Board models and composition
Growing autonomy for schools will force governors to take on more responsibility and an increasingly strategic role in a deregulated system. It could also initially place them under even greater strain.
It follows that the Education Bill should define what governors do and what their responsibilities should be. Our research has reinforced our view that this is exactly the right strategy. Too often schools have sacrificed quality in order to ensure proportional representation from parents, local politicians and particular professions to the detriment of other groups or individuals who may not easily fall into a specific category. Whilst we would not advocate any policy which would prescribe and exclude, we believe that governors should be appointed on the breadth of skills and experience they would bring and in relation to each school’s background, future ambitions and any specialisms it pursues.
The Eversheds Board Report (2011) shows the results of a comprehensive investigation that sought to establish the relationship between the composition of corporate boards and their success, in light of the financial crisis. It included an analysis of the size of the boards. The vast majority of board directors agreed that size was a major factor in the overall efficiency of the board in making strategic and effective decisions.
This was also reinforced by the quantitative findings of the report. We believe that this serves as a useful comparison when analysing the structure and relative efficiency of school governing bodies.
The role of chair
There can be no doubt that in the changing political and educational landscape, with the devolution of responsibility to individual schools or federations, that the role of chair will become more important than ever before.
We regard the importance of boards with strong chairs and appropriate succession planning as being vital to ensure that schools both manage risk and secure further and necessary improvements during the years ahead.
The relationship between chairs and parents will also be an increasingly important one as parents – perhaps less well represented on boards in the future –
seek to ensure that schools are effectively managed in the absence of LEAs.
Board numbers: confederations vs individual schools and improving the candidate pool
Traditional school governing bodies will typically number anything from 15 to 30.
It was the widespread view of those we interviewed that 15 should be the upper
limit and that boards should have 12 as a target number. This would focus the
chair and nominations committee on ensuring healthy competition and seeking to
appoint candidates with broad and varied skills.
Having investigated the number of members of governing bodies of a number of prominent education providers, we found this to be an interesting comparison between the size of the board at individual schools and those of confederations.
We would suggest that a large number of governors is not necessary even at ‘cluster’ schools or for those who act on behalf of a group of schools. Greater size does not entail greater strategic success or efficiency; indeed the trend would suggest the opposite to be more commonly the case.
Duration of service
We also considered the duration of term. Whilst there are benefits of continuity and institutional knowledge, we would recommend a maximum term of nine years per governor, with three year terms having the potential to be extended twice. This would ensure that succession planning for both chair and board members was fresh and vibrant and that a sense of immediacy and focus was enhanced in meetings.
Comparisons with membership and trade bodies may be made. Many such organisations have an annual rotation of president or chairman with office holders spending one to three years in the most senior position.
Time commitment
The time commitment given by governors will vary significantly. Fewer governors may well demand a greater individual commitment. However, fewer board members could increase competition and interest and improve the overall quality of those serving in some schools.
We would also consider whether more flexibility of timing of meetings should be reviewed. Although there are no immediate plans to review the school year, many schools are increasingly seeking to remain active and commercially focussed throughout the calendar year.
Confining governors’ meetings to term time should be reviewed and opportunities for board away days – already part of the programme for some schools – could become more widespread as smaller, more focussed boards develop their full operational potential.
Widening the appeal of boards
The majority of those we interviewed agreed that current parents may be attracted to individual school boards for personal reasons such as a direct association with the institution. It is likely that this will remain the case to a greater or lesser extent.
We would regard the number of parents as being a matter for individual schools and confederations.
We did not find any evidence to demonstrate the benefits of a fixed number of governors who are parents of pupils within a school, nor did we see a board without current parents as being in any way less effective than one with a number of them.
We would encourage boards to consider the benefits of all governors – including current parents – on merit through a more arms length appointments process. This would serve both to avoid potential conflicts and to encourage those from outside the institution/s to be considered. Advertising and other forms of recruitment should be seen as important ways to widen the appeal and ensure transparency of process.
