Education CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by the Association of School and College Leaders

1. The Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) represents over 17,000 heads, principals, deputies, vice-principals, assistant heads, business managers and other senior staff of maintained and independent schools and colleges throughout the UK. ASCL has members in more than 90% of secondary schools and colleges of all types, responsible for the education of more than four million young people. This places the association in a unique position to consider this issue from the viewpoint of the professional leadership of secondary schools and of colleges.

2. ASCL welcomes this inquiry, which is timely when school structures and governance are changing very rapidly.

3. Schools and their leaders value the role of governing bodies. It is an unusual system when contrasted with school systems elsewhere in the world, and with other arms of the public service. It can go wrong in small and sometimes large ways, but is generally felt to be better than alternatives.

4. At present state schools are changing from a situation where governance models were essentially consistent to one where they are much more diverse. A generation ago all state schools were organised in very similar ways, with the local authority (LA) essentially the owner and the governing body not much more than a local advisory board. The only variations were between community schools, voluntary controlled and voluntary aided, and these three models were well understood, as were the relatively minor differences between them.

5. These three types of school still exist in significant numbers and added to them have been: city technology colleges, grant maintained schools, foundation schools, trust schools, academies of several types, university technical colleges, studio schools and free schools. We should also consider sixth form colleges, which are technically not schools but which come under the aegis of the Department for Education (DfE).

6. City technology colleges have arrangements similar to academies and most have converted to being academies, and the grant maintained schools category was abolished by the previous government, but otherwise the pattern is of increasing diversity with more types of institution and more variability within each type. This is all the more true when the position of academies is examined carefully, as they each have a separate funding agreement and many have quite divergent governance arrangements. Some academies are closely tied to sponsors, who appoint the majority of the governors; some have voluntarily converted to academy status, with their existing governing body essentially persisting into the new role; some have a trust as well as a governing body; some belong to academy chains or to multi-academy trusts.

7. This diversity allows for different models to suit different circumstances, but has the disadvantage that general guidance cannot be given at any detailed level, only in terms of principles. It may also lead to extra costs in lawyers’ fees and in the opportunity costs in understanding and correctly working what may be a unique set of instruments and articles, standing orders, policies and procedures.

8. The one consistent factor is that there is a need for governing bodies, or some related body such as a trust, to take on extra responsibilities formerly discharged by the LA or the diocese.

9. ASCL would expect that they will be able to do this, as the system has on the whole worked reasonably well in the past, and governing bodies, most of the time, have been an asset to their school.

10. Sometimes things do go wrong, and there is a need to reduce the number of such incidences that is made all the more important by the greater autonomy of most new school situations. Governing bodies are occasionally captured by a clique, which can be very damaging if it is pursuing its own agenda to the detriment of the school and its students. Governing bodies sometimes become overbearing and try to operate outside their area of authority and confidence.

11. Sometimes governing bodies are too weak, and allow themselves to be pushed into inappropriate actions by particular interest groups. Sometimes governing bodies are paralysed by difficult decisions that are then not taken in time.

12. Inadequate governors can place a whole school at risk; failure to improve or replace them may be an unintended consequence of a combination of initiatives. Individual governors sometimes fail to understand that it is not the individual governor but the governing body as a whole that has authority and become a nuisance to the professional leadership of the school rather than a help.

13. Some modest support systems and the spreading of good practice could improve governance generally and greatly reduce the incidence of such failures. Some issues and possible approaches are addressed in paragraphs to below:

14. Lessons can be learnt from the experience of colleges, which were incorporated nearly twenty years ago and since then have been operating in circumstances not very different from those that schools now find themselves in. There is much in the operation of good college corporations that is apt to school governing bodies, and that some already adopt. Some examples are given in the next few paragraphs. Likewise lessons can be learnt from the operation of independent school governing bodies, and charitable trusts. In all these other sectors mistakes have been made that it would be well not to repeat in the maintained schools sector, and all have examples of good practice that could be followed.

15. There is a strong need for good clerking of governing bodies. In the past the clerk was often an employee of the LA and little more than a minute-taker. In future it will be necessary to have clerks who can act more like company secretaries, taking a hand in setting agendas and crucially able to advise chairs and headteachers about what they must do, what they may do, and what they must not do—strongly if necessary.

