House of Commons - The Role of School Governing Bodies

The Role of School Governing Bodies - Education Committee Contents

5 New models of governance

Accountability of academy governance

118. Emma Knights of the NGA observed that

the whole issue of more autonomy, as you have in the academy sector, by definition means more risk and it therefore means you absolutely need better governors. Right across the piece we should have effective governance, but it is even more critical in academies.[204]

119. The evidence we received showed a lack of clarity about—and varying degrees of support for—the different models of governance that exist within academies. Dr Bridget Sinclair of NCOGS commented that "there is a concern about the more complex models of governance that we are seeing, and a study should be made of the vulnerabilities of those models".[205] Regulations regarding the statutory division of functions between the governing body and headteacher do not apply in academies. Written evidence from FASNA explained:

The evidence from the academy conversion seminars we are running strongly suggests that the differences in governance models between a single converter academy and the types of multi academy trust is not understood. In particular, delegates have not realised the fundamental differences between a local governing body (often the model in a sponsored academy chain) and a board of directors (the model for a single converter).[206]

Several witnesses singled out converter academies (which constitute the majority of academies), where there is evidence suggesting that governing bodies of many converters do not understand their new role and do not change their governance arrangements to adapt to their new role, despite freedoms allowing them to do so.[207]

120. Solicitor Geoffrey Davies argued in written evidence that the variations in governance that exist in different types of academy need to be made clear. In common with several witnesses, including Ofsted, Mr Davies praised the multi academy trust model of governance which, he claimed, operates "extremely well indeed", with high levels of accountability throughout the system.[208] However, he cast doubt over the non-sponsored multi academy trust model due to the absence of a sponsor, which means that "the first members effectively have vested in them the future control of the multi-academy trust, without any control over their long term suitability and without any guidance as to what should happen if they die, become insane, or simply lose interest in the operations of the academies".[209] The Haberdashers' Company attributed the success of its governance model to having accountability to a Trust,[210] and evidence from Ofsted suggested that "sponsor-led academies can make a difference, especially when part of a well-managed group or academy chain", citing outstanding Ofsted gradings in 25% of sponsor-led academies in chains in 2012, compared with 8% of those not in chains.[211]

121. It is up to academies to decide how governance will work, subject to approval by the Secretary of State. In academies, the principal sponsor, or Trust members (who are the owners of the company) appoint the majority of governors. Many witnesses expressed concern at the threat to genuine accountability this may pose. NCOGS commented that "there are concerns that some of the governance structures within non LA maintained schools may remove the decision making powers away from local governors, thereby impacting their ability to effectively govern the school and provide the independence to hold senior leaders to account".[212] The Association of Teachers and Lecturers also warned "it is vital that the voice, knowledge and expertise of local governors is not lost".[213]

122. Evidence from GL Education Group stressed the importance of schools having "a comprehensive understanding of the views of key school stakeholders: pupils, parent and staff". It added "stakeholders can often have a perception of a school that governing bodies do not have access to and understanding these views can help governors to identify areas of strength as well as areas for development".[214] GL Education referred to "research [which shows] that parental involvement in schooling has a greater influence on attainment than family background or parental education and it is therefore essential that school leaders develop a good and consistent engagement with parents".[215] NCSL suggested that approaches such as parents' councils should be considered in order for local views to be properly engaged.[216]

123. Emma Knights of the NGA claimed that the DfE's guidance does not distinguish properly between the different roles of governors in different types of academy. She said that "clarity" and some "real, good terms of reference" are "crucial" in this area.[217] In oral evidence, the Minister said that understanding their role was within the capability of most governors "with the appropriate skills",[218] although he later added that "Emma Knights knows what she's talking about, so we will certainly listen to what she has to say".[219] Anne Jackson of DfE referred to the "sharper" revised academies financial handbook which aimed to make these responsibilities clearer.[220]

124. In response to questions posed by us in June 2013, the Academies Commission argued that "academy status certainly implies great responsibility for governors, and we feel the Government could be doing more to increase understanding of the pivotal role of governors in an academised system".[221]

125. Academies differ in their governance structures. We recommend that the Government clarify the roles of governors in the different types of academy. The Government should also clarify how relevant local groups (including pupils, parents and staff) should be given a voice in the business of the governing body.

