How local education systems are responding to the coronavirus crisis: Part 2
‘WE DO NO WANT TO GO BACK TO HOW THINGS WERE BEFORE THE CRISIS … WE WANT TO USE THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESET AND DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY AND MORE EFFECTIVELY.’ (Local authority Director of Children’s Services)
Introduction
At the end of April 2020, Isos Partnership published a blog about local education systems’ immediate responses to the coronavirus crisis, based on conversations with leaders in ten local systems. That blog set out the approaches that local systems had taken to date, their reflections on what was working and what was not, and their thoughts and plans about the term ahead.
At the end of the summer term and during August, we checked back with leaders in these local systems to see how things had turned out in practice and to understand their latest thinking ahead of the full return of schools in September. We set out our reflections from these further conversations below based on the following questions.
What have been local systems’ main areas of focus during the summer term?
How have they been planning ahead for the autumn term and how are they feeling about this now?
What have they done differently over this whole period that they want to keep doing?
Part 1: What have been local systems main areas of focus during the summer term?
The areas we spoke to talked about three main areas of focus to their work during the summer term. Many felt they were still in a reactive phase during this time: responding to the changing national picture and guidelines as they emerged and working closely with schools to determine the most appropriate local response.
1. The first area of focus was ongoing and regular communications with schools and acting as a filter for the national guidance and messages emerging. As one put it, they saw their top priority as, ‘helping schools be in the best possible position to make their own decisions’. Many were producing regular (daily or weekly) summaries of the national guidance for schools to try to help schools and headteachers to understand the requirements as simply as possible. They were also holding regular briefing sessions with headteachers throughout this period. Many said that all of their schools had engaged in these briefings including those that were part of large national academy chains because they wanted access to local information and advice.
In other areas, the LA and headteacher associations were working closely together to ensure the right messages got to schools at the right times and feedback was being received on a regular basis. In some cases, local systems had had to make adjustments to their meeting structures and cycles to ensure all schools were engaging (see below for further reflections on things local areas said they would want to continue in future). LA leaders saw their role in acting as this crucial communications channel across the local system, and between national government and schools, would continue into the autumn term: deciphering guidance, clarifying messages, shaping local priorities and collecting feedback from schools would continue to be vital. Many were also playing an important role in passing back information and intelligence to national government and many said their relationships with the Department for Education (DfE) and Regional Schools Commissioners had been strengthened during this period as a result.
2. The second area of focus was continued tracking of vulnerable children and young people. This had remained a vital element of work for all local areas during the summer term. Most thought that local processes and safeguarding arrangements, linking the role of family support services and schools, to keep in touch with families had worked well. Some said they had seen examples of innovative practice with schools undertaking home visits and reaching out pro-actively to families to try to engage them in both home learning and any return to school. In one local area, LA teams had worked closely with SEN co-ordinators (SENCOs) to support families and keep track of attendance data. In general, the systems and processes described in our previous blog for keeping track of young people at risk of missing education and linking to schools had continued to be used and were seen to have worked effectively in this period.
Indeed, many LA leaders considered that collaborative working between different LA services, schools, and other partners working with at risk and vulnerable young people had been strengthened during this period. In one local, for example, one of the key drivers had been getting all partners using a shared management information system. Systems felt some vulnerable young people, particularly those with autism or social communication issues, had found different modes of learning and online engagements really positive. Some local areas had moved parenting programmes online, with facilitated telephone support, which LA leaders considered had worked well. LA leaders also recognised, however, that for some vulnerable young people online support had been less effective and they were concerned about a potential rise in requests for support once schools returned fully in September. Others echoed this concern and were also worried about how many vulnerable young people would want to re-engage in education September. They thought this would continue to be a major focus of their work in the autumn term.
