State of the Region 2013 by Nicola Barrell

State of the Region 2013 factors affecting schoolsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; decision-making around their engagement with the art and cultural sector

CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................

THE BIG PICTURE .....................................................................................................

INTRODUCTION TO THE NUMBERS ..........................................................................

THE SURVEY - METHODOLOGY.................................................................................

THE SURVEY - ANALYSIS...........................................................................................

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................................

Appendix I - A Decision-Making SWOT Analysis of Findings ......................................

Appendix II - Comparison with NFER’s Report on London Schools for A New Direction 49 Appendix III – Data Sources and Tables ....................................................................

Appendix IV - Outline of Literature Review and References ......................................

0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Norfolk & Norwich Festival Bridge is funded by Arts Council England as one of ten Bridge organisations working across England. The Norfolk & Norwich Festival Bridge’s mission is to connect children and young people with arts and culture across Cambridgeshire, Norfolk, Peterborough and Suffolk with the vision that by 2015 an increasing number of our younger generation will be enthused, participating in and leading arts and cultural activities across our region. This report aims to provide arts and cultural organisations in the Norfolk & Norwich Bridge area with a clear insight into the factors influencing the decision making of schools in regard to their cultural education offer. The report builds on an earlier report undertaken by NFER for A New Direction (the Bridge for London) in 2012, investigating cultural education in London’s schools. This report recognises the valuable insights identified in the NFER report and seeks to build on those through a contextualised and qualitative analysis of case studies in the Norfolk & Norwich Festival’s Bridge area. Our research began by drawing on ten interviews with head-teachers and heads of art in Cambridgeshire, Norfolk, Peterborough and Suffolk. This process provided a clear indictor in support of the NFER findings. What emerged from that first phase of research was a clear indication that each school needed to be treated as a unique entity and that identifying trends in barriers is ineffective. Through the research we identified that the rapidly changing landscape of the education sector

means that connections linking schools are rapidly evolving and that it is through engaging in this space that arts and cultural organisations will find the greatest opportunity to engage with and add value to schools and by extension children and young people. To enable organisations to effectively engage in this dialogue this report sets out the key policy drivers and identifies the key local responses. Three key themes emerge in the report: 1) The Missing Middle – as decision making is devolved to schools, new brokers are emerging. Arts and cultural organisations can play a key role in creating, shaping and delivering ambitions of these groups, and should also recognise the importance of engaging with them as key channels to working with schools. 2) Collaboration Not Geography – no longer necessarily tied to local authority leadership, collaborative relationships between schools are growing in new and surprising ways. Arts and cultural organisations must be prepared to identify, respond and capitalise on relationships between schools which are as likely to be national as they are neighbouring. 3) Sense of Place – although we can see movement away from specifically local structures, there is a compelling case for schools to think locally. Arts and cultural providers which make that case and support local interaction are likely to be viewed positively.

1 INTRODUCTION The Norfolk & Norwich Festival Bridge (NNF) has the mission to connect children and young people with arts and culture across Cambridgeshire, Norfolk, Peterborough and Suffolk. NNF commissioned Restart-Ed Ltd to investigate what drives schools’ decisions about participation in cultural and arts education, and to provide a qualitative analysis exploring how national policy and other external pressures are affecting education in the region.

the factors that drive schools’ decisions about engagement with art and cultural providers, and what facilitates or inhibits that engagement. The report also explores how schools’ needs have changed, and what providers can do to maximise their chances of successfully engaging with schools. This is offered not solely as a means of increasing the commercial viability of these providers, but as way of raising the standard of arts, cultural and creative education in the region, and of enriching the lives of children in NNF Bridge area through high quality engagement with the sector.

The report is enhanced with relevant statistics, including those drawn from the Arts Council England’s Cultural Education Profile tool, as compiled by Trends Business Research Ltd. This State of the Region 2013 report is a sister to the earlier NFER report for A New Direction, which investigated the state of cultural education in London schools, and showed that cultural engagement by schools in London is of variable quality, and that the overall education provision by cultural organisations is patchy. Whilst we assume no significant differences in the findings between schools in London and the NNF Bridge area, our research didn’t aim to replicate the NFER study, but rather aimed to provide a deeper dive into the context, values and perceptions which inform the decision-making processes in schools, and which therefore shape the way they engage with the art and cultural sector. Through a qualitative and contextual analysis, supported by case studies, the report aims to enhance the art and cultural sector’s understanding of 4

2 THE BIG PICTURE The local impact of national education policy The region does not exist in isolation from the rest of the country. Even as schools are nominally becoming more autonomous, the government’s education policy and reform of key aspects of the schools system are played out here as they are everywhere else. The current Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, quite quickly earned a reputation as a reformer, but in the last two years it has become clear that he is set on becoming one of the most reforming education ministers in recent history. For Warwick Mansell, a journalist writing in The Guardian on 4 June 2013: “Gove … is attempting to reform the entire curriculum and qualifications framework for 5-18 year-olds during a single five-year term.” He is also pushing through the structural changes of the Academies Act 2010, and all against a backdrop of greater accountability by Ofsted and austerity-driven public spending reviews. It is important, therefore, to understand the key components of policy and reform, and to provide an overview of some of the ways these are having an impact on the region’s schools. It is also important to understand the rationale for the Coalition’s reform agenda, which has three key components. Firstly, there is the drive to improve standards in schools by raising both the floor and the ceiling. Soon after taking up his new post in 2010, Michael Gove told the Commons Education Select Committee that “rich thick kids do better than poor clever children when they arrive at school [and] the situation as they go through gets worse.” Secondly, there is Michael Gove’s conservative pedagogy - based on the work of American academic E.D. Hirsch - which believes the best way to

equalise standards between rich and poor is to ensure that all acquire a core knowledge of important cultural facts through a focus on high quality subject teaching. In the US, Hirsch’s ‘Core Knowledge Series’ of books sets out what children from pre-school to sixth-grade ‘need to know’ in order to play a useful part in society as knowledgeable and literate citizens. He suggests that a ‘Romantic’ focus on developing ‘critical thinking skills’ rather than on teaching ‘content’ is to blame for the decline in standards of education. For ‘Hirschians’, children need to be taught a foundation of knowledge before they can then develop the critical thinking skills required to use it. Finally, the reforms are given an urgency by reference to England’s standing in international comparisons of student performance in reading, maths and science tests, most notably the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD’s) Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). In December 2010, the DfE used the 2009 tables as a platform for many of its reforms, stating that: “England has continued to fall in the Pisa rankings, meaning that in just nine years [from 2000-2009] we have dropped from 7th to 25th in reading, 8th to 27th in mathematics and 4th to 16th in science.” The veracity of these statistics have since been questioned by the UK Statistics Authority, and the OECD itself has suggested that the data was “a little bit dodgy”, but as Andreas Schleicher, the OECD’s Deputy Director for Education and Skills, said: “The more important lesson is that the UK has not improved in a way that we have seen other systems improving.” Interestingly, the PISA tables have recently added measures to assess problem-solving skills as part of its comparison, and is currently exploring whether it is feasible to add measures of relative creativity too. The DfE announced in 2011 that it would opt out of the problem-solving element of the tests when they are introduced in 2015. As reported in the TES on 10 October 2011: “Peter Miller, president of Pearson Learning Solutions told TES: ‘It requires a different approach to the 5

education system than a hothouse around the acquisition of knowledge.’ Mr Gove has placed the acquisition of ‘essential’ subject knowledge at the centre of his ongoing national curriculum review. But Mr Miller said countries with high Pisa rankings had started introducing ‘self-directed learning’ and ‘critical thinking’ into their curriculums.” (TES, 10 October 2011)

The following commentary is neither a comprehensive analysis of policy, nor an inclusive review of how schools and authorities are responding to policy in the region. Rather, it is intended to provide the reader with an overview of the key drivers behind the current changes in the school system, and some important examples of regional responses.

The national picture The National Curriculum review In January 2011, Michael Gove announced a review of the National Curriculum in England. Led by a panel of experts, the review looked at the appropriateness of the National Curriculum for both primary and secondary schools, assessing the extent to which it contained the “essential knowledge that all children should acquire”, and how it could be thinned down to “give schools and teachers more freedom to decide how to teach this most effectively and to design a wider school curriculum that best meets the needs of their pupils”. The intention was to issue a new framework for certain subjects from September 2013, with others following in September 2014, coinciding with the introduction of new assessments (see below). In December 2011, after 11 months of gathering evidence - including the receipt of nearly 6,000 submissions to the public consultation - the panel published; their recommendations in relation to the framework for the new National Curriculum; a summary of the evidence gathered about

curricula for English, mathematics and science in high-performing jurisdictions; a research report looking at subject breadth in the curricula used in other education jurisdictions; and a summary report of the responses to the review’s call for evidence. These documents are available from the DfE website. In April 2012, following guidance from both Ofqual and the Education Select Committee as well as the Expert Panel, Michael Gove announced a postponement of the introduction of the new National Curriculum, allowing “for more radical reform of both curriculum and qualifications”. This effectively did away with the original plan to launch certain subjects first (in September 2013), and means that the new curriculum for all subjects will now be introduced in 2014. In February 2013, the DfE launched a public consultation on the draft National Curriculum, and sought views on proposals to “disapply” the National Curriculum guidelines for ICT from September 2013. In addition, the DfE clarified that all existing subjects in the National Curriculum would be retained at the same key stages as now, and confirmed the Government’s intention to add the teaching of languages at Key Stage 2. A final version of the new National Curriculum will be available in autumn 2013 for first teaching in schools from September 2014. The consultation closed in April 2013. In June 2013, Michael Gove outlined his response to the Expert Panel’s recommendations for the primary curriculum, and confirmed that he would do the same regarding their recommendations for the secondary curriculum “in due course”. The letter is available on the DfE website, along with draft National Curriculum documents for primary English, maths and science, with a full public consultation on revised drafts planned for early 2014. Gove also confirmed that the programmes of study, attainment targets and statutory assessment arrangements for ICT would be disapplied from September 2012.

On the face of it, the government’s proposal to thin down the National Curriculum - delegating more responsibility on what to teach and how to teach it to teachers in schools - should have been welcomed by the profession, which had been calling for such a change after years of central prescription. And yet, because of Michael Gove’s explicit belief in the conservative ‘knowledge-first’ pedagogy of US theorist E.D Hirsch (amongst others) and his opinion that the new National Curriculum should set out a ‘core of essential knowledge’ in maths, English and the sciences (the ‘core subjects’; implying that these are of more importance to industry than other subjects and skills), the National Curriculum review has caused a great deal of concern amongst many in the profession and beyond. As a result, many groups in the arts and cultural sector - alongside others - made submissions to the consultation and undertook substantial lobbying activities to promote the particular interests of their sector. The basis for their activity was to ensure that non-core subjects continued to be valued in schools. This is because of the contiguous steer given to schools about the ‘English Baccalaureate’ (Ebacc) performance measure which, just as the ‘5 A*-C incl. English & Maths’ measure encourages a focus on getting certain students past an assessment threshold, encourages a focus on what the government views as “academic subjects” (English, mathematics, history or geography, the sciences and a language) at the expense of others. Many argue that this is likely to be particularly acute in a system where the focus of Ofsted - and maybe parents - is shifting to a narrower set of performance measures in academic subjects, and where school budgets are being tightened by austerity measures and Spending Reviews. The logic is that what little money there is in schools will be directed at the things that are apparently valued by the government and its independent ombudsman.

“‘the arts’ be made compulsory for KS4 in order to ensure that with the introduction of the English Baccalaureate (EBacc), the role of art and music should not be lost. ‘The arts’ would also include other aspects of the arts (e.g. dance and drama). The panel recognise the importance of the arts for economic, social, cultural, and personal outcomes. They cite evidence that promotes the value of arts and humanities education to both pupils, specifically, ‘pupil engagement, cognitive development and achievement, including in mathematics and reading’; and to the wider economy.” (page 63)

Whilst this lobbying activity by CCE and that by many other groups is important and may well have raised the public profile of those interests and the organisations promoting them, it may ironically have gone largely unnoticed by the very people who are now empowered to decide what to teach in their schools: school leaders and teachers. If arts organisations wish to influence practice in schools in the current system, the most important audience are the practitioners. Moreover, as we can see from the findings of this report, it is not the case that they are all rushing to devalue non-core subjects. It is important to note that this is not just true for academies; in maintained schools too, there has always been flexibility around how the National Curriculum can be delivered. And now, perhaps driven by the general sense of ‘all change’, or because best-practice is being more widely shared, school leaders and teachers in all schools are taking control of curriculum design.

For example, Creativity, Culture & Education’s ‘Progression in Creativity developing new forms of assessment: a literature review’ recommends that: 7

‘Unleashing Greatness’ The Academies Act 2010 changed the shape of England’s school system, and the nature of the relationships between the organisations in it. In May 2010 there were 203 academies and by June 2013 there were just under 3,000. While take-up of academy status in the secondary sector since 2010 has exceeded government expectations, take-up by primaries has been lower than expected. According to the DfE, academies are publicly-funded independent schools which “benefit from greater freedoms to innovate and raise standards”. These include: • • • •

freedom from local authority control; the ability to set their own pay and conditions for staff; freedoms around the delivery of the curriculum; and the ability to change the lengths of terms and school days.

Academies receive the same level of funding per-pupil as they would receive from the local authority as a maintained school, but receive in addition the money they would otherwise have spent on services from their local authority. They are governed by the same principles, although academies’ governing bodies have greater autonomy. Moreover, they are required to follow the same law and guidance on admissions, special educational needs and exclusions as maintained schools, cannot become selective if they were not so before ‘conversion’, and are also subject to the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act (2000). It is also important to understand the different types of academy. The Academies Commission, led by the RSA and Pearson in 2012, used the following useful model to describe the different types of schools now in the system in its report ‘Unleashing Greatness - getting the best from an academised system’:

1. Academies Mark I - introduced by the Labour government in 2002 to transform performance in areas of profound social and educational challenge. The original and failing school was closed and a new school was opened, sponsored with start-up funds by a philanthropist or business partner. The vision and business acumen of the sponsor were seen as key in establishing the new school, outside local authority control, in radically transformed buildings and led by highly paid heads. 2. Academies Mark II - this model was rolled out across the country over the next eight years, but changed slightly to allow other organisations such as universities, charities and even some local authorities to act as sponsors. Start-up funding was no longer required and less capital investment was needed for new buildings, but more conditions were specified in academy funding agreements with respect to performance. By May 2010, 203 of these Academies Mark I and II were open and another 60 or so were planned. 3. Academies Mark III - was introduced after the 2010 general election, enabling all maintained schools that Ofsted had judged to be outstanding (and some judged to be ‘performing well’) to become academies on a single vote by the governing body. Several different types of academies now cluster under the Mark III umbrella: • • •

sponsored academies that follow a model somewhere between Mark I and Mark II free standing converter academies that are either ‘outstanding’ or ‘performing well’ schools that have converted to academy status and joined a chain of schools (either because they wish to work in a group of other schools in the same chain, or to avoid being ‘converted’ by the DfE into a sponsored chain) 8

•

• •

•

schools that have converted to academy status but, as part of the conversion process, are required to work with or be supported by another school because they are not performing sufficiently well on their own schools that have converted as a federation and form a multi-academy trust schools that have converted to join an umbrella trust (typically a faith grouping), where schools have individual funding agreements with the Secretary of State but one or more of their trustees is nominated by a central charitable body, such as a diocese schools that have converted to academy status individually but have agreed to work with others in a soft partnership or collaboration.

