Governance Review
Sheffield Governance Review
December 2013
Governance Review
CONTENTS
Section
Title
Page
1
The context and methodology of the Review
1
2
A vision for the future
3
3
Learning points on key aspects of governance
6
4
Improving the governance of partnership working across schools
13
5
The implications for volunteers and school leaders
15
6
Executive summary
18
7
Table of recommendations and learning points
20
Findings by school
23
Annex
A
Governance Review
Section 1 – The context and methodology of the Review
1.1
Outcomes for children and young people have improved over the last five years and
more children are leaving their phase of education having reached or surpassed
national expectations. However, despite this improvement a number of challenges
remain. One of the key challenges identified by the City Wide Learning Body
(CWLB) is to improve the quality of school governance.
1.2
Sheffield’s City Wide Learning Body (CWLB) recognises that governors have a
diversity of experience and skills. Nevertheless it is important to have high
expectations of governing bodies. They are the strategic leaders of the city’s
schools and have a vital role to play in making sure every child and young person in
Sheffield gets the best possible education. Sheffield’s governors need to provide
the right challenge and support to the city’s schools, school leaders and all school
staff. Given the diversity of governors, this means that governors themselves
require high quality support and guidance to understand and apply best practice.
1.3
The expectations on school governors are reflected in the law, which states that the
purpose of maintained school governing bodies is to ‘conduct the school with a view
to promoting high standards of educational achievement at the school’. In all types
of schools, governing bodies should have a strong focus on three core strategic
functions or responsibilities:
 set the vision and strategic direction of school,
 hold the headteacher to account for its educational performance, and
 ensure financial resources are well spent.
1.4
For over two years school governance in Sheffield has been highlighted as a key
priority. Initially in 2011 by elected members and the City Council in the Every
School a Great School workshop. This was taken up by the City Wide Learning
Body (CWLB) Partnership in 2012 when it identified transforming the quality of
school governance in Sheffield as one of its six strategic priorities. The CWLB
Board commissioned a Policy Review of Governance, with the following scope:
1.4.1 To focus on the collective actions and policy changes required to support
and enable a transformation in the quality of school governance. This will be
done in the context of current Government policy and best practice and will
assess and consider options to develop outstanding governance in Sheffield
schools (including the definition of “outstanding” governance). This will
include the testing and development of new models for governance as well
as looking at innovative ways to attract, “professionalise” and retain high
quality governors in the city. The work is a sector led improvement activity
and will be informed by observations by Sheffield governors and
headteachers examining practice in Sheffield schools.
1.5
The Review was carried out by three governors, five headteachers, and three LA
staff with 14 schools or groups of schools. Participants observed practice and
identified learning points which emerged on at least two key aspects of governance.
They also considered and reported on practice that they felt every Sheffield
governor should know about and on the implications for improving the governance
of partnership working between schools. Individual findings were shared, and
agreed, with the participating school and then pooled. A workshop at the end of
1
Governance Review
June 2013, facilitated by a civil servant who has the national policy lead on school
governance, identified emerging themes which subsequently informed the
production of this report.
1.6
An initial draft report has been considered by governor representatives in the
SASGB Executive and shared for comment by headteacher partnership
representatives during the autumn term 2013. A final draft report was subsequently
considered and commented upon by the Governors Policy and Strategy Group prior
to the submission of this report to the CWLB Board for consideration. This will
inform the publication of findings and recommendations to be considered for
implementation by schools and academies across Sheffield.
2
Governance Review
Section 2 – A vision for the future
2.1
The City Wide Learning Body (CWLB) values every person who volunteers to help
improve their school by being a governor. How well a governing body does its job
has a real impact on the success of a school. So although they are made up of
volunteers, governing bodies cannot afford to be amateur and must be held to
account for their effectiveness. It is important that every governor understands the
purpose and role of governing bodies and their responsibilities. In responding to
the CWLB’s commission this review considered it important to outline a vision for
governance in Sheffield and to propose how the CWLB, in partnership with schools
and the Council, can deliver this and support transformation.
Purpose, role and responsibility
2.2
Governors have a responsibility to spend public money wisely and secure the
best possible learning outcomes for children. Governors need to look beyond the
short term and take a long term view about what is the right thing to do, particularly
when considering the strategic direction of the school. However, these values apply
to governors across the whole country. What specific contribution are we expecting
from Sheffield’s governors?
2.3
Sheffield City Council has an expectation that all its partners, including school
governors, should have a focus on fairness. That is, everyone should get a fair
chance to succeed. In a school context this means that governors should be
analysing information and data and ensuring that through prevention the school is
acting early to intervene to ensure problems do not arise in the first place.
Preventing problems from occurring is clearly much better for the individuals and
communities concerned and can also reduce costs in the longer term. Through
involving children, young people, their parents and carers governors should
expect the responsibility and ownership for improving outcomes to be better
understood, shared, and more easily achieved. Governors need to be resolute in
maintaining an aspirational focus on what children are able to achieve. Finally,
governors and schools should accept that success will emerge more quickly and
sustainably through developing partnerships with others.
2.4
Governing bodies are a key part of the overall system for school accountability.
Governing bodies have a vital role to play in driving up school and pupil
performance and ensuring every child receives the best possible education. They
do this by holding school staff responsible, through the headteacher, for the
outcomes achieved by children and through linking the school’s impact into the
needs of the local community it serves.
2.5
Governing bodies have specific duties. These are detailed in the recently updated
DfE publication “Guide to the Law”. Duties differ slightly for governors of community
schools and governors of aided schools or academies. They also differ for
foundation governors. However, some core duties exist including:


the promotion of high standards and setting challenging targets for
improvement;
establishing policies that decide in broad strategic terms how a school
should be run;
3
Governance Review






