School Governing Bodies Department for Education Memorandum: Developments Since the Education Committee’S Report

The role of school governing bodies Department for Education Memorandum: developments since the Education Committee’s report

Recruitment and retention of governors

Impact of the 2012 composition regulations on the profile of governing bodies

1. Less prescription as to how governing bodies are constituted should help governing bodies to recruit suitable individuals and address vacancies. This should include a balance of parents, staff and other groups as appropriate. We support the Government’s decision to make the 2012 composition regulations permissive. We are also pleased that the Minister has agreed to remove the “juniority principle” from the same regulations. (Paragraph 24)

Previous response The Committee is right to recognise that the 2012 constitution regulations give governing bodies more freedom to decide their own composition so that they can recruit governors with the right skills and experience. Our Model Articles of Association give academy trusts even greater freedom.

It is for schools to determine the appropriate balance of parents, staff and other groups. We take the view that skills should be the primary consideration when appointing governors.

We will keep under review whether reconstituting under the 2012 regulations should remain optional. Repealing the 2007 regulations would simplify the overall regulatory framework and encourage governing bodies to review their composition and reconstitute under a single more permissive framework.

We have begun a targeted consultation with our key partners on changes to the 2012 constitution regulations for maintained schools, including removal of the ‘juniority principle’. Initial feedback shows widespread support for this change.

Update - August 2014 Following a public consultation, regulations were laid in May 2014 to amend the 2012 Constitution Regulations. Taking effect from September 2014, these amendments mean:  Governors may only be appointed to the governing body if the person appointing them believes they have the skills to contribute to the effective governance and success of the school;  The ‘juniority’ ‘first in last out’ principle for removing surplus governors will be replaced with local discretion to select on the basis that those remaining in office are the best placed to contribute to the effective governance of the school; and  All maintained school governing bodies must be constituted under the 2012 Constitution Regulations by September 2015.

Impact of the 2012 composition regulations on the size of governing bodies

2. Despite the DfE’s clear preference for smaller governing bodies, there is no evidence base to prove that smaller governing bodies are more effective than larger ones. (Paragraph 30)

Previous response Whilst we have no intention of imposing smaller governing bodies, we do think that smaller governing bodies are more likely to be cohesive and dynamic, and able to act more decisively. This is particularly true when things go wrong, as illustrated by the contrast between the impact of small tightly focused Interim Executive Boards, and the often large and unfocused governing bodies that many academy sponsors report they need to reform.

Ofsted research has found that it is a core of highly committed and skilled governors that are responsible for the performance of many governing bodies. We share the view of the Charity Commission that governing bodies, like boards of trustees, should be no bigger than they need to be to have all the skills necessary to carry out their functions. It is the role of the chair to ensure that every governor is actively contributing relevant skills and experience, and to have honest conversations where governors are not pulling their weight.

We think that all governing bodies should review their effectiveness on a regular basis. Increasingly, weaker governing bodies will be encouraged to do so with external support following a recommendation from Ofsted. One of the things any review should consider is whether the governor body is the right size to fulfil its duties effectively.

Update - August 2014 Statutory guidance1 was published in May 2014 on the size, constitution and membership of governing bodies of maintained schools. While it is for governing bodies to decide on their size, they must have regard to guidance that they should be no bigger than they need to be to secure all of the skills and experience they need to be effective.

Under an updated version of the Academies Financial Handbook to be published shortly, all new Academy Trusts will be required to review their governance arrangements within their first year, and report to the Education Funding Agency on the outcome and impact of the review.

1 www.gov.uk/government/publications/constitution-of-governing-bodies-of-maintained-schools

Improving recruitment and retention

3. Business is potentially an important source of capable school governors. We are pleased that the Government has agreed to do more to increase uptake of the School Governors One Stop Shop’s (SGOSS) services in schools across the country. We are also supportive of the Government’s agreement to accept help from the Confederation of British Industry in promoting school governance opportunities to businesses and recommend that the Government report back to us with details as to how this will be done. (Paragraph 39)

Previous response As highlighted by the Heseltine Review, businesses are a very important source of volunteers with transferable skills to become capable schools governors and effective members of Interim Executive Boards able to effect transformation.

We have committed funding to SGOSS, the governor recruitment charity, to the end of this Parliament to provide the security the organisation needs to pursue ambitious growth targets – in terms of both the number of schools and businesses with which it works. We have also granted SGOSS an exemption from government restrictions on marketing expenditure to enable it to use some of our funding to promote its work to more businesses and schools. Lord Nash will attend a SGOSS roundtable discussion with key business leaders in September to discuss how best to engage more employers. We will take every opportunity to promote the work of SGOSS, including through Ministerial speeches and our website.

We are also working to increase the number of businesses and business people sponsoring academies and supporting the governance of academy chains. High quality governance is particularly important in academies because of their autonomy and their financial responsibilities as set out in the Academies Financial Handbook. To help do this we are recruiting a select group of leading business people to act as Academies Ambassadors, who will drive greater involvement in academies in the business community. They will work on a voluntary basis and encourage more business people to sponsor academies and aim to create a pool of highly experienced business people to serve on the boards of academy trusts.

Going forward, we will seek to work more closely with organisations such as the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors, Business in the Community, the Employers Taskforce and the British Chambers of Commerce, to promote through their membership opportunities to volunteer as governors. This will also help us raise the profile of SGOSS across the business community.

