Education CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Ofsted
Inspectors evaluate the effectiveness of governance in schools when judging leadership and management during every Section 5 inspection. Although no separately graded judgement for governance is made, inspectors comment explicitly on the effectiveness of governance within the report.
Effective governance is an intrinsic part of good leadership. Wherever we find success, good leadership is behind it—and weak governance is too often a feature of inadequate schools. Governance arrangements have remained relatively unchanged over a number of years and have not kept pace with new configurations of schools, the focus on improved performance, increased autonomy and greater accountability. Sir Michael Wilshaw, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills is of the view that radical changes need to be made so that governance arrangements are fit for purpose.
We make four recommendations for the select committee’s consideration
1. Strengthen training for governing bodies, for example through the National College, so that governors are more professional, highly-skilled and better able to fulfil their main functions of promoting high educational achievement.
2. Require school development plans to be more sharply focused on the quality of teaching and pupils’ achievements so that the governing body knows precisely how well their school is improving.
3. Ensure warning notices are used more effectively where schools are weak and Interim Executive Boards are put in place quickly where governance is not securing rapid improvement.
4. Consider remuneration for effective governors who support weak governing bodies to improve.
This submission draws upon published findings from the Annual Reports
The purpose, roles and responsibilities of school governing bodies, within the wider context of school governance and leadership
1. Primary legislation in sections 19–40 of the Education Act 2002 sets out that the over-arching role the governing body is to be the accountable body responsible for the conduct of the school and promoting high standards of educational achievement. Our evidence shows that about a third of our schools are not yet “good” and too often in these schools governance is not driving improvement and holding leaders to account sufficiently well.
2. HMCI has made it clear that without strong, effective governance our schools simply will not be as good as they can be. Ofsted’s evidence identifies common strengths and weaknesses in school governance. Our survey on effective governance shows that in the best schools the governing body complements and strengthens school leadership. Governors achieve this by knowing their roles and responsibilities, and the school’s strengths and weaknesses. They ask searching questions about pupils’ achievement, the quality of teaching and how well resources are being used, holding leaders to account for making improvements quickly so that all pupils achieve well. They work efficiently, engaging others, and keep up to date with their own training.
3. Evidence shows that effective governance focuses on the important issues affecting pupils’ achievement—and is not distracted by peripheral matters. Governors understand the data about pupils’ achievement and how their school compares to other schools nationally. They make the link between pupils’ performance and the quality of teaching, and so make sure that the best staff are appointed, are well trained, developed further and rewarded. That is why inspectors are now looking more closely at what governors know about the rigour of their school’s performance management arrangements.
4. Common weaknesses in governance identified where schools require improvement or are graded inadequate include a poor understanding of the school’s performance data. Often weak governing bodies do not check and evaluate the school’s work systematically or hold leaders to account for the quality of teaching and pupils’ progress. School improvement plans often lack sufficient detail for governors to check that enough progress is being made to improve quickly. Consequently, areas for improvement can remain issues when the school is inspected again.
5. Ofsted has ensured that the profile of governance is prominent in inspection to reflect its crucial role in driving improvement. Inspectors consider whether the governing body understands how decisions are made about teachers’ salary progression, and if it is supporting an effective headteacher or hindering school improvement. The School inspection handbook, published in September 2012 guides inspectors to consider how well governors:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
The implications of recent policy developments for governing bodies and their roles
6. Inspection evidence shows that the gap between the achievements of pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds and the rest remains stubbornly wide. A survey conducted by Ofsted in April and May 2012 showed that governors did not have a strong focus on the pupil premium and how well it is used to help narrow the achievement gap. Inspectors now report on how this funding is being used and the difference that it is making.
7. HMCI’s recently published Annual Report is unequivocal that the key to improvement is strong leadership. Ofsted is committed to supporting schools to improve, including helping to strengthen governance. Where governance is not good, evidence shows that governors can be uncertain about how they can be more effective. We believe that in such cases they would benefit from an external review of their work. To this end, since September 2012 Ofsted has been piloting in HMI led inspections recommending that an external review of governance should be undertaken where governance is weak. From September to mid-November 14 such recommendations were made. The pilots are being extended in January to all school inspections. When inspectors recommend a review of governance, these are not led by Ofsted. Neither can they be imposed. However, when inspectors return to the schools they will expect to see that governors have acted, and that there has been a marked improvement in governance.
