Tuesday 31 May 2011

Effective Governing Body Case Study: Debden Park High School, Essex

Debden Park High School is a specialist performing arts school, serving an urban area which contains pockets of deprivation. The school is part of the Kemnal Academies Trust and is actively involved in a partnership with local schools.

The school was judged to require special measures in January 2007. Leadership and governance were inadequate and the school had a deficit budget. The Trust was asked by the local authority to provide support to the school, which began in March 2007. A period of significant change followed, including a change of headteacher and a new chair of the governing body. Improvement was rapid and the school was removed from special measures in October 2007. The substantive headteacher initially joined the school on a six-month secondment from the Trust. Key tasks for the new leadership were to build governors’ trust, provide them with accurate information about the school's performance, and establish systems and structures which used time effectively and helped governors to maintain a clear focus on improvement.

Two governors from the Trust brought with them a wealth of experience and expertise in school improvement. They used this to work with the governing body. They demonstrated how to use information that the school provided to ask insightful questions. Governors were provided with a wide range of information about the school’s performance, which was presented in a way that was easily accessible to them. Each governor was linked to a specific aspect of the school’s work, such as ensuring high levels of pupil attendance. Governors were also linked to a named member of staff who had responsibility for an aspect of the school’s work, and a process of regular reporting was established between the two. Reports were then discussed at committee meetings and reported back to the full governing body.

The meeting structure was also streamlined. Two committees, one focused on resources and the other on educational standards, were established. Each had clear terms of reference and a timeline of events throughout the year to ensure that all their statutory duties were met. Meetings were agenda-driven, had a clear focus and were conducted in a business-like way so were not too long. This way of working ensured that governors understood their strategic role and did not stray into operational matters. They understood their roles and responsibilties because there were clear induction procedures. All governors were provided with a governor handbook and there was an initial meeting for new governors with the headteacher, chair of governors and clerk.

Expectations were made explicit. Minutes of meetings recorded challenging questions and action points clearly. The school leaders took time to ensure that governors understood the information they were given. They encouraged all governors to ask questions and listen to what they had to say, providing more information, which included some from external experts. These processes built trust and confidence among governors who understood their role of ‘critical friend’ and were able to make informed decisions about the direction of the school.
The overall effectiveness and governance of the school were judged outstanding when inspected in September 2009.

Monday 30 May 2011

Effective Governing Body Case Study: Danecourt Community School, Medway

Danecourt is a primary special school. The school was originally designated for pupils with moderate learning difficulties but is increasingly catering for those with severe learning difficulties and more complex needs. Since 2004, it has had a designated unit for pupils with severe autistic spectrum disorders that has increased in size.

The development of a programme to create individualised learning experiences for autistic children demonstrated the highly effective levels of governor challenge and support for the school. The headteacher had identified that provision for the growing numbers of pupils with autism was an area for development. Two teachers attended a one-day training course on a programme that used the Applied Behavioural Analysis (ABA) approach. They presented the headteacher with a proposal to trial this approach with a small group of autistic pupils. They explained the rationale fully and drew up a detailed proposal for a small-scale trial. The headteacher shared this development with the governing body.

The governing body agreed that members of the curriculum committee would receive a presentation from the teacher leading the initiative. The teacher prepared detailed briefing papers for the meeting and drew up an action plan for the implementation of the pilot. The clerk ensured that the papers were sent out well before the meeting so that governors had time to read them and think through the questions they wished to raise. They asked pertinent questions, made requests for tracking data to be provided to them and sought assurances that the well-being of staff would be considered when implementing the changes. The governors asked for a year’s worth of data to be used to project results which they challenged knowledgably. The teacher reported finding the challenge of the governing body useful rather than threatening because it helped her to evaluate the rationale for change and consider its effectiveness.

A date was set for the teacher to return to report to the committee on progress in implementing the trial. Tracking data indicated that the trial had been a success and the programme was then gradually extended for all the autistic pupils. A few months later, governors visited classrooms to monitor its implementation. The modified provision for autistic pupils was recognised as effective in the school’s inspection in October 2009.

Sunday 29 May 2011

Effective Governing Body Case Study: Boyne Hill CoE Infant & Nursery School

Boyne Hill Church of England Infant and Nursery School, Windsor and Maidenhead
The school is located in a multi-ethnic community. A substantial proportion of the pupils use English as an additional language. The governors have a high profile in the school; they are well known to staff, pupils and parents and operate as a close-knit team.

A clear, shared view of their roles and responsibilities, and high expectations of their effectiveness have been developed and established during the past five years. The governing body used its wider networks to recruit new governors from the local community. This shared view and active recruitment were key factors in sustaining outstanding governance.

A well-managed and efficient committee structure made the best possible use of time. The delegation of specific responsibilities for monitoring and evaluating the work of the school to working groups and individual governors was closely aligned to the school’s improvement priorities. Sharply focused minutes from governing body meetings identified precise actions and arrangements for monitoring and informed further improvement planning.

Governors made a significant contribution to the effectiveness of the school’s engagement with
parents and carers. The responsiveness and approachability of governors were valued strongly by parents. Governors recognised the challenge of communicating with parents in a school where 21 languages were spoken and many ethnicities, religions and cultures were represented. They regularly talked to parents in the playground and welcomed them into the school to celebrate their children’s work and achievements, for example, in contributing to creating a new vision statement for the school. Through this informal contact, parents were encouraged to run clubs and attend workshops and meetings about their children’s learning.

Governors also invested considerable time and commitment to ensuring that the views of parents on their children’s learning and well-being were heard. These views were then taken into account and used to identify priorities for improvement in a more formal way. Governors took responsibility for devising questionnaires that were written in plain and accessible English which could be translated if necessary. The questionnaires were sent out annually with pupils’ reports and whenever a need to consult parents was identified during the year. All responses were read and noted. Parents recognised when things happened as a result of their feedback. The prompt response from governors made parents more inclined to engage further with the school, which was evidenced in their high response rates.

Saturday 28 May 2011

Questions that governors might want to consider

Questions that governors might want to consider

53. The schools visited demonstrated the strong commitment that governors made to their schools and how willingly they gave of their time. They strived for the very best for the pupils and communities that they served. In reflecting on their own effectiveness, other governing bodies might wish to consider asking themselves some key questions. The questions below are offered as a starting point to help governors reflect on the important work that they do.

 How do we understand our roles and responsibilities and how they differ from those of the headteacher and senior staff?

 What do we know about the achievement of pupils and the quality of teaching in the school?

 How do we know that the information we have about our school is robust and accurate?

 How do we provide the right balance of professional support and challenge for the headteacher and senior staff to help them improve the school’s effectiveness?

 How do we use our time efficiently?

 How do we make best use of the skills and expertise of all members of the governing
body?

 How do we know that the governing body is as effective as possible and could we do things better?

 How do we review our own performance regularly?

 How do we plan our training and development?

 Do we consider what might be needed when governors leave? How do we ensure we still continue to have the necessary skills and knowledge?

 How do we ensure that members of our governing body are prepared to step into important roles such as the chair of the governing body and chairs of committees?

Friday 27 May 2011

Governing body self-review

Governing body self-review

47. All the governing bodies visited challenged their own performance in addition to that of the schools. Robust debates about the effectiveness of governance were common. Where there were opposing views, issues were discussed fully and additional information sought, including from external experts.

48. The effectiveness of the governing body structures and committee membership was reviewed routinely. In one primary school, for example, the committee structure and individual governor responsibilities were reviewed annually.

In one secondary school, all governors attended a ‘leading together’ training event with the senior leadership team. The programme was run by the local authority and involved attending three joint sessions. As a result of this programme, governors identified that they needed to build stronger links with the staff and pupils by acknowledging more overtly what was working well. Subsequently, the nomination of members of staff and pupils for recognition of their achievements was discussed regularly. A personal letter from the chair of the governing body was sent to all those recognised in this way.

49. Half of the governing bodies visited had either been supported by local authority materials and/or training, or had used Ofsted’s grade descriptors for governance to guide their self-evaluation. Eleven governing bodies had sought advice from the local authority governor support services and school improvement partners to improve their practice. Two governing bodies had used their process of self-review to develop a specific action plan for their own development.

50. In just under half of the schools, the effectiveness of the governing body was reviewed regularly and included a clear evaluation of the effect of their decisions on the outcomes for pupils. One secondary school, for example, had identified a day to meet with another governing body of a similar school to compare and benchmark their practice. A question these governing bodies specifically reflected on was, ‘What difference have we made?’

