RISE advisers call on their own to support schools

Leaders are calling for greater transparency in the government’s decision-making processes concerning RISE teams, following revelations that numerous advisers are sourcing support from organizations affiliated with their colleagues.

An investigation by Schools Week revealed that a significant number of advisers, working in approximately 20% of schools within the government’s RISE scheme, facilitated assistance from the same organizations that employ fellow advisers.

Many of these advisers operate in similar geographic areas.

One chief executive of a trust, who requested anonymity, stated that this creates a perception of favoritism within the system.

In response, the government asserted that it enforces a strict conflict of interest policy to “maintain the program’s integrity.”

Additionally, they noted that many advisers have been “seconded from trusts with a proven history of school enhancement, and we leverage this expertise to aid RISE schools.”

Nonetheless, the government currently does not disclose information pertaining to its decision-making processes.

According to Sam Henson, deputy chief executive of the National Governance Association, “While peer support is beneficial, it raises questions about potential conflicts of interest that must be managed through strong accountability protocols, clear impartiality measures, and continuous transparency.”

Our analysis indicated that organizations providing RISE assistance are also managing their own “stuck” schools.

Furthermore, several trusts, each of which oversees more than one RISE school, are receiving support from various organizations, sparking concerns regarding the sustainability of improvements once support concludes.

Issues with RISE advisers selecting their own

Data acquired through freedom of information requests shows that 167 stuck schools, incorporated into the RISE program before the summer break, have been granted targeted assistance.

Stuck schools refer to those rated as ‘requires improvement’ following prior inspections that produced grades lower than ‘good’.

The government has assigned 65 seasoned turnaround leaders as advisers to specific RISE schools within their regions, responsible for identifying priorities and recommending external organizations to deliver support.

The regional director then makes the final decision, with funding of up to £100,000 available for each school.

Analysis from Schools Week found that out of the 167 schools, 34 (approximately 20%) are benefiting from support from organizations that employ other RISE advisers.

In 15 instances, the advisers also work within the same region.

Establishing ‘clear boundaries’

Greenshaw Learning Trust, which has a RISE adviser, is supporting five schools.

William Smith, its chief executive, explained that there are “clearly defined boundaries for our various involvements” with RISE to avert any conflicts of interest.

Chiltern Learning Trust, which additionally employs a RISE adviser, is collaborating with four schools. Chief Executive Adrian Rogers explained that decisions regarding school matching are made collaboratively “by the trust/school and the DfE,” rather than solely by the RISE adviser.

“Advisers generally come from stronger trusts, schools, and local authorities, ensuring that these organizations are the ones providing support,” he added.

However, Mark Lehain, a former adviser for the Department for Education who now heads a trust, remarked that the findings “illustrate the challenges inherent in the new improvement model.”

“There’s nothing inherently problematic regarding overlapping relationships, but it may lead to public scrutiny over how and why specific decisions were executed.”

The unnamed trust CEO added that the “lack of transparency exacerbates the situation.”

“The core issue is that it could be seen as a conflict of interest, reinforcing the perception of favoritism.”

“Our sector has matured enough that these issues should no longer be commonplace.”

The DfE stated that it maintains a “clear policy mandating all RISE advisers to declare any potential conflicts.”

To “safeguard the integrity of the program,” schools are “not paired with any organization where there is a declared conflict.”

Supportive organizations “must have a solid history of school improvement, delivering high-quality and inclusive education tailored to the specific needs and challenges of the RISE schools.”

The RISE schools: Providers and receivers

Our research also indicates that seven stuck schools receiving help are run by trusts or councils that either employ or had recently employed a RISE adviser.

Additionally, five of the organizations brought in to assist RISE schools have their own stuck schools.

Richard Sheriff, chief executive of Red Kite Learning Trust, stated that this scenario can “raise questions about the credibility of the supporting organizations.”

However, he added that “many trusts” operate in “significantly challenged communities,” which often leads to at least one school facing difficulties.

Sapientia Education Trust, whose chief executive Jonathan Taylor is a RISE adviser, has been selected to support a primary school in Norfolk. Its City Academy Norwich is also designated as a stuck school and is receiving RISE support.

Emma Davies, the trust’s director of education, mentioned that it is “inevitable that some trusts committed to a clear moral purpose and tackling challenging schools may have their own stuck schools while being equipped and capable of supporting others.”

“Strong MATs often have schools at various stages of their improvement journey, and RISE’s personalized approach is a profound enhancement over previous initiatives.”

However, Lehain noted that these findings underscore the “benefits of the former school improvement model, which placed accountability solely on the responsible entity—the trust for academies and the council for maintained schools.”

“If a school granted RISE support does not improve, it becomes unclear who assumes responsibility.”

The RISE schools facing diverse management

In total, 25 responsible bodies—either trusts or councils—manage multiple RISE schools. Twelve of these are engaged with more than one supportive organization.

The DfE explained that in certain instances, “one supporting organization is best equipped to assist the schools,” while in others “we will tap into the strengths of diverse organizations for various schools.”

However, Anne Dellar, an education adviser and former chief executive, pointed out that this could create scenarios where trusts with multiple schools are “doing disparate things,” which may impede ongoing improvement post-RISE.

She called for a “coordinated strategy.”

The Thinking Schools Academy Trust has matched both of its RISE schools with different MATs.

Chief executive Stuart Gardner remarked that “much more clarity is essential. The program demands transparent accountability and a unified strategy for trusts managing multiple schools to genuinely transform educational offerings.”

The trust is “collaborating closely” with the DfE to share experiences and feedback for the program’s ongoing evolution and effectiveness.

RISE schools lacking support

Our findings also reveal that 31 RISE schools have not been assigned a supporting organization.

The DfE indicated that advisers determined whether the schools possessed “the necessary resources and expertise to realize the improvements they’ve outlined.” Following these assessments, it was decided additional support was unnecessary.

Nonetheless, it is understood that regular progress meetings are conducted.

Loic Menzies, an associate fellow at the Institute for Public Policy Research, remarked that the findings indicate “schools are collaborating with their RISE teams to create support packages tailored to their specific contexts and needs—rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.”

However, he cautioned that “this diversity carries the risk of inconsistent quality and will require diligent monitoring.”

“We know the education system holds a wealth of expertise, and hopefully, as RISE teams become fully operational, they will effectively channel that expertise for maximum impact.”

Last month, the department also confirmed plans to enhance RISE powers, with a consultation expected to begin in the fall.

A DfE spokesperson stated that RISE teams are “providing the essential catalyst needed to elevate standards nationwide.”