Sector leaders have demanded answers over Ofsted鈥檚 role, accountability and capacity in the government鈥檚 new improvement drive for specialist teams to broker support for struggling schools. Department for Education officials set out further details during a webinar this week of how their regional improvement for standards and excellence (RISE) teams (formerly known as regional improvement teams) will work. The teams 鈥 made up of civil servants and experienced turnaround leaders 鈥 will be rolled out in January, commissioning support from bodies such as trusts, councils and federations. Ministers have set themselves April 2026 as D-day for providing 鈥渢argeted鈥 aid to struggling schools. But the plans have been publicly and privately criticised, with leaders concerned about a blurring of responsibilities and accountability. RISE and shine: who decides? The RISE teams will be made up of civil servants and four to six seconded school leaders for each region. The teams will 鈥渟it within a new framework of support and intervention鈥 for schools. This will be broken down into 鈥渢hree tiers鈥: universal help, targeted support, and intervention. On a slide shown to leaders on Tuesday, this was rated green, amber and red, respectively. RISE teams will commission school improvement support, rather than do it themselves, with the tiers based on Ofsted鈥檚 new report cards, due next September. But it is not clear exactly who will make the decisions. Intervention model for regional improvement teams revealed RISE teams: an explainer of how they’ll work The DfE told Schools Week that 鈥渞eport cards will identify schools requiring intervention and targeted support鈥 鈥 stating this will be Ofsted鈥檚 job. But an Ofsted spokesperson was also clear that the DfE was 鈥渞esponsible for whether and how to support or intervene in schools鈥 鈥 the question was a 鈥渕atter for them鈥. When questioned on this on Thursday, Bridget Phillipson said the 鈥渃onversation is still underway in terms of the shape and nature of report cards with Ofsted鈥. Unclear support categories The support categories are also unclear. For instance, schools with 鈥渟ingular or several issues鈥 would require 鈥榯argeted support鈥. This would involve RISE teams commissioning 鈥渂espoke鈥 support from an organisation such as a trust, federation or council. But schools with 鈥渕inimal issues鈥 and strong leadership would fall into the 鈥榰niversal support鈥 category 鈥 where they would be expected to 鈥渟elf-identify鈥 areas of improvement and encouraged to share good practice with others (see image). Sir David Carter, the former national schools commissioner, called on ministers to clarify 鈥渨hat triggers the support鈥 as there was 鈥減otentially going to be a real tension between advisers, regional teams and trust leaders鈥. 鈥淭rusts, which will have set up school improvement teams of their own, are going to end up duplicating that work with someone else鈥. Lucy Livings, regional director for the south-west, said that as report cards were developed 鈥淸we] will also be developing the criteria鈥 for support. But policy expert Loic Menzies said the plans could mean the inspectorate 鈥渨ould need to provide a separate, more detailed report to the regions鈥 group鈥. Report cards were 鈥渦nlikely to provide the right level of detail to inform nuanced and evidence-based decisions about support鈥 if they were 鈥済oing to be designed with parents in mind and remain simple鈥. Who will take responsibility? There is also confusion around where accountability will sit for ensuring the improvement works. In a briefing to members this week, Leora Cruddas, chief executive of the Confederation of School Trusts (CST), said the new approach 鈥渇ails to understand or articulate a theory of regulation鈥. Questioning 鈥渨here accountability for improvement sits in this approach鈥, she wrote: 鈥淲ho decides? Who is responsible? Who is accountable to whom and for what? These concerns felt exacerbated by the webinar.鈥 Cruddas said she was told by officials that where a 鈥渟upporting organisation is being paid to provide support to a school, then that organisation would be responsible for the provision of that support鈥. It would also be 鈥渁ccountable for the public money it has been given, but accountability for improving the school will remain squarely with the responsible body鈥. But the CST said the plan also appeared to 鈥渆lide the governance and legal status of a trust. If enacted without amendment, this would be very serious鈥. It wants written reassurances on the issues. When asked more generally if accountability would still lie with responsible bodies, Sir Kevan Collins, the school standards tsar, said: 鈥淲ell, I think that’s correct, but I just get nervous about accountability 鈥 for me, the real question is who’s responsible for the effective teaching of these children right now in front of me? 鈥淚 sometimes think that you can outsource responsibility to an accountability framework, and I want people, particularly teachers, to take responsibility for the children right in front of [them] today.鈥 Is there leadership capacity? The RISE teams will comprise civil servants already in post, with the DfE expecting to employ up to three full-time equivalent school leaders to each of the nine regional groups for about two days a week. They 鈥 or the organisations they will be seconded from 鈥 will be paid 拢600 a day. In addition to commissioning support, they will work with civil servants to draw up a 鈥渃oherent set of local area priorities鈥. This work will be done alongside local authorities, dioceses and mayoral combined authorities, with priorities set out in the autumn. But Carter said school leaders likely to make up the new teams were probably 鈥渁lready working at capacity in their schools and trusts. We must not spread the talent pool too thinly.