The two documents related to this executive summary were commissioned by the
National Co-ordinators of Governor Services (NCOGS) and written by the National
Governors Association (NGA) to assess the local authority school improvement (LASI) inspections conducted by Ofsted. The aim was to understand what Ofsted inspectors are looking for from governor service staff and, in particular, how local authorities can improve its services to ensure that they receive a good judgment from Ofsted. With a new LASI framework introduced by Ofsted in November 2014, the objective was to provide a concise picture of what local authorities need to do in order to improve against this new framework. Therefore, the report built upon both the LASI reports issued to date as well as the focused school inspection (FSI) letters. This is because the old LASI framework and the old focus school inspection framework have now been merged under the same inspection process. In addition, the report also compared the
Clarke and Kershaw “Trojan Horse” reviews with the findings from the LASI reports,
FSI letters and interviews. The report consisted of:
 an analysis of the sixteen focused school inspection (FSI) letters published to date
 an analysis of the thirteen local authority school improvement (LASI) reports published to date from across eleven local authorities
 interviews with governor service and school improvement management staff from across six local authorities that have undergone the LASI inspection
 a comparison between the findings from the FSI letters, LASI reports and interviews with the Clarke and Kershaw “Trojan Horse” reviews
An analysis of the focused school inspection letters highlighted that Ofsted inspector’s place a large emphasis on the opinions of governors and headteachers. From governors in particular, the Ofsted inspectors wanted to understand:
 2.1 How well the local authority knows and communicated with its schools. In a large number of FSI letters, it was flagged as a problem if governors did not
© NGA, 36 Great Charles Street, Birmingham, B3 3JY
Tel: 0121 237 3780 Email: governorhq@nga.org.uk
1
Web: www.nga.org.uk

believe that the local authority knew its schools well. Local authorities that failed to communicate strategies or initiatives effectively to governors and headteachers were identified by Ofsted in seven of the FSI letters.
 2.2 The perception of the quality of data that the local authority give to governing bodies. In particular, Ofsted wanted governors to feel as if the data provided by the local authority helped them to perform their role well and hold senior leadership to account.
 2.3 What governors think of the challenge and intervention from the local authority. Most governor service teams interviewed for the FSI were positive about their local authority’s challenge and intervention. However, concerns were raised where governors believed that the local authority had a “censoring tone”, a “lack of objectivity” or a “reactive approach to school improvement”.
 2.4 What headteachers and governors think of governor support, including training and clerking. In seven of the reports the words “valued”, “praised” and
“positive” appeared when governor support was brought up. Comments on clerking were limited, although training received wide praise across most of the local authorities.
Similar themes were identified in the FSI letters as they were in the LASI reports.
However, the LASI report offered more detail and gave a coherent picture of what inspectors were looking for from a local authority. Overall, Ofsted inspectors wanted to see:
 3.1 How well a local authority collected data and used this to inform strategic direction and intervention in schools. Ofsted wanted local authorities to know schools well by having “sophisticated” systems for data collection. Inspectors were critical of local authorities that failed to have monitoring systems for all schools (including academies). Ofsted also wanted to see that the local authority had a good idea of governance in each of its schools.
 3.2 Whether the local authority had a robust strategic plan in place to set the broader context of school improvement and whether support and challenge to governors formed part of this strategic plan. This included having clear quantifiable milestones that set targets for maintained schools in the area. It was also important that the strategic plan was clearly understood by schools.
 3.3 That the local authority uses data to identify troubled schools and that it uses its strategic plan to target and prioritise intervention in maintained schools. Challenge to schools should be “proactive rather than reactive”, with problems being identified by the local authority before Ofsted. In addition,
Ofsted wants a systematic and robust system for statutory and non-statutory intervention that is well communicated to schools.
 3.4 That governor support was well received by governors and headteachers.
This included support that went beyond a local authorities statutory duties. In
© NGA, 36 Great Charles Street, Birmingham, B3 3JY
Tel: 0121 237 3780 Email: governorhq@nga.org.uk
2
Web: www.nga.org.uk

