Tag Archives: Ofsted

Removal of the outstanding exemption: Consultation matters

As you know outstanding schools are exempt from routine inspections. There has been a great deal of debate on whether this exemption should be removed. Today (10th Jan 2020) Department for Education (DfE) launched a consultation into the removal of  this exemption. DfE is seeking views from

  • Head teachers, teachers and governing boards in maintained nursery schools,
    maintained schools and academy trusts, including nursery schools, infant
    schools or first schools, middle schools, junior schools, special schools, Pupil
    Referral Units (PRUs), studio schools, UTCs, City Technology Colleges, City
    Colleges for the Technology of the Arts and free schools.
  • Principals/ CEOs, their staff and those responsible for governance in General FE
    colleges, Sixth Form colleges, designated institutions, 16 – 19 academies,
    independent learning providers (including employer providers), not for profit
    providers, independent specialist colleges, Higher Education Institutions (HEIs)
    delivering FE or apprenticeships and local authority providers.
  • Local authoritie
  • Dioceses and other religious authorities
  • Parents
  • Students
  • Employers
  • Any other interested individuals or organisations

The consultation will close at 5:00 pm on 24th Feb 2020. You can read about the consultation here . You can respond online using this link. If, for exceptional reasons, you cannot respond online then you can do so by post or by email (details in the pdf linked above). The response will be published in spring.

This is your chance to make your views known about this so please do respond to the consultation and encourage others to do so too.

School inspection update (Nov 2019) matters

A school inspection update was issued in November. This is the first update since the new inspection framework was rolled out in September 2019. This update includes minor corrections. Below are the sections which will be of particular interest to governors with the changes highlighted in yellow..

Summary of changes made to the section 5 handbook

Paragraph 110

Said:

‘The role that governors and trustees play in the school’s performance is evaluated as part of the judgement on the effectiveness of leadership and management, and each report will contain a separate paragraph that addresses the governance of the school.’

Now says:

‘The role that governors and trustees play in the school’s performance is evaluated as part of the judgement on the effectiveness of leadership and management, and each report will contain, if appropriate, a separate paragraph that addresses the governance of the school.’

Paragraph 118

Said:

  • for maintained schools, the chair of the school’s governing body and as many governors as possible

Now says:

  • for maintained schools, the chair of the school’s governing body and as many governors as possible; the clerk of governors, or their delegate, may also attend to take
    notes

Summary of changes made to the section 8 handbook

Paragraph 24

Said:

‘Normally, the final feedback meeting will be attended by:

  • for maintained schools, the chair of the school’s governing body and as many governors as possible

Now says:

  • for maintained schools, the chair of the school’s governing body and as many governors as possible; the clerk of governors, or their delegate, may also attend to
    take notes

I had assumed that clerks can also attend the feedback meeting if the school being inspected is an academy or part of a multi-academy trust. I asked Ofsted to clarify and they’ve said that this indeed is the case.

 

Ofsted’s Education Inspection Framework and governance matters

As you know Ofsted published its new education inspection framework (EIF) on 14th May 2019 which will come into effect from September 2019. I have extracted those parts of the handbook which mention governors/governance. I’m especially pleased with

They may be shared with school staff and all those responsible for the governance of the school, irrespective of whether they attended the meeting, so long as they are clearly marked as provisional and subject to quality assurance. (My emphasis).

The phrase in bold was missing from the draft and in my response to the consultation I had asked if it could be put back in. I’m really glad to see that it has. We know that this has been a problem in the past when governors not present at the meeting were not allowed to attend the feedback. My fear was that taking this phrase out may mean that this continues to be a problem and governors won’t be able to challenge it.

Below are the extracts mentioning governors/governance.

Outstanding/exempt schools

22. In addition, exempt schools may be inspected between risk assessments if:

concerns are raised about standards of leadership or governance

Section 8 inspections of good and non-exempt outstanding schools

26. As is the case for all schools, a good school may still receive a ‘no formal designation’ inspection carried out under section 8 at any time in certain circumstances. For example, we may decide that we should inspect a school earlier than its next scheduled inspection if:

concerns are raised about standards of leadership or governance

Schools requesting an inspection

31. Schools are able, via the appropriate authority (normally the school’s governing body), 25 to request an inspection. We treat these inspections as an inspection under section 5. If we carry one out, HMCI may charge the appropriate authority for its cost.

Before the inspection

Clarification for schools

43. The information below confirms our requirements. This is to dispel myths about inspection that can result in unnecessary workload in schools. It is intended to highlight specific practices that we do not require.