4. Free Schools - although, technically, Free Schools, University Technical Colleges and Studio Schools are academies, they are each different from converter and sponsored academies, both in their role and in the arrangements for their practice. Firstly, they are newly created rather than existing schools, but they are also designed to increase choice and competition. There is considerable debate about whether the academies programme has been successful in its aims of driving school improvement and achieving better outcomes for young people. As chapter two of the Academies Commission’s report outlines, the evidence is inconclusive. If anything, it shows that academisation alone does not guarantee improvement; that the process of academisation is not a panacea for school improvement; and that only some of the practices associated with some academies are having the positive intended effect. The Commission concludes that the early academies programme led to some revitalisation of the school system, but that real improvement can only be seen where schools used their academy status to strengthen their approach to ambitious school improvement. The Commissioners were

therefore concerned that the move to a fully (or predominantly) academised system was not accompanied by a greater focus on what actually works: “A fully academised system - indeed, even just an increasingly academised one - needs to be supported by a relentless effort to change the practice of teaching so the impact on pupils’ learning becomes greater. It needs an implementation plan which is supported by all involved in education. At the heart of this plan is the development of a self-sustaining, self-improving system where leaders and teachers extend their moral and professional accountabilities to schools beyond their own. It is this that will create Academies Mark IV with the potential for transforming our schools.” (Unleashing Greatness, page 41)

School networks … the ‘new middle’? At the centre of the self-sustaining and self-improving system, which the Academies Commission desires, is the need for schools to develop a vision for change and to collaborate; to engage with an idea of what they should be teaching children, and to talk to one another about what works. For example: “Many academies told the Commission that if practice is to be informed by the best knowledge and understanding, lateral interaction is essential. Identifying and communicating practice, even if just at the level of signposting, would also be of particular value to primary schools who, to date, are not as involved in collaborative activity as secondary schools.” (Unleashing Greatness, page 34)

Local authorities - as the local arbiters of national policy; the ‘middlelayer’ between schools and national policy - have, in the past, helped create and drive school-to-school collaboration, including some outstanding practice in this region as we shall see below. However, the expansion of the academies programme in 2010 disempowered local authorities and fundamentally changed their modus operandi, even with respect to their continued maintenance of non-academy schools. Furthermore, if there was any consideration given at all to collaboration as a key aspect of system improvement, then it probably involved an unspoken expectation that the academy chains would fulfil that role. But in reality, most chains have not seen that as an important part of their responsibility or, where they have, the focus has been on leadership and governance rather than on curriculum. For Robert Hill in his report for the RSA on ‘The Missing Middle: the case for school commissioners’, there is a need for the DfE to devolve substantial aspects of education policy to “city regions or other subregional structures”, and for these to then appoint school commissioners: “high-calibre individuals who would command the confidence and respect of school leaders.” Amongst other things, these commissioners would develop a sub-regional strategy for school improvement (including progression routes, area-based curriculum offers and extra-curricular experiences), and “mobilise/channel third sector and employer support to broaden experiences and resources for young people”. In common with the Academies Commission, Hill also sees collaboration as a vital component of school improvement, and notes that schools are working together through a wide range of collaborative and partnership initiatives, over and above more formal groupings like Teaching School Alliances and federations: “The role of school improvement organisations and individuals, from public, private and voluntary sectors, is also growing as more academies and free schools employ them to provide support and challenge. So we

have local authorities, the DfE, teaching school alliances, federations, chains and partnerships, the National College, private companies and other school improvement initiatives all exercising what, in the broad sense of the term, might be called middle tier functions.” (Missing Middle, page 22)

One very successful example of an initiative encouraging school-to-school collaboration is Whole Education. Whole Education was established in 2010 by a group of leading nonprofit organisations including Oxfam, Paul Hamlyn Foundation, RSA, Innovation Unit, Young Foundation, Human Scale Education, UK Youth, Campaign for Learning, Studio Schools and ViTaL Partnerships. Cited by Ken Robinson in ‘Out of our Minds’ as an example of the sort of partnership which is transforming education systems around the world, Whole Education has matured into a partnership of schools, organisations and individuals that believe all young people should have a fully rounded education, developing the knowledge, skills and qualities needed to help them thrive in life and work. The schools in the Whole Education Network gather together in communities of practice around key issues, and share both experiences and practice. They are proving that collaboration works, and that successful improvement and the achievement of better outcomes for students doesn’t depend on making a false choice between curriculum breadth and subject focus, or between skills and knowledge. These schools are proving that it is about and not or, and that schools can achieve great results for their students as well as good Ofsted ratings whilst also focusing less on exam syllabuses, national tests or ‘core subjects’ and more on developing the whole child. RSA’s Area Based Curriculum Another example of successful partnerships, although this time between schools and other organisations, is the RSA’s area-based curriculum initiative. Based on four years of research and development with schools 10

and communities in Manchester and Peterborough, the principle of an area-based curriculum is for schools to work with organisations in their community to create curricula that are about a place (making use of the local context and resources to inform learning), by a place (designed jointly by schools in partnership with local stakeholders), and for a place (specifically meeting the needs of children in the community). For Professor Keri Facer in her review of the scheme: “The aim of an 'area-based curriculum' seems elegant in its simplicity: to enhance the educational experiences of young people by creating rich connections with the communities, cities and cultures that surround them and by distributing the education effort across the people, organisations and institutions of a local area.” Both Whole Education and the RSA’s area-based curriculum have had a profound effect on schools in this region and will - along with other initiatives of note in the context of this report - be examined in more detail below. However they are also the result of what Hill and others have described as a “fragmentation” of the school improvement system, which needs, in Hill’s words, to be ‘knitted together’ by a more formal middle-layer “so as to reduce duplication, share intelligence and learning and ensure schools don’t fall between the cracks and get left behind”. As highlighted in the widely respected McKinsey report ‘How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better’, “an effective middle tier or mediating layer can add significant value to the collaborative actions of school networks”. This analysis became more important on 17 June 2013 when Stephen Twigg MP, Labour’s shadow education minister, set out his party’s One Nation Education Policy. Largely informed by the reports analysed above, and by the key protagonists behind Whole Education and the RSA (amongst others), Twigg’s vision is for a system in which all schools enjoy the freedoms available to academies (if they are proven to be effective), in which power is devolved to schools through local mediating layers like those described by Robert Hill, and in which collaboration between

schools like that encouraged in the Whole Education Network becomes the norm.

Shifting sands … Henley and the Cultural Education Plan In 2011, the Secretary of State for Education and the Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries commissioned Darren Henley, Managing Director of Global Radio’s national classical music station Classic FM, to undertake an independent review of cultural education in England. The review issued its report in February 2012, making 24 specific recommendations and outlining the following key factors in improving the provision of cultural education: •

• • • • •

a clear signal from the coalition government of its belief in the importance of cultural education in the lives of children and young people; a single unifying strategy with all public funding streams working together; stronger partnerships between providers both in-school and outof-school and from the formal and informal sectors; a more rigorous quality framework so that all providers have a clear understanding of what excellent provision looks like; better training of those involved in delivering Cultural Education both in-school and out-of-school; and clearer sign posting for children and young people and for their teachers, parents and carers about what is available to them on both a local and national level.

Key recommendations included: •

that the government should develop a strategic National Cultural Education Plan, setting out a “clear pathway from Early Years Provision for all children, through to those young people who study Cultural Education subjects at the highest level” and 11

•

• •

including “in-school and out-of-school opportunities offered by the full range of providers”; that such a plan includes provision for the establishment of Local Cultural Education partnerships - modelled on Local Music Education Hubs and perhaps run by the Bridge organisations - to create local links between schools and providers and resolve some of the current duplication; that organisations like Arts Council England, the Heritage Lottery Fund, the British Film Institute, the Big Lottery Fund and English Heritage should work together to ensure that their individual strategies for cultural education are coherent and compelling, and feed the government’s stated ambitions; that a single hub website is developed to act as a single point of reference across the whole of Cultural Education, detailing what is available in each local area for teachers, parents and children; that schools assign specific duties in relation to cultural education to a senior leader; that Ofsted should create a guide to working with schools for cultural organisations, setting out clearly the criteria which Ofsted uses to judge whether learning is of a high standard.

The Henley Review also called for the assignment of greater priority to ‘design’, ‘dance’ and ‘drama’ as discrete curriculum subjects within the national curriculum and the EBacc, and recommended the expansion of the Arts Council’s Arts Award and Artsmark schemes. The Coalition government’s initial response was positive, declaring a commitment to invest in solutions to a number of the recommendations. Some remain concerned that the development of a National Cultural Education Plan has been delayed, and that the DfE has not yet given any clear indication that it values arts and cultural education as highly as Henley recommended. Others are more positive, pointing to the government’s early implementation of several of Henley’s recommendations, and its acceptance of some of the National Curriculum

Review panel’s own recommendations about the importance of ‘noncore’ subjects. For Lizzie Crump of the Cultural Learning Alliance: “Much of the success of this review now hinges on the national plan. It will need to shape this vision into a coherent strategy and must robustly address the operational nitty-gritty: the ways that music hubs, bridge organisations, local authorities, schools, Ofsted and practitioners will work together. It will also need to clarify the funding, roles, responsibilities and reporting structures that are required to make this strategy work. There are some pressing issues that will need to be addressed: the demand for cultural learning must be grown within schools, youth, family and learning settings, with parents convinced of its value. Young people who are not able to access culture independently must be effectively targeted and supported in their active engagement with this world. And the dramatic drop in capacity and funding in local authority children's and cultural services will need to be tackled head on.” (The Guardian Culture Professional’s Network, 29 February 2012)

One aspect of the Henley Review that deserves greater emphasis especially given the Coalition’s focus on educating for national productivity and on financial efficiency - is the impact of a good cultural education both on student outcomes in ‘core subject’ assessments and on the economy. Creativity, Culture and Education’s 2010 report by PricewaterhouseCooper LLP (PwC) on the costs and benefits of Creative Partnerships programmes presents compelling evidence of the positive economic and educational impact of long-term partnerships between schools and creative professionals. It states: 12

“Overall, Creative Partnerships is estimated to have generated or is expected to generate a net positive economic benefit of just under £4bn. Expressed as a ratio of the benefits to the costs, we estimate that every £1 invested in the programme delivers £15.30 worth of benefits. Learner benefits … derived using a National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) study … found that young people who attended Creative Partnerships activities made, on average, the equivalent of 2.5 grades better progress at GCSE than similar young people in other schools.” (The costs and benefits of Creative Partnerships, PwC, July 2010)

Regional impact As above, this region does not exist in isolation from the rest of the country. Schools and other organisations in Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, Norfolk and Suffolk are responding to government reforms just as their counterparts are doing elsewhere. Moreover, we do have a number of particularly notable initiatives here, some of which are of national importance, and will certainly be of interest to arts and cultural providers.

Freedom and fragmentation Before we embark on an analysis of regional responses to national policy, it is vital to clarify that these examples are not presented as trends. We would not recommend that arts and cultural providers use these examples of school or system practice to set regional marketing or promotional strategies. One of the key conclusions we wish you to draw from this report is that there is no composite model for schools’ needs with respect to arts and cultural engagement. Each school should be seen

as having quite distinct needs, based on its own context, budget and strategic priorities. If anything, the examples given here, alongside the findings of the survey, clearly demonstrate this reality. The fragmentation of the school improvement system outlined by Robert Hill (above) is important, but also relates to some extent to the concurrent drive towards autonomy by the schools themselves. Schools now operate in a market for the services they need, and they are increasingly aware of their responsibility to spend public money wisely and selectively on services that are of the highest quality, which have proven positive outcomes and which have positive side-effects too. This is most evident in schools that have opted to convert to academy status, where the leaders and teachers can flex their professional muscles and adjust their curriculum to focus on areas they themselves feel are important. But it is important to note that neither curricular innovation nor procurement flexibility are exclusive to academies. Many maintained schools, particularly - though again, not exclusively - primaries, have developed highly innovative practice in both areas. These are the schools - both academies and maintained - which Brian Lightman, General Secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL), describes as “confident, not constrained”; and which have taken the position, after Isaiah Berlin perhaps, that freedom is a positive choice, not a negative one; that they can most enjoy ‘freedom to …’, not ‘freedom from …’.

‘Normal for Norfolk … Suffolk, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough’ The general pattern of academisation in the region more or less matches the national picture, with perhaps fewer conversions in Norfolk than the average (30 out of nearly 400 schools), and more in Cambridgeshire, where all but one secondary school had converted or were in the process of doing so. Of more interest are the examples of what is being done differently in the region. 13

The free school policy was hailed as a way for parents, teachers and other organisations to set up new schools in areas of need, or where there was demand, and to challenge underperforming schools. However, after the first few rounds of proposals were accepted or rejected by the Department, some commentators criticised the Secretary of State for only granting funds to proposals with a ‘traditional’ curriculum offer, in line with the ‘knowledge-first’ ideology described above. For example, one of the first free schools to open was the West London Free School, which offers a traditional curriculum focusing on academic excellence and the provision of a ‘Classical Liberal Education.’ The school defines this on its website as: “a rigorous and extensive knowledge-based education that draws its material and methods from the best and most important work in both the humanities and the sciences. […] We believe the main focus of our curriculum should be on that common body of knowledge that, until recently, all schools were expected to teach. This is the background knowledge taken for granted by writers who address the intellectually engaged layman - the shared frames of reference for public discourse in modern liberal democracies. Sometimes referred to as “intellectual capital”, at other times as “cultural literacy”, this storehouse of general knowledge will enable all our pupils to grow to their full stature. Passing on this knowledge, as well as the ability to use it wisely, is what we mean by a Classical Liberal Education.”

