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
Showing posts with label models of school governance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label models of school governance. Show all posts
Saturday, 7 May 2011
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
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
Sunday, 13 February 2011
Potential models for School Governance reform
Potential models for School Governance reform
I have recently reading a research paper written by Stewart Ranson and Colin Crouch from the Institute of Education, University of Warwick Institute of Governance. It was written in December 2009 but much of it is still valid. One part that caught my eye was potential models of school governance.
Debate within the national school governance policy community reveals three contending, and contested models for the reform of school governance:
1. The business model: schools are multi million pound businesses, too important to be governed by inexperienced amateurs. A smaller executive body of people with experience of running organisations can provide the appropriate support school leaders need. This model does not necessarily exclude people from the community.
2. An executive and stakeholder scrutiny model acknowledges the claims for a smaller executive, but does not want to sacrifice the function of accountability provided buy the stakeholder model. A hybrid model of governance is proposed with a small executive subject to the scrutiny of a broader stakeholder governing body.
3. A community governance model. Building on Education Improvement Partnerships, the challenge for governance is for schools in an area to work together to engage families and share responsibility for all the children in a cluster. The role for governors is to become leaders and enablers of community development.
Recommendations for the future governance of schools
A coherent framework of school governance is needed to support and secure the developing programme of educational change. Our research describes the way local authorities have been experimenting and innovating with new forms of governance. The leading local authorities are now looking to move beyond experiment to establish a coherent system of school and community governance. The principles for such a framework of governance should where possible, we argue, strive to accommodate and reconcile the tensions that presently frustrate the practice of good governance. Can the framework strive to accommodate:
• Multi-layered governance
• Executive and scrutiny functions
• Specialist and civic knowledge
• Difference and deliberation
• Professional and citizen membership
Taken from a 2009 Research Paper entitled 'Towards a new governance of schools in the remaking of civil society' by Stewart Ranson and Colin Crouch Institute of Education, University of Warwick Institute of Governance.
The full 68 page report can be downloaded from CFBT which funded the research.
http://www.cfbt.com/evidenceforeducation/pdf/NewGovernance(Report)v6.pdf
I have recently reading a research paper written by Stewart Ranson and Colin Crouch from the Institute of Education, University of Warwick Institute of Governance. It was written in December 2009 but much of it is still valid. One part that caught my eye was potential models of school governance.
Debate within the national school governance policy community reveals three contending, and contested models for the reform of school governance:
1. The business model: schools are multi million pound businesses, too important to be governed by inexperienced amateurs. A smaller executive body of people with experience of running organisations can provide the appropriate support school leaders need. This model does not necessarily exclude people from the community.
2. An executive and stakeholder scrutiny model acknowledges the claims for a smaller executive, but does not want to sacrifice the function of accountability provided buy the stakeholder model. A hybrid model of governance is proposed with a small executive subject to the scrutiny of a broader stakeholder governing body.
3. A community governance model. Building on Education Improvement Partnerships, the challenge for governance is for schools in an area to work together to engage families and share responsibility for all the children in a cluster. The role for governors is to become leaders and enablers of community development.
Recommendations for the future governance of schools
A coherent framework of school governance is needed to support and secure the developing programme of educational change. Our research describes the way local authorities have been experimenting and innovating with new forms of governance. The leading local authorities are now looking to move beyond experiment to establish a coherent system of school and community governance. The principles for such a framework of governance should where possible, we argue, strive to accommodate and reconcile the tensions that presently frustrate the practice of good governance. Can the framework strive to accommodate:
• Multi-layered governance
• Executive and scrutiny functions
• Specialist and civic knowledge
• Difference and deliberation
• Professional and citizen membership
Taken from a 2009 Research Paper entitled 'Towards a new governance of schools in the remaking of civil society' by Stewart Ranson and Colin Crouch Institute of Education, University of Warwick Institute of Governance.
The full 68 page report can be downloaded from CFBT which funded the research.
http://www.cfbt.com/evidenceforeducation/pdf/NewGovernance(Report)v6.pdf
Monday, 10 January 2011
Models of corporate School Governance
Models of corporate school governance
In this blog I will discuss some of the models of corporate governance that are relevant to School governors. The concepts come from the 'Hidden Givers' report which is linked at the end of this blog article. I will also cover other sections of the Hidden Givers this week in my blog.
The principal-agent model is the dominant model of organisational governance. It originates from the ‘professionalisation’ of management and the consequent division between ‘ownership’ and ‘operational control’, and the potential conflicts of interest that may arise from such arrangements. Alternative perspectives on corporate governance have emerged as a result of the limitations of the principal-agent model.
Two are relevant to governing in schools: stewardship and stakeholder models.
The three models are as follows.
The principal-agent model. This model formally recognises that the owners of companies, the shareholders or ‘principals’, are often separate from the managers of the company, the ‘agents’. Company managers are seen to have an informational advantage over the owners because of this arrangement. Moreover, managers are assumed to act in their own interests, which may not necessarily accord with those of the principals. The ‘manager in the mind’ of the principals is one who is:
• eager to take advantage when the circumstances arise
• likely to act in her/his own best interests when circumstances permit
• not be naturally motivated to act in the company’s best interests.
From this perspective, the primary goal of ‘good governance’ is to reduce the degree of imbalance of information between the manager and the board and to control the manager. The board thus has a monitoring role. It receives reports from managers, and establishes internal systems of accountability and reporting in order that the board (the principals) can control the operational management. The principal-agent model is a form of hierarchical governance.
