This was the NAHT debating a motion asking Ofsted to REDUCE emphasis on inspecting governance as part of Leadership and Management. I asked for comments from other governors. Almost all were surprised at this. We couldn’t understand the reasoning behind the motion. There were some light hearted comments such as “Isn’t it lovely that they are concerned about extra pressure on us. They are only looking out for us.” Another comment, in similar vein, was from me. I said that reading this gave me the impression that somewhere a conversation like the one below had taken place which led to the motion.
GB to Head, “Could you include x,y,z in your report, please?”
Head to GB,”Don’t worry about that. I’ve got it under control.”
GB to Head, “No, we really do need it. For one thing it’s our job. For another, we are due an Ofsted and we want to ensure we know our stuff.”
Head to GB, “Ah, Ofsted! Don’t worry about that. We’ll get them not to hold you to account. We’ll tell them you’ve got too much work to do.”
Other governors had also read the Schools Week tweet which led to more discussions. Numerous serious points were made in response to my question and question/comments by others. I’ve summarised discussions from different threads on Twitter and Facebook below.
This may indicate that heads don’t really understand governance
The role and responsibility has changed since I’ve been a governor. The workload means it’s like a job now
There are some heads who get frustrated by their governors and we must acknowledge this. On the other hand there are also heads who try and run the school as their personal fiefdom and try and exclude the GB. We have a duty to be as professional as we can and heads need to understand and respect what governance is and what we do
Not a straight forward debate. Looking at the framework, it is a part time job
Collaboration is key
We are volunteers which means that if the workload gets too much we can leave. “But I’m a volunteer” should not be used as an excuse
Unfortunate that those who may have had a poor experience of governance assume it’s typical in every institution
Are they are considering our health and wellbeing?
We have gone from “cup of tea, sticky bun and agree with the head” to a very different model. Some governors and heads have kept up and some haven’t
Getting paid may be a better route than downplaying the role in Ofsted inspections. But if you pay peanuts, you’ll get monkeys!
Some governing bodies create an unnecessary workload for themselves and do not distribute workload effectively.
Training of governors is an issue
Motion was proposed and passed at the conference. The reason for it needs to be heard
If governance goes wrong then everything will
Schools need good governance and governance needs to be accountable
Really disappointed to see this motion
Governance is essential in any organisation
My role as chair is far more stressful than my job (I’m saying this tongue-in-cheek)
If this happened, where is the incentive to fix bad governance? One role of god governance is to hold heads to account. How would that happen?
Perhaps they don’t want to be held to account
I feel passionately that strong governance remains
Personally I would prefer separate judgement for governance
I don’t agree the governance should be a separate judgement. We are part of leadership and management and this emphasises that
GBs are accountable in law. Reduce work load by discouraging unneeded hoop jumping? Yes. Make GBs less accountable? Absolutely not!
Train governors to understand role. That will help in reducing workload
I can see two sides to this. The possible impact of poor governance on a head and the inability of a head to control good governance
Ofsted don’t have the expertise to measure governance accurately
Inspectors shouldn’t be judging without full understanding
Can have good school leaders let down by poor governance. Opposite also happens
In some schools senior leaders have little or no contact with governors. Not great for headship preparation
Many heads do not do governance training and do not understand the role
In one GB meeting the head brought so many staff that they outnumbered the governors
Part of the issue is the paucity of governance subject content in many NPQH courses. Starting with a low knowledge base does not help
The debate wasn’t live streamed and the only other tweet I saw was one saying that the motion had been carried. So, we don’t know the context to the motion or how the debate went. Governors would like to know more about what was behind the motion but want to make it clear that we do not wish for reduced accountability or reduced emphasis on governance within the leadership and management judgement. If the motion had called for induction for new governors and CPD we too would have been behind the motion.
Earlier this year the Department for Education (DfE) launched a consultation into the proposal, “Enabling maintained school boards to remove elected governors”. The consultation posed three questions:
Do you agree that governing bodies should be able to remove an elected governor for such serious conduct that, for example, is contrary to fundamental British values, repeatedly brings the board into disrepute or in circumstances where a governor has already been suspended on multiple occasions?
