Just A Little Something – Episode 6: Part 2
This is a series which covers some of the things that leaders of independent schools sometimes overlook, omit, misunderstand, or fail to address when it comes to meeting the all-important Independent School Standards. The episodes will not cover the standards in any sort of order so special requests are welcome – feel free to get in touch and let me know which standards you’d like me to cover.
Before we begin: a bit of advice
Please find time to read The Education (Independent School Standards) Regulations 2014 (Make sure that you are looking at the “latest available (revised)”version. The date of the last revision was 19 August 2024
Also useful to read is the DfE’s Independent School Standards: Guidance for Independent Schools
And to borrow the DfE’s disclaimer from the latter document what I share with you here: is not purported to be definitive guidance on the meaning of the standards themselves, only a court can give that.
Today we continue looking at paragraph 2(1)(a) which I have split into 3 parts. Part 1 explained what the paragraph is all about. Today, in Part 2 I’ll share examples from my experience of what schools overlook, omit, misunderstand, or fail to address when it comes to meeting this paragraph. In Part 3 I’ll share examples from Ofsted inspection reports – statements which provide the reason why paragraph 2 (1) (a) was not met. Please make sure that you have listened to part 1 beforehand, a link will be provided in the comments.
When it comes to the curriculum policy – these are some of the issues I have found:
In some schools curriculum policies do not include details of the subjects taught.
In others, the subjects listed on the policy do not match what is happening on the ground as indicated by timetables.
Not all policies cover all of the matters specified in sub-paragraph 2 (2).
In some schools not enough work is done to ensure the suitability of the curriculum to the cohort – for example many times I have come across pupils who can access GCSE’s in English and Mathematics being offered Functional Skills only because that is what the school has offered historically.
When it comes to curriculum plans – these are some of the issues I have found that lead to failure to meet sub-paragraph 2 (1)(a):
Schools have curriculum plans for some, not all subjects. Core subjects are usually covered – it is in the foundation subjects where curriculum planning tends to be inconsistent.
In some schools, curriculum plans are produced in all subjects for all groups but for the current cohort only – even if that cohort does not represent the full range of year groups the school is registered to educate.
In some schools - no curriculum plans at all.
Some schools that choose to use thematic or project-based curriculum plans do not always provide equal opportunities for progression in all subject areas within the themes/projects. They usually end up focusing on ensuring that each subject area is represented in each theme/project while neglecting to ensure that for each subject the content added to the theme or project is sequenced to build on previous knowledge or delivering additional discrete lessons in the subjects that are not served well within the theme/project.
When some subjects are said to be delivered exclusively through a cross-curricular approach – e.g ICT sometimes there is no curriculum plan for the subject outlining what pupils should learn for the duration of their stay at the school. Each teacher “points” to a little bit of ICT here and there and others are even content to say that use of laptops and Ipads is enough. In other cases, where there is a curriculum plan in place, schools fail to map out exactly where and in which subject each concept will be covered.
When it comes to schemes of work – these are some of the issues I have found that lead to failure to meet sub-paragraph 2 (1)(a):
Schemes of work in some but not all subjects (again core subjects usually have schemes of work and there is inconsistency when it comes to the rest of the subjects).
Detailed customised schemes of work for the current cohort for the current term or the current year. This is common in new schools where sometimes, after registration they find that the pupils referred to the school are significantly different in terms of capability and need than the pupils for which they had prepared. So different in fact that the plans and schemes of work they submitted to the DfE need to be reviewed and updated. Updating curriculum plans might be quick but if you are compiling new schemes of work – that will take time. It might be prudent to find ready-made schemes of work that meet the level of capability and need of the new cohort, schemes in every subject and for every year group for which the school caters then gradually construct the customised versions for the new cohort drawing on the ready-made schemes. That way should pupils working at levels different from the current cohort join the school – there are ready-made schemes of work available for teachers to use.
When it comes to the requirement that curriculum policies, curriculum plans and schemes of work should cover the matters specified in sub-paragraph 2 the issues I have found are:
The content of the curriculum does not cover all types of education – usually missing the human & social and technological elements. Sometimes there is a misunderstanding where schools interpret terms such as human & social and technological without checking the guidance. For example, I have come across schools mistakenly assuming that providing pupils with opportunities to develop their social skills and interact with people from different walks of life fulfils the human & social aspect – it does not. Guidance says this area is concerned with people and how they live, their relationships with each other and with their environment, and how human action, now and in the past, has influenced events and conditions. The subjects of history and geography make a strong contribution to this area.
Schools focus on the 7 types of education listed in the first part of sub-paragraph 2 (you know the mathematical, linguistic etc) and forget the rest – e.g careers guidance
In some secondary schools, pupils who because of gaps in their education have not yet learned to read do not have access to a suitable phonics programme.
When it comes to the requirement to implement the curriculum effectively these are some of the issues, I have found that lead to failure to meet sub-paragraph 2 (1)(a):
When schools have staff who are not qualified teachers or subject specialists, they do not always support them well enough to develop their pedagogic and subject knowledge. This usually leads to pupils not progressing as well in foundation subjects as they do in the core subjects – because most schools usually ensure that they have qualified specialists teaching core subjects
In independent special schools or other independent schools in which all pupils have an EHC plan, failing to invest in a SENCo usually results in ineffective implementation of the curriculum in that legally mandated provision is not offered, pupils engagement with the curriculum is limited, pupils do not make the progress they should make and they fail to achieve their outcomes. Some schools hold onto the fact that only mainstream schools are bound by the statutory requirement to have a qualified teacher designated as the SENCo. And that this SENCO must have (or achieve within 3 years if they are new in post) the National Award in Special Educational Needs Coordination (or now the NPQ for SENCos). This does not make sense to me when all your pupils have special educational needs. So you don’t have to, but you really should!
I hope you have found this useful.
If you would like a copy of the script for this episode, please say “yes” in the comments or send me a DM.
Comments