|
Democratic Education Resources
Books: I Was a Teenage Governor
4. Governing bodies: an uncertain future?
Although, with the exception of one teacher union, there are few organisations or individuals who have proposed the abolition of school governing bodies, much recent research has highlighted the structural and strategic difficulties of governing bodies, including:
-
Recruitment difficulties. Statistics consistently reveal that recruitment difficulties to governing bodies, prevalent everywhere, are most marked in poorer areas and that those recruited are from a narrower or different social base from that served by the school.
- Lack of power, especially amongst ‘lay’ governors. ‘…Governing schools has become an important arena for the exercise of citizenship. It is however an imperfect one because whilst there has been a redistribution in the balance from the ‘bureau professionals’ to the lay governors the latter have not gained power in any real sense let alone helped the communities that they are supposed to represent to gain power” (Deem, et.al. 1995). “…Even when lay governors have opinions they wish to express, it seems that they face great difficulty in making their ‘voice’ heard, let alone in having their views taken seriously’ (Whitty, et.al. 1998).
Difficulties of creating and maintaining a strategic function – ‘steering, not rowing’. “…The governing body’s ‘steering’ or strategic role is to agree aims, values and policies for the school and they note how it’s about ‘setting a course, deciding on a route, looking to the future for the school, thinking about what the school needs to achieve and plotting how to get from where it is now to where you would like it to be in the future” (Martin and Holt, 2002). In addition, governing bodies are being urged, in partnership with LEAs and other agencies, to take on more of a community leadership function (Allen and Phillip, 2003).
- Difficulties in assessing and responding to the needs of service users. Here, the common problem of encouraging greater participation in the annual meeting for parents is symptomatic of other measures of low parental and community engagement, epitomised in low turnout at parents’ evenings. The fear is that pupil participation patterns will mirror that associated with parents and fracture along the same lines of class and ethnicity, contributing to (rather than challenging) social exclusion in the process.
Legislation from that leading to the introduction of Local Management of Schools (LMS) onwards has forced governing bodies to concentrate on their managerial role at the expense of genuine governance, the determining of a school’s individual ethos. New responsibilities on governing bodies for target setting, performance management, as well as the increased financial delegation to schools, is leading them further to prioritise their allocative role over their authoritative role. The 1998 School Standards and Framework Act (S38.(2)) stated that ‘the governing body shall conduct the school with a view to promoting high standards of educational achievement at the school’ but, as yet, there is no evidence that governing bodies have been liberated by this legislation. The overriding dilemma is that governing bodies are often least effective where they are most needed. At the same time, however, research is clear that Governing bodies can and do make a positive contribution to school quality. DfES-commissioned research shows a clear association between effective schools and effective governing bodies (Scanlon, Earley and Evans, 1999). Earley and Creesey (2003), in a recent report on the impact of school governance on school leadership, ask four questions pertinent to any discussion on governance:
- Is too much governor training currently focusing on the wrong things?
- Does more of it need to be centred on the whole governing body, including the head and other senior staff?
- Should governors lead schools or should they focus their efforts on ensuring they are effectively led?; and,
- Are the current responsibilities and expectations of governors simply unrealistic or too high? Is too much expected from a group of part-time (or, more correctly, occasional time) unpaid volunteers?
The new regulations, introduced through the 2002 Education Act, attempt to address some of these issues, giving governing bodies a more strategic remit and more flexible structure. The aim is to give governing bodies more flexibility over their constitution with a view to becoming more strategic in their approach .The regulations came into force on 1 March 2003. All governing bodies will have to choose and adopt a new model for the size and membership of their governing body by 31 August 2006. Clearly, this is a key opportunity to consider the involvement of pupils as Associate Members. The changes in the regulations, including the pupil participation dimension, are described in box 1 overleaf.
The future existence of governing bodies does not seem in doubt, but their future remit is more open to question. What will the average governing body look like, discuss, and have genuine power over in ten years time? The answer to this question is dependent on the overall direction of education policy, rather than issues specific to governance but, either way, the involvement or non-involvement of pupils will have a significant impact.
Box 1: Pupils as associate members
The new regulations in outline
1. The new framework for school governing bodies aims to:
• Allow a more flexible modern approach to governing body membership, which will make it
easier for governing bodies to influence the size and composition their school needs to meet
its own individual circumstances;
• Allow schools that wish to collaborate to have a range of options available;
• Allow governing bodies to provide additional facilities and services;
• Free governors from activities that are incidental to their primary strategic role.
2. All Governing Bodies must reconstitute themselves by September 2006. Associate members (including pupils) cannot be included on governing bodies until reconstitution has taken place.
3. Associate Members are seen as a means of adding to the capacity of governing bodies, and in particular committees, by adding specific expertise on certain issues to governing bodies.
4. From 1 September 2003 it has been possible for pupils and others to be appointed as associate members of school governing bodies. Associate members can attend full governing body meetings and be members of governing body committees. There are no plans to make it compulsory for governing bodies to make such appointments. The decision rests with each governing body.
5. Governing bodies can also involve pupils by inviting them to attend full meetings and committee meetings as observers. These new powers increase the scope for pupils to be involved in strategic decision-making, whilst respecting the corporate nature of governing bodies and the weight of legal responsibilities governing bodies have.
6. This is a change from former legislation, when pupils under 18 could not be appointed to governing body committees.
7. A governing body is a body corporate. This means that a governing body has a distinct legal identity, separate from individual governors, who can only exercise their powers by collective decision-making. A governing body can in its own name enter contracts, hire staff and manage the school budget. Persons under 18 are considered to lack the legal capacity required for corporate decision-making.
8. Persons under 18 are not eligible to be governors and cannot be given voting rights because they have not reached the age of majority which applies to corporate decision-making.
9. Associate members aged 18 or over, including pupils, can be given limited voting rights on committees. Associate members may not vote on any decision concerning admissions, pupil discipline, election or appointment of governors, or the budget and financial commitments of the governing body.
DfES (2003) Statutory Guidance on the School Governance (Procedures) (England) Regulations 2003
London: DfES 0430/2003.
|
|
