RESPONSE FORM

THE WAY FORWARD – A MODERNISED FRAMEWORK FOR SCHOOL GOVERNANCE

The Way Forward Paper sets out our consultation proposals to modernise the framework for school governance. It covers:

· the constitution of governing bodies;

· governing body responsibilities; and

· governing body procedures.

For each of the above a number of proposals are made and views invited. Please use the form below to respond to the Paper and return it to: DfES Governance Consultation, NOP Research, Caxton House, 91 Victoria Road, Chelmsford, CM1 1JW. You may email your completed response to dfesconsultation@nopworld.com.

Under the Code of Practice on Open Government, any responses will be made available to the public on request, unless respondents indicate that they wish their response to remain confidential. The consultation period runs until 7 November 2001

Please indicate your overall view on the proposal that the size and constitution of a school’s governing body should be based on the guiding principles set out above.

Summary of Response

We welcome the acknowledgement of the excellent work carried out by governing bodies and support to the principle that the regulatory framework for school governing bodies should be simpler and more flexible. However, we are very concerned that the document fails to recognise explicitly the importance of the role of trustees of voluntary aided schools. We consider that this lack of recognition means that some of the proposals are trying to fit two distinctively types of school into exactly the same framework, to the detriment of voluntary aided schools. The governance of statutory schools, with only a governing body, and that of voluntary schools, with a governing body and trustees, cannot be exactly the same. We would like to see this fact recognised and its implications reflected in the legislative proposals which will flow from this consultation.

So whilst we agree that there is much in current primary legislation which is both too prescriptive and which should be left to secondary legislation, there are a number of key safeguards to the interests of trustees of voluntary schools which are so important that are current statutory settlement, that they must be contained in primary legislation.

SECTION 2: THE CONSTITUTION OF GOVERNING BODIES

1.	Please indicate your overall view on the proposal that the size and constitution of a school’s governing body should be based on the guiding principles set out in paragraph 4.3 of the consultation document.
		Strongly support	Support	Support in part	X	Do not support

	We would welcome your comments on the proposal or suggestions for improvement.
	We are very concerned at the proposals set out in 4.3. It fails to recognise that at voluntary aided schools the trustees are not simply another stakeholder, but are the promoters, providers and owners of the school. We are extremely concerned that, despite assurances given in the original consultation document, the proposal is to diminish the foundation majority. This proposal goes back on the detailed compromise, which was reached during the negotiation of the 1998 legislation relating the number of foundation parent governors to the overall majority. Our concerns increase on seeing the examples given in the Appendix to the consultation document, all of which are both unacceptable and unworkable. In particular, the proposal is unacceptable because it would impose a much greater restriction on the recruitment of foundation governors than in any other category. The current restriction already imposes severe difficulties, especially in schools which have the greatest need of support by a good governing body. One advantage of foundation governors is the dioceses ability to support weaker schools by providing excellent governors from a much wider community. The present proposals would make it almost impossible to do so. The diocese currently appoints about 1600 foundation governors. The overall vacancy rate at any one time is a little over 10% - but this is about 8% among ordinary foundation governors and 16% among those who have to be drawn from the current parent body of that school. The situation is worse in weaker schools, which effectively have permanent vacancies. If these proposals were implemented, they would seriously undermine many of our schools. We estimate one extra governor in this category would increase the vacancy rate in this category to 32% and two more would raise it to 44%. This is unsustainable. We therefore suggest that, for foundation governors, the definition of parents is drawn more widely, so that it can enable parents in the wider community to be appointed. We suggest that parent includes the parent of a child at any maintained school and also includes those parents who have had children at that school. *We also note that some of the specifications in 4.3 are in fact more prescriptive than those that currently exist.* We do, however, welcome the proposal that the consent of the diocese and of the trustees will be necessary for the approval of new instruments of government and that schools with a religious character will continue to have an ethos statement in their instrument of government.

2.	Please indicate your overall view on the proposal set out in paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 to include minor authority representation on governing bodies as part of other stakeholder groups (namely LEA and/or community), rather than separately.
	X	Strongly support	Support	Support in part	Do not support

	We would welcome your comments on the proposal or suggestions for improvement.
	We welcome the opportunity for the LEA and minor authority governor categories to be rolled together. We would suggest that the instrument of government provide for the local education authorities and minor authorities that the school serves to nominate a number of persons to be governors. If there are more nominations than there are places, the governing body should be able to co-opt whichever of those nominations they think best.

