Education CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by National Co-ordinators of Governor Services (NCOGS)
1. Executive Summary
1.1 The evidence being submitted is on behalf of the National Co-ordinators of Governor Services (NCOGS) which is a committee representing Local Authority providers of services to school governors as well as Diocesan and Independent members. The committee is made up of Co-ordinators of Governor Services (COGS) covering the eight regional areas in England.
1.2 As a group the COGS exist to support and enable the delivery of high quality services to governors and to ensure effective governance in schools. The committee also provides a mechanism for professionals working in Governor services to access a range of materials and development opportunities.
1.3 It is the committee’s responsibility to influence national policy and support local practice by identifying common themes emerging from the regions and then to communicate the outcomes to support the continuous improvement of Local Authority Governor Services.
1.4 The COGS’ manifesto for governance (Appendix A) sets out the belief that COGS have in respect of what good governance should look like and how COGS can support the continual development of good governance.
1.5 NCOGS feel that the role of governing bodies could be enhanced by:
Introducing mandatory training for governors, especially induction training for new governors.
Making governing bodies accountable for their own continuing professional development (CPD).
Elevating the role of the clerk through professional accreditation.
The role of the clerk to governors being independent of the school staff.
Appointing bodies being highly accountable for the quality of governor appointments.
Governors being permitted to paid time off work to attend school during the school day.
Headteachers or those preparing for headship undertaking substantial and compulsory components on governance.
Ensuring that, where schools have entered into collaboration or federated arrangements, systems of governance and delegated authority are clearly defined and understood.
2. The purpose, roles and responsibilities of school governing bodies, within the wider context of school governance and leadership
2.1 In spite of the many changes in legislation and school organisation in recent years the purpose of school governing bodies remains the same—ie to ensure that all children receive the best standard of education and are enabled to realise their true potential. The governing body are responsible for setting the strategic direction of the school, providing support and challenge to the headteacher and senior leaders, holding them to account for school improvement and ensuring transparency and probity.
2.2 The governing body remain collectively responsible for the conduct of the school and it is believed that this system of governance continues to be appropriate. There are concerns that some of the governance structures within non LA maintained schools may remove the decision making powers away from local governors, thereby impacting their ability to effectively govern the school and provide the independence to hold senior leaders to account.
2.3 The role of the clerk is essential to ensure that governors are well informed on school and national issues and fulfill their statutory responsibilities. It is the view of NCOGS that the person carrying out this role needs to be independent of the school and not a member of the school staff. The role of the clerk would benefit greatly from greater professional recognition. Consideration should be given to the establishment of a National Association to act as guardian of professional standards as well as being a source of support for clerks. The Co-ordinators of Governor Services (COGS) Annual Conference in 2010 received a paper on “Strengthening Clerking” (Appendix B) which demonstrates what changes could be effected to enhance the professionalism of this role.
2.4 In order for governance and school leadership to be effective, there needs to be true partnership working between the senior leaders and governors, built on mutual trust and respect and a shared understanding of each other’s roles and responsibilities.
2.5 A governing body can be hindered from being effective and conducting their statutory role if there is an imbalance of power. This could, for example, be as a result of a disproportionate number of Associate Members whose non-voting attendance at governing body meetings has the potential to influence the outcome of discussions.
3. The implications of recent policy developments for governing bodies and their roles
3.1 Recent policy developments bring many challenges for the governance of schools, especially changes to school funding reforms and provision for Special Educational Needs (SEN).
3.2 The implications of funding reforms within an autonomous schools system, require governors to demonstrate stronger financial discipline in exercising financial probity.
3.3 Governors are held accountable by Ofsted for ensuring that the pupil premium is targeted at the children for whom it was allocated and that the impact of its use can be validated. A recent Ofsted report on Pupil Premium showed; “only one in 10 school leaders said that the Pupil Premium had significantly changed the way that they supported pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds”. One of the key recommendations from this report was:
“If schools do not target Pupil Premium money effectively, then government should consider ring fencing, payment linked to outcomes, or other mechanisms to improve its use”. This has the potential to have an adverse effect on monitoring school improvement as it can be very challenging to determine impact of Pupil Premium spending when it is being used in a whole class, or whole school setting.