In the principal-agent model, the board is to some degree at least independent of operational management so it can undertake the monitoring role. Boards may be eager to align the incentives of the agents with those of principals to encourage the agents to act in the principals’ interests. The design and implementation of remuneration packages are likely to be important in aligning the interests of the board (the owners/principals) and the managers (agents). In a pure principal-agent model, the managers would not be members of the board. Such an arrangement would blur the principal-agent boundary.
The stewardship model. This model is often contrasted with principal-agent models largely on the basis of the very different sense of the ‘manager in the mind’. This perspective on the manager conditions the assumptions on which this model is based. In the stewardship model, the manager is seen as:
• ready to act in the common good
• co-operative
• motivated to act wholeheartedly to meet the organisation’s objectives.
Financial incentives are thus likely to be less important as motivators to encourage the alignment between the objectives of the manager and the board. Managers want to run the organisation effectively and the interests of managers and owners are naturally aligned. Managers may possess knowledge superior to that of the board but that is of little consequence in practice. It is assumed they will use this knowledge to the benefit of the corporation.
In the stewardship model, the board’s role is to empower the management and to collaborate with it. The board is essentially facilitative and seeks to collaborate with the operational managers in taking actions that are in the corporation’s best interests. Remuneration arrangements typically reward performance rather than incentivise it. The board will typically comprise experts who are able to work jointly with the management to enhance decision quality. If the corporation’s managers were members of the board, it would not be at odds with the underpinning principles of this arrangement.
The stakeholder model. This model comes into play when a range of players have an interest or stake in the organisation and these different interests need to be recognised in the constitution of the board. The stakeholder ‘representatives’ may be elected or nominated by the existing board. The board has a role in balancing stakeholder needs and making appropriate policies and strategic decisions. Under the stakeholder model, the relationship with the manager can be either of the principal-agent kind or of the stewardship kind. It would be contingent on the way the manager was viewed, the alignment of the managers and the board, and the concern about any asymmetries in the knowledge of the managers and that of the board.
The full 'Hidden Givers' A study of School Governing bodies can be found linked below.
http://www.cfbt.com/evidenceforeducation/our_research/evidence_for_schools/school_improvement/the_hidden_givers_a_study_o.aspx
In this blog I will discuss some of the models of corporate governance that are relevant to School governors. The concepts come from the 'Hidden Givers' report which is linked at the end of this blog article. I will also cover other sections of the Hidden Givers this week in my blog.
The principal-agent model is the dominant model of organisational governance. It originates from the ‘professionalisation’ of management and the consequent division between ‘ownership’ and ‘operational control’, and the potential conflicts of interest that may arise from such arrangements. Alternative perspectives on corporate governance have emerged as a result of the limitations of the principal-agent model.
Two are relevant to governing in schools: stewardship and stakeholder models.
The three models are as follows.
The principal-agent model. This model formally recognises that the owners of companies, the shareholders or ‘principals’, are often separate from the managers of the company, the ‘agents’. Company managers are seen to have an informational advantage over the owners because of this arrangement. Moreover, managers are assumed to act in their own interests, which may not necessarily accord with those of the principals. The ‘manager in the mind’ of the principals is one who is:
• eager to take advantage when the circumstances arise
• likely to act in her/his own best interests when circumstances permit
• not be naturally motivated to act in the company’s best interests.
From this perspective, the primary goal of ‘good governance’ is to reduce the degree of imbalance of information between the manager and the board and to control the manager. The board thus has a monitoring role. It receives reports from managers, and establishes internal systems of accountability and reporting in order that the board (the principals) can control the operational management. The principal-agent model is a form of hierarchical governance.
In the principal-agent model, the board is to some degree at least independent of operational management so it can undertake the monitoring role. Boards may be eager to align the incentives of the agents with those of principals to encourage the agents to act in the principals’ interests. The design and implementation of remuneration packages are likely to be important in aligning the interests of the board (the owners/principals) and the managers (agents). In a pure principal-agent model, the managers would not be members of the board. Such an arrangement would blur the principal-agent boundary.
The stewardship model. This model is often contrasted with principal-agent models largely on the basis of the very different sense of the ‘manager in the mind’. This perspective on the manager conditions the assumptions on which this model is based. In the stewardship model, the manager is seen as:
• ready to act in the common good
• co-operative
• motivated to act wholeheartedly to meet the organisation’s objectives.
Financial incentives are thus likely to be less important as motivators to encourage the alignment between the objectives of the manager and the board. Managers want to run the organisation effectively and the interests of managers and owners are naturally aligned. Managers may possess knowledge superior to that of the board but that is of little consequence in practice. It is assumed they will use this knowledge to the benefit of the corporation.
In the stewardship model, the board’s role is to empower the management and to collaborate with it. The board is essentially facilitative and seeks to collaborate with the operational managers in taking actions that are in the corporation’s best interests. Remuneration arrangements typically reward performance rather than incentivise it. The board will typically comprise experts who are able to work jointly with the management to enhance decision quality. If the corporation’s managers were members of the board, it would not be at odds with the underpinning principles of this arrangement.
The stakeholder model. This model comes into play when a range of players have an interest or stake in the organisation and these different interests need to be recognised in the constitution of the board. The stakeholder ‘representatives’ may be elected or nominated by the existing board. The board has a role in balancing stakeholder needs and making appropriate policies and strategic decisions. Under the stakeholder model, the relationship with the manager can be either of the principal-agent kind or of the stewardship kind. It would be contingent on the way the manager was viewed, the alignment of the managers and the board, and the concern about any asymmetries in the knowledge of the managers and that of the board.
The full 'Hidden Givers' A study of School Governing bodies can be found linked below.
http://www.cfbt.com/evidenceforeducation/our_research/evidence_for_schools/school_improvement/the_hidden_givers_a_study_o.aspx
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)