Abstract
The governing bodies of publicly funded schools in England are currently facing a number of substantive challenges of various kinds. Many of the challenges are long-standing, while others relate to the current context for governing wrought by recent education policy developments initiated by central government. A number of the challenges are immediate and intense, and may well develop over time. The challenges result from both policy imperatives and the challenge of governing effectively – procedural imperatives. The intention of this article is to analyse the challenges facing governing bodies in England. We argue that the challenges interact and synergize and could develop into ‘a perfect storm’, which could have significant implications for the security and stability of the education system and for society generally. Our thinking is shaped by the notion of interactive governance (Kooiman, 2003), which posits that the workings of the school governance network, of which school governing is a part, is best understood in terms of interactions. Following this introduction, we provide some background information for those not familiar with the school governing system in England. We then very briefly describe the three research projects in which we have been involved that form the empirical base for the article (Balarin et al., 2008; James et al., 2010, 2012, 2013). The challenges facing governing bodies are considered under the headings: school governing’s low profile; the institution and the environment; accountability; and the role and the responsibility of school governing bodies. The way these different challenges interconnect and add together is discussed in the penultimate section. In the final section, we make some concluding comments.
School governing in England – some background
Every state-maintained school in England has a governing body, which is responsible for its conduct. Governing bodies are constituted on the stakeholder model, with various stakeholder groups represented on the governing body – for example, staff, parents, the local authority, and the local community. There may be ‘foundation members’ if the school has a religious affiliation. Staff and parent members are elected; others are co-opted. Governing bodies can determine their own size within the range of seven to 20 governors. All governors participate voluntarily. The head teacher is typically a member but may choose not to be. Governing bodies must elect a chair, who has a number of legal responsibilities. They have clerks who have a paid administration role. Governing bodies typically meet between three and six times a year. They usually have committees that deal with important aspects of the school, such as staffing, the curriculum, finance and resources.
The functions of governing bodies as they undertake their responsibility for the conduct of the school have been variously described in the past – often unhelpfully (Balarin et al., 2008). The responsibilities of governing bodies have been specified, in effect, in the most recent guidance by Ofsted of the school inspection and monitoring service in England (Ofsted, 2013). During inspections, inspectors are now asked to consider the overall effectiveness of the governing body in relation to its strategic direction, the knowledge of the school, and the ways it: holds the head teacher and other senior leaders to account for improving educational quality; governs performance management in the school; manages the head teacher’s performance; ensures financial probity and the appropriate use of resources to overcome barriers to learning; fulfils its statutory duties; and engages with key stakeholders. Other aspects for consideration during inspection include the ways the governing body oversees the overall quality of provision, promotes parental engagement, makes links with other schools and agencies, and ensures pupil safety.
The research base
Three projects that researched aspects of school governing in England provide the empirical underpinning for this article. The first reviewed school governing − generally and in relation to the contribution of the business world to school governing (Balarin et al., 2008). That project analysed the policy and research literature relevant to school governing, carried out 43 in-depth interviews with key stakeholders, undertook a large-scale random on-line survey of over 5000 school governors, and elicited the views of 42 head teachers.
In the second project, we matched the survey data from the first project with the pupil attainment and school context data. We undertook a multi-level analysis to establish the relationship between governing body effectiveness and pupil attainment in primary schools and secondary schools in high and low socio-economic status settings. We also undertook case studies of governing in 16 primary and 13 secondary schools, which varied according to high and low governing body effectiveness, high and low school performance, and high and low socio-economic status (James et al., 2010, 2011).
For the third project, we researched the role and responsibilities of the school governing body chair. We undertook a review of the literature on the role of the board chair in a range of settings − not just schools (James et al., 2012). We also surveyed chairs and head teachers throughout England and interviewed the head teachers and chairs of 15 primary schools and 10 secondary schools about the chair’s role and responsibilities (James et al., 2013).
