy for developing ICT is beginning to have an impact in schools, for example in Early Years settings and in schools that have accessed the full range of advice and training available to them. Lessons learned about preparation and negotiation with schools from the first phase of implementing the NGfL are being applied in the implementation of the second phase. It is too early to see the impact in terms of rising standards across the board. However, the signs are that teacher skills and confidence are growing.

55. The tightly focused and targeted support for each tranche of schools, supported by the New Opportunities Fund training, is good and provides good value for money. However, the needs of all schools are great. More attention should be 14 paid to the needs of schools that are not the subject of intensive support, or have yet to access their training entitlement.

Support for Schools Causing Concern

56. The support provided to special measures, serious weaknesses and schools of concern to the LEA is improving but, because of unacceptable variations in the degree of analysis of the nature of the problems, the support is unsatisfactory overall. In its EDP the LEA set an ambitious target of removing all schools from special measures and serious weaknesses by the year 2000. That the target was ambitious is to be applauded, but the mechanisms for ensuring well focused support and intervention were not established rapidly enough. The fact that further schools continue to be identified by OFSTED as having significant weaknesses indicates that procedures for early identification and support are not sufficiently rigorous.

57. There are currently eight schools subject to special measures, 14 with serious weaknesses, and 26 designated as a cause for concern to the LEA. Schools in the first two categories are all supported by individual task groups, which include the link officer and adviser from the LEA. The variability of the expertise within the task groups, and the extent to which the group has been able to identify and help remediate the underlying causes of the weaknesses in the schools, have been significant factors in determining their effectiveness. Some schools have been helped to make rapid progress but in other cases the support provided has not been sufficient or effective.

58. A steering group for Schools Requiring Additional Support (SRAS) has been established by the LEA to oversee and co-ordinate the support that is provided to the schools through the task groups. This is an effective mechanism for ensuring the efficient allocation of additional resources to the schools. Progress reports are provided to this group from the separate task groups but there is often insufficient clarity about interim targets for the schools or about the exit criteria and strategies. Although Members are informed through the party spokespersons about schools that are added to the agenda for this group they have minimal involvement in monitoring the decisions taken.

59. Headteachers of schools supported through SRAS and the task groups report that the LEA is increasingly providing a more considered and well co-ordinated response to the needs of the school, in contrast to its early "scattergun" approach. However, headteachers are not put into contact with others who are experiencing similar problems and there is no formal forum for headteachers of special measures and serious weakness schools.

Go to page 3

Crown copyright 1999

Office for Standards in Education

33 Kingsway

London

WC2B 6SE

Tel: 0171 421 6800

This report may be produced in whole or in part for non-commercial educational purposes, provided that all extracts quoted are produced verbatim and without adaptation and on condition that the source and date thereof are stated.

A further copy of this report can be obtained from the Local Education Authority concerned:

Oxfordshire Local Education Authority

Macclesfield House

New Road

Oxford

OX1 1NA

This report can also be viewed shortly at www.ofsted.gov.uk

Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.