Transcript web version of final report May

What does a high performing
academy sponsor look like?
Report for sponsors
DfE analysis
May 2014
Contents
• Aims, method and key messages
slides 3-9
• Findings:
– Growth and development
– Portfolio of schools
– People and leadership
– Governance and finance
– School improvement approach
slides 10-16
slides 17-24
slides 25-32
slides 33-39
slides 40-44
• Summary of findings and future research
slides 45-49
2
AIMS, METHOD AND KEY MESSAGES
3
Aims
The analysis in these slides aims to develop understanding of what makes a high performing chain
sponsor, in order to support and encourage the development of high performing academies in the
future. We anticipate that much future growth will come from the many small to medium sized
sponsors who currently vastly outnumber their larger counterparts. Yet currently, the system is
largely dependent on individual examples to understand how they can develop well.
The 2013 results provided the first opportunity to look at a sizable sample of sponsors with chains
of 3 or more schools and examine the factors behind their relative performance.
The outputs of this analysis are being used to:
1.
Share evidence and case studies of ‘what works’ with current and prospective sponsors,
supporting sponsor self-improvement;
2.
Inform government policy and strategic choices, including by Regional Schools Commissioners
(RSCs); and
3.
Strengthen departmental and RSC process to enable better decision making in individual
cases about sponsor approvals, project matching and sensible growth.
4
The scope of the project was defined in terms of a wide range of
variables that might impact on a sponsor’s performance
Data largely
already collated
by the DfE
Who they are
Growth and
development stage
• Size of chain
• Age of chain
• Rate of growth
Portfolio of schools
• Phase mix
• Sponsored/
converter mix
• Level of
challenge of
schools
• Diversity of
schools
• Geographical
spread between
clusters
• Geographical
spread in
clusters
How they behave
People and
leadership
• Motivations of
founder/CEO
• Skills/experience
of board
members
• Skills of middle
management
• Succession
planning
• Progression and
recruitment
practices
Governance &
finance
• Governance
structure
• Board size
• Top slice
• Centrally
provided services
• Structural
changes at key
growth points
• Financial health
and management
• Efficiencies
Data gathered
through
interviews and
pooling internal
intelligence
School
improvement
approach
• Use of school
and pupil data
• Use of school to
school CPD/
progression
• Use of school
collaboration for
teaching and
learning
• Replacement of
heads
• Use of freedoms
• Level/focus of
prescription
5
Drawing on the data we hold, we used quantitative and
qualitative analysis to explore these areas
The project develops, tests and builds on current
thinking about what a high performing chain sponsor is
through:
•
Quantitative analysis drawing on existing data The
relationship between the performance of
sponsors-led chains and data on their background,
school portfolio, rate/stage of development and
financial health was examined. There were 88
sponsors in the sample, based on all sponsors with
3+ schools that were open by November 2012.
•
Pooling internal DfE intelligence - new data fields
on sponsor leadership style, school improvement
model and governance and finance were
developed through gathering internal department
intelligence. This was based on the 58 largest
sponsors in the sample. We looked for trends and
tested for correlations with performance.
•
Talking to higher performing sponsors. We
conducted 12 two-hour structured interviews with
CEOs and key staff from 12 higher performing
sponsors, all with sponsors with 6+ schools. We
also invited 7 CEOs of leading chains to develop
understanding of common challenges.
How we defined a ‘higher performing sponsor’:
Using 2013 Key Stage 2 and 4 data we categorised sponsors on
an average of four or five educational performance indicators
across their chains.
• How have results improved since last year? Proportion
achieving 5+ A*-C including English & Maths at KS4, and level
4+ in reading, writing and mathematics at KS2.
• How many of the sponsor’s academies saw large falls in
2013? – i.e. 5% points or more.
• How many of the sponsor’s academies are seeing
continued improvements? Number of academies that have
improved in at least two of the last three years.
• How many academies are underperforming? Number of
that academies are below the floor standard or in Ofsted
category 4.
• ‘Sponsor benchmarking’ data for secondary sponsors – this
looks at improvement in KS4 results for sponsored
academies since opening, in comparison to schools with
similar starting points over the same period.
Additional tests were run to test for difference in findings if we
also took into account whether a sponsor which had presided
over an academy going into special measures.
6
Health warning!
Whilst we have identified the factors that we believe give a fair assessment of
sponsor performance, it should be remembered, particularly in relation to the
quantitative aspects of this analysis, that:
• the sample sizes are still relatively small;
• analysis is largely based on one year’s performance data and such measures
are subject to volatility at school level; and
• in most cases, pupils would not have been in the sponsored academy for the
entire key stage.
So we are unlikely to see the full impact of either the sponsor or the
characteristics being analysed at this stage.
We will continue to build on our knowledge of sponsor performance as more
performance data becomes available.
Based on continuing to focus on chains of 3+ schools open for over 1 year, we
would expect our sample for quantitative work to grow from 88 to around 140
after the 2014 KS2 and KS4 results are published.
7
People and leadership
Portfolio of schools
Growth and
development
Summary of emerging messages for sponsors I.
 Be aware of key transition points. Particularly the phase from 5-10 academies
when there is a need to develop skills and infrastructure.
 Grow carefully, understanding your own capacity and the challenges and risks
you take on – this might mean steady growth followed by a spurt.
 It’s advisable to have a mixed portfolio of schools – specifically a balance of
sponsored and converter projects. Chains with exclusively primaries also
appear to find it tougher - although some primary specialists are thriving.
