Steve Davies Managing Director

1. Steve DaviesManaging Director

2. Review of EAS System Leader/Challenge Adviser service

3. CONTEXT • The delivery landscape in Wales is changing and the EAS needs to adapt: • National model – some new approaches to be adopted (eg categorisation) and expectations to be met (eg role of challenge advisers) – all set out in a regional business case, • ESTYN inspections – start inspecting consortia from Autumn term 2015/16, • EAS internal reflection – the service itself has been getting feedback on leaders and undertaking self-evaluation to capture lessons learned. • Purpose of the review was to ensure EAS does adapt effectively to the context: • Act as critical friend and provide an outside perspective on current plans to deliver the business case, especially the challenge adviser function, • Provide advice on how to strengthen the organisation in order to deliver the business case, • Facilitateand engage staff/partners in open conversation to help shape the outcome. • Method for review: • One-to-one and small group interviews with staff and partners, • Review of core documentation on systems and process, • Short report produced as the deliverable with the whole process completed in 4 weeks.

4. The current organisation has served its purpose well

5. Key findings from the ISOS Review:There are a number of successes that we must not lose sight of while addressing the challenges • Successes • Overall, EAS has made a great start and is doing a good job • Some robust systems, processes and routines for school improvement are in place • Some stand-out performers and dynamic leaders get good ‘press’ • Excellent targeted work in some local areas where previous support was considered weak • Good relationship with local authorities at the more senior leadership levels and problem solve when issues arise • The organisation design has served its purpose to date • Sharp focus on school improvement • But ... • Quality is too variable within EAS when its impact is broken down • In total, too much bureaucracy and paperwork that adds limited value • Too much variation in the quality of staff • Not enough value-added for higher performing local areas or schools • Not routinely engaging closely with local authorities through the middle leadership levels • Silos have emerged and inefficiency and duplication has crept in • Must not lose connection to inclusion or duplicate post-16 functions with local authorities

6. Consideration of new organisation focus/design needs: • Better coherence – challenge adviser role, data/systems and commissioning services need to become three distinct pillars of the structure with less overlap between them. Within this, must ensure all core systems are led centrally (eg MySID) • Tighter focus – each of the pillars needs to have a more distinct focus on its own core business for example challenge advisers and subject/policy leads become separate. Within this, some specifics include: • Challenge Adviser role needs to be more narrowly focussed on the core routines of challenge, targets, action planning and evaluating impact – not providing all the solutions and being ‘all things to all people’’ • Each challenge adviser needs to spend majority of their time focussed on their schools but also has a regional responsibility for a core routine such as targets, performance management or self-evaluation • Fewer challenge advisers will be needed and over-time the displacement of resource, along with system leader partners, should be used to create executive school leader capacity under brokerage

7. Sharper accountability – need fewer layers to the organisation, more linear reporting lines and narrower role definition ensures the lines of accountability become clearer. • Schools challenge Cymru – dedicated secondary advisers would be appointed at senior challenge adviser level, would be the best existing secondary system leaders or new appointments, and would just work with schools in the challenge under the line management of the leader of Challenge Advisers. • Better local authority interface – need for senior CA (and a small associated team)to be dedicated to each local authority: the regional core routine responsibility helps keep a broader regional overview. • Standardisation – Leadership of challenge advisers need to ensures coherence, common high standards, shared learning and mitigates risk of creating 5 x local silos. • lso has a regional responsibility for a core routine such as targets, performance

8. Proposed future design seeks to address the challenges

9. Differentiation – there will be different a range of different approaches to this across schools in each category: • For the stronger schools with secure capacity to improve, a more peer-peer led approach akin to the Challenge Partner model or ‘good to great’, • Better commissioning of the full range of services available – eg using challenge adviser evidence to target governor support to schools with greatest need. • Matching the best challenge advisers better by phase expertise or to the toughest (and strongest) schools • Apply school-to-school across EAS – every opportunity should be sought to commission a school to provide the solution before appointing staff to do it, including for example on whether the best governors can be resourced to train and strengthen other governing bodies • Shared local authority policy – other aspects of the Hill review such as federations or intervention should be consistent between LA and shared in terms of approach and expectations, with clear guidance

10. Slim down paperwork – core routine templates should be standard, limited to a couple of pages via prioritising and designed to meet multiple needs of ESTYN, schools and local authorities • Focus on high impact actions – bulk of activity must focus on dialogue about the quality of leadership and teaching and learning – do book scrutiny and observations, not checklists of prompts during school visits • Introduce 360 feedback on staff –from local authorities, schools and peers to inform performance management and accountability.

11. Proposed deadlines • 9th June – seek approval from Directors • 9th – 16th June establish fully costed proposal with Job descriptions and evaluations for Leadership of Challenge Advisers and 5 Principal Challenge Advisers • 16th June – seek JEG approval for structure sand appointments process • 17th June – announce to Service and invite applications for Leadership of Challenge Advisers • 30th June/1st July Interviews for 6 posts