Appendix
Government response
Recruitment and retention of governors
Impact of the 2012 composition regulations
on the profile of governing bodies
1. Less prescription as to how governing bodies
are constituted should help governing bodies to recruit suitable
individuals and address vacancies. This should include a balance
of parents, staff and other groups as appropriate. We support
the Government's decision to make the 2012 composition regulations
permissive. We are also pleased that the Minister has agreed to
remove the "juniority principle" from the same regulations.
(Paragraph 24)
The Committee is right to recognise that the 2012
constitution regulations give governing bodies more freedom to
decide their own composition so that they can recruit governors
with the right skills and experience. Our Model Articles of Association
give academy trusts even greater freedom.
It is for schools to determine the appropriate balance
of parents, staff and other groups. We take the view that skills
should be the primary consideration when appointing governors.
We will keep under review whether reconstituting
under the 2012 regulations should remain optional. Repealing the
2007 regulations would simplify the overall regulatory framework
and encourage governing bodies to review their composition and
reconstitute under a single more permissive framework.
We have begun a targeted consultation with our key
partners on changes to the 2012 constitution regulations for maintained
schools, including removal of the 'juniority principle'. Initial
feedback shows widespread support for this change.
Impact of the 2012 composition regulations
on the size of governing bodies
2. Despite the DfE's clear preference for smaller
governing bodies, there is no evidence base to prove that smaller
governing bodies are more effective than larger ones. (Paragraph
30)
Whilst we have no intention of imposing smaller governing
bodies, we do think that smaller governing bodies are more likely
to be cohesive and dynamic, and able to act more decisively. This
is particularly true when things go wrong, as illustrated by the
contrast between the impact of small tightly focused Interim Executive
Boards, and the often large and unfocused governing bodies that
many academy sponsors report they need to reform.
Ofsted research has found that it is a core of highly
committed and skilled governors that are responsible for the performance
of many governing bodies. We share the view of the Charity Commission
that governing bodies, like boards of trustees, should be no bigger
than they need to be to have all the skills necessary to carry
out their functions. It is the role of the chair to ensure that
every governor is actively contributing relevant skills and experience,
and to have honest conversations where governors are not pulling
their weight.
We think that all governing bodies should review
their effectiveness on a regular basis. Increasingly, weaker governing
bodies will be encouraged to do so with external support following
a recommendation from Ofsted. One of the things any review should
consider is whether the governor body is the right size to fulfil
its duties effectively.
Improving recruitment and retention
3. Business is potentially an important source
of capable school governors. We are pleased that the Government
has agreed to do more to increase uptake of the School Governors
One Stop Shop's (SGOSS) services in schools across the country.
We are also supportive of the Government's agreement to accept
help from the Confederation of British Industry in promoting school
governance opportunities to businesses and recommend that the
Government report back to us with details as to how this will
be done. (Paragraph 39)
As highlighted by the Heseltine Review, businesses
are a very important source of volunteers with transferable skills
to become capable schools governors and effective members of Interim
Executive Boards able to effect transformation.
We have committed funding to SGOSS, the governor
recruitment charity, to the end of this Parliament to provide
the security the organisation needs to pursue ambitious growth
targets—in terms of both the number of schools and businesses
with which it works. We have also granted SGOSS an exemption from
government restrictions on marketing expenditure to enable it
to use some of our funding to promote its work to more businesses
and schools. Lord Nash will attend a SGOSS roundtable discussion
with key business leaders in September to discuss how best to
engage more employers. We will take every opportunity to promote
the work of SGOSS, including through Ministerial speeches and
our website.
We are also working to increase the number of businesses
and business people sponsoring academies and supporting the governance
of academy chains. High quality governance is particularly important
in academies because of their autonomy and their financial responsibilities
as set out in the Academies Financial Handbook. To help do this
we are recruiting a select group of leading business people to
act as Academies Ambassadors, who will drive greater involvement
in academies in the business community. They will work on a voluntary
basis and encourage more business people to sponsor academies
and aim to create a pool of highly experienced business people
to serve on the boards of academy trusts.
Going forward, we will seek to work more closely
with organisations such as the Confederation of British Industry,
the Institute of Directors, Business in the Community, the Employers
Taskforce and the British Chambers of Commerce, to promote through
their membership opportunities to volunteer as governors. This
will also help us raise the profile of SGOSS across the business
community.