Update - August 2014 On 15 May 2014 we announced an extension to our funding commitment to SGOSS until March 2016. Working with the CBI and other partners we have launched the Inspiring Governors Alliance to attract more skilled people to be governors, engage more employers in supporting their staff to be governors, and increase demand from governing bodies for skilled governors.

Incentives for business volunteers

4. Any potential barriers to the recruitment of effective school governors should be removed. We recommend that the Government review the current incentives for, and requirements on, businesses that release their staff for governor duties. We also recommend that the legal requirement to give time off for governors of maintained schools be extended to academies. (Paragraph 43)

Previous response We agree with the Committee that any barriers to the recruitment of effective schools governors should be removed. That is why we have given governing bodies more freedom over their constitution so they can focus on recruiting people with the right skills; and why we have cut red tape and raised our expectations of the strategic nature of the role to make it more attractive to the kind of people governing bodies need. We are also working with SGOSS to promote to employers the benefits that they and their employees gain from employees developing their skills as governors.

We are considering the extent to which the lack of a legal requirement for governors of academies to have time off work is causing a barrier to governor recruitment. We will explore the option of amending primary legislation (Employment Rights Act 1996) to extent the right to time off work for maintained school governors to academy governors.

Update - August 2014 We have found no evidence that employers give less flexibility or time off to staff serving as academy trustees compared to those serving as maintained school governors. We therefore have no plans to amend the Employment Rights Act. The strength of employers’ support derives primarily from the extent to which they understand and recognise the benefits that their staff accrue from being governors – particularly in relation to the board- level skills they develop and take back into the workplace. We have worked with the CBI and other partners to launch the Inspiring Governors Alliance, which aims to promote employers’ awareness of these benefits.

Raising the profile of governors

5. We welcome the Government’s commitment to raising the profile of governors and we look forward to seeing the details of how it intends to attract more good quality governors. (Paragraph 47)

Previous response We are seeking to raise the profile of governors and attract more good quality governors in four ways.

First, we are making clear the importance of governors’ role. We have defined governing bodies’ core strategic functions in legislation and the Governors’ Handbook; we have explained clearly the central role of governors in the Academies’ Financial Handbook; and we have a much stronger focus on governance in the Ofsted inspection framework, particularly through the introduction of external reviews of governance.

Secondly, we are aiming to make the role more attractive. Our reforms aim to remove unnecessary rules and regulations and give governing bodies more discretion and responsibility.

Thirdly, we are supporting recruitment, training, and models of good practice. We have committed funding to SGOSS to the end of this Parliament; and expanded significantly work on governance by the National College for Teaching and Leadership.

Finally, we are ensuring public recognition. We have provided guidance to our key partners to encourage and support higher quality honours nominations so that more individuals might be recognised nationally for the impact they have had as a governor.

Update - August 2014 In April 2014, Lord Nash, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Schools, hosted an event in the House of Lords for those who have received a national honour for their service as a governor. Celebrating the impact of these governors also sent a wider signal to all governors that the government recognises and values their role in the education system.

In May 2014, the Secretary of State gave a speech at the launch of the Inspiring Governors Alliance in which he explained the vital role of school governors in asking challenging questions to hold school leaders to account. He subsequently summarised his positive vision for school governance in a letter2 to the National Governors Association. On the morning of the launch, Lord Nash, Neil Carbury of the CBI, and others addressed around 100 employers to present the case for them supporting their staff to be governors.

We continue to work with the NGA, SGOSS, CBI and other Inspiring Governors Alliance partners to identify and plan further opportunities to raise the profile of school governance and recruit more good quality governors. Together we are aiming to deliver a number of regional events over the remainder of 2014-15.

2 www.nga.org.uk/News/NGA-News/May-Sept-14/The-Secretary-of-State-emphasises-his-gratitude-to.aspx

Pay for governors

6. While not advocating payment to governors in general, we can see that there is a case for remuneration in some circumstances—for example, when governors deploy their skills to improve governance in other schools. We recommend that Government give further consideration to the circumstances in which payment could be appropriate and make necessary regulatory provisions. (Paragraph 51)

Previous response We have recently reviewed our position on payment of governors and published a short note3 which confirms our commitment to the principle of voluntary trusteeship.

Powers are already in place to pay members of Interim Executive Boards (IEBs), but thus far the Secretary of State has not needed to use them to recruit high quality IEB members.

The National Leaders of Governance (NLG) programme is enabling some of our best chairs of governors to share their skills with others. NLGs are not paid, but their school receives a small grant to fund NLGs’ expenses. We do not have any evidence to suggest that the lack of payment is a barrier to the recruitment of sufficient numbers of NLGs, however we are keeping this under review as we expand the National Leaders of Governance programme to up to 535 NLGs by 2015.

Where a governing body requires support over and above that which can be provided free of charge through the NLG programme, there is nothing preventing them paying an NLG or other experienced governor from another school for the provision of consultancy or advice services.

Subject to appropriate safeguards against conflicts of interest, it is legal for governing bodies to purchase professional services from individuals serving as governors, for example accounting, legal or construction services.

Update - August 2014 We have not seen evidence to cause us to change our view on the payment of governors.

