1. The challenges facing school governing bodies in England
Paper presented to the CCEAM 2012 Conference
Chris James (University of Bath)
Steve Brammer (University of Warwick)
Michael Connolly (University of Glamorgan)
David Eddy Spicer (University of Bath)
Jane James (University of Bath)
Jeff Jones (University of Bath)
Introduction
In England, school governing bodies are responsible in law for the conduct of schools. In
undertaking that responsibility, they face a number of challenges all of which have a
history of some kind and relate to the current context for governing wrought by recent
policy developments. Many of these challenges are immediate and moreover, they may
well develop further in the future.
The intention of this paper is to identify features of the context for school governance
generally in England and within each aspect to review the constellation of current
challenges confronting school governing bodies.
The paper draws on the outcomes of three research projects in which the authors of the
article have been involved and the work of other researchers in the field (for example
Earley and Ranson). The first research project reviewed school governing in England -
generally and in relation to the contribution of the business world to school governing. The
second project researched school governing in relation to socio-economic context and
school performance. The third researched the role and responsibilities of the school
governing body chair.
The challenges reviewed in the paper are grouped under the key aspects of the context with
the headings: the public profile of school governing; the institution and the environment;
accountability; and the role and the responsibility of school governing bodies. We
recognise there are connections amongst these different aspects. In the conclusion, we
draw out connections among the aspects that constitute the constellation of challenge
currently facing SGBs in England.
The main points in the paper are made under the four headings are summarised as follows.
The public profile of school governing
The lack of recognition and understanding of the role and the responsibility and the
significance of governing. The general lack of recognition has implications for the overall
quality of governing and governor recruitment. The low profile of school governing means
that school governing is not well understood, especially its impact on school performance,
and has led to a relative scarcity of research into the topic. The lack of policy attention has
resulted in a lack of clarity about the responsibility and an overloading of the range and
scope of the responsibilities. The increased autonomy being given to schools, with implicit
assumptions about the nature of school governing, is likely to exacerbate these challenges.

2. The institution and the environment
Autonomy of schools and collaboration. Arguably autonomy has gone through three eras
– the establishment of autonomy and competition (post-1988 – late 1990s); the
consolidation of autonomy and the development of collaboration (late 1990s – late
noughties); enhanced autonomy and an emphasis on collaboration (the current era). This
section will discuss the nature of autonomy and collaboration for the governing of schools
and the likely future scenarios and the implications.
The variety of institutional forms and governing arrangements in schools in England.
Varied institutional forms and governing arrangements have always been a feature of the
school system in England. That variation is set to increase with new school types such as
free schools, academies and teaching schools. Governing is likely to become a more
diversified activity in the future.
The pressure to collaborate with other schools and form groupings of various kinds.
Along with the increase in the diversity of organisational forms is the pressure to form
collaborative arrangements with other schools and for chains of schools to form. Again,
this development is likely to diversify school governing practice.
The changing role of the local authority. Historically, local authorities have had a
significant role in supporting schools and governing bodies in a range of ways. With the
large number of secondary schools becoming academies, the resources of local authorities
to continue that support will decline.
Strategic management in changing market conditions. New school forms and their
potential ‘arrival’ in a relatively stable local ‘education market’ can cause significant
challenges for the governors of existing maintained schools. Similarly, the ‘nationalisation’
of private schools that take up academy/free school status make increase the competitive
pressure on schools.
The likely decline in funding for schools. Schools were relatively generously funded
from the mid-nineties to the mid-noughties. Funding for schools is likely to decline in the
immediate future. Financial management, a central governing body responsibility, is likely
to become more challenging in the future.
Accountability
The inspection of school governing by Ofsted. A ‘poor Ofsted’ can have a substantial
impact on a school and significant implications for school governing bodies. The
significance of inspection has increased for school governing bodies in recent times.
Historically, the attention paid by Ofsted to school governing in school inspection has
varied. Governing now features more prominently in school inspections.
The pressure on schools to improve their performance. One of the features of the policy
context for schools since the mid-nineties has been the increasing pressure to improve
performance. That pressure is likely to increase and raises the issue of the contribution of
school governing and the nature of school governing in ensuring the legitimacy of schools.

3. The role and the responsibility of school governing bodies
The long-standing, confused and confusing specification of the role and the
responsibility of school governors. Over a long period, the role and responsibility of
school governors has been variously specified in policy statements which has exacerbated
the complexity of the role and the difficulty of governing. This ambiguous specification is
taken up and made operational in various ways by school governing bodies, which has
implications for governing body practice. This confusion over the role specification links
with and plays into the low public profile – and vice versa.
The stakeholder models for the constitution of GBs and the implications for
governing body capability. Historically (since the Taylor report), school governing has
been based on the stakeholder model. That model can be justified but is under threat from
those who advocate a more skills-based model. Having a wide range of stakeholders on the
governing body can complicate governing practice but generally governing bodies cope
with, and indeed benefit from, this complexity. The flexibilities accorded to governing
bodies for governing body constitution in recent legislation may result in a move away
from the stakeholder model.
The appointment of the headteacher. Appointing the headteacher is very significant
issue for a governing body because inter alia it makes explicit the inherent tension between
the governing body as consultative body and the governing body as accountable overseer.
With a high ‘retirement rate’ and a relative shortage of suitable applicants, this issue is
likely to become yet more problematic. Local authority support for headteacher
appointments is variable but is likely to decrease in the near future.
The role of the chair. The position of the chair of the school governing body is
increasingly recognised as significant in the governing of schools. De facto, chairs take
responsibility for the organisation and leadership of the governing body even though that
responsibility is not specified in a statutory sense (there is a strong case for arguing that it
should be). The relationship between the headteacher and the chair can be pivotal for the
proper functioning of both the school and the governing body.
The weight of the responsibility and the commitment required. The overall workload
for governors in fulfilling their responsibilities can be high and particularly so for chairs
and the members of the governing body ‘core group’. Ambiguous policy guidance and
increased pressure on resources has in many ways increased the responsibilities and the
commitment required. The workload and necessary commitment can affect recruitment.
Payment for governors – or perhaps just chairs - may become an issue in the future.
Concluding comments
As can be seen from the above, the ambiguous public profile of school governing, the
degree of tumult in the institution’s relation with its environment, and the consequence of
wider changes together have profound implications for the roles and responsibilities of
school governing bodies. In the face of these challenges, there is a strong case for the
significance for school governing to be more widely acknowledged, which could then
enhance the quality of schools generally, which should enable school governing bodies to
manage the substantial challenges they currently face and are likely to face in the future.