51. In another secondary school, the expertise and skills brought by the Trust of tackling underperformance in other schools provided the governing body with a clear structure and framework for improvement. This framework helped the governing body to manage its work efficiently by keeping focused on its core business and not straying into operational and peripheral issues. Experienced governors modelled effective questioning which helped to build other governors’ skills and confidence. Governors described how they asked for advice and further information when needed and saw the value of sharing best practice and learning from others.

52. In a special school visited, governors had embedded arrangements for self-review of the effectiveness and impact of the governing body. At their annual ‘Away Day’, they formally reviewed progress since the last review meeting and set priorities for the long and short term. Governors reviewed the terms of reference and purpose of each of the committees and made changes if appropriate. At each meeting the chair of the governing body and chairs of the committees always asked two questions: ‘Why are we doing this?’ and ‘What are we trying to achieve?’

Thursday 26 May 2011

Recruitment, induction and training

Recruitment, induction and training

40. Over half of the governing bodies in the small sample had a full complement of governors at the time of the visits. Five of the remainder had a parent vacancy and one had a local authority vacancy. In one of the schools the governing body had been replaced by an interim executive board (IEB) when the school was judged to require special measures in 2007. In December 2009 the school’s capacity to improve was judged to be good and governance outstanding. At the time of the inspector’s visit, the IEB was implementing a transition plan to move from an IEB to a full governing body.

41. No difficulties were reported in recruiting governors in 11 of the 14 schools visited. Those with vacancies were confident that they would be filled. The headteacher of a special school saw changes of governing body membership as positive, bringing in new ideas, skills and expertise. Two secondary schools had experienced difficulties in recruiting parent governors. One reason for the difficulty was that parents felt that they did not have the time to commit to the role. In one of these schools, the size of the governing body had been reviewed and subsequently reduced from 18 to 14, including five parent governors. The number of committees was also reduced to two and the length of meetings restricted to no more than one and a half hours.

42. Typically, governors used their external contacts and networks to encourage others to put themselves forward to be governors. Governors who had initially become parent governors often remained on the governing body, for example as a community governor, when their term of office expired and they were no longer eligible to be a parent governor.

43. All new governors in the 14 schools visited received some form of induction. Typically new governors were given an induction pack which provided information about the school and explained the roles and responsibilities of governors. In some cases, this information was given to prospective governors to help them decide whether or not they wanted to become governors.

44. Attendance at training for new governors, for example, provided by the local authority, was another common feature of the induction process. In two cases, this had been provided in common with other local schools to avoid the difficulties encountered by some governors in travelling long distances across a local authority area.

45. More than two thirds of the schools visited held formal meetings for new governors with the headteacher, clerk and the chair of governors to support their induction. Typically these meetings took place before the new governor attended a governing body meeting. It helped to ensure that the new governor understood the protocols and procedures and had an opportunity to ask any questions. Over half of the 14 governing bodies allocated a mentor or buddy to new governors.

46. Governors in the schools visited undertook training, depending on their other commitments as well as the timing and location of training events, to update their knowledge and skills. In addition to induction training, governors undertook training on subjects such as special educational needs and the use of RAISEonline data. Typically, training was provided by the local authority. In one special school, governors who found it difficult to attend training events in the evening were exploring e-learning opportunities.

Wednesday 25 May 2011

Strengthening leadership through governance: Making a difference

Strengthening leadership through governance

Making a difference

39. These effective governing bodies strengthened leadership by:

 providing an external view and asking questions which challenged school leaders, encouraged alternative solutions to be found or tested proposals before they were adopted

 having high aspirations for pupils, staff and the wider community

 approving and monitoring priorities, ensuring policies were focused on the key priorities of teaching and learning, and increasing the pace of improvement

 supporting the development of leadership potential within the school through effective training and development opportunities

 using their skills, expertise and external networks to complement those of the school leadership team in improving provision and outcomes for pupils

 supporting the appointment and retention of the best staff and actions to address underperformance. For example, in two of the secondary schools, governors participated in all senior and middle leadership appointments. One primary school included a governor on the appointment panel for all posts.

Tuesday 24 May 2011

Engaging others

Engaging others

32. Governing bodies in the schools visited engaged extensively with parents and the wider community to promote the schools’ work.

A secondary school was looking to replace traditional homework with individual learning projects. Governors questioned how this proposal would contribute to maintaining or improving standards and ensure that pupils were challenged and supported to achieve well. The school leaders were asked to provide committee governors with more detailed information about the initiative, an explanation of what skills pupils would develop, and information about how the initiative was going to be monitored and evaluated by the school. The more detailed understanding of the proposal that they gained enabled them to respond to questions raised by parents they spoke to at the school or met in the community.

33. Governors communicated with parents in a variety of ways, both formally and informally, so that they could gather their views about the effectiveness of the school. Governors were then able to use this as one of the many sources of information through which they could provide leaders with challenge and support.

34. Typically, governors met parents at the start and end of the school day and when they attended school events such as assemblies, open evenings and award ceremonies. These informal opportunities to talk helped parents to know who governors were and something about their role. Governors gained a first- hand understanding of what parents felt that the school did well and what they felt could be improved. For example, in one special school governors attended the half-termly coffee afternoons for parents of each class to meet with them and hear their views.
In a special school, there was a governor section on the school website which explained the role of the governing body, who the governors were and what committees they served on. This contributed to the school’s ethos of transparent leadership and kept parents informed about the school’s governance arrangements. The website was designed and set up by an ex-parent governor who was a community governor and had particular skills in information and communication technology (ICT). In another secondary school, governors made presentations about their work on parents’ evenings and open days.

35. Questionnaires were commonly used to gather parents’ views. Governing bodies in the schools visited were either provided with an analysis of questionnaires that had been designed by the school’s senior leaders or developed their own questionnaire for parents. The governing body of one primary school, for example, wrote a letter to parents who responded to their questionnaires so that the parents knew that their views had been heard. If their views could not be acted on, an explanation was given. In a special school, governors compared the results of an annual survey with the results from previous years and saw this information from parents as a ‘barometer’. They looked closely at the parents’ comments rather than just adding up the numbers of positive and negative responses. They acted on the comments where possible and responded, either in writing or through discussion, to parents who wrote a comment individually.

36. All governors shared information with school leaders from the wider community.
Local shopkeepers had indicated to a governor of one secondary school that there were concerns about the behaviour of some pupils in the community. These concerns had not been raised with the school directly. The governor reported back to the headteacher who addressed the situation in several ways. For example, members of staff were sent to monitor the problem areas and there was a focus in assemblies on the importance of good behaviour beyond the school. As a consequence, behaviour improved and the school received thanks from local shops and the bus company. This response has strengthened relationships between the school and the local community.

37. These outstanding governors used their business and wider community links to support the learning experiences of staff and pupils, which included securing additional resources and arranging visits for pupils. For example, in one secondary school, an ICT company was one of the Trust partners. This company was able to provide bespoke training in ICT for pupils and staff. In a primary school there were good links with the local church. The vicar was a governor and had encouraged members of the congregation to become volunteers at the school.

38. There was evidence that governors promoted the work of the school by encouraging links with different organisations. For example, a governor of a special school was also a member of a local support group for parents of children with autistic spectrum disorder. The school ran training events on special educational needs for teachers in the locality. Some sessions were provided by specialist external experts. Free places on these courses were offered to members of the support group as a direct result of this link. As a consequence, the work of the school was held in high regard and local families and their children had been provided with additional support advice.

Monday 23 May 2011

Ofsted Effective Governance: Working efficiently

Working efficiently (Part 4 of the Ofsted Effective Governance series)

24. In all the schools visited two factors were key to ensuring that the governing bodies worked systematically and effectively to meet their statutory duties. These were the role of the clerk to the governing body and the delegation of work, for example to a number of core committees.

25. The role of the clerk to the governing body was pivotal to the smooth operation of the
governing body. As well as fulfilling administrative duties, clerks were a source of guidance and advice for the governing body. Skilful clerks in the schools visited ensured that governors’ time was used efficiently and effectively by:

 regularly keeping governors up to date with any changes in legislation or requirements

 circulating minutes and papers for meetings in good time so that governors were well prepared for discussions and questions

 acting as a source of advice and support for governors, particularly new ones

 providing a link between the governing body and the local authority governor services

 disseminating information from other sources such as the Department for Education

 ensuring that action points from meetings were recorded and followed up

 arranging visits and meetings, and notifying governors of relevant school events

 preparing a plan or timeline of governor activities throughout the year and helping the chair to ensure that this schedule was reflected in the agenda for meetings.