 When planning growth think consistently in terms of geography, plan your
development in terms of clusters and understand the risks of adding isolated
schools to your chain.
 CEOs of high performing chains tend to be strong, ambitious and determined
leaders with clear moral purpose – appetite to grow is healthy but be focused
on delivering great outcomes for the schools you have first.
 Make sure your vision and purpose is well understood throughout your
organisation – branding can be a tool but it’s collective ethos that counts.
8
School
improvement
Governance, & finance
People and leadership cont.
Summary of emerging messages for sponsors II.
 Having individuals with strong commercial skills at board level is crucial, and the
importance of these skills increases when chains grow beyond 4-5.
 Nurture leadership internally and make the most of cross-chain CPD and
progression opportunities. High performers are much more likely to do this.
 As you grow beyond 5, a full time Financial Director will be essential and you
may need to recruit this person externally.
 Clear accountability and governance are vital. Small boards are more likely to be
successful and strong board-school level governance links are healthy.
 Be proactive in finding innovative ways to achieve efficiencies.
 Formulate your business model carefully – and look at what others have done.
There is no single formula for top-slice and central services.
 Strong financial planning is vital. If you have very strong school improvement and
nothing goes wrong you may be lucky for a while but cannot rely on this.
 It is your choice on how prescriptive to be with schools in your chain that are
performing well – but take swift and assertive action with failing schools.
9
Findings
GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT
10
Sponsors we interviewed described having navigated their way
through a common growth journey
Growing
infrastructure
Sustainable sponsor
Large sponsor
Challenge
Cottage industry
High
challenge for
start-ups
Achieving
sustainability can
become a strong
motivation for
expansion.
Life is easy if you are
school-based
1
2
Non-school
start-ups report
a much tougher
initial phase
due to inability
to draw on
school
resources or
reputation.
3
4
5
6
7
8
Interviews revealed
considerable consistency
of views on when trusts
need to establish
infrastructure, at around
6 schools. At this point,
Exec heads must
transition to be CEOs and
investment must be made
in central services
9
Start to benefit from economies of scale & gain
confidence
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Size
At 8-11 sponsors
reported
reaching critical
mass and the
financial risks
lessen.
The largest sponsors we
spoke to described
needing to re-organise
again at around 20.
Business theory
suggests further reorganisation may be
needed at around 40.
11
“At 4, 5, 6 academies you can manage as a cottage industry
but then you have to ask, ‘what is the strategic plan?’ At 6,
you need to develop a completely different model. Checks
and balances need to be in place before any further
expansion. Money at the centre takes money away from the
schools so you have to be able to think about the priorities
for schools – what do they need most? At 8, there is not
enough money at the centre. So we expanded quickly to
bridge the gap – we’ve now caught up with ourselves – and
we can invest in the resources to do the central services audit, IT, chain-wide procurement, HR etc. – properly.”
12
Most of the high performing sponsors we interviewed had had periods
of rapid growth in the past – yet cautious growth was advocated
Nearly all of the successful sponsors we interviewed had experienced rapid growth at some stage in
the past. There were three main explanations for how they managed to sustain high performance in
the face of such expansion – but only one replicable model.
Supported growth
School improvement
dependent
Controlled growth,
managed big bang
Rapid growth made possible thanks to the support of either government
funding or cash donations/loans from parent companies, charities or
trustees.
Rapid growth in spite of a ‘naïve’ initial approach to financial planning and
management at first. The three sponsors in this category credited their
strong school improvement model and a certain degree of luck for the fact
they had been successful, but it was not sustainable.
Steady growth followed by spurt of planned rapid growth based on high
performing sponsor self-knowledge and accompanied by robust due
diligence and ‘fussiness’ about projects.
Many in the first two categories acknowledged that the ‘push’ to expand had been challenging and they had
felt ‘overstretched’ at times.
13
Reflecting the previous slide, we found high performing sponsors
are no more likely to have grown at a ‘slow’ pace in the past
We looked at whether growth rate is related
to performance
•
• We contrasted performance of trusts against their
annual growth that year and two years before.
• We looked at whether they had exceeded a 25% annual
growth rate (considered a sensible growth rate for small
businesses).
• We also tested against adherence to the growth limits
the DfE has tended to apply to high performers recently.
• We tested the impact of growth across significant
threshold points.
Rapid growth was, if anything, positively
correlated with sponsor success
•
•
•
40
The vast majority of chains exceeded 25% annual
growth in one of the last two years. Valid
comparisons using this measure was not possible.
We tested the impact of growth across key
thresholds and found no significant impact.
We found no significant impact of growth across
thresholds.
Chains who had grown more rapidly in 2012 than
our current working rule were significantly more
likely to be high performers in 2013 than those with
steady growth, or newer sponsors.
Number of academies
35
Expansion if following DfE annual growth limits
typically applied now to high performing sponsors
30
25
Expansion if seeing 25% a year growth
20
15
One chain’s growth has broadly followed the 25%
rule - but were exceptional
10
5
…but another has seen rapid expansion
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Age of sponsor (years)
9
10
11
12 - OFFICIAL
14
Based on the current sample of chains, neither age nor size per se are
significantly correlated with success
We looked at whether size was related to
performance and found no significant trend or
tipping point…
…nor were there any when we looked at trust
age
• We contrasted performance of chains with 3-6, 7-12, 1320, 21-30 schools and 31+ schools.