3 www.education.gov.uk/schools/leadership/governance/a00224750/governor-payments

Governor effectiveness

Training

7. Too many governors have not had suitable training. The Government says this can be encouraged through Ofsted. Ofsted should report back in due course whether their intervention is effective. If it is not, mandatory training should be considered again. The Government should require schools to offer training to every new governor. We welcome the Minister’s assurance that Ofsted will be resourced adequately in order to undertake its increased role in helping to ensure effective governance in schools. Further explanation is required as to how this will be achieved. (Paragraph 61)

Previous response Good schools don’t need government to mandate training. Universal mandatory training risks being inappropriate for some and a barrier to recruiting others. Governing bodies are best placed to identify their skill gaps and seek appropriate training. It is the responsibility of the chair of governors to make sure that the governing body functions effectively – including through accessing induction and continuing training where necessary. We will keep the position under review.

Ofsted’s strong and helpful focus on school governance is an integral part of the inspection framework and hence factored in fully to how Ofsted is resourced to operate. The inspection framework provides a powerful incentive on governing bodies to audit their skills and identify their training needs. The new Inspection Handbook (published July 2013), states that in making their judgement on the effectiveness of governance, inspectors will look at how well governing bodies develop the skills of their members. Ofsted will want to know that the governing body takes seriously their training needs and ensures that every governor who needs training receives training of a high quality. Governing bodies who do not invest in improving their effectiveness by taking up training are making a false economy.

Update - August 2014 Statutory guidance for the constitution of maintained school governing bodies published in May 2014 highlights governing bodies’ responsibility for securing the training needed to ensure the effective contribution of individual governors. If governors refuse to undertake the training they need to be effective they risk bringing the governing body and role of a governor into disrepute. In these circumstances, governing bodies have the power to suspend governors from office for up to six months.

The effectiveness of governance remains a priority for both the department and Ofsted, and we continue to work with Ofsted to ensure it has the resources needed to deliver its commitments.

Ofsted has updated its Inspection Handbook for September 2014. This now focuses even more strongly on the importance of effective governance. Wherever governance is judged to be ineffective, inspectors should include an external review of governance in their recommendations for improvement. The updated Handbook will be accompanied by additional training for inspectors.

8. We are concerned at suggestions that few quality alternatives are emerging to the training traditionally provided by local authorities. We recommend that Ofsted and the DfE monitor the availability and quality of governor training in the light of greater academisation of schools and reduction of local authority services. (Paragraph 62)

Previous response We agree with the Committee about the need for a market of high quality training alternatives for governing bodies. We expect the strong focus on governance within the Ofsted inspection framework, the recommendation by inspectors of external reviews of governance, and the strong and growing emphasis from Ofsted and DfE on governors’ skills to all stimulate expansion of this market.

To address a market failure in the provision of training for clerks and to ensure there is a high quality benchmark in the market for governor training, we have doubled the investment we make in governance through NCTL. By 2015, this funding will enable NCTL to:  Build on the early success of the leadership development programme to expand it to reach over 6,500 chairs, vice-chairs and aspiring chairs;  Designate up to a total of 535 high quality chairs as National Leaders of Governance;  Develop and roll out a programme of training for 2,000 clerks to governing bodies; and  Develop and publish training resources and deliver high quality training for governors on specific key policy priorities including: understanding performance data, driving financial efficiency in schools, and developing new performance related pay arrangements for teachers.

Update - August 2014 There are now around 300 designated National Leaders of Governance. 2,400 people are enrolled on the NCTL Chairs’ leadership development programme. The new clerks training programme has been launched a number of the licensees are reporting high demand for courses starting in September. More than 6,100 free places have been delivered on NCTL’s three training workshops for governors.

Inspection, self-assessment and peer challenge

9. Poor performance by governing bodies should be challenged at the earliest opportunity. We support the obligation placed on schools that “require improvement” to undertake an external review of governance. (Paragraph 69)

Previous response In all Category 3 schools where leadership and management is weak, we expect Ofsted to recommend that the governing body commission an external review of their governance arrangements.

NCTL has published resources on its website to support schools to do this based on the pilots it undertook to test the concept of external reviews between September 2012 and February 2013. The most common recommendation from 62 reviews conducted was that governing bodies should review their roles and responsibilities, and consider re- constitution or re-structuring following a skills audit.

We believe inspectors have a crucial role to play, including through their monitoring visits, in setting demanding standards for evidence of the action and change that has resulted from these reviews – including the training that has been accessed to address any skills gaps. We have asked Ofsted to identify and share with us evidence of the impact that reviews are having on the quality of school governance.

The Department’s statutory guidance on schools causing concern4 is clear that local authorities should intervene early and robustly when there has been a serious breakdown in the way a maintained school is governed. The Department takes the same approach with academies causing concern.

Update - August 2014 From September 2014, Ofsted will recommend an external review of governance in any school where governance is found to be ineffective. By March 2015, Ofsted will publish a report on the impact of external reviews and lessons learnt from schools’ approaches to commissioning and acting on a high quality review.

NCTL will be delivering new training for those wishing to carry out reviews of governance, which will draw on learning and best practice that has emerged over the last 12-18 months since external reviews were introduced. National Leaders of Governance who have completed this training will be able to undertake external reviews of governance as a free of charge deployment, which was previously prohibited.

The revised Schools Causing Concern statutory guidance5 (May 2014) makes clear that local authorities should act quickly, using their power of intervention effectively, including in cases where schools have not responded robustly and rapidly enough to a recommendation by Ofsted to commission an external review of their governance arrangements. Such a recommendation by Ofsted should also prompt local authorities to consider if there is a need for a formal warning notice.

The guidance is also clear about our expectation that local authorities should secure strong leadership and governance for maintained schools that are not providing a good enough education, by identifying and supporting successful sponsors.