26. A clear job description for the clerk supported their effectiveness. It ensured that the role, responsibilities and lines of accountability were understood. This was particularly useful where the clerk had another role in the school, for example as the headteacher’s personal assistant. Typically, clerks also received regular training and briefings from local authority governor support services.

27. Strong teamwork between the headteacher, the chair of the governing body and the clerk was crucial to efficient working. Positive, open relationships, trust, integrity and absolute clarity about their complementary but different roles underpinned this teamwork in all the schools visited. The leadership and management skills of the chair, with the support of the clerk, enabled meetings to run efficiently, stay focused on the agenda and allowed all governors to contribute. As a result, governors, particularly those who were new, felt that their views were valued equally.

28. The delegation of work to committees, with clear terms of reference and clarity of purpose, was crucial to ensuring that the work of the governing body was managed well, matched to the needs of the school and distributed to involve all governors appropriately. For example, in a primary and a special school visited, committees were aligned to the school’s key priorities in its development plan and reduced in number to just two.

29. Committees were typically seen as the ‘engine room of governance’ where in-depth discussions, challenging questions and thorough debate of proposals took place. The skills and knowledge of the chair of a committee were crucial to their success. For example, in one special school, the chair of one of the committees had considerable previous experience of school governance before taking on the role.

30. All the governing bodies had a systematic approach to monitoring and evaluating the progress being made towards meeting targets. Typically, the review of the school development plan was a standing agenda item either for committees, the full governing body or both. Headteacher and staff reports included information about progress with the plan. The information was concise and made readily accessible to governors, for example through a traffic light system of coding. Governors were not only provided with graphs, charts and commentary but were also given an analysis of what the information meant and what questions it raised, and proposals about the next steps to ensure that progress was maintained.

31. Importantly, effective reporting by committees to the full governing body meant that time was not spent unnecessarily reiterating what had already been discussed. One secondary school stated that as a result no governing body meeting lasted more than an hour and a half, and some were concluded in an hour.


The Full Ofsted Report on School Governance can be found at:

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Publications-and-research/Browse-all-by/Documents-by-type/Thematic-reports/School-governance

Sunday 22 May 2011

Ofsted Effective Governance: Providing Challenge

Following on from the last two days this posting from the recent Ofsted report looks at Providing challenge

20. All of the outstanding governing bodies visited struck the right balance between supporting leaders and providing constructive challenge, which holds school leaders to account for the quality of the school’s provision and its impact on outcomes for pupils. There were three key elements to getting the balance right:

 understanding their role and how it complements but differs from that of the headteacher

 using the knowledge and experience they bring to enhance leadership

 asking pertinent questions based on the information and knowledge they have about the school.

21. A high level of challenge was particularly evident at committee level in the schools visited. Governors served on committees where their knowledge and expertise could be used to best effect. Their expertise, understanding of the school’s context, and the school performance information that they received enabled them to ask pertinent and insightful questions.
Following regular reports from heads of department in a secondary school, the governors asked a range of questions about each department, including:

 Is it a contradiction to say that leadership and management are strengths while reporting several areas of inconsistency in the subject?

 Would there be such inconsistencies if the leadership was stronger?

 What does the department consider to be the main factor for the improvement in results this year?

 Could we learn more about the direct impact of our specialism on the motivation and achievements of students?

 Are there any examples of the impact of this subject on the rest of the curriculum?
Governors skilfully used information from different sources to shape their questions and test out the accuracy of their understanding of the school’s performance. For example, the governing body of a primary school received reports on the outcomes of lesson observations and analyses of pupils’ work written by the school leaders and the school improvement partner. They considered these outcomes when looking at data on pupils’ performance and raised questions.

22. All the governing bodies in the schools visited systematically monitored the school’s progress towards meeting the agreed targets in the school development plan. An example in one primary school involved teams of staff and governors linked to each priority in the plan. Monitoring progress was commonly undertaken as a regular item at committee meetings. Although a wide range of evidence informed discussions at these meetings, governors asked for more information where it was needed, for example before agreeing to a proposal presented by senior leaders. The ultimate question governors came back to was, ‘What difference is this going to make for the pupils and how will we know?’

How governors’ questions challenge leaders and hold them to account was evident in a special school. The governors asked the subject leader what baseline evidence was available before an initiative to improve writing was introduced. They explained that this would be necessary to show impact and that pupils were making better progress.

23. There was evidence that governors in the schools visited also challenged each other. For example, if discussions strayed into operational matters then governors, often the chair of governors, chairs of committees or Trust governors, stepped in to steer the conversation back to a strategic focus.

The Full Ofsted Report on School Governance can be found at:

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Publications-and-research/Browse-all-by/Documents-by-type/Thematic-reports/School-governance

Saturday 21 May 2011

Ofsted Effective Governance: Supporting school leaders

Following on from Yesterday article on Effective Governance by Ofsted:

Supporting school leaders

13. Governors were proud to be part of their schools and saw themselves as advocates for the pupils. Schools were supported very effectively by governors who acted as their champions in the local and wider community, often promoting the school’s interests and successes at a local and national level.

The headteacher of a special school heard that a nearby outdoor pursuit facility that was run by the local authority was to be closed. A recent survey, carried out by the governing body, indicated that some parents were not satisfied with the current out-of-school provision on offer. Together the headteacher and governors explored the feasibility of taking over the facility and approached the local authority with plans. They were successful and are in the process of improving the quality of the facility.

14. Governors brought a wide range of skills and expertise that they used effectively to support school leaders. For example, governors with experience in personnel used their skills and knowledge to support school leaders dealing with a range of staffing issues. These included supporting leaders who were managing incidents of staff underperformance, addressing high levels of staff absence or reducing staffing levels.

15. Financial expertise was used to support school leaders to make difficult resourcing decisions. There were examples in the schools visited of how governors supported the school to secure improved or additional accommodation and resources.

Governors of a special school produced a business case for a new building project based on current and projected pupil numbers. This demonstrated the potential savings that could be made by the local authority by not placing pupils with special educational needs in schools outside the local authority area. Agreement was reached with local decision-makers and the school building is now completed.

16. There were other examples of governors supporting school leaders in appointing excellent teachers, including providing training on recruitment, using relevant workplace skills, and being part of staff appointment panels.

17. Governors in the schools visited were committed to making sure that all school staff, including the headteachers, were provided with opportunities for relevant professional development. They recognised the benefits of professional development for both the individual members of staff and the work of the school. For example, in a secondary school governors supported professional development that helped the school to retain high-quality members of staff.

The headteacher of a secondary school was initially seconded to the post for six months following an inspection which judged that the school required special measures. Governors supported the new headteacher in taking action to improve the quality of teaching and to reduce the deficit budget quickly. The school made rapid progress and was judged as outstanding in its most recent inspection. The headteacher was appointed as the substantive post-holder and began to support two other schools. Governors fully endorsed this work with other schools because in their view it both helped other schools and enabled them to retain their excellent headteacher. The headteacher stated that the passion the governors demonstrated for their school, and the support and challenge they provided, had also motivated him to stay.

18. Teachers valued the interest that governors showed in their work, which they explained helped to maintain high levels of staff morale. For example, governors who were linked specifically to particular departments, or aspects of a school’s work, developed a positive relationship with the member of staff responsible and gained an in-depth knowledge of particular areas of the school’s work.

19. Positive relationships between the headteacher, the chair of governors and the clerk to the governors were essential to school leaders in feeling supported. These positive relationships were based on open, honest dialogue, a clear understanding of their different roles and responsibilities and a shared commitment to securing the very best provision and outcomes for the pupils.

The Full Ofsted Report on School Governance can be found at:

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Publications-and-research/Browse-all-by/Documents-by-type/Thematic-reports/School-governance

Friday 20 May 2011

Ofsted: Effective Governing Bodies Know their Schools

Effective Governing Bodies Know their schools

1. Knowing their schools well was fundamental to the success of the effective governing bodies visited by Ofsted. They expected good quality information through detailed, regular reports supported by data analysis. This helped them to shape the direction for the school and hold leaders to account. Pupil progress data and information about the quality of teaching were seen as crucial when considering proposals and making strategic decisions.

2. All the schools visited provided their governors with a detailed breakdown of
information about attainment, including examination results. Minutes of governing body meetings in one secondary school, for example, recorded how these were discussed in relation to gender, special educational needs, different groups of pupils and subjects.