Other proposers with a different perspective on what constitutes a good education have been less successful. Many have been from the region. For example, Richard Draper, Chief Executive of Norfolk-based charity The Benjamin Foundation, saw the policy as an opportunity to establish a mainstream school with a radical curriculum. His proposal for The Benjamin School was to offer young people a learning experience that would take place largely outside the classroom, from natural spaces to theatres, and from museums to mechanics’ workshops. These are the principles that have been proven to be effective for children with alternative needs at the foundation’s small independent school in Great Yarmouth and elsewhere, but which would have been open to all children regardless of funding, from five sites across Norfolk. Draper’s vision had attracted the interest of many parents, with more than 150 children signed up towards a target of 300 for September 2014. More than 40 qualified teachers had committed to the proposal, which had also attracted the support of the local authority, other schools in the area, and the Innovation Unit, a respected social enterprise that works with public-sector bodies to improve services. And yet it was turned down by the DfE, which outlined concerns about the curriculum and educational expertise, suggesting that, if the group wished to reapply, it should consider starting from a “blank sheet”. In Suffolk, a proposal by the Felixstowe Community School Group of parents for a ‘human-scale’ school with 10% of curriculum time spent in the community and a focus on meeting special educational needs was also turned down in early 2013, although in this case because the DfE felt that it couldn’t offer appropriate advice to the parents on how to make the community aspect work.

(http://www.westlondonfreeschool.co.uk/overview/our-vision.html)

The West London Free School is now advising other free school proposers on their bids, including curriculum advice.

Several other innovative bids - one for an early-intervention focused alternative free school by Ely College in Cambridgeshire, and another for a special needs free school in Ipswich focusing on a therapeutic approach - were also turned down in previous years. 14

The DfE has always been clear that innovation is a key part of the philosophy of the free schools programme. Indeed, section 1.3 of the guidance on how to apply states that: â&#x20AC;&#x153;The whole point of the free schools policy is that it should encourage innovation and be driven by the vision and passion of those proposing a school.â&#x20AC;? And yet the Innovation Unit and others are concerned that the system does not do enough to support innovative proposals, and that they may be prioritising more traditional proposals. The region is obviously not short of imaginative bids for new schools with different types of curriculum offer. Perhaps there is an opportunity for the arts and cultural providers to support these bids where synergies emerge. The region is also not short of free school bids in general. In fact, outside of major cities, the region - but particularly Suffolk - has one of the highest free school bid rates of any predominantly rural region in England. It may be said to be on the free school front line, as documented by Suffolk blogger and chair of governors at Stradbroke Primary School, James Hargrave (see http://blog.hargrave.org.uk/). As of June 2013, there are five free schools open in the region (Stour Valley Community School, Saxmundham Free School and Beccles Free School in Suffolk, and The Free School Norwich and IES Breckland in Norfolk). DfE data indicates that a further five will open in 2013 (Cambourne Village College in Cambridgeshire, the Sir Isaac Newton Free School and Thetford AP Free School in Norfolk, the City of Peterborough Academy in Peterborough, and Churchill Special Free School in Suffolk) and a further two (Ixworth Free School in Suffolk and Jane Austen College in Norfolk) in 2014 or later. Whilst there is a very mixed economy of academy chains in the region, with many standalone trusts and few dominant groups, there are some emerging patterns worthy of a brief note. The Learning Schools Trust, a

UK-arm of the Swedish Kunskapsskolan group of schools, currently offers its highly personalised curriculum at the Ipswich Academy. The Active Learning Trust has developed a good relationship with Cambridgeshire County Council and is now running one secondary and two primary schools in the county, alongside two primaries in Suffolk. Ely College in Cambridgeshire and The Deepings School in Peterborough both joined the CfBT Schools Trust in early 2012, which is reported to currently be in discussion with Newmarket College and another school in Norfolk, thereby creating one of the small regional clusters it believes will encourage in-trust collaboration. The Ormiston Academies Trust is probably the chain with the largest interest in the region, with one school in Peterborough (the Ormiston Bushfield Academy), two in Norfolk (Venture in Great Yarmouth and Victory in Norwich), and three in Suffolk with another in development (Endeavour in Ipswich, Denes in Lowestoft and Sudbury, with Stoke High School in development in Ipswich). The TEN Group in Norfolk is also of note, comprising a federation of educational institutions in the county, the organisation includes City College Norwich, City Academy Norwich, Wayland Academy in Watton, and the Norfolk University Technical College, opening in September 2014. Alongside its work with these schools, the TEN Group also offers school support services to others through its subsidiary Norfolk Educational Services, and TEN Commercial Services, a novel company which will act as a broker for any income-generating activity offered by its members. Other than its free schools and academy groups, the region is a focus for national policy interest in a number of other areas too. Two education ministers with important briefs have seats in the area: Matthew Hancock, Minister for Skills is MP for West Suffolk with constituency offices in Newmarket, and Liz Truss, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the DfE is MP for South West Norfolk, based in Downham Market. 15

Jim Paice MP, previously Under Secretary of State at the Department of Education and Employment in the mid-1990s and born in Suffolk, now has his seat in South East Cambridgeshire. Graham Stuart MP, the current chair of the Commons Education Select Committee and therefore unofficially one of the most influential people in education policy, started his publishing business in Cambridge during his first year at university and remains non-executive chairman. He was elected as a member of Cambridge City Council for the Cherry Hinton Ward in 1998 and unsuccessfully contested the Cambridge constituency as a Conservative in 2001. He was re-elected to Cambridge City Council in the 2002 local elections and served until 2004. Another powerful influence in education policy - currently as one of the DfE’s non-executive board members, and chair of its new Academies Board - is Norfolk-based Theodore Agnew. Agnew established the Inspiration Trust (previously the East Norfolk Academies Trust) which sponsors Larkham Primary and Great Yarmouth Primary Academy, and which will open Sir Isaac Free School in September 2013, all of which are in Norfolk. Outside of the department, Agnew is a successful businessman and conservative-party donor with a distinguished career in financial services. He is also a trustee of Policy Exchange.

Regional innovation It’s good to have influential people in the region, but it’s more important to have influential practice. Again, the area punches above its weight in this respect too. As noted above, Whole Education is a fast-growing network of schools which have made a commitment to offer a broad and balanced curriculum to their students. A core group of those have signed up as Pathfinder Schools, paying an annual subscription and committing to share some of the practice they have found to work.

As of June 2013, 12 of the 80 or so Pathfinder Schools are based in the region. These are Crosshall Junior, Ely College, Linton Village College and Swavesey Village College in Cambridgeshire; Dogsthorpe Junior, Ken Stimpson Academy, Nene Park Academy and The Beeches Primary School in Peterborough; Open Academy and Thorpe St Andrew High School in Norfolk; and Ipswich Academy and Samuel Ward Academy in Suffolk. As an example of what these schools do, Ely College has been a champion of Musical Futures school since 2008, having adopted the approach to bring joy back to the study of this most creative and engaging of subjects. The methods are derived from the ‘Learning Futures’ programme by the Paul Hamlyn Foundation, which aimed to engage young people more effectively in their learning by giving them more responsibility for directing it. Head of Department Tim London described his frustration “to continually be teaching ‘about’ music rather than exploring music through performance and composition.” In practice, music students at the College focus their work on musical projects which are of interest to them, but which include exposure to other genres and experiences. Another characteristic of the Musical Futures approach at the College is the emphasis on integrating listening with practical music making, improvising and composing. Technique, notation and other forms of written instruction are part of the process but are developed through practical playing. One outcome of the College’s work with its younger students is an unusually high level of uptake in the music GCSE course at key stage 4. The College now regularly hosts visits from other schools interested in the approach, and in the means by which the instructors have adapted material from the Highlands & Islands local authority in Scotland to enable independence of learning to be measured and scored. Ely College is now working with Linton Village College and other Pathfinder Schools to adopt the ‘Learning Futures’ approach in its teaching of modern foreign languages. Language Futures is a highly personalised, learner-led programme which encourages students to immerse themselves in the language they have chosen to study and its associated culture both at home and in school. Teaching takes place in 16

missed-language groups, supported by technology and a community of experts who are fluent or native speakers, working alongside students as mentors. In such a setting, the focus comes to be the process of learning a language, rather than the language itself. The approach aims to develop independent study skills and foster a love of language learning. Linton’s outreach through the Whole Education Network is benefitting Ely College, and also students at Swavesey Village College. Whole Education also develops relationships with partners which share its interests, and which want to engage with the schools in the Network. Some of these, like the Innovation Unit (IU), have a specific interest in projects that seek to improve the quality of cultural education. For example, in 2007, the IU commissioned Eastfeast - a third sector organisation based in Suffolk which connects schools with creative practitioners - to participate in a national field trial called Next Practice in Communities for Learning. Working with three schools - Holland Haven Primary School in Essex, Elmsett Primary School and Yoxford Primary School in Suffolk - and their local communities, Eastfeast community practitioners helped teachers and children develop creativity through the arts and by growing food for a number of seasonal celebrations, culminating in a final ‘feast’. The project had a positive impact on student behaviour, improved the performance of a number of children who often struggle inside the classroom and strengthened the community around each school. An Ofsted report for one of the schools noted that: “the excellent Eastfeast project gives [pupils] outstanding opportunities to apply their artistic, mathematical and scientific knowledge and to gain understanding of healthy living.” The involvement of some of Peterborough’s schools as Pathfinders in the Whole Education Network is consistent with their engagement in other innovative projects too. For example, as part of a wider programme called Citizen Power, the Royal Society for Arts, Manufactures & Commerce (RSA) worked with five schools in Peterborough during 2010-2012 to develop a series of curriculum projects in partnership with organisations and people from the local area. The goal of this area-based curriculum

programme was to create engaging learning experiences for young people that drew on the locality, and to embed the idea in schools that there is benefit to be gained from engaging their communities in the education of their children. For Professor David James, writing in his independent evaluation of the project: “The RSA Area Based Curriculum rests on a well-argued rationale, at the centre of which is the increasing disconnection of children from the places where they live, and the probable effects of this on their learning, wellbeing and achievements.” For example, children at West Town Primary School were commissioned by Peterborough Cathedral’s Head of Visits, Education and Heritage to make a display for the newly built Education Centre, about the rich history of the Cathedral. The partners used this as a platform to develop an inquiry into the school’s relationship with the Cathedral ‘Peterborough: a sense of place’ - for which the Cathedral team provided an overview of how its buildings had changed over time, supported by a local construction firm which demonstrated how the principles of construction have also changed. The project concluded with students interviewing their parents about their reasons for settling in Peterborough, and exploring the impact of the Cathedral on these choices. At the same time, teachers at Dogsthorpe Junior School worked closely with staff from Railworld, a local heritage attraction, on a project designed to place students at the heart of Peterborough’s future as a ‘destination city’. The result was a year-long project which involved students acting as consultants to Railworld as it sought to transform itself from being a ‘railway museum’ into a ‘sustainable transport centre’. The project started with a conference for the children, local politicians and heritage groups, and subsequently focused on the collaborative design of new visual branding and a launch event. Along the way, students covered subject-matter from geography, history, science, numeracy and literacy, as well as developing key skills. 17

The central premise of the programme was that schools would form partnerships with local organisations, which would provide opportunities to design and teach aspects of the school curriculum. Importantly, relationships were put before content (leading to open ended and more flexible projects), the normal practice of teachers and schools was ‘creatively disrupted’, and the involvement of a third-party meant that the children involved were at the centre of the curriculum rather than at one side. The many positive outcomes are listed in the RSA’s suite of reports, particularly Louise Thomas’ ‘Learning about, by and for Peterborough: the RSA area-based curriculum in Peterborough’ (December 2012). Of particular note in the context of this report is the positive effect of ‘creative disruption’ felt by teachers; for Thomas, the schools: “valued the ‘disruptive’ nature of working in collaboration, so much so that one school sought new partners once the relationships with initial partners had become too ‘comfortable’”. As is made clear by some of the schools surveyed, the most valuable forms of engagement with arts and cultural providers are those that involve the co-development of curriculum, and which therefore both provide a tailored outcome and build capacity at the school. They also require significant investment by both parties. In this respect, and without wishing to be negative, the challenges outlined by Thomas are therefore of particular note to arts and cultural providers that wish to engage more effectively with schools: “Despite the success of the Peterborough Curriculum work in shifting thinking about how and why schools and local organisations might come together to provide learning for young people, there were significant challenges in developing genuinely co-constructed curriculum in both primary and secondary schools.

•

For some schools the Peterborough Curriculum represented a choice between a standards driven agenda and a more holistic approach that involved developing students as whole individuals. It was therefore framed as very much part and parcel of a strategic direction that was in opposition to a standards agenda. The secondary school curriculum in particular remained not only resistant to modification, but also to enhancement by the locality. This is in part due to the structures of the schools, where subject and classroom teachers were difficult for partners to access.” (‘Learning about, by and for Peterborough: the RSA area-based curriculum in Peterborough’)

Another important recent development in the region is the emergence of the Children’s University (CU). Now reasonably well-established in Suffolk and Norfolk, and with a fast-growing offer in Peterborough, the big geographic space in-between these existing areas is only now being filled by campuses in Cambridgeshire. The concept is based on children having a Learning Passport which they get stamped when they participate in CU validated learning programmes at registered Learning Destinations. These Learning Destinations can include museums, galleries, exhibitions, heritage sites and theatres, as well as clubs like Scouts and Guides, and groups like ballet schools and choirs. They also include schools’ extra-curricular activities. The programmes are validated by local CU Managers, who check that the design and outcomes meet certain objective criteria. Each CU area decides whether or not to charge Learning Destinations to register. In common with Children’s Universities elsewhere, this is likely to become an important means for arts and cultural providers to promote their educational offer to children, both through schools and direct to families 18

and children. The Children’s University website provides contact details for area CU Managers who may be contacted about opportunities to validate programmes.

The response from the middle To a significant extent, Peterborough’s involvement in the RSA’s areabased curriculum programme, its schools’ engagement with Whole Education, and the development of its Children’s University have been led by Peterborough City Council’s innovative off-shoot, the Peterborough Learning Partnership (PLP). Led by Iain Simper, and directed by a Chair and Executive Committee of school and local authority leaders, the PLP provides schools with leadership support and curriculum resources, and helps sustain a culture of learning in the community. Schools subscribe to PLP on a sliding fee scale according to the number of students on roll, for which they receive a number of benefits, including free membership of third-party school improvement partners and discounts from suppliers of services. It is currently consulting its members on spinning-out of the local authority as a Community Interest Company, and adopting a broader remit to serve other-than-school stakeholders.