•
• The majority of chains are in the 3-6 group, with few
reaching the larger categories.
•
We contrasted performance of trusts who had first
opened a school 1-2, 3-4 or 5+ academic years ago.
We found no significant trends by trust age.
15
Case study: careful growth, managed big bang
Greenwood Dale Academies Trust is a high performing chain that was founded in 2009 from an outstanding
secondary school in Nottingham. From 2009 to 2011 the Trust grew steadily, acquiring four new schools.
During that period, they focused on developing a strong core central services offer, funded through grant
money from the new schools they took on, with some subsidy for salaries from Greenwood Dale school. This
was integral to promoting their vision which centres on reducing burdens on principals in order to increase
their capacity to be visible school leaders and drive improvement.
With all four schools performing well and some infrastructure in place, Greenwood Dale trustees agreed in
2012 that the Trust was ready for significant expansion. They took on seven schools that year and, following
sustained performance across their schools, have continued to grow at a significant rate. Decisions about
growth are planned rather than reactive. An annual process is in place where the trustees agree a growth plan
which sets the maximum number of schools which can join during the year ahead based on a thorough review
of organisational capacity.
The Trust also puts a lot of resource from the central team into schools prior to them formally joining. They
ensure that they have assessed the school’s finance, HR and procurement for risks and have come to an
agreement with the school, local authority and/or DfE about liabilities which the school carries. This is followed
by a due diligence process exploring all areas of the school from pupil achievement to funding deficits and
whether staff have the necessary barring checks in place. This is used to create a plan for the initial
improvement and development activity in the new Academy.
16
Findings
PORTFOLIO OF SCHOOLS
17
High performing sponsors are more likely to have converter
academies as well as sponsored academies within their chain
•
•
The blend of sponsored and converter
projects within a chain appears to be related
to success across a chain – a mix is better
Chains that were not dominated by a single type of
academy were more likely to perform well than chains
with a vast majority of either sponsored or converter
academies, and the difference was significant.
We also tested different thresholds for classifying a
dominant academy type (90%, 80%, etc), but found no
obvious bias from our chosen criteria.
Over three quarters of chains with mixed types were rated as
high performing– compared with half of chains with a
dominant type
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
6
There is no evidence that any other measure
of school challenge is related to success at
sponsor level
•
PUPIL BACKGROUND: No correlation between
chain performance and school challenge defined in
terms of pupil background (deprivation and special
educational needs).
•
HISTORIC ATTAINMENT: Again, no correlation
between chain performance and school challenge,
defined in terms of a school’s past attainment.
•
SCHOOL VARIATION: No significant correlation
between chain performance and school challenge,
defined in terms of how similar or varied the value
added results are in their schools.
•
The interviews highlighted that sponsors with a
mixed portfolio of schools were able to capitalise
on their best schools for school improvement.
•
This fits with US charter school research which
finds that schools in a chain will only rise to be as
high performing as the chain’s lead school.
11
42
5
11
Predominantly
Converter
Academies
Predominantly
Sponsored
Academies
13
Mixed types of
academies
Academy type
18
Primary-only sponsors are less likely to be ‘high performing ’ – this
should be treated cautiously but may be related to financial challenges
Chains dominated by primaries currently
appear less likely to be high performing:
Chains largely consisting of 80%+ primary schools
were significantly less likely to perform well than
secondary chains or more mixed phase chains
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
The primary-only sponsors we spoke to
highlighted a range of specific challenges:
•
Primary sponsors we interviewed highlighted
that due to size, the number of primary schools
needed to reach ‘critical mass’ is greater - yet it is
the number of schools rather than pupil units
which create additional burden at the centre.
•
Primary sponsors we interviewed seemed less
likely to replace the head of a failing school –
which may reflect shorter supply in the talent
pool due to numbers of schools.
•
Other primary specific challenges cited included:
weaker bursars/financial management, less of a
functioning competitive market, greater
performance vulnerability from staff changes.
8
12
39
11
5
13
Mixed of phases
Predominantly
Predominantly
primary schools secondary schools
Phase
This analysis will benefit from more data. There is
significant variability in results of primary schools
between years, due to small key stage 2 cohorts. Across
all schools, around two thirds changed by more than five
percentage points in 2013.
“There is no queue of superheads waiting around the corner. We have
to recognize a range of qualities and styles and support our heads in
their leadership. Changing senior leadership precipitously can waste
time, disrupt improvement and impact negatively on children’s
education”
19
Those primary sponsors who succeed ‘against the odds’
understand and work around the particular challenges
While the challenging growth period can be
longer for primary only sponsors…
Growing
infrastructure
I. One primary only chain (A) had significant
fundraising up front, and grew to critical
mass (15) quickly.
The period when infrastructure is
needed but there is not necessarily
sufficient funding to support it can be
extended
Large sponsor
Sustainable sponsor
II. Another (B), identified at least one strong
school in each of the 10 regional MATs to
drive local school improvement, under the
control of highly-qualified regional
executive principals.
Challenge
Cottage industry
…high performing primary sponsors adapt
their model
High
challenge
for startups
Life is easy if you
are school-based
1
•
2
3
4
5
Achieving
sustainability
can become a
strong
motivation for
expansion.
7
6
8
9
III. A further (C), chains’ model similarly boost
capacity/expertise by bringing outstanding
converter schools and their leaders into the
chain.