3. The third area of focus for local systems during the summer term was helping schools share and learn from each other, especially about blended learning offers to children and families. Local systems saw their role very much as helping schools to connect with each other and share their learning about what was working. One education partnership had recently set up county-wide middle leader networks and they had proved highly effective at helping teachers share and discuss their experiences of blended learning during lockdown. In other areas, it was local partnerships or alliances of schools where much of the sharing, learning, and discussion about how best to make the blended learning offer work was taking place. Another variable identified in how well blended learning was working in practice was the extent of parental engagement in supporting any home-based learning; many said strengthening parental engagement was an ongoing priority for the autumn term. One specific role some local areas had played was in supporting implementation of the national laptop scheme in making sure these went to schools and learners as quickly as possible during the summer term.
In addition to the areas above, local systems were also dealing with the implementation of broader public health processes in schools during this period. A particular focus has been supporting schools to complete risk assessments, with many local areas and partnerships providing templates for schools to use if they wished and leading local discussions with unions to agree these. In addition, local areas have had to develop their approaches to local testing and tracking in relation to schools. One local area talked about the processes they had developed including the establishment of a clear flow-chart for what happened if someone tested positive and what schools were expected to do. They thought this work would be increasingly important in the autumn term, especially in preparing for and dealing with any local outbreaks. A new issue that one local area mentioned dealing with was an increasing number of questions coming direct from parents to the LA about rates of infection locally and confidence in sending children back to school – again local areas expected this to be a big focus of work in the autumn.
In parallel with developing their responses to the coronavirus situation, LA leaders said it had been important during this period to maintain a focus on local priorities that they had already identified and were working on with schools. For some, this related to work promoting inclusion, reducing exclusions, and re-designing their approaches to alternative provision. In others, the focus was on supporting pupils with special educational needs (SEN). In other local areas, the focus was on continuing the conversation about how to raise aspirations and close the gap for disadvantaged learners. The common theme in all these examples was that local systems recognised the issues had not gone away. Many school leaders had welcomed having something other than the response to coronavirus on which to focus, and in many cases the work they were doing was seen as contributing directly to support pupils’ return to school as these issues would be high on the priority list for schools then in any case.
Part 2: How are local systems preparing for the autumn term and how are they feeling?
The primary focus of local systems has been supporting schools to develop their own plans to get all children and young people back into school. Local areas emphasised the complexity of planning for different scenarios to cope with local outbreaks, area-based lockdowns, and the potential for any national lockdown again.
Most were feeling confident about the plans that schools had already put in place, although there was continued uncertainty about how these would actually operate in practice come September. A number said there was further work to do with schools to develop their guidance and approach to dealing with attendance in the autumn term, and specifically how to work to support families who continued to have concerns. A continued focus on ensuring all schools had clear plans for developing their approach to remote and blended learning if needed again was also seen as vital.
At a more practical level, some LA and school partnership leaders were thinking through how advisers would engage with schools during the autumn term – some had already developed plans for virtual visits to review schools’ progress with a focus on those judged highest risk during lockdown. Visits will focus on student and staff well-being, attendance, staff capacity, as well as catch-up provision, curriculum changes, and plans for assessment. The visits will be used by area-based partnerships to identify common priorities for schools as well as any effective practice or ideas to share with others. Other local areas were keen to continue using the networks that had developed between teachers and leaders during the crisis to continue sharing and learning from each other; they planned to use the autumn term to establish a clear focus for this work.
The main area of concern for local areas in the autumn was the continued uncertainty and number of questions they still had about how the education system would look over the coming year. (Note that our conversations with local system leaders took place before the summer exam results, which can only have added to the levels of uncertainty). Their questions included the following.
Where will students be in their learning when they return to school in the autumn? For example, how far will students have fallen behind during lockdown? Many areas said they simply did not know this yet.
What will the curriculum need to look like and how will local systems and schools balance the need for catch-up with a broad and balanced curriculum moving forward?
How will local systems manage expectations around attendance given national expectations of all pupils being back in school and the need to persuade “reluctant returners” and their families to come back to school?