Parents continue to have strong presence in particular on the boards of academies and free schools. There is also an emphasis in the maintained sector on parent representation which may evolve through introducing the fixed terms advocated above. Former parents were considered by several of those we interviewed, on balance, to be more constructive and beneficial than parent governors as a category,since parents may sometimes wish to steer the agenda towards matters of immediate concern and away from the more strategic parts of an agenda.
Alumni who are appointed to governing bodies are more widespread in independent than state schools. We saw this as a category which may be able to contribute more governors – again on the assumption of prior skills and experience requirements being met – than may be widely the case in state schools (not least in underperforming ones). There are many ways in which schools may promote wider applications and interest from their alumni and we would strongly encourage this
as another way to widen the talent pool in the future.
The corporate model
We suggest that the corporate model of executive and non-executive boards would be a good one for school governing bodies to emulate. The governors must set the strategy and vision for the school. Executive members – both teaching and operational staff – seem best placed to formulate a strategy for arriving at a given objective however it was agreed that often they do not have enough educational experience to know best how to achieve this vision. It will be highly desirable to have a good mix of experience to ensure an adequate skill set across the board
in preference to the more traditional representative models widespread amongst
schools. We address this area in further detail below.
The NHS Trust Board model
In comparison, NHS Trust Boards members are recruited not only on the basis of their “skills in finance or marketing... they must also represent their communities.” Many parallels can be drawn between the responsibilities of governors in the health 9 Daloni Carlisle, ‘Health Trust Boards are models of diversity’, 27 January 2010, Stable URL: http://www.
guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jan/27/health-trustboards-models-of-diversity, 21st January 2011
A full copy of the report can be found here
http://www.moderngovernor.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Who-Governs-the-Governors.pdf
Showing posts with label who governs the governors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label who governs the governors. Show all posts
Friday, 1 July 2011
Wednesday, 29 June 2011
Who Governs the Governors: Corporate comparisons
Corporate comparisons:a model to emulate?
We suggest that the corporate model of executive and non-executive boards would be a good one for school governing bodies to consider emulating. The governors must set the strategy and vision for the school. Executive members seem best placed to formulate a strategy for arriving at a given objective however it is our belief that often they do not have enough educational experience to know best how to achieve this vision.
The Eversheds Board Report (2011) highlighted the role of the chair as being fundamental to the board’s success. An effective chair will enable constructive,strategic thinking.
Whereas most corporate boards will be composed of a majority of non executives,this is clearly not the case with charities and independent schools. Nonetheless, in each case there is usually a qualified finance professional as the Chair of the Audit of Finance Committee. This category will invariably be combined with the others, although it may also provide diversity in terms of wider background, profession and careers (such as the arts, heritage, sport or politics).
Many governing bodies, in common with corporate boards, will have fixed terms, renewable for a further term or two. Schools may consider that this enables them to refresh the boards whilst retaining continuity of knowledge. Since many Heads will serve for more than ten years, there may be a case for an exception on governing bodies by having one or more “senior independent” governors who may be entitled to have a longer term to ensure continuity and corporate knowledge.
“[In the state sector,] many of the most successful schools have smaller governing bodies with individuals drawn from a wide range of people rooted in the community, such as parents, businesses, local government and the voluntary sector… We will legislate in the forthcoming Education Bill so that all schools can establish smaller governing bodies with appointments
primarily focused on skills.”
A full copy of the report can be found here
http://www.moderngovernor.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Who-Governs-the-Governors.pdf
We suggest that the corporate model of executive and non-executive boards would be a good one for school governing bodies to consider emulating. The governors must set the strategy and vision for the school. Executive members seem best placed to formulate a strategy for arriving at a given objective however it is our belief that often they do not have enough educational experience to know best how to achieve this vision.
The Eversheds Board Report (2011) highlighted the role of the chair as being fundamental to the board’s success. An effective chair will enable constructive,strategic thinking.
Whereas most corporate boards will be composed of a majority of non executives,this is clearly not the case with charities and independent schools. Nonetheless, in each case there is usually a qualified finance professional as the Chair of the Audit of Finance Committee. This category will invariably be combined with the others, although it may also provide diversity in terms of wider background, profession and careers (such as the arts, heritage, sport or politics).