126. Owing to the range of different school contexts that now exist, accountability of school leadership is becoming an increasingly complicated matter. The NASUWT commented that, since the expansion of the academies programme, school governance is becoming "a secret garden, subject to little or no Parliamentary or stakeholder oversight or involvement".

127. Local authorities traditionally have provided a layer of local accountability in the school system and Sir Michael Wilshaw of Ofsted sees a continuing role for local authorities in reporting any concerns about academies to the DfE. However, as discussed earlier in this report, local authority witnesses said that they rely on out-of-date data from academies which compromises their ability to provide effective scrutiny. In oral evidence, the Minister said that a reduced role for local authorities was "part of the academisation process".[222] The DfE contended that the combination of Ofsted scrutiny, the transparency of school performance afforded by data published by DfE and Ofsted, financial scrutiny by local authorities of maintained schools and external audit of academies, provides "a necessary quality benchmark and an appropriate level of accountability".[223]

128. Many witnesses remained unsatisfied with the lack of obvious accountability for academies. Mark Taylor of Cambridge Education, Islington, recommended that "where you have got a de facto middle tier, where there are, for example, chains of academies, they should be inspected and viewed and evaluated with the same rigour that local authorities have used in the past".[224]The National College agreed, arguing that "with a growing number of federations and chains, it is important that their capacity is inspected in the same way that local authorities had their capacity in education and children's services inspected. Such inspections should not duplicate individual school or academy inspections, but should focus clearly on leadership and governance, and their ability to achieve the strategic objectives of their partnership".[225] Moreover, the Academies Commission advised our Committee that, despite being "sceptical" that democratic accountability was necessarily better under the traditional local authority structure, it believed that

the greater independence of academies means they have a greater responsibility for accounting to parents, other partners and local communities [...] We suggest that academies should produce an annual report, and hold an open forum [...] for its review. We also suggest more transparent and consistent lines of redress for parents and other stakeholders.[226]

129. The resignation in June 2013 of one of Britain's leading academy headteachers, amidst allegations of financial mismanagement, brought home the potential dangers that some academies could face in controlling budgets which were once overseen by local authorities. A report by the Education Funding Agency finally brought the details of the mismanagement to light, despite the school receiving repeated "Outstanding" Ofsted ratings. As The Guardian reported, "[the headteacher's] dual role of headteacher and school accounting officer had allowed her wide powers over the school's spending".[227] The question remains whether the governing body could—and should—have taken action sooner.

130. Given the independence of academies' governance structures, parents should be provided with clarity as to how decisions are made in academies, along with detail on where to turn in the event of concerns arising.

Alternative models of governance

131. With a few notable exceptions, our evidence showed little support for a radically new model of school governance, as the flexibility provided by the 2012 composition regulations allows for innovation where desired. Indeed, several witnesses commented that available freedoms were not being exploited—even in academies.[228] As Emma Knights explained, "there are huge numbers of models [of governance] out there and often people do not realise how many models they can use. There is now lots of flexibility, obviously within the academy sector but now increasingly, with the new changes, in the local authority maintained sector and with federations".[229]

132. However, Ofsted's evidence stated that "it should be questioned [...] whether some of the current models of governance are fit for purpose in the more complex, autonomous education landscape. HMCI is of the view that radical changes are required".[230] In oral evidence, Mike Cladingbowl of Ofsted elaborated, telling us:

I do think it is right that we take a look now at different structures and being more creative and making more use of the opportunities that are out there. You could, for example, ensure that expertise in one governing body is quite deliberately and directly—whether it is remunerated or not—shared with another; an advanced skills governor, for example. You could, as the Committee will have heard through previous evidence, have a smaller group of governors looking after a large group of schools, either through a federation of schools or, indeed, a federation of governors. There are a whole range of different structures and possibilities out there and I think it is right we look at them.[231]