How can schools reassert their behaviour policies and ethos without risking spikes in exclusions? How can local systems continue to support students previously excluded back into mainstream schools?
How will examinations and assessment work next summer and what impact will this year have on places available for students to progress to post-16 education and universities?
What role will inspections play during the autumn term and how will any learning be shared quickly across local systems and with all schools?
There was recognition that for some of these questions local areas could work with schools to determine their own responses and some had already started work on these – for example, the development of recovery curricula and summer holiday learning programmes were being developed by a number of local systems. In other cases, however, these issues were the responsibility of national government: agencies and local systems were waiting for further information.
Overall, therefore, the LA leaders to whom we spoke had were reasonably confident that schools already had plans in place for the autumn term, and they had thought these through in relation to different scenarios to the extent that they could at this stage. There remain major questions, however, about how the overall education system in England will function as a system across the 2020/21 academic year.
Part 3: Key reflections – what local areas do not want to lose in the next phase
Many local leaders talked about using the period from September as an opportunity for ‘restoring and resetting’ their local systems rather than simply one of returning to what went before. They wanted to use the opportunity to reflect on what had worked successfully over the last few months that the system should keep hold of as well as considering what should look different moving forward in their local systems.
They identified a number of areas to think about that other local systems might want to consider as well.
1. How to maintain regular and frequent communication channels that engage all schools?
One of the big benefits many areas had seen in recent months was much stronger engagement with schools and more open and honest dialogue between the LA, schools, and other local partners. Local systems wanted to maintain this moving forward. All were planning to maintain the regular briefings and online forums that had worked well in engaging headteachers over this period. There was recognition that doing this work virtually had produced significant time savings for all involved and that this format for communications had a lot to recommend it, albeit with the caveat having the opportunity to be in a room again to discuss some issues face-to-face would be welcome. Others planned to continue to develop and push the networks for sharing practice between middle leaders across schools that had developed during the crisis.
For some areas where engagement with schools had been an issue previously, the LA had had to re-design their communication channels urgently during the crisis and had worked closely with groups of headteachers to get this right. These LAs wanted to maintain this moving forward. One area, for example, had developed a local “communications group” comprised of a small number of primary, secondary and special headteachers that had met monthly to see how messages were landing, find out what other heads were concerned about, horizon scan, and test out communications messages that would go out to the wider community of school leaders.
2. How to build on the role played by local education partnerships or other local partnership structures?
In a number of areas, a schools-led education partnership had played a critical role in leading the response to the crisis, alongside the LA. In these areas, the education partnership and LA have worked closely together to develop the response to coronavirus and were leading on different strands of work. The education partnership was seen as playing a particularly valuable role initially in leading communications with schools and getting feedback quickly about what support schools needed. As one LA leader put it, ‘It has been like having two Directors of Education … the education partnership has been invaluable, particularly in drafting communications to schools, and has helped get a much better tone and frequency of communication.’ In another area, the education partnership said the tone of the conversation between schools and the LA had been completely changed by the crisis and that the system felt genuinely schools-led now, whilst schools had recognised the expertise and resources the LA had brought to the table. They felt much more confident about the strength of the partnership working and that this would stand them in good stead in the future.
In other areas without a formal education partnership or schools led organisation, it was the role of headteacher associations or specific groups set up to support communications during this period that had proved critical. A number commented that these had also helped to foster stronger working relationships with the chief executives of multi-academy trusts during the crisis as well. As noted above, for those where relationships had been strained before the crisis, this period has provided an opportunity to re-design the way LA and school leaders work together and engage one another.
3. How to maintain stronger partnership working at both a strategic and locality level?
Many local systems felt that joint working across agencies such as education, social care, early help, and health had been strengthened during the crisis and they were keen to maintain and strengthen this over the next period. The crisis has, in many respects, fostered a more joined-up way of working in terms of sharing information and developing the right local responses. Local systems were optimistic that the practices that had been developed would continue especially where new approaches had been set up to support information sharing.