Many governing bodies, in common with corporate boards, will have fixed terms, renewable for a further term or two. Schools may consider that this enables them to refresh the boards whilst retaining continuity of knowledge. Since many Heads will serve for more than ten years, there may be a case for an exception on governing bodies by having one or more “senior independent” governors who may be entitled to have a longer term to ensure continuity and corporate knowledge.
“[In the state sector,] many of the most successful schools have smaller governing bodies with individuals drawn from a wide range of people rooted in the community, such as parents, businesses, local government and the voluntary sector… We will legislate in the forthcoming Education Bill so that all schools can establish smaller governing bodies with appointments
primarily focused on skills.”
A full copy of the report can be found here
http://www.moderngovernor.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Who-Governs-the-Governors.pdf
Tuesday, 28 June 2011
Who Governs the Governors: What can the state sector learn from the independent sector?
What can the state sector learn from the independent sector?
Comparisons between the state and independent sector should not be made too closely, since the size and scale of the former provision is much greater, more complex and the challenges are, overall, greater. However, there may be some useful lessons to be learnt in terms of governance which may be applied in some state schools
.
Earlier research into the governing bodies of 100 leading independent schools in 2008 sought to establish their composition, typical size and diversity and background. These are the key findings:
Size and diversity
1. The average number of governors is 21.
2. There are, however, significant variations which are not always based on the size of school in terms of pupil numbers.
3. The gender balance amongst governing bodies varied, to some degree, according to the type of school.
4. Of the 34 girls’ schools considered, only 10 had a majority of female governors.
5. Of the 23 boys schools, all had a male majority governing body, with only Trinity School Croydon (part of the Whitgift Foundation) having equal numbers of male and female governors.
6. The coeducational schools considered varied in terms of whether or not they are fully coeducational and whether or not their status changed in recent years (several were previously all boys). Nonetheless, all those considered had a majority of male governors.
A full copy of the report can be found here
http://www.moderngovernor.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Who-Governs-the-Governors.pdf
Comparisons between the state and independent sector should not be made too closely, since the size and scale of the former provision is much greater, more complex and the challenges are, overall, greater. However, there may be some useful lessons to be learnt in terms of governance which may be applied in some state schools
.
Earlier research into the governing bodies of 100 leading independent schools in 2008 sought to establish their composition, typical size and diversity and background. These are the key findings:
Size and diversity
1. The average number of governors is 21.
2. There are, however, significant variations which are not always based on the size of school in terms of pupil numbers.
3. The gender balance amongst governing bodies varied, to some degree, according to the type of school.
4. Of the 34 girls’ schools considered, only 10 had a majority of female governors.
5. Of the 23 boys schools, all had a male majority governing body, with only Trinity School Croydon (part of the Whitgift Foundation) having equal numbers of male and female governors.
6. The coeducational schools considered varied in terms of whether or not they are fully coeducational and whether or not their status changed in recent years (several were previously all boys). Nonetheless, all those considered had a majority of male governors.
A full copy of the report can be found here
http://www.moderngovernor.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Who-Governs-the-Governors.pdf
Monday, 27 June 2011
Who Governs the Governors: Recruitment
Recruitment
“In order to ensure that governing bodies have the necessary skills and the independence to perform their function effectively, the routes by which governors are recruited need to be reviewed and improved. This will increase the number of skilled volunteers and help avoid the position where the head teacher has to “twist arms” to recruit sufficient governors who then find themselves having to scrutinise the head teacher’s performance, potentially
compromising their independence.
Governing our Schools – A report by Bob Wigley and Business in the Community
If we accept the common sense and logic of this approach, what is the mechanism for attracting the best governors into schools?
• We suggest the recruitment process should be set more fully in the public domain, to allow for increased transparency and diversity. The current model for candidates wishing to become governors is through the Public Appointments vacancies database or through word of mouth. We regard this course as too reactive and unresponsive.
• We would argue the need for a national database to which both candidates and schools have access through a password protected scheme, and which can match the two appropriately. This could be provided through a commercial education business and would enable candidates to update their profiles at any time and for schools to search by skills, location and experience. This would enable chairs and nominations committees to draw up their own shortlists of candidates for vacancies quickly and efficiently through an annual subscription.
