House of Commons - The Role of School Governing Bodies

The Role of School Governing Bodies - Education Committee Contents

2 Recruitment and retention of governors

Skills versus stakeholders

13. As evidence from the DfE explained, "current rules and regulations on the membership of academy and maintained school governing bodies are based on a stakeholder model of governance that focuses on securing representation from a wide range of interest groups".[10] Whilst the DfE acknowledged that "representation need not be at odds with a focus on skills",[11] it also argued that "representative structures do not in themselves necessarily lead to high quality governance".[12]

14. Evidence to our inquiry showed mixed opinions on the appropriate balance in a school governing body between individuals with specific skills, and representatives of stakeholder groups. Overall, there was agreement with the DfE's view that the stakeholder model does not preclude skills, but, conversely, several witnesses felt that individuals recruited for specific skills may lack important local or community knowledge.[13] Evidence from a National Leader of Governance warned that

in areas where the local community skill base is low, the dilemma will grow where either more skilled non locals are parachuted in or a less skilled local governing body remains. This will widen the gap between less skilled communities and the average and have questionable sustainability.[14]

15. Resistance to non-local governors was also alluded to by SGOSS— a national charity set up by the DfE with a remit to recruit volunteers with transferable skills to become school governors—which referred to "log-jams" in the recruitment process, such as schools refusing potential governors because they do not live in the same postcode area as the school. In oral evidence the Minister said that he was discussing these issues with SGOSS to find ways to "un-jam" them.[15]

16. Witnesses tended to agree that governors needed to have the capacity at least to learn certain skills in order to be effective governors. As Mark Taylor of Cambridge Education, Islington, commented, "a parent is very well placed to ask sensible and sound questions about the performance of the school, providing they have the correct data, they are appropriately trained, and the data are presented to them in a way that they are able to understand and manage".[16] However, headteacher Chris Hill explained that willing volunteers may not always make expert governors:

In a community such as mine, one of the issues is that a lot of my stakeholders are new to the country. They are keen and interested in their children's education and they want to get involved, but they do not have a great understanding of the system and a lot of them would never have been on a committee of any kind at all. There are a lot of issues about them developing their expertise. I think that is a big issue.[17]

17. The National Governors' Association warned against emphasising a need for governors to have "business skills" as it can "have the effect of undermining the focus on the strategic role governors have".[18] Michael Jeans of The Haberdashers' Company also cautioned

You do not put an accountant, or a lawyer or a surveyor on the board of governors in order to gain on-the-cheap professional advice. You put somebody on that board because they have that breadth of experience and, if necessary, will know that at this point you should seek external advice from an accountant, or something.[19]

18. However, SGOSS claimed "a causal link between high quality business volunteers and effective governing bodies". It referred to research undertaken at the University of Hertfordshire in 2007 which indicated that SGOSS volunteers were more likely to take on additional governor roles, stay the term, be more likely to take on the role of Chair, and have a greater likelihood of influencing Ofsted grades at their school.[20] Liz McSheehy of SGOSS explained her organisation's interpretation of the skills required to be an effective governor:

When we are talking about skills, we are not necessarily talking about specific business skills; we are talking about broader, transferable business skills. This would mean that you are used to looking at data sheets, you can ask questions and you are used to performing in a board situation. We need to get people in to be governors who actually can understand and think about the type of questions they are asking and really be critical friends.[21]

19. The NGA advocated governing bodies undertaking skills audits which help the governing body identify required skills such as "influencing skills, negotiation and analysis".[22] This approach was supported by a large number of witnesses.[23] We return to this matter later in our report. However, we were interested in SGOSS's opinion that

What appears to be missing is the evidence to look at the impact that different types of governors have on the school. Well commissioned impact research would give some strong indications of which approaches are working, and start to give a firm evidence base to the debate. It would be helpful if Government were to commission this.[24]

Impact of the 2012 composition regulations on the profile of governing bodies

20. The permissive nature of the new composition regulations was generally welcomed in the evidence. For example, Dr Bridget Sinclair of NCOGS felt that the new regulations would help to fill governing body vacancies due to the reduced specification of stakeholder roles, allowing for a "much greater flexibility to the make-up of the governing body".[25] However, NCOGS pointed to findings of the 2012 NGA annual survey that, whilst 60% of governing bodies surveyed were finding it difficult to attract governors with suitable skills, 90% of governing bodies had no intention of changing the size or composition of their governing body.[26] For these reasons, a small number of witnesses would have liked to see mandatory requirements on governing body composition put in place.[27]

