Labour’s flagship RISE school improvement drive has been criticised by some leaders for its “rushed” deadlines and for overwhelming small primaries. The second government-backed evaluation of the programme also found academy trust chiefs doubted the “value” of the support provided through the scheme, with others branding the funding available “insufficient”. However, the researchers believe the project – which launched last year – is “well-placed” to make long-term improvements to school curriculums, teaching quality, inclusion and pupil outcomes. Matching challenges The RISE process sees advisers – usually school and academy leaders seconded into the Department for Education for two days a week – appointed to struggling schools in their region. They identify priorities and propose an outside organisation, often an academy trust, to deliver the support over two years. Senior civil servants then make a final decision, with up to £100,000 funding available for each school. But the researchers found experiences of the process to match RISE schools with their supporting organisations “varied”. Some “found it smooth and well‑aligned with their needs”, while “a few” responsible bodies thought it “was rushed or insufficiently tailored” to their school’s “context, geography or existing partnerships”. The challenges cited included mismatches in ethos and values with supporting organisations, personality clashes “that hindered early establishment of trust” and “geographical distance limiting regular on‑site support”. A handful of advisers identified similar problems. These issues meant re-brokering “was necessary” on a few occasions. Small schools ‘overwhelmed’ The report added that small schools “sometimes found themselves overwhelmed by larger supporting organisation deployment models”. They highlighted “the importance of tailoring support to school size and context”. A few trust bosses running RISE schools also “felt unsure about the value of the support” as the academies “had only recently joined” their organisations. They thought the targeted intervention “began before they had enough time to implement or demonstrate the impact of their own recently developed improvement plans”. Researchers also spoke to some supporting organisations that argued the cash they received “was insufficient” as the amount of time they invested exceeded the sums they were allocated. This meant they “absorbed unfunded work to maintain momentum or ensure continuity for schools”. ‘Rushed’ plans After being selected as a supporting organisation, trusts develop an improvement plan for the school they were matched with, before coordinating and delivering the support. However, the report said the majority of headteachers, responsible bodies and supporting organisations criticised the timescales involved, with many labelling the drafting period “rushed”. This was due to “two-week deadlines, work coinciding with the end of term, and limited time for detailed diagnostic activity”. One supporting organisation told the researchers: “Plans were produced too quickly, with insufficient clarity and limited on‑site time.” The researchers urged officials to conduct a review of these “compressed timescales” to see if they could be extended. Despite this, the majority of RISE school heads “remained confident” the plans were achievable over the following two years and would benefit them. Signs of success? The report stated RISE is “maturing operationally, with clearer roles, and smoother early‑stage processes”. The majority of those involved in the scheme described it “as collaborative and capable of accelerating improvement when matching between the school and supporting organisation is successful”. Some of the RISE schools that have been in the programme the longest said there was evidence of “early positive outcomes” around teaching quality, curriculums and leadership capacity. Most think it is still too early to tell how it has impacted pupils’ results, though. Where “positive ethos” is present, the targeted support is “well‑placed to translate early practice improvements into durable gains in teaching quality, curriculum strength, inclusion and outcomes for pupils”, the report concluded.