3.	Please indicate your overall view on the proposal set out in paragraph 5.4 that associate governors should be able to attend full governing body meetings, but that they should not have voting rights at those meetings.
		Strongly support	Support	X	Support in part	Do not support

	We would welcome your comments on the proposal or suggestions for improvement.
	Governing bodies already have the freedom to allow observers to attend their meetings whether on an occasional or a regular basis. Whilst we are sure that governing bodies that have regular observers would welcome the opportunity to give them added recognition, using the terminology of “associate governors” might risk a confusion, since such persons are not, in fact, governors. It is, of course, essential that the non-governors do not have voting rights on the full governing bodies.

4.	Please indicate your overall view on the proposal set out in paragraph 6.1 that all members of the governing body should be able to vote to co-opt community governors on to the governing body.
		Strongly support	Support	Support in part	Do not support

	We would welcome your comments on the proposal or suggestions for improvement.
	As we understand it this proposal would not affect voluntary aided schools.

5.	Please indicate your overall view on the proposal set out in paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3 that a single governor stakeholder group should be formed to represent staff employed at the school.
		Strongly support	X	Support	Support in part	Do not support

	We would welcome your comments on the proposal or suggestions for improvement.
	We agree with the proposal that the categories of staff governors and teacher governors should be rolled together. We recognise the desire to give the head teacher the right to decide or become or remain a governor. However, we suggest that the cumbersome mechanism, which currently exists whereby this decision changes the composition of the governing body, is unnecessary. We suggest that, if the head teacher decides not to be a governor, this should not affect the rest of the governing body.

6.	Please indicate your overall view on the proposal set out in paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3 that one governor place from within the staff stakeholder group should be reserved for a teachers’ representative.
		Strongly support	Support	X	Support in part	Do not support

	We would welcome your comments on the proposal or suggestions for improvement.
	We agree that at least one of the staff governors should be a governor who is a member of the teaching staff. We are however concerned by the use of the word “representative”. Staff governors are not representatives., To suggest that they are is highly misleading and risks reducing governors to representatives of interest groups rather than, principally, members of a corporate body. Our experience is that this language is unhelpful and we suggest that documents revert to the terminology of a “staff governor”.

7.	Please indicate your overall view on the proposal set out in paragraph 6.4 that staff employed by the school may only serve as staff governors
	X	Strongly support	Support	Support in part	Do not support

	We would welcome your comments on the proposal or suggestions for improvement.
	Many dioceses already have a policy not to appoint employees of the school as foundation governors. These policies stem from experience, which is reflected in paragraph 6.4. We would therefore welcome this proposal. We would, however, reiterate the point made above that members of staff are not elected as representatives but are elected to be governors of the school.

In response to paragraph 6.5:we would welcome an assurance that, in voluntary aided schools, it will continue to be the appointing person or body who sets the terms of office for foundation governors and not the governing body. In the case of other categories a power to vary the term might be useful, although though in many cases it might be just as easy for the governor concerned to resign at the appropriate time.

8.	Please indicate your overall view on the proposal set out in paragraph 7.1 that the guiding principles on the size and constitution of governing bodies set out in paragraph 4.3 of the consultation document should be extended to maintained nursery schools.
		Strongly support	Support	Support in part	Do not support

	We would welcome your comments on the proposal or suggestions for improvement.
	This does not apply to the voluntary aided sector

9.	Please indicate your overall view on whether we should set a maximum for the number of schools that should be allowed to federate under a single governing body (paragraph 8.3 refers).
		Yes	X	No

	Please record any comments on the issue.
	We fully support this proposal to build more flexibility into the system and to allow schools to work together in more and closer ways. We look to the details of the regulations governing these groupings in voluntary aided schools to ensure that the rights of the trustees are respected. We see no particular reason for setting a maximum for the number of schools allowed to federate in this way.

