Education CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Governor Services, Cambridge Education, Islington
Introduction
As part of the invitation to submit evidence on the point below, the attention of the Select Committee is drawn to the comments below and to the 2011 Review of School Governance undertaken by Islington Council, a summary of which is attached as an appendix. The Select Committee will be aware that there have also been a number of independent research reports in recent years which have addressed many of the committee’s concerns in detail, some of which are listed at the end of this document. Although a number of recommendations were made, limited action has followed to date.
Executive Summary and Recommendations
Consideration has been given to the points to be addressed. Based on these considerations, the points below summarise the recommendations made to the committee:
The core purpose of governance to be restated, and any further changes to be subsequent to this.
The roles and responsibilities vis a vis the Headteacher to be updated.
The number of changes and pace of change demanded of GBs to be reduced.
All GBs to be required to commission, annually, an independent report on the work of the school.
All GBs to be required to undertake a process of self review annually.
Some training to be made mandatory for all governors.
All GBs to appoint a trained clerk who is external to the school.
The work of the One Stop Shop in supporting the recruitment of business and community governors to be endorsed, and where possible, extended.
There should be no compulsory requirement to reconstitute.
The demands on governors and the value they add to schools should be more publicly recognised, as should the benefits which the experience of governorship offers to those who volunteer.
1. The purpose, roles and responsibilities of school governing bodies, within the wider context of school governance and leadership
1. What is school governance for? The assumption is that governance per se, as is the case for many other organisations (businesses, charities, etc) is the mechanism for the oversight of the effective performance of schools and to ensure the proper use of public funds, for both of which the level of public accountability is high. The importance of this role has increased, as the responsibilities of local authorities have been diminished. Governing bodies often see themselves as having a moral duty and purpose, and this brings a strength of commitment to the role. Other than a completely centralised system, there is no immediately obvious alternative.
2. Clarity of purpose, expressed through statutory responsibilities, is therefore the paramount requirement. If it is to be defined simply as a duty to secure school improvement, then the role as set out in current legislation should be more clearly defined, with less emphasis on the management of minor aspects.
3. On the issue of school leadership, the roles of the Head and of the GB are traditionally quite distinct, as is the case of any CEO and board. It is therefore less helpful for governance, which has a different function, now to be included and judged by Ofsted within the overall category of school leadership.
4. The opportunity should be taken under this review for these roles to be clarified and confirmed and, in doing so, it is suggested that the DFE document 2002 “Responsibilities of Headteachers and Governing Bodies” which clarified the respective roles, should be updated.
2. The implications of recent policy developments for governing bodies and their roles
1. Effective Governing Bodies are demonstrably able to assimilate change, and to oversee implementation at a strategic level. However there is a clear issue of increased workload arising from the extent and the rate of policy change, which deflects from and delays carrying out other responsibilities, and for which often insufficient information or guidance is available. Action should be taken both to limit this, and to improve the communication of any changes which are deemed unavoidable. Ever increasing demands, and the perceived introduction of a more politicised approach, are in danger of overwhelming some GBs or causing individual governors to feel the role has changed from that which they had volunteered to do.
3. Recruiting and developing governors, including the quality of current training provision, and any challenges facing recruitment
(a) Recruitment (NB issues of governor recruitment will vary across the country)
1. Within inner cities, there is high mobility across all aspects of the education community. For particular categories, the support of organisations such as the One Stop Shop has been very effective in identifying candidates for appointment as business/community governors, and also, as required, non political governors to fill any vacant LA places, in line with a commitment to a minimum LA vacancy rate.* It is recommended that the work of the OSS continue to be supported.
(b) Training and development
2. Although this is currently not mandatory, the development of governors through initial and then targeted training is essential, to maximise the effectiveness both of individuals and of the corporate body, as early as possible within the standard 4 year term of office. The statutory responsibilities of GBs (for safeguarding, staffing, finance etc.) which are set out in other than the governance regulations, require more than a casual understanding of the issues.
3. In addition, Ofsted evidence and the HMCI published characteristics of outstanding, and conversely, unsatisfactory governance, refer to knowledge and understanding of the role, relating to the ability to carry it out effectively. Action for GBs requiring improvement invariably includes training: in such cases we would submit that prevention is invariably better than cure.
4. Arguments against include time and cost, but even if compulsory this would be a very small percentage of any school’s CPD budget. Most LAs, voluntary authorities and increasingly the private sector, offer training; schools are efficient at organising in-house or in-cluster training; and there are now many excellent on-line packages available.
5. It is strongly recommended that as a minimum, the national induction course is mandatory within the first year.*
* see recommendation 4.1 and 4.2 of the Council’s Overview report.
The importance of high quality mandatory training, is also identified in the several research reports referred to at the end of this submission. The failure to endorse and deliver training not only denies schools the level of support they are entitled to expect from their GB, but also prevents individual governors from a non skills based background from making as full and proper a contribution to governance as they would otherwise be able to do.
