Education CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Mrs Caroline Hanman
THE PURPOSE, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF SCHOOL GOVERNING BODIES, WITHIN THE WIDER CONTEXT OF SCHOOL GOVERNANCE AND LEADERSHIP
Purpose
To ensure Public Accountability.
Roles
Quality assurance (data analysis).
Strategic (planning, monitoring, and evaluation).
Scrutiny (Finance, Risk, Equality, Opportunity, Outcomes).
Challenge for change.
Responsiveness and visibility.
Responsibilities
Statutory and procedural regulations.
Corporate/business function of educational establishments.
Economic viability and sustainability.
Employment responsibilities.
1. The implications of recent policy developments for governing bodies and their roles
Corporate approach (academy status, federation working, business model etc).
Greater emphasis on GB corporate functions calls for greater skills mix within GB.
Recognition of need for professional clerking (including out of hours).
Increased access to independent advice.
Mantra of challenge, challenge, challenge (move from support ideal towards challenge).
2. Recruiting and developing governors, including the quality of current training provision, and any challenges facing recruitment
Recruitment and challenge
Closed shop perception of GB’s (ie retired, teaching and/or religious background).
Traditional governor stereotypes hard to challenge with public.
Trading governor services would appeal only to those already interested in applying.
Development
HR training during working day rather than out of hours (could this change?).
On line courses preclude opportunity to meet governors from other schools and share ideas.
Quality of training
Disadvantage of being run by governors/former governors (not skills based) possibly attached to LA/diocese.
Need for more engagement with local businesses to share training/promote open governance.
Courses often too short to be meaningful/allow fruitful discussion/governor participation.
Too much paperwork/not enough engagement.
3. The structure and membership of governing bodies, including the balance between representation and skills
Structure
Challenge more likely with larger GB’s (less personal/more strategic though processing).
Decision making ability of GB’s depends on quality of Chairing (not necessarily size of GB).
Abuse of power/position less likely in large GB’s when decisions are less likely to be rubber stamped.
Membership
(possible model—suggest minimum size and membership composition as follows)
Executive members (remunerated positions) to include:
X1 HT;
X2 elected Teaching and non teaching staff;
X1 School Finance Officer/Bursar (IMO this is an essential role within a school which would put schools on a more professional business footing/enable HT’s to teach) (smaller schools could co employ if necessary).
None executive members to include:
X5 Representative Parent Governors—though not necessarily with children at the school:
IMO this should form the largest governor group and RPG elections should take place at the school to ensure parents feel they have RPG’s on the GB.
X3 Community governors (to replace what were formerly known as community, LA, and Foundation governors).
X1 alumni governor (would have former links with the school or be a former teacher/teacher elsewhere)
Representation and Skills
RPG’s and teaching/non teaching staff should continue to be elected by stakeholders to the GB.
Community governors should be objectively appointed to the GB on the basis and relevance of their professional skills.
Equality of opportunity should apply to the governor appointment process.
A point score matrix should be used to determine the relative value of the skills base.
Eligibility to stand as governor in more than one capacity to be restricted:
It is essential that there is not an imbalance of stakeholder representation on the GB (ie to avoid governance by cronyism)
People eligible to stand for election to the GB by stakeholders (RPG or staff) should always do so.
In the event of not being elected/an election not being available people should be encouraged to offer their skills to another local school until such time as election to the GB at the school of their choice might be possible
Elected governors cannot be removed by GB (only appointed governors can be removed)
Avoiding cronyism governance.
4. The Effectiveness and Accountability of governing bodies
Effectiveness
Under the current system GB’s are only as self regulating as they want to be.
IME GB’s that are run by cronies are ineffective and ultimately unaccountable.
GB’s that are more professionally run are more effective and widely respected.
Weak GB’s (who believe schools can do no wrong and merely pay lip service to school complaint processes) are ineffective in identifying issues within schools and preventing them from escalating thereby having a detrimental effect on school standards, pupil numbers and staff morale.
The resultant fall in pupil numbers (when parents feel they have no choice other than to remove children from a school) is not picked up until it is too late and irreversible damage has been done to a child’s education and ultimate life chances (even when brought to the attention of other agencies such as Ofsted or the LA).
Accurate figures on children changing schools (and the parental reasons for this) should be published by the DfE and GB’s should be publicly held to account for any steady and prolonged decline(s) in pupil numbers at a school (as well as for exam results).
Accountability
In practice there is nowhere for individuals to raise concerns about standards of governance:
The DfE complaint investigation process is too slow (I have so far been waiting 14 months).