3. Headteachers and staff with particular areas of responsibility systematically provided information to governors in focused, detailed reports. At one special school, subject leader reports followed a common format. It included sections on: recent actions and developments; achievement and standards; personal development and well-being; the quality of provision; leadership and management; and overall effectiveness and efficiency.
In a secondary school, individual governors were linked to different aspects of the school’s work, such attendance and behaviour. These aspects had been identified as needing improvement. In addition staff absence levels were high and this was challenged by governors. Consequently, as well as receiving regular reports from the responsible member of staff, the link governor also received monthly staff and pupil attendance figures. Governors supported the employment of a number of permanent cover supervisors as one means of addressing issues. Pupils pointed out that, as a result, there were fewer supply teachers and reported that this had improved behaviour in lessons.

4. In all the schools visited, staff made presentations to governing bodies and governors, who were then able to ask questions, seek clarification and identify what further information might be required for proposals to be more robust.
In order to be kept fully up to date, the chair of the governing body at a secondary school asked to be included in the circulation of the minutes of senior leadership team meetings. The information in these minutes gave the chair a clearer perspective of school issues as they arose, the action taken, progress being made, and the impact and outcomes. The chair referred to some items from these minutes in questions at governing body meetings. This helped to give all governors a greater insight into the effectiveness of the school.

5. These effective governing bodies did not rely solely on what school leaders and members of staff told them. They sought information from external experts on issues such as the analysis of data, finance, personnel, special educational needs and school improvement. This included, for example, support from their school improvement partner on interpreting performance data. Governors used this external support to gain new perspectives on information provided by the school so that they were confident that their understanding of the school’s performance was accurate.

6. Governors also visited their schools to talk to staff and pupils and to see the school in action. They used a range of formal and informal visits, including attending school events, conducting ‘learning walks’ and visiting classrooms. Crucially, effective practice involved a shared understanding of the purpose of the visit, how it was to be conducted and how it was to be reported back to the governing body and school leaders.
Governors in a primary school adopted a policy for visits which highlighted governors’ legal responsibilities and strategic roles, the purpose of the visit, how visits should be arranged and what governors should do after the visit had been completed. This included reporting arrangements using an agreed proforma.
The governors of a special school made paired visits every term. They looked at a particular theme which was linked to the priorities identified in the school development plan, such as information and communication technology. A report was written for other governors on the outcomes of their visit. In this way, all the governors understood the progress being made and where there were barriers to overcome.

7. In eight of the 14 schools visited, governors routinely attended lessons to gather first hand information about the school at work. One secondary school, for example, had governor open days three times a year. On these days, pairs of governors visited lessons to talk to pupils and gain a better understanding of their experience of school. Importantly, protocols were explicit and made it clear to staff and governors alike that the visits were not to judge the quality of teaching, because that was the role of the headteacher and the leadership team. Rather, they provided governors with a broader understanding of the context for their work and helped inform their strategic decisions.

8. All the governing bodies worked to build productive relationships with parents. Typically, they used the views of parents, pupils and the wider community as another source of information to shape their questions and inform discussions. In one primary school, for example, the governing body designed an annual questionnaire for parents, collated responses and provided parents with feedback. In addition, the governors consulted parents and pupils on a range of issues during the year if the need arose. In another primary school, the governing body received reports from the school council and visited the school regularly to meet with pupils in Key Stage 2. In a third primary school, pupils were invited to attend governing body meetings. In one secondary school, pupils were represented on one of the governor committees, where they presented their ideas and views about the school.

9. All the governing bodies in the schools that were visited sought a range of good quality, regular information from a variety of sources to ensure that they had an accurate understanding of the school’s strengths and areas for development. This information included:

 concise, focused reports from the headteacher, heads of departments and subject leaders

 external reports, for example from the school improvement partner, consultants and
accrediting bodies

 presentations from school staff, pupils and external experts

 internal performance monitoring information

 internal and external analyses of national tests using both benchmarking and comparative information

 school self-evaluation reports

 formal and informal visits to the school

 questionnaires

 discussions with parents, pupils and staff.

10. They used the wide range of information they had to help shape the direction of the school by ensuring that the development plan reflected the right priorities and was monitored systematically and effectively.

11. The outstanding governing bodies did not shy away from asking questions and confidently sought further information, explanation or clarification as part of their monitoring and decision-making processes. Two key factors underpinned this confident and productive questioning. First, they had a positive relationship with the headteacher and senior leaders. Second, they had an absolutely clear understanding of their different roles and responsibilities.

In one secondary school for example, governors asked four key questions when considering new initiatives and evaluating their impact:

 What will be different for pupils?

 What will be different for parents?

 What will be different for staff?

 What will be different for partners?

12. Using information to help shape the direction of the school through a cycle of planning, monitoring and evaluation was common to all the governing bodies visited.
The governing body of a secondary school received subject reports and asked questions such as:

 What systems are in place to enable learning from the success of this course?

 How are teachers supported outside their own specialism?

 How do we know that a resource bank is the best way of supporting teachers outside their specialism?

 How will this department decide on their main focus for improvement next year?

 How do we know that the criteria for deciding are robust?


The Full Ofsted Report on School Governance can be found at:

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Publications-and-research/Browse-all-by/Documents-by-type/Thematic-reports/School-governance

Thursday 19 May 2011

Key characteristics of effective governing bodies from Ofsted

Yesterday Ofsted published a report on Effective School Governance based on case studies on 14 Governing Bodies.

Key characteristics of effective governing bodies

 Positive relationships between governors and school leaders are based on trust, openness and transparency. Effective governing bodies systematically monitor their school’s progress towards meeting agreed development targets. Information about what is going well and why, and what is not going well and why, is shared. Governors consistently ask for more information, explanation or clarification. This makes a strong contribution to robust planning for improvement.

 Governors are well informed and knowledgeable because they are given high- quality, accurate information that is concise and focused on pupil achievement. This information is made accessible by being presented in a wide variety of formats, including charts and graphs.

 Outstanding governors are able to take and support hard decisions in the interests of pupils: to back the head teacher when they need to change staff, or to change the head teacher when absolutely necessary.

 Outstanding governance supports honest, insightful self-evaluation by the school, recognising problems and supporting the steps needed to address them.

 Absolute clarity about the different roles and responsibilities of the headteacher and governors underpins the most effective governance. Protocols, specific duties and terms of reference are made explicit in written documents.

 Effective governing bodies are driven by a core of key governors such as the chair and chairs of committees. They see themselves as part of a team and build strong relationships with the headteacher, senior leaders and other governors.

 In eight of the 14 schools visited, governors routinely attend lessons to gather information about the school at work. All the governors who were interviewed visit their schools regularly and talk with staff, pupils and parents. Clear protocols for visits ensure that the purpose is understood by school staff and governors alike. Alongside the information they are given about the school, these protocols help them to make informed decisions, ask searching questions and provide meaningful support.

 School leaders and governors behave with integrity and are mutually supportive. School leaders recognise that governors provide them with a different perspective which contributes to strengthening leadership. The questions they ask challenge assumptions and support effective decision-making.

 Governors in the schools visited, use the skills they bring, and the information they
have about the school, to ask challenging questions, which are focused on improvement, and hold leaders to account for pupils’ outcomes.

 Time is used efficiently by governors because there are clear procedures for delegating tasks, for example to well organised committees. These committees have clear terms of reference, provide high levels of challenge and use governors’ expertise to best effect. Systems are in place for sharing information and reporting back to the full governing body. This does not merely reiterate what has already been discussed in detail by the committee but focuses on the key points and decisions.

 The role of the clerk to the governors is pivotal to ensuring that statutory duties are met, meetings are well organised and governors receive the information they need in good time. Consequently, governors come to meetings well prepared and with pertinent questions ready so that they are able to provide constructive challenge.

 A detailed timeline of activities, maintained by the clerk and linked to the school development plan, provides a clear structure for the work of governors and ensures that their time is used appropriately.

 Governors in the schools visited, use their external networks and professional contacts to fill any identified gaps in the collective skills of the governing body.

 There are clear induction procedures for new governors which help them to understand their roles and responsibilities and ensure that best use is made of their varied skills and expertise.

 The governing bodies constantly reflect on their own effectiveness and readily make changes to improve. They consider their own training needs, as well as how they organise their work.

The Full Ofsted Report on School Governance can be found at:

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Publications-and-research/Browse-all-by/Documents-by-type/Thematic-reports/School-governance

Wednesday 18 May 2011

What are the key skills needed to be a governor in the future?