6. An illustrative quotation from a Governing Body meeting in December 2012 whose members were clear that training had made them as individuals much more effective, much sooner: “We have huge responsibilities and operate in very much the same way as trustees of some charities, of which I am one, and for which I am required to undergo training in governance. Why isn’t this the case for school governors?”
4. The structure and membership of governing bodies, including the balance between representation and skills
1. There have been a number of studies and reports in recent years but no conclusive outcomes. Some key research on this (see below) has demonstrated that amending the model has had no impact on GB effectiveness. The issue is therefore assumed to be less to do with the structure or model of governance, than with the effectiveness of its membership, which may be addressed by other means. (See point 5 below)
2. The view of this authority remains that schools are not primarily businesses, and the community engagement and “buy in” of the stakeholder model is the most important principle in ensuring trust and accountability across the wider public community.
3. Locally, we have no evidence that either vacancy levels, or schools with a smaller group of active governors, have limited the effectiveness of any GB. The views expressed by a current Governor-led working group which is reviewing this, is that where there are GBs with some more active governors, this system operates only with the trust and support of the wider membership, which in turn endorse and give legitimacy to the work undertaken. The pragmatic view is to support what works, and so identifying and sharing high quality leadership across GBs is now the relevant task of this Working Group.* (See also point 8 below)
5. The effectiveness and accountability of governing bodies
1. These are both predetermined by the current statutory duties and roles and responsibilities currently placed on GBs by the DFE, and assessed by Ofsted:
effectiveness is assessed by Ofsted and by HMCI, whose judgements and findings are made public on three to five year cycle:
accountability is characterised by the requirement to publish factual information annually: ie test results; use of pupil premium funding etc.
* see recommendation 4.6 of the Council’s review.
2. Islington is currently among the 10 most improved local authorities in the country, and 89% of schools are judged good (61% ) or outstanding (28%). There are currently no failing schools and the seven schools (11%) graded “satisfactory” are all making strong progress. The effectiveness of governance up to December 2011 was judged by Ofsted to be good or outstanding, in five out of six schools. Since January 2012 such judgements have been included within leadership judgements which, with one exception (satisfactory), have been good or outstanding. If the Ofsted framework is to continue to have relevance, then governance must be characterised as effective.
3. Substantial advice and evidence as to how GBs may become more effective in carrying out the above roles is already available from many sources, including Ofsted, the DFE, NGA, etc. and this too has been the subject of previous reports.
However, effectiveness could be further assured by introducing the following requirements on GBs:
to attend some mandatory training (see 3 above);*
to arrange an annual independent/external review of the performance of the school—this function is now largely regarded as limited to formal advice on HT performance management, with other topics determined by the Headteacher which support the work of the school. The importance of triangulation of information to enable any GB to be fully informed is recognised, but the required means to achieve this is wanting;**
to appoint a well-trained and informed clerk, who is not line managed within the school, in order to provide external independent advice; and
a requirement for all governing bodies to complete a self evaluation audit on an annual basis, which would be additional to the school’s process. This would then form the basis of any subsequent external assessment of governance.
* 4.8 of the Council’s Overview report.
** 4.9 of the Council’s Overview report.
6. Whether new arrangements are required for the remuneration of governors
Arrangements already exist for the payment of allowances which help to ensure that no one is excluded from standing as a governor. The introduction of any form of remuneration would fundamentally change the nature of the role. This has not been raised as an issue of concern by governors in this borough. There would need to be clear evidence to support any case for its introduction, plus an examination of any benefits assumed, including the impact on school outcomes. The question would then arise of who would meet the costs?
7. The relationships between governing bodies and other partners, including local authorities, Academy sponsors and trusts, school leaders, and unions
1. Within this authority, the benefits of collaborative working are widely understood and shared. Schools and governing bodies in this authority (and no doubt many others) are supportive of the new arrangements for working with each other and with the LA, as set out in the “Islington Community of Schools” which is the local framework within which changes in responsibility, decision making and commissioning powers are recognised and managed.
2. Schools and their governing bodies continue to make it very clear to the local authority that there is an on-going need for a central support role, recognising the pressures and demands on schools in inner city areas with high levels of deprivation, EAL, mobility and other challenges. *
* 4.7 and 4.11 of the Council’s Overview Report.
8. Whether changes should be made to current models of governance
1. As stated in point 4 above, the view of this authority is that community engagement is an important principle and the “buy in” of the stakeholder model helps to ensure trust and accountability across the wider public community.
2. The 2007 regulations already offer considerable flexibility for GBs to work together in an informal way from partnering, through collaboration or soft federation through to a formal arrangement such as federation. There are many successful examples of this both locally and nationally.
3. With the introduction of the 2012 Constitution Regulations, the opportunity also exists for any Governing Body which chooses to do so, to reconstitute from the fully defined stakeholder model, to something closer to the skills based or executive model.
4. It is therefore not clear why any further changes should now be considered necessary. If further changes were to be proposed: ie introduction of a solely skills based model, these would need to be fully explained and justified, and, as is the case as for the regulations above, should remain optional.
January 2013