Incentives for business volunteers
4. Any potential barriers to the recruitment of
effective school governors should be removed. We recommend that
the Government review the current incentives for, and requirements
on, businesses that release their staff for governor duties. We
also recommend that the legal requirement to give time off for
governors of maintained schools be extended to academies. (Paragraph
43)
We agree with the Committee that any barriers to
the recruitment of effective schools governors should be removed.
That is why we have given governing bodies more freedom over their
constitution so they can focus on recruiting people with the right
skills; and why we have cut red tape and raised our expectations
of the strategic nature of the role to make it more attractive
to the kind of people governing bodies need. We are also working
with SGOSS to promote to employers the benefits that they and
their employees gain from employees developing their skills as
governors.
We are considering the extent to which the lack of
a legal requirement for governors of academies to have time off
work is causing a barrier to governor recruitment. We will explore
the option of amending primary legislation (Employment Rights
Act 1996) to extent the right to time off work for maintained
school governors to academy governors.
Raising the profile of governors
5. We welcome the Government's commitment to raising
the profile of governors and we look forward to seeing the details
of how it intends to attract more good quality governors. (Paragraph
47)
We are seeking to raise the profile of governors
and attract more good quality governors in four ways.
First, we are making clear the importance of governors'
role. We have defined governing bodies' core strategic functions
in legislation and the Governors' Handbook; we have explained
clearly the central role of governors in the Academies' Financial
Handbook; and we have a much stronger focus on governance in the
Ofsted inspection framework, particularly through the introduction
of external reviews of governance.
Secondly, we are aiming to make the role more attractive.
Our reforms aim to remove unnecessary rules and regulations and
give governing bodies more discretion and responsibility.
Thirdly, we are supporting recruitment, training,
and models of good practice. We have committed funding to SGOSS
to the end of this Parliament; and expanded significantly work
on governance by the National College for Teaching and Leadership.
Finally, we are ensuring public recognition. We have
provided guidance to our key partners to encourage and support
higher quality honours nominations so that more individuals might
be recognised nationally for the impact they have had as a governor.
Pay for governors
6. While not advocating payment to governors in
general, we can see that there is a case for remuneration in some
circumstances—for example, when governors deploy their skills
to improve governance in other schools. We recommend that Government
give further consideration to the circumstances in which payment
could be appropriate and make necessary regulatory provisions.
(Paragraph 51)
We have recently reviewed our position on payment
of governors and published a short note[2]
which confirms our commitment to the principle of voluntary trusteeship.
Powers are already in place to pay members of Interim
Executive Boards (IEBs), but thus far the Secretary of State has
not needed to use them to recruit high quality IEB members.
The National Leaders of Governance (NLG) programme
is enabling some of our best chairs of governors to share their
skills with others. NLGs are not paid, but their school receives
a small grant to fund NLGs' expenses. We do not have any evidence
to suggest that the lack of payment is a barrier to the recruitment
of sufficient numbers of NLGs, however we are keeping this under
review as we expand the National Leaders of Governance programme
to up to 535 NLGs by 2015.
Where a governing body requires support over and
above that which can be provided free of charge through the NLG
programme, there is nothing preventing them paying an NLG or other
experienced governor from another school for the provision of
consultancy or advice services.
Subject to appropriate safeguards against conflicts
of interest, it is legal for governing bodies to purchase professional
services from individuals serving as governors, for example accounting,
legal or construction services.
Governor effectiveness
Training
7. Too many governors have not had suitable training.
The Government says this can be encouraged through Ofsted. Ofsted
should report back in due course whether their intervention is
effective. If it is not, mandatory training should be considered
again. The Government should require schools to offer training
to every new governor. We welcome the Minister's assurance that
Ofsted will be resourced adequately in order to undertake its
increased role in helping to ensure effective governance in schools.
Further explanation is required as to how this will be achieved.
(Paragraph 61)
Good schools don't need government to mandate training.
Universal mandatory training risks being inappropriate for some
and a barrier to recruiting others. Governing bodies are best
placed to identify their skill gaps and seek appropriate training.
It is the responsibility of the chair of governors to make sure
that the governing body functions effectively—including
through accessing induction and continuing training where necessary.
We will keep the position under review.