In July 2012, Suffolk County Council commissioned the RSA to conduct an independent inquiry into how it could achieve the sustained improvements in student attainment that had so far failed to arise, despite significant investment. In fact, at the time of the inquiry, Suffolk was ranked 148 out of 150 local authorities for attainment at age 11 and 142 out of 150 at age 16. As the RSA pointed out in the introduction to its report ‘No School an Island’, despite the county’s relative prosperity, cultural homogeneity and relatively stable child population: “Suffolk is still performing poorly in comparison with national averages and its statistical neighbours. Poor aggregate levels of pupil progress and attainment are combined with wide gaps in educational achievement between disadvantaged groups and other pupils, leading to poor outcomes for disadvantaged young people beyond schooling and in later life. In the words of the County Council, ‘Suffolk is stuck’. Suffolk’s 2008 Community Strategy set the ambition to be in the top quartile nationally for performance in learning and skills by 2028. It has made no progress so far towards this goal.”

According to Simper, Peterborough is able to coordinate these activities, and integrate them with the arts and cultural sector through Vivacity, because of its small and therefore manageable scale. Whilst other authority areas in the region are much larger, the general trend is towards the coordination of services - often competing services - through mediating hubs, replacing, recreating and/or improving the referral services offered by local authorities.

Following its inquiry the RSA made a series of recommendations, some of which are of direct relevance to arts and cultural organisations seeking opportunities to engage with schools in Suffolk. We suspect that they will also exert a powerful influence on other neighbouring local authorities too, and that similar opportunities will emerge elsewhere.

Indeed, this was one of the recommendations of the RSA’s ‘Raising the Bar’ inquiry in Suffolk, a far larger authority with an urgent need to address a number of complex issues around the quality of its schools, including their engagement with partners.

In the case of this report, the RSA’s second recommendation was that a new school-owned and collaboratively managed learning partnership the Suffolk Partnership for Excellence in Learning (SPEL) - should be established by April 2014. In line with its explicit aim to create a genuinely

(No School an Island, RSA 2012)

self-improving system, the recommendation was that the SPEL would radically shift the responsibility for school improvement to the schools themselves. Moreover, the local authority would then devolve the provision of school improvement resources to the SPEL, making them more responsive to the needs of schools, and repositioning the local authority as having an oversight function rather than a delivery one. Alongside a number of recommendations around the need to ensure effective engagement with other schools, the report also recommended that “all schools should be encouraged to participate in a programme of innovative curriculum design, in partnership with individuals and institutions in a school’s community … [developing a curriculum which is] outward facing, flexible and responsive to the particular needs and aspirations of students and their communities.” The emphasis on schools ‘co-designing’ curricula with community partners is based on the RSA’s area-based curriculum projects in Peterborough, as described above.

The sort of clustering that the RSA recommends in Suffolk has been considered a strong feature of schools in Norfolk for some time, with 46 listed on the local authority’s cluster list site1, bound together by formal agreements around shared practice. The authority’s Music Hub is also widely regarded by schools and parents as being of a very high quality. However, the most pressing issue for Norfolk’s Director of Children’s Services at the current time will be how to best respond to Ofsted’s inspection of the authority under its new regional evaluation remit. Following their inspections and surveys in the county in March 2013, Ofsted concluded: “it is of considerable concern that, while 6 of the 24 schools previously judged satisfactory have improved and are now good, of the remaining 18 schools, 6 have declined and become inadequate, and 12 have not improved their inspection grades.” An area of particular concern for Ofsted was that:

Two further recommendations relate to the ‘world of work’, which obviously includes work in the arts and cultural sector. One was that children should receive “earlier, richer and more empowering engagement with the world of work … based on a new learning framework for citizenship, enterprise and employability.” The other was that Suffolk schools and the local authority - perhaps through the SPEL should develop a new “brokerage service to connect business and education, consisting of a small team supported by an online facility, which would provide a single and personal contact point for educators, employers and young people.”

“Partnership working is not well established between schools, although federations and cluster arrangements are developing. A number of good or outstanding schools referred to the local authority instigating and commissioning support from them for other schools. Schools would welcome the local authority playing a more strategic role in this, especially in terms of ensuring consistency in the quality of such support. Although there is some strong evidence of improvement in some schools, not all appear to be committed to a collaborative approach of working together. It is perceived that an opportunity has been missed by the local authority to develop a strong learning community where best practice can be shared

It’s not explicit in the report, but as Matthew Taylor, Chief Executive of the RSA, explained to Stephen Twigg MP, Labour’s shadow education minister, on 17 June 2013; one of the key findings about why there isn’t more community engagement in schools, particularly by third-sector organisations, “is that they just can’t get into schools, which is shocking!” 1

http://www.esinet.norfolk.gov.uk/schoolfinder/clusterlist.asp 20

routinely. However, the local authority is hopeful that it’s recently adopted strategy, ‘A Good School for Every Norfolk Learner’, will help to address this.” (http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/sites/default/files/docu ments/local_authority_reports/Focused_school_ins p_letters/Letter%20to%20Norfolk%20DCS%20follow ing%20focused%20school%20inspections.pdf)

order to bring about rapid improvement.” Although the intention is for these partners to predominantly comprise other schools, academy sponsors, and HE providers, there is also some recognition of the need to include employers in the mix, and maybe opportunities for the arts and cultural sector to engage with respect to curriculum support too, as is explicit in the RSA’s model for Suffolk.

As outlined in Ofsted’s school inspection framework, its focus is very much on “those aspects of schools’ work that have the greatest impact on raising achievement,” with judgements being made on the basis of the achievement of pupils, the quality of teaching, the behaviour and safety of pupils, and the quality of leadership and management. Whilst there is a responsibility for inspectors to consider the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils at the school, this is not a factor that necessarily effects an inspector’s judgement.

Cambridgeshire County Council’s response to recent national policy changes is harder to ascertain as there is less evidence available. As a local authority, it is having to focus on providing for the basic need associated with significant population growth, and the fact that all but one of its secondary schools are now academies. This school-level drive for autonomy is in fact consistent with the history of education in Cambridgeshire, which saw many of its schools take up locally managed Grant Maintained status, following the Education Reform Act in 1988.

As that is where Ofsted will be looking for improvements, it may be logical to expect the local authority in Norfolk to focus more of its resource - in the short term at least - on school improvement activity that is seen to have the most immediate impact on Ofsted judgements.

This autonomous approach continues. For example, the Parkside Federation in Cambridge has developed an innovative partnership with The Junction, a local arts organisation with several large music venues in the city. The Junction now delivers a Performing Arts BTEC with the Federation, which sees students spending a day a week at the venue, working with its staff and artists. Students take part in professional workshops with theatre companies and practitioners selected by Cambridge Junction, and have the opportunity to see shows and participate in their production.

Indeed, its ‘A Good School for Every Norfolk Learner’ strategy was commended by Ofsted’s regional director for its focus on investing in and developing a sharper system of monitoring and intervention. Of particular note is the proposal to encourage the 160 Norfolk schools that are currently described as 'requiring improvement' to take part in a new school improvement programme called ‘Norfolk to Good and Great’ or ‘N2GG’. Jointly owned by Norfolk schools, the Teaching Schools Alliances and the local authority, N2GG will be run through the Norfolk Integrated Education Advisory Service (NIEAS) as a “bespoke package of school improvement activity”, pump primed by an investment of £1m from the County Council and sustained by school contributions. The programme explicitly acknowledges the autonomy of schools, and recognises their “freedom to collaborate with a wide range of partners in

Ely College is developing a similar initiative with its local arts development organisation ADeC, although that is likely to involve more mutual interest with the College’s rapidly developing facilities being made available to the community by ADeC as an arts and cultural venue in its own right. Meanwhile, two of the region’s most successful schools - Swavesey Village College and Comberton Village College - are quite quickly extending their reach out through their Trusts into some of the county’s new and fast growing housing developments. 21

INTRODUCTION TO THE NUMBERS

The following section provides a snapshot of the key data relevant to this report. The data is presented with as little interpretation as possible, to give the reader key insights to the education sector in Cambridgeshire, Norfolk, Peterborough and Suffolk. For further information about the area we refer you to the Norfolk & Norwich Festival first State of the Region report on our website.

•

157 were secondary

•

4 were ‘all-through’

•

19 were post-16 providers

•

118 were academies

•

971 were maintained

Of the academies: •

79 were converters

Unless stated otherwise, the data presented here has been sourced from the Arts Council England’s Cultural Education Profile Tool, accessible from their website.

•

28 were sponsor-led

•

5 were mainstream free schools

•

1 was a special free school

Schools

•

5 were special academies

Data available from the DfE edubase website provides the following information: At the time of the DfE analysis: There were 1,218 schools in the Norfolk & Norwich Festival Bridge area •

1,148 of these were state schools

•

70 were independent schools

Of the state schools: •

33 were special schools

•

895 were primary

Of the maintained schools: •

595 were community schools

•

59 were foundation schools

•

120 were voluntary aided schools

•

197 were voluntary controlled schools

Of the independent schools: •

37 were special schools

•

14 were senior schools

The following pie charts demonstrate the numbers at each school type in Cambridgeshire, Norfolk, Peterborough and Suffolk. Appendix III, Table A shows in detail the breakdown of education establishment type and school roll numbers in the Norfolk and Norwich Festival Bridge areas.

Breakdown of Education Establishments - Peterborough

Breakdown of Education Establishments Cambridgeshire CC 19

32 4

201

Academies & City Technology Colleges Colleges Early Year/Nursery

6 7

Academies & City Technology Colleges Colleges

Early Year/Nursery

Independent

Independent Local Authority Maintained Schools Other 373

112

Special Schools

Breakdown of Education Establishments - Norfolk CC 5 21 22 8

395

Breakdown of Education Establishments - Suffolk CC Academies & City Technology Colleges Colleges

17 13 30 5

Academies & City Technology Colleges Colleges 297

438

Local Authority Maintained Schools Other

Early Year/Nursery

Independent

Local Authority Maintained Schools Other

Special Schools

364 Special Schools

School Funding

Characteristics:

School funding per child remains above regional and national averages in Peterborough and under those averages in the other county areas. Cambridgeshire is a significant outlier in the area studied at under half the national average spend per pupil. Appendix III, Table B also outlines total school funding by area. An attempt to analyse the DfE’s school-level financial data proved difficult given the fact that academies do not report financial data, and that the information available was from 2011-12, since when many schools will have either changed status or reduced budgets.

4345

4500

4586 4037

4239

4000

Diversity

Norfolk CC

3000 2500

4519 Cambridgeshire CC

3500 2289

Peterborough

2000

Suffolk CC

1500

East of England

1000

A key statistic, not only as it is an indicator of the ‘disadvantage’ in an area but also due to the link to the pupil premium providing schools with additional finance, estimated £900 per eligible pupil in 13/14. Free school meal take up is based on parents self-identifying. There are levels of variance in take-up from different areas. For example, take up against eligibility in Cambridgeshire has been identified by the County Council as being low and we understand that schools are communicating with parents to increase take-up. Although we can see in Appendix III, Table C a growth in eligibility for free schools meals within the Norfolk & Norwich Bridge Area eligibility broadly remains below regional and national rates except in Peterborough where it is in excess of the regional and national rates.

Spend Per Pupil 5000

Eligibility for Free School Meals

The table below shows that as with Free School Meal eligibility the majority of the area is below regional and national percentages with the exception of Peterborough that has figures higher than the national percentage and almost double that seen across the East of England. Percentage of BME Students at KS4

England

500 0 Spend per Pupil (£)

Cambridgeshire CC Norfolk CC Peterborough Suffolk CC East of England England

2007/08

2008/09

2009/10

8.3%

7.6%

8.1%

4.3%

5.0%

5.6%

20.4%

20.7%

22.5%

5.3%

10.3%

11.1%

11.3%

15.9% 16.7% 17.3% Source: Ofsted Attainment Gaps Data Analysis Tool, Years: 2007/08 to 2009/10 Measure: Number of students at Key Stage 4, split by ethnicity

Attainment Appendix III, Tables D & E show Progress and achievement in English and Mathematics at both primary and secondary levels. Data shows that at primary level, pupils in Cambridgeshire are attaining Level 4 or above in English and Mathematics at national levels. The latest figures show 4% below average in Norfolk and 5% below average in Peterborough and Suffolk. Comparison by area of the percentage of pupils making expected progress in English and Mathematics at Primary and Secondary level 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% English

English

Maths

Primary

Secondary

Primary

Secondary

Cambridgeshire

Norfolk

Peterborough

Suffolk

Percentage of Primary level pupils achieving Level 4 or above in both English and Mathematics, between 2009 and 2012, shown against the figures for England - all schools 80%

Percentage achieving Level 4 in English and Mathematics

75%

70%

65%

60%

55%

2009

2010

2011

2012

England - all schools

72%

73%

74%

79%

Cambridgeshire

73%

74%

79%

Norfolk

69%

67%

68%

75%

Peterborough

69%

67%

69%

74%

Suffolk

66%

68%

69%

74%

Percentage of Secondary level pupils achieving 5 or more A* - C GCSEs (or Equivalent) including English and Mathematics, between 2009 and 2012, shown against the figures for England - all schools

Percentage achieving 5 or more A* - C GCSEs (or Equivalent) including English and Mathematics

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%

2009

2010 2011 % achieving 5+ A*-C GCSEs (or equivalent) including English and Maths GCSEs

2012

England - all schools

49.80%

53.50%

59.00%

59.40%

Cambridgeshire

56.20%

58.90%

59.30%

57.50%

Norfolk

50.00%

52.30%

55.40%

55.60%

Peterborough

40.60%

45.50%

49.40%

49.30%

Suffolk

48.70%

51.80%

54.70%

50.50% 27

Standards

Peterborough records a significant increase in the percentage of secondary places and providers however this is due to the lower number of schools in that category as again the actual number of places available is lower. Compared to the rest of the area Norfolk has a lower percentage of providers in the Outstanding/Good category. In contrast to the rest of the area the percentage of place and providers rated Good or Outstanding drops at secondary level.

No. of providers No. of providers No. of providers

Looking at the standards between primary and secondary providers we can see marked differences between the primary and secondary offers. In Cambridgeshire and Suffolk we see equal percentages of secondary providers rated as good or outstanding however there is a slight increase in the percentage of places available in secondary schools. Due to the larger number of providers in the primary sector these figures actually relate to a slightly lower number of places in Outstanding or Good schools at secondary level.