The challenges
School governing’s low profile
School governing in England is largely hidden from public view (Balarin et al., 2008; James et al., 2010). Its low profile has three aspects:
The significance of the responsibility is not widely acknowledged. Governing bodies’ responsibility for the conduct of schools is not widely acknowledged nor is the significance of that responsibility. Further, the attention accorded to school governing in policy terms has not been substantial, especially in comparison with other aspects of the education system. The role of the governing body is not clearly understood. The lack of ‘policy attention’ may have resulted in some uncertainty about the precise nature of its responsibility and arguably an overloading of the range and scope of the responsibilities (Balarin et al., 2008). A scan of prominent educational leadership and management journals, such as this journal and Educational Management Administration and Leadership, reveals that research into school governing has not been as extensively undertaken and reported as other aspects of school organization. The empirical base for understanding school governing is therefore less robust than other aspects of educational leadership and management. The contribution of governing bodies is not widely recognized. There are approximately 350,000 school governors in England. They bring considerable expertise to the governing task and do so on a voluntary basis. The time commitment can be considerable with, for example, over one in 10 chairs spending more than 10 hours a week on governing matters (James et al., 2013). Generally, school governing functions well, can be very resilient at times of acute stress for a school, and can have a positive impact on school quality (Balarin et al., 2008; James et al., 2010). Importantly, our research and other analyses show that school governing typically works and makes a useful contribution to school life.
Key points: School governing has a low profile, and arguably that is right; those who work directly with students should be ‘centre-stage’ and have the highest profile. None the less, the generally low profile of school governing inevitably creates challenges for governor recruitment, governing quality, and policies on schools governing.
The institution and the environment
The institutional context for governing presents a range of challenges for school governing bodies.
Autonomy of schools and collaboration
In recent times, the nature of school autonomy in England has gone through three eras. The 1988 Education Reform Act gave schools a measure of independence from local government. Indeed, some schools actually adopted a particular status – grant-maintained − which removed the remit of local government and made them directly accountable to central government. During this period, parental choice was implemented and inter-school competition was enhanced. In the late 1990s, the disadvantages of high levels of school independence, separation and competition were recognized.
From the late 1990s towards 2010 − the second era − autonomy was consolidated but arguably not extended. At the same time, inter-school collaboration was promoted. Thus, schools still had a measure of independence from local government, but a number of inter-school collaborative arrangements were established, with various degrees of formality and structure.
In the current era, policy developments are further enhancing schools’ independence from local government. At the same time, they are encouraging the grouping of schools in which local government plays very little part, which we discuss in more detail below.
The variety of institutional forms and governing arrangements in schools in England
Varied institutional forms and governing arrangements are a long-standing feature of the English state-maintained school system. There is considerable variety in the different phases: primary schools for students from 5 years to 11 years within which there are often infant (5 to 7 years) and junior schools (7 to 11 years); some middle schools for students aged from 9 to 14 years; and secondary schools, which cater for different age ranges (14–18 year olds, 11–16 year olds, 11–18 year olds and 16–18 year olds). Within those groups there are: community schools, which are within the remit of local government and not influenced formally by business or religious groups; foundation schools, which have more freedom than community schools in the way they operate; academies, which are independent from local government and can follow a different curriculum; grammar schools, which are run by the local government, a foundation body or a trust and select pupils based on academic ability often by examination; and city technology colleges, which are independent of the local authority, typically in urban areas, free to attend, owned and funded by companies as well as central government, and emphasize the teaching of technological and practical skills. Within those groupings, there are also: specialist schools, which follow the National Curriculum but specialize in a particular area; and faith schools of different kinds – for example, voluntary aided schools, free schools and academies, which are associated with a particular religion. Some schools are designated as Teaching Schools, with a role in teacher training and professional development, and raising standards by supporting other schools.
Free schools are a recent policy innovation. They are funded by the government and are independent of the local authority. They must conform to admissions regulations, may not select pupils on academic ability, do not have to follow the National Curriculum, can set their own staff pay and conditions, and can change the lengths of school day and terms. Free schools are as yet few in number and are run by varied not-for-profit groups – for example, charities, universities, independent schools, community and faith groups, teachers, parents and businesses.
The variation in school type is set to increase and may even accelerate as more free schools of different kinds are established; more schools become academies and collaborative governing arrangements are implemented as schools join in federations and groupings of various kinds (see below). The upshot of this diversification of institutional type is that governing is likely to become a more diversified activity in the future.