4 www.education.gov.uk/aboutdfe/statutory/g00192418/scc/scc1 5 www.gov.uk/government/publications/schools-causing-concern--2

The Education Funding Agency monitors the performance of academies’ governance arrangements and takes robust action where required.

10. We recommend that governing bodies be strongly encouraged in guidance from DfE, Ofsted and the National College to participate in peer-to-peer governance reviews and to undertake self-assessment and skills audits, using tools such as the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Education Governance and Leadership’s 20 questions and other resources identified in the new Governors’ Handbook. (Paragraph 70)

Previous response We agree that all governing bodies should evaluate their own effectiveness on a regular basis, including undertaking peer to peer reviews, self-assessment and skills audits. The Governors’ Handbook and guidance already set out this expectation as do materials produced by NCTL. Departmental Advice on new Roles, Procedures and Allowances regulations will further emphasise this.

A wide range of resources are available to assist governing bodies in self –evaluation, which is good practice for all schools, not just those requiring improvement.

Update - August 2014 Departmental advice on the Roles, Procedures and Allowances Regulations 2013, published in January 2014, encourages governing bodies to review their own performance regularly in light of their core functions, the inspections framework and other helpful frameworks such as the ‘20 Questions’ published by the All-Party Parliamentary Group.

In addition, statutory guidance on the constitution of governing bodies, published in May 2014, requires governing bodies to use skills audits to identify any skills gaps that they should aim to fill when recruiting new governors.

The Governors’ Handbook was updated in May 2014 to encourage governing bodies to use the skills audit and matrix developed by the NGA to help them identify any skills and knowledge they still need to function effectively.

Ofsted’s Data Dashboard

11. The importance of good data in user-friendly formats for governing bodies cannot be overstated. We welcome Ofsted’s Data Dashboard and support the DfE’s work to develop questions that governing bodies can use to interrogate data effectively. The generic questions in the new Governors’ Handbook are helpful, but will not in themselves provide sufficient assistance to governing bodies in interrogating complex data. We look forward to DfE publishing further questions. (Paragraph 78)

Previous response In order to hold the headteacher to account for the performance of the school, governing bodies need access to robust, objective data which they can use to ask challenging questions. Governors need information that helps them compare their school to other schools.

Ofsted’s high level dashboard is a valuable resource to help governors understand how well their school is doing in broad terms, but governors need to go into more detail to do their job well. Whilst all the information is available through RAISE online, we share concerns that it is not especially easy to understand. We are working with Ofsted to make this easier for governors, and for data released this autumn, there will be a streamlined Summary Report and clearer signposting to the most important sections.

NCTL provided training workshops on RAISE online in early 2013. These workshops will be refreshed and re-launched later this year, so many more governors will be able to benefit.

In the longer term, we will make sure governors’ needs for information are at the heart of the new data warehouse and portal that will replace RAISE online from 2015.

The Governors’ Handbook provided illustrative questions to indicate the broad range of issues on which governors may need to ask questions of their headteacher and other senior leaders. We welcome work by the National Governors’ Association (NGA) to identify and publish a first draft of a more detailed list of possible questions. Ultimately, it is for governing bodies to decide and prioritise the precise questions that need to be asked.

Update - August 2014 The National Governors’ Association has published its questions for governing bodies to ask6. In addition, the Wellcome Trust has been working with the NGA and others to develop questions7 for governing bodies in secondary schools to ask specifically on science and maths; these are currently being piloted. We welcome this sector-led approach to resourcing governing bodies with the questions to create robust accountability for school leaders.

6 www.nga.org.uk/Members-Area/Guidance/School-Improvement/Knowing-your-School--Questions-for- governing-bodie.aspx 7 www.questionsforgovernors.co.uk

Information, advice and guidance for governing bodies and the role of the clerk

12. An effective clerk is vital to the success of a governing body. The evidence clearly indicates that this should be a professional role—similar to a company secretary. We recommend that the Government act upon the findings of the project by the National Governors’ Association and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives relating to clerks. (Paragraph 83)

Previous response To be effective, all school governing bodies need the support of a professional clerk to advise them on their duties and how best to fulfil them. The new Roles, Procedures and Allowances regulations for maintained schools reflect this in a duty on the governing body to appoint a clerk to ensure it functions efficiently and to have regard to the advice of the clerk on the nature of its functions. The board of governors in an academy is required to appoint a clerk by its articles of association.

To support the professionalisation of clerking, we have recently announced an extension to the work of NCTL to develop and deliver a training programme for clerks. By 2015, NCTL will have trained 2,000 highly-skilled professional clerks.

We look forward to receiving any recommendations arising from the discussions taking place between the National Governors’ Association and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and will consider these in due course.

Update - August 2014 Departmental advice on the Roles, Procedures and Allowances Regulations, published in January 2014, highlights the vital role of the clerk to the effective functioning of the governing body. The advice encourages governing bodies to set demanding standards for the service they expect from their clerk, and assure themselves that they are employing a clerk with the right skills and training. To assist governing bodies with this, the advice note also highlights the model job description for clerks developed by the NGA.

We are not aware of any recommendations arising from work on clerking between NGA and SOLACE. Meanwhile, NCTL has developed and launched its new clerks training programme8. Licensees delivering the programme are reporting high early demand for the provision.