44. Ofsted will:

  • allow the school to invite as many governors or trustees as possible to meet inspectors during an inspection
  • in academies, meet those directly responsible for management and governance, including the chief executive officer (CEO) or their delegate (or equivalent), the chair of the board of trustees and other trustees
  • talk to the chair of governors/board of trustees by telephone if they are unable to attend a face-to-face meeting with the inspector in the school

Notification and introduction

51. During the initial notification phone call, the inspection support administrator will check the number of pupils on roll at the school, the governance arrangements for the school and whether the school has any SEND, nursery provision for two- and three-year-olds or additional resource provision.

Information that schools must provide by 8am on the day of inspection

53. The inspection support administrator will also send the school a note requesting that the following information is available to inspectors by 8am the next day, at the formal start of the inspection:

  • documented evidence of the work of those responsible for governance and their priorities, including any written scheme of delegation for an academy in a MAT

Inspection planning discussion

62. It is important that inspectors speak to those responsible leadership and governance during inspection. Since schools, and especially MATs, operate a wide variety of leadership and governance models, it is essential that inspectors establish who is responsible for leadership and governance.

63. The lead inspector will therefore:

  • establish what the governance structure of the school or academy is,34 with reference to the range of functions delegated to local governing bodies or other committees
  • confirm arrangements for meetings with the school and, if appropriate, MAT executive leaders, as well as representatives of those responsible for the governance of the school and anyone else they think relevant. The lead inspector should be guided by the school here as to who they need to meet in the structure of a MAT
  • make arrangements for a meeting with the chair of the governing body or, if appropriate, the chair of the board of trustees and as many governors/trustees as possible. Inspectors will also ask the school to invite as many governors/trustees as possible to attend the final feedback meeting

No-notice inspections

We may carry out inspections without notice.44

Meeting those responsible for governance

107. Inspectors will always seek to meet those responsible for governance during the inspection.

108. In a maintained school or standalone academy, this will usually include maintained school governors or academy trustees and sponsors (including sponsor representatives, where they exist).

109. In a school that is part of a MAT, the board of trustees is the governance body. Often, local governing bodies can appear responsible for governance, when in reality it is trustees who are accountable for the academy trust. Local governing bodies are committees to which trustees have often chosen to delegate some specific responsibilities, but in some cases they may act purely as advisory bodies and engage with the community. Their responsibilities will normally be set out in the trust’s scheme of delegation. Sometimes, their powers are delegated from the managers of the MAT; in this case, they are part of the school’s management, not its governance. Inspectors will therefore need to be careful to establish who has overall responsibility for governance. Inspectors will also ensure that meetings are with those who are directly responsible for exercising governance of the school and for overseeing its performance.

110. The role that governors and trustees play in the school’s performance is evaluated as part of the judgement on the effectiveness of leadership and management, and each report will contain a separate paragraph that addresses the governance of the school.

111. As with the meetings between inspectors and pupils, parents and staff, meetings or telephone discussions with those responsible for governance should take place without the headteacher or other senior staff being present.

Providing feedback

118. The on-site inspection ends with a final feedback meeting with the school. Those connected with the school who may attend include:

  • for maintained schools, the chair of the school’s governing body and as many governors as possible
  • for academies, including academies that are part of a MAT, the chair of the board of trustees and as many trustees as possible

Due to the diverse nature of school governance, in some schools a single individual may have more than one of the above roles.

119. During this meeting, the lead inspector will ensure that the headteacher, those responsible for governance and all attendees are clear:

  • about the provisional grades awarded for each key judgement. The lead inspector must give sufficient detail to enable all attendees to understand how judgements have been reached and for those responsible for the governance of the school to play a part in beginning to plan how to tackle any areas for improvement
  • that the grades are provisional and so may be subject to change as a result of quality assurance procedures or moderation and must, therefore, be treated as restricted and confidential to the relevant senior personnel (as determined by the school). They may be shared with school staff and all those responsible for the governance of the school, irrespective of whether they attended the meeting, so long as they are clearly marked as provisional and subject to quality assurance. Information about the inspection outcomes should be shared more widely only when the school receives a copy of the final inspection report
  • that, on receipt of the draft report, they must ensure that the report is not shared with any third party outside those with specific responsibility for the governance of the school, or published under any circumstances

Special measures

128. A school requires special measures if:

  • the persons responsible for leading, managing or governing are not demonstrating the capacity to secure the necessary improvement in the school 59

129. If inspectors consider that the evidence shows that the overall effectiveness of the school is inadequate, they must conclude that the school is failing to give an acceptable standard of education. Inspectors must then consider whether leaders, managers and governors are failing to demonstrate the capacity to improve the school. If so, then the school requires special measures.

Serious weaknesses

130. If inspectors consider that the evidence shows that the overall effectiveness of the school is inadequate, but consider that leaders, managers and governors demonstrate the capacity to improve the school, they will instead judge the school to have serious weaknesses. A school with serious weaknesses will have one or more of the key judgements graded inadequate (grade 4) and/or have important weaknesses in the provision for pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development.