At the same time, vacancies could be emailed to candidates directly and advertised.
• A national advertising campaign could also be provided to support the above, such as earlier successful campaigns to recruit new teachers.
• Headhunting for specific skills needed may also be an option which individual schools may wish to consider when advertising fails to generate the quality of candidates needed.
Alongside this, we suggest campaigns to increase awareness of this new form of recruitment and raise the profile and opportunities of becoming a school governor as a valuable non executive opportunity alongside a full time role or within a non executive and trustee portfolio.
A full copy of the report can be found here
http://www.moderngovernor.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Who-Governs-the-Governors.pdf
“In order to ensure that governing bodies have the necessary skills and the independence to perform their function effectively, the routes by which governors are recruited need to be reviewed and improved. This will increase the number of skilled volunteers and help avoid the position where the head teacher has to “twist arms” to recruit sufficient governors who then find themselves having to scrutinise the head teacher’s performance, potentially
compromising their independence.
Governing our Schools – A report by Bob Wigley and Business in the Community
If we accept the common sense and logic of this approach, what is the mechanism for attracting the best governors into schools?
• We suggest the recruitment process should be set more fully in the public domain, to allow for increased transparency and diversity. The current model for candidates wishing to become governors is through the Public Appointments vacancies database or through word of mouth. We regard this course as too reactive and unresponsive.
• We would argue the need for a national database to which both candidates and schools have access through a password protected scheme, and which can match the two appropriately. This could be provided through a commercial education business and would enable candidates to update their profiles at any time and for schools to search by skills, location and experience. This would enable chairs and nominations committees to draw up their own shortlists of candidates for vacancies quickly and efficiently through an annual subscription.
At the same time, vacancies could be emailed to candidates directly and advertised.
• A national advertising campaign could also be provided to support the above, such as earlier successful campaigns to recruit new teachers.
• Headhunting for specific skills needed may also be an option which individual schools may wish to consider when advertising fails to generate the quality of candidates needed.
Alongside this, we suggest campaigns to increase awareness of this new form of recruitment and raise the profile and opportunities of becoming a school governor as a valuable non executive opportunity alongside a full time role or within a non executive and trustee portfolio.
A full copy of the report can be found here
http://www.moderngovernor.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Who-Governs-the-Governors.pdf
Sunday, 26 June 2011
Who Governs the Governors: Accountability and sanctions
At the end of May, Neil Carmichael MP and Edward Wild published a report called 'Who Governs the Governors'
Accountability and sanctions
We need a more structured, systematic approach to internal auditing. The head and governing body must work together to deliver on set targets – both qualitative and quantitative.
The Schools White Paper highlights: “[there is a] need to make it easier for parents and the public to hold schools to account.
In the past, too much information has been unavailable to parents, too difficult to find or not presented comprehensibly.”
We want parents to be able to make a more informed choice about the schools they choose and the opportunity to ensure that it meets their expectations.
This will be a move away from nationally regulated provision of education; we are now looking toward local solutions and services for local communities. Information about the education services provided must become more easily available:
Furthermore, the board needs to become adept at self-evaluation and review, particularly if members are elected by virtue of their skills set rather than through a representative structure. Boards should become self-regulatory with an external eye.
‘Accountability for performance’ is a key aspect of the Policy Exchange’s paper
‘Blocking the Best – Obstacles to new independent schools’11, which highlights increasing “[a] fair and rigorous framework for monitoring educational standards and holding schools to account for their performance [as] an essential component of a successful education system”. This must be flexible enough to allow for innovation, which will be a complex but crucial balance to strike.
We would argue that in the event that a governing body demonstrably fails to deliver its obligations to the staff and pupils, then mechanisms put in place should give the majority of parents the opportunity to vote to force a resignation of chair or – in extreme cases – full boards.
Failing boards may have an even more detrimental impact on schools than failing teachers by their inability or unwillingness to take decisive action. This situation should be changed and the opportunities which the White Paper presents should be seized by forward looking schools.