8 www.gov.uk/school-governors-professional-development#clerks-to-governing-bodies-training-programme

13. The School Governors’ One Stop Shop (SGOSS) has been funded for a further two years to recruit governors. We believe that SGOSS may be ideally placed to take on a role in recruiting clerks and we recommend that the Government consider how to facilitate this. (Paragraph 84)

Previous response We do not think SGOSS is ideally placed to recruit clerks. Our funding to SGOSS is to deliver the crucial task of recruiting skilled governors from business and placing them in schools that need governors with those skills. We have no plans to provide additional funding to SGOSS to enable them to focus on recruiting clerks, which would be a very different role recruiting from an almost entirely separate constituency.

We understand that SGOSS itself has no current plans to focus on the recruitment of clerks. If it should decide to do so in future, it would need to fund this work from a source, other than the Department and provide assurance to us that the additional work would not detract from its capacity to deliver its core grant-funded business of recruiting and placing skilled governors.

The National Governors’ Association has recently indicated publicly that it is considering piloting its own brokerage service between schools and clerks.

Update - August 2014 We have announced a further one-year extension to our funding to SGOSS to March 2016, to enable it to focus on building its work with employers to recruit high-quality skilled governors. SGOSS has no plans to expand its work to recruit governing body clerks.

The NGA has been piloting its clerk brokerage service and is now evaluating it to assess how effective the service has been for governing bodies and clerks.

14. Our inquiry has shown the importance of high quality information and guidance for governing bodies—particularly for clerks. We share the concern of the National Governors’ Association that the new Governors’ Handbook appears to be aimed only at new governors. The new Handbook has lost much of what was valuable to experienced governors and clerks in the predecessor guide. The Government should work with the NGA to rectify this. (Paragraph 89)

Previous response The Governors’ Handbook sets out the essential information that governors need to know about their roles and responsibilities. It signposts rather than duplicates material available in other places. It is designed to be used by all governors, whatever their experience. The National Governors’ Association and the many other organisations represented on our Advisory Group on Governance were consulted on the development of the Governors’ Handbook. We will keep the design and content of the new Handbook under review through this advisory group.

Our role is to make sure governors understand their role and have access to information on all their legal duties. The Handbook therefore provides three levels of information:  Section 1 outlines the core role and functions of school governing bodies. All governors should read this section.  Sections 2 to 8 of the Handbook summarise all the specific legal duties on governing bodies, providing a first point of reference for those with a specific area of interest.  Further reading is signposted from within each section for those who would like more detailed information. Links are provided to relevant regulations, guidance and resources.

NCTL’s training programme for clerks will ensure that clerks have all necessary information and materials to deliver a professional service and advice to governing bodies. There is an open license on the content of the archived Governors’ Guide to the Law. This means that any content that remains of value to clerks can be used not only by NCTL but by any other organisation that may to develop guidance or training programmes for clerks.

Update - August 2014 The Governors’ Handbook was last updated in May 2014, and will be updated again in September 2014 to reflect the latest policy and legal reforms, and feedback from our advisory group, including the National Governors’ Association. The Handbook continues to signpost governing bodies to additional sources of high-quality information and support for all governors and clerks. Clerks now have access to a new training programme from NCTL to help them deliver a professional quality service to governing bodies.

Arrangements for tackling underperformance and failure of governing Bodies

15. Urgency in implementing Interim Executive Boards is critical to address serious failings of governance in schools. Given that urgency, the absence of time limits for the implementation of IEBs is indefensible and should be rectified forthwith. We recommend that if, after an inspection, Ofsted considers that a governing body should be replaced by an IEB, Ofsted should use its power and responsibility to say so explicitly. (Paragraph 92)

Previous response Where a school is failing, an IEB is one of a number of options available to secure the necessary improvement. We do not agree that there is a need for a new role for Ofsted here as the recommendation would appear to imply that an IEB is always the most effective way to secure improvement. If an IEB is required, it should be implemented quickly. However, in some cases the governing body will seek a sponsored academy solution itself and appointing an IEB in such cases would merely add avoidable delay.

The role of Ofsted is to inspect and report on a school, including the effectiveness and capacity of the leadership team and governing body. The priority then is to secure improvement as quickly as possible, using IEBs where appropriate. Having Ofsted make specific recommendations on the proposed solution could blur the boundary of responsibilities between the Chief Inspector, the local authority and the Secretary of State.

Update - August 2014 The revised Schools Causing Concern statutory guidance (May 2014) makes clear that local authorities should act quickly and robustly with the schools they maintain. Appointing an Interim Executive Boards (IEB) is one the intervention measures available to them and to the Secretary of State.

The guidance sets a clear expectation that, where a school has a history of sustained underperformance, conversion to an academy with a strong sponsor will be the normal route to secure improvement.

For single academy trusts that are failing, we will seek to re-broker them to a high- performing multi-academy trust/strong sponsor. For academies in an underperforming academy trust, we will work with the trust to ensure that the correct support is provided to secure improvements in the trust’s academies, which may include transferring them to a different trust.

16. We recommend that the Government investigate the reasons why so many local authorities, and the Secretary of State, have historically been reluctant to use their powers of intervention where school governance has become a concern. Any unnecessary restrictions on the use of these powers should be lifted so that they can be used more effectively. (Paragraph 100)

Previous response We do not accept that the Secretary of State is reluctant to intervene in underperforming schools, and this is demonstrated by the rapid transformation of many poorly performing schools into sponsored academies. The Secretary of State has also imposed IEBs directly on seven occasions to date. The changes to the Ofsted inspection regime mean that the Secretary of State is now more explicitly made aware of issues with school governance. We are keeping under review how the intervention framework could be improved to allow the Secretary of State to intervene more quickly.