Start to benefit from economies of scale &
gain confidence
1
0
1
1
1 Size
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
1
9
2
0
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
4
Our survey from Sponsor Relationship Managers
(SRMs) produced data which suggested that, whilst
high performing sponsors are more likely to have
‘middle management tiers’ once they get beyond six,
primary sponsors are less likely to have them – this
may be a reflection of the squeeze.
On the other hand… CEOs of high performing
primary chains reported feeling that there is
greater scope for delivering improvement
through innovation at this phase for those
who do overcome the significant challenges.
Strong secondary chains reported enjoying the
challenge of getting into the primary market.
20
High performing sponsors think consistently in terms of geography and
plan their development in terms of clusters – yet emphasis varies
All sponsors we interviewed extolled the
benefits of geographical clustering.
Some high performing sponsors show far
greater willingness to diversify locations.
•
They all thought about their own growth in
terms of developing groups of schools which
could work together for mutual benefit.
•
With the right arrangements in place, some
sponsors did not believe geography was a
necessary obstacle.
•
The benefits they identified revolved around:
a) efficiencies, and b) inter-school working.
•
Some new sponsors have a devolved multicluster vision from early on – and develop a
devolved structure to support this whilst
facilitating collaboration across the chain.
•
For some, moving beyond a single
geographical location was not something they
would entertain.
•
Management tools to support cross-chain
collaboration at a distance included online
knowledge management and mobile school
improvement teams.
21
“In business you should
expand from where you
are. You should not skip
areas. There are very
basic logistical reasons –
how do you get there at
a distance?”
“We have a
philosophical
philosophicalbelief
beliefthat
that
we should be able to be
in any
any of
of our
our academies
academies
within
within 30
30 minutes.
minutes. So
Soifif
there is an issue
issue we
we can
can
interchange
interchange very
very
quickly.”
“We have training
training days
days
where the staff train
train
together, we have
networks
networks where
where people
people
come together and
share the best schemes
of work, lesson plans
and ideas. All of those
things seem really
really
logical;
logical; we
we can
can only
only do
do
that because the
maximum
maximum commute
commute
between our schools
schools is
is
90 minutes.”
“We are not hung-up on geography
– if a school needs our help and is
close to one of our MATs, we would
try to do it,…The rationale of where
we work is not sophisticated. We
are conscious to have outstanding,
good and new provision in every
MAT but we work where we can
logistically to maintain local context
and ensure it is represented in the
structure.”
“The closeness of schools is
not the main issue, it’s
about the closeness of
relationships.”
22
Despite high performing sponsors thinking in terms of clusters, high
performers are no more likely to have their schools located closely
There was no systematic relationship between
sponsor performance or school improvement and
geographical clustering.
We analysed the relationship between
geographic clustering and sponsor
performance and improvement in school
attainment.
• We found no evidence of performance being positively
related to clustering for any measure tested.
• This was also the case after controlling for type of
academy and phase of education, with most of the
variability coming from sponsor led primary schools.
100
Clustering and improvement
– distance to nearest school within same sponsor
0
50
Most of the variation in improvement is
centred around the average of 2.8
Geographical orphans
appear to be doing well –
but they tend to have
started from a very low
base so hard to compare
-50
Percentage point change in KS2/4 attainment 2012-2013
We tested the following cluster measures:
a) the extent to which any sponsor with a chain
of up to 12 schools had all schools within a
‘cluster’.
b) the extent to which any sponsor takes a multiclustered approach, with clusters defined as
groups of 3+ schools (or 4+ if primary only)
within 30 miles.
c) the average distance of each school to the
nearest school under the same sponsor.
d) the average of such distance across all the
schools under the same sponsor.
e) the variability of such distance across all the
schools under the same sponsor.
-100
Cluster measures were compared to sponsor
performance.
0
20
40
60
80
Distance to nearest school under same sponsor (miles)
100
23
The diversity of findings partially reflects a shift toward a less centralist
model being adopted by younger ‘high performing sponsors’
Popular new model
Original model
5
3
2
1
1
4
•
•
•
•
Single cluster or multiple clusters at close
proximity.
Grow slow and draw skills and resource from
sponsored academies who’ve ‘come-good’.
School improvement, character and largely
curriculum drive from centre – although some
‘earned autonomy’.
Strongly competitive.
•
•
•
•
•
Small regional clusters, geographically spread
(can be mini MATs).
Grow faster and depend on converters joining
and some sponsored ‘come-good’ to initiate
new hubs.
School improvement driven by hub.
Character and curriculum determined by the
school – influenced by hub/centre.
Sharing and outward facing.
24
Findings
PEOPLE AND LEADERSHIP
25
CEOs of successful sponsors are strong, ambitious and
determined leaders with a clear moral purpose
Interviews with high performing sponsors revealed three common themes in terms of CEO’s motivations:
Moral purpose
Professional challenge
What?
• Belief in own model
• Desire to spread their model to
allow more children to benefit
What?
• Wanting to move beyond being
a head/executive head
• Eagerness to influence sector
widely
• Wanting to be a forerunner
Who?
• All successful CEOs interviewed
How was it evident?
• Moral imperative consistently
cited as initial motivator
• Most aspired to an ‘all through’ model so children
could benefit
• Several expressed desire to act
in context of broken LA system
• Diocese acting to prevent
divergence from church ethos
Who?
• Accomplished ‘super-heads’
• Philanthropists
Explicitly not ‘empire
building’
All successful CEOs
interviewed carefully
explained future ambitions in
terms of building on
outcomes once achieved –
many explicitly stated they
were not interested in
‘empire building’
How was it evident?