No. of providers

From Tables F and G, Appendix III we can see that currently in Cambridgeshire, Peterborough and Suffolk between 67-69% of places available are rated Outstanding or Good. This is against the national figure of 71%. Comparatively in Norfolk we see a figure of 59%.

Cambridgeshire 200 100

145123 40 41

59 70

2 6

0 Outstanding

Good Satisfactory Inadequate Ofsted rating

At 31/08/2009 At 31/12/2012

Norfolk 400 200

221210 34 50

169144 8 12

0 Outstanding

Good Satisfactory Inadequate Ofsted rating

At 31/08/2009 At 31/12/2012

Peterborough 36 29

40 20

27 29

8 12

0 Outstanding

Good Satisfactory Inadequate Ofsted rating

At 31/08/2009 At 31/12/2012

Suffolk 400 200

50 62

206163

95 92

5 8

0 Outstanding

Good Satisfactory Inadequate Ofsted rating

At 31/08/2009 At 31/12/2012

Percentage of school places available in Cambridgeshire as of 31/12/2012 at each Ofsted rating

Percentage of school places available in Peterborough as of 31/12/2012 at each Ofsted rating 4%

23%

19% 29% 28%

Outstanding

Good

Satisfactory

Inadequate

50% 44%

Percentage of school places available in Norfolk as of 31/12/2012 at each Ofsted rating 5%

Percentage of school places available in Suffolk as of 31/12/2012 at each Ofsted rating 4%

14%

23% 27% 36%

Outstanding

Good

Satisfactory

Inadequate

45% 46% 29

In School Engagement with Creative Subjects Appendix III, Table H shows the decrease in take up of arts based subject between 2009/10 and 2010/11. The decrease is in line with national and regional trends at approximately 0.2% except in Suffolk where an increase of 0.1% has been recorded.

8.50%

8.60%

8.50%

8.70% 8.40%

8.20%

8.20% 8.10% 7.90%

7.80%

7.90%

Cambridgeshire CC

Norfolk CC

Peterborough Area

Suffolk CC

East of England

2010/11

2009/10

2010/11

2009/10

2010/11

2009/10

2010/11

2009/10

2010/11

2009/10

7.60%

2010/11

8.80% 8.60% 8.40% 8.20% 8.00% 7.80% 7.60% 7.40% 7.20% 7.00%

2009/10

%age of arts based GCSE entries

Chart to show the percentage of arts based GCSE entries and the change in uptake between 2009/10 & 2010/11

England

Artsmark Artsmark attainment in the Norfolk & Norwich Festival Bridge area is lower than both regional and national percentages. In Norfolk there are currently only 2.5% of schools with the award against the regional average of 30.2%. Number of Artsmark Awards by Level Round

Segment

Cambridgeshire CC

Norfolk CC

Peterborough

Suffolk CC

East of England

England

Artsmark

591

Artsmark Silver

Artsmark Gold

973

Total Artsmark Awards

153

1,564

Artsmark

256

2,352

Artsmark Silver

348

5,269

Artsmark Gold

268

3,775

Total Artsmark Awards

196

872

11,396

Current

Historical

Source: Arts Council England, Year: 2012 Measure: Number of Artsmark awards achieved by schools

Proportion of Schools with Current Artsmark Awards Measure

% of schools with artsmark

Segment

Cambridgeshire CC

Norfolk CC

Peterborough

Suffolk CC

East of England

England

Artsmark

1.4%

1.1%

5.1%

3.9%

13.6%

4.3%

Artsmark Silver

0.0%

Artsmark Gold

3.2%

1.5%

5.1%

3.4%

16.6%

7.1%

Total Artsmark Awards

4.6%

2.5%

10.1%

7.3%

30.2%

11.4%

Source: Arts Council England, Year: 2012 Measure: Proportion of schools that have been Artsmark awarded

4 THE SURVEY - METHODOLOGY

questionnaire to ensure consistency and coverage of the important points.

Since this research is concerned with the impact of policy changes on the quality of education and considers the barriers, attitudes and incentives of schools in engaging with the arts and cultural sector, we used exclusively qualitative methods in our engagement with schools.

Prior to visiting the schools, Rstart:Ed reviewed publicly available data about the context and performance of each school. Meetings were arranged with the interviewee. The interviews were carried out one-onone, and in some cases Rstart:Ed were invited to observe elements of the school at work.

Phase one: review, contextual overview and selection Rstart:Ed undertook an overall review of schools within the region, gathering both primary data and a selection of that already held by NNF on the number, type and contact details of schools in the region. Based on prior consultancy with local authorities, schools, key regional influencers and the NNF database, a judgmental sample of ten schools was selected from Cambridgeshire, Norfolk, Suffolk and Peterborough. It is important to note that the sample was selected not on the basis of prior knowledge of the quality of their provision, but was rather designed to include a balance between school types and regional distribution. The scope and scale of the survey - together with the need to include as many school types as possible as well as a regional spread - precluded some of the breadth we might otherwise have aspired too, but we are very confident that we have a representative sample, which demonstrates many - probably most - of the key issues at play. Phase two: case studies Structured interviews were carried out in the ten sample schools, face-toface with heads, subject leaders and/or teachers. These interviews were carried out by Restart:Ed, and were based around an indicative

The intention was to gather relevant documents including school development plans, Ofsted reports, publicity material and local media coverage, but schools were not generally forthcoming in response to these requests. The sample The judgmental sample of ten schools in the region includes five primary, three secondary, an all-through special school, and a Pupil Referral Unit. The two secondary schools are academies. All of the primary schools, the special school and the PRU are LA maintained. One of the primary schools had only 20 pupils on roll, whilst one of the secondaries had 1,250. One of the primary schools had no children eligible for free school meals (FSM) on its roll, whilst one of the secondary schools had 43% FSM. The sample included one secondary school in Norfolk, one in Suffolk and one in Cambridgeshire. It included three primary schools in Suffolk, one in Peterborough, and one in Cambridgeshire. It also included one special school and one pupil referral unit, both in Suffolk. The skew towards primary phase broadly reflects the regional balance: about three-quarters of schools in the region are primary schools. 32

5 THE SURVEY - ANALYSIS Common themes from analysis of interviews: •

the provision of art and cultural education both within the curriculum and in terms of extra-curricular provision is changing

•

these changes are coincidental with academisation, but are not directly caused by it … rather, they are to do with the financial and accountability pressures on schools

•

where schools do not engage with the art and cultural sector it is mainly due to a combination of external factors (like high costs or poor communication by providers) and internal factors (like lack of leadership or pressure to focus on ‘core’ subjects)

•

there are distinct differences in provision and engagement between schools which are driven by intrinsic motives and extrinsic motives

•

the quality of communication from external providers is key to their success in engaging with schools

•

there remains a potential role for local authorities as brokers of local art and cultural resources

•

those providers which offer a long-term relationship and an ability for schools to shape the services they provide are the most likely to succeed

What is the state of creative & cultural education in the region? The interviews point to a stark difference in approach between primary schools where the provision of art education (including exposure to cultural education) is strong and perhaps even getting stronger, and secondary schools where it is being squeezed by a perceived need to prioritise other core subjects. In fact, the sample would suggest that art and cultural education is thriving in the primary sector, but declining in the secondary sector. However, we have to consider that primary and secondary schools engage in different teaching approaches, which might naturally affect the engagement with art and culture. All of the primary schools in the sample teach art in a cross-curricular way, as all teachers teach across all subjects (with occasional identification of subject leaders). The primary teaching approach here is predominantly context or themes driven, which engages and intertwines art and culture activities within science, mathematics and English. One of the case studies has a particularly sophisticated and mature approach. The head explained: “There are certain things that we are expected to teach in terms of the core, but we deliver them through themes. That’s the most important part of our curriculum. We have a skills focus. We don’t teach history, science, art, etc. We teach these through themes. We never do an art lesson, or a history lesson. Art is integrated into the curriculum as are the other subjects. Life isn’t subject specific. We’re talking about the development of skills using subjects, not the other way round. The children get this. It’s natural … for example, our year 6 students were just working on a Pop Art theme. It was very broad and engaged many of our most hard to reach students, because they weren’t

doing art for art’s sake. They were looking at the real world. Using IT, literacy, research, history, geography. Art was woven in.” Primary schools have more space and time to be creative in their interdisciplinary lesson planning, because of the relative absence of exam pressure. Generally, we observed that teaching at primary schools is based on a more systemic-approach to curriculum design than was seen at secondaries, where specialisation and time restrict the ability for a broader interdisciplinary engagement with art and culture. This has an evident impact on the relative ability to (or need for) these schools in each phase to consider using resources to enrich their curriculum with external resources. An important observation to draw from our interviews is that schools do not consider cultural education as a distinct category, as separate from art education. Secondary schools have art departments but not cultural departments. Primary schools may have an art subject leader, but not a cultural subject leader. Curriculum plans and schemes of work don’t differentiate between art and cultural education objectives. Indeed, in the interviews, most schools perceived the question of cultural engagement as relating to or inclusive of art education, even if directed to consider what we might otherwise define as cultural education. It is also important to note that only three schools had objectives relating to art and cultural education in their school development or improvement plan, whereas all had objectives relating to literacy and numeracy (in the primary phase) and English and mathematics (in the secondary phase). Only one school involved their governing body in anything relating to their provision of these subject areas. Although none of the schools

would admit this if asked directly, this finding would suggest that, in the main, art and cultural education is not considered to be of as much strategic importance as ‘core subjects’. All is not lost, however. When asked what are the most important subjects in his school’s curriculum, the head of one primary school said: “The core subjects in our curriculum are English and maths, because they’re the ones that allow children to access everything else. Primary schools should be about the children coming out happily numerate and literate. The happily bit means that you have to do these things in a multicurricular way. We’re not slaves to the worry about data, but we recognise the importance of these subjects, and teach them in interesting ways.”

The provision of art & cultural education is changing We found that art-related time is being squeezed out of the curriculum in our sampled secondary schools by other ‘core’ subjects at both KS4 and KS5, because of perceived pressures from the school accountability system and the need to prioritise tight budgets accordingly. We did note some concern in a secondary school about changes in the specification of GCSE art syllabuses. The head of art in one told us that: “[The art] GCSE has become very academic … it’s about jumping through hoops. This is a recent change. It used to be about creating great pieces of work, which were assessed in the round. Now they have to do lots of additional research and background work, and justification. This particularly affects lazy boys, even where they are brilliantly creative. It was too free before, perhaps. But it’s gone too far.” 34

The same interviewee also noted “internal pressure to fit an appropriate amount of art into the very busy KS3 and KS4 curricula”, and also an increasing amount of “pressure to consider what we provide at post-16 level for those who are going to be staying on through RPA [the raised participation age which, from September 2013, will see some of the most disaffected students staying on at school]”. This was related to the need for some additional type of qualification: “A Level art and photography is not really enough. I can see many choosing these as easy subjects and failing. I’m looking for a stepping stone qualification between GCSE and A Level; but not the general BTEC courses which need lots of space and new investment.” Only two cases in the sample indicated that extra-curricular provision was changing. In one, a secondary school noted an apparent “expectation that [KS5] students will give up some of their extra-curricular time towards improving their performance in an art qualification”. More significantly, one of the primary schools sampled has signed up to the local Children’s University, enabling children to have their extracurricular learning accredited, and gaining credits towards recognised qualifications. A considerable proportion of the Children’s University’s accredited Learning Destinations are providers of art and cultural education. This latter development - taken perhaps together with the comments about the need for some alternative mode of post-16 qualification suggest that there is space for NNF Bridge and the wider sector to develop an assessment offer of interest to schools.

Indeed, when we asked ‘What kind of award or provision would be valuable to your students and how can art and culture be promoted better in your school?’ , one interviewee said “An overlay qualification [would be] useful, perhaps. Or something that accredits extra-curricular activity in art.” Another offered that: “A valuable qualification [in art] would reward breadth and endeavour.” Another important observation relates to what we might call the rise of multicultural awareness in the region’s schools. Two of the primary schools sampled in Suffolk have developed strong relationships - including the provision of cultural resources - with international partner schools, significantly enhancing the multicultural awareness of their students. Whilst these cases exhibit great leadership and imagination, their motivation for seeking these international relationships were driven, in part, by a perceived lack of multicultural resources within their region and limited local authority provision. One interviewee told us: “Because of the poor resources and the lack of multiculturalism in the area, we formulated our own engagements and now link internationally through the help of the British Council.” The strategy has resulted in a hugely rich programme of multicultural engagement, including visits by international poets, musicians and actors. The provision of cultural education has taken a different shape in the secondary schools we sampled. One has demonstrated the potential for the innovative use of data, open education materials and specialised art 35

tools and technologies in providing appropriate exposure for its students to multicultural stimulus. City Academy Norwich told us about their “virtual exhibition space”, including 3D images of artefacts at the neighbouring Sainsbury Centre, which are exhibited in a virtual gallery, “connecting with artists from Brazil who will be able to exhibit in this virtual world.” Given these findings, NNF and its client organisations in the art and cultural sector might find a particular appetite for multicultural resources, especially where the focus relates to globalisation, and the media are enriched by open data resources and online delivery.