The pressure to collaborate with other schools and form groupings of various kinds
Along with the increase in the diversity of organizational forms and autonomy is the pressure to enter into collaborative arrangements with other schools and for ‘chains’ of schools to develop. The pressure for schools to collaborate comes in four forms:
The schools that have taken on academy status now receive the funds that previously went to local government to support schools. They may feel the need to collaborate to make efficiency gains in the acquisition of resources – for example, for teacher professional development and ‘back office’ services. Local government will have less capability to support their community schools that are not academies because they no longer receive the funding to support schools that have become academies. These community schools may feel the need to collaborate to make good the shortfall in local authority provision. All schools may feel the need to join with others to reduce the competitive pressure on them as individual institutions. Schools that are seen to be underperforming are now often required to join existing collaborations – typically chains of schools that are ‘run’ by a managing organization of some kind.
Again, this pressure to collaborate, which is likely to grow, is likely to diversify school governing practice in the future. Further, it complicates the process of governing and makes the context for governing more turbulent.
The changing role of local authority
Historically, local government through ‘local authorities’ of some kind has had a significant role in supporting schools and governing bodies. As already discussed in the previous two sections, with the large number of secondary schools becoming academies, local authorities will have fewer resources to continue that support. No doubt ‘new providers’ will step in to fill that gap, but there are challenges for school governing bodies in working with new providers. For example: there may well be a time gap between the decline of local authority support and the availability of other provision; non-local authority provision may be of unknown and perhaps unacceptable quality; and the cost of arranging other provision may be considerable – and perhaps more than being able to make convenient use of local authority provision. The main message for governing bodies, which presents significant challenges for many of them, is that the part played by local authorities in the education system will steadily decline. There will be geographical variations in the decline but nonetheless that is the overall message.
Strategic management in changing market conditions
One of the more significant reforms ushered in by the 2010 Act was the ‘free school’ as discussed above. These schools can be established in any location subject to approval by central government, which is not dependent on the outcome of local consultation. These new school forms and their ‘arrival’ in a relatively stable local ‘education market’ can potentially cause significant challenges for the governors of existing maintained schools. Similarly, the academies programme and the free school model have brought about ‘nationalization’ of a number of private schools as they take up academy/free school status. These fee-paying schools become non-fee-paying (the fees are in effect paid by the government) and thereby increase the competitive pressure on existing maintained schools and, it has to be said, local fee-paying schools. Similarly, a number of private secondary schools have established free schools as ‘feeder schools’ to enable an easy transition into the secondary school. This increased – and potentially unexpected – competitive pressure could have a substantial effect on a school’s pupil numbers and therefore the resources available to the school. Long-term strategic management in this context is likely to be more challenging for governors as a result.
The likely decline in funding for schools
Schools have been relatively generously funded in recent times, and the period from the mid-1990s to 2007 saw a year-on-year increase (Levacic, 2008). Overall, funding for schools is likely to decline in the future. That trend may have some variations – for example, as more money is made available for schools at particular times for particular purposes. However, there may well be increased demands for accountability for targeted funding such as the pupil premium (DfE, 2012; Ofsted, 2013). Financial management, a central governing body responsibility, is likely to become more challenging in the future.
Key points: Recent policy implementations, which are remarkably radical in their intent, have changed the environment for schools and created considerable turbulence. Coping with the turbulence poses significant challenges for school governing bodies.
Accountability
Accountability pressures on schools – and therefore on their governing bodies – are increasing, in two linked areas as follows.
The inspection of school governing
Ofsted regulates and inspects schools in England. The Ofsted inspection framework has been revised twice in 2012 – a frequency unprecedented in Ofsted’s history – and the latest inspection guidance has just been published (Ofsted, 2013). Overall, the ‘inspection bar’ has been raised, so the inspections are more demanding. A ‘poor Ofsted’ can have a substantial impact on a school and significant implications for school governing bodies.
Historically, the attention paid by Ofsted to governing in school inspection has varied. The recent changes have enhanced the significance of the inspection of school governing bodies. Governing now features more prominently in school inspections (Ofsted, 2013), with significant implications for school governors.
The pressure on schools to improve their performance
One of the features of the policy context for schools since the mid-1990s has been the increasing pressure to improve performance (James, 2012). That pressure is inexorable and is likely to increase. Governing bodies’ long-standing responsibility for standards and performance as discussed below has recently been confirmed (see Ofsted, 2012). Poor performance or underperformance in terms of pupil attainment is likely to ‘trigger’ an Ofsted inspection – perhaps rightly – which in turn may result in the governing body being replaced by an interim executive board and/or the school being required to become an academy and to become part of an academy chain.