• Transition to CEO explained
frequently as a ‘logical next
step’ for system leaders
• Interviewees describe
academies as a new
opportunity/challenge
26
“It is our moral
obligation as an
outstanding school to
help other primaries
where we can. We work
in the toughest areas
and show that success is
possible. If it can be done
here, it can be done
anywhere.”
“[The sponsor] sent someone
who worked for him to say,
‘Would you like to be my head
for my academy?’ And I said
no. [And then he said] ‘if you
come and run my school and
make it outstanding then you
can set up a chain of schools’ .
I had never heard of such a
thing, because back then there
weren’t any. So I said yes and
took the school on.”
“We’ve no desire to be
big. Being big is not an
end in itself, that’s not
what we want. We
simply want to do a good
job and not compromise
any of our previous
academies.”
27
Vision and ethos are well transmitted by leaders throughout
strong chains – but this is not always with branding
High performers are more likely to have a well
understood vision:
•
•
•
Our survey of Sponsor Relationship Managers (SRMs)
suggests 60% of high performing sponsors have a vision
and ethos that is clearly understood, versus 37% of
weaker sponsors.
Interviews supported this – setting out ‘what it means
to be an xx school’ was important for all successful
sponsors we spoke to – the term ‘collective ethos’ was
used by several.
Several said that head teachers can only remain postopening if they understand and are fully committed to
the ethos.
Proportion of sponsors with ‘clearly stated chain
purpose which is well understood’
80%
60%
40%
60%
20%
37%
Use of branding to communicate vision and
ethos varied between high performing
sponsors:
•
•
Variations in levels of investment in branding
by sponsors were striking in interviews:
– School-initiated sponsors and
organisations where individuals have an
established local reputation to trade on
seemed to invest less.
– Start-ups without local roots invest more.
In the case of one, ‘brand’/ethos is part of
fundraising platform as well as selling to
schools/LAs.
Around half the sponsors we interviewed had
made deliberate decisions to let schools
maintain their own brand. They viewed this as
in keeping with their ethos of supporting
professional autonomy and devolved decision
making. School re-branding was viewed as an
important tool amongst the other half.
0%
High performing
Lower performing
28
Being a ‘business sponsor’ does not guarantee success, yet
strong commercial skills at board level are seen as crucial
Strong presence of individuals with
commercial backgrounds at board was seen
as important – especially in the ‘growing
infrastructure’ phase…
We found no evidence that being a ‘business
sponsor’ per se guarantees success…
•
‘Business sponsors’ were identified through a
combination of background stated on their initial
application form, and our own knowledge of
which are currently a business, or are supported
by a person or entity with a commercial
background.
•
Strong sponsors with business founders felt they
had benefitted from their approaches and way of
looking at things. In particular, the emphasis on
financial planning.
“We had no expertise in education so we don’t come from the
starting point that we are experts in something. The first step was
to, just as you might do in business, find out who does something
very, very well, who does it best in the world and copy them.”
•
All strong sponsors we spoke to valued
commercial skills and saw them as critical at board
level.
•
Two sponsors had appointed senior commercial
sector people to trouble shooting roles on the
board having hit problems during the ‘growing
infrastructure’ phase – their input was considered
transformative.
29
High performing sponsors think holistically about staff needs and
making the most of development opportunities across the chain
High performing sponsors are more likely to
offer a CPD programme across the chain…
•
These survey results fit with the picture painted
by great sponsors during interviews - five
emphasised that they have developed their own
very distinct CPD programmes delivered by
leading professionals across the chain.
High performing appear more likely to move
staff between schools…
•
Most sponsors we interviewed provide cross-school
progression opportunities at all levels; all do at
leadership level. At least half saved costs by
employing a senior teacher at a higher rate to work
across more than one school.
“It is better for individual and for chain when one
outstanding head works across 3 schools – it spreads
the benefit of expertise and provides career
progression.”
30
Put a strong emphasis on nurturing internal leadership as part of
succession planning – less so the FD appointment
Strong focus on bringing future Trust leaders,
including regional directors, up through ranks
•
•
•
In keeping with previous research (Hill, 2012), most of
the sponsors interviewed used their CPD
development programmes to drive their succession
planning for senior board and make regional lead
appointments. They focus on developing existing
school leaders but also brought in others with high
level educational expertise.
Most of the CEOs at the Expert Roundtable had
identified a successor within the Trust. Largely they
deemed Chief Operational Officers as having more
insight into the strategic aspects of the CEO role than
those working on the educational side. Four of the
seven had identified successors from their Trust’s
‘business side’.
Two sponsors explained that they provide
opportunities for future leaders to gain experience of
other industries through secondments and short-term
loans.
“The Department should ask all sponsors for
their succession plans. At [our academy] we
spend time on them regularly and they cover
the short and medium term. You’d expect all
good sponsors to have them.”
Financial directors and Chief Operating Officers
were seen as vital appointments – but were
more likely to be external recruitments
•
•
The most essential appointment for most sponsors
we interviewed has been their finance director –
this was usually someone from the corporate world,
although most had previously worked in the
education sector too. Less often it was a former
school bursar.
Sponsors at the Expert Roundtable described that
these were the most difficult appointments to make
due to pay not being competitive with the private
sector and regional talent shortages.
31
Case study: nurturing leadership, strong CPD
One of the longest established high performing sponsors ARK are particularly notable for their work to nurture
leadership and promote professional development.
