Education CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Buckinghamshire County Council

Buckinghamshire County Council is pleased to respond to the Education Committee’s request for written submissions of evidence to support its inquiry into the role of school governing bodies. Our evidence below is applicable to all governing bodies regardless of their status (community, voluntary controlled, voluntary aided, foundation, trust, academy, free school) unless specified.

1. The purpose, roles and responsibilities of school governing bodies, within the wider context of school governance and leadership

School governing bodies are the legal corporate bodies that are accountable in law (under the Education Act 2002) for the conduct of the school and to promote “high standards of educational achievement”. This means that decisions are the joint responsibility of the governing body and individual governors may not act independently of the rest of the governing body.

Governing bodies have a mix of strategic and statutory responsibilities, their key ones being to:

set the aims and objectives for the school;

set the policies for achieving those aims and objectives;

set the targets for achieving those aims and objectives;

ensure that the school complies with statutory regulations; and

be a source of challenge and support to the headteacher.

An Academy Trust’s object is to advance education through the management and development of a school offering a broad and balanced curriculum. The roles and responsibilities of governing bodies of academies are set out in their Trusts’ Articles of Association and Funding Agreements and essentially mirror the above but the financial responsibilities are greater.

2. The implications of recent policy developments for governing bodies and their roles

The increasing diversity and autonomy that is being brought about by recent policy developments increases the accountability of governing bodies for ensuring that their schools take the lead in school improvement. It also develops an education system that is increasingly reliant upon the effectiveness of governing bodies to carry out their role as set out in the previous paragraph.

At the same time, policy developments are fragmenting support that is available to governing bodies in areas of the Country as Local Authorities (LAs) reconfigure themselves as their direct support to local schools is declining. For some areas this is currently producing a vacuum in school improvement and governor services. With this comes the loss of local knowledge about schools which is so important in understanding and supporting governing bodies in their role. This year only 60 LAs (39%) took part in the Co-ordinators of Governor Services (COGS) national bench-marking exercise, which is indicative of the significant reduction in governor support services across the Country.

In other areas, such as Buckinghamshire, the importance of high quality support for school governing bodies is recognised and will be maintained by offering services in new ways. Buckinghamshire is doing this through the development of a charitable trust in partnership with local schools, which will be fully operational by 1 September 2013. Once established, a partnership such as this would be able to offer services to governing bodies beyond its locality.

The academy programme has had implications for governing bodies whose schools have converted to academy status. Although conversion is a decision for the governing body, in reality this has often been driven by the headteacher and it is not uncommon to find governors of a newly converted academy school who have a very limited understanding of the governance structure they now need to operate in. In Buckinghamshire we are providing induction training for academy governors through our development programme as well as academy financial management training.

At the other end of the spectrum, in schools that are being directed to become sponsored academies, the sponsor takes on some of the responsibilities of the former governing body, such as appointment and performance management of the headteacher, leaving the “local” governing body more like a committee in status and power. This is especially true in academy chains.

The new Ofsted Framework (September 2012) with a much stronger focus on school governance is to be welcomed as is the recommendation by Ofsted that a governing body should commission an independent review of governance if its school is graded three for leadership and management.

3. Recruiting and developing governors, including the quality of current training provision, and any challenges facing recruitment

School governors are the largest volunteer force in the Country (approx 300,000 governors) and in the COGS benchmarking review 2011–12 there was an average vacancy rate of 12.3%, with a regional average range of 10.2%–14.7%. This compares with 11.7% and 11.2% in 2010–11 and 2009–10 respectively. These figures would suggest that recruitment of governors is not a particular issue although it is always more difficult to recruit to schools in challenging circumstances or areas of deprivation. Our concern is, that with the increased expectations of governing bodies, it will be more difficult to recruit volunteer governors.

However, school governing bodies are not necessarily representative of their schools’ communities. In Buckinghamshire our data at the end of March 2012 demonstrated that 4.5% of governors are from Black, Minority, Ethnic (BME) communities, whilst the school pupil population was 25.7%. Our Governor Services Team works with community groups to encourage greater BME community representation, but with the changes in LAs referred to in paragraph 2, this is not likely to be an approach that is replicated across the Country.

Buckinghamshire also works with the School Governors’ One Stop Shop to recruit and place governors with business backgrounds and experience.

Traditionally, governor training and development has been provided by LA governor services and the COGS’ benchmarking data for 2011–12 gives a national average of 84% of governing bodies subscribing to a LA governor training service with a regional average range of 71%–92%. This is 5% lower than in 2010–11.