16. There is a need for instruments and articles governance, standing orders, and policies and procedures related to the governing body all to be carefully considered and appropriate for the particular circumstances. These are not what most leaders want to spend time on, and they are often neglected until things have gone wrong that could have been avoided. A good clerk can introduce and keep such documents up to date without taking too much time and attention away from more immediate concerns. There would be no harm in model sets of such documents being promoted by government provided it was understood that individual governing bodies might alter them if there was a local need.

17. In the composition of governing bodies it is important to strike a balance between a skills-based approach and representation. In the past there was an emphasis on representation, with some governors acting mainly as place-keepers for the interests of groups or bodies outside the school, and contributing little. However, it would be a mistake to move too far towards a self-perpetuating group of “expert” governors whose expertise is evaluated primarily by themselves.

18. Governing bodies and individual governors need to understand the difference between governance and management in joint leadership. They do not always do so. Likewise, it is important for professional leaders to give governing bodies all the information they need but not overwhelm them with data. There is a constant need to ensure that all parties are well trained and understand their respective roles. ASCL has worked with the National Governors Association to produce joint guidance on this issue, though this guidance has evidently not reached all those that would benefit from it.

19. A particularly significant change as schools move from community to academy status is that the governing body becomes unequivocally the employer of the staff of the school. Though governors have had some employment functions in the past the LA has been the overarching employer, in future governors will need to understand better their collective role as employer.

20. Likewise, though schools have had separable budgets and their own bank accounts for many years now, the new circumstances will require governing bodies to have much more certain understanding of the financial state of the school than it has had in the past.

21. Quality, especially of teaching and learning is something that governors have always had an interest in, but recent changes to the inspection framework and an inability to rely on the advice of the LA has increased their responsibility to monitor standards and seek to ensure that they improve. Clearly governors cannot involve themselves in the improvement work of professional leaders, who have the prime responsibility in this area, but they need to be well aware of it.

22. The greater need now and in the near future for even larger numbers of high-calibre, committed governors does not seem to have been fully considered by the government. Efforts should be made to help recruit by raising the status of governors (though this is already high), encouraging firms to release key staff as part of their corporate social responsibility, and providing support for initial training and orientation.

23. There is clearly some concern that there may not be enough volunteers to fill the need. Together with an idea that small boards work better, this has led to a feeling in some quarters that governing bodies should be smaller than they are now. ASCL trusts that this will not be imposed upon them. 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.

24. 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.

25. Governing bodies may collectively or severally fail to understand the distinction between governance and management. Some colleges that have adopted smaller governing bodies have found that this can be a greater danger in that context, as governors begin to think of their body as an executive group, or fail to remember that they have authority only as a group not as individuals.

26. From the point of view of professional school leaders the key question is not the size or constitution of a governing body, but how it is possible to deal with weak or misguided lay governors. This is a problem with respect to individuals and groups that have not understood their role, are incapable, or who have their own agendas, but clearly the problem is greatest when it is the governing body as whole that exhibits these characteristics.

27. Remuneration of governors has also been suggested as a way of increasing recruitment. ASCL is not in favour of this. It would change the nature of the role significantly. There is no demand for it from governors, nor from ASCL members. There is no need for so risky a move, and if pressure for it comes from outside the schools sector it should be resisted.

28. If there is a demand to try remuneration, it is imperative that it be introduced as an option for governing bodies to consider, rather than imposed upon them. ASCL believes that the majority would reject it. If moves are to be made in this direction, ASCL suggests that payment be limited in the first instance to chairs of governing bodies only (who do, it is true, typically devote considerably more time to the role than other governors). Only when the effects of such a change have been observed over a period of years should there be a consideration of payment for all governors. And again this should always be a decision for the governing body itself to make.

29. Governors should receive expenses (for travel and telephone calls for example) to ensure that they are not out of pocket, but not payment for the time they give so freely. There is sometimes a rather ascetic approach that need not be followed; for example it should be accepted that it is reasonable for food to be provided at meetings, and for governors to be able to attend school events as guests and access facilities as appropriate.

30. Governors need to feel secure in making difficult decisions. Such protection can never be absolute since they must not act illegally or recklessly, but they do need to feel that they are safe from such possibilities. Again there is a balance to be struck here, and again this points to the need for effective clerking.

31. Training provision for governors is very variable and not generally of a high standard, schools will need to find ways of improving this. ASCL would not suggest any national initiatives beyond encouragement and the sharing of good practice. There is a perennial problem of persuading busy volunteers that they need training, and should give up still more time to it.

