Education CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by the Freedom and Autonomy for Schools—National Association (FASNA)
1. The implications of recent policy developments for governing bodies and their roles
It is clear from the changing educational landscape with a “mixed economy” of more autonomous schools, the strategic imperative to focus on raising standards which become more rigorous and the new Ofsted framework, that governance is considered an integral part of the overall school leadership and effective governance is under close scrutiny.
Within the academy structure the role and responsibilities of the governing body changes. The default model of local volunteer “stakeholder” representation with a “one school” localised outlook has to become a non-executive more professional, strategic body with a multi school framework and national and international outlook.
Many governing bodies are cautious about converting to academy status. Our experience is that particularly in the primary sector governors are wary of committing to a change of status anticipating:
Greater operational responsibilities (which isn’t the case).
Anxiety about the legal process of conversion ( though there is a grant for this).
Their capacity to deal with financial matters (being reluctant to consider sharing a business manager).
Some LA opposition and some well-founded urban mythology about union opposition.
In particular many view with alarm the identification of the LGPS deficit on the balance sheet.
The refrain is “I need to be convinced that such a change will benefit the children”. The concept of a strategic decision to position the school for future development and progression and a commitment from current governors to support the school in undertaking the change successfully, is lacking. Strategic decisions often fail to look far enough ahead, fail to look objectively at what other schools are doing in the area, and fail to consider whether the governing body is fit for purpose. It needs to be said also that some Headteachers have a similar perspective.
2. The purpose, roles and responsibilities of school governing bodies, within the wider context of school governance and leadership
The impact of the changes is to focus the role of governing bodies on how they can demonstrate effectiveness in challenging and supporting the school and how they can evidence the impact of their decisions and actions. The Ofsted framework has four key areas for inspection and explicit criteria identifying how the effectiveness of governing bodies will be judged. This is helpful. What is less helpful is the raft of “other duties” which under the guise of “guidance” or “statutory duty” have been added to the “responsibility” of the governing body.
In particular the list of “statutory duties” which Ofsted mentions but does not identify needs to be revisited and reviewed or updated. Governors need to have one reference list of their responsibilities. How they undertake these responsibilities is for each governing body to determine in discussion with the leadership of the school.
3. Recruiting and developing governors, including the quality of current training provision, and any challenges facing recruitment;
Our preferred term is “professional development”.
FASNA has a concern about the nature of some of the “training” currently available to governing bodies. A whole range of providers is entering the market place particularly targeting new academy converters. Some of this “training” and “guidance” that we have seen particularly that emanating from professional firms (including “legal firms”) which are commercial in approach is inaccurate, misleading or daunting in the interpretation of governing body roles and responsibilities. There is a lack of overall quality control for “training” and much of it is unfocused, not practical enough and even confusing.
As a basis governing bodies need to have a very clear articulation of the role and responsibilities, need to have practical guidance as to how they can undertake the responsibilities effectively without laying down a “one size fits all” blue print and need to have case study material to give them ideas about innovative and effective working.
4. The structure and membership of governing bodies, including the balance between representation and skills;
Many governors and headteachers are reluctant to relinquish the default model of stakeholder representation. It is unclear whether they view the current emphasis on “skills” and “professionalism” as a threat, potentially taking away some freedom of action and changing the atmosphere of the school, or an unwelcome intrusion of a more business focused approach which they feel unable or unwilling to adopt.
5. The effectiveness and accountability of governing bodies;
Our view is that the clarity in the Ofsted Handbook is helpful in giving governors a focus for effectiveness and accountability. We have indicated above where further clarification about the “statutory responsibilities” would be helpful.
A major consideration is how to enable governors to be more effective in their challenge of the school, more effective in understand the accountability role and more open to innovation. It is our view that how a governing body works is a matter for that body to decide in consultation with the school leadership team.
It is our view that the term “skills” should have an accepted interpretation. We are working with SGOSS to identify the skills and experiences which are transferable from business to governance.
We are also working on a Professional Development Induction Programme for new governors from the business sector to enable them to understand the current educational landscape, the opportunities of academy status and the role of effective governance within the new structures.
6. Whether new arrangements are required for the remuneration of governors;
FASNA has long argued that remuneration at least for the chair of governors should be available. This would be linked to a “code of expectations” which could identify the key responsibilities and skills required in a chair. While it is possible for individual governing bodies to agree some form of remuneration for the chair it is by no means common.
It is our view that the appointment of a chair of governors is fundamental to enabling the governing body to function effectively and professionally in the new structures. Governing bodies should be encouraged to look outside their immediate membership for the remunerated appointment with a proper process of selection. This would help to ensure that a person with the key skills and abilities required of the chair including interpersonal skills could be appointed.
7. The relationships between governing bodies and other partners, including local authorities, Academy sponsors and trusts, school leaders, and unions
The evidence from the Academy Conversion seminars we are running strongly suggests that the differences in governance models between a single converter academy and the types of Multi Academy Trust is not understood. In particular, delegates have not realised the fundamental differences between a Local Governing Body (often the model in a sponsor academy chain) and a Board of Directors (the model for a single converter).
We support the move towards a “market” for services previously considered to be solely the province of the LA. This puts a greater emphasis on the professionalism and ability of governing bodies to make appropriate decisions when sourcing a service. In turn this focuses attention on the concept of “local academy chains” where groups of local schools form an academy trust with an agreed vision, common values, strong partnership working arrangements and robust structures for financial reporting and procurement. This can empower schools to develop, prepare pupils for a life in the 21st century and respond to the needs of the community.
While we have had some positive responses to this scenario from delegates to our academy seminars it is often seen as the local secondary school “taking over” primaries or a strong primary wanting to strengthen their local position to the detriment of others. This attitude contributes to the inertia, anxiety and reluctance seen in primary schools which consider that the “status quo” is a viable option for the future.
8. Whether changes should be made to current models of governance.
We support the recent review of school governance regulations but regret that a compulsory consideration of them was not included. Governing bodies which are resistant to change will not pro-actively consider the new constitution possibilities.
January 2013