The initial cohort participating in the targeted regional improvement for standards and excellence (RISE) programme has now completed its first academic year. The Department for Education’s (DfE) latest interim evaluation gives a useful picture of how the programme is developing. However, as a trust receiving RISE support, we have on-the-ground insight into what is working well and what must be improved for the next iteration. At Bradford Diocesan Academies Trust (BDAT), we have been working with Mercia Learning Trust and SHARE Multi-Academy Trust. We agree the premise of the programme is admirable, and our overall experience has been positive. But what has become increasingly clear is that RISE works most efficiently and effectively when the partnerships are well matched and when work builds on improvements already underway. The quality of the partnership has been one of the biggest factors in making RISE work for us. Understanding context Every school is different, and improvement begins with understanding context. Matching needs to go further than identifying a trust with a strong track record, and towards the profile of the school and community. Common understanding of challenges and shared values deliver the most effective support. While the DfE’s evaluation shows matching has improved, experiences have varied, with concerns about rushed matches. Moving forward, context, geography and existing relationships must be central to the process. RISE partnerships only work if everyone leaves their ego at the door and is committed to driving improvement. While conversations can be challenging, for our trusts the focus has been on how to secure improvements rather than who is to blame or who is right. What is best for our young people has been at the heart of every decision. That also means shared ownership while ensuring defined responsibility. Learning through the process For example, accountability for improvement remains with BDAT, but Mercia and SHARE bring excellent experience, challenge and capacity. Importantly, nobody has claimed to have all the answers. All three trusts have different expertise and have learned through the process. John McNally, CEO of SHARE, has said the RISE partnership “worked because we shared values, challenges and ambitions for children living with multiple challenges. “While nobody can claim there are easy solutions, working together is helping schools share good practice and improve outcomes. Ultimately, school leaders and staff make the biggest difference. Our role is to support them with ideas, challenge and planning.” Like many trusts, we were aware of our school’s priority areas and had a robust improvement plan in place before RISE. We had evidence of this working, including improving judgments from Ofsted that we were heading in the right direction. What set our experience apart was that our RISE partners did not come in with a completely different agenda. Their value has been in looking at our plans with fresh eyes, confirming some priorities, challenging others, sharing expertise and helping us to move more quickly on the development pathway we had originally set out. The RISE plan therefore became part of the school’s wider improvement work and was treated as one joined-up approach to school improvement. Neil Miley, CEO of Mercia, says that “trust, as a verb, is critical to developing a strong working partnership within RISE. “The best partnerships are built on a shared understanding of a school’s context, its journey so far and its current priorities, which takes humility from everyone involved. A critical friend “In our experience, the role has been much more effective when it has been about acting as a critical friend – helping the school to take the next step, rather than arriving with a separate agenda.” There were also teething problems. As an early participant, we experienced changing processes, reporting challenges and uncertainty over roles and finances. The recent DfE report highlighted concerns about compressed timescales for producing improvement plans, which we experienced first-hand. These need to be addressed to reduce workload and uncertainty for leaders, ensuring that processes are clearer without being more prescriptive. RISE should support the improvement work a school already needs to do, not ask leaders to start again just because they have entered a new programme. It certainly should not involve onerous paperwork distracting leaders from focusing on school improvement. RISE funding has helped to provide additional capacity and expertise, alongside accountability. But ultimately RISE is a two-year programme and embedding improvements takes much longer. We need to be looking at how improvements can be sustained and how the benefits of the relationships we have created can still be put to good use once the funding has gone. So far, our experience gives me reason to be positive about RISE, but it is too soon to declare the model successful. Even the DfE’s evaluation acknowledges that pupil-level outcomes cannot yet be attributed to RISE. As the programme develops, the government should focus on what makes it effective – making the right matches, working with improvement plans already underway, keeping bureaucracy proportionate and thinking seriously about what is next when formal support ends.