A full copy of the report can be found here
http://www.moderngovernor.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Who-Governs-the-Governors.pdf
Accountability and sanctions
We need a more structured, systematic approach to internal auditing. The head and governing body must work together to deliver on set targets – both qualitative and quantitative.
The Schools White Paper highlights: “[there is a] need to make it easier for parents and the public to hold schools to account.
In the past, too much information has been unavailable to parents, too difficult to find or not presented comprehensibly.”
We want parents to be able to make a more informed choice about the schools they choose and the opportunity to ensure that it meets their expectations.
This will be a move away from nationally regulated provision of education; we are now looking toward local solutions and services for local communities. Information about the education services provided must become more easily available:
Furthermore, the board needs to become adept at self-evaluation and review, particularly if members are elected by virtue of their skills set rather than through a representative structure. Boards should become self-regulatory with an external eye.
‘Accountability for performance’ is a key aspect of the Policy Exchange’s paper
‘Blocking the Best – Obstacles to new independent schools’11, which highlights increasing “[a] fair and rigorous framework for monitoring educational standards and holding schools to account for their performance [as] an essential component of a successful education system”. This must be flexible enough to allow for innovation, which will be a complex but crucial balance to strike.
We would argue that in the event that a governing body demonstrably fails to deliver its obligations to the staff and pupils, then mechanisms put in place should give the majority of parents the opportunity to vote to force a resignation of chair or – in extreme cases – full boards.
Failing boards may have an even more detrimental impact on schools than failing teachers by their inability or unwillingness to take decisive action. This situation should be changed and the opportunities which the White Paper presents should be seized by forward looking schools.
A full copy of the report can be found here
http://www.moderngovernor.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Who-Governs-the-Governors.pdf
Wednesday, 15 June 2011
Who Governs the Governors: Promoting the role of governors
Promoting the role of governors
One of the best ways to give back to the community is by serving and supporting local schools to become more successful and to enable their pupils to achieve their best. Many companies encourage their employees to become more involved in their local communities. Developing a stronger pool of talent, particularly to populate the boards of failing schools which are historically the least successful, is already being achieved through effective partnerships.
We see this as one clear area where the Government should encourage further links to improve the contribution businesses can make to improving the quality of boards and, in so doing, driving up standards in schools.
Ultimately we also need to raise the profile, opportunities afforded and overall appeal of becoming a school governor. It will also be essential to ensure that there is a greater and more widespread awareness of the role, responsibilities and rewards of such a position to potential candidates.
We view Teach First’s effective recruitment and training of able graduates as an ideal model upon which to develop and increase opportunities for talented young people to become involved in teaching and volunteering in the education sector.
The strong competition for places on the Teach First scheme (5,000 graduates competed for 560 places on the scheme and Teach First is currently seventh in The Times Top 100 list of graduate employers6) ensures the very best are recruited to improve levels of teaching in failing schools. The contribution which Teach First graduates will be able to make to boards, even when they have changed careers,should be developed as a key source of candidates who would bring first-hand experience of education to school boards.
The ‘Governance for Change’ initiative emphasises the worthwhile nature of volunteering as a school governor, and encourages graduates from Teach First to continue to make valuable contributions to schools after completing the scheme.
It will give Teach First ambassadors “the opportunity to contribute their unique perspective and develop their leadership skills whilst maximising their long-term impact on addressing educational disadvantage by serving on a school governing body.”
We hope that this program will help to raise the social prestige of volunteering as a governor, in demonstrating that this is a meaningful way to influence long-term, positive change in schools.
One of the best ways to give back to the community is by serving and supporting local schools to become more successful and to enable their pupils to achieve their best. Many companies encourage their employees to become more involved in their local communities. Developing a stronger pool of talent, particularly to populate the boards of failing schools which are historically the least successful, is already being achieved through effective partnerships.
We see this as one clear area where the Government should encourage further links to improve the contribution businesses can make to improving the quality of boards and, in so doing, driving up standards in schools.
Ultimately we also need to raise the profile, opportunities afforded and overall appeal of becoming a school governor. It will also be essential to ensure that there is a greater and more widespread awareness of the role, responsibilities and rewards of such a position to potential candidates.