Key points: Governing bodies are at the focus of considerable accountability pressures from central government via Ofsted and a range of other stakeholders, which have a sharp focus on pupil attainment. Not only is the accountability pressure strong, the requirements have been stiffened and the stakes are higher.
The role and the responsibility of school governing bodies
Aspects of the role and the responsibility are challenging for governing bodies. We review some of the main ones here.
The confusing and unhelpful specification of the role and the responsibility of school governors
Over a long period, the role and responsibility of school governors have been variously specified in policy statements in ways which are often confusing and unhelpful (Balarin et al., 2008).
The 1988 Education Reform Act assigned the responsibility for schools’ strategic planning and accountability to governing bodies. The 1998 Standards and Framework Act and associated statutory guidance confirmed governing bodies’ ‘overarching responsibility for the conduct of schools’ with the specific duties of: setting strategic directions and monitoring and evaluating schools’ progress. Thus the link between the responsibility for the school’s conduct and standards/progress was made explicit.
Section 21 of the 2002 Education Act confused the governing body’s role somewhat by stating that ‘the governing body shall conduct the school with a view to promoting high standards of educational achievement at the school’. The term ‘conducting the school’ conveys a sense of leading the school which differs from governing. In 2002, Ofsted sought to clarify the central responsibilities as strategic direction, critical friendship and accountability (Ofsted, 2002). Ofsted also stated that governing bodies should establish ‘a strategic framework for leadership development’, champion ‘continuous professional development for all school staff’, and ‘make creative use of resources’ (paragraph 12). These functions are arguably the responsibility of the head teacher. Thus guidance intended to clarify ended up being confusing. Governing the School of the Future (DfES, 2004) stated in paragraph 13 that, ‘The overall purpose of governing bodies is to help the schools they lead [our emphasis] provide the best possible education for pupils.’ Here governing is seen as leadership, which arguably confuses the governing body responsibility and role.
Various terms have been used to specify governing, in particular acting as a critical friend, giving support and challenge, and calling to account. James et al. (2010) argued that the term ‘critical friend’ was unhelpful because of its metaphorical nature and because it configured governing as a process of ‘being critical’. They also argued that the term ‘support’ was redundant as governors should a priori support the school. Further, ‘challenge’ was an inappropriate term because it shaped governing as confrontational and ad hominem in nature. They also considered that ‘calling to account’, whilst being an accurate description of a governing process, required further development and was therefore unhelpful without further explanation. James et al. (2010) advocate the use of the term ‘scrutiny’, as does Ranson (2008), which they argue does not necessarily entail criticism or interpersonal confrontation but asks searching questions, checks on the appropriateness of systems and procedures and considers appropriateness in relation to wider strategic concerns. Interestingly, Ofsted (2012: 16) refers to governors being able to ‘ask challenging questions about the work of the school’ in their definition of good school governing.
The stakeholder constitution of GBs
The Taylor report of 1977 concluded that school governing bodies should be constituted on the stakeholder model. That form of governing body constitution was confirmed in subsequent legislation. The justification for the stakeholder model is that schools are important social institutions in which there is wide interest. Schools should therefore be governed by individuals who are representatives of those groups that have an interest − a stake − in them and are responsible for ensuring their proper conduct. The stakeholder model is, however, under threat from those who advocate a skills-based model where people are recruited/appointed who have the requisite skills (see below). James et al. (2010, 2011) report that the models are not at odds. It is possible, and even desirable, to have both. Achieving appropriate stakeholder involvement and governing capability can be challenging, especially in schools located in ethnically mixed and disadvantaged contexts. In these settings it requires governing agency to exploit the governing capital available to the school, to promote involvement and perhaps to develop capability patiently (James et al., 2011). The flexibilities accorded to governing bodies for their constitution in recent legislation may result in a move away from the stakeholder model, as we discuss below.
The size issue
The size of governing bodies has been the subject of debate, and the regulations on size have recently been changed to enable governing bodies to be smaller. James (2011) argues that those who advocate smaller governing bodies fail to understand the practice of governing, and that size is not the issue. Ensuring effectiveness and stakeholder involvement are more important considerations.