After the inspection

Arrangements for publishing the report

143. Inspection reports will be quality assured before we send a draft copy to the school. The draft report is restricted and confidential to the relevant personnel (as determined by the school), including those responsible for governance, and should not be shared more widely or published.

Sources of evidence specific to behaviour and attitudes

210. Over the course of inspection, inspectors will carry out evidence-gathering activities. In some cases, inspectors will be able to gather this evidence as part of other activities they are carrying out. The activities are:

  • gathering the views of parents, staff, those with responsibility for governance and other stakeholders

Grade descriptors for personal development

Inadequate (4)

Personal development is likely to be inadequate if any one of the following applies.

  • A significant minority of pupils do not receive a wide, rich set of experiences.
  • Leaders and those responsible for governance, through their words, actions or influence, directly and/or indirectly, undermine or fail to promote equality of opportunity in the school.
  • Leaders and those responsible for governance are not protecting pupils from radicalisation and extremist views. Policy and practice are poor, which means that pupils are at risk.
  • Leaders and those responsible for governance are actively undermining fundamental British values and are not protecting pupils from radicalisation and extremist views.

Leadership and management

225. The leadership and management judgement is about how leaders, managers and those responsible for governance ensure that the education that the school provides has a positive impact on all its pupils. It focuses on the areas where inspection and research indicate that leaders and managers can have the strongest effect on the quality of the education provided by the school. Important factors include:

  • whether leaders and those responsible for governance all understand their respective roles and perform these in a way that enhances the effectiveness of the school

Governance

232. Inspectors will seek evidence of the impact of those responsible for governance.

233. In a maintained school, those responsible for governance are the school governors. In a stand-alone academy, it is the trustees.

234. In a MAT, the trustees are responsible for governance. Inspectors will ask to speak to one or more of the trustees. It may be that, on occasion, the trustees have chosen to delegate some of their powers to the members of the ‘academy committee’ or ‘local governing board’ at school level.90 If inspectors are informed that a local governing body has delegated responsibilities, they should establish clearly which powers are with the trustees, which are with the leaders of the MAT and which are with the local governing board. They should then ensure that both their inspection activities and the inspection report reflect this.

235. Inspectors will need to bear in mind, when inspecting academies that are part of a MAT, that governance functions can be quite different from those in a maintained school. Some functions that a governing body in a maintained school would carry out may be done by management or executive staff in a trust. If this is the case, it will still be important for inspectors to ascertain the trust board’s role in that process and how it ensures that these functions are carried out properly.

236. The governance handbook 91 sets out the purpose of governance, which is to provide confident, strategic leadership, and to create robust accountability, oversight and assurance for educational and financial performance.

237. The governance handbook also sets out the statutory functions of all boards, no matter what type of school or how many schools they govern. There are three core functions:

  • ensuring clarity of vision, ethos and strategic direction
  • holding executive leaders to account for the educational performance of the school and its pupils, and the performance management of staff
  • overseeing the financial performance of the school and making sure that its money is well spent, including the pupil premium.

238. Inspectors will explore how governors carry out each of these functions. For example, the clarity of the school’s vision, ethos and strategic direction will have a significant impact on the decisions that leaders make about the curriculum. Inspectors will consider whether the work of governors in this respect is supporting the school to provide a high-quality education for its pupils.

239. In addition, those with governance/oversight are responsible for ensuring that the school fulfils its statutory duties, for example under the Equality Act 2010, and other duties, for example in relation to the ‘Prevent’ duty and safeguarding. Please note that, when inspectors consider whether governors are fulfilling this responsibility, they are not expected to construct or review a list of duties.

240. Inspectors will report clearly on governance in the inspection report.

Use of the pupil premium

241. Inspectors will gather evidence about the use of the pupil premium, particularly regarding:

  • how leaders and governors have spent the pupil premium, their rationale for this spending and its intended impact

Sources of evidence specific to leadership and management

272. Evidence used to evaluate the impact of leaders’ work, both currently and over time, includes, but is not limited to:

  • meetings with those responsible for governance, as appropriate, to evaluate how well they fulfil their statutory duties, including their duties under the Equality Act and in relation to safeguarding

Grade descriptors for leadership and management

275. In order to judge whether a school is good or requires improvement, inspectors will use a ‘best fit’ approach, relying on the professional judgement of the inspection team.

Good (2)

  • Those responsible for governance understand their role and carry this out effectively. Governors/trustees ensure that the school has a clear vision and strategy, that resources are managed well and that leaders are held to account for the quality of education.
  • Those with responsibility for governance ensure that the school fulfils its statutory duties, for example under the Equality Act 2010, and other duties, for example in relation to the ‘Prevent’ duty and safeguarding.

