Governance: our position | ��ƷSM��ӰƬ

Core functions and effective governance

The growth of the multi academy trust model means that governance models are increasingly diverse. Nonetheless, governance retains four core functions in the English education system:��

ensuring there is clarity of vision,��ethos��and strategic��direction;��

holding��the executive leaders to account for the educational performance of the organisation and its pupils; and��the performance��management of��staff;��

overseeing��the financial performance of the organisation and making��sure its money is well spent��and;��

ensuring��the voices of stakeholders are heard.��

How these functions are fulfilled will differ by board type, with trust boards,��maintained��school governing bodies and local academy committees having slightly different remits.��

All boards must appreciate the strategic nature of their role.��The governor/trustees’ role is largely��strategic��and the headteacher/CEO has responsibility for the operational day to day management and oversight of the school or trust. The distinction between governance and management needs to be clearly understood by all parties to ensure an effective working partnership.��

��ƷSM��ӰƬ has��identified��eight key elements of effective governance:��

The right people around the table
Understanding roles & responsibilities
Good chairing
Professional clerking ��
Good relationships based on trust��
Knowing the school – the data, the staff, the parents, the children, the community��
Commitment to asking challenging questions��
Confident to have courageous conversations in the interests of the children and young people��

Composition and conduct��

Governors and trustees need to be clear about their role and the responsibilities that come with it – whether in a maintained school or an academy.��School governance is a voluntary role, but having volunteered, those governing must accept the full responsibilities of the role and carry out their duties in a professional manner.��

Although there is no legal constraint on the length of time a chair of the governing board can serve, ��ƷSM��ӰƬ’s view is that an element of regular reappraisal and renewal is beneficial to all schools, and that all chairs should normally expect to step down after a maximum of six years in post.��

In line with good practice in the charity sector ��ƷSM��ӰƬ thinks that governors/trustees should serve no more than two terms of office (eight years) in any one school or trust.��

��ƷSM��ӰƬ does not think that it is good practice for any individual to serve on more than two governing boards at one time – unless there are exceptional circumstances (e.g.��being requested to sit on an Interim Executive Board).��

Those sitting on governing boards need to have the skills,��knowledge��and attitudes to govern well.��Governing boards should adopt formal recruitment strategies, with��a role��and person specification, and interview prospective governors/trustees.��Even where the position on the governing board is an elected one – the role and responsibilities need to be made clear.��

��ƷSM��ӰƬ thinks that parents, of children at a school, bring an important perspective to governing boards and that they should remain a compulsory part of the composition of boards with two exceptions:��

In multi-academy��trusts��this could be at academy level rather than trust board level.��

In special schools and alternative��provision��there should be flexibility as to whether parents are a mandatory element of the composition of the board.��

All governing boards should adopt a Code of Conduct which is rooted in the seven principles of public life. This should include clear strategies for dealing with conflicts of interest.��ƷSM��ӰƬ’s view is that conflicts of interest should be avoided,��whether or not��these are financial.��If governors adopt open and transparent recruitment��strategies��then such conflicts should be��identified��earlier and more easily avoided.��Some governing boards either��fail to��identify��a��conflict, or��think that because it has been��identified��and��registered��it has been dealt with.��

In ��ƷSM��ӰƬ’s��opinion��the dual role of the headteacher/chief executive in presenting plans, giving��advice��and providing information to the governing board while at the same time being a member of the governing board creates an inherent conflict of interest. ��ƷSM��ӰƬ does not think that the headteacher/chief executive should be a member of the governing��board, but��should be��required��to attend governing board meetings.��

Payment for governors and trustees

��ƷSM��ӰƬ’s view is that governors and trustees sitting on normally constituted governing boards should not be paid. ��ƷSM��ӰƬ does think that all members of Interim Executive Boards should be paid – this is a different role and requires more time and involvement.��

��ƷSM��ӰƬ’s view is that chairing the board of state funded schools should remain a voluntary,��un-paid��role.��There��is currently no evidence to suggest that payment of chairs would contribute significantly to the effectiveness of governing��boards��and payment would undoubtedly change the dynamic between other governors and the chair and the senior leadership team.��

��ƷSM��ӰƬ supports further strengthening of arrangements to ensure proper payment of expenses and time off with pay agreed with all employers to support governors in their valuable work.��

Training��

��ƷSM��ӰƬ’s view is that if governors are going to carry out these serious and demanding responsibilities effectively, then they need to be trained. In keeping with other voluntary roles that carry important statutory responsibilities, school governance should properly be perceived as a professional undertaking. Therefore, ��ƷSM��ӰƬ thinks that the government should commit to ensuring that those governing are equipped to��operate��effectively from the outset by making induction training mandatory for all new governors. This training need not be identical for all recruits, but as a��minimum��must ensure governors have a clear understanding of what governance is.��

Governing boards should set an expectation that, throughout their term of office, governors must have regard to their own professional development. Governing boards should ensure that they have set aside a budget for their own development needs and source high quality development and training from a range of sources.��

Local governance��

A volunteer-led��local tier is an essential feature of MAT governance, and it is right that��the vast majority of��trusts have chosen to establish governance at the academy-level.��As a minimum, the local board should be engaged in the governance of the “4 S’s” within their academy – safeguarding, SEND,��standards��and stakeholder engagement.��ƷSM��ӰƬ’s view is that the local tier should have some delegated decision-making powers on issues where they are best placed to do so, and this should be clearly��established��in the scheme of delegation.��