10.	If you have answered yes on issue 9, please indicate your view on the maximum number of schools that should be allowed to federate under a single governing body (paragraph 8.3 refers). Tick one box only.
		Up to 5	5 to 7	8 to 10	10 +

	We would welcome your comments on this issue.
	See above.

SECTION 3: GOVERNING BODIES RESPONSIBILITIES

11.	We would welcome your views on the proposal that the circumstances outlined in paragraph 9.8 should prompt consideration of replacing the school governing body with an interim executive board.
		Strongly support	Support	Support in part	X	Do not support

	We would welcome your comments on the proposal or suggestions for improvement.
	We are extremely concerned about this proposal. It seems to fail to take into account the distinctive nature of voluntary schools and ignore the valuable contribution which trustees and dioceses can make in preventing and tackling school failure. In Catholic schools the unilateral appointment of such a board without the approval of the Bishop would put the school in breach if its trusts. This could put the future of the school at risk at the very time when stability ought to be encouraged. We are also concerned at the suggestion that the IEB members might be paid. This raises issues of accountability which do not appear to have been worked out. Would it be possible for the IEB and the senior management team to be the same people? If so, to whom would the senior management team be accountable. In any case, who are the employers of the IEB in a voluntary school?

Paragraph 10.3

The first bullet point in this list is incorrect. In voluntary aided schools it is not the task of the governing body to set the school’s ethos and mission. This is a function of the trustees. The role of the governing body is to preserve and develop the school’s character not to determine it. We find this a very worrying statement, which either indicates a lack of understanding of voluntary schools, a lack of understanding of ethos and mission or an attempt to usurp the functions of the trustees. We are also concerned that this section of the paper does not seem to indicate that a difference of treatment will be necessary between the schools where the governing body is the employer and those where it is not.

12.	Please indicate your overall view on the proposal set out in paragraphs 11.1 and 11.2 that we should deregulate provisions relating to governing body responsibilities for staff appointments and dismissals.
		Strongly support	Support	Support in part	X	Do not support

	We would welcome your comments on the proposal or suggestions for improvement.
	We broadly welcome the proposal to deregulate the framework under which governing bodies exercise their responsibilities for staff appointments and dismissals to provide them with more flexibility in carrying out their functions. In particular, we welcome the recognition that a clear statement of the role of the diocese and the trustees needs to be built into the primary legislative framework. We are concerned to make sure that the statutory guidance, codes of practice and model policies do not become in fact more prescriptive than the regulations which they replace. In schools where the governing body is the employer, a number of safeguards for that role must be built into the legislation. The fundamental safeguard is that it must be each governing body, which decides the appropriate level for each employment action and not anyone else. Given such safeguards, the governing body should have a wide range of flexibility to decide the appropriate level at which all appointments should be made. Given such safeguards, the proposal in respect of voluntary aided schools are too prescriptive

13.	Please indicate your overall view on the proposal set out in paragraph 12.4 that we should deregulate provisions relating to governing bodies other responsibilities where they are prescriptive and cannot be easily adapted to cater for changing circumstances.
		Strongly support	Support	X	Support in part	Do not support

	We would welcome your comments on the proposal or suggestions for improvement.
	Once again we generally welcome the proposal that flexibility and deregulation be brought in to govern governing bodies other statutory responsibilities and the way they conduct their business, provided that sufficient safeguards for the role of the trustees are preserved in primary legislation. We welcome the specific proposal to simplify the requirements on governing bodies with respect to the governors’ report and school prospectus. We would seek assurances that one of the items to be removed was the requirement to inform parents of their right to withdraw from religious education and collective worship, which was introduced without consultation in 1996 and which effectively invites parents to seek to undermine the character of the school.

14.	Please indicate your overall view on the proposal in paragraphs 13.1 to 13.3 that we should legislate to provide for governing bodies to have the choice to provide a wide range of family and community facilities or services.
		Strongly support	X	Support	Support in part	Do not support

	We would welcome your comments on the proposal or suggestions for improvement.
	This section does not apply to most voluntary aided schools, whose powers are already wide enough to allow such activities to be undertaken. These wider powers have been used and do not seem to have caused a problem; indeed some schools have found them advantageous. It would therefore seem sensible once again to allow other schools access to these additional powers (which they all had before 1994).