Inadequate (4)

  • The improvements that leaders and those responsible for governance have made are unsustainable or have been implemented too slowly.
  • There is a clear breach of one or more of the legal responsibilities of those responsible for governance, and that breach is serious because of the extent of its actual or potential negative impact on pupils. The proprietor/governing body either is unaware of the breach, or has taken insufficient action to correct it and/or to remedy the negative or potential negative impact on pupils and/or to ensure that a suitable system is in place to prevent a similar breach in the future.

Applying the EIF in pupil referral units and alternative provision in free schools and academies

313. All parts of the EIF apply to PRUs and other alternative provision in free schools and academies. However, in the same way that all school contexts are different, so are PRU and other alternative providers. Inspectors will gather and evaluate evidence about:

  • whether leaders are ambitious for all pupils, and the extent to which those responsible for governance understand the particular context of the provision

 

NOTES

25 The term ‘governing body’ is used to define the accountable authority for the school. In the case of an academy, including schools within a MAT, this will be the board of trustees.

34 This must be checked with the headteacher as part of the call. If MATs have delegated responsibility to local governing bodies, this should be set out in a scheme of delegation. Academies should also set out their governance structure in their annual financial statements, which can generally be found through the DfE performance tables site. Inspectors should clarify where responsibility lies and who they should talk to during the inspection, especially where a school is part of a MAT

44 We will consider inspection without notice when there are serious concerns about one or more of the following: the breadth and balance of the curriculum; rapidly declining standards; safeguarding; a decline in standards of pupils’ behaviour and the ability of staff to maintain discipline; and standards of leadership or governance.

59 As set out under section 44 of the Education Act 2005.

90 All MATs should have, and publish, a scheme of delegation clearly setting out everything that has been delegated by the board of trustees to the local governing board or any other person or body. Advice on how this this should work can be found in the DfE guidance; http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/multi-academy-trusts-establishing-and-developing-your-trust.

91 Governance handbook, Department for Education and National College for Teaching and Leadership, 2015; www.gov.uk/government/publications/governance-handbook.

Governance in the spring and summer terms; reflecting and looking ahead matters

This has been a long and tiring term. As Easter approaches and governance slows down (it never stops completely!) I find myself sitting down with a cup of tea and looking back and reflecting on the term that was and also looking ahead to the last term of the year.

A major event in the Spring term was an inspection. One of the schools, Crofton Junior, belonging to Connect Schools Academy Trust where I’m a trustee, was inspected just before half term. This was a Good school and had had a short inspection last April. The inspection felt very thorough but fair. Governors and trustees met with the Inspector and had a chance to talk through what we knew of the school’s strengths and where we could do even more. The Inspector had read our minutes and understood MAT governance. The feedback was constructive. On a professional level, the inspector we met was knowledgeable and we could tell he had done his homework. On a personal level he was very accommodating. I had had to leave by a certain time and the inspector had no problem with that and quickly put me at ease. I didn’t have to reference Sean Harford’s myth busters as any trustee/governor who could attend the feedback was invited to do so. Ofsted come in for a lot of criticism (and some of that is justified) but I think when they get things right then we should talk about those too. This inspection was one such example. Although we don’t things for Ofsted, it was reassuring to find that they thought the same as us, that we were providing an education which our children are entitled to. Looking back, the one thing which stands out about the two days is how the whole community pulled together and were happy to do so. Our children are amazing. The staff and parents too. I think that’s what makes it an outstanding school. Yes, results are amazing, behaviour impeccable but it’s the “this is my school, I’m proud of it and I’ll do my best for the children” attitude which makes me really happy. Looking to the next term, we will continue doing what we’ve always done; our best for every child under our care.

The second thing which has been keeping me busy is governor recruitment. We have been looking to fill our community governor vacancies. We appointed two governors last term; one who is a deputy head in a local secondary school and the other has extensive experience of stakeholder engagement and project management. I’m not sure whether it’s because we are in a leafy, London suburb or just lucky but to get such great governors to add to the skill set we already have bodes very well for us. These candidates came to us via Inspiring Governance and Governors for Schools.

Reflecting on the process, I’m quite happy with the way we did it. We gave the candidates all the necessary information, sent them links to the Governance handbook and made clear the responsibilities that we as governors have. We had an interview process where we probed how their skills could complement those already present. We also worked through some scenarios. Although both candidates were not current governors they were able to work through these scenarios and gave us answers which indicated that they were aware of issues such as conflicts of interest, confidentiality etc. I think we will continue to use this process when we have further vacancies. It gives the candidates an idea of what’s involved and it gave us a chance to see how they could fit in with the team. I’m also a firm believer that although we are volunteers we need to approach governance in a professional manner and going through an interview process makes that clear. I am, however, aware that there are areas where there aren’t many people who put themselves forward to become governors and so interviewing someone who does may be a luxury people can’t afford. If that is you, I would still encourage you to meet with prospective candidates so that they have a chance to find out what being a governor is all about.