What is the Ebacc effect on ‘marginal’ or ‘non-core’ subjects? Although the mood music of policy change at the moment is about increasing school autonomy and their capacity to make decisions based on local need, the reality is that the decision making in about half of the sample - but particularly the secondary schools - is being driven to a large extent indirectly by pressures arising as a result of policy. This is particularly the case where the leaders of a school feel pressured by the need to compete on the raw attainment scores published in performance tables, in an inspection context which demands short term fixes rather than long term solutions. For example, all of the interviewed secondary schools have the instinct to seek to directly manage student performance year on year, cohort by cohort, in the subjects that count towards the Ebacc, rather than to indirectly improve individual students’

performance over the long term by engaging them in the curriculum through art and cultural enrichment. There is an apparent disinvestment in their art departments, leading to real-term decreases in budgets, squeezed curriculum space, and a shift to part-time roles for teachers and heads of department. Anecdotally, this is not an uncommon picture in the region’s secondary schools. This would seem logical in a case where a school has a new and explicit focus on academic study, but less so in a school that is also a pathfinder member of Whole Education, a national movement for schools committed to providing a broad and balanced education. In that case, the head of art said: “Like most other departments, I have suffered huge budget cuts over the past few years. The art budget has been cut by 75% over the past two years and I now receive a quarter of what I did when I started here 9 years ago. We already have to ask parents for contributions towards our resources as the budget is simply not enough to pay for even the basic materials. It works out at around £1 per student! Art materials are very expensive and deplete rapidly, needing constant renewing. Photography has no capitation at all and relies on students paying a fee to cover the materials used. We beg and scrounge for cameras and tripods and simply cannot afford to lend these out at the risk of them either getting damaged or not returned.” This suggests that, even where there’s a will and an understanding of the importance of (re)creative study, the cold hard economic realities of managing a restricted budget in a context where knowledge-based subjects are prioritised by the ‘system’ lead to less time and money for art and cultural engagement in schools. 36

What is the impact of academisation on schools in the region? The link between academisation and the changes described above in relation to the provision of art and cultural education appeared to be coincidental rather than causal; arising simply because of the economic climate in which the Academies Act is maturing. For example, when asked whether becoming an academy had changed their school’s provision of art and cultural education or their engagement with the sector, one head of art in a sampled secondary school - an academy - said: “Not really … unless that’s what’s behind the cut in hours and budget. Our Trust leave us alone, mostly, and seem to value the breadth we want.” For another: “[a decrease in my art budget] is more to do with the reorganisation than any strategic malice, I would say, but the effect feels almost the same.” When asked whether he felt his school offers an appropriate art and cultural education, the head of a maintained primary school said “Yes, but we could do a lot more. We’re inhibited a bit by the Ofsted culture. I don’t believe that schools are adequately celebrated for doing the right thing by their children in terms of art. We do what we do in addition to worrying about data and Ofsted criteria. Sort of in spite of it. Long may that live … but it’s a constant battle.”

If there was more money available and if the DfE and Ofsted were less inclined to prioritise academic subjects, art and cultural engagement would be thriving in all schools. Most professional educators understand the vitality and importance of these aspects of education, but are having to be pragmatic in their decision making. Some are holding out, particularly in the primary sector where the accountability regime is, for now, less harsh (or at least less focused on prioritising knowledge-based subjects). It is a ‘make-do and mend’ culture in most schools now, whatever their status. We feel it is important for arts and cultural organisations to recognise this dynamic to disassociate the one aspect of schools policy from the other.

The role of local authorities The role of local authorities in the region has changed dramatically in recent years, and will continue to do so as they respond to the shifting sands of policy and practice. That said, even though a large proportion of the schools in the four areas have become academies and therefore left the direct control of the authorities, many are still buying the same services from them that they were before, and/or would consider the LA to be a potential provider of useful services in the future. As a result, and in response to the changing environment, many LAs around the country are investing heavily in their traded services offer.

For example, at the ‘big end’ is Capita’s recent contract with Staffordshire County Council to develop and deliver a range of traded services to schools and academies in the Staffordshire region. According to Capita, around 3,800 of Staffordshire’s staff will transfer to the new venture in April 2013, which will generate revenue of around £85m per annum over 20 years. Capita also sees opportunities to grow the joint venture by selling services to education clients across the UK. It is very big business ... the annual UK schools education support services market is currently worth around £16bn. At the smaller end - and right in NNF’s constituency - is the Peterborough Learning Partnership, which is about to spin out from the LA as a Community Interest Company (CIC), potentially allowing it to work more freely in providing schools with the creative opportunities. This is supported by a ‘curriculum portal’ page (developed by Citizen Power) on the Peterborough City Council’s website, listing learning opportunities in and around the city.

See http://www.hertsforlearning.co.uk/theme-list/24/81/All/All for the services listed in the relevant category. Suffolk has its recent guidance from the RSA, but it remains unclear how Norfolk and Cambridgeshire County Councils will respond to the changing landscape in relation to their services for schools. Their lists of ‘services for schools’ do not indicate much in the way of support for art or heritage education, although some detail is available about Norfolk’s Music Service. At the time of writing, their websites or committee meeting minutes give little away about their intentions with respect to widening their traded service offer. That said, the head of a Cambridgeshire primary said: “I think I could get help quite easily from the LA and locally. I’d contact the Cambridge Advisory Service at the LA if I needed support there. They’re pretty good at referring.”

If not from LAs, then where? And how? In the middle - which will be typical of the majority of change in the country over the next decade or so - is the larger scale spinning out of LA traded services, like the emerging Herts for Learning, for example. Established like PLP as a CIC, Herts for Learning is owned by Hertfordshire’s schools, and exists specifically to provide them with access to the range of services and resources they need to improve. It has not yet launched and is therefore still building its offer, but the approach it has taken is not unlike the offer at many LAs; a list of services in subject-categories, with clear links to curriculum and assessment.

The impact of the diminishing role of LAs has been felt particularly acutely by the schools which were previously heavily reliant on their advisory services and art/culture provision. These schools are now exploring alternative sources of external provision, and are independently reconnecting with regional opportunities. Again, it was our primary interviewees which demonstrated the most adventurous spirit in relation to this independent reconnection. 38

One had forged a very strong relationship with the various providers in its immediate vicinity: “We always do something about the fact we’re in Ely … either part of the Ely Eel Day, or something at the Cathedral. Something that situates the children in Ely. The scale again enables this … Ely is the most extraordinary place for this.” For the head of that particular school, his close relationship with the local stained glass museum enabled the sort of project he would suggest as a model for rich engagement: “The activity was genuinely about children, and genuinely engaged them. The stained glass window was never going to be the artist’s window. It was the children’s window. Each part of it was and is owned by them. The artist gave a technical input and defined the space. The children need to learn from the expert, but then put what they’ve learned into practice.” The key to this activity was the joint-development of aims and the negotiation of process. These are two characteristics at the heart of the RSA’s area-based curriculum programme, which was led by one of the primary schools interviewed. For that head - who leads a maintained school and yet is sold on the idea of independently sourcing external partnerships - any resource: “needs to be flexible enough to fit. For me, the best thing is something they can offer that can be tailored to the school’s need. Co-development is best, especially where this enables a topic to work across curricular themes.” Moreover: “the links have been very successful because the partners worked with [us] to benefit our context. It can only work if it broadly meets need, and can be made to fit perfectly. The grand design idea -

where one off-the-self size fits all and is given to a school - is not attractive.” Another school highlighted the relative quality of going it alone, replacing the LA provision with their own links with local artists and international opportunities: “We used to have relationships with providers for many years, like the Wolsey Theatre, but because the drawback from LA funding, we don’t any longer. This will be the first year that we replace what we used to do with our own Festival of Dance, which is now organised in partnership with the individual musicians and dancers that we work with … we now appoint our own music teachers who we interview, and they have gone above and beyond what the local authority did.” Another expressed a similar sentiment. When asked what the potential role for LAs is in the new context, she said emphatically: “None. PLP is a useful body, part funded by the LA, but the difference comes from the fact that schools own the process. Schools know what they’re doing. It’s up to us to determine what’s important for us.” Several were more charitable, suggesting that there is a role for the LA as a ‘broker’ of local services; an intermediary organisation between schools and the providers of the resources they may need to enrich and enliven their curricula: “The LA should have a team responsible for culture and education, going out to schools and making schools aware of the services and opportunities available. There should be some money available to subsidise opportunities for schools to buy into.” 39

Procurement Although this was another area which could/should have emerged as a result of the Academies Act, it is fair to say that we did not note any procurement clusters in the sample. On the basis of our experience outside of the survey though, the answer more generally is, at the moment, there are very few procurement clusters working effectively, but that there may be more procurement structures in the future. The idea that academies groups / chains would develop efficient centralised procurement functions has yet to fully mature in reality. This delay is the reason for the demise of many businesses that started up after the Academies Act to provide such services. Even some of the organisations that sprang up between schools to centralise procurement and practice have found the procurement aspect too tricky to set up. For example, the Bradford Partnership of schools started out with an express purpose to provide buying efficiencies, but has now settled down to focus exclusively on ‘school improvement’, mainly through the provision of leadership development and links between teachers of mathematics, English, science and SEN students. More interesting is the fact that, even where an academy (including free schools, studio schools and UTCs) is set up by a DfE commissioned project management firm, it is rarely the case that the school retains that firm to provide ongoing procurement services. Rather, they adopt the traditional

model of recruiting a bursar or school business manager and do it themselves, missing out on potentially significant savings. The key reason for the absence of procurement clusters is the fact that such a high proportion of the converter academies established themselves as ‘island trusts’, in isolation from the other schools with which they were supposed to collaborate. These were the relatively high performing schools which would, one assumes, be in a position to focus more on art and cultural engagement than some of the lower performing schools, where the focus has to be on improving the core. On the other hand, the chains which represent the most likely site for procurement clusters to develop, have grown on the basis of being commissioned to take over failing schools. The focus of their central procurement - in common with every other aspect of their operation and strategy - is, therefore, on improving performance in the core. It is therefore unlikely that NNF will see procurement of art and cultural services from clusters or centralised groups in the foreseeable future.

Partnership working: What’s worked and why? We asked a series of questions to explore why some engagements work: Established trust and sustained relationship “What each school really needs is a long term partner, engaged in some really deep and sustained partnership.” Impact on curriculum 40

“We are looking for experience that all children can benefit from. Sensory type experiences are the best, as they involve auditory, visual experience and don’t involve much communication.” “The [RSA’s] area-based curriculum work was very successful … it’s had a very long term impact, we had to reflect on building our curriculum with outside providers. We questioned our practice, and changed it to take account of what is available out there, according to the needs of the kids, not the limitations of the national curriculum. Our eyes were opened to what’s out there.” Immersive experience “Our year 6 students go to London and see the context for their Shakespeare work at the Globe … they do a drama workshop. I thought it might be superficial, but it’s a substantial engagement. Really worthwhile and memorable”.

“Our own research and link to Grenada schools, which has informed our whole curriculum and has opened the eyes of our students greatly.” “The best thing we did was to exhibit our artwork in an empty shop in town. Everyone saw it and talked about it. it was in the middle of town, and we got such great feedback. It was a real shot in the arm.” “We created soundtracks which are taken out to their phones and they are distributed around Ipswich, which have become quite popular… creating a culture by itself.” We asked what our interviewees thought were the most important outcomes from these sorts of engagement with art and cultural organisations? A selection of responses is provided below:

“ The stained-glass project was also fantastic … a really deep engagement with an external resource that had a lasting impact on the children involved and on the school.”

“Really evident children’s enjoyment and engagement. They need to have been properly engaged and taken part, and have a real stake in the outcome.”

Flexibility “Flexibility is very important to understand our curriculum approach and kids”

“Enrichment of the curriculum and learner engagement … leaving a good positive mark on our curriculum.”

Partnerships “[A neighbouring school] came in to perform with the orchestra provided for the tactile, visual experience that works best for our kids.”

“Work that they could take away with them ... they need to own it, both for personal reasons and ideally for coursework. Publicity for the students is good too, to celebrate their activity and success.”

“Spiritual growth, understanding, critical problem solving and exploring and discovering opportunities and answers … Confidence and passion for something. Independence and self-confidence.” We then asked the interviewees to consider a range of possible outcomes, and rate them on a scale from 1 (very motivating) to 5 (not at all motivating). The following table shows how many of the interviewees rated each outcome as ‘motivating’ (i.e. responding 1 or 2):

Extrinsic vs Intrinsic Motivators

It’s personal Our interviews indicate that personal recommendations through established relationships are key to the search and selection of art/culture providers, and that the quality of both communication and interaction between a provider and a school is likely therefore to be key. We have identified two models of engagement with external providers. The first is where schools independently search for resources based on their preferences, recommendations and known databases. These might be called ‘independent researchers’.

8 7

The second model is where a school seeks some intermediary, whether that is a broker of a range of services, or a single provider offering a basket in which the school can place all of its art and cultural eggs. These might be called ‘hub connectors’.

6 5 4 3 2 1

Extrinsic Incentives

Intrinsic Incentives

engaging

raise aspirations

boost individual performance

multiculturalism / tolerance

improve learning

impact on careers

arts as magnet

raising profile

The common trend between these two approaches is that the schools base their preferences on recommendation - usually personal, always professional - and precedent. The development of long term relationships is key, starting with the means by which a provider communicates with a school. When asked what method of communication was most successful, one primary head told us: “Anything that develops a relationship … that’s what it’s about. Perhaps a flyer or email, then a call, then a meeting, then some negotiation. Anything that builds trust.”

Indeed, as ever, communication is key to a successful engagement. We asked a series of questions about how well the interviewees felt they were communicated with at the moment by the sector, and then how they would ideally like to be communicated with. Some - particularly in the secondary phase - reported being inundated with flyers and emails, while one primary school in rural Suffolk claimed to “have only received three offers or flyers in the past year.” Interestingly, it would seem that some of the most highly valued interactions came from those relationships where the school had an idea and went out looking for a solution, rather than from a school’s response to an unsolicited offer. We asked: ‘In an ideal world, how would these organisations communicate with you about their offer?’ The head of art in a secondary school said: “I don’t know really. I guess it should be my job to go out and look, but I guess we just create a curriculum with the resource and time we have and that’s that. There’s not really that much time left to add anything.” The interviewee in another secondary said she would prefer email as the main medium for approaches, but also suggested that “a catalogue would be a fantastic idea … like the things we buy chairs and pens from. Like the Cambridge Open Studio booklet, or something. I recently saw the Cambridge University Science Week website, listing all that was going on. That would be ideal.”

“There is not one form of communication ... they need to communicate at all levels - email, phone-calls, PR work, press releases ... the bigger the means of communication the better!” The head of a primary school explained that she was already beginning to see the sector engage with her through her local school partnership. but: “[The providers] need a public profile so we know they exist. There can’t be a one off hit to a school. And the needs of the school and its evolving curriculum should be taken into account.” We also asked what would make the offer attractive or unattractive? The head of one of the primary schools explained: “If the activity is genuinely about children, and genuinely engages them, that’s attractive.” The head of another added that: “The offer needs to be flexible enough to fit. For me, the best thing is something they can offer that can be tailored to the school’s need. Co-development is best, especially where this enables a topic to work across curricular themes.” The things that attract secondary schools seem more technical. One said: “Our curriculum is so fine-tuned … there’s no room for additional work. The [local gallery’s] competition is great as we’re entering work the students have already done. Most projects require additional work usually in short timescales - so it’s just not possible. Also, it can’t take too much time, and needs a long enough lead time to allow for lesson planning … and is free.”