Ofsted claim that complaints (from individual parents/parent governors) are not qualifying complaints.
IMO GB’s are largely unaccountable if they choose not to be:
The current system for complaints about schools is not fit for purpose.
It should be possible to raise concerns about GB’s/schools through an independent outside agency with no links to the school—and complaints should be speedily resolved.
DfE evidence exists to demonstrate that many parents are fearful of recriminations if they complain.
Such recriminations towards children are potential safeguarding issues ((ie institutionalised abuse of a child by a GB in the exercise of its powers) and should be recognised.
IMO individuals (ie parents/parent governors) who raise concerns about schools are very vulnerable:
Parents may have no knowledge of untruthful statements that are made about them and outside officials are far more likely to believe the word of a school official over that of a parent.
If accusations are made people should be told of them an given the right to defend themselves at the time in question (this is a potential area of abuse of power in schools/GB’s)
5. Whether new arrangements are required for the remuneration of governors
Remuneration
People should not receive remuneration for being a school governor:
However I have no objections to governors offering their specialist professional skills (ie accountancy) to a GB on an ad hoc consultancy basis.
Were this to happen then any conflict of interest would have to be declared by the governor in question and they would have to leave the room if a vote on any related governance matter(s) arising was necessary.
Professional clerking (appropriately remunerated) is essential if GB’s are to become more professional/businesslike.
Schools need to look towards employing professionally qualified finance staff (and away from HT’s) to manage school budgets/account systems.
6. The relationships between governing bodies and other partners, including local authorities, Academy sponsors and trusts, school leaders, and unions
Relationships
Should be built on mutual trust and respect:
Skills sharing should be encouraged—financial recompense also encouraged/exchanged.
Governors should retain a strategic role whilst school staff should concentrate on their management and professional role(s).
All stakeholder groups (including parents and pupils) should be treated with respect and dignity by GB’s and schools.
The role of the LA and diocese should be reduced at strategic level:
When necessary and/or appropriate support to a school could be increased at managerial level from these organisations.
LA’s should retain an arm’s length advisory role:
They should be unable to appoint LA governors to a GB other than in a trouble shooting capacity/IEB situation.
LA’s should look towards setting up a complaints policy of their own to enable people to raise concerns regarding LA governors.
Governor services and training packages should be more arms length than appears to be the case at present.
The diocese (particularly when they have a minority stakeholder interest on the GB) should also recognise the need for an arm’s length approach to GB matters:
Advisory role is always helpful but they should refrain from becoming involved in a GB at a strategic level.
Their active engagement in any schools should therefore primarily be with staff at a managerial and/or professional level to promote the religious identity of the school where applicable.
School leaders should be allowed to run the school without interference in day to day affairs:
HT’s and members of the SMT are professionally trained/paid to do a job and the GB should recognise this and take a step back.
It is equally important for GB’s not to become overly involved with teaching union representatives as this could:
Cloud their judgment as to how to raise standards and in terms of what is in the best interest of the pupils at the school.
Potentially prejudice any working relationship that might subsequently ensue as a direct result of management and/or GB decisions.
7. Whether changes should be made to current models of governance.
Changes
The drive for accountability in schools needs to be the driving force in any mechanism for change.
An independent body is set up to examine complaints from individuals regarding GB’s to ensure that complaints are taken seriously:
Complainants should have a right to a fair hearing.
Governors from other schools should be invited to sit on a complaint/grievance GB hearing panel if there is any concern about prior prejudice.
Parents should have the right to put forward no confidence votes in GB’s regardless of whatever judgments Ofsted might have formed:
It is unacceptable for GB’s to be able to bully parents/governors who raise legitimate concerns.
It is also complexly unacceptable for GB’s to deliberately fail in their statutory duties and therefore disadvantage any child simply because their parents complained.
IMO (parts of) GB’s should overall become more skills focused and less of a closed shop:
Representative Parent Governors should continue to be elected by parents and should have a majority of seats on a GB.
Teaching staff should also continue to be elected to the GB.
A new Alumni governor position should be created and targeted towards retired teachers/people with former links to education/the school.
Community governors should be the new generic name given to other types of governors (Foundation, Community).
LA governors should only be appointed on a short term trouble shooting basis:
The LA should retain the power to decide how many governors it appoints but should be able to provide confirmation of the individual governors qualifications and skills and be able to justify the ways in which the individual skills of a LA appointed governor would benefit a school and raise standards.
The limited usefulness of Ofsted inspections in identifying issues of concern to parents when making judgements about standards of governance and leadership should be acknowledged and addressed by the DfE as a matter of priority.
January 2013