We have also thought about how to ensure that these governors understand their role. The trust is putting together a training programme and the first one they’ve been invited to is an induction session. I am also in the process of putting together an induction pack which will be ready by the time we go back. Once they have had a chance to work through it, I would like to ask them their thoughts about the whole induction process. I’d like to know what worked best, what didn’t and what could be made better. They have been assigned a mentor each and maybe this is something they could discuss with their mentors.

While I was writing this blog, I was made aware of this tweet.

This is something GBs should think about. If you have a vacancy then it may help to advertise the fact on your website. You never know, someone may come across it and decide to get in touch with you.

I have also been reflecting upon the Leadership Conference I attended as Chair of an LGB. My school is part of United Learning. Once a year they hold a two day Leadership Conference where all heads of schools and chairs of LGBs are invited. The members of the board, the CEO, Jon Coles, the Regional Directors and the Company Secretary attend too. This is a really good way to get to know other heads and chairs, to hear from the board and the CEO and to feedback to them. Communication in a MAT is very important and needs to be two way; from the board to the LGBs and from the LGBs to the board. The Leadership Conference is one way United Learning accomplishes this (there are other events too where the board and LGBs get together). Education with character is what United Learning is all about. This was evident at the conference from the keynote speech from Andrew Triggs Hodge OBE (retired British rower and a triple Olympic Gold Medallist and quadruple World Champion) to the stunning musical performance by students from Manchester Academy, a United Learning sponsored academy.

If MATs decide to have LGBs then these LGBs should add value and to do this LGBs should know what’s happening at the board level and should be able to communicate what’s happening at the local level. The vision and values that drive the work of the trust should be explicit and should drive the work of the LGBs. My other trust is a much smaller (and newer) than United Learning. Trust wide communication is something we are very keen to get right. We are exploring how we can best achieve this.

Looking ahead to the summer term we will continue looking at the curriculum, something we had started doing before the inspection. Communication, as I mentioned above, is another thing we will be working on. The board has started reviewing our vision and values. This is important as the trust is growing. On a personal level, I’m looking forward to attending educational events and presenting at some of these. I have the following events in my diary. It would be lovely to see you at some of these events.

There will also be the summer term board and LGB meetings. Looks like the next term will be a busy one too but that’s just how I like it to be.

Holidays between terms are a good time to sit back and reflect and also to look ahead. What was your last term like and what are you looking forward to in the summer term?

Governance matters at #rEDBrum

Regular readers of this blog and my twitter followers know that I am a bit of a conference junkie! One of the conferences I enjoy attending are researchED ones. I was really happy to have been asked by Claire Stoneman to do a session at the researchED Birmingham conference and to be part of a panel. We (Steve Penny and I; Steve had kindly offered to drive us to Birmingham) reached Erdington Academy at around 8.30am. After registering we made our way to the canteen for tea and a pastry and then to the hall for the start of the proceedings. Below is a short account of the sessions I attended and what I think their relevance to governance is.

Tom Bennett and the Claire Stoneman started us off, both explaining why researchED is so important. Tom talked about the importance of research informed practice if we were to progress as profession. He also appreciated the fact that people have given up their Saturday to be here and that the speakers are speaking for free. Claire said that organizing #rEDBrum was like throwing her ideal party. She told us about the context of her school and that she didn’t want her children’s future to be risked on a whim or fancy. We could not afford to waste time and children deserved the best education and teaching rooted in research. Not giving them this was akin to gambling with their future.

It was then time for the keynote address. This was given by Professor Daniel Mujis, Head of Research at Ofsted. My main takeaways from the keynote were

  • The importance of schools working as communities: A shared culture with a strong buy in from parents is important to improve behaviour and drawing on the culture of the community can help with this.
      • As governors, we need to ask ourselves if our school is actually a close knit community or not. Ask yourself if you know what the behaviour is like in your school.
  • Cultural capital isn’t equally shared and this is one reason for inequality. We should be teaching our kids a curriculum which adds to their knowledge and doesn’t replicate what they already know. Using pupil interest to drive the curriculum is a mistake.
      • When your head and senior leaders are discussing the curriculum with you, do you ask questions around cultural capital?
      • Do you know your students and their backgrounds well enough to know if they lack cultural capital which other children may have?
      • How does your curriculum help in reducing this gap as well as the inequality?
  • Healthy school environment where debate is encouraged is needed as democracy is built on it. For this to happen we need an environment where we different/opposing views can be aired and where we learn from each other.
      • Do governors know if this happens in their schools?
      • Do you have debate societies as well as an environment where people can learn from other cultures?
      • Is there an environment where different views are heard and understood?
  • Does your school have a broad curriculum for ALL students?
      • How do you ensure you are not giving them more of the same?
      • Do you expose your scientists to literature and arts and your humanists to science and maths?
      • Is there progression in what’s taught?