ARK’s CPD scheme aims to foster and maintain high quality teaching in every ARK school. It involves 10 days of
training per year for every teacher and specific programmes for staff at each stage in their career. The network
also holds an annual summit for all staff to come together to spend a day looking at their own development
and that of the network.
In 2012, ARK created its own teacher training programme in collaboration with Canterbury Christ Church
University. The network has now been accredited as a teacher training institution. The programme is aimed at
graduates and career-switchers. Current trainees have been nurses, soldiers, lawyers, and doctors, and bring
the benefit of their skills and experience into the classroom. By 2020, ARK’s aim is for at least half of its
teachers to have come through the ARK Teacher Training programme. By 2015, they want all existing staff to be
using the programme’s resources as part of their on-going professional development.
If a change in leadership is taking place within a particular ARK school, the Trust will identify a strong leader
from within the network to take the school forward. This will normally be someone with experience in an ARK
setting who has been through the ARK programmes of professional development. ARK’s ‘Future Leaders’
programme was set up in partnership with the National College and the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust
is designed to train headteachers to turn around challenging schools. There are over 300 professionals on the
programme. Following the success of Future Leaders, ARK worked with partners to establish something similar
aimed at middle leaders. Over the past five years, middle leaders from 444 secondary schools have been
through this programme.
.
32
Findings
GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE
33
High performing sponsors are more likely to have clear
accountability and governance structures
High performing sponsors seem more likely
to have structures perceived as excellent in
terms of clarity and accountability…
…and related to this, more often have smaller
boards
34
The shape of governance structures is broadly similar but the
balance of decision-making between different levels varies
Similar across high
performing sponsors
Strategy Vs operational
level: A general distinction
between strategic direction
- exercised at chain leveland more operational
accountability-exercised at
school or hub level.
Hubs led by
educationalists: All the high
performing sponsors we
interviewed had middle
leaders with educational
expertise – some were
known as ‘Exec Principals’
and others ‘Regional
Directors’.
Board and local governance
links: It is common for
school governing bodies to
include representation from
board members.
Different between high
performing sponsors
Chain CEO
Education.
Dir.
CFO
Hub director
Head A
Head B
Hub director
Head C
HR (and
others)
Hub director
Head D
Head E
Autonomy to hubs: one
chains’ hubs are MATs in their
own right, but there are other
examples of highly devolved
decision-making. In other
instances the role is restricted
more narrowly to school
improvement.
Size of ‘hubs’ varies
significantly. At the extremes
were one with 3 schools and
another with 15 schools –
most others varies between 4
and 10. Directors of smaller
hubs tend to be thought of as
‘Exec Principals’.
Heads reporting lines – whilst
most heads report directly to
the hub director, some still
report to school governing
bodies reflecting differences in
local school governance
arrangements
35
High performing sponsors remain focused on core business but
find innovative ways to maximise efficiencies across their chains
A range of efficiencies are achieved by high
performing sponsors across their chains –
especially once they reach around 10 schools:
•
•
Back office efficiencies commonly cited by high
performing sponsors in interviews were:
– Single recruitment processes
– Catering
– Printers and photocopying
– Purchasing of paper and books and supplies
– Software licence costs/cloud networks
– Utilities
– Centralised HR services and contracts
We have not been able to access the data to assess
systematically how frequently these avenues are
used or significant differences with weak sponsors –
but this is an area for further exploration.
Whilst focussing on their core purpose, a
number of sponsors have identified ways to
generate returns on their investment in IT
and CPD:
Trusts developing and selling their services:
 One bought and developed a pupil data
management system which produces school
level dashboards and pupil level data. This is
available to parents on an online dashboard,
via secure access. They have sold their
developments back to the software company,
which has partially funded further IT
investments. They will use their system to link
to a reward scheme for teachers.
 Another developed a high-tech performance
management system in-house and are now
selling it back to software provider.
 Some sell their teacher training packages or
programmes externally to other schools and
chains, which helps recoup the costs of the
programme development.
36
“We’ve benefitted from economies of scale, [since] we’ve
had 10 schools and we enjoy contracts at a much better
value than many huge LAs because they assume because
they are large that they will get economies of scale and
they have no commercial capability whatsoever. They just
take whatever deal they are offered. We are very
commercial and we bargain and play people off against
each other as people do in the world of business. We drive
huge deals.”
37
Business model is clearly important – yet we found no link
between top-slice or central services and chain performance
We looked at the top-slice and central services
offered by our largest chain sponsors:
•
•
Our internal survey suggests that the average topslice for all chains with 3+ established schools is
4.4%. The typical range was 2 to 5%, with a few
outliers.
The vast majority of chain sponsors provide
finance, school improvement and IT services
centrally.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Proportion supplying service
There was no obvious relationship between
either top-slice or range of central services and
performance of chain:
•
We found no correlation between size of top-slice and
performance of sponsor in results terms.
Nor was any link evident between the types of backoffice services provided and performance.
•
Interviews highlighted that high performing sponsors
have a wide spectrum of charging practices – top-slice
is only a part of the picture:
•
In one example, the sponsor only charges £100 per
pupil but still have a large say over what schools buy.
The chain organise and commission – the schools pay
for services to retain responsibility.
•
Another chain takes 5.1% as a top slice from schools to
pay for a huge range of services. Schools also buy ICT
services from them on a per pupil basis.