We view Teach First’s effective recruitment and training of able graduates as an ideal model upon which to develop and increase opportunities for talented young people to become involved in teaching and volunteering in the education sector.
The strong competition for places on the Teach First scheme (5,000 graduates competed for 560 places on the scheme and Teach First is currently seventh in The Times Top 100 list of graduate employers6) ensures the very best are recruited to improve levels of teaching in failing schools. The contribution which Teach First graduates will be able to make to boards, even when they have changed careers,should be developed as a key source of candidates who would bring first-hand experience of education to school boards.
The ‘Governance for Change’ initiative emphasises the worthwhile nature of volunteering as a school governor, and encourages graduates from Teach First to continue to make valuable contributions to schools after completing the scheme.
It will give Teach First ambassadors “the opportunity to contribute their unique perspective and develop their leadership skills whilst maximising their long-term impact on addressing educational disadvantage by serving on a school governing body.”
We hope that this program will help to raise the social prestige of volunteering as a governor, in demonstrating that this is a meaningful way to influence long-term, positive change in schools.
Tuesday, 14 June 2011
Who Governs the Governors: Different Models of Governance
Different models of governance
‘Freedom and flexibility’
The governance models of academies, federations, cluster schools, and free schools suggest that the freedom to develop innovative approaches to schools and their governing bodies has often been associated with improved education across the country for many children, regardless of their catchment areas.
The success of academies, such as Ark Schools and the Harris Federation of South London Schools, where “results for English and mathematics have improved by up to four times the national average in each of the last four years”,demonstrates, that the independence to introduce strategies that are suited to individual school circumstances allows for rapid and often dramatic improvement in failing schools.
Free Schools Movement
The Free Schools Movement advocates a similar degree of autonomy for schools. Founded by parents, organisations, and other interest groups dissatisfied with the provision of education in their catchment area, a free school can be set up if the group can show a viable business plan.
A key difference between academies and free schools is the latter’s funding by the government. Another difference is that academies are also built on the foundations of unsuccessful schools, concentrating on their positive features and reforming the negative, including “an approach to attendance monitoring and educational welfare which has significantly improved attendance and timely procurement of educational psychology and special needs support”.
This argument which propagates the benefits of economics of scale that can be achieved by schools working in federation has previously been outlined in the Policy Exchange report, ‘Blocking the best – Obstacles to new independent schools’“One of the arguments against schools outside local authority control is that they will also be outside local authority support...Yet local authorities are not the only route to those economies. School chains or federations –
where ‘back office’ functions are shared by a number of schools to cut down costs standardise practice, and free up schools to teach – and have the advantages of a local authority without removing the bene.ts of competition and innovation.”
The academy movement has seen an increasing number of ‘multi-academy sponsors’ – central institutions which take on administrative functions and leave their individual schools to educate. Like local authorities these have the advantages of scale, but without being a geographical monopoly. Other school providers can compete and costs are lowered.
Just as federation and partnership models are being developed for teaching, we see a powerful case for developing this model for school governance as one way in which accountability can be increased and the calibre of governors may be improved at the same time. Giving boards wider responsibility and oversight for more than one institution will also appeal to potential candidates to serve on such boards.
‘Freedom and flexibility’
The governance models of academies, federations, cluster schools, and free schools suggest that the freedom to develop innovative approaches to schools and their governing bodies has often been associated with improved education across the country for many children, regardless of their catchment areas.
The success of academies, such as Ark Schools and the Harris Federation of South London Schools, where “results for English and mathematics have improved by up to four times the national average in each of the last four years”,demonstrates, that the independence to introduce strategies that are suited to individual school circumstances allows for rapid and often dramatic improvement in failing schools.
Free Schools Movement
The Free Schools Movement advocates a similar degree of autonomy for schools. Founded by parents, organisations, and other interest groups dissatisfied with the provision of education in their catchment area, a free school can be set up if the group can show a viable business plan.
A key difference between academies and free schools is the latter’s funding by the government. Another difference is that academies are also built on the foundations of unsuccessful schools, concentrating on their positive features and reforming the negative, including “an approach to attendance monitoring and educational welfare which has significantly improved attendance and timely procurement of educational psychology and special needs support”.