133. Several witnesses suggested that greater consideration should be given to federated models of governance. This was partly in order to address the issue of chronic vacancies on governing bodies and the challenges in filling these vacancies with appropriately skilled individuals, and also to address the fact that "some schools are simply too small to carry out cost-efficiently [their] operational functions", particularly in academies, but also in maintained schools.[232] Emma Knights of the NGA commented "I do not think there is enough talk about how we govern groups of schools, whether that is in multi-academy trusts or in local authority maintained federations. That is the real interesting discussion to be having: how can we do that well?"[233]

134. The National College suggested that "effective governing bodies should consider governing more than one school, to drive improvement and to benefit from economies of scale".[234] The National College suggested that economies of scale will be particularly beneficial to small rural primary schools where governing body vacancies are often an issue.[235] Pat Smart, a primary headteacher and NLE, explained, "I have had experience of [a federated governing body] and it has worked extremely well".[236] Michael Jeans of The Haberdashers' Company referred to his experience of various federated school structures, advising:

I think the federation is a way to go, generally, on academies. However, they can only go to a certain size. You must be careful with the federation model, and we had issues. The board of governors has just grown like topsy; you have got 30 on it. That has got to be addressed, and the new regulations will enable us to address that. I would not want to chair something with 30 people on it.[237]

The NGA also warned about the size of federations, arguing that "what the sector and the Department are not putting enough focus on is what a sensible unit [size for a federation] is, not just to govern but to lead as well".[238] Several witnesses, including Richard Gold, also cautioned against the potential "loss of individual autonomy for the school" in federated arrangements.[239]

135. Evidence from the Totnes Federation of Village Schools advocated a federated model of governance, but warned that "given the apparent move to federations/academy status, there needs to be better sharing of information so that newer federations and academies can benefit from the developments that others have made, learning from their mistakes".[240]

136. The sponsored academy chain model (a group of academies sharing the same lead sponsor, often operating as a multi academy trust or umbrella trust) is raised in the Academies Commission report and in HMCI's report as being dynamic and focused. The DfE is "keen to learn lessons for national policy from academies, multi-academy trusts and maintained schools who develop innovative and effective new models of governance". It has also committed to "keep under review the need to develop more permissive forms of governance which give governing bodies more freedom in how they construct themselves according to local needs [...] rather than having to follow one national model".[241]

137. In consideration of other models of governance, some witnesses—such as the NAHT[242]—suggested that the function of representation and decision making could be separated within governing body structures. Giving oral evidence to the inquiry, the Minister, Lord Nash, seemed to share this ambition, saying "there are much better and more effective ways of engaging with parent representation—which is incredibly important [...]— such as in a separate forum, rather than having one or two parents who may, frankly, have particular vested interests".[243]

138. During our inquiry, there was some discussion as to whether the Interim Executive Board (IEB) model of governance could be adopted more widely in schools.[244] Arguments for such a model tended to revolve around the fact that "by having a focused small group of typically around six people with the right skills, the IEB can act decisively."[245] However, as Lord Nash observed, the Government's first priority in such cases would be to consider finding the school a strong sponsor with a track record in improvement.[246] Emma Knights of the NGA explained that IEBs are different from "pure governance" and "there will come a point, one hopes, where that school has recovered and is providing a good education for its children, when it can go back to being simply governed rather than having an executive board".[247] The National College agreed that an IEB was a "strong, short-term technocratic solution".[248]

139. Given the NGA's concern that it will be difficult to find sufficient excellent candidates to provide an effective governing body for every school in the country, we recommend that the Government study the effectiveness of governing bodies governing groups of schools—for example federations and multi-academy trusts. The Government should look at the optimum size of federation that can be governed effectively, and consider how local school autonomy can be retained in federated arrangements.

204 Q37 Back

205 Q135 Back

206 Ev w122, para 7 Back

207 See for example Ev 106 Back

208 Ev w93, para 9 Back

209 Ev w94, para 12 Back

210 Ev 97, para 7.1 Back

211 Ev 69, para 30 Back

212 Ev 88, para 2.2 Back

213 Ev w80, para 21 Back

214 Ev 91, para ix Back

215 Ev 92, para xvii Back