3.4 In the context of rapidly evolving and diverse governance arrangements in academies, a review of the impact of different governance structures across academies would be helpful in informing future development.
4. Recruiting and developing governors, including the quality of current training provision, and any challenges facing recruitment
4.1 Recruitment of school governors is an ongoing process given that they are the single largest volunteering group in the country. There are a variety of recruitment activities taking place nationally including support from School Governors One Stop Shop (SGOSS––now Governors for Schools) and whilst recruitment is an ongoing activity, retention of good governors is a major concern for some governing bodies. This is not helped by the juniority principle in the new constitution regulations which gives precedence to governors that have been in post longest. The 2012 NGA annual survey noted that 60% were finding it difficult to attract governors with suitable skills, however, 90% had no intention of changing the size or composition of their governing body.
4.2 During the 2012 NGA annual survey, 90% of 900 respondents were in favour of mandatory training for school governors. Given the complexities of the role and the expectations of governors, NCOGS also supports mandatory training.
4.3 While there is much good practice regarding the appointment of governors there can be variability in the processes and criteria for making appointments. The appointing bodies such as local authorities, Dioceses and Academy providers, need to be highly accountable for the quality of the appointments they make, especially in respect of foundation, co-opted and authority governors. Governance is strengthened where the rationale for appointment of governors concentrates on the role those governors can play in support of school improvement.
4.4 In order to be effective governing bodies need high quality training regarding understanding school data and school improvement issues. The increasing range of providers and flexible on-line learning opportunities are a positive development. However it is also important to governors that they continue to have access to high quality local provision for governor training.
4.5 Whilst NCOGS welcome the introduction of governance within the new National Professional Qualification for Headship (NPQH) framework, we are disappointed that governance is not considered mandatory training for aspiring school leaders.
4.6 The benchmarking review carried out by NCOGS for 2011–12 (Appendix C), showed that of the LA’s that responded, there was a national average of 12.3% of governor vacancies across all governor places, with vacancy rates ranging from 3.7% to 30.6% in some LA’s.
4.7 The same review showed that 89% of respondents stated that their governing bodies had been represented on training during the previous year, however, only 56% of new governors had attended induction training during this financial year.
4.9 Whilst we welcome the chairs’ development training programme that is now being offered under licence nationally, it is at an early stage and take up and impact is not yet known.
4.10 Anecdotal evidence suggests that governors can feel uncomfortable about putting themselves forward for training courses if they feel that they are spending what they see as the children’s money. This can be a barrier to improving governing bodies and governors need to fully recognise the importance of their own professional development and how this benefits the school. Greater accountability through Ofsted for training and development will reinforce the value of continuing professional development.
4.11 Governors and clerks to governing bodies rely heavily on the Governors Guide to the Law. This is an invaluable document given the complexity of school governance and we feel it should be retained to provide governors with easy access to information on the law and procedures.
5. The structure and membership of governing bodies, including the balance between representation and skills
5.1 It is vital to the effective governance of any school that the governing body has a balance of skills and abilities and regularly reviews their strengths and weaknesses to ensure they continually develop and improve.
5.2 The School Governance (Constitution) (England) Regulations that came into force on 1st September 2012 permit governing bodies to consist of at least seven governors. It is the NCOGS view that seven is a very small number of governors and in order to be truly effective would need to be very focused and have sufficient available time to undertake the work that would otherwise be conducted by committees in larger governing bodies.
5.3 NCOGS are broadly in favour of these regulations, giving governing bodies the opportunity to re-constitute and provide for a co-ordinated skill mix across the governing body. It is recognised that this will benefit some schools that have traditionally struggled to recruit particular types of school governor.
5.4 The benefits of having governors with a diverse range of skills on a governing body is that they bring a fresh perspective to the issues at hand. It is our assertion that it is more important to have governors who are equipped and trained to ask pertinent questions and contribute to school improvement, strategic planning and financial management than it is to have particular professional qualifications.
5.5 The chair of governors holds a crucial role within the governing body, however, on occasions this can also be a barrier to effective governance. There may be a case for the chair of governors’ term of office being limited to six consecutive years. This could support succession planning and promote distributive leadership and effective governance.