Ofsted's strong and helpful focus on school governance
is an integral part of the inspection framework and hence factored
in fully to how Ofsted is resourced to operate. The inspection
framework provides a powerful incentive on governing bodies to
audit their skills and identify their training needs. The new
Inspection Handbook (published July 2013), states that in making
their judgement on the effectiveness of governance, inspectors
will look at how well governing bodies develop the skills of their
members. Ofsted will want to know that the governing body takes
seriously their training needs and ensures that every governor
who needs training receives training of a high quality. Governing
bodies who do not invest in improving their effectiveness by taking
up training are making a false economy.
8. We are concerned at suggestions that few quality
alternatives are emerging to the training traditionally provided
by local authorities. We recommend that Ofsted and the DfE monitor
the availability and quality of governor training in the light
of greater academisation of schools and reduction of local authority
services. (Paragraph 62)
We agree with the Committee about the need for a
market of high quality training alternatives for governing bodies.
We expect the strong focus on governance within the Ofsted inspection
framework, the recommendation by inspectors of external reviews
of governance, and the strong and growing emphasis from Ofsted
and DfE on governors' skills to all stimulate expansion of this
market.
To address a market failure in the provision of training
for clerks and to ensure there is a high quality benchmark in
the market for governor training, we have doubled the investment
we make in governance through NCTL. By 2015, this funding will
enable NCTL to:
- Build on the early success
of the leadership development programme to expand it to reach
over 6,500 chairs, vice-chairs and aspiring chairs;
- Designate up to a total of
535 high quality chairs as National Leaders of Governance;
- Develop and roll out a programme
of training for 2,000 clerks to governing bodies; and
- Develop and publish training
resources and deliver high quality training for governors on specific
key policy priorities including: understanding performance data,
driving financial efficiency in schools, and developing new performance
related pay arrangements for teachers.
Inspection, self-assessment and peer challenge
9. Poor performance by governing bodies should
be challenged at the earliest opportunity. We support the obligation
placed on schools that "require improvement" to undertake
an external review of governance. (Paragraph 69)
In all Category 3 schools where leadership and management
is weak, we expect Ofsted to recommend that the governing body
commission an external review of their governance arrangements.
NCTL has published resources on its website to support
schools to do this based on the pilots it undertook to test the
concept of external reviews between September 2012 and February
2013. The most common recommendation from 62 reviews conducted
was that governing bodies should review their roles and responsibilities,
and consider re-constitution or re-structuring following a skills
audit.
We believe inspectors have a crucial role to play,
including through their monitoring visits, in setting demanding
standards for evidence of the action and change that has resulted
from these reviews—including the training that has been
accessed to address any skills gaps. We have asked Ofsted to identify
and share with us evidence of the impact that reviews are having
on the quality of school governance.
The Department's statutory guidance on schools causing
concern[3]
is clear that local authorities should intervene early and robustly
when there has been a serious breakdown in the way a maintained
school is governed. The Department takes the same approach with
academies causing concern.
10. We recommend that governing bodies be strongly
encouraged in guidance from DfE, Ofsted and the National College
to participate in peer-to-peer governance reviews and to undertake
self-assessment and skills audits, using tools such as the All-Party
Parliamentary Group on Education Governance and Leadership's 20
questions and other resources identified in the new Governors'
Handbook. (Paragraph 70)
We agree that all governing bodies should evaluate
their own effectiveness on a regular basis, including undertaking
peer to peer reviews, self-assessment and skills audits. The Governors'
Handbook and guidance already set out this expectation as do materials
produced by NCTL. Departmental Advice on new Roles, Procedures
and Allowances regulations will further emphasise this.
A wide range of resources are available to assist
governing bodies in self-evaluation, which is good practice for
all schools, not just those requiring improvement.
Ofsted's Data Dashboard
11. The importance of good data in user-friendly
formats for governing bodies cannot be overstated. We welcome
Ofsted's Data Dashboard and support the DfE's work to develop
questions that governing bodies can use to interrogate data effectively.
The generic questions in the new Governors' Handbook are helpful,
but will not in themselves provide sufficient assistance to governing
bodies in interrogating complex data. We look forward to DfE publishing
further questions. (Paragraph 78)
In order to hold the headteacher to account for the
performance of the school, governing bodies need access to robust,
objective data which they can use to ask challenging questions.
Governors need information that helps them compare their school
to other schools.
Ofsted's high level dashboard is a valuable resource
to help governors understand how well their school is doing in
broad terms, but governors need to go into more detail to do their
job well. Whilst all the information is available through RAISE
online, we share concerns that it is not especially easy to understand.
We are working with Ofsted to make this easier for governors,
and for data released this autumn, there will be a streamlined
Summary Report and clearer signposting to the most important sections.