We agree that many local authorities do not make enough use of their formal intervention powers. The number of IEBs issued by local authorities is growing, but still far too slowly. In 2012-13 local authorities put in place 74 IEBs; a small number compared with the number of schools with declining or poor performance. Sixty local authorities have never put an IEB in place. We think it is unlikely that this reluctance is due to legislative restrictions, as the circumstances whereby a local authority can issue a warning notice appear broad. Our understanding to date has been that local authorities prefer to avoid taking action under the legislation because they feel it undermines their relationship with the school. They would rather bring about improvements through persuasion and co- operation. We consider that they should take a co-operative approach for a more limited time period before using their formal intervention powers.

Update - August 2014 There is no new or additional evidence of restrictions on local authorities using their powers of intervention, and the revised Schools Causing Concern statutory guidance (May 2014) makes clear that local authorities should act quickly, using their power of intervention effectively. They should not wait for Ofsted making a school eligible for intervention in order to intervene in underperforming schools, and they should issue warning notices and appoint IEBs where necessary. Whilst the latter power is also available to the Secretary of State, the revised guidance sets out our expectation that local authorities should be proactive in tackling underperformance.

In the academic year 2013-14, as at 8 August 2014, local authorities requested the Secretary of State’s permission to appoint 97 IEBs, with 90 actually appointed. The Secretary of State appointed 7 IEBs in the same period. A list of all the schools for which an IEB was appointed (including the 7 applications still awaiting a decision from the Secretary of State can be found at Annex A)

17. Local authorities continue to have an important role in the monitoring and challenge of school performance between Ofsted inspections. Ofsted’s inspections of local authority school improvement functions will be an important gauge of how feasible it is for local authorities to continue to undertake this role. There is a need for greater clarity on the role of local authorities in school improvement within the new school landscape and in the context of reductions to budgets. We recommend that this be addressed by the DfE as a matter of urgency. (Paragraph 101)

Previous response We recognise the concerns of the Committee on this matter. We plan to consult later this year with local authorities, schools and other partners to consider how the planned reductions to the Education Services Grant (ESG) can be implemented through realising efficiencies and enabling local authorities to focus on their core role in relation to schools. This will be preceded by a period of field work with local authorities, schools and academies to gather evidence about how the ESG is currently being used.

Update - August 2014 We responded to local authorities’ requests for greater clarity on their role in relation to school improvement by setting out our expectation in the ESG consultation document9 (March 2014) as well as in the revised Schools Causing Concern statutory guidance (May 2014).

The government response to the consultation, published in July 2014, recognises that the scope for local authorities to make savings appears to vary between different functions and different types of local authority. It also identified opportunities for savings, including reducing centrally retained services, commissioning school improvement support from schools, maximising partnerships with Teaching Schools, and greater flexibility in the deployment of key staff.

9 www.gov.uk/government/consultations/savings-to-the-education-services-grant-for-2015-to-2016

The relationship between the governing body and headteacher

Division of responsibilities

18. We recommend that the Government review existing regulations and legislative requirements regarding the respective roles and responsibilities of governors and headteachers to ensure clarity regarding the proper division of strategic and operational functions in school leadership. (Paragraph 107)

Previous response The Committee is right to draw attention to the important distinction between the role of the governing body and the role of the headteacher.

The new Roles, Procedures and Allowances regulations from 1 September 2013 make it clear that the governing body is responsible for setting strategic direction, holding the headteacher to account for the educational performance of the school, and making sure that best use is made of the school’s financial resources. The regulations make it clear that the internal organisation and management of the school is the responsibility of the headteacher, and that the headteacher must undertake any reasonable request of the governing body. These principles are set out in the Governors’ Handbook and are equally relevant to the governing bodies and principals of academies.

Update - August 2014 NCTL updated its popular guidance Leading Governors on the role of the chair of governors10 in June 2014. This includes a section on the relationship with the headteacher, a number of key questions headteachers and chairs should ask each other, a case study of effective practice, and signposting to useful publications and additional support.

The updated Governors’ Handbook, published in May 2014, clarifies that, while the focus of the governing body’s role is a strategic one, there may be exceptional circumstances in which it needs to concern itself with operational matters – for example where, as a result of the actions or inactions of the headteacher, the school would be in breach of a legal duty. In such circumstances, the headteacher, having advised the governing body, must comply with any reasonable direction given by it. The Handbook also highlights the importance of governing bodies having access to good quality data and information. This includes access to sufficient operational data to be assured that the school’s management structures are working effectively.

10 www.gov.uk/government/publications/leading-governors-the-role-of-the-chair-of-governors

Training for headteachers and chairs of governors

19. There is a compelling case for headteachers to undergo training on governance. We strongly support training for headteachers and chairs of governing bodies to assist with mutual understanding of each other’s roles and responsibilities. (Paragraph 112)

Previous response We agree that it is important for headteachers and governing bodies to understand each other’s roles. NCTL is looking at all training programmes for headteachers to ensure adequate coverage of governance.

Leaders undertaking the previous format of NPQH could choose to undertake a module on governance. In its review of NPQH, NCTL recognised there was insufficient emphasis on the importance of governance and the revised NPQH programme now has a consistent message about the vital importance of the role of strong governance in school improvement and the significance of the relationship between the headteacher and the chair of governors.