Prof Mujis ended his keynote by encouraging everyone to take part in the consultation into the new framework (consultation is open till 5th April).

The next session I attended was by Mark Lehain, provocatively titled, “Getting SLT to behave on behaviour”. He started off by asking the audience to think of an answer to the question, “Why educate?”. This is such a powerful question and the answer would determine why we do a lot of what we do. This might be a good exercise to do as a board. Mark went on to show us some stats. The number of teachers who told Teacher Tapp (a free app which asks three questions each day) that they dreaded going to work was a shock. A Delta poll found that 75% of the teachers polled thought that low level disruption occurs frequently or very frequently in their schools and 72% reported that a colleague had left the teaching profession due to bad behaviour. Mark asked the audience if the same was true of them and around half of the audience responded that they had left a school due to bad behaviour. As governors this should be of great concern to us for three reasons

  • Teachers leaving the profession due to bad behaviour in schools will fuel the retention problem
  • As governors we need to be mindful of the effect bad behaviour has on staff well being
  • As governors we also need to consider the effect bad behaviour has on the well being and education of other students

As governors

  • Are you aware what behaviour is like in your school?
  • Are you aware how bad behaviour is tackled in your school?
  • Do you conduct exit interviews?

Mark said that as a head his test was, “Is this good enough for Sophie (his daughter)?”. I think that is a good question for all of us to ask ourselves; is what we are doing good enough for our own children.

Session 1 was followed by a panel debate. On the panel were Stuart Lock, Heather Fern, Sonia Thompson and myself with Tom Bennett in the chair. Stuart, in reply to a question about culture, made a very important point. He said that we often talk about vision and culture rather than talking about things which actually affect what happens in schools. Stuart also made the case for prioritising professional learning and CPD for teachers. Heather posed some questions which I think are some governors could ask too. She asked us to consider

  • Which subject has the strongest curriculum?
  • How do you know?
  • What can other departments learn from this subject?

Sonia, speaking from a primary phase point of view, said that designing primary curriculum was scary. This needed greater subject specific knowledge and progression of cultural capital.

When asked about a governor’s role in curriculum designing I said this, again, is one area where we need to be mindful of not stepping into the operational. Instead, we should be asking questions such as

  • Do we have a broad and balanced curriculum?
  • What do we think a child leaving our school should know?
  • Does our curriculum follow a progression model?
  • Is our curriculum in line with our school values and how do we ensure that it is? This is important as what is taught becomes the public declaration of out ethos and values.
  • How do we ensure it is accessible to all?
  • What CPD is available for staff to help them develop their subject knowledge and help them in curriculum designing?

Stuart agreed that the role played by governors is an essential one. It was good to hear an executive principal say this about governors/trustees.

For Session 2 I decided to attend Andrew Percival’s session who talked about his school’s development of a knowledge rich curriculum. If you have a curriculum in which you can change the order of things you are teaching then that is not a progression model. The five principles which Andrew’s school used to develop their curriculum are

  • Acquisition of knowledge is at the heart
  • Knowledge is specified in meticulous detail
  • Knowledge is acquired in long term memory
  • Knowledge is carefully sequenced over time
  • Focus on subject disciplines

As governors, are you aware how your school is going about building its curriculum so it follows a progression model and builds up content in the long term memory? Andrew made another point which we as governors should be mindful of. He said building up a curriculum is a big and hard job. Heather, earlier in the day, had said that Ofsted is aware of this and realise and appreciate this. As governors we should be careful that we don’t expect to see a complete overhaul of our curriculum in a very short period of time. Ofsted don’t expect this and we certainly shouldn’t.

I next went to hear Summer Turner talk about subject communities. Summer said a subject community is not a place where someone tells others what to do; everyone be they a head or a trainee teacher is equally important. A subject community is where teachers, academics and other subject specialists can come together and exchange ideas. Summer thinks that perhaps these are more needed by primary schools. A subject community can facilitate subject specific CPD, evolve wider networks and help form a professional library which is subject linked. Summer thinks subject communities are vital for school improvement because they can

  • Help with recruitment and retention
  • Help with curriculum development
  • Help with teacher development

I found this talk fascinating. I wonder what, if anything, governors can do (should we do?) to encourage our staff to join such communities. We can of course ask our leadership team if our staff have thought of subject communities as way of getting subject specific CPD. Governors, too, I think should be part of governor communities. One very good way of doing this is to follow @UKGovChat on Twitter and join governor groups on Facebook (School Governors UK, Jane-School Governor’s Group, Governing Matters are three such groups).

