Conclusions and recommendations
Recruitment and retention of governors
IMPACT OF THE 2012 COMPOSITION REGULATIONS ON THE
PROFILE OF GOVERNING BODIES
1. 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. (Paragraph 24)
IMPACT OF THE 2012 COMPOSITION REGULATIONS ON THE
SIZE OF GOVERNING BODIES
2. 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. (Paragraph 30)
IMPROVING RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION
3. 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.
(Paragraph 39)
INCENTIVES FOR BUSINESS VOLUNTEERS
4. 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.
(Paragraph 43)
RAISING THE PROFILE OF GOVERNORS
5. 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. (Paragraph 47)
PAY FOR GOVERNORS
6. 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.
(Paragraph 51)
Governor effectiveness
Training
7. Too
many governors have not had suitable training. The Government
says this can be encouraged through Ofsted. Ofsted should report
back in due course whether their intervention is effective. If
it is not, mandatory training should be considered again. The
Government should require schools to offer training to every new
governor. We welcome the Minister's assurance that Ofsted will
be resourced adequately in order to undertake its increased role
in helping to ensure effective governance in schools. Further
explanation is required as to how this will be achieved.
(Paragraph 61)
8. We are concerned
at suggestions that few quality alternatives are emerging to the
training traditionally provided by local authorities. We recommend
that Ofsted and the DfE monitor the availability and quality of
governor training in the light of greater academisation of schools
and reduction of local authority services.
(Paragraph 62)
INSPECTION, SELF-ASSESSMENT AND PEER CHALLENGE
9. Poor
performance by governing bodies should be challenged at the earliest
opportunity. We support the obligation placed on schools that
"require improvement" to undertake an external review
of governance. (Paragraph 69)
10. We recommend
that governing bodies be strongly encouraged in guidance from
DfE, Ofsted and the National College to participate in peer-to-peer
governance reviews and to undertake self-assessment and skills
audits, using tools such as the All-Party Parliamentary Group
on Education Governance and Leadership's 20 questions and other
resources identified in the new Governors' Handbook.
(Paragraph 70)
OFSTED'S DATA DASHBOARD
11. The
importance of good data in user-friendly formats for governing
bodies cannot be overstated. We welcome Ofsted's Data Dashboard
and support the DfE's work to develop questions that governing
bodies can use to interrogate data effectively. The generic questions
in the new Governors' Handbook are helpful, but will not in themselves
provide sufficient assistance to governing bodies in interrogating
complex data. We look forward to DfE publishing further questions.
(Paragraph 78)
INFORMATION, ADVICE AND GUIDANCE FOR GOVERNING BODIES
AND THE ROLE OF THE CLERK
12. An
effective clerk is vital to the success of a governing body.
The evidence clearly indicates that this should be a professional
role—similar to a company secretary. We recommend that the
Government act upon the findings of the project by the National
Governors' Association and the Society of Local Authority Chief
Executives relating to clerks.
(Paragraph 83)
13. The School
Governors' One Stop Shop (SGOSS) has been funded for a further
two years to recruit governors. We believe that SGOSS may be ideally
placed to take on a role in recruiting clerks and we recommend
that the Government consider how to facilitate this.
(Paragraph 84)
14. Our inquiry
has shown the importance of high quality information and guidance
for governing bodies—particularly for clerks. We share the
concern of the National Governors' Association that the new Governors'
Handbook appears to be aimed only at new governors. The new Handbook
has lost much of what was valuable to experienced governors and
clerks in the predecessor guide. The Government should work with
the NGA to rectify this. (Paragraph 89)
ARRANGEMENTS FOR TACKLING UNDERPERFORMANCE AND FAILURE
OF GOVERNING BODIES
15. Urgency
in implementing Interim Executive Boards is critical to address
serious failings of governance in schools. Given that urgency,
the absence of time limits for the implementation of IEBs is indefensible
and should be rectified forthwith. We recommend that if, after
an inspection, Ofsted considers that a governing body should be
replaced by an IEB, Ofsted should use its power and responsibility
to say so explicitly.
(Paragraph 92)
16. We recommend
that the Government investigate the reasons why so many local
authorities, and the Secretary of State, have historically been
reluctant to use their powers of intervention where school governance
has become a concern. Any unnecessary restrictions on the use
of these powers should be lifted so that they can be used more
effectively. (Paragraph 100)
17. Local authorities
continue to have an important role in the monitoring and challenge
of school performance between Ofsted inspections. Ofsted's inspections
of local authority school improvement functions will be an important
gauge of how feasible it is for local authorities to continue
to undertake this role. There is a need for greater clarity on
the role of local authorities in school improvement within the
new school landscape and in the context of reductions to budgets.
We recommend that this be addressed by the DfE as a matter of
urgency. (Paragraph 101)
The relationship between the governing body and
headteacher
Division of responsibilities
18. We
recommend that the Government review existing regulations and
legislative requirements regarding the respective roles and responsibilities
of governors and headteachers to ensure clarity regarding the
proper division of strategic and operational functions in school
leadership. (Paragraph
107)
TRAINING FOR HEADTEACHERS AND CHAIRS OF GOVERNORS
19. There
is a compelling case for headteachers to undergo training on governance.
We strongly support training for headteachers and chairs of governing
bodies to assist with mutual understanding of each other's roles
and responsibilities. (Paragraph 112)
APPOINTMENT AND TERMS OF OFFICE OF GOVERNORS
20. In
order to ensure that every governing body has an effective chair,
the appointment process for chairs needs to be robust and accompanied
by clear procedures for removing poorly performing chairs from
office. We recommend that DfE review current procedures relating
to the appointment, and the terms of office, of chairs of governors.
We also recommend that governing bodies be given the power to
remove poorly performing governors. (Paragraph
117)
New models of governance
Accountability of academy governance
21. 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.
(Paragraph 125)
22. 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.
(Paragraph 130)
ALTERNATIVE MODELS OF GOVERNANCE
23. 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.
(Paragraph 139)
| 