Should being removed from office make the individual ineligible from being re-elected or appointed as a governor at the same school or other schools?
Do you think it is sufficient for specific examples/ expectations on the use of this power to be set out in statutory guidance rather than have the specific circumstances in which the power can be used fixed in regulations?
From 1st Sept 2017 governing bodies will be able to remove elected parent and staff governors in the same way as they can other governors (by a majority of governors voting in favour of the removal)
From 1st May 2017 any person who was an elected parent or staff governor and was removed during their term of office will be disqualified from becoming or continuing to serve as a governor for five years from the date of their removal.
The procedure for removal is as follows (Regulation 25)
The matter of removal of the governor must be specified as an item on the agenda
The governor(s) proposing the resolution to remove the governor must give reasons for removal at the meeting
The governing body must consider the reasons for removal and the governor whom it is proposed to remove must be given an opportunity to make a statement in response
A second meeting has to be held not less than fourteen days after the first meeting where the removal is confirmed by passing the resolution. Again, the removal has to be specified as an item on the agenda of this second meeting
This amendment removes two anomalies which existed as far as elected governors were concerned. Firstly, elected governors in maintained schools, unlike other categories of governors, could not be removed even if doing so was in the interest of the governing body and school. The only sanction available was suspension. Secondly, as academy governors (governors sitting on the trust board, not the local governing bodies) are company directors, they could be removed by Members under Company Law.
Things to consider:
Removal of any governor is a serious matter and should not be treated lightly. It must be the last resort and only done if it is in the best interest of the governing body
Removal of a governor may cause negative publicity or may bring the governing body into disrepute. Ideally, governors should be aware that there may be a potential problem and try and resolve it before the situation gets to a point where removal is necessary. The Chair needs to understand that he/she has a crucial role to play in this
Governing bodies should adopt a code of practice which should clearly lay out expectations of behaviour and conduct
The code of practice should not be a paper or box ticking exercise. Governors should review the code annually and re-affirm their commitment to upholding the code and the Nolan principles of public life
The code should also lay out the procedure which the governing body will use if the removal of a governor becomes necessary
When a vacancy arises then the governing body should ensure that the information which is sent out inviting people to stand for elections includes the fact that removal as a governor disqualifies a person from becoming a governor for five years after the date of his/her removal
Governance is a huge responsibility. Yes, it is a voluntary role but that does not mean that it should not be done well. New governors need support to understand the role and their responsibilities. One way you can do this is by having a good induction programme in place. I’ve decided to jot down my thoughts on what this programme could look like.
Arrange for a tour of the school and show them where the meetings are held. (If you hold meetings in the evenings, do make sure new governors know how to gain access to the building)
Arrange for the new governor to meet the Chair of Governors (if they haven’t met before), the Head and the Clerk
Introduce them to all the governors at the next meeting
If your governing body has bought into a training package, make sure the new governor knows how to access it
Make sure they know if any induction training is available. If you have not bought into a training package, then do let the new governor know how to access the free online induction module put together by SGOSS, The Key, and Lloyds Bank
Assign an experienced governor to act as a mentor who can go through all the documents in the Induction Pack
Below are some of the documents I think should be included in the Induction Pack.
Glossary of educational terms, acronyms, educational jargon (including school specific ones)
Articles of Association and Funding Agreement for academy governors (these should be on your website so you can provide a link rather than paper copies)
List of governors (include a photograph, role each governor has been assigned, contact details). In case of MATs, if the new governor is member of the LGB then the governor should know how to get in touch with the Trust Board
List of the members of the Senior Leadership Team (include details of the SBM, SENDCo, Safeguarding Lead)
Contact details of the clerk
Details of committees
Minutes of last year’s meetings
Any Standing orders or Terms of Reference the governing body has agreed
Dates of meetings
Code of Conduct (the mentor should go through this and the new governor should fill this and return to the clerk)
Business Interest form (to be filled and returned to the clerk)
Skills audit (to be filled and returned)
Details of any memberships that the governing body holds (such as NGA, The Key, Local governor association)
Document detailing expectations (see below)
School Development Plan
Self Evaluation Plan
List of useful websites (including @UKGovChat and School Governors UK Facebook page)
ICSA: The Governance Institute is the professional body for governance with members in all sectors. They work with regulators and policy makers to champion high standards of governance and provide qualifications, training and guidance. Below is their article discussing the House of Lords’ Select Committee’s report concerning the revised Governance Code. I thought this article would be of interest to academy trustees too so I am reproducing it here with their permission. The original can be accessed using this link.