In terms of what would put these people off an offer, the responses varied, but were very insightful, and suggested a degree of sophistication that might surprise some in the business of providing services for schools.

that they had been amazing. We now don’t go as it’s quite a long way, especially if you’re not respected at the other end. They’re a bit snooty.”

A strategic approach to tackling barriers For example, the head of a primary school explained: “One of the things I find off-putting is when I’m somehow ticking a box for them. Many will get funding for their projects and will have to work with schools to justify funding and employ their people. I sniff that out. It has to work for the children more than just provide them with an income.”

In seeking to understand what is driving decision making in schools beyond the quality of the flyers and emails they receive, and the availability of money and time - we identified a number of intrinsic pressures, which we offer as a useful means for informing the sector’s deeper, more strategic, engagement with schools.

He went on: “It also needs to be useful. The local council said they wanted to design a playground … we went with it, but it was rubbish. All they did was buy what they were going to buy anyway, but had to be seen to ask schools. That’s pointless. We recently had the opportunity to engage in a project that was probably a step too far. The links with our curriculum were tenuous and it would have required a lot of time and engagement. We opted not to engage.” For one of the secondary schools, the thing that gets a leaflet binned is “an unrealistic expectation of what we can do, usually based on a misunderstanding about the pressures we’re under. Short time scales and high costs are a common problem.” We also note the importance of careful relationship maintenance. One primary school head told us: “We used to go to a museum … but found that they are a bit superior. Our children were impeccably behaved there, but we had some complaints from the museum that our children were touching things. The teacher flatly denied this and had in fact come to tell

1. 2. 3.

Intrinsic barriers

Extrinsic barriers

4. 5.

lack of staff support uncertain benefits lack of knowledge about the benefits of art prioritise other subjects lack of leadership

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

poor cultural opportunities management pressure transportation government pressure time information cost

With respect to the predominant extrinsic barriers, our research is broadly in line with NFER’s findings in their study of London schools for A New Direction. Key barriers are cost and the (perceived or real) lack of 44

information about existing opportunities. To a large extent, where it is possible for the sector to influence decision making, these barriers can be overcome with tactical improvements in communication, resource design and pricing. Drawing from our sample and from broader observations, we suggest that where schools do not engage with the art and cultural sector it is mainly due to a combination of extrinsic and intrinsic factors, where the intrinsic factor is dominant. For example, three schools in our sample demonstrated what we have termed a lack of leadership within art and cultural education, by which we mean they appeared to lack knowledge about the benefits of art and cultural education. Regardless of cost, time or transport, for example, it was the lack of leadership that prevailed in decisions about art education and engaging with the sector.

Artsmark and the Arts Award Several interviewees perceived strengths in the Artsmark programme, and suggested that it might have a positive impact on the school’s reputation, by providing an externally verified audit or benchmark of practice. One primary head explained that: “It was valuable as it made us audit our practice and assess what we were doing.” One school is about to go for the Artsmark, because they: “think it will raise the profile or art within the school, where there is still an issue that art is not taken as seriously as other subjects, so using the Artsmark asserts that. Also, certain talents and demand that exists, such as dance classes which we don’t provide for at the moment, would have to be addressed with the Artsmark, and will force us to get provisions for that.”

Two of our interviewees hadn’t heard of Artsmark, and couldn’t comment on it. Others - especially where there was prior experience of engagement were critical (NB these schools engagement in the Artmark was prior to round 13 where improvements responding to similar critiques have been implemented): “Yes … we know of it- we used to have an Artsmark silver award until we lapsed. I’m not terribly in favour of the kite-mark culture. It doesn’t really interest me. I don’t have the energy for filling in forms and all of that.” “We used to have it … too much paperwork.” “We had Silver Artsmark but stopped going for any external awards 7 years ago because we didn’t believe in them. We don’t have any external awards at the moment. After becoming a Beacon school and various awards, at the end we had the network of people that came to us and with which we worked with through this outreach programme, but we didn’t think that we need awards anymore.” “I have heard of it but we don’t have it. I don’t know the specific requirements of this specific award, but my view on most of the awards is that they are not worth it because it is just jumping through hoops which are very pedantic. We had Healthy Schools. I was so cross at the end of the project, with so many silly things that you are asked to do without actually having an impact on the students. I felt as these are political tools than actually having impact on the school/students.”

Given the responses above, one would have expected the Arts Award less of an external kite-mark and more related to a student’s work - to be more positively reviewed, but in reality, it didn’t generate much of a response from our sample. Only two out of our ten schools are currently engaged with it, and a high proportion of the sample didn’t recognise it. The analysis below is based on the limited response to the Arts Award offer. We identified an opportunity for the programme to fill an apparent gap in the market, and so present the analysis in the form of a SWOT analysis:

Opportunities •

There may be a gap emerging for a vocationally-oriented post-16 qualification at level 2, with an applied art focus

•

Some in our sample were not aware of the programmes, suggesting that strategy may need to be driven by a better understanding of schools’ needs, as outlined in this report

•

There also seems to be a shift toward extra-curricular activities, which the Arts Award could possibly exploit through a strategic partnership with the Children’s University

Threats Perceived strengths •

Its focus on the individual performance rather than being a kitemark for the whole school like Artsmark.

•

It is applauded for the capability to raise aspiration and present opportunities for individual growth: “We use music and the arts as a magnet for the kids to improve attendance … as a reward /a trade-off if they do their other subjects, they get to engage in art and music, so we used this more as an activity rather than a qualification. We are trying to do more and more of it as a qualification than just an activity. You suddenly uncover that kids that were not engaged suddenly start to write lyrics, write music that becomes a passion.”

•

the increased focus on core subjects and focusing on GCSEs

•

Children’s University

Perceived weaknesses •

For one, the award is badly timed and gets in the way of high stakes assessment

6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS As described in the executive summary we have identified three key strategic themes: the Missing Middle; Collaboration Not Geography and Sense of Place. It is clear that enabling arts and cultural organisations to use the opportunities these themes present should remain a key focus for the Norfolk & Norwich Festival Bridge. Programmes led by the Norfolk & Norwich Festival Bridge such as the Peterborough Cultural Partnership in collaboration with the Peterborough Learning Partnership provide examples of how this may develop further. Recommendations and implications for the Norfolk & Norwich Festival Bridge include: The Missing Middle - Share knowledge of the new middle and share sector language - Keep arts and cultural providers updated on policy developments - Continue to engage emergent collaborative structure - Explore how to efficiently deliver a one-stop-shop brokerage across the entire area Collaboration not Geography - Continue to explore how to best capitalise on the Children’s University - Continue to broker opportunities for collaboration between providers and schools - Support and equip arts and cultural providers to collaborate to deliver demands of new networks

Identify effective mechanisms to lobby Headteachers

For arts and cultural providers: - Engage with and understand the ‘middle’ in the localities in which you aim to work - Research and be prepared to respond to the opportunities presented by a schools collaborative structures (eg alliances, clusters or federations) - Engage in collaborative programmes to assist schools in identifying appropriate offers - Offer services that schools can co-develop for their contexts including their locality - Market services on the basis of quality and outcomes - Target lobbying not only at Heads and teachers but think about how to involve governors and parents - Try to make offers simple for schools to implement, consider and accommodate the administration For schools: - Ensure arts and cultural partner engagement in the ‘middle’ support structures you are involved with - Engage the arts and culture in whole school development - Be open about your needs; arts and cultural providers will respond - Research the provision in the area - Consider inviting cultural representation into the school governance

Sense of Place - Explore potential collaboration with new school models (free schools) 47

Appendix I - A Decision Making SWOT Analysis of Findings

Strengths

Weaknesses

most schools have strong links with at least one provider (Wolsey Theatre)

lack of leadership from governors

overall, schools are motivated to engage

lack of clear engagement from parents in decision-making communication channels are unclear, and passive

Threats

using hubs or LAs as brokers of information

LAs cutting costs and discontinuing services with schools

catalogues / database

further economic stagnation

potential to use grants to develop freemium models of engagement, leading to income streams

parentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; unwillingness to support the arts

leadership training for governors

there is an apparent willingness to listen and explore opportunities in their region

money and time is in very short supply

some initiatives - like the areabased curriculum - have proven useful

schools need a stronger understanding of the intrinsic value of art and cultural education

some of NNFâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s key stakeholders have the strongest existing links with schools

Opportunities

government and accountability system focusing more on basic skills and core subjects

NNF to connect schools and establish partnership opportunities (e.g. PLP) new qualification that rewards extracurricular activities in arts (link with Childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s University) area-based approach to linking resources offer international links and resources

Appendix II - Comparison with NFER’s Report on London Schools for A New Direction Overall similarities: •

many schools do not refer to art or cultural education in their school development plan, nor have a member of governing body with responsibilities for the area

•

there is far less engagement at the curriculum-level with the creative and cultural industries (digital arts, broadcasting) than with music, theatre, museums and galleries (although there is engagement in relation to careers)

parental support (the biggest extrinsic barriers shared in both studies are the lack of funding, lack of information and time) •

both reports highlight the (expected) variation between schools in the extent to which they consider barriers as significant or insignificant, indicating that some are better at overcoming those barriers than others, and that they may relate to values and motivation

Similarities in interview limitations:

•

special schools are less likely to visit cultural venues and face greater barriers around transportation and coordination

•

a tailored offer from cultural organisations is crucial - to be relevant, it must meet the needs and be of high quality (both reports find that the top enablers to engagement are relevance, flexibility and quality of provision)

•

key barriers are lack of funding, transport and lack of information

•

both studies found that it is rare for schools to spend more than 10% of their annual budget on the arts and culture

•

in relation to Artsmark, the two reports found schools in the two regions giving similar reasons for disengagement from the award - a lot of paperwork, time and energy

•

most barriers to cultural engagement cited were practical in nature, rather than through any lack of inclination, staff skills or

•

like the NFER, we found a non-response bias in our sample … schools with low level of participation in arts and culture may have chosen not to respond

Differences: •

the scale of the survey leading to this report did not allow us to make any assertions about geographical patterns of school engagement, and the sample size is too small to draw conclusions about this (the Arts Council’s Local Cultural Education profiles database provides a far more accurate and up to date picture of this than any qualitative survey could)

•

while the NFER report offers an assessment of best practice in schools by presenting case studies, our report provides an evaluation of current engagement practices in the form of a SWOT analysis, presented as management information for NNF Bridge to inform future practice

•

where the NFER found a majority (89%) of schools had heard of the award and find it valuable (61%), our research suggests that 49

fewer are engaged and that those which may have been engaged in the past now find it to be of less value â&#x20AC;˘

sample may perceive it to be of more value than Artsmark compared to the NFERâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s London sample

both surveys found that only a small number of schools have heard of the Arts Award, but our research suggests that our

Appendix III â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Data Sources and Tables Table A Number of Education Establishments and Associated Capacity Cambridgeshire CC Establishment Type

School Count

Places Available

Pupils on Roll

2,077

1,958

28,630

Other

Total Colleges Early Year/Nursery

Norfolk CC

Suffolk CC

School Count

Places Available

Pupils on Roll

Proportion Filled

School Count

Places Available

Pupils on Roll

Proportion Filled

School Count

Places Available

Pupils on Roll

Proportion Filled

94.3%

660

596

90.3%

210

208

99.0%

531

25,631

89.5%

17,580

14,962

85.1%

7,423

4,423

59.6%

22,764

16,414

72.1%

1,150

1,072

93.2%

304

30,707

27,649

90.0%

18,240

15,558

85.3%

8,783

5,703

64.9%

23,333

17,249

73.9%

Total

373

559

438

320

112

141

364

103

Independent

Total

10,307

9,695

94.1%

6,551

6,021

91.9%

805

409

50.8%

8,715

7,653

87.8%

Local Authority Maintained Schools

Primary

195

48,383

42,107

87.0%

359

63,846

57,756

90.5%

17,091

15,911

93.1%

252

53,533

45,900

85.7%

7,888

6,838

86.7%

36,817

34,082

92.6%

6,072

5,610

92.4%

33,158

26,520

80.0%

Total

201

56,271

48,945

87.0%

395

100,663

91,838

91.2%

23,163

21,521

92.9%

297

86,691

72,420

83.5%

Other Special Schools

Total

138

Total

827

1,309

440

666

Universities

Total

0.0%

688

128,660

115,324

89.6%

934

144,774

130,60 4

90.2%

198

41,732

34,013

81.5%

779

143,311

115,478

80.6%

Academies & City Technology Colleges

Total Count

Phase Primary Secondary

Secondary

Proportion Filled

Peterborough

Source: Department for Education Edubase Database, Year: 2011/12 Measure: Total number of schools, total number of places available, total number of places taken up and proportion of places filled

Table B School Funding in 2010/11 The following table Spend (£m) on Schools

Total Pupils (aged 3-19)

Spend per Pupil (£)

Cambridgeshire CC

£168.0

73,404

£2,289

Norfolk CC

£455.7

104,881

£4,345

Peterborough

£120.3

26,236

£4,586

Indicator

Suffolk CC East of England England

£394.6

97,745

£4,037

£3,328.4

785,228

£4,239

£31,853.5

7,048,799

£4,519

Source: Department for Education, Year: 2010/11 Measure: Total Net Spend on Schools (£m) along with spend per pupil (£k)

Table C Free School Meal Eligibility Early Years Area

Number

Cambridgeshire CC

Norfolk CC

Peterborough

Suffolk CC

Key Stage 4

L2 Age 19

Year Rate

Number

Rate

Number

Rate

2007/08

547

8.8%

380

6.3%

202

4.4%

2008/09

606

9.5%

400

6.8%

189

4.1%

2009/10

679

10.4%

433

7.1%

221

4.6%

2007/08

919

11.7%

785

8.7%

405

6.3%

2008/09

1,018

12.9%

806

9.0%

415

6.2%

2009/10

1,124

13.7%

896

9.9%

448

6.6%

2007/08

346

16.2%

328

15.3%

170

10.9%

2008/09

395

17.3%

293

12.8%

199

11.9%

2009/10

453

19.6%

339

15.0%

190

11.2%

2007/08

440

6.3%

578

7.2%

393

6.4%

2008/09

474

6.4%

582

7.5%

374

6.0%

2009/10

583

7.7%

576

7.4%

365

5.8%

East of England

England

2007/08

5,734

9.3%

5,091

7.7%

3,026

6.2%

2008/09

6,366

10.1%

5,155

7.9%

3,120

6.1%

2009/10

7,634

11.8%

5,553

8.5%

3,163

6.0%

2007/08

81,200

14.6%

74,360

12.5%

43,240

10.0%

2008/09

88,220

15.4%

74,035

12.8%

45,103

9.9%

2009/10

100,790

17.2%

76,949

13.4%

47,323

10.0%

Source: Ofsted Attainment Gaps Data Analysis Tool Measure: Number of Children eligible for free school meals, split by schooling stage (Early years, KS4, L2 Age 19)