NCTL provided training workshops on RAISE online
in early 2013. These workshops will be refreshed and re-launched
later this year, so many more governors will be able to benefit.
In the longer term, we will make sure governors'
needs for information are at the heart of the new data warehouse
and portal that will replace RAISE online from 2015.
The Governors' Handbook provided illustrative questions
to indicate the broad range of issues on which governors may need
to ask questions of their headteacher and other senior leaders.
We welcome work by the National Governors' Association (NGA) to
identify and publish a first draft of a more detailed list of
possible questions. Ultimately, it is for governing bodies to
decide and prioritise the precise questions that need to be asked.
Information, advice and guidance for governing
bodies and the role of the clerk
12. An effective clerk is vital to the success
of a governing body. The evidence clearly indicates that this
should be a professional role—similar to a company secretary.
We recommend that the Government act upon the findings of the
project by the National Governors' Association and the Society
of Local Authority Chief Executives relating to clerks. (Paragraph
83)
To be effective, all school governing bodies need
the support of a professional clerk to advise them on their duties
and how best to fulfil them. The new Roles, Procedures and Allowances
regulations for maintained schools reflect this in a duty on the
governing body to appoint a clerk to ensure it functions efficiently
and to have regard to the advice of the clerk on the nature of
its functions. The board of governors in an academy is required
to appoint a clerk by its articles of association.
To support the professionalisation of clerking, we
have recently announced an extension to the work of NCTL to develop
and deliver a training programme for clerks. By 2015, NCTL will
have trained 2,000 highly-skilled professional clerks.
We look forward to receiving any recommendations
arising from the discussions taking place between the National
Governors' Association and the Society of Local Authority Chief
Executives and will consider these in due course.
13. The School Governors' One Stop Shop (SGOSS)
has been funded for a further two years to recruit governors.
We believe that SGOSS may be ideally placed to take on a role
in recruiting clerks and we recommend that the Government consider
how to facilitate this. (Paragraph 84)
We do not think SGOSS is ideally placed to recruit
clerks. Our funding to SGOSS is to deliver the crucial task of
recruiting skilled governors from business and placing them in
schools that need governors with those skills. We have no plans
to provide additional funding to SGOSS to enable them to focus
on recruiting clerks, which would be a very different role recruiting
from an almost entirely separate constituency.
We understand that SGOSS itself has no current plans
to focus on the recruitment of clerks. If it should decide to
do so in future, it would need to fund this work from a source,
other than the Department and provide assurance to us that the
additional work would not detract from its capacity to deliver
its core grant-funded business of recruiting and placing skilled
governors.
The National Governors' Association has recently
indicated publicly that it is considering piloting its own brokerage
service between schools and clerks.
14. Our inquiry has shown the importance of high
quality information and guidance for governing bodies—particularly
for clerks. We share the concern of the National Governors' Association
that the new Governors' Handbook appears to be aimed only at new
governors. The new Handbook has lost much of what was valuable
to experienced governors and clerks in the predecessor guide.
The Government should work with the NGA to rectify this. (Paragraph
89)
The Governors' Handbook sets out the essential information
that governors need to know about their roles and responsibilities.
It signposts rather than duplicates material available in other
places. It is designed to be used by all governors, whatever their
experience. The National Governors' Association and the many other
organisations represented on our Advisory Group on Governance
were consulted on the development of the Governors' Handbook.
We will keep the design and content of the new Handbook under
review through this advisory group.
Our role is to make sure governors understand their
role and have access to information on all their legal duties.
The Handbook therefore provides three levels of information:
- Section 1 outlines the core
role and functions of school governing bodies. All governors should
read this section.
- Sections 2 to 8 of the Handbook
summarise all the specific legal duties on governing bodies, providing
a first point of reference for those with a specific area of interest.
- Further reading is signposted
from within each section for those who would like more detailed
information. Links are provided to relevant regulations, guidance
and resources.
NCTL's training programme for clerks will ensure
that clerks have all necessary information and materials to deliver
a professional service and advice to governing bodies. There is
an open license on the content of the archived Governors' Guide
to the Law. This means that any content that remains of value
to clerks can be used not only by NCTL but by any other organisation
that may to develop guidance or training programmes for clerks.