8. Data about pupils’ performance is increasingly complex and as RAISEonline is difficult for some governors to understand, Ofsted is developing a simplified “dashboard” of indicators to help governors know how well their schools are doing.
9. School to school support through federations, National Leaders of Education and National Support Schools is increasingly common and successful. Recently, National Leaders of Governance have been introduced to build on these successful strategies. The impact of external support, including from the local authority, is now reported on in all section 5 inspections and monitoring inspections of inadequate schools.
10. Ofsted’s best practice report and the academy programme demonstrates that effective governing bodies are driven by a few key members, typically the chair and chairs of committees supported by an effective clerk. This focus and drive is often lacking in the governance arrangements of schools that are not graded good.
11. Evidence shows that there are huge and unacceptable regional differences in the performance of schools across different local authority areas. Inequalities for local children are stark and this significant concern is highlighted in the Annual Report. These inequalities are not aligned to regional levels of deprivation. HMCI has determined that Ofsted will inquire further into areas that are performing badly. Ofsted is reorganising, and from January eight powerful Regional Directors, working with senior HMI and HMI, will report directly to HMCI and hold local authorities, academy chains, diocesan authorities and governance in general to account for reducing these serious inequalities across the country.
Recruiting and developing governors, including the quality of current training provision, and any challenges facing recruitment
12. Over half of the governing bodies in the Learning from the best survey had a full complement of governors. Where there were vacancies they were largely parent vacancies, mostly because parents felt that they did not have the time to commit to the role. Good quality induction of new governors was a feature of the outstanding governing bodies in the survey. In some of the schools useful information was given to prospective governors to help them decide whether becoming a governor was for them.
13. Attending local authority training was a feature of induction for new governors in the survey. An issue for governors, particularly in more rural settings, was the time and distance involved in accessing external training. Solutions were sought through e-learning and governing bodies from local schools coming together for bespoke training. Typically governing bodies in the survey undertook training and/or used materials that were provided by the local authority
14. To help governing bodies improve their approaches to recruitment and training the survey report showcases examples and recommends important questions for governors to consider, including:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
The structure and membership of governing bodies, including the balance between representation and skills
15. There is a tension between representation and skills in the membership of governing bodies. The impartiality of various stakeholder representatives with a vested interest may unduly influence decisions. Governors with relevant skills and expertise on the other hand do make a difference. In the best practice survey governors with experience in tackling underperformance helped to improve schools quickly, including from inadequate to good.
16. Where schools require improvement or are inadequate evidence shows that too often the governing bodies do not understand how their schools are performing, or their strategic role. They can be too easily distracted from the most important issues of teaching and learning. In his speech to the All Party Parliamentary Group for Education Governance and Leadership in July, HMCI commented that some governing bodies were more talking-shop than decision-making bodies. That is why in such cases inspectors will now recommend a review of governance.
17. Although the best practice survey found no single model of successful governance, there is evidence that effective governing bodies are driven by a few, skilled governors who take on key roles. These governing bodies are well-informed, work efficiently and focus on their core responsibilities of promoting high standards. These examples of effective governance are being shared by HMI with schools where governance requires improvement or is weak.
The effectiveness and accountability of governing bodies
18. The Annual Report makes it explicit that school management is generally efficient. Middle and senior leaders are better prepared for their roles, although accountability is not as prominent as it should be. Governors have a greater role to play in this respect.
19. Inspection evidence shows that too many schools have mediocre governance and that some previously good or outstanding schools decline because governors have taken their eye off the ball. The quality of governance remains variable with too much that is inadequate or not good enough and the picture has not changed much in the last five years.
20. Between September 2009 and January 2012 Ofsted made a separate inspection judgement on the quality of governance in schools. The Annual Report 2010–11 identified that governance was good or outstanding in 58% of schools with a wide variation between different types of schools. In just over one fifth of schools governance was judged as less effective than other aspects of leadership.