The appointment of the head teacher
Appointing the head teacher is a very significant issue for a governing body because amongst other things it makes explicit the inherent tension between the governing body as a consultative body and the governing body as an accountable overseer. With a high head teacher ‘retirement rate’ and a relative shortage of suitable applicants, appointing the head teacher is likely to become more problematic. Local authority support for head teacher appointments is varied but is likely to decrease overall in the near future.
The role of the chair
The position of the chair of the school governing body is recognized increasingly as a significant role and responsibility in the governing of schools. Chairs take responsibility for the organization and leadership of the governing body, even though that responsibility is not specified in regulations. There is a strong case that it should be specified clearly (James et al., 2013). The relationship between the head teacher and the chair can be pivotal for the proper functioning of both the school and the governing body.
The weight of the responsibility and the commitment required
The overall workload for governors in fulfilling their responsibilities can be high, and particularly so for chairs and the members of the governing body ‘core group’. Ambiguous policy guidance and increased pressure on resources have in many ways increased the responsibilities and the commitment required, which can be considerable. The workload and necessary commitment can affect recruitment.
Key points: The confused and confusing specification of the role over time and the terms used to specify it have not helped governing bodies fulfil their responsibilities. Having a wide range of stakeholders on the governing body is important and beneficial, particularly in culturally diverse settings, to ensure different groups of stakeholders are represented appropriately, but governing bodies also need the right kind of skills and capabilities. Appointing the head teacher can be a crucial moment for a governing body when it occurs. The role of the chair is important, especially taking the responsibility for ensuring the proper functioning of the governing body. That responsibility should be more clearly defined in statute. The responsibility governing bodies carry is heavy and the commitment required considerable.
The challenges taken together – a ‘perfect storm’?
The point we wish to make in this section is that the challenges for school governing bodies we have analysed above would be important enough if they were discrete and exerted influence separately. However, as with all aspects of governance, they interact. Importantly, however, they interact synergistically, collectively producing an effect greater than the sum of them individually. The explanation for that is as follows.
School governing is ‘hidden’ from view, and yet it is important and significant. In consequence, the way the responsibility is undertaken is not well understood generally, nor has it been widely researched. In policy terms, the role has not always been clearly or helpfully specified. Although some clarity is starting to emerge, relatively straightforward issues, such as who is responsible for the functioning of the governing body, remain unclear. There is an interactive synergy between school governing’s profile, how well it is understood and how well it is specified.
Schools governing’s low profile, the inadequate understanding of it, and the unhelpful way it has been specified over a long period would be challenging enough if it were not for the fact that schools are working in an era of considerable environmental turbulence. The environment is being churned by: increased school autonomy; pressures to collaborate; market instability with local consequences for funding in a general context of financial constraint; and reduced capability of local authorities to support and underpin the system locally. Thus there is an unusual level of change and fluidity in the roles of the market, civil society and the state in school governance.
Amidst the turbulent environment and the consequences of its hidden nature, governing bodies still need to govern. Additionally, the expectations of their governing work have been raised. There is now increased pressure to improve pupil attainment, which is itself set against a ‘raised inspection bar’, with serious consequences for the school if those expectations are not met. The effectiveness of governing, which itself interacts with school performance (James et al., 2011), is also under greater scrutiny by Ofsted. Governing work is a demanding voluntary activity. The increased accountability pressure − for example, from central government via Ofsted (see Ofsted, 2013) and other stakeholders, as discussed earlier − may deter potential governors from engaging in governing. It will be harder for a school to draw on its governance capital – and especially so in culturally diverse settings. This difficulty will be exacerbated by school governing’s lack of recognition and low public profile, and so the cycle continues and the ‘perfect storm’ potentially results.
Concluding comments
In this article, we have analysed the challenges facing school governing bodies in England. Our key point is that those challenges are significant because there is substantial synergistic interaction between them, which has the potential to create a ‘perfect storm’. Two points are important here. First, an important outcome of our research into school governing has been the resilience of school governing − a consequence in large measure of its collective nature, capability to respond and adapt to changing circumstances, and the commitment of those involved. The current challenges facing school governing bodies are likely to seriously test those qualities. Second, a response of governing bodies to the impending storm would be to head for a place of safety urgently – adopting defensive behaviours or perhaps underplaying their authority and seeing themselves as victims of their circumstances. Alternatively, this is perhaps a time for governors to step up and to reflect on their values and principles and to ensure that by those standards the schools they govern are the places for younger members of the community that they should be.