Arrangements for tackling underperformance
and failure of governing bodies
15. Urgency in implementing Interim Executive
Boards is critical to address serious failings of governance in
schools. Given that urgency, the absence of time limits for the
implementation of IEBs is indefensible and should be rectified
forthwith. We recommend that if, after an inspection, Ofsted considers
that a governing body should be replaced by an IEB, Ofsted should
use its power and responsibility to say so explicitly. (Paragraph
92)
Where a school is failing, an IEB is one of a number
of options available to secure the necessary improvement. We do
not agree that there is a need for a new role for Ofsted here
as the recommendation would appear to imply that an IEB is always
the most effective way to secure improvement. If an IEB is required,
it should be implemented quickly. However, in some cases the governing
body will seek a sponsored academy solution itself and appointing
an IEB in such cases would merely add avoidable delay.
The role of Ofsted is to inspect and report on a
school, including the effectiveness and capacity of the leadership
team and governing body. The priority then is to secure improvement
as quickly as possible, using IEBs where appropriate. Having Ofsted
make specific recommendations on the proposed solution could blur
the boundary of responsibilities between the Chief Inspector,
the local authority and the Secretary of State.
16. We recommend that the Government investigate
the reasons why so many local authorities, and the Secretary of
State, have historically been reluctant to use their powers of
intervention where school governance has become a concern. Any
unnecessary restrictions on the use of these powers should be
lifted so that they can be used more effectively. (Paragraph 100)
We do not accept that the Secretary of State is reluctant
to intervene in underperforming schools, and this is demonstrated
by the rapid transformation of many poorly performing schools
into sponsored academies. The Secretary of State has also imposed
IEBs directly on seven occasions to date. The changes to the Ofsted
inspection regime mean that the Secretary of State is now more
explicitly made aware of issues with school governance. We are
keeping under review how the intervention framework could be improved
to allow the Secretary of State to intervene more quickly.
We agree that many local authorities do not make
enough use of their formal intervention powers. The number of
IEBs issued by local authorities is growing, but still far too
slowly. In 2012-13 local authorities put in place 74 IEBs; a small
number compared with the number of schools with declining or poor
performance. Sixty local authorities have never put an IEB in
place. We think it is unlikely that this reluctance is due to
legislative restrictions, as the circumstances whereby a local
authority can issue a warning notice appear broad. Our understanding
to date has been that local authorities prefer to avoid taking
action under the legislation because they feel it undermines their
relationship with the school. They would rather bring about improvements
through persuasion and co-operation. We consider that they should
take a co-operative approach for a more limited time period before
using their formal intervention powers.
17. Local authorities continue to have an important
role in the monitoring and challenge of school performance between
Ofsted inspections. Ofsted's inspections of local authority school
improvement functions will be an important gauge of how feasible
it is for local authorities to continue to undertake this role.
There is a need for greater clarity on the role of local authorities
in school improvement within the new school landscape and in the
context of reductions to budgets. We recommend that this be addressed
by the DfE as a matter of urgency. (Paragraph 101)
We recognise the concerns of the Committee on this
matter. We plan to consult later this year with local authorities,
schools and other partners to consider how the planned reductions
to the Education Services Grant (ESG) can be implemented through
realising efficiencies and enabling local authorities to focus
on their core role in relation to schools. This will be preceded
by a period of field work with local authorities, schools and
academies to gather evidence about how the ESG is currently being
used.
The relationship between the governing body
and headteacher
Division of responsibilities
18. We recommend that the Government review existing
regulations and legislative requirements regarding the respective
roles and responsibilities of governors and headteachers to ensure
clarity regarding the proper division of strategic and operational
functions in school leadership. (Paragraph 107)
The Committee is right to draw attention to the important
distinction between the role of the governing body and the role
of the headteacher.
The new Roles, Procedures and Allowances regulations
from 1 September 2013 make it clear that the governing body is
responsible for setting strategic direction, holding the headteacher
to account for the educational performance of the school, and
making sure that best use is made of the school's financial resources.
The regulations make it clear that the internal organisation and
management of the school is the responsibility of the headteacher,
and that the headteacher must undertake any reasonable request
of the governing body. These principles are set out in the Governors'
Handbook and are equally relevant to the governing bodies and
principals of academies.
Training for headteachers and chairs of governors
19. There is a compelling case for headteachers
to undergo training on governance. We strongly support training
for headteachers and chairs of governing bodies to assist with
mutual understanding of each other's roles and responsibilities.
(Paragraph 112)
We agree that it is important for headteachers and
governing bodies to understand each other's roles. NCTL is looking
at all training programmes for headteachers to ensure adequate
coverage of governance.
