Education CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Nigel Gann Bed, Mphil, FRSA
Background
1. Next year, September 2013, sees the 25th anniversary of the establishment of stakeholder governance in all state-funded schools in England and Wales.
2. Alongside the then new National Curriculum, the increasing professionalization of school workers, and the regular inspection and reporting of schools, this experiment in local democratic engagement with schools has seen an unprecedented rise in student achievement. We have now reached a position where over 90% of schools can be described as at least satisfactory in their overall effectiveness. Not to be complacent, this is still a remarkable achievement by the education profession.
3. Student achievement is, of course, just one aspect of change, albeit the most measured and headlined. What we have seen simultaneously is a remarkable volte-face in the public’s attitude to their local schools, and a recognition by a profession once characterised as complacent and inaccessible that they are, and must continue to be, open and accountable to the communities they serve.
4. The stakeholder governing body has been a major player in this revolution. The best examples of governance:
Involve and engage lay members of the public in the strategic direction of their school.
Exemplify a public service that is answerable to its community.
Hold professionals to account for the effectiveness of their work.
Make themselves, in turn, accountable to the community by providing opportunities for parents to question and challenge the school.
Demonstrate that lay people, with or without professional qualifications and experience, are capable of contributing to the strategic planning and organisation of a public service.
Offer a practical model of a society in which people who are often regarded as purely “consumers” can participate in the delivery of high-level services alongside professionals and politicians.
5. Over the 25 years, partly at least in recognition of their success, governing bodies have been granted more and more power and responsibility—often, it must be said, against the wishes of governors themselves. Nevertheless, increasing control of staff pay and conditions, headteacher appraisal, growing financial responsibilities, determination of admissions, and powers over their own composition have been granted and used to increase the benefits of lay governance and the efficiency of schools.
6. So much so, that the models of schooling now advocated by both Government and Opposition all assume levels of lay responsibility from “more-or-less” complete to complete, in the areas of financial management and overall academic performance.
Purpose, Roles and Responsibilities: Accountability
7. The requirement for governors to be answerable face-to-face once a year to the school’s parents was abandoned some seven years ago, largely because schools had failed to make these occasions count. It was not the fault of the public that schools failed to attract people to these events. Many schools made the effort and were rewarded by a lively engagement of interest and challenge. As an American observer once suggested: “It is profoundly characteristic that responsibility for widespread non-participation is attributed wholly to the ignorance, indifference and shiftlessness of the people”. As a great educator, Michael Duane, wrote, “Democracy, like language, needs practice from infancy”. The annual report to parents and an annual public meeting led by the governing body should be reinstated.
8. The removal of a local appeal structure for parents who are dissatisfied with a governing body’s response damages schools’ accountability. Local accountability for complaints should be reinstated, for example, through the establishment of a local education board (see below) or schools ombudsman.
9. Parent and other local participation in governance, responsiveness to questionnaires and meetings, etc. should be measured by Ofsted as a required success criterion.
Recruitment and Development
10. Once local authorities have shown that they are uninterested in having any role in the conduct of schools, as many seemingly have, there remains a question about who is responsible for the recruitment and training of governors. Another local mechanism is needed to encourage community members to become school governors, and to deliver appropriate training and development (see below).
11. Some degree of initial training by accredited bodies and an approved induction process should be compulsory for all governors. Further training for chairs should also be required.
Structure and Membership
12. The potential for academy and free school trusts and governing bodies to become self-perpetuating groups unresponsive to local pressure is dangerously undemocratic. There should be a legal requirement for democratic processes to be introduced with assurances of local participation.
13. Alongside increasing powers for governors (especially in free schools and academies), there is growing pressure from the DfE to reduce governing body size. This may tend to reduce governance to a business exercise which is most concerned with efficiency at the expense of accountability. Governing bodies of fewer than about twelve may find it difficult to make themselves available and answerable to the local community. Local governing bodies established by national academy chains may find it particularly difficult to either include local people without specific business skills or to respond to local needs and concerns. All schools should have governing bodies with a majority of local people and a substantial minority of parents.
14. For more than twenty years, governments have emphasised the need for “business” skills in school governance. Laying aside for the moment the thought that some of these so-called “business skills” may be largely responsible for having pushed this country into its current economic condition, there is no evidence that governing bodies with such skills conduct their business more effectively than others. Clearly, it is important that governing bodies both recruit and develop some such strategic and financial skills, but other practical experience and knowledge are also important: knowledge and understanding of the community served by the school, for example; ability to make oneself accessible and answerable to the public; ability to engage professionals and parents in debate and challenge; meetings skills, and so on. These skills may not be evident in the “business” community and should not be neglected in the search for skilled input.
15. As a statement of the overall sovereignty of the local governing body, all chairs should be elected by their constituent governors, except in special circumstances where schools have been required to show short-term improvement. The appointment of chairs by sponsors should only be permitted in those very limited circumstances.
Remuneration
16. It is my view that remuneration, other than in exceptional circumstances such as Interim Executive Boards, is unlikely to improve the recruitment or the quality of school governors.
Principal Suggestion
17. The issues I have raised above can be addressed by a partial restoration of local coordination of educational provision. I therefore suggest that the challenges faced by educational establishments should be addressed by the creation of Local Education Boards to cover all areas of England, coterminous with local authority boundaries.
18. The Boards would be partly directly elected by the public and partly elected by governors of existing educational establishments. Boards would be responsible for:
The oversight of the efficiency and effectiveness of all educational provision from early years to further education (re-establishing local input to colleges of further education), including all independent and private providers.
Ensuring universal access to high quality comprehensive provision and public accountability.
Enabling cooperation between educational providers from all sectors.
Ensuring fair admission arrangements and equality of access (including the provision of transport).
Ensuring provision of appropriate education for children regardless of need.
Disseminating best practice amongst all providers.
Enabling innovation in educational practice.
Providing information to the public and an appeals process in the event of unresolved complaints.
19. Boards would be responsible directly to parliament for their performance, and subject to inspection against agreed criteria, including achievement levels across the locality.
20. Boards would also take responsibility for ensuring multi-agency approaches to children’s social care, working with local authorities while current arrangements obtain.
21. The Boards would provide oversight and some level of standardisation, while enabling and encouraging innovation and experimentation within a controlled environment.
22. No extra costs need be caused by this structure, as they will replace many of the functions currently carried out by local authorities.
December 2012