21. We also received several submissions from Diocesan Boards and schools of a religious character which supported the current stakeholder framework of governance and stressed the importance of retaining foundation governors— where appropriate —to provide "both practical support and spiritual guidance"[28]to governing bodies. The 2012 composition regulations prescribe a minimum number of Foundation Governors for qualifying schools, and Diocesan Boards would like to see this retained. However, the National Governors' Association questioned why the new regulations do not put the same emphasis on recruiting foundation governors (who can constitute the majority on a governing body) for their skills, as is required of other types of governor.[29]

22. Several witnesses highlighted a potentially problematic "juniority principle" within the 2012 regulations which allows for the governor whose period of continuous service (whether as a governor of one or more than one category) is the shortest, being the first who must cease to hold office if a governing body reconstitutes itself. Written evidence from NCOGS explained that "whilst recruitment is an ongoing activity, retention of good governors is a major concern for some governing bodies [and this is] not helped by the juniority principle [...] which gives precedence to governors that have been in post longest".[30] In oral evidence, the Minister committed to remove the juniority principle.[31]

23. Responding to questions as to whether the Government intended to provide even greater freedoms for governing body constitution in future, the Minister said that "we are in an early stage of governance being pushed right up the agenda through Ofsted, so we must see how that goes".[32]

24. Less prescription as to how governing bodies are constituted should help governing bodies to recruit suitable individuals and address vacancies. This should include a balance of parents, staff and other groups as appropriate. We support the Government's decision to make the 2012 composition regulations permissive. We are also pleased that the Minister has agreed to remove the "juniority principle" from the same regulations.

Impact of the 2012 composition regulations on the size of governing bodies

25. According to the DfE, research suggests that the average size of primary maintained school governing bodies is around 12 to 15 governors, with some reaching 20 to 25 in size. Maintained secondary school governing bodies tend to be larger, with an average of 17 to 18 governors, with some having up to 30 governors.[33] The 2012 composition regulations for governing bodies allow maintained school governing bodies to opt to reconstitute, with only seven of their posts being prescribed. Academies already enjoy greater freedoms in terms of governing body constitution, having only three governor posts prescribed, two of which must be parent governors.[34]

26. Witnesses' opinions varied as to what constitutes the optimum size for a governing body. The DfE tends to favour smaller, more skills-based governing bodies. This was backed by the National College for School Leadership which said it was "persuaded that schools should be encouraged to have a small core team of governors", supported by mechanisms through which stakeholders' voices can be heard—such as parents' councils. The NCSL believed such structures would be "more effective than 20 governors trying to attempt all the issues" that governing bodies need to address.[35] Evidence from the Harris Federation claimed that "where predecessor schools have been failing and have become sponsored academies, our experience is that usually governing bodies are relatively large and cumbersome".[36]

27. Other witnesses supported the stakeholder model, claiming that "moves to make governing bodies smaller are seriously misguided",[37] due to the fact that smaller governing bodies "would not be able to carry out all the functions required as effectively".[38]The Association of School and College Leaders also saw drawbacks in imposing smaller governing bodies:

There are some dangers in having much smaller governing bodies, and where the opportunity to move in that direction has been present for some time, in colleges and independent schools for example, it has rarely been taken. There are exceptions to this, and some report successful working with smaller, tighter governing bodies. Most have felt that the possibilities of confusion over role, loss of connection to key communities and stakeholder groups, potential gaps in the combined skill-set, and the need for separable committees (audit and finance, disciplinary and appeal) have outweighed any potential gains from greater focus.[39]

28. Solicitor and governor Richard Gold commented that, although "smaller governing bodies are desirable [...], the workload imposed by the current level of responsibility is such that a governing body of less than, say, 14 governors will be hard-pressed to function effectively without making even greater demands on governor time".[40]

29. As both the National Governors' Association[41]and SGOSS[42] pointed out, there is not yet good evidence on the impact of different types of governors—and differently constituted governing bodies—in schools. This was supported by Professor Chris James of the University of Bath who told us that "there is no statistical relationship between governing body effectiveness and governing body size or [...] vacancies".[43]

30. Despite the DfE's clear preference for smaller governing bodies, there is no evidence base to prove that smaller governing bodies are more effective than larger ones.

Improving recruitment and retention

31. Mike Cladingbowl of Ofsted referred to difficulties in recruiting the right governors in all areas of the country as "a big and urgent national problem".[44] As evidence from the National Governors' Association observed, "the difficulty in recruiting governors varies enormously from place to place, and even within a local area".[45] NCOGS added that "while there is much good practice regarding the appointment of governors, there can be variability in the processes and criteria for making appointments. The appointing bodies such as local authorities, Dioceses and academy providers, need to be highly accountable for the quality of the appointments they make".[46]