32. The role of the chair is crucial and there is little extra training available for chairs and prospective chairs.

33. Good practice should include:

fixed terms of office both for membership of governing bodies and for chairs, with limited opportunity for reappointment;

clear standing orders that govern the operation of the governing body and its committees;

procedures that set out in what circumstances a governor may be removed from the governing body, and how;

a register of interests, and a standing item on all meeting agendas to declare any conflicts of interest in particular items;

committees having clear remits that are reviewed on an agreed timescale;

a clear statement of what decisions have been delegated to senior staff, what to the chair, and what to committees;

a clear statement of in what circumstances the chair may take urgent action between meetings and report back to the next;

a search committee to oversee the selection of new governors, looking for suitable people, interviewing and recruiting them, and making recommendations to the governing body;

the finance director or bursar having a direct relationship with the chair and the chair of a finance or audit committee;

a fully trained clerk with a direct relationship with the chair;

governing bodies and committees engaging in reflection and self-evaluation;

appraisal of governors by the chair;

an anonymous survey of governors that allows for issues to be raised about the operation and performance of the governing body, and the performance of the chair; and

a full set of HR policies that address appointment, discipline, capability and grievance of all staff, with senior staff procedures addressed separately.

34. However good the systems there will still be occasional failures and thought should be given to what will happen when a governing body cannot mend itself or its school. It is important that there should be autonomy at the school level, but if there is a marked failure of governance there does need to be scope for outside intervention. In the past for most schools the LA would have intervened at some point, though they have a residual role in ensuring that there is educational provision many are no longer in a position to do this properly now and fewer will be able to do so in future. In colleges, the Further Education Funding Council and Learning and Skills Council had such intervention powers after incorporation, they exercised them sparingly as they should but they were occasionally needed. The present funding agencies for schools and colleges do not seem to have these powers, though they have to try to ensure that public funds are being used well and for the purposes they are given.

35. Governing bodies have had an important role in establishing and maintaining good relations with other institutions and groups. The need for such work can only increase as schools become more separated in formal structure. The relationship with the LA has been dominant in the past, which will clearly not be the case in future. LAs will need time to fully understand this, but once they have there is no reason to suppose that it will not be possible to build good relations in most cases, as exist between colleges and LAs.

36. Governing bodies can have a useful role in maintaining such links. Provided the choice is theirs and not a right of the LA, some will invite a LA officer or member into membership to maintain a connection. Likewise, members drawn from the local business community, locally resident communities, or a local college or university can all help to cement particular valuable relationships. For schools with a faith affiliation the same can also apply to maintaining good relations with the diocese or equivalent religious body or bodies.

37. There may be a need for better networking between governing bodies, as schools need to work together in various ways for many purposes. Such relationships tend to be formed and maintained at headteacher level, which is natural and inevitable but not to be relied on exclusively. Headteachers can find it difficult to persuade governing bodies of the value of such cooperation if they have no contact with the governors of the other school and have developed a suspicion of it. And valuable partnerships should not be missed because the headteachers happen not to get on well, governors may be able to take a more dispassionate view.

38. Some of the models of trust school and academy organisation appear top-heavy, with a trust and a governing body that have poorly separated functions. Clearly this is different where the trust oversees a significant number of schools, but where there is one school there does not seem to be any very good reason to have both. Relations with trusts, chains and sponsors are all somewhat different, but the key principle remains that there should be as much autonomy at the school level as possible.

39. It is important that the governing body of a school has significant authority and room for manoeuvre or else decisions will be too distant for best effect and the function of the governing body undermined. If there is a sense that the governing body is a rubber stamp or an instrument of some higher body it will be hard to recruit good people to it, decisions will be less well attuned to local need, and an important element of local accountability will be lost.

40. There is room for improvement in the models of governance in use, but it is unlikely that any systematic change imposed from the centre would work in schools’ many different circumstances. ASCL would suggest that governing bodies be allowed to evolve their own solutions and good practice shared, it is willing to help with this sharing process.

Conclusion

41. On the whole the system works well. Government could help to improve it by making a modest investment in genuine guidance that raises key issues for governing bodies to consider, by helping schools and colleges to share good practice, including that set out in paragraph 33 above, and by facilitating good training for clerks, chairs and governors.

42. I hope that this is of value to your inquiry, ASCL is willing to be further consulted and to assist in any way that it can.

December 2012