particular, Ofsted wanted to see high levels of turnout to governor training events and good feedback on the quality and quantity of the training offered.
In addition, Ofsted wanted local authorities to have effective methods of recruiting governors, with low vacancies, and methods of organising school-toschool support.
The six interviews offered an in depth look at the perceived problems with the inspection process from local authorities. It also gave a greater outlook on the services that local authorities that undertook the inspection offered to governors, how they challenged governors, and their experiences of dealing with Ofsted.
Each of the local authorities offered governor clerking and training as part of their services to schools. However, a number of points raised by local authorities were:
 4.1.1 Governor training courses should be comprehensive. They should also be at convenient times, and tailored to suit the needs of both experienced and inexperienced governors.
 4.1.2 Clerking services, although important, should not be relied upon as the sole source of information. The interviewees also outlined that it was difficult to recruit clerks due to the low pay and misconceptions of the role.
 4.1.3 Although governor vacancy levels are a big issue for Ofsted, there are problems recruiting people with the necessary skills in certain areas.
Geographical difficulties and the demographical makeup of populations meant that some local authorities struggled to find the right people for schools. This is despite some local authorities using SGOSS: Governors for Schools, advertising campaigns and consulting with local businesses.
 4.1.4 Governor Service staff found it difficult to offer as many services as they would have liked because of budget restrictions. A number of local authority’s outlined that they could have offered more services with more staff. However, only one local authority complained that spending cuts had detrimentally affected the services offered.
During the inspection process, local authorities noted issues with data and monitoring, statutory intervention and a problem with understanding their role in dealing with academies:
 4.2.1 Each local authority that was deemed “ineffective” under the old LASI framework had problems with data collection and monitoring governance. Some of the problems identified included having systems that were not rigorous enough and were too “informal”.
 4.2.2 A number of local authorities are averse to issuing statutory challenge against governors. Local authorities felt that statutory intervention may alienate governing bodies and, if the school was willing to work with the local authority, other methods (such as “pre-warning” letters) were more appropriate.
© NGA, 36 Great Charles Street, Birmingham, B3 3JY
Tel: 0121 237 3780 Email: governorhq@nga.org.uk
3
Web: www.nga.org.uk

 4.3 A number of local authorities believe that there is a “policy discontent” between the messages from Ofsted and the Department for Education (DfE) on the role of local authorities in academies. Many local authorities believe that
Ofsted see little difference between a local authorities role in support and challenge of maintained or academy schools. In contrast, many interviewees outlined that the DfE have made it clear that academies are accountable to the
Secretary of State for Education through the Regional Education Commissioners’
(REC) office.
One of the last important areas Ofsted were looking to see was how well the local authority knew its schools and how much of an impact the local authority had in improving schools:
 4.4.1 The interviewee’s outlined that it was important that they were able to show inspectors evidence of impact. Being able to show Ofsted what systems are in place to identify failing schools, how the local authority went about doing this, and how the local authorities’ actions had brought about quantifiable improvement within a school was fundamental to success in the
LASI inspection.
 4.4.2 The interviewee’s outlined that it was also important that they know school governance well. Ofsted would judge the local authority on the level of detail that it had on school governance in schools and how well a local authority’s ideas of a particular school matched up with Ofsted’s judgements.
From the findings in the FSI letters, the LASI reports and the interviews it was possible to make some links between other local authorities and Birmingham City Council
(BCC). Although these links do not suggest that other local authorities are undergoing the same problems, there are similar technical weaknesses between BCC and other local authorities.
 5.1 The Kershaw report outlined that BCC failed to scrutinise data effectively, particularly around “financial information, complaints and soft intelligence”.
Failures in monitoring data and identify problems emerged as issues across the
LASI reports, FSI letters and the interviews.
 5.2 Kershaw criticised BCC for failing to have an overarching policy or strategy for supporting and challenging schools. Similar to data, problems with a clear and concise strategy emerged across the LASI reports, FSI letters and the interviews.
 5.3 Kershaw noted that the governors of many school that fell under BCC lacked basic skills and were deficient in training. This was not the case in many local authorities inspected by Ofsted, however in a significant minority training was deemed to be poor or lacking in depth or focus.
 5.4 Kershaw noted that serious complaints were not dealt with effectively by
BCC who labelled racist incidences as “community cohesion” issues. The council was reluctant to use statutory powers including Interim Executive Boards. Many
© NGA, 36 Great Charles Street, Birmingham, B3 3JY
Tel: 0121 237 3780 Email: governorhq@nga.org.uk
4
Web: www.nga.org.uk