Superficially these seem very different but they are both
ensuring schools receive the services they need – they just
fund it in different ways.
38
Financial planning was something all high performing sponsors
emphasised, especially as they grow beyond 6
The need to strengthen financial planning has
been recognised ‘late in the day’ for a number of
high performing sponsors…
•
In the last 12 months, four of the sponsors we
interviewed have taken urgent action to strengthen
their financial capabilities - three in the ‘growing
infrastructure’ phase and one ‘large sponsor’.
•
Actions have included: bringing in experienced fulltime business personnel to control all aspects of HR,
finance, procurement, IT, and business planning across
the chain and in each school; and bringing in external
auditors to complete a detailed business review and
conducting a complete restructure.
•
Sponsors emphasised the toughness of the financial
climate they face, and the cautious planning and risk
management required.
“Initially we underspecified
the size and scope of the
finance work needed and
probably overestimated the
amount of education
improvement work required.”
“When we started we made the
assumption they [schools] could do it
– didn’t take us long to work out they
couldn’t! And we’ve just had our first
audit of 2012-13 and all the mistakes
we made were glaring …but by the
end of that year we put in what we
needed to put in.”
39
Findings
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT APPROACH
40
High performing sponsors adopt different approaches in the
extent they prescribe on teaching and learning
A number of sponsors described an ‘earned
autonomy’ model. But the thresholds were set
in very different places...
The level of prescription on curriculum and
pedagogy does not appear to be a defining
feature of successful sponsors…
•
•
•
Sponsor Relationship Managers (SRMs) were
asked to rate how prescriptive their sponsors
were in terms of curriculum and pedagogy.
There was no significant difference between
higher and lower performing sponsors.
•
•
All high performing sponsors we spoke to operated a
version of ‘earned autonomy’ – while some described it
as 20% autonomy and 80% prescription, for others it
was the other way.
Level of prescription on teaching and learning did not
appear to be related to prescription in branding.
In our SRM survey, we found pupil data monitoring was
universal and not related to sponsor performance.
Least prescriptive
Most prescriptive
• Set curriculum
• Curriculum set
materials – only
locally – common • Take firm
control of
strongest can opt out
elements due to
failing
• ‘Sheep-dip’ staff
influence of lead
schools
training
schools
• Tend to work with • Monitor • Tend to replace
pupil data
heads
incumbent heads
Generally, high performing sponsors take firm control of failing
schools – but their strategies for handling incumbent leaders vary
High performing sponsors across the
board emphasised that they do
everything they can to get in and take
firm control quickly:
•
•
•
All high performing sponsors we interviewed
emphasised that they do everything they can
to get in and take firm control of failing
schools quickly.
This included sponsors that considered
themselves more ‘collaborative’ workers,
although in these cases, emphasis was on
jointly developing a plan of action which the
sponsor could then hold the school
accountable for.
Where practicable, detailed planning was
done as part of due diligence well before
funding agreements are signed.
“It’s all about your ability, as a sponsor and a
CEO, to identify potential and qualities in
leaders. Heads need to be signed up to ‘Leigh
thinking’ and then we can work with them.”
The perception is that high performing
sponsors move heads on more quickly – but
sponsor interviews suggest a varied picture:
•
•
Sponsors interviewed tended to emphasise they
have no blanket policy on moving heads on. One
high performing sponsor had only changed 2/14
incumbent heads.
The critical factor in decisions were described in
terms of willingness to embrace the sponsor’s
ethos and can demonstrate capacity to improve.
42
Many high performing sponsors are outward facing – achieving some
of the benefits of geographical clustering via alternative means
Sponsor interviews illustrated that it is common place for high performing sponsors to be driving the success
of their schools, partly through partnerships in the wider system. Equally, many work with schools outside
their chain to support them, usually as a natural continuation of the relationships they built through being
system leaders prior to becoming academy trusts.
Sponsor A is working with an outstanding school who are deploying their staff in their schools as an SI.
This is also CPD for those staff and their home school is more likely to retain them by providing new
opportunities. The schools also continue with their informal networks within their LA and working with
feeder primaries/secondaries.
Sponsor B is entering into a service level agreements with Diocesan schools to supply services. They are
also in a mutually beneficial arrangement with a teaching school by helping them to deploy their staff
and gaining experienced people in return. The CEO is interested in developing/building these networks
for the benefit of the chain.
Sponsor C recruits improvement partners for their schools from many sources including other schools.
They have recently had a maintained school approach them wanting to be the school improvement
partner for the Diocese with the next academy that needs ‘special care’.
Sponsor D now has five NLEs in total. They use this expertise to ‘parachute’ their Directors and Executive
Principals into sponsored projects, to lead radical, rapid and sustained transformation – but also to offer
additional support to non-chain schools in their local areas.
“We are contacted regularly by small, primary MATs asking for advice. we will
help and offer advice if we can – we do not keep any of our policies or
structures hidden; it is there for all to see and use. It is all about a wider
system of improvement, not just about us. We are not competitive.”
43
Case study: assertive on failure, but not highly prescriptive
REAch2 is the largest national primary chain and is attaining good results across it’s schools. They use a varied
and tailored programme of tools to turn around failing schools, based on the National Support School model.
This includes: introducing proven aspects of curriculum and timetabling, acting on behavioural issues, putting
in place acting or temporary heads and refreshing governing bodies, introducing leadership coaching and
school-to-school support at all levels of teaching.
