Schools, governors and disadvantage

5 June 2007

Dean, Dyson, et al
Joseph Rowntree Foundation

• NGA is delighted to be invited to offer a response to this report.
• As the single independent, national organisation for school governors, we see our role as not just representing governors, but also as facilitators of discussion on the role of governors and governing bodies. We believe that this report will further that discussion.

NGA welcomes this report because:

• NGA is interested that one of the central premises of the report is that ‘successive waves of school reform have taken place without real consideration of the
  implications for governance’. This is a message that we have been consistent in delivering to the policy makers.
• NGA is interested that the focus of this report is on governance in schools which serve challenging areas and we are pleased to see that the three areas studied were different in their geographical locations (north/south, urban/rural) as well as in their social, economic and ethnic diversity.
• NGA is also interested that the schools that served the areas were nearly all community schools - that is schools that genuinely serve their locality and which do
  not select on any grounds. These schools therefore have less of an opportunity to offer that which may make parents seek them from afar, such as a solely academic
  curriculum or a faith based ethos.

The Report

• Contains a useful and largely realistic summary of:
• What governors’ do and the stakeholder model.
• Also the problems and challenges of governance particularly:
• the tension between the easy bit that is to support, and tough bit which is to challenge;
• the delicate balance between being strategic and being drawn into managerial issues;
• and the issue of recruiting good, committed governors who truly reflect their local communities.
• The report also describes well other routes of accountability:
• Local government and the concern that local authorities are of decreasing relevance to many people;
• The DfES which, on the one hand declares micro management is not its role, yet issues detailed policy guidelines that are funded, monitored and evaluated by them;
• And central government and its ‘new localism’ agenda which looks to devolve decision making as far down the chain as possible, which, on the face of it, should embrace the ethos of governing bodies.
• The report also identifies well the issue of the education market place – a market place which is complicated by national policy which seeks to diversify school type even further, thus increasing the possibility of disconnecting schools from their local communities, and fosters GBs who seek to understand the market - and who buys into it - rather than how their school reflects the needs of their local community. NGA has serious doubts about the wisdom of fracturing the market and in general supports the concept of a good local school for every child.
• The report neatly assigns the rationale underpinning governance to the managerial, the localising and the democratising, and this largely chimes with NGA’s view that governing bodies should work towards stakeholder democracy and community accountability. However NGA is not convinced that the rationale for governance is unclear either in disadvantaged or advantaged areas. The stakeholder model provides local people, elected and appointed through transparent means, to fulfil the three key governance roles of being strategic, monitoring and evaluating, and ensuring accountability. Although we accept that there may be issues with recruiting governors in disadvantaged areas, NGA has long been encouraged by the number of governors who may not be part of the immediate local community that their school serves, but who see it as part of their public ethos role to become familiar with local conditions, thus modelling participation and active citizenship.
• In fulfilling their role, we recognise the tensions that governors experience as described here:
• First, the critical friend or the inward facing supporter and challenger that finds most governors more comfortable supporting than challenging in their monitoring and evaluating role. We were pleased to see articulated the constraints experienced by governing bodies in this aspect of their role, particularly the control of information by schools especially on some key measures such as the quality of teaching.
• Second, the public or outward face, promoting and protecting the interests of the school, and we agree that many governing bodies feel that they can only make a difference if they do not confront national or local policy head on.
• Third, being strategic where only in certain circumstances (usually when the governing body is more experienced or powerful than the headteacher) can the governing body act for the common good, as opposed to the good of a particular interest group.
• And finally defining quality when there is a confusion of strategies necessary to achieve a clear vision for local children which moves beyond crude performance standards.

Naturally we are interested in the report’s view on options for change.

• First, the option of a structural change that would see governing bodies abandoned in favour of local authorities or some sort of government agency. NGA would not support this as we believe that a return to local authority or other similar control is neither favoured nor considered effective by any of the stakeholders.
• The next option of district governance and/or super governing bodies is, arguably, on the way with schools that are federating. NGA would have been interested in the report expanding this discussion as there are emergent models of governance in soft and hard federations. Also it would be interesting to include an analysis of the impact of governing bodies in academies (where governors are largely appointed by the sponsor who may have little connection with the community and who does not have to adhere to central policy guidelines) and those proposed for trust schools (where it is unclear whether it will be the governing body or the trust who will be governing the school).
• We note the report’s ‘radical alternative’ (linking the more activist elements of the ‘new localism agenda’ into a proactive involvement of marginalised groups which would mean reducing the managerial role and increasing aspects of policy delegated to local level to give greater scope for decision making) but we feel that this is essentially dismissed as it is seen to exist already through other forums and so just needs to be taken seriously.
• NGA is most supportive of the option of incremental improvement. NGA absolutely supports the initiatives outlined (training, mentoring, networking, release from work) so that governors can do their job efficiently and effectively. NGA’s policy is for mandatory induction training for all governors and we have also welcomed the technical support for key strategic and accountability tasks (such as the headteacher’s performance review, and the annual data review and statutory target setting) which is now made available to governors through the School Improvement Partner. NGA also recognises that recruiting the right people to be governors can be problematic and that schools need to be supported to ensure a realistic picture of what is involved is given before prospective governors stand for election or are appointed. NGA is also concerned that heads receive the necessary training to understand their role of both being a governor, and facilitating good governance in their schools. If this is achieved, then we believe that governance in its current form is achievable. NGA would also like to make the point that we have long
  acknowledged that the status and position of governor service managers in local authorities is linked to the quality of service offered to governing bodies.

NGA would like to make the following additional comments:

• We are surprised that a report of this nature did not consult with NGA.
• We would have liked to have seen included mention of the model proposed in the Centre for Public Scrutiny 2006 policy discussion paper Strengthening Public Accountability on the School Governing Body.
• We would also have liked more hard evidence that the problems that exist in disadvantaged areas are significantly different to those found elsewhere. Much of what is expressed could be said to be true of governance everywhere albeit that it exists in heightened forms in areas of disadvantage. NGC has recognised for some while that, perhaps because ‘successive waves of school reform have taken place without real consideration of the implications for governance’, there are issues. With further demands on schools (the extended school agenda, early years provision, the 14 – 19 curriculum, and the raising of the school leaving age being but a few of the current proposals) we do hope that the policy makers will see that the time is right to implement some of the suggestions in this report.

Clare Collins
Vice Chair
National Governors’ Association
4th June 2007

---

Press releases, papers and documents published on this page are the intellectual property of an organisation unrelated to Central Lobby. We promote their parliamentary and political campaigning activities as they are subscribers to the Central Lobby service.

As such, Central Lobby does not edit, endorse, or attempt to balance the opinions expressed on this page. The content of press releases and other such types of content are the responsibility of the originating organisation.