This argument which propagates the benefits of economics of scale that can be achieved by schools working in federation has previously been outlined in the Policy Exchange report, ‘Blocking the best – Obstacles to new independent schools’“One of the arguments against schools outside local authority control is that they will also be outside local authority support...Yet local authorities are not the only route to those economies. School chains or federations –
where ‘back office’ functions are shared by a number of schools to cut down costs standardise practice, and free up schools to teach – and have the advantages of a local authority without removing the bene.ts of competition and innovation.”
The academy movement has seen an increasing number of ‘multi-academy sponsors’ – central institutions which take on administrative functions and leave their individual schools to educate. Like local authorities these have the advantages of scale, but without being a geographical monopoly. Other school providers can compete and costs are lowered.
Just as federation and partnership models are being developed for teaching, we see a powerful case for developing this model for school governance as one way in which accountability can be increased and the calibre of governors may be improved at the same time. Giving boards wider responsibility and oversight for more than one institution will also appeal to potential candidates to serve on such boards.
Monday, 13 June 2011
Who Governs the Governors asks MP Neil Carmichael
At the end of May, Neil Carmichael MP and Edward Wild published a report called 'Who Governs the Governors' which I will cover in 6 parts over the next 6 days.
The twentieth century saw many changes within English education, leading to the abolition of the majority of grammar schools during the 1970s, and the introduction of comprehensive schools. Subsequent legislation led to the creation of Grant Maintained schools and, more recently, the establishment of academies under the
last Labour Government.
Improving both the performance of individual schools and driving up standards to ensure greater freedom of choice must be the hallmark of any well formulated education policy.
How will academies and other schools, without the day to day involvement of LEAs, ensure that the leadership of their school or groups of schools (in the case of federations) meets the expectations of pupils, teachers and parents whilst addressing the educational challenges of the future?
The report has identified six key areas to consider and will consider them in the context of the White Paper, key research undertaken into governance, corporate and other models and the interviews and seminars we have held from November 2010 – April 2011. The key areas are as follows:
1. The benefits and disadvantages of representative or Skills Based Boards and how to assess them;
2. The essential and desirable experience needed on all boards and the specific requirements for each school;
3. Remuneration for chairs and board members;
4. Attraction and retention of governors from the widest possible range of backgrounds and area to ensure that boards meet the needs of the school they serve;
5. Formal assessment of chairs and board members; fixed terms and extension of tenure;
6. What opportunities should be provided for a majority of parents, if they see serious failures of leadership and oversight by their governing body, to replace the chair and board?
A full copy of the report can be found here
http://www.moderngovernor.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Who-Governs-the-Governors.pdf
The twentieth century saw many changes within English education, leading to the abolition of the majority of grammar schools during the 1970s, and the introduction of comprehensive schools. Subsequent legislation led to the creation of Grant Maintained schools and, more recently, the establishment of academies under the
last Labour Government.
Improving both the performance of individual schools and driving up standards to ensure greater freedom of choice must be the hallmark of any well formulated education policy.
How will academies and other schools, without the day to day involvement of LEAs, ensure that the leadership of their school or groups of schools (in the case of federations) meets the expectations of pupils, teachers and parents whilst addressing the educational challenges of the future?
The report has identified six key areas to consider and will consider them in the context of the White Paper, key research undertaken into governance, corporate and other models and the interviews and seminars we have held from November 2010 – April 2011. The key areas are as follows:
1. The benefits and disadvantages of representative or Skills Based Boards and how to assess them;
2. The essential and desirable experience needed on all boards and the specific requirements for each school;
3. Remuneration for chairs and board members;
4. Attraction and retention of governors from the widest possible range of backgrounds and area to ensure that boards meet the needs of the school they serve;
5. Formal assessment of chairs and board members; fixed terms and extension of tenure;
6. What opportunities should be provided for a majority of parents, if they see serious failures of leadership and oversight by their governing body, to replace the chair and board?
A full copy of the report can be found here
http://www.moderngovernor.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Who-Governs-the-Governors.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)