Education CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Andrew Kent

I am the Chair of governors of Didsbury Road Primary School in Stockport, where I am a community governor. I am also a trustee in Foundation Trust five school collaboration in Cheshire East. I first served as a governor in a High school over 30 years ago, and have around 23 years’ service in total, in high schools and primary schools. In that period I have been Chair in an Aided primary school, and served as a Vice Chair and Chair of different committees. I have been a teacher governor, LA and parent governor over this period. In my professional capacity I have worked in and around schools since 1978, with substantial experience of working with heads, governors and LA and Diocesan officers, frequently in very challenging circumstances and including five years co-ordinating the LA schools causing concern programme. I am a lead officer in a five LA shared governor support and development traded service collaboration, which is purchased by the very large majority of schools and academies in the LAs concerned, and a lead facilitator for the lead licensee in the National College for School Leadership (NCSL) programme for Chairs and aspiring Chairs of Governors. I chair the NW National Coordinators of Governor Services (NCOGS) group and represent them on the NCOGS national committee, and represent that group on the NCSL national advisory group on governance. I also undertake assessments of governor body impact and effectiveness for the governor mark quality standard.

1.0 Executive Summary

Effective governing bodies play a key role in ensuring schools do not fail their pupils.

Recent policy changes, in particular the new Ofsted framework focus on governance, NLGs, the National college programmes and the new Constitution regulations should encourage a step change in the quality of governance.

Much greater emphasis should be given to encouraging and requiring governing bodies to recognise their role in system leadership, including in wider collaborations.

Developing and varied models of academy governance will require scrutiny, in particular to ensure they do not become remote and unresponsive to stakeholders.

All governing bodies should be encouraged to see formal consideration of re constitution as good practice.

Appointing bodies should require new governors to undertake relevant training within two terms or so of taking up post, with similar expectations/evidence of training before any re appointment.

Headteachers and governing bodies should be encouraged to see having an identified and reasonable budget for governor development and training is good practice.

All appointing or nominating bodies should be expected to engage in meaningful dialogue with schools/governing bodies before putting forward any person as a governor.

Remuneration is most unlikely to be relevant to the improvement of governor effectiveness, but Heads and governors should be encouraged to agree appropriate allowance policies. Consideration should be given to payment of loss of earnings, within prescribed limits.

The debate around governor “skills” needs to be carefully “unpacked”, and not reduced to an expectation of more “business/professional” governors.

No major change is needed to the present system at this time but the impact of recent governance related changes should be assessed again in due course

1.0 The purpose, roles and responsibilities of school governing bodies, within the wider context of school governance and leadership

1.1 The role is to set the vision for the school, ensure the widest possible opportunities for children and young people, to include the highest possible standards of achievement and attainment. This requires the recruitment of quality leaders, especially the headteacher, and holding leaders to account, and financial probity, with resources focussed on key priorities. Communication with staff, parents and other identified stakeholders is a further key function. None of the above can be achieved on a sustainable basis without a readiness to work with external partners, to include other schools and settings, particularly, but not exclusively, within the local area.

2.0 The implications of recent policy developments for governing bodies and their roles

2.1 The welcome new focus on governance in the revised Ofsted framework, the introduction of NLGs, and the launch of a new national leadership development programme for chairs and aspiring chairs of governors, provide a basis for a step change in the quality of governance. It is important that these recent initiatives and the new freedom to be more flexible about the size of governing body membership are allowed to embed over at least the next 18 months or so; it is too early as yet to fully judge impact.

2.2 Similarly the new and positive emphasis on school to school support, via in particular teaching schools and their alliances, need time to work through, and the governance arrangements that underpin them, and the associated required governing monitoring and scrutiny role will need to be considered more openly and transparently than has been the case to date. Further, far too many governing bodies, including those in “outstanding schools” fail to recognise their system leadership role and can block sensible arrangements to build capacity and use resources effectively, eg re both soft and hard federation options, and the release of outstanding leaders and others on secondments to support schools who find themselves in difficulty.

2.3 More recent and developing Academy governance models are as yet not fully tested; there is risk they could become remote and unresponsive to stakeholders, especially parents, and in chains take on some of the worst top down approaches of the Local Authorities of yester year!.

3.0 Recruiting and developing governors, including the quality of current training provision, and any challenges facing recruitment

3.1 Generally speaking, recruitment in my experience has not been a serious concern, with vacancy rates low. I am conscious the wider picture shows more variation. Recruitment in my experience is most successful where LA governor services, Diocesan bodies and SGOSS work collaboratively, and also encouragement is given to schools to be proactive and transparent in their approach with parents, staff and the wider community. The new constitution regulations should also assist because of the flexibility they bring- but governing bodies must be encouraged to consider applying them.