Update - August 2014 To date, 2,400 people have enrolled on the NCTL Chair of Governors’ leadership development programme. Funding remains in place in 2014/15 to enable subsidised access to the programme for chairs, vice-chairs and aspiring chairs.

Early feedback from those undertaking governance-related NPQH modules is positive about how the modules help participants understand governance and the importance of an effective partnership between the governing body and the school’s leadership team.

Appointment and terms of office of governors

20. In order to ensure that every governing body has an effective chair, the appointment process for chairs needs to be robust and accompanied by clear procedures for removing poorly performing chairs from office. We recommend that DfE review current procedures relating to the appointment, and the terms of office, of chairs of governors. We also recommend that governing bodies be given the power to remove poorly performing governors. (Paragraph 117)

Previous response We agree that the process needs to be clear. The new Roles, Procedures, and Allowances regulations from 1 September set out the procedures for maintained school governing bodies to elect the chair and removing the chair from office. The advice note to accompany the regulations will make it clear that governing bodies can look externally to find a highly skilled chair, rather than always looking to appoint from within their existing cohort of governors. Having found a suitable person they would then need to appoint them to a vacant position on the governing body before electing them as chair.

We have no plans to give governing bodies more power to remove governors. It is right that governors are accountable to the body that appointed them, and the power to remove them rests with this body. We should not, therefore, as matter of principle, allow governing bodies to remove those that are elected.

In practice, it is the responsibility of the chair of governors to ensure the effectiveness of the governing body and the performance of individual governors. It is for the chair to have honest conversations, as necessary, if governors are not pulling their weight. This doesn’t need further government regulation.

Update - August 2014 Departmental advice on the Roles Procedures and Allowance Regulations 2013 was published in January 2014. This includes advice on appointing a chair, including the option of recruiting one externally. It also encourages governing bodies to put in place effective succession planning arrangements and to consider carefully how many times they re-elect their chair to a new term of office. In some circumstances a change of chair may be required to ensure that the governing body remains invigorated and forward looking.

New models of governance

Accountability of academy governance

21. Academies differ in their governance structures. We recommend that the Government clarify the roles of governors in the different types of academy. The Government should also clarify how relevant local groups (including pupils, parents and staff) should be given a voice in the business of the governing body. (Paragraph 125)

Previous response We have published new guidance on our website about governance in academies, including content about the difference between the trust’s overall Board of Governors and any local governing bodies of a multi-academy trust, and on the difference between the role of governors in academies and maintained schools. We will keep this content under review.

We believe that conversion to academy status is an ideal opportunity to review and reform as necessary the constitution and structure of a governing body to ensure it is fit for purpose.

As with all types of school, our priority for academy governance is to ensure that governors have the skills to achieve the best for pupils in their school. There are many ways for governing bodies to engage with parents, staff and students and feed these into their decision making.

Update - August 2014 We will be updating the model articles for academy trusts shortly, which will make clear the different governance structures that are available to academy trusts. Also, the revised academies financial handbook will set out more clearly our expectations in relation to academies governance structures and their accountability.

22. Given the independence of academies’ governance structures, parents should be provided with clarity as to how decisions are made in academies, along with detail on where to turn in the event of concerns arising. (Paragraph 130)

Previous response Academies are already required to publish their funding agreement and articles of association which set out their governance arrangements.

As companies, and through their funding agreement, academies are also required to produce and publish externally audited accounts. These accounts must include a governance statement that covers the role and function of the board of governors and its sub-committees.

Academies’ articles of association require them to make the minutes of governing body meetings available to anybody who asks.

Academies are required to have a procedure in place for dealing with complaints by parents of pupils. The procedure needs to be published on the academy website or made available upon request. Any parent with a complaint about governance at an academy, who is unable to resolve it locally, can contact the Education Funding Agency.

Update - August 2014 We are continuing to do all of the above. In addition, we are encouraging multi-academy trusts to make clear, where there are local governing bodies in place, what powers and responsibilities have been delegated to them.

Alternative models of governance

23. Given the NGA’s concern that it will be difficult to find sufficient excellent candidates to provide an effective governing body for every school in the country, we recommend that the Government study the effectiveness of governing bodies governing groups of schools—for example federations and multi-academy trusts. The Government should look at the optimum size of federation that can be governed effectively, and consider how local school autonomy can be retained in federated arrangements. (Paragraph 139)

Previous response We agree that governing bodies governing groups of schools can be highly effective. We are working with NCTL, NGA and other stakeholders to produce documents that clearly explain governance in federations and multi-academy trusts (MATs). The guidance documents will aim to clarify legislation and terminology; explain the principles of federations and MATs and help school leaders and governors to think about these as possible structures for their schools. The documents will also include a number of case studies that provide examples of how the governance of federations and MATs works in practice and the journeys taken by school leaders and governors. These will be available in autumn 2013.

Update - August 2014 The number of academies which are part of multi-academy trusts has continued to grow, and their governance arrangements will enable to them to focus the high-quality volunteers they have where they will be most effective, either on the academy trust board or on a local governing body.

In addition, we are providing multi-academy trusts with additional flexibility in how they use local governing bodies. These can now cover more than one school, and it is up to the trust to determine whether they are advisory or have delegated responsibilities.

We will be updating the model articles for academy trusts shortly, which will make clear the different governance structures which are available to academy trusts. Also the revised academies financial handbook will set out more clearly our expectations in relation to academies governance structures and their accountability.

As outlined in our original response to the Committee, NCTL has published guidance on governance in Federations11 and in MATs12.