Leaders undertaking the previous format of NPQH could
choose to undertake a module on governance. In its review of NPQH,
NCTL recognised there was insufficient emphasis on the importance
of governance and the revised NPQH programme now has a consistent
message about the vital importance of the role of strong governance
in school improvement and the significance of the relationship
between the headteacher and the chair of governors.
Appointment and terms of office of governors
20. In order to ensure that every governing body
has an effective chair, the appointment process for chairs needs
to be robust and accompanied by clear procedures for removing
poorly performing chairs from office. We recommend that DfE review
current procedures relating to the appointment, and the terms
of office, of chairs of governors. We also recommend that governing
bodies be given the power to remove poorly performing governors.
(Paragraph 117)
We agree that the process needs to be clear. The
new Roles, Procedures, and Allowances regulations from 1 September
set out the procedures for maintained school governing bodies
to elect the chair and removing the chair from office. The advice
note to accompany the regulations will make it clear that governing
bodies can look externally to find a highly skilled chair, rather
than always looking to appoint from within their existing cohort
of governors. Having found a suitable person they would then need
to appoint them to a vacant position on the governing body before
electing them as chair.
We have no plans to give governing bodies more power
to remove governors. It is right that governors are accountable
to the body that appointed them, and the power to remove them
rests with this body. We should not, therefore, as matter of principle,
allow governing bodies to remove those that are elected.
In practice, it is the responsibility of the chair
of governors to ensure the effectiveness of the governing body
and the performance of individual governors. It is for the chair
to have honest conversations, as necessary, if governors are not
pulling their weight. This doesn't need further government regulation.
New models of governance
Accountability of academy governance
21. Academies differ in their governance structures.
We recommend that the Government clarify the roles of governors
in the different types of academy. The Government should also
clarify how relevant local groups (including pupils, parents and
staff) should be given a voice in the business of the governing
body. (Paragraph 125)
We have published new guidance on our website about
governance in academies, including content about the difference
between the trust's overall Board of Governors and any local governing
bodies of a multi-academy trust, and on the difference between
the role of governors in academies and maintained schools. We
will keep this content under review.
We believe that conversion to academy status is an
ideal opportunity to review and reform as necessary the constitution
and structure of a governing body to ensure it is fit for purpose.
As with all types of school, our priority for academy
governance is to ensure that governors have the skills to achieve
the best for pupils in their school. There are many ways for governing
bodies to engage with parents, staff and students and feed these
into their decision making.
22. Given the independence of academies' governance
structures, parents should be provided with clarity as to how
decisions are made in academies, along with detail on where to
turn in the event of concerns arising. (Paragraph 130)
Academies are already required to publish their funding
agreement and articles of association which set out their governance
arrangements.
As companies, and through their funding agreement,
academies are also required to produce and publish externally
audited accounts. These accounts must include a governance statement
that covers the role and function of the board of governors and
its sub-committees.
Academies' articles of association require them to
make the minutes of governing body meetings available to anybody
who asks.
Academies are required to have a procedure in place
for dealing with complaints by parents of pupils. The procedure
needs to be published on the academy website or made available
upon request. Any parent with a complaint about governance at
an academy, who is unable to resolve it locally, can contact the
Education Funding Agency.
Alternative models of governance
23. Given the NGA's concern that it will be difficult
to find sufficient excellent candidates to provide an effective
governing body for every school in the country, we recommend that
the Government study the effectiveness of governing bodies governing
groups of schools—for example federations and multi-academy
trusts. The Government should look at the optimum size of federation
that can be governed effectively, and consider how local school
autonomy can be retained in federated arrangements. (Paragraph
139)
We agree that governing bodies governing groups of
schools can be highly effective. We are working with NCTL, NGA
and other stakeholders to produce documents that clearly explain
governance in federations and multi-academy trusts (MATs). The
guidance documents will aim to clarify legislation and terminology;
explain the principles of federations and MATs and help school
leaders and governors to think about these as possible structures
for their schools. The documents will also include a number of
case studies that provide examples of how the governance of federations
and MATs works in practice and the journeys taken by school leaders
and governors. These will be available in autumn 2013.
September 2013
2 http://education.gov.uk/schools/leadership/governance/a00224750/governor-payments
Back
3
http://www.education.gov.uk/aboutdfe/statutory/g00192418/scc/scc1 Back
| 