The benchmarking data on training shows that 89% of governing bodies were represented on training in 2011–12, with a regional average range of 83% to 96%, compared to 91% the year before.

In Buckinghamshire 100% of governing bodies were represented on training in 2011–12, compared to the national average of 89%.

The National College has developed a licensed leadership development programme for chairs. There are 12 licences across the Country and Buckinghamshire is taking an active role in its partnership with the Eastern Leadership Centre, the National Governors’ Association and other LA governor services to ensure this is available to Buckinghamshire chairs. There has been a high level of interest in this Leadership Programme from chairs and aspiring chairs in Buckinghamshire, with over 90 registering an interest so far. As well as inviting our chairs to undertake this leadership programme, we are also encouraging our aspiring chairs to support governing body succession planning which is important in supporting continuity.

Induction training for new governors is essential in ensuring that they understand their role. In Buckinghamshire new governors1 are pre-booked onto our induction course, which consists of two full days and two evenings and in 2011–12 90% of new governors attended, compared to a national average of 56%.

It is the view of Co-ordinators of Governor Services, the National Governors’ Association and many governors that induction training should be mandatory for all new governors.

4. The structure and membership of governing bodies, including the balance between representation and skills

The stakeholder model of school governance as set out in the Constitution Regulations 2007 is a good one in ensuring that parents, staff, the school’s community, and foundations (if any) are represented on a school governing body and can bring their different perspectives to bear to the benefit of the corporate governing body. Very occasionally it can make the appointment of governors with the right skills difficult, but this is rare.

The introduction of the 2012 Constitution Regulations means that the governing bodies of LA maintained schools now have more flexibility and can avoid the difficulty mentioned above. It allows LA maintained schools to have a constitution akin to that of academies if they wish. Under this model it is still possible to ensure stakeholder representation on a governing body and this is something we would always recommend, given our belief that governing bodies should be representative of the communities they serve and are accountable to.

Some suggest that there is a tension between the stakeholder model of governance and the skills required to make a governing body effective. They believe that the stakeholder model of governance should be removed and replaced by a smaller governing body based on skills. However, no sound evidence has yet been produced to substantiate these views.

A piece of research entitled, “Schools, Governors and Disadvantage in England”, was published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in June 2007, is often quoted as providing the evidence that smaller, skills-based governing bodies were more effective and efficient. However, the research sample base for the study was very small, only 14 schools; and the sample included interim executive boards (IEBs) which are put in place for a very specific purpose for a time-limited period when a LA intervenes. This study did not provide the evidence for its conclusions.

It is our view that there needn’t be a contradiction between stakeholder representation and having a skilled governing body. We would argue that a willingness to learn and get involved is what is crucial. Combine this with good support and access to training and new governors can learn the skills needed to undertake school governance effectively. Governors need to be able to question, challenge, monitor and evaluate. As mentioned in paragraph 3, we consider that a good induction programme for new governors is essential and should be mandatory.

5. The effectiveness and accountability of governing bodies

The most recent Ofsted inspection judgements for maintained schools at the latest inspection (as at 30th June 2012) were: outstanding 4,477 (21%); good 10,539 (49%); satisfactory 6,100 (28%) and inadequate 571 (3%), of which 226 were subject to a notice to improve2.

Figures comparing the most recent and previous overall effectiveness judgements for all secondary schools inspected twice between September 2005 and April 2011 (2,153 in total) showed that of the 937 previously judged satisfactory, 50% were unchanged at the next inspection (the so-called “stuck” schools), but 42% had improved and 8% declined.

Analysis of the first 127 primary school inspection reports under the new framework published on the Ofsted website shows that two-thirds (64%) of those previously judged “satisfactory” have now been graded “good”.

Under the previous Ofsted Inspection Framework (2009) where governance was given a separate grading for “the effectiveness of the governing body in challenging and supporting the school so that weaknesses are tackled decisively and statutory responsibilities”, the COGS’ benchmarking data shows that governance was graded good or better nationally on average in 62% of schools, with a regional average ranging from 50% to 71%. Governance was graded satisfactory or better nationally in an average of 94% of schools, with a regional average ranging from 94% to 100%.

There is a strong correlation between good governance and good schools and, where a school is failing, governance is weak with the governing body not holding school leaders to account or effectively monitoring the work of the school ( Getting to good: how headteachers achieve success, Ofsted report, September 2012).