I then made my way to Stuart Lock’s session. Stuart talked about behaviour in his school. He said that he won’t say behaviour is impeccable because nothing can be perfect. However, it is good because when it’s bad school leaders deal with it. Stuart made the point that “sweating the small stuff keeps the standards high”. He also talked about culture and values and elaborated what he had said during the panel session. He thought culture is very hard to define and value statements can become “waffle”. Stuart said that they carry out anonymous staff surveys which keep them grounded. They also have open and frank discussions about pupil performance and these conversations do not form part of performance management so staff feel they are able to ask for help if they need it. It is also very important for them that the leadership is visible. Hearing Stuart speak made me think of some questions governors could ask themselves:

  • How good/bad the behaviour is in your school?
  • How do you know how good/bad the behaviour is?
  • Do you know if policies are applied consistently?
  • Do you know what staff, parents and pupils think about behaviour in the school?
  • Do you see results of staff surveys? Do you do survey staff yourself?
  • How do you ensure your school values aren’t just a statement of something nice to have? How does it distinguish you from other schools? If someone were to read your vision/values statement could they identify your school or is it so general that it could apply to any school in the country?

There were some brilliant speakers in the fifth and final session but as I was speaking myself I had to miss those. Slides from my session are here if you would like to have a look.

All in all, it was a wonderful day and I took away a lot from it. I’m very grateful to Claire for outing governance on the programme and for inviting me. Even if I had not been speaking I would have made every effort to go. I think it is important for governors to attend events other than pure governance events. As governors we need to be interested in education and this interest should go beyond governance in our own school. As governors we may, at times, feel slightly detached from what happens in classrooms, what do teachers think and the direction education and educational research is moving in. Attending events such as these gives governors a chance to meet and exchange ideas and views with teachers. It may help you to better understand what is happening in your school. These events are a great networking opportunity. Some of the contacts you make may be helpful to teachers in your school too. And best of all, researchED events are very reasonably priced which is an important consideration for us volunteers.

Further reading:

Blogs:

Curriculum, Community, Culture and Collaboration by Beth Greville-Giddings

#rEDBrum 2019 takeaway by Nick Wood

The Problem(s) with the Teachers’ Standards This is a summary of Matt Burnage’s session

Getting Better Teaching: Part 1 – Teacher Experience Getting Better Teaching: Part 2 – The Value Of Stability by David Weston

My Wakelet collections of tweets from various sessions:

Prof Daniel Muijs

Panel discussion

Mark Lehain

Andrew Percival

Summer Turner

Stuart Lock

All I want for Christmas …… are governance things that matter

As Christmas is fast approaching this is a seasonal blog but with a message. The link to Christmas maybe a bit tenuous but I hope you will enjoy it nevertheless.

On the first day of Christmas my governing body sent to me an induction package.

New governors need support to understand the role and their responsibilities. One way we can do this is by having a good induction programme in place. I have previously written about induction for new governors.

On the second day of Christmas my governing body sent to me a subscription to online training.

Professional development is important for new governors as well as those who have been on the governing body for some time. Training ensures that we remain effective. Governors may find online training fits in better with their day jobs and home life. Governing bodies should investigate if their members would prefer online training. My previous blogs discussing training are here, here and here.

On the third day of Christmas my governing body sent to me contact details of my mentor.

One way a governing body can help a new governor understand the role is by asking an experienced governor to act as a mentor. This will help ease the new person into the role. They may feel more comfortable asking questions/clarifications outside of meetings.

On the fourth day of Christmas my governing body sent to me a governor expenses policy.

Governors are volunteers and paying them to carry out their duties is not allowed.However, they are allowed to claim legitimate expenses such as photocopying costs, childcare expenses etc. Governing bodies should have a Governor Expense Policy in place. Having a policy in place and governors being clear that that no individual should be prevented from becoming a governor or carrying out their duties because of expenses incurred doing so is important as it ensures that the governing body is inclusive.

On the fifth day of Christmas my boss told me how much time I could have off for governance.

Employees can get time off work for certain public duties as well as their normal holiday entitlement. Governance falls into this category. Employers can choose to pay them for this time, but they don’t have to. We should make sure our governors know this. We should also try and encourage employers to make it as easy as possible for their employees to carry out their governance duties.

On the sixth day of Christmas my governing body sent to me the bio of our new, young governor.

Younger people continue to be underrepresented in school governance. The graph is taken from School Governance in 2018, a report of the annual survey by the NGA in association with Tes.