6. The effectiveness and accountability of governing bodies
6.1 NCOGS recognise the value of the change from “satisfactory” to “requires improvement” in the Ofsted framework and the focus this puts on governing bodies to concentrate of driving school improvement.
6.2 Effective governance is an integral part of school improvement and has the ability to ensure governing bodies are accountable and take appropriate action where necessary. The benchmarking review (Appendix B) showed that 62% of governing bodies were graded good or better.
6.3 The HMCI annual report in 2011 identified considerable variations in the quality of governance across different types of school. Governance was judged good or outstanding in 58% of schools inspected this year overall, but this varied between 53% in pupil referral units and 55% in primary schools, to 64% in secondary schools and 71% in special schools.
6.4 For governors to be truly effective, they need to know what is going on within their school and this involves being in school during the school day to see whether their understanding of the school matches the reality. Having a clear purpose for governor visits and a robust reporting system to inform other governors of key issues or concerns helps to strengthen governance and demonstrate clear accountability.
6.5 Accountability of governing bodies has come under even greater scrutiny with the requirements of the Ofsted inspection framework since September 2012 having greater emphasis on the role of governance in the overall judgement of leadership and management. Consequently, where governance is deemed to be inadequate, Ofsted can recommend that the governing body undertake or commission a governance review and consider whether governors feel they have the capacity and capability to continue supporting the school.
6.6 What is often asked is, “who governs the governors?” and how do they hold their chair of governors to account when things are not going well. Governing Bodies have the right to remove from office the chair of governors. This requires the issue to be dealt with as an agenda item, however, this can often be quite confrontational, making it less appealing to some governors. Whilst the Secretary of State can exercise his intervention powers in respect of Academies, Local Authorities are expected to use their statutory powers of intervention in maintained schools that are causing concern which can range from issuing warning letters to applying for an Interim Executive Board to replace the governing body. Consequently, the local authority currently has the role of holding the governing body of maintained schools to account, although the future effectiveness of this arrangement is unclear given the budget reductions being imposed across the public sector.
7. Whether new arrangements are required for the remuneration of governors
7.1 A national survey conducted by the National Governors’ Association (NGA) in 2012 showed that 56% of the 900 respondents were against any form of payment, whilst just over a quarter were in favour. Current legislation allows the payment of Interim Executive Board (IEB) members, where they have been put in place to replace the previous governing body. Whilst legislation permits payment to IEB members, in many cases, only the chair of the IEB receives any remuneration and where payment is made, this is in recognition of the additional workload required in these circumstances. However, if the government were minded to legislate to make the role of school governor a paid role:
does this assume that there are people currently not involved as governors who would be willing to take on the role if it is paid?
would this encourage people to become school governors for the wrong reasons?
what would the remuneration package consist of and who would pay for this?
what additional accountability would this bring, if any?
7.2 Governors fulfill their roles and responsibilities as they often feel that they want to give something back and rarely claim the expenses they are entitled to. This can be a hindrance in some respects as it fails to show the true cost of school governance.
8. The relationships between governing bodies and other partners, including local authorities, Academy sponsors and trusts, school leaders, and unions
8.1 Governance should be outward-looking, seeking opportunities to develop effective partnerships with a range of organisations and service providers in order to commission services offering best value to ensure that the school budget is maximised.
8.2 The relationship between governing bodies and partners, including local authorities is crucial to ensuring the relentless drive towards school improvement. Due to the different legal structures, current legislation prevents LA maintained schools from entering into formal collaboration arrangements with Academies. This has the potential to create a two-tier education system and hinder true partnership working.
8.3 NCOGS work in partnership with the Association of Professionals in Education and Children’s Trusts (ASPECT) (now part of Prospect) to deliver high quality professional accreditation for Co-ordinators of Governor Services to raise the standards in school governance.
9. Whether changes should be made to current models of governance
9.1 New permissive legislation enables a high degree of flexibility allowing governing bodies in community schools to recruit effective governors, however, the same degree of flexibility is not necessarily available where foundation appointed governors are in the majority.
9.2 The greater challenges lie in the development of robust governance of increasingly complex federations, academy chains and in teaching school alliances.
10. Conclusion
10.1 The NCOGS committee are grateful for being given the opportunity to provide written evidence to the Education Select Committee and would welcome the opportunity to provide oral evidence to the inquiry in the New Year.