In May 2011, Ofsted published “Learning from the best”, a report on school governance which listed a number of common factors that were found in the governing bodies of outstanding schools:

Positive relationships—trust, transparency.

Shared high quality information.

Ability to make hard decisions.

Honest self-evaluation supporting action.

Clarity of roles.

Strong core structure in governing body.

Regular visits with clear protocols.

Searching questioning –meaningful support.

Integrity and mutual support.

Using skills to hold leaders to account.

Clear procedures, systems & processes.

Effective use of a professional clerk.

Timeline of activities.

Knowing and using skills of governors.

Governing Body self evaluation.

Governors know their school.

The leadership role of the chair of the governing body is crucial in the effectiveness of the governing body and it is essential that a chair has access to training to ensure they understand their role.

The “pivotal” role of the clerk to governors was recognised in the “Learning from the best” report in ensuring that statutory duties are met, meetings are well-organised and governors receive the information they need in a timely way. In Buckinghamshire, we provide a professional clerking and advice service which is purchased by 90% of our LA maintained schools and academies, which supports governing bodies and “frees” governors’ time to concentrate on their strategic role.

There are plans to “slim down” the Guide to the Law for School Governors so that it is more of a handbook. We are very concerned about the potential loss of the detail contained in this very valuable guide and would urge that it is absolutely essential to retain this for clerks, if not for governors.

Governing bodies are accountable to Ofsted and the communities that they serve. However, as mentioned in paragraph 2, we are concerned that the increased accountability that these groups of volunteers now carry due to recent policy developments will lead to a need for more LA interventions at a time when the LAs’ resources and capacities are severely reduced. There is also a danger that potential governors will be discouraged from standing due to the further increase in the responsibilities that a governing body bears.

6. Whether new arrangements are required for the remuneration of governors

The model of school governance we have in England is a powerful one with an independent lay body holding the professionals in school to account for standards and financial probity. To introduce remuneration would alter the independence and autonomy of the governing body in holding the school to account.

Some advocate remunerating the chair of governors citing the IEB model, where the chair is usually paid. But, again, this is a different body of people brought in for a specific purpose for a time-limited period. To be effective a governing body needs positive relationships between its governors and with the headteacher based on trust, openness and transparency. Introducing remuneration for the chair would inevitably alter those relationships and they would no longer be “first amongst equals”.

Rather than remunerating governors, we should do all that we can collectively (nationally and locally) to raise the profile of school governors especially with employers. Despite being legally entitled to take unpaid time off work for their school governor duties, some governors report that their employer does not recognise this and they have to take annual leave.

We should also encourage governors to claim legitimate allowances from their schools. Most frown upon this, preferring to leave the money for the benefit of the children in their schools. However, an alternative approach would be for all governors to claim their allowances and then those who can afford to could “gift aid” it back to the school if they wished to do so3. In this way, any governor who would benefit from claiming allowances does not feel unwilling or uncomfortable in doing so and the school has the benefit of the “gift aid”.

7. The relationships between governing bodies and other partners, including local authorities, Academy sponsors and trusts, school leaders and unions

This is going to be extremely variable depending on the governing body, its context and the area it is in. Lots of governing bodies will never have relationships with Unions or their Local Authority. They will all have relationships with school leaders and it is really important that these are sound, open and based on trust. The relationship between the chair and the headteacher is a vital one, which is why it is so important that each understands the other’s role as well as their own. Again this is why good training and support is so important.

With recent policy developments many LAs are considering how they will maintain/build relationships with their governing bodies, schools, free schools, academies and sponsors so that they continue to champion the child and ensure sufficiency of school places.

8. Whether changes should be made to current models of governance

As stated in paragraph 5, the stakeholder model of governance allows the inclusion of the different groups with an interest in a school in a way that protects their representation and provides balance between the different perspectives. It is a powerful model and works well when utilised in this way.

The introduction of the 2012 Constitution Regulations gives LA maintained school governing bodies the opportunity to adopt a smaller, more flexible model of governance if they wish, whilst not removing the ability to have stakeholder representation.

There is no contradiction between the stakeholder model of governance and having governors with appropriate skills given the right support and training

Given the above, we do not believe it is necessary to make further changes to the current models of governance. There is always the danger that to do so, will divert some governing bodies’ attention away from school improvement and they will spend valuable time considering their own structure.

In a recent NGA poll on whether governing bodies were going to reconstitute under the new Constitution Regulations 2012, the results were as follows:

No	57%
Probably not	18%
Don’t know	3%
Considering it	16%
Yes, definitely	6%

January 2013