Having younger people on governing bodies means we get a different perspective and the young people who join us get valuable experience.

On the seventh day of Christmas my governing body sent to me news of the appointment of an independent, professional clerk.

A good clerk is pivotal in ensuring that the governing body is as effective as it can be. It is true that good schools will have good governing bodies. It is, I think, equally true that good governing bodies have good clerks. It is considered best practice to have independent and professional clerks. Having school staff clerk governing body meetings can give rise to conflicts of interest so is best avoided. We must also realise that good clerking is much, much more than minute taking. The clerk should be able to advise the chair on matters of governance and help ensure that the governing body works in an efficient and effective manner.

On the eighth day of Christmas my governing body sent to me a protocol for virtual meetings.

Governing bodies are allowed to meet virtually, via Skype, for instance. This is a good way to involve people who may find it hard to get to the meeting on time. It can also help where the governing body is discussing something of an urgent but important nature and one or more governors cannot get to the meeting. I would recommend that the governing body agrees a protocol for this.

On the ninth day of Christmas my governing body sent to me papers well in advance of the meeting.

In order to have an effective meeting, it is essential that governors are sent papers to be considered at the meeting well in advance. This allows them to study them and come prepared to the meeting. We all should take responsibility for this. Reports which have been requested from the school should be sent out on time. If governors are writing a report, they too should ensure that it goes out on time.

On the tenth day of Christmas my governing body sent to me a promise that meetings would run to time.

Everyone’s time is precious. Heads, SLT and governors would either have put in a whole day’s work before coming to the meeting or will be heading to work after the meeting ends. In both cases it’s important that the meeting runs to time. There is also the fact that if the meeting is a very long one then concentration may start to wane. If the discussion goes on and on then chances are that its going around in circles. The role of the chair is very important. The chair should ensure that everyone stays on topic and that the discussions are sharp and focused. Timed agendas are one way of trying to keep to time.

On the eleventh day of Christmas I met a head who understands governance.

The vast majority of heads do understand governance and the important role played by governors and they work with them to bring about school improvement. They understand that one of the roles of governors is to provide challenge.These heads relish these opportunities to show the work being done by them and their teams. But there are a few heads who think in terms of us and them. When a head understands governance and when the governing body understands the role of the head then they work well together and the children benefit. The National Governance Association (NGA), the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL), the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) and the Local Government Association (LGA) collaborated to produce a guidance document on what do school leaders and governing boards expect of each other which is well worth a read. The National College(as it was then) had also produced a resource, Working effectively with a Governing Body.

On the twelfth day of Christmas my true love sent to me the Ofsted myth busting document.

There are lots of myths around how many governors (and which ones) can meet inspectors during an inspection, who is allowed to attend the feedback meeting and who is allowed to see the draft inspection report. Ofsted has helpfully published a myth busting document addressing all these myths. Have a look also at two of my blogs where I’ve talked about Sean Harford addressing this issue. These can be accessed here and here.

What twelve  governance related gifts would you like your true love to send to you?

Ofsted Inspection Handbook Sept 2018; knowing what’s changed matters

Ofsted have published the Sept 2018 version of its Inspection hadbook. For my previous blog I had extracted those parts of the handbook which talked about governance. Jude Hunton had asked on twitter if there were significant changes between the updated version and the old one. Elizabeth Boulton, Head of Research Dissemination Ofsted, had kndly responded. She told us how to check for changes in the update (click on show all updates which is next to the publication date) and listed the changes. This may be of interest to others too so I am copying the changes below.

Updated handbook: added privacy notice information, updated ‘Inspection of religious education and collective worship’ section (in annex). Updated ‘Clarification for schools/Ofsted inspection myths’ document: added new information in ‘Evidence for inspection section’ about attainment, added new sections on performance management, safeguarding, and the curriculum.

Updated paragraphs 21 and 23 to clarify that good schools are now inspected approximately every 4 years.

Paragraph 17 has been amended to clarify the position for inspecting exempt schools.

Updated for changes to ‘Requires improvement’ monitoring and changes arising from the second consultation on short inspections.

Changes to the Outcomes for pupils section reflecting changes to GCSE grades and data reports (a new IDSR); updates to Clarification for schools section and mythbuster document around myths and misunderstandings; clarification of arrangements for meeting relevant members of the governance structure and inclusion of chief executives or equivalents in inspections of academies in multi-academy trusts; and new content explaining what happens to schools that receive the ‘requires improvement’ and ‘inadequate’ judgements.

Link to latest inspection blog post with summary of changes to handbook.

Updated to reflect changes in legislation.

Added HTML version of inspection myths document.

Updated clarification document for schools added. This document has been updated to reflect the handbook for use from September 2015.

Final document for use from September 2015 published.

First published.