3.2 There is much quality training and support and advice available in most areas- though not all –LA, Diocesan and other; there are very high quality other external packages of support available too, web based, or eLearning modules, which any governor in England can access, subject to the governing body concerned being willing to purchase them. Ofsted and ministers might give a stronger message here, as might LAs and Diocesan bodies, to governors, and to headteachers; the latter unquestionably sometimes block access to the purchase of suitable packages, citing “cost”; it is simply not credible to claim school budgets cannot fund reasonable access.

3.3 If government is determined not to require mandatory training for governors, then governing bodies, and those who appoint to them, should be advised and expected ensure there is an explicit expectation and requirement new governors will undertake induction training within the first 2 terms of appointment, and experienced governors similarly evidence further update training before re appointment.

4.0 The structure and membership of governing bodies, including the balance between representation and skills

4.1 There is much assertion regarding size, unsupported by anything other than the opinion of the individual or organisation making the claim. The IEB analogy is not an appropriate one here as the task is not the same-extends beyond-that of a governing body and is any case by definition interim. The hybrid skills and stakeholder model which is the 2012 Constitution regulations position allows proper establishment based autonomy to a large degree on size and representation.

4.2 However it is very hard to understand the rationale for Headteachers being governors, and governing bodies can also be under the undue influence of too many staff (whether as governors, associate members, or “observers”.)

4.3 Much of the current discourse around “skills” appears to be a proxy for business or professional persons, which is unhelpful, unless balanced by a personal commitment and passion for best outcomes for children, and the ability to be persistent in bringing challenge in the right way. There is much stereotyping also around the role of parent and LA governors in particular –without parent governor’s insights, and their “stake”, for example, the reality of daily life for pupils and parents at a school would pass many governors by.

4.4 Where LAs are serious and transparent about appointments (or nominations), and enter into dialogue with schools about this, as the large majority now do, many excellent governors are appointed. It is time for some very strong all party statements to those LAs( I live in one) who continue to appoint purely, and arrogantly, on the basis of local elected member balance, without transparency, and make no effort whatsoever to enter into a dialogue with the schools they are appointing to.

4.5 Whilst appreciating this is a very delicate area, it is not immediately apparent that Diocesan Bodies are consistently transparent in their appointment processes; the Committee may wish to look at offering some observations on practice in this area also.

5.0 The effectiveness and accountability of governing bodies

5.1 Many governing bodies are able to evidence their effectiveness, and engage actively and positively with stakeholders. Ofsted judgements are a source of evidence for this. Schools with effective governing bodies are most unlikely to allow standards to drop to the extent an Ofsted category is an outcome. Their role especially that of the Chair and other lead governors, in providing genuinely effective support for head teachers, in what is at times a lonely job, can be, and often is, key in allowing difficult decisions to be made, and in the management of innovation, with the associated risks.

6.0 Whether new arrangements are required for the remuneration of governors

6.1 I do not believe there is any evidence for this, though the option to claim for loss of earnings, within certain prescribed limits, would be beneficial, given the significant time commitment required for certain key tasks-eg appointing a new Head.. However I do believe clear statements to encourage governing bodies to recognise the legitimacy of having an allowance policy, and for governors claiming in line with this, would be appropriate.

7.0 The relationships between governing bodies and other partners, including local authorities, Academy sponsors and trusts, school leaders, and unions

7.1 Governing Bodies must have a constructive and open relationship with their own school leaders AND more widely with other governing bodies in local and other partnerships. Whether maintained schools or academies, the relationship with the local authority remains important in promoting the interests of children and parents/carers, This is so such arrangements and associated development plans and resource allocations beyond the school are agreed, and monitored and challenged.

7.2 Further that they are sustainable, not simply dependent on particular personal/professional arrangements- or, also sometimes apparent, do not develop because an individual head, and therefore school, feels they can opt out. This is a serious weakness in much current headteacher/professionally led collaboration. Good practice is found with use of the current collaboration regulations, trusts, and other formalised partnerships. This requires much stronger leadership from across the system.

8.0 Whether changes should be made to current models of governance

8.1 No significant changes are required; there is much that works extremely well in the current system. Many of the policy developments around the school system in relation to governance referred to in this submission have the potential to bring further improvement, whilst retaining the responsiveness to their communities and local circumstance. Academy governance models, which vary very substantially, should be carefully scrutinised to ensure they are similarly responsive and effective, as the number of academies grows.

January 2013