Education CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Ruth Agnew

1.0 Introduction

1.1 I am a National Leader of Governance, chair of governors of a maintained primary school and manager of a Local Authority governor support service. I am vice chair of the north west co-ordinators of governor services group and, as chair of the National Service Improvement Group for governance, I sit on the National Co-ordinators of Governor Services committee (NCOGs). I am an assessor for the Governor Mark and am also currently involved in conducting external reviews of governance on behalf of the National College as part of the autumn term Ofsted pilot. I am also lead facilitator for one of the 12 licensees who are offering the new Chairs of Governors’ Leadership Development Programme, under licence from the National College. This submission is made in a personal capacity.

2.0 Executive Summary

2.1 This written submission to the Select Committee inquiry into the role of school governing bodies does not attempt to address all of the issues in the remit of the inquiry but focuses on changes which, if implemented, would, I believe, make the most significant impact on improving school governing in the UK.

2.2 The main focus of the paper is on training. The government has stated its desire to raise the status of school governing but I believe this is not possible while training for governors is optional. A mandatory induction module at the very least, would go some way both to raising the profile of the role and better supporting the many school governor volunteers to effectively contribute to improving our schools.

2.3 The submission also argues that school governing could be made more effective by:

raising the understanding of school leaders in relation to effective governance, what this looks like and how it can contribute to school improvement;

requiring employers to release governors for certain defined duties, with pay;

ensuring that appointing bodies appoint on the basis of appropriate skills and experience;

simplifying the role of governing bodies and clearly defining this, including a clear expectation that certain functions are delegated to school leaders;

promoting the appointment of highly skilled and independent clerks, for governor committee meetings as well as full governing body meetings;

clearly defining which skills contribute to effective governance, and moving away from the implication that a professional role is synonymous with such skills.

2.4 While the submission focuses on governance in maintained schools, the principles raised are applicable in all school and academy governing contexts.

3.0 Governor Training

3.1 When the current government set out its priorities for school accountability in the White Paper “the Importance of Teaching” it stated “School governors are the unsung heroes of our education system. They are one of the biggest volunteer forces in the country, working in their spare time to promote school improvement and to support head teachers and teachers in their work. To date, governors have not received the recognition, support or attention that they deserve. We will put that right.”1

3.2 Many of the commitments towards schools and school leadership laid out in that white paper have now been fulfilled in a variety of ways, and governors, and the governing of schools, are certainly receiving more “attention” than ever before. However I do not feel that the government has yet followed through on its promise to give recognition and support to governors. The vast majority of schools in the country remain in the maintained sector at this point, and yet the capacity of Local Authorities to provide support and training for their governors—always admittedly of varying quality across the country—is lower than it has ever been. Some Local Authorities have risen to the challenge this presents and have adopted new and innovative practices, including my own which is now collaborating and providing governor support across five Local Authority footprints. Others however have reduced or even abandoned support for governing bodies, as this is not a clearly defined statutory function.

3.3 In a time of greater school autonomy, support for the volunteer force that has responsibility for our schools has never been more important, and yet the statutory position remains that there is no requirement for governors to engage in training. I know that ministers believe that the responsibility for creating a culture where professional development for governors is given a high priority lies within governing bodies themselves. I agree that this should be the case and in good governing bodies it is: governors are carefully inducted into an environment where governors keeping themselves informed is the norm—by attendance at training courses and in other ways.

3.4 However it is the weak governing bodies, where training and support is most needed, where there is the least likelihood of governors being expected, or even on some occasions allowed, to invest in their own development. I too often come across situations where governors don’t want to “take money away from the children” by investing in their own development, or where governors feel they are so experienced they don’t need training, despite the fast-moving environment in which they are working, or in extreme situations where head teachers have refused to “allow” governors to have a training budget for themselves (not a defensible position in law but happening in practice).

3.5 Governors are not “just volunteers” but this is the attitude that is encouraged by the lack of any national approach to training and development. In fact they are individuals who have volunteered to take on the strategic leadership of our schools. Special Police Constables, soldiers in the Territorial Army, Citizens’ Advice Bureau advisers and magistrates are all volunteers, but in none of those voluntary roles would it be acceptable for an individual to “pick it up as they went along”—often ending up in them replicating the bad practice that they see modelled around them.

3.6 When he addressed the National Governors’ Association in June this year, Sir Michael Wilshaw said this: “Some governors would prefer to focus on familiar territory and easier issues—school meals, uniform, the plumbing in the loos. These should not be your main priorities. The quality of teaching is the single most important factor in the quality of the school. It is your job to know how good it is and where the weaknesses lie… So rather than lunches and loos, your main focus should be on the quality of teaching in the school, the leadership of teaching and learning, the progress and outcomes for pupils and the performance management of staff, including the headteacher.”

3.7 While governors are allowed to remain untrained they are naturally going to default to the easiest option—why struggle with data analysis when you can have what feels like a meaningful discussion about the colour of the school uniform?

3.8 This is a caricature of course, there are many governors who are well trained, highly skilled and effective, but this is patchy and in my view will remain so until the attitude of the government to the training required for the role changes. I would welcome a mandatory induction module, which could be developed in the same way as the mandatory training on Safer Recruitment for governors and school leaders. In that case an on-line module was developed by the National College for School Leadership, which was eventually also developed into a face to face training package, with deliverers accredited by the College. In fact there is much high quality e-learning available for governors already, via such providers as Modern Governor (Learning Pool) and Governors’ E-Learning (Eastern Leadership Centre). Developing such a package would be relatively inexpensive but I believe it would begin to address the inconsistencies across governing bodies. Legislative change would of course be required to make this mandatory—and it could be that undertaking the training was mandatory before taking up office, or within 12 months of appointment/election.