21. The 2011–12 Annual Report has continued to focus sharply on leadership because although schools continue to improve, leadership in a quarter of schools is still less than good. Specific weaknesses in governance include an over-reliance on information from the headteacher. Where governance is not effective, a lack of transparency and accurate information restricts the ability of the governing body to monitor the school’s work robustly.
22. Inadequate schools can improve rapidly. This is often linked to changes in the leadership team and building trusting relationships quickly with existing leaders and the governing body. In inadequate schools the quality and drive of governance are critical to their improvement. In almost all of these schools, the appointment of new governors and the training of existing members of the governing body meant governors developed a detailed knowledge of the rate of progress made against identified weaknesses. They were also able to evaluate the effectiveness of chosen strategies.
Whether new arrangements are required for the remuneration of governors
23. Ofsted has no evidence about whether remuneration of governors will improve their effectiveness. Although most governors are supportive, committed volunteers, HMCI has made it clear that there is a need for more to be chosen for their skills rather than requiring a set number of stakeholder representatives. More professional governing bodies can then take effective decisions and actions rather than being talking shops which hinder improvement. HMCI has stated that professional—and, if necessary, paid—governors should be appointed to drive up standards in communities where skilled governors are in short supply.
24. Using the model of strong headteachers supporting weaker schools, highly effective governors such as those who have become National Leaders of Governance, should make a difference to the quality of governance by helping weaker governing bodies develop the skills they need. Inspectors will report on the impact of external support.
25. The work of governing bodies supporting others may require some remuneration. Although a decision for Government, HMCI endorses further consideration of this matter.
The relationships between governing bodies and other partners, including local authorities, academy sponsors and trusts, school leaders, and unions
26. Ofsted’s evidence shows that the opportunity to attend a good school is too dependent on the quality of leadership at all levels. It is the case that in some areas, strong leadership from the local authority has been successful in challenging and supporting school leaders and governors to improve. Where there has been weak leadership from the local authority this has had an impact on schools across a local area, resulting in pupils’ chances of attending a good school being a postcode lottery.
27. Some schools achieve very well despite challenging circumstances. Ofsted identifies this clearly in inspection reports and on our good practice website. In the best examples, local authorities understand the new educational landscape and use these highly effective schools to help others to improve. They do not discriminate against academies and other schools that fall outside their direct control because they recognise their wider responsibility to the pupils in their local areas.
28. It is clear from our evidence that some local authorities make too little use of their expertise to improve standards in weaker schools in the area. Some local authorities do react quickly when Ofsted judges that a school is inadequate and play an important facilitating role in securing additional support for these schools, including training for governors. However, some do not use their existing powers quickly or effectively enough when they have concerns. They do not appoint additional governors when governance is identified as a weakness, nor do they issue warning notices in good time.
29. Trust governors who featured in the best practice report used their expertise of working with governing bodies in weaker schools to strengthen governance in others. They were good role models and showed others how to ask challenging questions and use their time efficiently.
30. Sponsor-led academies can make a difference, especially when part of a well-managed group or academy chain. Of the sponsor-led academies inspected by the end of August 2012, 25% of those in chains were judged outstanding compared to 8% not in chains. Their success is evident in the more business-like chains, which bring high level governance, leadership and managerial oversight of the constituent schools.
31. The most successful chains have robust appointment procedures, performance management and monitoring that focuses on the quality of teaching and pupils’ progress. They provide member academies with access to expertise, support and training from other schools in the chain. The Annual Report notes it is too soon to generalise about the governance of other schools that have converted to academies in the last two year.
32. Ofsted will continue to look critically at the effectiveness of governance in all forms, asking questions of local authorities, academy chains, trust boards and diocesan authorities.
Whether changes should be made to current models of governance
33. When Interim Executive Boards (IEBs) are set up quickly, with skilled membership, they work because their professional expertise helps a school get to the heart of what is needed to improve. They are able to provide a model of good governance and help other governors develop their skills to hold leaders to account. Since 2009
34. School governors represent one of the largest volunteer groups in the country. Although many have the skills needed, evidence indicates that about 40% of this huge workforce of hardworking individuals does not hold leaders to account sufficiently for school improvement. It should be questioned therefore whether some of the current models of governance are fit for purpose in the more complex, autonomous education landscape. HMCI is of the view that radical changes are required.
December 2012