What are the key skills needed to be a governor in the future?

The ability to build partnerships and relationships with all interested parties, including headteachers, chairs of governors, clerks, governors and current and future suppliers of governance support services, was considered to be a requisite skill, particularly in order to meet strategic responsibilities.

Additionally, the evidence suggests that the key attributes for governors of the future to have are interest in and commitment to the school. In addition, they do need to have the ability to recognise, particularly in the more autonomous schools of the future, what type of external guidance might be needed (for example, in terms of business input such as accountancy and human resources) and to access the required support and/or training if needed. The evidence also suggested that governors need to develop the skills and knowledge needed to provide strategic challenge by, for example, understanding how to interpret data.

How can these skills be developed?

The evidence suggests that further training to ensure all partners, including headteachers, understand the strategic responsibilities of governing bodies is needed. All parties would then be aware of the value of governing bodies challenging headteachers and the senior leadership team as part of a more strategic approach to governance.

The majority of governors who had accessed training and, in particular, face¬to¬face training felt that it was useful. Governors reported that they would welcome further support particularly in relation to new developments in education, governance self¬evaluation, specific issues (relevant to their role on the governing body) and the statutory requirements and legal responsibilities of governing bodies. Case¬study interviewees, in particular, suggested some elements of training need to be compulsory (although it is appreciated that current funding pressures may affect the feasibility of this), such as ways for governance to provide strategic focus.

Coordinators identified the key barriers to governors attending training to be a lack of time, lack of support from employers, an unwillingness to travel and variable encouragement from schools. The most effective ways of sustaining training and support for governors and clerks in light of budget cuts include sharing and dissemination of good practice and information, particularly through networking opportunities.

Which models of governance are appropriate for schools in the future, particularly in the light of greater autonomy?

The evidence suggests that the stakeholder model is viewed as the most appropriate model of school governance, although this model was recognised as needing some improvements to ensure flexibility and fitness for purpose in the context of greater autonomy. However, key principles and components of effective governance were reported to transcend all models of governance.

Governors and coordinators were unclear about the full impact of budget cuts. However, there was an expectation that this would lead to a decrease in local authority governor support services for schools. This potential change, along with greater school autonomy, was expected to result in schools seeking governor support services outside of their local authority, and from independent providers and consultants, resulting in greater competition amongst local authorities and other providers.

The full Nfer Report by Tami McCrone,Clare Southcott and Nalia George can be found below

http://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/publications/LGMS01/LGMS01.pdf

Tuesday 17 May 2011

Governance Support & Services

Effectiveness of support and information, advice and guidance Support received

Advice was most frequently received from the clerk, the local authority governor coordinator/governor support services and the school improvement partner. For example, half of governors (50 per cent) reported having received a lot of advice from the clerk. In contrast, just over half (52 per cent) said they had received a little through networking with other governors. The case study data largely supported these findings and indicated that there was some scope for improvement with regard to networking. However, the time required to undertake such activities was noted as a particular barrier.

Further analysis of support received indicated a statistically significant difference in the proportion of respondents involved in networking with other governors; a greater proportion of secondary respondents (46 per cent) than their primary counterparts (38 per cent) had accessed such support.

In contrast, over four fifths of governor respondents indicated that they had received no advice from a mentor and over three fifths had received no advice from the NGA or Governorline. Access to support from the NGA and Governorline was reported to be variable amongst case study interviewees.

However, reasons for not accessing advice from these central services included having received sufficient support at a local level.

The full Nfer Report by Tami McCrone,Clare Southcott and Nalia George can be found below

http://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/publications/LGMS01/LGMS01.pdf

Monday 16 May 2011

Should governor training be compulsory?

Should training be compulsory?

The general consensus held amongst most governance coordinators was that some training should be compulsory. Coordinators across four areas reported particular elements of governor training that should be made compulsory, including induction training to ensure that governors are better placed to fulfil their role effectively. Moreover, two coordinators reported that other areas should be compulsory for specific governors. For example, a governor on a finance committee should attend some financial training.
A further three coordinators identified particular governors for whom training should be made compulsory including chairs of governors, new governors and clerks.

One interviewee asserted: ‘It’s such an important role [...] it should be given the resources that it merits.’

The main benefit of such a requirement identified amongst coordinators was that it would provide volunteers with a good level of knowledge and understanding in order to carry out their role effectively. For example, one coordinator expressed her frustration at governors having the option not to undertake training:

You would never expect a magistrate to start passing sentence on people if they hadn’t had the training, so why should we have people managing sometimes multi-million pound budgets and affecting the education of our young people without having had the training to do it?

However, there was some recognition amongst interviewees that given the voluntary nature of the role, if training were to become compulsory, there could be less interest in becoming a governor. For example, one coordinator remarked: ‘You get a certain amount of resistance as soon as you tell someone they have to do something.’ Moreover, coordinators across three areas concurrently highlighted the need to consider the cost associated with compulsory training.

The full Nfer Report by Tami McCrone,Clare Southcott and Nalia George can be found below

http://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/publications/LGMS01/LGMS01.pdf

Sunday 15 May 2011

Attendance at Governor training & Barriers to attending training

Attendance at training

According to the views of coordinators across five case study areas, the extent to which governors were encouraged to attend training varied across institutions. One coordinator felt that it was dependent on the attitudes of leaders (such as the chair of governors and the headteacher) on the governing body. In two cases, it was reported that training and development featured as an item on the governing body agenda as a way of promoting and raising awareness of opportunities.

A few governors across two casestudy areas reported that training and support is cascaded back to other governors in the school through the governor meetings. However, in a further area, comments indicated that no cascading took place; rather, the chair of governors described it as a process of individual contact between individual governors and trainers.

Barriers to attending training

The majority of coordinators identified a lack of time as the main barrier to governors attending training (85 per cent, 53 individuals). Casestudy interviewees reported logistical issues such as employment and child care commitments as reasons for why time was limited. Opportunities to access training online or holding face to face training at different times of the day were suggested as ways to overcome these challenges.

Other frequently cited barriers amongst survey respondents included a lack of support from employers in terms of, for example, paid time off to attend training (63 per cent, 39 individuals) and an unwillingness to travel (60 per cent, 37 individuals).

In response to the latter comment, one case-study coordinator reasoned: ‘Governors can be reluctant to come home from work having commuted and then go out again and have to go to training.’

Another theme that emerged from the casestudy data was the reluctance amongst governors to use the school budget to pay for their continuing professional development needs. One coordinator, for example, reasoned that governors were cautious of taking funds away from the pupils. This suggests that the value of training needs to be highlighted to governors.

The full Nfer Report by Tami McCrone,Clare Southcott and Nalia George can be found below

http://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/publications/LGMS01/LGMS01.pdf

Saturday 14 May 2011

Effectiveness, takeup and access to Governor training

Effectiveness, takeup and access to training

•The majority of governors (80 per cent) had made use of face to face training offered through the governor support services. This compares with 32 per cent of respondents who had accessed web based training. In both cases, the majority of respondents felt that the training had been quite useful or very useful (94 per cent and 87 per cent). Further analysis of access and usefulness of training revealed statistically significant differences in the views held amongst respondents by school phase. Proportionally, more primary teachers than secondary teachers had undertaken web¬based training (34 per cent compared with 28 per cent).

•Of those governors who had accessed web¬based training, a greater proportion of secondary school respondents (15 per cent) than their primary counterparts (seven per cent) felt that it was not useful or not at all useful.

Three fifths of governors felt that the training they receive in their role as governor from the local authority governor support services was effective or very effective and over a quarter (29 per cent) reported that it had been satisfactory. Seven per cent of respondents reported that they had not received any training. This suggests there is scope to further promote and encourage training amongst governors. The Schools White Paper (DfE, 2010) recognises that, in some instances, governing bodies have not received the necessary training to carry out their role effectively.
Case¬study coordinators cited inductions and online training most frequently as the service that governors found most valuable.. In one local authority, the decision had been made to reduce the amount of county¬wide training and an alternative approach adopted which involved more partner sessions. For example, if a school in a partnership decided that they wanted some training, this would be offered to all schools in the partnership to allow governors the opportunity to network and identify and share concerns and experiences. An interviewee explained that governors valued the combination of training and dissemination of good practice. He reasoned:

'It’s one thing to offer the advice around good practice; it’s then another matter to actually get them to understand how to do it in their school ...
you might want to provide them with models of good practice, it’s then helping them and training them and supporting them into actually developing their governing body practices into that model of good practice ...'


