Education CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Andrew Walker

I have no doubt that you will receive a number of submissions from a variety of bodies about the strategic nature of Governing Bodies and the importance of the relationship between the Head Teacher and the Chair of Governors.

However, I doubt that many will refer to the issues that directly impact on that relationship that I would like you to consider.

There are occasions when the Chair of Governors takes a direct, line management role with the Head Teacher but in which the circumstances are unusual.

I am the Chair of Governors of a Special School dealing with Pupils aged between four and 11 all of whom have Statements of Special Needs relating to Behavioural, Emotional and Social Difficulties. (BESD) I am also a national leader of Governance and Chairman of the NGA Special Schools Governors Forum.

There are two policies and procedures and guidance in which the following text or something similar will appear:

“The procedures should also identify the person, often the chair of governors, to whom reports in cases where the head teacher or principal themselves is the subject of the allegation or concern”.

This appears in the Safeguarding Guidance and in the Whistleblowing Guidance.

Under these circumstances, the Chair of Governors has a direct responsibility for dealing with the case as in effect, the Executive Officer.

My direct experience of both Allegations of Abuse and of Whistleblowing is that there are significant differences between the processes when the allegation is about the head rather than a member of staff.

The essence is that when the Head goes to a meeting about the issue, he/she will have knowledge of the issue and a great deal of information about the context. Staff records, child records, knowledge about the class activities at the time, etc. This information is available to such meetings and should inform their deliberations.

On the other hand, the chair of governors arriving at such a meeting has no such information about the context of the allegation and owing to the need for confidentiality, and, is specifically precluded from seeking such information. Thus, the only information available to the meeting is the information provided by the person bringing the allegation.

The second disadvantage is that the only specific information available to the Chair of Governors is his/her own judgement of the character of the Head. The effect is for the Chair of Governors to start to question the very nature of the relationship and the level of mutual trust upon which most people agree the smooth working of the governing body actually depends.

Under these circumstances, the balance of probability which should form the basis on any decisions is distinctly one sided and considerable pressure is brought to bear on the Chair of Governors by the “professionals” to support the allegation and this is generally likely to be against the head.

I have been told that some Chairs of Governors are obstructive to the processes involved but under these circumstances, it is quite easy to see why Chairs of Governors get angry at the unfair nature of such a process and brought me to the point where I made submission to a previous investigation of this select committee.

This is a very complex issue but is a fundamental, but often hidden, component of the role of the governing body and the Chair of Governors in particular. However, I would be surprised if this role of the Chair of Governors is raised within any other submission.

December 2012