ICSA: The Governance Institute welcomes the supportive and helpful report that the House of Lords Select Committee on Charities has published today, especially its support for the revised Governance Code for Charities that aims to improve governance in the charity sector and ensure that charities and their stakeholders focus more effectively on the needs of beneficiaries.
‘The report is particularly timely as it will form part of a trio of governance and regulatory recommendations coming from it, the code and the Law Commission review due in the summer,’ says Louise Thomson, Head of Policy (Not for Profit) at ICSA: The Governance Institute. ‘We particularly welcome the Committee’s positive comments on the draft governance code, which we have helped to author and which we believe will bring substantial benefits to the charity sector.’
Welcome recommendations in the Select Committee’s report include:
Support for the revised code and the Charity Commission’s decision to refer to it as the benchmark for governance in the charity sector
Regular skills audits of trustee boards. Annual audits for large charities
Greater emphasis on trustee induction
Time limits on trusteeships
Regular board reviews. For large charities, this should be annual
Good governance reporting, for example charities including a statement in their annual report that they follow the Governance Code for Charities, or a similar specialist governance code relevant to their work, and report any actions taken in light of the code
Stakeholder feedback: the provision of regular information to stakeholders that enables them to measure the charity’s success in achieving its purposes.
‘All of the above are important considerations and will help to strengthen governance within the sector. Regular skills audits are essential as they are the primary way that charities can ensure that trustees have the necessary capabilities to undertake their vital governance role. With specific regard to the Committee’s suggestion of a template for inductions and free access for smaller charities, we have guidance on this which smaller charities are welcome to access.
‘ICSA actively supports governance in the sector and welcomes opportunities to work with partners to further enhance understanding and the application of good governance in all sizes of charities,’ adds Louise.
The other day StarLightMckenzie led a @UKGovChat discussion on “How can governors ensure SEND gets the attention it deserves?” There were some very important questions raised during the discussion. I thought it would be helpful to collate them here.
Do you consider it good practice to have a single SEND Governor even though it’s the responsibility of whole GB?
Where SEND is key role for one governor, how do we ensure the rest of the GB take responsibility?
Does it make a difference if the SEND governor has SEND themselves or is the parent of a SEND child?
Should the SENDCo work closely with and report to the SEND Governor, if there is one, to ensure best practice for all?
How often should the SEND governor meet with the SENDCo?
Is it better for the SEND Governor role to be taken on by a parent, community or staff Governor, ideally?
Should the GB ask to see documents to show how all trips are made fully SEND accessible for all?
What SEND specific training or knowledge is essential for a GB to fulfil their duty?
Should the SEND Governor meet with the SENDCo frequently and if so, how frequent should the meetings be? What about other staff members?
How do you know if children with SEND are achieving their potential?
Aside from progress, on what else should the SEND Governor challenge the school?
Do you think there is a need for a SEND Governors to network and support each other across schools/nationally?
A question which was posed on Twitter after the chat: What should we do if we find SEND but without EHCP making less progress than those with?
If you would like to read the entire chat then please click here.
I was invited to the launch of the Driver Youth Trustreport, Through the Looking Glass. There were interesting presentations followed by a panel discussion. During the panel discussion StarlightMcKinzie asked a very important question, “Shouldn’t all governors be governors of SEND?” The short answer is yes. All governors should be clear that their role is looking after the interests of ALL the children and hence they are all governors of SEND too. However, many governing bodies do have a designated SEND governor. The Department for Education’s SEND Code of Practice states
6.3 There should be a member of the governing body or a sub-committee with specific oversight of the school’s arrangements for SEN and disability. School leaders should regularly review how expertise and resources used to address SEN can be used to build the quality of whole-school provision as part of their approach to school improvement.
