SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT


Three-year turnaround I


Humberston Academy has gone from special measures to


outstanding achievements in just three years. Principal Brian Sarahan explains the strategies that have led to the turnaround


Union address: NUT Longer school terms don’t work


As the NUT strikes in Nottingham over plans for a


five-term year, Christine Blower argues that extending our term time is not a sensible move


EDUCATION MINISTER Michael Gove’s support for an extended school day and shorter school summer holidays does not stand up to scrutiny. Teachers and pupils in England and Wales already


spend longer hours in the classroom than those in most other countries. Indeed, countries which the education secretary


often holds up as examples of excellence such as Finland, Sweden and Korea all have fewer classroom hours than the UK. In 2010, the French National Academy of


Medicine said long hours in the classroom were harming pupils’ ability to learn, and resulted in children turning up to lessons tired because their timetable was “too packed”. It also found French pupils were spending up to


two hours a day longer in lessons than elsewhere in the European Union – typically working from 8.30am until 4.30pm. The Academy’s recommendation was for a school day of no more than five hours in length. Many countries have longer holidays than the UK.


Furthermore, independent schools in the UK often break for two weeks more during the summer break and have longer holidays at other times of the year than their state counterparts. Private schools have never been convinced of the


arguments to change the length of their holidays and do not appear to be suffering as a consequence. Allowing school year structures to become a free-


for-all would simply lead to a chaotic system that is unworkable for many families. For instance, you may well find on the outskirts


of a city or town a household whose children are educated in different schools with different holiday patterns. This will impact greatly on the ability of families


to meet up with friends and relatives, or indeed to go away somewhere together on holiday. Critics of the current system point to “learning


loss” among children, a perceived consequence of the existing summer break. Yet the research is based chiefly on US studies where the break is 12 weeks, double that of the UK. In 2008, the Finnish National Board for Education


considered the arguments for shortening their long summer break – they take 10 weeks – but concluded that there was no pressing need to re-evaluate the timing of school holidays. We are aware that for some parents, the six-week


summer break can be difficult in terms of childcare and in terms of preventing boredom and, in some cases, anti-social behaviour among older students. This is, however, more of a comment on the lack


of out-of-school provision for young people than an argument in favour of truncating the school summer holiday. Cuts to youth services have seen them suffer dreadfully in recent years. That shortfall cannot be filled by simply saying that schools have to be open longer. It is important, too, to consider the benefits of a


proper summer holiday on children’s emotional and social development. According to UNICEF, children in the UK are


some of the unhappiest children in the world. The countries which performed better than the UK in terms of child wellbeing, with the exception of Denmark and Switzerland, all have longer summer holidays than the UK. Children and young people are entitled to a


childhood and some time when they can simply relax. Not everything that a young person learns is learned within the confines of a classroom.


• Christine Blower is the general secretary of the National Union of Teachers. Visit www.teachers.org.uk


n December 2008, Humberston School, a state-funded secondary school in Grimsby, Lincolnshire, was placed in special measures by Ofsted. Inadequate teaching and learning, coupled with weak leadership and management, meant that GCSE results were poor, and that the school was performing in


the 89th percentile of schools nationally. This was a school that needed change, and quickly.


When I was appointed principal inMarch 2009, taking over from an interim head to replace the principal who was removed from her position, leadership was virtually non-existent. The school did not have heads of maths, science, ICT, art, religious education, PE or design and technology, and there was a vacancy for a deputy head. Also, the specialism of maths and computing was


on probation. The staff had been severely depleted, as so often happens when a school enters special measures. Some had left because the pressure on them


was too much, others had built up years of service but had simply had enough. The task facing me was, undeniably, daunting.


