| Interim Executive Boards An Interim Executive Board (IEB) is a small body appointed on a short-term basis by a local authority to turn around a school that is judged to be in urgent need of improvement. An IEB replaces the governing body of a school that has either been placed in special measures or given notice to improve by Ofsted, or that has not complied with a warning notice from its local authority (LA). |
| The IEB's main functions are to secure a sound basis for future
improvement in the school and promote high standards of educational
achievement. |
| Once a decision has been taken for the LA to put in place an IEB at a
school, it issues a notice which provides that from a date specified, the
governing body is to consist of interim executive members. This notice
may also specify the date when the IEB is to become a normally constituted
governing body, or this may be specified in a later notice. The transition
from an IEB to a post-IEB governance structure begins with the appointment of
a shadow governing body by the local authority which works alongside the IEB
for at least six months. |
| The School Governance (Transition from an Interim Executive Board) (England) Regulations 2010 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/1918/contents/made Where a school is eligible for intervention there are a number of powers the local authority or the Secretary of State may use to drive school improvement. These interventions are set out in sections 63-66 of the 2006 Act in respect of local authorities and sections 67 to 69 in respect of the Secretary of State. Local authorities must give reasonable notice in writing to the governing body that they propose to exercise their powers under any one or more of sections 63 to 66. Local authority powers of interventionTo require the governing body to enter into arrangements.Section 63 enables a local authority to require a school which is eligible for intervention1 to enter into arrangements with a view to improving the performance of the school. The local authority may give the governing body a notice requiring them:
TimeframeWhere the school is eligible for intervention as a result of being given a performance standards and safety warning notice, this power must be exercised within a period of two months following the end of the compliance period. If the local authority fails to exercise this power within this time, it can no longer be exercised and a new warning notice must be given in order to do so.ConsultationBefore the local authority can exercise this intervention power they must consult:
The appointment of additional governorsSection 64 enables a local authority to appoint additional governors where a school is eligible for intervention. The local authority is likely to appoint additional governors when they would like a school to be provided with additional expertise and may appoint as many additional governors as they think fit. In the case of a voluntary aided school where the local authority have exercised the power to appoint additional governors, the appropriate appointing authority in relation to that school may appoint an equal number of governors to those appointed by the local authority.TimeframeWhere the school is eligible for intervention as a result of being given a performance standards and safety warning notice, this power must be exercised within a period of two months following the end of the compliance period. If the local authority fails to exercise this power within this time, a new warning notice must be given in order to do so. Where the local authority appoints additional governors there is no requirement to consult. |
Saturday, 3 December 2011
Interim Executive Boards (IEB)
Friday, 2 December 2011
The Case Against Paying School Governors
I wrote an opinion piece for the Times on the case against paying School Governors. It was published on page 27 of today's Times (Friday 2nd December 2011)
This was my original submission before the Times slightly edited it.
This was my original submission before the Times slightly edited it.
The question of paying School Governors is
not a new subject but one I feel very strongly should not happen in any form.
As a Chair of Governors and an Advanced Skills Governor I often run training
workshops to help fellow governing bodies become more efficient. The first
question I ask them all individually is “why did you become a governor?”
Invariably the answer is something akin to “because I wanted to be part of my
child’s education” or “I wanted to put something back into the community” or “I
am passionate about Education.”
The 300,000 strong school governing
community are the biggest and possibly the most successful volunteer army in Britain
and my concern is that, in remunerating School Governors, their independence
and passion for the role they freely do would be removed.
The key to modern governance is that a
governing body is a ‘corporate body’, sharing the responsibility, workload and
decisions. I agree the role has become increasingly more complex, demanding and
time consuming but it is also very rewarding. Although the primary goal for any
governing body is improving outcomes for children, many governors report that
governance also has a beneficial impact on their personal career development.
It often teaches them to take a strategic view, looking both forward and
outward and learn about skill sets they wouldn’t normally come across in their
usual day-to-day lives.
Being a chair of governors has taught me to
listen to every other point of view first around the table before putting my own
opinion last. It’s about great team work!
I believe paying individual governors
undermines this concept and could lead to people entering the profession with
the wrong motives from the start.
If school governors were paid, would it give
the tax payer value for money? Who would appoint them, who would they report to
and who would carry out their performance management? These are all big
questions that need to be addressed.
I would be very concerned if any public
money was diverted from the Education budget to pay for a governor payment
scheme. In these times of financial austerity I am sure the money would be better
spent elsewhere to directly benefit pupils.
There is already a legal framework for
governing bodies to pay ‘out of pocket’ expenses to their school governors.
Legitimate allowances include travel allowances to meetings & training
courses, cost of child care while attending meetings/training and the cost of
photocopying/printing papers for governing body business. Many school governors
do not claim any expenses and the main reason given is that they did not think
they should receive any financial ‘reward’ for their role as a volunteer.
I do believe there is room to compensate
employers with tax incentives for employees who give up their time during work
hours to be school governors. Under employment law, employers must give
employees who are school governors “reasonable time off’ to carry out their
duties. However there is no definition of reasonable and the time off does not
have to be paid. Investing money encouraging businesses to be involved in local
schools would be far more beneficial to the employers, their employees and the
schools.
A scan of the article can be found here and covers both the for and against arguments.
The scan of the article can be downloaded from here
Thursday, 1 December 2011
School Governance was judged good or outstanding in 58% of schools
Ofsted published their annual report this month
The full report can be found here
Here is a summary of what they said about School Governance
Ofsted Inspections
this year identified considerable variations in
the quality of governance across different types
of school. Governance was judged good or
outstanding in 58% of schools inspected this year overall,
but this varied between 53% in pupil referral units
and 55% in primary schools, to 64% in secondary
schools and 71% in special schools.
Although in the
majority of schools the governing body acts as a
critical friend, inspection findings show that where
governance is less effective a lack of transparency
and accurate information restricts the ability of the
governing body to monitor the work of the school
systematically.
Absolute
clarity about the different roles and responsibilities
of the headteacher and governors
underpins the most
effective governance.
Governance
supports honest, perceptive selfevaluation by the school,
recognising problems
and supporting
the steps needed to address them.
Effective
governing bodies are driven by a core of key
governors such as the chair and chairs
of committees.
They see themselves as part of a team and
build strong relationships with the headteacher,
senior leaders and other governors.
School leaders
and governors behave with integrity and
are mutually supportive; school leaders
recognise that governors provide them with a
different perspective that contributes to
strengthening
leadership; the questions they ask challenge
assumptions and support effective
decision-making.
Governors are
able to take and support hard decisions in
the interests of pupils; to back the
headteacher
when they need to change staff, or to change the
headteacher when absolutely necessary.
Governors also
have a critical role in ensuring the success of any school merger. There needs to be a compelling rationale for
the merger and clear strategic direction. Governors need to be confident that the senior
leadership team has the vision and capability to
effect the merger successfully. In one example of
an unsuccessful merger governors acknowledged
that the merger had not been well planned;
there was a lack of continuity in governance and
only an interim principal was in post at the
time of the merger.
Full report from Ofsted at http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/annualreport1011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)