Legally there is no requirement for a particular governor to take on the role of SEND governor. What must happen is oversight, review and monitoring of the SEND provision. The governing body (GB) decides how best to do this. Many GBs decide to appoint a SEND governor who then reports back to the GB. This, in my view, is a good way to function. The advantages of having a named SEND governor are
One named person takes the lead and ownership and then reports back to the whole GB
There are many areas which the GB needs to monitor and for all of these areas school visits will form an integral part of the monitoring. Having named governors for these areas means that the
Work load is divided and few governors do not end up doing all the tasks. As governors are volunteers this is essential so that their time is utilised effectively
Having one governor “look after” SEND means that one governor is then “accountable” for monitoring. This ensures that SEND doesn’t get neglected because everyone assumed someone else would do it
The SEND governor would, as part of the monitoring visits, meet with the SENDCo. One named governor performing the role of SEND governor means that the SENDCo can develop a professional relationship with that person. This would be difficult if different governors came into school to have conversations with the SENDCo
Because these monitoring visits would be arranged between two people, the SEND governor and the SENDCo, it would be easier for them to schedule regular visits as only two diaries need to be consulted. Different people coming in to meet the SENDCo would be more difficult to arrange than just one governor visiting. Having more than one person coming in may also increase the workload of the SENDCo as different people may want to focus on different things and also lead to duplication
Governors should attend training which would help them to function effectively. Having one named governor taking on the role of SEND governor means that there are more chances of this governor attending relevant training/briefing.
Different governors bring different skills to the boardroom. The GB may be lucky enough to have someone with a good understanding of SEND issues or someone who is interested enough to attend training/briefings/read research so as to become well informed of SEND issues. Giving this governor the role of SEND governor means that the GB is utilising the skills available to it effectively
Though having one named governor is, in my opinion, a good way to monitor and evaluate the SEND provision, the GB must ensure that ALL governors are aware of the issues and take responsibility for the SEND children. This is done by ensuring there is regular reporting by the governor and SENDCo and that SEND is a regular item on the agenda. At the end of the day although having one named governor is an efficient way of performing the role, the GB is a corporate body and the responsibility is a corporate responsibility.
Some other points to consider:
It may be better not to take on this role in the school your child attends if you are the parent of a SEND child
The SEND governor should have frequent meetings with the SENDCo (perhaps termly so that the GB has reports to consider at every meeting).
It would also help if the SEND governor could also meet with the pastoral team in order to get acquainted with the complete picture of the support available to SEND children
Are there any other points which should be added to the above?
I started blogging four years ago this March. At that time I didn’t know how long I would keep on writing so I’m quite pleased to be still here four years later. As in previous years, I’ve decided to look back at the year that was.
I’m pleased that my viewership is gradually increasing as is the number of people who follow my blog.
Ofsted also featured in the top five search terms which led readers to the blog.
Ofsted questions for governors
Ofsted annual report 2016
Ofsted grade descriptors 2015
Ofsted grade descriptors
My blog, surprisingly, was viewed in 79 countries. Many obviously would have ended up here by mistake as I don’t know why anyone living in Brunei or Madagascar for example would be interested in school governance in England!
I enjoy blogging as it gives me a chance to put down my thoughts, tell people where I stand on various issues and enter into debate on governance related topics. I also use it as an archive forvarious links, reports etc (for example see myend of the year review post.And its because of blogging that I was asked toreview 2016 for Schools Week.
This blog was also the reason I started my other blogA Roller In The OceanI found that once I started blogging there were many other issues I wanted to write on but they had nothing to do with governance which is why I started the othe blog.
Thank you to everyone who reads and comments on my blogs. Hopefully, I’ll see you at the 5th anniversary party too!