The full Nfer Report by Tami McCrone,Clare Southcott and Nalia George can be found below

http://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/publications/LGMS01/LGMS01.pdf

Friday 13 May 2011

Most important elements of effective governance

Most important elements of effective School governance

• clearly defined roles and responsibilities

• strong leadership

• a chair of governors who can effectively lead and manage the governing body

• good communication between the headteacher and governing body

• the headteacher being supported

• a shared and common vision for the school

• the regular monitoring of performance data, school improvement plans and targets

The most frequently cited important elements by school governors and govrnance coordinators were:

• a productive working relationship between the governing body and the senior leadership team

• an effective chair of governors

• an effective clerk to support the governing body

• governors having a clear understanding of their role and its limits.

Nearly three¬quarters of governors (73 per cent) reported that a productive relationship with the senior leadership team was the most important element of an effective governing body. While coordinators also saw this as important, this was felt to be the third most important element (45 per cent; 28 respondents).

The case¬study interviewees also highlighted the relationship between the governing body and the senior leadership team as the most crucial aspect of governance. Interviewees across three case¬study areas felt that governing bodies were most at ease with

More than one answer could be given so percentages may sum to more than 100. A total of 1572 respondents answered at least one item in this question. Source: NFER (Governance Models in Schools: Governor Survey, 2010)


The full Nfer Report by Tami McCrone,Clare Southcott and Nalia George can be found below

http://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/publications/LGMS01/LGMS01.pdf

Thursday 12 May 2011

School responsibility to the local community

School responsibility to the local community

The Schools White Paper (DfE, 2010) states that in the future: ‘Parents, governors and the public will have access to much more information about every school and how it performs.’

In the context of extended services, provision for 14– 19 year olds and the raising of the participation age, governing bodies will need to ensure that schools are effectively engaging local communities. The literature review suggests that, at present, the extent to which schools are engaging local communities is hard to assess. Evidence suggests that governors see themselves as more accountable to the schools and/or Ofsted rather than the surrounding community. Survey data revealed that a large proportion of governors strongly agreed or agreed that their governing bodies ensured that their schools ‘respond to the needs of the local area’. Over three¬quarters (78 per cent) of governors also reported that they strongly agreed or agreed that their governing bodies took into account ‘how the school can help to support all children and young people in the local community’.

Although coordinators represent a relatively smaller sample in the NFER survey compared to governors, their views differed slightly and were somewhat more reflective of the review evidence. Most respondents were not sure whether governing bodies ensured that schools ‘respond to the needs of the local area’ (53 per cent; 33 respondents) and just under a third agreed with this statement (31 per cent; 19 respondents). Similar proportions of coordinators were either not sure or agreed that governing bodies ensured that schools helped to ‘support all children and young people in the local community’ (37 per cent; 23 respondents and 44 per cent; 27 respondents respectively).

Further analysis showed that respondents on governing bodies rated as ‘outstanding’ for their effectiveness in ‘challenging and supporting the school so that weaknesses are tackled decisively and statutory responsibilities met’ were statistically significantly more likely to strongly agree that their governing body ‘ensures that the school responds to the needs of the local area’ (38 per cent) compared to governing bodies judged as ‘good’ or ‘satisfactory’ (30 and 19 per cent respectively).
Similarly, a larger proportion of governors on ‘outstanding’ governing bodies reported they strongly agreed their governing body ‘considers how the school can help to support all children and young people in the local community, (44 per cent), compared to those on ‘good’ or ‘satisfactory’ governing bodies (38 and 29 per cent respectively).

Accountability to the local community

The Importance of Teaching (DfE, 2010) states that in the future: ‘We will help governing bodies to benefit from the skills of their local community in holding schools to account.’

Interviewees across six case study areas felt that their schools were accountable to the local community by, for example, having community representation on the governing body, partnership links with local agencies such as the police and the local primary care trust, provision of extended services and supporting schools to work in clusters of schools.
In contrast, coordinators and governors across five of the case¬study areas felt that community involvement and accountability were limited to parent evenings, newsletters and the publication of examination results, with the governing bodies tending to leave this area of responsibility to the school senior leadership team.


The full Nfer Report by Tami McCrone,Clare Southcott and Nalia George can be found below

http://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/publications/LGMS01/LGMS01.pdf

Wednesday 11 May 2011

Impact and effectiveness of school governance

This article presents the views of governors and coordinators of governors’ services on the impact and effectiveness of school governance. It reports on the impact of the school governing body on school improvement and school accountability to the local community, the key features of effective governance, and how governing bodies are currently assessing and evaluating their effectiveness.

Impact of the governing body on school improvement

The Schools White Paper (DfE, 2010) outlines the shift towards greater school autonomy in respect to school improvement and school accountability to the local community. These requirements place a greater focus on governing bodies to support schools in fulfilling their statutory duties.
Just over three¬quarters (77 per cent) of governors either strongly agreed or agreed that there was evidence that their ‘governing body has an impact on school improvement’. Moreover, the majority of coordinators also strongly agreed or agreed with this statement (76 per cent; 47 respondents). Further analysis revealed that governors on governing bodies which were rated as ‘outstanding’ were statistically significantly more likely to strongly agree that there is evidence that their governing body has an impact on school improvement (52 per cent), compared to those judged as ‘good’ or ‘satisfactory’ (34 and 25 per cent respectively).

Interviewees in all nine case¬study areas were in agreement that governing bodies could have a significant impact on school improvement. Coordinators felt that while the actions of many governing bodies or the quality of governance can have an impact on school improvement, it was variable across the schools they support. Impact could be evidenced by, for example, the extent to which governing bodies were involved in drawing up and monitoring school development plans. The extent to which governing bodies adequately examined and addressed school priorities, consulted the local community and used the school improvement partners effectively were also key criteria. Interviewees highlighted the challenges faced by governing bodies in ensuring they had an impact on school improvement. One coordinator, for example, noted:

If the headteacher is weak and if the senior leadership team is poor and the quality of the teaching is poor, you can have the best governing body in the world but I’m not sure they are going to actually impact on standards. Unless they go down the road of putting pressure on the headteacher to shape up or ship out.

The review evidence supports this view and highlights the close relationship between the quality of governing bodies and school performance where governing bodies are effective and challenging in their scrutiny and monitoring role, and schools are better placed to achieve their statutory duties (Balarin et al., 2008). Where schools were graded as ‘inadequate’ during Ofsted inspections, senior leaders were reported to have not been effectively challenged and held to account by governing bodies found that the ‘lack of a capable governing body is not a neutral absence for a school; it is a substantial disadvantage’, emphasising the significance of the role of the governing body.


The full Nfer Report by Tami McCrone,Clare Southcott and Nalia George can be found below

http://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/publications/LGMS01/LGMS01.pdf

Tuesday 10 May 2011

Nfer Models of Governance: Importance of Clerks

Clerks

The majority (81 per cent) of Schools governors surveyed believed that ‘clerks informed governors of their legal duties’. Additionally, the majority (82 per cent) felt that the ‘clerk informed them of training opportunities’.

Further analysis revealed that governors in those schools where governance was rated by Ofsted as ‘outstanding’ were significantly more likely to strongly agree or agree that ‘clerks informed governors of their legal duties’ and ‘clerks informed them of training opportunities’.

Coordinators concurred with governors’ views on clerks’ contributions. The majority (77 per cent: 48 coordinators) surveyed believed that ‘clerks informed governors of their legal duties’. Additionally, the majority (76 per cent: 47 coordinators) felt that ‘the clerk informed them of training opportunities’.

The importance of the clerk’s contribution to the governing body’s strategic input was further emphasised by the case¬study interviews as three coordinators specifically observed the value of their role.

The full Nfer Report by Tami McCrone,Clare Southcott and Nalia George can be found below

http://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/publications/LGMS01/LGMS01.pdf

Monday 9 May 2011

The roles and responsibilities of governing: Governance models in schools

Roles and responsibilities of governors

In England, the majority of decision making is devolved to school level in contrast to other countries across Europe.

The roles and responsibilities of governing governance models in school bodies are statutory, and among other duties, governors are responsible for training, recruitment, salary setting, performance review and dismissal of ineffective headteachers and senior leadership staff

Nine out of ten governors surveyed felt they were clear about their roles and responsibilities.

In contrast, coordinators were less confident that governors are clear about their roles and responsibilities (three per cent: two coordinators strongly agreed and 61 per cent: 38 coordinators agreed.

