Archdiocese of Westminster

Consultation on Draft Guidance and Regulations on the Constitution of School Governing Bodies

The Response given here follows the format of the Draft Regulations, followed by comments on the Draft Statutory Guidance, following the numbering in each of them. We welcome separate guidance for different types of schools and have only commented on the Draft Guidance for Voluntary Aided Schools.

Draft Regulations

Reg. 8(1) The retention of the accepted definition of foundation governor is welcomed as essential to the nature of our schools.

Reg. 21 We are pleased that reg. 21(1)(d) gives a clear indication that the foundation majority will be preserved. However, we are concerned about the unclear drafting of 21(2). On one reading, this seems to envisage “additional foundation governors” being appointed by the governing body. This is clearly unacceptable, as such appointees would not be foundation governors in the accepted sense and therefore the foundation majority would be lost with the consequent loss of the school’s Catholic character. This would have the unfortunate effect of ruling out the possibility of sponsor governors in Catholic schools. We know that a number of our schools would prefer to retain the option to have sponsor governors. This regulation should therefore be re-drafted to make it clear that such additional foundation governors are appointed by the body named in the instrument of government.

Reg. 25(4) We welcome the retention of the flexibility of terms of office of foundation governors.

Reg. 27(1) We are pleased that the essential right to remove foundation governors is clearly stated here. We are concerned that there is no provision for the removal of elected governors and suggest that the Secretary of State should have this power as one of last resort.

Sch.1 para.10 We welcome the extra flexibility brought about by this wider definition of “parent” in the context of foundation governors. It should help us to bring down the vacancy rate in this category, a rate which is currently twice that for other foundation governors.

Sch.6 para.1 As we move towards increasing coherence of 16-19 education, it does seem strange that, in our sixth-form colleges, student governors (normally under 18) are compulsory, whereas the same students at a school sixth-form (or even a 16-19 institution) would be disqualified for any form of governorship. Some consistency of approach would be welcome. (Also guidance para.2.7.)

Sch.6 para.6 We would prefer to keep the current arrangements whereby ex-officio governorships are calculated separately.

Draft Statutory Guidance (Voluntary Aided Schools Version)

Para. 1.4 The exercise of renewing instruments of government of all schools in 1999 was made considerably easier for our schools by the diocese preparing initial drafts on behalf of governing bodies and co-ordinating the process with LEAs. We intend to work in a similar way this time, and would welcome a recognition of this useful assistance within the guidance.

Para. 2.4.1 For the sake of completeness and accuracy, we suggest “or Religious Order” is added after each occurrence of the word “Diocese” in this paragraph. There are still a considerable number of these schools, and they do not fall into the other category described.

Para. 4.1 This paragraph is very misleading. The last two sentences are incorrect in the context of the preceding two. It must be clear that the term of office of individual foundation governors is not set out in the instrument of government.

Para. 7.1 etc. The phrase “foundation interests” is used when the regulations clearly refer to foundation governors. This should be rectified. In our experience governing bodies often missed the requirement for a separate vote of the foundation governors to be taken, delaying the process unnecessarily. This requirement should be made more explicit. This incorrect phrase also appears in 7.3.1 (1^st & 4^th bullet points) and 7.4.1 (3^rd, 4^th & 6^th bullet points).

Para. 7.2.1 The 5^th bullet point is inaccurate in referring to “any category” of governor - this does not apply to foundation or ex-officio governors.

Para. 7.2.2 In Catholic schools, the 5^th bullet point may be superfluous, as the trust deed is already identified in the ethos statement.

Para. 7.3.1 We intend, as before, to assist governing bodies by preparing drafts of instruments on their behalf, and liaising with LEAs and any religious order trustees on behalf of all our schools. As stated above, we would welcome acknowledgement in the guidance that this important service is carried out by dioceses. We are also concerned that this paragraph may be misleading because it does not follow the sequence of events chronologically as required by the legislation. In other words, that listed in the 1^st bullet point should be done before that set out in the first sentence. We suggest the order is re-arranged to make the process clearer.

Annex A Not all of these constitutional models will be suitable for Catholic schools.

Annex B Foundation Governors should appear at 4.a rather than 4.e. The ethos statement for Catholic schools should appear at 2 rather than 11, and 10 will be superfluous because details of the trust deed are already part of the ethos statement. It must be clear to LEAs that the layout described above remains acceptable. It would be helpful to have the ethos statement for Catholic schools set out in Circular 15/99 repeated here.