At a locality level, areas with well-established locality structures that supported partnership working with schools had found these had been invaluable during the crisis, specifically as a means of having conversations about specific children and families and delivering wraparound support to schools. Some LAs talked about the very strong role played at a local level by the voluntary and community sectors, and how this had been much more effectively joined up and aligned with the broader local offer of support. For those without this locality structure currently, the crisis had prompted some re-thinking about how they might do more to build this type of support.
4. How to maintain the benefits of working virtually in the longer term?
Several LA leaders said to us that, while they still recognised the value of face-to-face engagement, they saw significant benefits in working virtually and would plan for this to continue in many areas. One local area had even undertaken a cost-benefit analysis of the benefits of working virtually and concluded there were significant benefits to both staff and school leaders in terms of time out of school, level of attendance at key meetings, and impact on the environment. One LA was undertaking a conversation with schools about what elements of visits and training should be maintained as an online offer by asking the question, ‘What is the rationale for getting in your car?’. Some local areas had identified specific processes that they felt worked better on a virtual basis. For example, some local areas report that SEN panels had had better engagement and attendance, with more services able to contribute to the discussion, which had, in turn, enabled a more effective way of reaching decisions. At the same time, there was a recognition that for some people too many back-to-back videoconferences had been challenging and there was still a need to manage workload.
5. How to maintain the advantages of a blended learning offer for some children and young people?
Some local areas were clear that there had been real benefits in having a more flexible delivery model for some young people who were not engaged previously or behind in their learning and struggling to adapt to a mainstream school. LA leaders said some had flourished in this period – either because vulnerable children in school had been able to have more one-to-one attention or had benefitted from different offers to support home-based learning. Some were questioning whether this should necessitate a more fundamental re-thinking of the purpose and delivery of education, specifically how learning was arranged in partnership with families and to support children who engaged with learning in different ways. They wanted to have this conversation with schools and to explore the opportunities that might exist to continue with elements of a different type of offer. They also recognised that it would remain a priority to ensure that schools had a clear plan to return to online learning in the event of any local or area-based lockdowns.
6. How to manage staff and school leader wellbeing and workload?
There was recognition of the demands that had been made of both staff and school leaders during the crisis and the need to manage this in the coming period and ensure that it was sustainable. A number of LAs said that the crisis had improved their overall productivity – LA staff were travelling less, and they had often been forced to respond to schools at a much faster pace than before. One LA officer commented, ‘we have been working at five times the pace we used to’. At the same time, virtual working has made it very easy for staff and school leaders to fill their diaries with video-conference meetings and leaders said they will need to continue to manage the implications of the change in working patterns and methods for both staff and schools during the Autumn.
7. How to ensure the LA is playing the right enabling and facilitative role to support its schools?
This was a particular reflection from some of the senior LA leaders to whom we spoke. While keen to draw attention to what they saw as the essential role LAs had played in responding to the coronavirus crisis, working with schools, families, and national agencies, senior LA leaders were keen to stress that this was a facilitatory, convening, and partnership-forming role. They felt that LA responses to the crisis had worked best where the LA had placed itself in an enabling and facilitative leadership role in relation to its schools with the primary aim being to ensure schools were supported to make the best possible decisions for themselves. This was most clearly evident in supporting schools around the decision about when and how to re-open their schools but allowing schools to make the decisions for themselves. They said this had gone down well with headteachers and governors. They also saw their convening power in bringing schools together as vital in helping schools to share and discuss issues, acting as a bridge between national and local agendas, and developing the right local responses. LA and other system leaders were keen that this role was recognised and continued to be part of local system’s responses to coronavirus.
As one LA leader put it to us: ‘The system could not have done what was needed without local authorities. Without local authorities, we would have lost the synergy and partnership working. Schools and trusts have recognised this. Local authorities need to continue to be the “glue” that brings people and binds the system together. This role should not be lost or forgotten.’