Summary findings
The proportion of pupils attending schools which are good or better is too low.
Despite some improvements in attainment, particularly in Key Stage 4, the
performance of pupils at Key Stage 1 and 2 remains well below national
averages in reading, writing and mathematics. The gap between local and
national performance is not closing quickly enough.
The gap in achievement between disadvantaged groups and advantaged
pupils remains too great and, in some phases, such as the Early Years
Foundation Stage and Key Stage 2, this gap is increasing.
Despite the relatively high number of school improvement officers in
Wakefield, arrangements to support improvement lack coherence:
partnerships with a range of providers lack effective coordination.
Systems are over-complicated; some partners lack the capacity to meet the
demand for help. This reduces the support and challenge for primary school
leadership, where it is most needed.
There are examples of school-to-school support working effectively; however,
the role of good and better schools in providing challenge as part of a
coordinated strategy is not consistently understood by headteachers and
governors.
The Schools Forum has not assessed the impact of improvement programmes
systematically and cannot demonstrate how much improvement has been
achieved or whether the considerable investment has provided value for
money.
Wakefield and its partners have some clear areas of strength. These include:
reducing the proportion of young people who are not in education,
employment or training increasing the numbers continuing in education beyond the age of 16
the good quality of outcome data which schools receive
the improving level of support and challenge provided for governors.
Areas for improvement
In order to improve schools:
the lack of clarity around commissioning and deploying support should be
addressed
arrangements for evaluation and quality assurance should be clarified so that
the effectiveness of actions can be accurately judged
improving and strengthening primary leadership needs to be a key priority in
planning and resource allocation
the Schools Forum should develop clearer processes for monitoring and
evaluating the impact of funded programmes.
The local authority arrangements for school improvement require reinspection
within nine to 12 months.
The proportion of pupils attending schools which are good or better is too low.
Despite some improvements in attainment, particularly in Key Stage 4, the
performance of pupils at Key Stage 1 and 2 remains well below national
averages in reading, writing and mathematics. The gap between local and
national performance is not closing quickly enough.
The gap in achievement between disadvantaged groups and advantaged
pupils remains too great and, in some phases, such as the Early Years
Foundation Stage and Key Stage 2, this gap is increasing.
Despite the relatively high number of school improvement officers in
Wakefield, arrangements to support improvement lack coherence:
partnerships with a range of providers lack effective coordination.
Systems are over-complicated; some partners lack the capacity to meet the
demand for help. This reduces the support and challenge for primary school
leadership, where it is most needed.
There are examples of school-to-school support working effectively; however,
the role of good and better schools in providing challenge as part of a
coordinated strategy is not consistently understood by headteachers and
governors.
The Schools Forum has not assessed the impact of improvement programmes
systematically and cannot demonstrate how much improvement has been
achieved or whether the considerable investment has provided value for
money.
Wakefield and its partners have some clear areas of strength. These include:
reducing the proportion of young people who are not in education,
employment or training increasing the numbers continuing in education beyond the age of 16
the good quality of outcome data which schools receive
the improving level of support and challenge provided for governors.
Areas for improvement
In order to improve schools:
the lack of clarity around commissioning and deploying support should be
addressed
arrangements for evaluation and quality assurance should be clarified so that
the effectiveness of actions can be accurately judged
improving and strengthening primary leadership needs to be a key priority in
planning and resource allocation
the Schools Forum should develop clearer processes for monitoring and
evaluating the impact of funded programmes.
The local authority arrangements for school improvement require reinspection
within nine to 12 months.
No comments:
Post a Comment