SECTION 4: GOVERNING BODY PROCEDURES

15.	Please indicate your overall view on the proposal set out in paragraphs 14.1-14.5 that governing bodies should be given greater scope to regulate their own procedures within that framework of principles.
		Strongly support	Support	X	Support in part	Do not support

	We would welcome your comments on the proposal or suggestions for improvement.
	We welcome the proposal that governing bodies be given more flexibility to govern their own procedures within a framework of principles. Once again we point to the need for adequate safeguards to be built into the legislation. We welcome the proposal that there should be adequate scope for governors to call to account individual governors who are behaving improperly. This is one of the weaknesses of the current regulations, and we look forward to seeing the detailed proposals. Although less prescriptive, regulations do still need to make sure that governing bodies review their procedures on a regular, perhaps annual, basis. It is also necessary to make sure that the selection and appointment of clerk be conducted in a proper manner.

16.	Please indicate your overall view on the proposal set out in paragraphs 14.6 and 14.7 that there should be a single quorum for all governing body meetings of one third.
		Strongly support	Support	Support in part	X	Do not support

	We would welcome your comments on the proposal or suggestions for improvement.
	Whilst we welcome the simplicity that would result from having only one quorum for a governing body – on balance we feel that the safeguards provided by the two-thirds quorum for the most important decisions is a necessary one, and we would like it to see continued, even in a restricted form. We welcome the proposal to allow governing bodies to make better use of new technology.

	If you have any other points you would like to make about the proposals in this consultation, or other points concerning school governing bodies, please record them below.

	Summary We welcome the acknowledgement of the excellent work carried out by governing bodies and support to the principle that the regulatory framework for school governing bodies should be simpler and more flexible. However, we are very concerned that the document fails to recognise explicitly the importance of the role of trustees of voluntary aided schools. We consider that this lack of recognition means that some of the proposals are trying to fit two distinctively types of school into exactly the same framework, to the detriment of voluntary aided schools. The governance of statutory schools, with only a governing body, and that of voluntary schools, with a governing body and trustees, cannot be exactly the same. We would like to see this fact recognised and its implications reflected in the legislative proposals which will flow from this consultation. So whilst we agree that there is much in current primary legislation which is both too prescriptive and which should be left to secondary legislation, there are a number of key safeguards to the interests of trustees of voluntary schools which are so important that are current statutory settlement, that they must be contained in primary legislation. Paragraph 6.5 We would welcome an assurance that, in voluntary aided schools, it will continue to be the appointing person or body who sets the terms of office for foundation governors and not the governing body. In the case of other categories a power to vary the term might be useful, although though in many cases it might be just as easy for the governor concerned to resign at the appropriate time. Paragraph 10.3 The first bullet point in this list is incorrect. In voluntary aided schools it is not the task of the governing body to set the school’s ethos and mission. This is a function of the trustees. The role of the governing body is to preserve and develop the school’s character not to determine it. We find this a very worrying statement, which either indicates a lack of understanding of voluntary schools, a lack of understanding of ethos and mission or an attempt to usurp the functions of the trustees. We are also concerned that this section of the paper does not seem to indicate that a difference of treatment will be necessary between the schools where the governing body is the employer and those where it is not.

ABOUT YOU

Please fill in the following details to help us with the analysis of responses.

Are you responding on behalf of an individual or on behalf of an organisation>

Individual

Organisation

If you are responding as an individual, are you responding primarily in your role as:

governor

teacher

other school staff

parent

Other (specify) Officer of the Diocese of Westminster……….

If you are responding on behalf of an organisation, is it a:

Governing

LEA

X

Diocesan

National

Other (specify)

body

organisation

…………………….

If you are responding as an individual associated with, or on behalf of a school, what is its age range and category:

Under 5

5-11

11-16

11-18

Other (specify) ………………

Community

Foundation

Voluntary

Community

Foundation

Nursery

Controlled

Aided

Special

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to complete this form. Please fill in your name and address or that of your organisation. You may withhold this information if you wish.

Name Paul Barber

Organisation Westminster Diocese Education Service

Address Vaughan House

46 Francis Street London SW1P 1QN

Under the Code of Practice on Open Government your response

will be made available to the public on request unless you

indicate here that you wish it to remain confidential.