Further analysis revealed that governors in those schools where governance was rated by Ofsted as ‘outstanding’ were significantly more likely to strongly agree that governors were ‘clear about their roles and responsibilities as a governor’.

Whether governors carry out more of a strategic or operational role

• monitoring the school’s progress against the school development/improvement plan (83 per cent of governors felt their governing bodies often fulfilled this role)

• monitoring the performance of the headteacher (79 per cent of governors felt their governing bodies often fulfilled this role)

• actively supporting the senior leadership team (76 per cent of governors felt their governing bodies often fulfilled this role).

Surveyed coordinators concurred with the finding that governing bodies principally fulfilled monitoring and supporting roles. The two roles carried out by most governing bodies in the view of the coordinators were: monitoring the performance of the headteacher (69 per cent: 43 coordinators) and monitoring the school’s progress against the schools development plan (61 per cent: 38 coordinators).

Additionally, only two¬fifths of governors felt their governing body often fulfilled the role of challenging the decisions of the headteacher or senior leadership team (42 per cent) or representing the views of the local community (43 per cent). Moreover, only 13 per cent (eight) of coordinators felt that most governing bodies ‘provide strategic direction to the senior leadership team’ and only 16 per cent (ten) of coordinators believed that most governing bodies ‘are actively involved in self¬evaluation of the governing body’.
Further analysis revealed that governors in those schools where governance was rated by Ofsted as ‘outstanding’ were significantly more likely to say they were often:

• actively involved in self¬evaluation of the governing body

• providing strategic direction alongside the senior leadership team

• ensuring the school helps to support all children and young people in the local community.

There was evidence across six case¬study areas that some coordinators and governors felt that governing bodies act in both a strategic and operational way dependent on the task involved. For example, one chair of governors believed that the governing body’s financial role was more strategic whereas their curriculum sub¬committee fulfilled more of an operational role. However, two coordinators, in particular, believed that governing bodies should be more strategic and one described using clerks to ‘drive’ forward and highlight the importance of governors’ strategic role.

The full Nfer Report by Tami McCrone,Clare Southcott and Nalia George can be found below

http://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/publications/LGMS01/LGMS01.pdf

Sunday 8 May 2011

Current models of governance: Stakeholder and business models

Current models of governance

Stakeholder and business models

Evidence from the literature reviewed for this Nfer research outlined that governing bodies typically represent a range of interests, including parents and community groups, the school and the local authority. The review identified two overarching models of school governance in use in England.

• The stakeholder model is in use across maintained primary and secondary schools, in individual schools and federation governance. The majority of members of the governing body are elected to ensure accountability and wide representation

The stakeholder model is widely in use across maintained primary and secondary schools.

•The business model is commonly used in academies and the headteacher and the governing body are responsible for governance. Academy sponsors tend to recruit most of the governing body, even where the local authority is a co¬sponsor. Governors’ responsibilities are similar to those in maintained schools, although governors are also responsible for recruiting academy staff. The business model was noted to be more prevalent in federations and academies, where governing bodies may include sponsors and a larger business and community representation than maintained schools.

All the case¬study interviewees confirmed that the stakeholder model of school governance was the prevailing model currently in use. Stakeholders such as the local community, the local authority and teachers were all considered to be important. Additionally, parent governors were considered to be essential, although issues were reported in terms of both recruiting enough parent governors and finding parent governors with appropriate skills to contribute to the governing body.

One of the key issues appears to be not so much the model of governance in use but the recruitment of governors with the appropriate personal attributes such as interest, commitment and skills. Interviewees from five case studies felt that the model of governance was not important. Rather, it was the mix of people and skills that mattered. For example, one coordinator explained: ‘The model of governance is irrelevant – it all depends on the people in the partnership.’

Another coordinator felt that it was not so much business skills that were necessary, but more an individual’s commitment and ability to think strategically:

I don’t think that business skills necessarily contribute to that [the fundamentals of governance i.e. transparency, accountability and strategic planning]. It’s about the ability of the individual to take that strategic view and to be open to accountability.

Coordinator

Coordinators from three case¬study areas made observations about the limitations of the business model of governance. For example, one said:
I don’t think you need business skills to [ensure transparency, accountability and strategic vision] ... sometimes people bringing their business skills think they are being governors and they are not [...] although sometimes people who work at a strategic level can be useful.

Coordinator

In line with the findings from the review and the case studies, that one of the challenges associated with the stakeholder model was recruiting governors with the appropriate skill set, the survey of governors revealed that although three¬fifths of governors (61 per cent) strongly agreed or agreed that ‘there are enough people with appropriate business skills on [their] governing bodies’, nearly one¬fifth (18 per cent) did not agree. Observations from two case¬study coordinators highlighted the role of induction training to increase awareness of the roles and responsibilities of governors, regardless of the nature of the governance model. In addition, three¬quarters of governors also strongly agreed or agreed that ‘there are enough people on [their] governing body to represent the local community’, whereas slightly more than one in ten (13 per cent) disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Thirty¬five per cent (22 respondents) of coordinators considered that there were enough people with appropriate skills on governing bodies. Additionally, 58 per cent (36 respondents) felt there were enough people on governing bodies to represent the local community.

These findings highlight that, although there is broad agreement that governing bodies have sufficient local representation and, in the case of the governors’ survey, appropriate business skills, there is scope to increase the number of governors with business skills and who represent the local community.

The full Nfer Report by Tami McCrone,Clare Southcott and Nalia George can be found below

http://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/publications/LGMS01/LGMS01.pdf

Saturday 7 May 2011

Models of School Governance: Implications for policy and practice

Implications for policy and practice

The recruitment of governors with the appropriate personal attributes, for example, interest, commitment and skills, is considered more important for effective governance than the type of governance model that is adopted.

Suggested improvements to school governance, in order to meet the principles of effective governance, include a better selection and recruitment process for governors and greater clarity of governor roles and responsibilities. This would contribute to governors having further capacity to play an even more critical role in school improvement than at present.

The skills and knowledge needed for governors to provide strategic challenge need to be further developed and supported, for example, by improving understanding of how to interpret data. Only by acquiring this knowledge, and embracing the need to provide strategic challenge, will all governors fulfil this necessary commitment and play their part in ensuring that the more autonomous schools of the future improve in terms of young people’s attainment and wellbeing and their accountability to their local community. Making some elements of training compulsory should be considered, such as ways to provide strategic focus and how to interpret data.

To suit the different audiences, the delivery of training needs to be flexible to meet styles of learning and lifestyles, for example, face¬to¬face training at different times of day and web¬based training or, in the case of headteachers, through current headteachers’ training. It is possible that headteachers could acquire further appreciation of the importance of governors’ strategic input through greater emphasis being placed on this in their current training. All parties would then be aware of the value of governing bodies challenging headteachers and the senior leadership team as part of a more strategic approach to governance.

Networking opportunities should be further considered as they represent effective ways of sharing and disseminating good practice and information. Furthermore, with reduced funding for local authority governance support services, it is worth considering ways for neighbouring schools in a locality to reduce duplication of effort, replicate and share effective practice, and think of creative ways to do so.

It is likely that schools will have to reconsider the way they access governance support services as it is expected that local authorities’ governance support services will change.

Furthermore, it is probable that there will be a transition period before other suppliers of governance support services emerge. So the need for governors, clerks and headteachers, in particular, to work creatively and proactively in partnership to ensure that effective, strategic governance is realised should be prioritised.

The full Nfer Report by Tami McCrone,Clare Southcott and Nalia George can be found below

http://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/publications/LGMS01/LGMS01.pdf

Friday 6 May 2011

Nfer Models of Governance: Key Findings

Key findings from Nfer Models of Governance report

Key principles and components of effective governance are more significant to the governance of schools than the type of model followed. The evidence indicates that an effective governing body can have a valuable impact on school improvement. The majority of governors felt that their governing bodies were effective and coordinators were also positive about the overall effectiveness of governing bodies.

The Nfer research evidence indicates that the stakeholder model is viewed as the most appropriate model of school governance, although this model was recognised as needing some improvements to ensure flexibility and fitness for purpose in the context of greater school autonomy.

The evidence shows that governors are currently principally fulfilling monitoring and supporting roles. Additionally, a minority of governors and coordinators felt that governing bodies were challenging headteachers or the senior leadership team, representing the views of the local community, providing strategic direction, and carrying out self¬evaluations.

Governors perceived the most important elements for ensuring effective governance to be a productive working relationship between the governing body and the senior leadership team, and an effective chair of governors and clerk to support the governing body.

