Every exception creates another conversation about whether it really is an exception.

We've sometimes spent more time explaining why a school is doing something differently than we would have spent agreeing a common approach in the first place.

I wonder whether we need to be clearer about which areas are genuinely Trust standards and which are simply Trust recommendations.

We need a consistent expectation around quality of provision, but the actual way that provision is organised will inevitably depend on the school's cohort, staffing and existing expertise.

I'd be concerned if "consistency" gradually became interpreted as everyone using the same resources or intervention model.

For example, I don't think every school necessarily needs to use exactly the same intervention model for attendance. But we should be able to look at the same headline measures and understand whether the approach is working.

Where I'd be more cautious about local variation is in areas where inconsistency creates additional risk or makes Trust-level oversight difficult.

One question that keeps coming up as we work through the Development Plan is where we draw the line between Trust-wide consistency and individual school autonomy.

There are some areas where I think consistency is clearly beneficial — safeguarding processes, core data definitions, financial controls and certain aspects of curriculum expectations.

Equally, I don't think we should create a situation where schools are required to operate identically simply because they belong to the same Trust.

I'd be interested in views on where colleagues think the boundaries should sit.

In particular, are there areas where we've pushed for consistency when allowing more local flexibility might actually produce better outcomes?

David

I'll map the current definitions alongside the reporting requirements before we look at automation. If we can agree those first, the technical side should be much more straightforward.

We've had situations where two schools have both reported "persistent absence", but they've been using different calculation dates.

The dashboard would make the collection easier, but it could also make inconsistent data look much more official!

Even if we only started with three or four headline measures, it would remove quite a bit of monthly copying.

The challenge will probably be getting the definitions consistent between schools.

The biggest improvement came when we agreed exactly what the Trust actually needed to see before looking at how each school supplied it.

We had previously been collecting considerably more detail than was being used.

I'd suggest doing that exercise first rather than starting with the technology.

I've been looking at the information we currently collect for Trust reporting, and there are a few areas where we're asking schools for essentially the same information in slightly different formats.

The biggest examples at the moment are:

• Attendance figures
• Behaviour incidents
• Suspensions
• Assessment outcomes
• Staff absence

In some cases the information already exists in the MIS, but we're then asking schools to transfer it into a separate spreadsheet or template for Trust reporting.

I'm not suggesting we remove any of the underlying checks. The question is whether we can get to a position where schools enter information once and we extract what we need from there.

Has anyone already tackled this successfully?

Chris

1. Read it again.
2. Check an example/resource.
3. Try something.

Only after that do pupils ask for help.

It's deliberately boring!

That seems to be part of why it works. It's consistent enough that staff don't have to invent a different routine every time.