11 www.gov.uk/government/publications/governance-of-federations 12 www.gov.uk/government/publications/governance-in-multi-academy-trusts

Annex A

Applications approved which have been submitted from LAs to the Secretary of State to appoint an IEB in 2013-14.

Badwell Ash CEVA Primary School Primary Suffolk White House Primary School Primary East Sussex Northiam Church of England Primary School Primary East Sussex Dogsthorpe Junior School Primary Peterborough ALT Primary School Primary Oldham Cavell Primary and Nursery School Primary Norfolk Levenshulme High School Secondary Manchester Copenhagen Primary School Primary Islington Grenoside Community Primary School Primary Sheffield Forest Hall School Secondary Essex Monks Eleigh Church of England Voluntary Primary Suffolk Controlled Primary School St Peters Primary School Primary Leicester Priory CofE Primary School Primary Stoke-on-Trent St James' Church of England Voluntary Primary Essex Aided Primary School, Harlow West Town Primary School Primary Peterborough Stamshaw Junior School Primary Portsmouth Futures Community College Secondary Southend-on-Sea Woodlands School Secondary Essex Regents Park Community College Secondary Southampton The Bankfield School Secondary Halton Uplands Junior School Primary Leicester Warren Wood Community Primary School Primary Medway and Language Regina Coeli Catholic primary School Primary Croydon Holy Trinity Church of England Primary Primary Shropshire Skipton Ing Community Primary and Nursery Primary North Yorkshire School Middlecott School Secondary Lincolnshire Guide Post Middle School Secondary Northumberland Chantry School Special Hillingdon Abbotsweld Primary School Primary Essex Kentmere Primary School Primary Rochdale North East Grange Primary School Primary Lincolnshire Bournville School and Sixth Form Centre Secondary Birmingham Kobi Nazrul Primary School Primary Tower Hamlets Parklands High School Secondary Liverpool Easton Garford Endowed CE School Primary Northamptonshire Leigh Beck Infant School and Nursery Primary Essex Eaton Primary School Primary Norfolk Bedgrove Junior School Primary Buckinghamshire St Anne's Catholic Primary School Primary Reading St Anne's Junior School Primary Bristol City of Cobholm Primary School Primary Norfolk Kessingland Church of England Voluntary Primary Suffolk Controlled Primary School Stalham High School Secondary Norfolk Harper Bell Seventh Day Adventist School Primary Birmingham Kirk Sandall Junior School Primary Doncaster Latton Green Primary School Primary Essex Deeplish Community Primary School Primary Rochdale Blacklands Primary School Primary East Sussex The Edmunds Primary School Primary Barnsley

Grangeside School Special Hampshire Southfield Technology College Secondary Cumbria Stainburn School and Science College Secondary Cumbria Springwood Community Primary School Primary Bradford Longwood Primary School Primary Essex Blackburn with Pleckgate High School Mathematics and Secondary Computing College Darwen Brownmead Junior and Infant School Primary Birmingham Walney School Secondary Cumbria St Joseph's Catholic Primary School Primary Birmingham Hammersmith and Hurlingham and Chelsea Secondary School Secondary Fulham Rise Park Junior School Primary Havering Richmond School Secondary North Yorkshire Prudhoe Community High school Secondary Northumberland Meridian Primary School Primary East Sussex The Lincoln St Peter at Gowts CE Primary Primary Lincolnshire School The Isaac Newton Primary School Primary Lincolnshire Easton Church of England Primary School Primary Bristol City of The Chad Varah Primary School Primary Lincolnshire Ramsden Hall School Special Essex Laisterdyke Business and Enterprise Secondary Bradford College The Weald CE VA Primary School Primary Surrey Thorner CE VC Primary School Primary Leeds Al-Hijrah School Secondary Birmingham Newall Green High School Secondary Manchester Temple Mill Primary School Primary Medway Stambridge Primary School Primary Essex Whitfield Valley Primary School Primary Stoke-on-Trent Mill Hill Primary School Primary Stoke-on-Trent New Park School Special Wolverhampton Etruscan Primary School Primary Stoke-on-Trent Mexborough School Secondary Doncaster Stansted Church of England Primary School Primary Kent Canewdon Endowed CE VC Primary School Primary Essex Yewdale School Primary Cumbria St Margaret's CE VA Primary School Primary Essex Litherland High School Secondary Sefton Our Lady's Roman Catholic Primary School Primary Manchester St Johns CE PS, Canterbury Primary Kent Sewell Park College Secondary Norfolk Lodge Farm JMI School Primary Walsall Saltley School & Specialist Science College Secondary Birmingham

Applications yet to be approved by the Secretary of State

(To note there are 8 schools that have applied but not yet been approved, but Theddlethorpe and Saltfleetby are a federation and should be classed as one application, so in theory there are only 7 applications.)

Lindsworth School Special Birmingham Speenhamland Primary School Primary West Berkshire St James' CE Primary School Primary Manchester Maplewood School Special Buckinghamshire Palfrey Junior School Primary Walsall Cove School Secondary Hampshire Theddlethorpe Primary School Primary Lincolnshire Saltfleetby Primary School Primary Lincolnshire

Schools where the Secretary of State has imposed an IEB

Barking and Dorothy Barley Junior School Primary Dagenham Sayes Court School Primary Surrey Newbold Community School Secondary Derbyshire Knockhall Community Primary School Primary Kent Blackburn with Darwen Vale High School Secondary Darwen West Bank Primary School Primary Halton Elton Community Primary School Primary Bury