32. Some evidence to our inquiry suggested that increased workload and the weight of responsibility for governors under the new Ofsted framework were key reasons for difficulties in recruiting and retaining good governors. Richard Gold told us that "excessive" workload and paperwork creates a "barrier to recruitment not least through the sheer time that a conscientious governor has to spend on school matters". Mr Gold added that his experience had shown the problem to be particularly bad in primary and small schools, where "resources available do not allow for a good quality support infrastructure in the shape of, for example, business managers and HR specialists".[47]

33. One serving governor described the new Ofsted framework—which contains a much increased focus on governance—as "overpowering"[48], whilst evidence from a primary school's governing body explained that "the expectations of the roles and responsibilities of governing bodies are huge and for lay people to confidently hold schools to account is a very big ask".[49] This was supported by the Totnes Federation of Village Schools (a federation of six village primary schools) whose overarching recommendation to our inquiry was that:

The role of our unpaid, unqualified governors must be amended so that it does not carry as much responsibility. Alternatively, governors should be qualified and paid. Until that time, local authorities should be charged with providing greater levels of support (both financially and with the provision of suitable experts) to the governors and, separately, to headteachers and schools across all areas (including SEN, health and safety etc); or funding to schools should reflect the need to 'buy' expert help externally.[50]

34. However, many witnesses, including Dr Bridget Sinclair of NCOGS and Liz McSheehy of SGOSS, agreed that the new Ofsted framework was a positive development which "might weed out people who might not take the job seriously, but [...] serves to underpin the importance of the role".[51] The NGA acknowledged that "it is often argued that expecting governors to act as company directors/charity trustees will put people off volunteering". However, it referred to the results of its two surveys of governors which showed that in June 2011 almost 60% of respondents had had difficulty finding skilled governors, whereas a year later this had fallen to 45%. The NGA concluded that increased responsibilities for governors "may put some people off, but will attract others".[52]

35. Under the last Government, a Ministerial Working Group on School Governance was established to review the existing system of governance. Several witnesses referred to the excellent progress it had made and considered its work on recruitment and retention of governors to be worthwhile. We heard calls for the Group to be reconvened.[53] In response to a question as to whether he would "openly consider reconvening the Ministerial Working Group", the Minister agreed that he would.[54]

36. Research from the University of Bath found that 97% of governing body chairs are white and British, a third are aged over 60 and just 8% are under 40 years old.[55] The need to attract governors from a wider pool of recruits is obvious. SGOSS believes it is well-placed to assist. In written evidence, SGOSS referred to itself as a "best kept secret" which operates "an extremely effective mechanism for recruiting skilled and successful governors". The organisation has recruited 24,800 governors since 2000 and attracts much repeat business.[56] As Liz McSheehy of SGOSS explained, 65% of the organisation's recruits were under 45, more than half were female and over 20% were from ethnic minority communities.[57] SGOSS argued that "Government needs to strongly encourage schools to use [SGOSS] to recruit school governors".[58]

37. Awareness of SGOSS is lacking in some areas and the organisation only engages with 11% of schools.[59] Despite the Government confirming that it will continue to fund SGOSS to offer a free service to academies, schools and local authorities until 2015, the Minister agreed in oral evidence that Government needed to "do more", to extend SGOSS's reach across the country.[60]

38. The CBI acknowledged the positive impact SGOSS has had, but added "CBI believes that there is a strong case for more businesses to encourage their staff to take on these important volunteer roles". The CBI recommended "a focused call to action, hosted in the Department for Education website" and offered assistance to Government in promoting governor opportunities among its members and the wider community.[61] The Minister confirmed that he would take up this offer.[62]

39. Business is potentially an important source of capable school governors. We are pleased that the Government has agreed to do more to increase uptake of the School Governors One Stop Shop's (SGOSS) services in schools across the country. We are also supportive of the Government's agreement to accept help from the Confederation of British Industry in promoting school governance opportunities to businesses and recommend that the Government report back to us with details as to how this will be done.

Incentives for business volunteers

40. Several witnesses believed that greater incentives for—and requirements of— businesses that release their staff for governor duties are required.[63] The National Governors' Association was "disappointed that despite the support for SGOSS and the emphasis on recruiting employees, neither the government nor employers' representatives have been active in emphasising the gain from school governing, nor reminded employers of the provision of time off for public duties".[64] As headteacher Neil Calvert explained, [the] expectation in employment law that they will give time off [...] is not quite the same thing as entitling somebody to do two days of very significant work".[65]

41. The Minister did not agree that any further requirements or incentives were needed, saying "my experience is that businesses are very willing to get involved, and we should do what we can to encourage that".[66] The legal requirement to give time off for governors does not apply to academies and DfE is considering how this could be amended.