Table D Primary Education Level â&#x2013;˛ School name

School type

% achieving Level 4 or above in both English and maths in

% making expected progress

2012

English

2011

2010

2009

Maths

England - all schools

79%

74%

73%

72%

89%

87%

England - state funded schools only

79%

74%

73%

72%

89%

87%

Cambridgeshire

79%

74%

73%

88%

86%

Norfolk

75%

68%

67%

69%

86%

83%

Peterborough

74%

69%

67%

69%

90%

86%

Suffolk

74%

69%

68%

66%

84%

80%

Source: DFE School and Local Statistics

Table E Secondary Education Level

â&#x2013;˛ School name

School type

% of pupils making expected progress

English

Maths

England - state funded schools only

% achieving 5+ A*-C GCSEs (or equivalent) including English and maths GCSEs

% achieving the English Baccalaureate

% achieving grades A*C in English and maths GCSEs

2012

2011

2010

2009

59.40%

59.00%

53.50%

49.80%

18.40%

60.00%

68.00%

68.70%

58.80%

58.20%

55.20%

50.70%

16.20%

59.30%

Cambridgeshire

68.00%

66.00%

57.50%

59.30%

58.90%

56.20%

21.40%

58.00%

Norfolk

66.70%

67.70%

55.60%

55.40%

52.30%

50.00%

13.40%

56.50%

Peterborough

60.60%

59.50%

49.30%

49.40%

45.50%

40.60%

13.30%

49.60%

Suffolk

61.10%

63.50%

50.50%

54.70%

51.80%

48.70%

13.80%

51.10%

England - all schools

Source: DFE School and Local Statistics

Table F Ofsted Rating (all settings)

Outstanding No of Places

Cambridgeshire (31/12/2012) Cambridgeshire (31/08/2009) Cambridgeshire Trend Norfolk (31/12/2012) Norfolk (31/08/2009) Norfolk Trend Peterborough (31/12/2012) Peterborough (31/08/2009) Peterborough Trend Suffolk (31/12/2012) Suffolk (31/08/2009) Suffolk Trend Area Trend Source: Ofsted Data View

Good

No of Providers %

No of Places

Satisfactory

No of Providers %

No of Places

Inadequate

No of Providers %

No of Places

No of Providers

14,394

38,530

123

51 21,432

2,526

10,089 4,305 14,133 8,231 5,902

14 5 14 8 6

40 1 50 34 16

16 1 12 8 4

40,284 -1,754 47,234 52,877 -5,643

54 -4 45 50 -5

145 -22 210 221 -11

59 22,925 -8 -1,493 50 37,083 51 41,213 -1 -4,130

31 -3 36 39 -3

59 11 144 169 -25

24 5 35 39 -4

1,025 1,501 5,483 4,253 1,230

1 2 5 4 1

2 4 12 8 4

1 2 3 2 1

6,428

12,071

8,019

940

2,641 3,787 21,097 15,079 6,018

9 14 23 16 7

8 4 62 50 12

11 6 19 14 5

41 3 46 54 -8

36 -7 163 206 -43

27 2 92 95 -3

37 0 28 27 1

749 191 3,452 2,382 1,070

3 0 4 3 1

2 1 8 5 3

3 1 2 1 1

-14

-83

49 12,606 -8 -4,587 50 24,254 58 26,298 -8 -2,044 -25 12,254

47 -18 27 28 -1

20,012

10,849 1,222 42,028 50,622 -8,594 14,769

-25

-15

3,992

Table G

No of Places

Primary Outstanding Good

Cambridgeshire (31/12/2012) Norfolk (31/12/2012) Peterborough (31/12/2012) Suffolk (31/12/2012)

No of Providers

Total

7587 22388 29975

6168 15639 21807

6808 29900 36708

6642 17051 23693

2622

7357

9979

6641 25810 32451

Primary Outstanding Good

Cambridgeshire (31/12/2012) Norfolk (31/12/2012) Peterborough (31/12/2012) Suffolk (31/12/2012) Source: Ofsted Data View

Secondary Outstanding Good

Percentages of Places

Total

3550

4587

8137

13919 15823 29742

Secondary Outstanding Good

Cambridgeshire (31/12/2012) Norfolk (31/12/2012) Peterborough (31/12/2012) Suffolk (31/12/2012) Percentage of Providers

Total

105

133

188

224

132

172

Cambridgeshire (31/12/2012) Norfolk (31/12/2012) Peterborough (31/12/2012) Suffolk (31/12/2012)

Primary Secondary Outstanding Good Total Outstanding Good Total 17

Primary Secondary Outstanding Good Total Outstanding Good Total 14

Table H Number and Proportion of All GCSE Entries in Arts-Based Subjects Cambridgeshire CC

Norfolk CC

2010/11 Numb er

0.00%

1,785

3.60%

2,672

3.70%

2,529

3.60%

465

2.90%

0.40%

191

0.40%

117

0.20%

142

0.20%

111

1,014

1.90%

833

1.70%

1,438

2.00%

1,296

1.80%

0.00%

0.10%

0.00%

Media/Film/Tv Studies

728

Music

543

1.40%

713

1.40%

695

1.00%

511

1.00%

719

Expressive Art & Performance Studies

0.00%

0.10%

Performing Arts

Textiles

0.00%

Art & Design Dance

Drama & Theatre Studies Film Studies

Media: Communication & Production

1,921

3.70%

190

East of England

2010/11 Numb er

0.00%

458

2.90%

2,784

4.30%

2,883

4.40%

19,872

3.70%

0.70%

0.50%

169

0.30%

151

0.20%

2,018

345

2.20%

346

2.20%

1,169

1.80%

1,236

1.90%

0.00%

1.00%

631

0.90%

247

1.50%

186

1.20%

625

1.00%

718

1.00%

140

0.90%

135

0.90%

821

0.00%

0.30%

0.00%

2009/10 Numb er

Number

0.00%

1,451

0.00%

19,117

3.60%

165,84 2

3.60%

158,987

3.60%

0.40%

1,631

0.30%

14,894

0.30%

12,854

0.30%

11,150

2.10%

10,169

1.90%

80,184

1.80%

74,278

1.70%

0.00%

107

0.00%

264

0.10%

1,911

0.00%

2,963

0.10%

0.00%

164

0.00%

1.00%

700

1.10%

6,055

1.10%

5,597

1.10%

58,045

1.30%

51,302

1.20%

1.30%

739

1.10%

6,051

1.10%

5,877

1.10%

45,016

1.00%

42,698

1.00%

0.10%

321

0.10%

281

0.10%

6,739

0.10%

6,104

0.10%

0.00%

100

0.00%

2,548

0.10%

0.00%

183

0.00%

267

0.00%

8.10%

353,616

7.90%

100.00 %

4,452,810

100.00%

2009/10 Numb er

England

2009/10 Numb er

2010/11 Numb er

Suffolk CC

2009/10 Numb er

Applied Art & Design

2010/11 Numb er

Peterborough

2009/10 Numb er

Subject

2009/10 Numb er

2010/11 Numb er

Total ArtsBased Entries

4,440

8.50%

4,141

8.20%

5,655

7.80%

5,382

7.60%

1,364

8.50%

1,247

7.90%

5,602

8.60%

5,757

8.70%

45,574

8.40%

43,124

8.20%

372,81 4

Total Entries (incl. non-arts)

52,427

100.00 %

50,231

100.00 %

72,768

100.00 %

70,455

100.00 %

16,038

100.00 %

15,700

100.00 %

65,272

100.00 %

66,102

100.00 %

539,89 5

100.00%

526,61 2

100.00%

4,578, 772

2010/11

Source: Department for Education Measure: Number of GCSE Entries in the subjects listed, and the proportion of all students taking them

Appendix IV - Outline of Literature Review and References Our literature review focused on the following types of literature: -

reports relevant to the region, but including research on the wider UK to allow for comparative analysis, potential learnings and recommendations

Arts Council England (2010b). Achieving Great Art for Everyone: a Review of Research and Literature to Inform the Arts Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 10-year Strategic Framework January 2010. London: Arts Council England [online]. Available: http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/media/uploads/p df/nas_literaturereview_pdf.pdf [27 April, 2012].

official and unofficial research publications, which could tell us more about the art/cultural patterns in the region, including key policy documents

Arts Council England (2012). London Region: Arts Award Participation Report by Local Authority, April 2012. London: Arts Council England [online]. Available: http://www.artsaward.org.uk/resource/?id=3533 [27 April, 2012].

official publications published since 2004, as we aim to prioritise the most recent publications

Artsmark (2012). Artsmark Take-Up Figures, Norfolk & Norwich Festival. [31 Jan, 2013].

Relevant reports and studies conducted: -

NFER report for A New Direction, London Schools Research: Cultural Engagement, (Lord, Dawson, Featherstone & Sharp, 2012)

The Review of Cultural Education (Henley, 2012)

Final report to Creativity, Culture and Education (CCE), The Impact of Creative Partnerships on the Wellbeing of Children and Young People (McLellan, Galton, Steward & Page, 2012)

Bamfield. L, Hallgarten. J, and Taylor, M (2013) No school an island: Suffolk education inquiry final report. Available: http://www.thersa.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0 016/1523050/RSA_No_school_an_island_report_ 05-13.pdf Bull, P. (2011). Supporting Schoolsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Commissioning: Research Findings and Final Report. London: London Cultural Improvement Group [online]. Available: http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/London%20C ouncils/SchoolsCommissioningFinalReport.pdf [27 April, 2012].

References Arts Council England (2010a). Achieving Great Art for Everyone: a Strategic Framework for the Arts (2010). London: Arts Council England [online]. Available: http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/media/uploads/ac hieving_great_art_for_everyone.pdf [27 April, 2012].

Centrifuge Consulting (2012). Evaluation of the Wider Impacts of the Schools of Creativity Programme: Final Report. London: Creativity, Culture, Education [online]. Available: http://www.creativitycultureeducation.org/wpcontent/uploads/wider-impacts-of-socsfebruary-2012-288.pdf [27 April, 2012]. Crump, E. (2007). Creative Services: Using the Arts to Improve Opportunities for Young

Londoners. London: Arts Council England [online]. Available: http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/media/uploads/Cr eativeServicePublication_phpWgYqUU.pdf [27 April, 2012]. Department for Education and Department for Culture, Media and Sport (2011). The Importance of Music – A National Plan for Music Education (DfE 00086/2011). London: DfE [online]. Available: https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOr deringDownload/DFE- 00086-2011.pdf [29 May, 2011]. Greater London Authority (2010). Cultural Metropolis: the Mayor’s Cultural Strategy: 2012 and Beyond. London: Greater London Authority [online]. Available: http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Cul turalMetropolis.pdf [27 April, 2012]. Henley, D. (2012). A Review of Cultural Education in England. London: DFE [online]. Available: http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/ Cultural_Education_report.pdf [27 April, 2012]. Hill, R (2012) The Missing Middle: the case for school commissioners. Available at http://www.thersa.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0 017/630053/RSAThe_Missing_Middle_report_2012.pdf Ipsos MORI (2010). Teachers Omnibus 2009 for Creativity, Culture and Education. London: Ipsos MORI [online]. Available: http://www.creativitycultureeducation.org/wpcontent/uploads/cce-teacher-omnibus-2009final-report-186.pdf [27 April, 2012] James, Professor D (2012): The Area-Based Curriculum in Peterborough; an independent

evaluation. Available: http://www.thersa.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0 015/1000770/RSA_ABC_Peterborough_Independ ent_evaluation.pdf Mourshed, M., Chijioke, C., Barber, M. (2010). How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better. New York: McKinsey Company Lord, P., Wilson, R., Grayson, H. and Sharp, C. (2012). London Schools Research: Cultural Engagement. Discussion Paper 1: Key Messages from the Rapid Evidence Assessment. Slough: NFER [online]. Available: http://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/publications/ANDL01 /ANDL01.pdf [25 September, 2012]. Pearson, The RSA (2013): Unleashing greatness: Getting the best from an academised system. Available: http://www.thersa.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0 020/1008038/Unleashing-greatness.pdf PricewaterhouseCoopers (2010): The Costs and Benefits of Creative Partnerships. Available: http://www.creativitycultureeducation.org/wpcontent/uploads/PWC-report-the-costs-andbenefits-of-creative-partnerships.pdf Robinson, K (2011) Out of Our Minds: Learning to be Creative, Capstone Spencer, E., Lucas, B. and Claxton, G. (2012). Progression in Creativity: developing new forms of assessment – Final Research Report. Newcastle: CCE Thomas. L (2012) Learning about, by and for Peterborough: the RSA area-based curriculum in Peterborough’. Available: http://www.thersa.org/action-researchcentre/learning,-cognition-and59

creativity/education/practical-projects/areabased-curriculum/reports-and-casestudies/learning-about,-by-and-forpeterborough-the-rsa-area-based-curriculum-inpeterborough

Appendix VI - Restart-ed Ltd Restart-Ed Ltd was set up in 2011 as a specialist consultancy offering a range of professional services for schools and other organisations in the schools sector. While its focus is always to meet the specific requirements of each its clients, Restart-Ed is driven by the need to improve the standard of education in the UK and beyond, particularly as regards improving the breadth of rich learning experienced by children in state schools, and the development of skills for life in the 21st century. The fact that these improvements can only be successfully achieved through both system level and school level changes is a key element of Restart-Edâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s business strategy. Restart-Ed's survey for the State of the Region 2013 report was conducted by Plamena Pehlivanova, an education policy researcher who has most recently worked with the RSA (including its Raising the Bar project in Suffolk), Teach for All, and the Cultural Policy Institute. In addition to prior research work with arts organisations including the Arts Alliance Illinois - Plamena is also an established and award winning artist, with work exhibited in The Regenstein Library, Chicago, the Washington D.C. Capitol Building, and the Houston Art Gallery. The policy analysis was carried out by Ben Gibbs, Founding Director of Restart-Ed Ltd. A qualified teacher and long term school governor whose previous work includes roles at the Department for Education & Skills and the University of Cambridge International Examinations, Benâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s portfolio of clients include Whole Education, the RSA, the Peterborough Learning Partnership, and a number of schools. Born in Ipswich, raised in Cambridge, with family in Norwich and now living with his own family in Ely, Ben may be said to be of the region. 61