Key to effective governance was perceived to be governors having a clear understanding of their role (and its limits) and an understanding of the strategic responsibilities of governing obdies. Critical to achieving strategic focus is the quality of the relationships between the headteacher, the chair of governors and the clerk. Governors cited size of the governing body as the least relevant element of an effective governing body.


Further ways identified by respondents to the survey for improving the effectiveness of school governance were better selection and recruitment processes, mandatory induction training (although it is appreciated that current funding pressures may affect the feasibility of this), and better understanding of data.

The majority of governors reported that the governing body took into account how to support all
children and young people in the local community. However, coordinators were less confident that governors were doing this.

Other key attributes for governors of the future were, firstly, having an interest in and commitment to the school. Secondly, the ability to recognise, particularly in the more autonomous schools of the future, what type of external guidance might be needed and to access the required support and/or training, if needed. Thirdly, the willingness to develop the skills and knowledge needed in order to provide strategic challenge, for example, by understanding how to interpret data.

The evidence suggests that further training to ensure all partners, including headteachers, understand the strategic responsibilities of governing bodies is needed. All parties would then be aware of the value of governing bodies challenging headteachers and the senior leadership team as part of a more strategic approach to governance.

The majority of governors who had accessed training and, in particular, face¬to¬face training, felt that it was useful. In addition, the clerk was considered to be a key source of support. Governors reported that they would welcome further support particularly in relation to new developments in education, governance self¬evaluation, specific issues (relevant to their role on the governing body), and the statutory requirements and legal responsibilities of governing bodies.

Coordinators identified key barriers to governors attending training as a lack of time, lack of support from employers, an unwillingness to travel and variable encouragement from schools.
Looking ahead, although governors and coordinators were unclear about the full impact of budget cuts, there was an expectation that there would be a decrease in local authority governor support services for schools. This potential change, along with greater school autonomy, was expected to result in schools seeking governor support services outside of their local authority from independent providers and consultants, resulting in greater competition amongst local authorities and other providers.

The full Nfer Report by Tami McCrone,Clare Southcott and Nalia George can be found below

http://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/publications/LGMS01/LGMS01.pdf

Thursday 5 May 2011

Ofsted Briefing on proposed changes to the vetting and barring scheme set out in the Protection of Freedoms Bill

Briefing on proposed changes to the vetting and barring scheme is set out in the Protection of Freedoms Bill

As part of the Protection of Freedoms Bill, Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, has unveiled a new scaled back employment vetting scheme and a fundamental reform of criminal records bureau (CRB) checks as summarised below. The Bill proposes:

 to maintain a barring function
 to abolish registration and monitoring requirements
 to redefine the requirements of 'regulated activities'
 to abolish 'controlled activities'.

Among other specific moves that will affect the work of Ofsted are proposals to support

Portability of CRB checks by introducing a ‘live’ certificate that can be kept up to date, penalties for employers requesting checks when they are not entitled to them, the abolition of the ‘controlled activity’ category and a narrowing of the scope of ‘regulated’ activity.

Background

The vetting and barring scheme (VBS) had been created to help safeguard children and vulnerable adults, following the Bichard Inquiry into the events at Soham in 2002, and was designed to check the records of those who wanted to work with vulnerable groups. It was introduced as part of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act (SVGA) in 2006, and was intended to be implemented in phases, beginning with the requirement for all those in regular contact with children and appointed after 2002 to be subject to CRB checks.

In recent years, there has been a growing anxiety about perceived overly bureaucratic measures surrounding CRB checks, with increasing numbers of people suggesting that, while well intentioned, the vetting and barring scheme was a disproportionate response to the risk posed by a small minority who wished to commit harm to vulnerable people. In June 2010, ministers announced that the planned implementation of the VBS was to be halted, pending a thorough review. This move halted the planned introduction of the requirement for all those working regularly with children and vulnerable adults to register with the Independent Safeguarding Authority beginning in July 2010.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

The Protection of Freedoms Bill introduces new primary legislation to amend the SVGA to scale back the scheme, in particular, through the abolition of the registration and monitoring requirements and the re-definition of the range of posts to which barring arrangements apply. However, the safeguarding regulations introduced in October 2009 continue to apply.

These include:

 a person who is barred from working with children or vulnerable adults will be breaking the law if they work or volunteer, or try to work or volunteer with those groups

 an organisation which knowingly employs someone who is barred to work with those groups will also be breaking the law

 if your organisation works with children or vulnerable adults and you dismiss a member of staff or a volunteer because they have harmed a child or vulnerable adult, or you would have done so if they had not left, you must tell the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA).

The government is also seeking economies by proposing the merger of the ISA and the CRB. The CRB is responsible for the disclosure of criminal records and the ISA for the barring function. The ISA currently holds the lists of those barred from working with children and vulnerable adults, and was intended to maintain them in the future. Both of these functions will be retained when the changes set out in this review are implemented, but economies are to be made by merging the two bodies. On commencement of the relevant parts of the Protection of Freedoms Bill, therefore, the Criminal Records Bureau and the Independent Safeguarding Authority will merge. In essence, this will combine the criminal records disclosure responsibilities of the CRB, with an independent barring function which is currently the responsibility of the ISA. The ISA will continue to carry out its work as an independent decision making body as well as continuing to maintain the barred lists. They will also continue to accept referrals.

The Bill is expected to take until the autumn to progress through its various parliamentary stages, and new primary legislation is not expected before 2012. Much of the impact of this Bill has yet to be assessed, and there will be considerable discussion during its progress. There is still much that is unknown about how the changes will affect our work, although it is likely to impact strongly on the regulatory context where Ofsted itself is responsible for checking the suitability of staff in childcare and early years settings. Ofsted has responded to the consultations surrounding this Bill and will continue to work closely with the Department for Education, CRB and ISA to develop our regulatory and inspection functions to ensure they continue to support the legislative position while putting the well-being of children first. We are already revising our inspection frameworks to take account of the government intention to reduce the number of areas and themes we report on and to focus inspection more closely on those in greatest need of improvement. As part of the framework revisions, Ofsted will monitor the passage of the Bill closely to ensure we are ready when it finally passes into law. We will ensure that, when the time comes to change our regulations or frameworks, the changes will be explained in detail and guidance will be updated accordingly

Wednesday 4 May 2011

Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) Checks Clarification from Ofsted

Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) checks for trainee teachers – clarification


Ofsted have received the following query regarding their safeguarding guidance:

In the briefing for section 5 inspectors on safeguarding children, it says in Annex 2, 'Inspectors should not ask for the CRB forms of trainees on initial teacher education courses. It is the initial teacher education provider's responsibility, not the school's, to ensure that these checks are made.'

Question:

Please would you clarify whether this is true for trainee teachers on an employment based route to QTS, such as GPT?

Ofsted Answer:

Trainees on an employment based route are employed by the school and must be treated as school employees for the purposes of CRB checks and they should be recorded on the SCR.

Ofsted will be updating the safeguarding guidance in April to clarify this requirement.

Retention of Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) certificates

Schools should not retain original CRB disclosure certificates once the checks are completed. The CRB code of practice states that original certificates should be destroyed within six months. Osfted will update their safeguarding guidance in April to reflect this. For more information visit: www.crb.homeoffice.gov.uk/media/news/new_crb_code_of_practice.asp

Tuesday 3 May 2011

Ofsted will discontinue the SEF website from 22 July 2011

Ofsted will discontinue the self-evaluation form (SEF) website from 22 July 2011. This is in line with the government’s programme for cost efficiency and reducing bureaucracy. From 22 July 2011, schools will no longer be able to access their school information and self-evaluation form (SEF)for maintained schools.

Should schools keep their SEF after the website closes?

Self-evaluation remains an important aspect of a school’s work, which inspectors will continue to consider when making their judgements.

For inspections that take place in autumn term 2011 maintained schools will be able to provide to Ofsted their self-evaluation information in a format of their choice. Schools may present their SEF, or any update thereof, if they wish. However, schools will not be disadvantaged if they choose not to do so.

How can schools keep a copy of their SEF?

To preserve the data and information in their SEF schools should take the following action by 21 July 2011 at the latest.

1. Save their most recent SEF on the SEF website.

2. Submit their saved SEF, using the SEF website. This will automatically create a PDF version of the SEF.

3. Save the PDF of the SEF to the school’s own electronic filing system.

Guidance on submitting the SEF and saving a PDF to the school’s own system will be available on the SEF website as soon as possible.

After 21 July schools will not be able to access PDF versions of their SEF on the SEF website.