3.9 Making training mandatory would both provide governors with better support but would also result in greater recognition of the role, as the government wishes, as it would be seen as something with a higher status and as something more highly valued.

3.10 For me mandatory training is the single thing that would make the greatest difference to school governance in this country. However I would also like to take the opportunity to comment on some of the other issues within the Committee’s remit below.

4.0 School Leaders’ Understanding of Effective Governance

4.1 Sadly there is a proportion of school leaders who are satisfied with mediocre governance in their schools. This enables them to continue with their plans for the school unchallenged, and such situations can allow ineffective leadership to continue. I welcome the inclusion of greater governance materials in the NPQH, but as this is no longer mandatory I do not believe this goes far enough to enable Headteachers to appreciate the value of effective governance and what this looks and feels like.

5.0 Time of for Governor Duties

5.1 It remains difficult for some governors to get time away from their paid employment for undertaking governor duties and I would welcome a change in legislation clarifying the amount and nature of time off governors are entitled to requiring this to be with pay. I would also welcome a change that allowed governors who are self-employed to be reimbursed for loss of earnings where appropriate (complex staffing hearings for example can take days to complete).

5.2 Beyond this I would not welcome payment for the role. Governors usually undertake the role wanting to give something back to society, not for remuneration, and evidence suggests that monetary reward does little to motivate or enhance performance. Further I do not believe that the system has the resources to make payment to all governors. Alternatives suggested such as payment to a core group or just to chairs would also seem to me to be unviable. The expectation would be that those paid to undertake the role would undertake the majority of the work and would lead to even greater inequality in the division of labour in most governing bodies.

6.0 Role of Appointing Bodies

6.1 Some of the bodies responsible for appointing governors do not appear to me to always do this on the basis of the skills/experience/knowledge an individual would be offering to the role. Some Local Authorities still appoint on the basis of political affiliation, some Diocesan Authorities appoint on the basis of church attendance over and above suitability. The new Constitution Regulations2 will eventually impact on the LA appointment system as more and more Governing Bodies reconstitute and as their LA positions become vacant they will have the opportunity to reject LA appointees on the basis that they don’t have the skills required. I would welcome a similar requirement that Foundation Governors are appointed firstly on the basis of appropriate skills and experience, while not losing sight of the importance of upholding the ethos of the school.

7.0 Simplification of Responsibilities

7.1 Research published by the University of Bath in 20083 concluded that the role of school governors is “overloaded”, “overcomplicated” and “overlooked”, stating that “governing bodies are responsible for too much” and “their work is unnecessarily complex, difficult and demanding”. I would welcome regulations which clearly laid out the statutory functions of Governing Bodies and simplified these, and laid out an expectation that certain of these should be delegated to the head teacher. This would support governor training, help governing bodies to focus on the important strategic issues, and clarify the boundary between the role of the governing body and the role of the head teacher.

8.0 Professional, Independent Clerking

8.1 Professional, skilled clerks also do a great deal to support good and effective governance. Many schools appoint such clerks for their Full Governing Body meetings but very often have inadequate arrangements for the clerking of committee meetings, meaning that the meetings where the majority of the work of the governing body is carried out often poorly advised and poorly minuted.

8.2 In addition a significant minority of schools employ a clerk to governors who is also employed elsewhere in the school, with the role of clerk embedded in their contract. This effectively removes the governing body’s statutory right to remove the clerk at any time, and often leads to a conflict where the individual’s loyalties are split between the governing body and their line manage—the head teacher. Such individuals are rarely highly informed in relation to school governance legislation and do not on the whole provide the independent and effective advice governor volunteers require.

8.3 I would welcome an inclusion in the new School Governance Procedures regulations, currently in draft, a stipulation that the clerk to governors cannot be employed in school in any other capacity, and at the very least, unambiguous guidance that the clerk should clerk committee meetings as well as full governing body meetings. (As the manager of a Local Authority clerking service I should, I suppose, declare an interest at this point).

9.0 Clarification of the Required Skills

9.1 I welcome the focus which the government is placing on the recruitment of skilled governors, however I feel there is a danger that the kinds of skills required in effective governors have not been clearly defined and that the lazy shorthand of “professional skills” has led to an inference that governing bodies need accountants, solicitors, HR professionals etc. While I believe that such people may indeed make highly effective governors I believe this is because the same skills that make them good at their professions will also make them good governors, for example they may have good analytical skills, be skilled at questioning, be able to effectively build consensus and trust, have the ability to communicate and bring challenge in a way that does not destroy trust and relationships.

9.2 Non-working parent governors may also have such skills and be highly effective governors, and have an additional vested interest in the success of the school which also brings considerable value. I would welcome a clear definition of the skills that make effective governors and believe this would support governor recruitment and induction.

10 Conclusion

10.1 I welcome the Select Committee’s inquiry into School Governance. In itself such an inquiry raises the status of the role and I am grateful for the opportunity to provide this written submission. I look forward with interest to reviewing the written and oral evidence submitted and hearing the Committee’s recommendations.

January 2013