The chain is committed to locally driven solutions and take trouble to ensure that decisions about what needs
to happen are made according to the needs of the children and families in that community. Regional Executive
Principals (who lead locally based clusters of schools, which are organised as MATs within a REAch2 umbrella)
take close control of new, poorly performing schools in their area. They use their local resources to drive
improvements and to react quickly to issues, bringing in expertise from across the chain where it is required.
Schools are not re-branded with the REAch2 name, maintaining their local identities.
REAch2 operate broadly on the principle of ‘earned autonomy’. As schools in special measures begin to
improve and demonstrate capabilities to take on more control, the leadership becomes more autonomous.
Each ‘outstanding’ academy is free to make its own decisions and well-performing convertor academies will
have different schemes of delegation to brokered sponsored academies. Yet even strongly performing REAch2
schools will share characteristics with other schools across the family. The chain has a rich menu of
professional development which is offered across the chain, including a 14-day programme that all heads are
required to attend. In addition cross-group innovations are being introduced. “11 B4 11” is a recent example –
a programme which offers all REAch2 pupils 11 unique and memorable opportunities before they turn 11.
44
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND FUTURE
RESEARCH
45
Summary of findings
Common principle for high performing
sponsors
Overall reading of range of evidence
available suggests this is integral to being a
high performing sponsor
Varied within high performing
sponsors
Our research has shown that some
high performing sponsors do this –
but not all
No distinction between
higher/lower performing
sponsors
Issues we have tested and found
no evidence of a positive
correlation with sponsor success
The extent to which their growth
has been measured or steady in the
past varies.
No evidence yet of an optimal
size or age.
In terms of school mix, high performing
sponsors are more likely to have a blend of
sponsored and converter projects – those
with 90%+ sponsored do not tend to
perform as well.
Overall those with 80%+ primaries
appear not likely to do as well – but
there are some exceptional primary
only sponsors.
No evidence that level or
diversity of challenge in terms of
historic attainment or pupil
intake is relevant.
High performing sponsors plan growth in
terms of developing geographical clusters
of schools and maximising opportunities for
collaboration.
The extent to which schools are
located in geographically close
clusters or close to Trust HQ varies.
No systematic relationship
between sponsor performance
and geographical clustering.
Growth and development
High performing sponsors grow carefully,
understanding their own capacity, the
challenges they take on and navigating key
transition points well. 5-10 is a particularly
challenging growth period.
Portfolio of schools
46
Common principle for high performing
sponsors
Varied within high performing
sponsors
No distinction between
higher/lower performing
sponsors
The extent to which vision is
communicated as a single ‘brand’
vs schools retaining autonomous
identity varies.
Career progression is often a
motivation for CEO across the
board (distinct from ‘empire
building’).
People and leadership
High performing sponsors have strong and
determined CEOs with a clear moral
purpose that is well transmitted to all staff.
High performing sponsors value
commercial skills and invest in financial
leadership beyond 5-6. FD and COO
appointments are often external.
Most high performing sponsors provide
cross-group progression and CPD. They hire
senior teachers to work across more than
one school and nurture future leaders inhouse.
No evidence that sponsors with
business founders are more likely
to succeed (though small
sample).
Some high performing sponsors to
be outward facing and work to
promote skills beyond the chain,
but not others.
Governance and Finance
High performing sponsors are more likely to
have visibly clear and accountable
governance arrangements and small
boards.
Links between trust and school
level governance are often strong
but there are different models for
doing this.
They incorporate a range of
organisational structures.
47
Common principle for high performing
sponsors
Varied within high performing
sponsors
No distinction between
higher/lower performing
sponsors
Governance and finance cont.
High performing sponsors have a middle
or ‘regional’ management tier led by
educationalists when they grow to 5+.
Middle leaders are typically
responsible for anything from 3-10
schools. Their level of autonomy
varies.
High performing sponsors understand
the importance of financial planning
and invest in this.
School improvement approach
The extent of focus on financial
planning in the past varies.
High performing sponsors have
protocols for taking control of failing
schools. Their action is always swift
and assertive.
Vary in how likely they are to
replace heads of failing schools.
High performing sponsors usually
describe their approach to sustaining
school improvement in terms of
‘earned autonomy’.
Vary in the extent they prescribe
curriculum and pedagogy.
High performing sponsors usually have
strong partnerships with schools in
the wider system.
For some it is a continuation of their
historic system leadership role –
some use external partnerships to
help drive success in their schools.
No distinct top-slice, central offer
or performance on key financial
indicators.
No more likely to monitor pupil
data across the chain than weaker
sponsors – they all do.
48
Opportunities to build on this research are developing all the
time. Some potential future areas are listed below.
•
Update analysis based on this year’s results – based on continuing focus on chains of 3+ schools open for
over 1 year, we would expect our sample for quantitative work to grow from 88 to around 140, providing
richer data and enabling further analysis of different sponsor types and segmentation. This should also
allow us to look at the difference between good and great in more detail.
•
In-depth exploration of the factors associated with successfully running a Free School and group of Free
Schools.
•
Analysis of characteristics of high performing converter-only chains.
•
More detailed work on characteristics of poorly performing sponsors – including exploring in detail where
sponsors had been progressing well and hit difficulties at key transition points.
•
Further analysis of the relationship between chain performance and financial health indicators
49
For more information
Contact us
 By email: [email protected]
Also check out
 In-depth sponsor profiles for a number of the sponsors interviewed for
the research: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/academysponsor-profiles
50