鈥 Paul Rickeard, the chief executive of the Durham and Newcastle Diocesan Learning Trust, asked: 鈥淲ho’s going to be seconded two days a week for school improvement from our trust? 鈥淲e don’t have capacity for that 鈥 those days are well gone because we’ve had to get rid of excess staffing.鈥 With the teams spread across the DfE鈥檚 nine regions groups, Menzies doubts 鈥渨hether four to six education leaders will be enough to support regions’ groups in covering thousands of schools each. Over time there will surely need to be some restructuring.” Tom Richmond, a former DfE adviser, also said that 鈥渕any local authorities have little or no school improvement capacity after 14 years of financial strain, yet they are being asked to take on a formal role鈥. John Edwards, the regions group director general, noted the advisers would have 鈥渄emonstrated that they can improve schools and have worked across their areas and elsewhere to provide system leadership鈥. But he added: 鈥淲e know that there are lots of demands on such people鈥檚 time鈥 and that we shouldn鈥檛 be taking everyone out of their schools and roles at this critical time.鈥 That is why a flexible approach is being adopted 鈥渁s we appoint advisers, including part-time appointments, and utilising the knowledge, skills and relationships of people who may have recently retired鈥. But Carter also warned: 鈥淎s many of us learned more than 10 years ago as national leaders of education, advising and seeing advice acted upon rigorously are not always the same thing.鈥 Matthew Stevenson, the DfE鈥檚 deputy director for the south west, said on Tuesday the help offered would be 鈥渋rresistible鈥. But he added: 鈥淚f a school ultimately refuses to have support, then we would need to consider what further action would need to be taken鈥 But we think that would be very unlikely.鈥 Schools Week has not received a response from the department to questions on what the RISE scheme means for the future of its national leaders of education programme. TSI set for scrapheap The day rate set for the RISE advisers is the same as the one offered to leaders through the trust and school improvement (TSI) offer. Through this scheme, schools 鈥榗ausing concern鈥 or eligible for intervention 鈥渃an get up to 10 days of support鈥 from a chief executive or 鈥渉igh-quality MAT鈥. But Stevenson said the TSI would 鈥渘o longer exist鈥 once the RISE teams were 鈥渇ully established鈥. 鈥淭he targeted support is something that is much more significant than the trust in school improvement offer. [The targeted support] is something that could be 12 to 24, months of鈥 really working alongside a school in much greater detail.” Michael Pain, the founder of Forum Strategy, a membership group for chief executives, said the teams would 鈥渘eed to demonstrate credibility early on鈥 while 鈥渄emonstrating objectivity and transparency in commissioning鈥. 鈥淭hey鈥檝e got a huge task for small teams, and one has to ask is it workable? It is clear that the new government sees trusts as just one of a number of options in the school improvement landscape.鈥 Before the report cards are introduced next September, Livings said the teams would 鈥渟tart working with a smaller number of schools, of those that we deem most vulnerable at the moment, based on both the current judgments and the data that鈥檚 available鈥. It isn鈥檛 clear who will pay. But for the targeted support that is commissioned by RISE teams, Livings said that would be 鈥渁 funded element of support鈥. 鈥淭here could be a traded services part of that. It will [need] to be worked through.鈥 鈥榃elcome the challenge鈥 Some have been positive. Ed Dorrell, a director at the consultancy Public First, said the teams were an 鈥渆xciting opportunity to bring together the best elements of the London Challenge and the best elements of the MAT system鈥. However others have questioned the similarities with the London Challenge school improvement scheme. Why RISE teams could be this government’s biggest educational legacy Carter thinks the rejigged regions groups 鈥 who the RISE teams will report to 鈥 also have an opportunity to 鈥済ather an understanding of what works from across the country and the region鈥, before 鈥渉olding both the support providers and receivers to account for the progress鈥. If they 鈥渞esist the silo mentality that has brought many education initiatives that originated in the centre to a standstill, then the system will be richer for this shared learning”. Phillipson said the teams would ensure schools and trusts worked 鈥渢ogether to drive high and rising standards across the board鈥. 鈥淔or too long, support for school improvement has been fragmented and complex. I want to change that.鈥 Speaking to Schools Week about the criticism, she said: 鈥淚 welcome the challenge from the sector, making sure that as we set out this process, we do build on the good practice that is already out there. 鈥淭his isn’t about upending what works. It’s about putting more support into schools that are facing some of the toughest challenges and where they haven’t been able to make progress in recent years. I don’t think the government should stand back from that.鈥