42. The recent report of the Academies Commission recommends the Government should consider incentive schemes (such as tax credits) for employers to encourage their employees to participate in school governance, and to facilitate time off for employees to attend continuing professional development and/or governing body meetings. This proposal was supported by several witnesses, including the National College.[67]

43. Any potential barriers to the recruitment of effective school governors should be removed. We recommend that the Government review the current incentives for, and requirements on, businesses that release their staff for governor duties. We also recommend that the legal requirement to give time off for governors of maintained schools be extended to academies.

Raising the profile of governors

44. Evidence from the Association of School and College Leaders argues that "recruitment of volunteer governors would be helped by a more positive approach to schools being provided by government and its agencies; people are unlikely to volunteer to organisations that are constantly denigrated by national and local leaders".[68] Claire Collins—an experienced governor and former chair of the National Governors' Association—said in her evidence, "the roles and responsibilities of governing bodies have, for too long, been sorely neglected". The Department of Education also acknowledged that "the significance of governing bodies' role has in the past been under-valued".[69]

45. The evidence presented a clear need for the profile of governors to be raised, not only to encourage good quality new volunteers to come forward, but also to value the work of those already in post. Evidence from organisations such as The Haberdashers' Company demonstrated that, by valuing governors, and by making the role attractive and worthwhile, schools can attract better candidates and vacancies can be minimised. Michael Jeans of Haberdashers explained:

A lot of [volunteers] are not coming forward because they are frightened, and they are frightened of two things. It is only what they read or hear, and one is the amount of regulation and governor liability: what is going to happen? They worry, 'Am I going to be incarcerated?' Secondly, they are terrified about time. Unfortunately the positives are not put over. Being a governor [...] is huge fun. It is massive fun to be around children [...] It is up to all of us to try to [get that across].[70]

46. The Southwark Diocesan Board of Education argued that raising the profile of governors could assist with recruiting individuals with the right skill sets as potential candidates would have "clear information on the role of a governor, the expectations in terms of time commitment as well as the specific skills that might be needed".[71] This was a view supported by NASUWT and the National Governors' Association which advised that "when recruiting governors, it is important to explain the nature of the role in full, and how much time they are agreeing to commit".[72] However, as Liz McSheehy of SGOSS explained, although good governing bodies articulate the skills they need when recruiting individuals very well, "so many governing bodies are not able to do that, and that is one of the issues that we are stuck with".[73]

47. The Government's commitment to raising the profile of governors is encouraging, but details of how this will be done are not yet clear. In oral evidence, Lord Nash explained

I think Government should be sending a message at every point about the importance of governors. That is certainly at the top of my list of priorities. [...] Perhaps in the past we have underestimated the importance of the governing body to drive change [...] We should talk about it a lot. [...] At every turn, we should invite more people to become governors.[74]

We welcome the Government's commitment to raising the profile of governors and we look forward to seeing the details of how it intends to attract more good quality governors.

Pay for governors

48. The majority of evidence to the inquiry showed little support for paying governors,[75] and, as written evidence from the DfE explained, Model Academy Articles prohibit the payment of academy governors.[76] Some witnesses suggested that there may be a case to consider some sort of remuneration or honorarium for Chairs, given the responsibility they carry.[77] However, most felt that governor pay should not come from the school budget, as this represented a diminution of the budget available to support pupils.[78] The Haberdashers' Company pointed out that "it is doubtful remuneration would increase the quality of governors—though it might increase the quantity regardless of suitability!"[79] Many witnesses[80] subscribed to the view put forward by the Minister, who said "there are probably plenty more people out there who, if we make the circumstances of being a governor attractive enough, we can attract on a voluntary basis".[81]

49. Pat Smart, a headteacher and National Leader of Education, referred us to the findings of the National College for School Leadership's 2012 Fellowship programme which focused on improving school governance. The Fellowship found no case for paying governors, with the possible exception of chairs of Interim Executive Boards.[82] Anne Jackson of the DfE reminded the Committee that powers already exist to pay IEB members but that "variable practice" exists in local authorities. She concluded that "certainly the possibility is there" to pay IEB members.[83]

50. Ofsted suggested that there may be a case to pay the relatively small number of governors that provide support to other governing bodies to assist with improvement.[84] The Minister agreed that this is something that Government "could definitely look at".[85]

51. While not advocating payment to governors in general, we can see that there is a case for remuneration in some circumstances—for example, when governors deploy their skills to improve governance in other schools. We recommend that Government give further consideration to the circumstances in which payment could be appropriate and make necessary regulatory provisions.

10 Ev 58, para 30 Back

11 Ibid. Back

12 Ibid. Back

13 See for example, Ev 85, para 3.3.5 Back

14 Ev w28, para 6.1 Back

15 Q267 Back

16 Q156 Back

17 Q102 Back

18 Ev 71, para 3.3 Back

19 Q157 Back

20 Ev 121 Back

21 Q108 Back