local authorities inspected for their LASI arrangements were criticised for not using statutory powers “robustly”. In addition, many of the interviewee’s outlined their aversion to statutory powers for fear of “alienating” a school.
These key recommendations are taken from an accompanying “guidance document” based upon the findings of the research conducted in making this report .
 Governor Service staff should be aware of what Ofsted expect from them in terms of school improvement by consulting the LASI Handbook . In particular, they should be aware of the sections concerning the recruitment of governors, governor training, school-to-school support, knowing schools well and statutory challenge.
 Local authorities should not exclude academy trustees from the support services offered. Local authority staff should remain aware of their duties to all children in their catchment area under the Education Act 1996 . Where possible, local authorities should seek to have good knowledge of governance in academies and report any problems to the relevant Regional School
Commissioners office.
 Local authorities should have both strategic and action plans in place for school improvement and this should also relate to school governors. The strategic plan should set achievable but ambitious milestones and targets and the action plan should set out how these are to be reached within a reasonable time. Governor services should also have a focused business plan outlining how it intends to meet its own specific targets. All of these plans should be synchronised, looking to address the same issues and drive education forward together. School governors should be well aware of all of these plans and, if possible, endorse them.
 All governor services should know schools well. They should have an up-to-date method of collecting data on school governing bodies and structured ways of working independently and with the rest of the LASI team to identify schools causing concern. Governor services should communicate with school governors, encourage participation and self-review and have an effective whistleblowing and complaints procedure. Local authorities may also consider analysing governing body documents and conducting external reviews of governance.
 When monitoring school governance, local authorities should ensure that they are not over reliant on one method (i.e. using the clerk) and that the system is formal, transparent, unbiased and guaranteed to cover all maintained schools.
 All governor services offered should be cost effective and not put financial strain on the local authority. This means that any traded services should be priced so they are financially viable, even if this means charging larger schools or academies more for the same service. Ofsted want to see that support for governors goes beyond the local authorities statutory duties.
 Governor service training should be tailored towards covering all skills that a governor needs to fulfil his or her duty. Training courses should be well received, be at convenient times and based upon feedback to improve what is
© NGA, 36 Great Charles Street, Birmingham, B3 3JY
Tel: 0121 237 3780 Email: governorhq@nga.org.uk
5
Web: www.nga.org.uk

offered. Ofsted will judge the quality of the training, not whether it is conducted in-house or brokered to a third party.
 There should be innovate ways of ensuring that local authority governor vacancies are filled and that all skills are accounted for. Local authorities should work closely with other stakeholders, such as local dioceses, to ensure that other governor vacancies are also filled. Ofsted are interested to see that governor services are working hard to recruit/develop good chairs of governors,
IEB members and additional governors.
 Governor services should ensure that governors of good or outstanding schools are in a position to support weaker governors and that the local authority has methods of encouraging school-to-school support.
 There should be ‘robust’ methods of dealing with underperforming governors.
Local authority staff should all be aware of the Schools Causing Concern guidance and it should be clearly outlined in the strategic plan at what stage the local authority will formally intervene in a school. Formal intervention should not come as a surprise to a school nor should local authorities be unsure when to proceed with formal methods of intervention.
 Finally, governor services should record all of the positive impact they have had on school governance and ensure that it is documented in a way that will be easily digested by Ofsted inspectors. This can either be presented as quantitative or quantifiable data but should be readily available for inspectors to view.
Both the guidance report and the research report are available to download from the
NCOGS and NGA websites.
© NGA, 36 Great Charles Street, Birmingham, B3 3JY
Tel: 0121 237 3780 Email: governorhq@nga.org.uk
6
Web: www.nga.org.uk

The National Governors’ Association (NGA) aims to improve the wellbeing of children and young people by promoting high standards in all our schools and improving the effectiveness of their governing bodies. We do this by providing information, advice and training to governing bodies. NGA represents governors across England in both maintained schools and academies.
For more information see our website www.nga.org.uk
or contact tom.fellows@NGA.org.uk
The National Co-ordinators of Governor Services (NCOGS) represents coordinators of
Governor Services in almost all Local Authorities (LAs) in England, all of whom provide services to governors in maintained schools and academies, and also includes in its membership representatives of many Diocesan Bodies and independent governance consultants. The NCOGS Committee is made up of eight elected Regional representatives, an elected Chair and also welcomes as “associate members” representatives from the
National Society (Church of England) and the Catholic Education Service). It is a network for sharing ideas and resources, and is also represented on range of key national bodies, including the DfE Advisory Group on Governance (AGOG) and the National College for
Teaching and Learning Governance Advisory group. The services offered vary in range and scope but include the provision of clerking, advice, support and training, via Service Level
Agreements.
For more information see our website www.ncogs.org.uk
or contact chair@ncogs.org.uk
© NGA, 36 Great Charles Street, Birmingham, B3 3JY
Tel: 0121 237 3780 Email: governorhq@nga.org.uk
7
Web: www.nga.org.uk