I would start in my role with hardly any leaders to make the transformation that was required – a situation that would be a challenge even at a school that was performing reasonably well. However, this also represented a real opportunity to make a difference and to mould the school into a place that would help both students and staff to achieve their aspirations. My first undertaking involved a major restructure


of the senior leadership team, whose roles I made absolutely clear from the beginning. Each member of the team was made fully aware of their accountabilities and responsibilities, and that their focus must be on the basics – teaching and learning. I believe this was one of the most important changes to be made and had a major impact on moving the school forward so quickly. It was obvious that the next step was to appoint


a deputy head with the skills and the attitude to help turn the school around. Over the past three years, I had worked with a


talented leader, Matt Watling, who would fit the bill perfectly, with very strong skills in ICT and data management – two areas which had been major issues in the school’s Ofsted report. The problem of a depleted body of staff needed


to be tackled as the next priority. In this case, another school’s misfortune was our gain. An institution in a nearby authority had come into financial difficulties and was looking to shed staff, many of whom were excellent teachers. As a result, we were able to make up the


majority of our workforce deficit by September 2009, including the heads of departments that had previously been unmanned, with a head of maths designate in place to begin work after the Christmas holidays. These changes were enough to make a difference


from the very beginning. We opted to have the first of our series of monitoring visits in November, as a result of which we were rated as making satisfactory progress against the key issues. As a senior leadership team, we felt that the


sooner we had this assessment, the better, as it gave us a clear idea of what further changes needed to be made, where and how soon. With all the right people in place, we moved to


restructure the whole staff to make it fit-for-purpose – another challenge, even given the relatively small size of the school at 700 students. Instead of 12 different departments, some of which comprised of only one person, we put in place five faculties. Each of these was led not by a faculty leader, but by a school improvement leader with a clear focus on, and accountability for, the raising of standards in the classroom and in the school as a whole. One of the most innovative aspects of this structure


is that each of these school improvement leaders has a flexible contract; they do not stay in a head of communications role (for example) permanently, but can be seconded wherever they are needed to drive school improvement. Under the leadership of Michelle Dewland a


teaching and learning group was put in place, which has been another key driver in raising standards. Every school has good teachers, but this was about moving the whole staff forward from the floor up, not from the top down. This group was the sounding board for ideas and change and for managing and monitoring the work that was taking place. The group has been central in gaining staff


buy-in and coming up with the ideas that make a real difference. Working together, they have built


12 ‘


a body of teaching and learning resources to help with everything from starters of lessons and learning objectives to learning outcomes, sharing best practice from across the school. Even given that 90 per cent of staff are different


from those we began with, this has led to a radical turnaround in teaching and has been key to the success we have experienced. Our second monitoring visit proved the huge leaps


we had made as a team and as a school, although we were still rated satisfactory for teaching and learning, as we did not have GCSE outcomes to evidence our achievements. Although we were judged to have made good progress on two of the key issues raised since being placed in special measures, we were graded as satisfactory. We then continued with our forward drive,


focusing on learning and on intervention strategies for our 2010 GCSE results – we had the challenge of making up lost ground on the last four years, particularly in maths and English.


Each of these school improvement leaders has a flexible contract;


they do not stay in a role permanently, but can be seconded wherever


they are needed to drive school improvement


The results spoke for themselves in the summer


of 2010: 77 per cent of our students achieved five A* to C grades at GCSE, including maths and English against a Fischer Family Trust target of 67 per cent. Only two years earlier, this figure stood at 50 per


cent. The students we had were no more intelligent or capable, this was purely a result of thinking differently about structures, systems and staff. In November 2010, we came out of special


measures with nine outstanding judgements, 13 good, no satisfactory or inadequate ratings. Our GCSE results in 2011 rose to 80 per cent. This


year, we were rated in the top 100 performing schools based on our improvement and our projections suggest that we will achieve percentages in the mid- 80s for 2012. At the beginning of the 2011 school year, we


converted to become an academy, sponsored by the David Ross Foundation. We expect that gaining academy status will provide huge opportunities for both staff and students in teaching, learning and training. Of course, it is relatively easy to make quick


progress when the issues are obvious. However, our students, staff and leadership team are hugely ambitious, and we are all up to the task. Our students expect to do well and we are working hard to help them meet their high expectations, engaging them in interesting and stimulating lessons where they are truly stretched.


SecEd


• Brian Sarahan is principal of Humberston Academy in Grimsby.


SecEd • May 3 2012 ’


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16