2.6
having particular regard for the performance of particular groups of
young people including the school’s high achievers, those with SEN, those
attracting pupil premium funding, and those children looked after by the
local authority;
ensuring the school is delivering an appropriate curriculum;
ensuring the school is appropriately staffed;
managing the school’s finances within defined parameters;
the discipline and conduct of both young people and staff;
that everyone in the school stays safe.
Emerging from the Review are learning points drawn from an analysis of practice
seen in Sheffield schools.
LEARNING POINT 1
This Review has found that when governance is having a significant impact,
every governor and the whole governing body understand their
responsibilities and are focused tightly on their core strategic functions.
Often these governing bodies have ensured that they are no bigger than they
need to be with all governors actively contributing relevant skills and
experience, operating efficiently and effectively through appropriate
structures and procedures.
LEARNING POINT 2
The Review has found that headteachers and chairs of governors can often
have a disparate impact on the effectiveness and impact of a governing body.
It is important to ensure that this does not compromise the fundamental role
of governors to challenge or hold to account the school’s leadership. This
balancing act is difficult to regulate for or to replicate elsewhere, but getting it
right is worth some thought.
LEARNING POINT 3
The Review has found that while governors can often talk about and explain
the role they play on a governing body, they sometimes struggle to remember
their responsibilities to:
 set the vision and strategic direction of school,
 hold the school through its headteacher to account for its educational
performance, and
 ensure financial resources are well spent.
Vision
2.7
When setting out a vision for the future of governance, the Review focused on the
nature of the relationship between governors, the professional leadership of
schools, and the communities or stakeholders they serve. The Review proposes
that in every Sheffield school governance will be characterised by:


the most up to date expectations of outstanding governance set by Ofsted;
clarity, understanding of, and mutual respect for differing roles, responsibilities,
and accountabilities;
4
Governance Review








2.8
excellent communication between the entire governing body and the entire
professional leadership team;
working practices that ensure people are always treated fairly, with dignity and
respect;
clarity and commitment to ensuring that all decisions are informed by an
understanding of the needs of the community served by the school;
clarity and commitment to ensuring that all decisions are made with a focus
upon acting in the best interests of all the children and young people attending
the school;
individual governors, particularly parent governors, being supported and
developed to maximise the benefit they are able to bring to improving children’s
outcomes through their understanding and use of data;
a high aspiration, high trust culture;
an openness to working in partnerships that have the potential to accelerate
improvement in outcomes;
a willingness to be challenged by external review to continuously improve the
quality of governance.
When considering how the community of schools and academies in Sheffield might
support the transformation of school governance across the whole of the local
authority the Review proposes that the CWLB should commit clearly to an ambition
for improvement. At present, 64% of Sheffield’s children attend schools inspected
since 1 January 2012 and judged to be good or outstanding. From this emerges the
following recommendation:
RECOMMENDATION 1 – OUR AMBITION
The City Wide Learning Body recognises the important roles played by
governors to ensure that every child achieves their full potential and expects:
 that by September 2016 every Sheffield child is benefiting from school
governors who understand their responsibilities and have the range of
skills that ensure they are judged to be good or outstanding;
 Sheffield governors to recognise and respond to the needs of the whole of
the local community served by a Sheffield school or academy.
2.9
Evidence emerging from this Review suggests that the ambition stated in
recommendation 1 is achievable if the city builds upon the best practice evidenced
in this Review. However, the Review assumes that every governing body accepts
that it can change and improve to contribute to this ambition. It also recognises that
for the ambition to be achieved quickly, outstanding governing bodies will need to
support others to transform through effective partnership arrangements. These
issues are addressed in subsequent recommendations. The Review acknowledges
that transformation of this nature is likely to have an impact on the governance
structures of individual schools.
5
Governance Review
Section 3 – Learning points on key aspects of governance
3.1
The Review found practice in nearly every governing body it engaged with that is
worthy of note. The detailed records of this can be found in Annex A (pages 23 to
45). In this section of the report key aspects of governance are considered in turn
and generic issues which emerge from practice is highlighted. The Review goes on
to identify key learning which has emerged from an analysis of this.
3.2
VISION – TAKING THE LONGER VIEW
3.2.1 Practice
The Review identified the following practice in specific governing bodies:

Governors determined the strategic direction (or vision) necessary to
drive improvements in the quality of leadership and governance. Having
spent considerable time discussing this, they were able to make
substantial changes very quickly once the key principles for driving
change were agreed.
 A joint vision was built collaboratively between the full governing body
and entire staff team during a joint development day. This is now a
working document and governors refer to this on a regular basis.
3.2.2 Generic Issues
The following are generic issues which the Review has identified in a number
of governing bodies:



Keeping the vision simple and using it in every meeting means that it is
known and understood by governors, staff, parents and children.
While building a vision it is important to establish long term goals and
staged targets. There is also the need to accept that specific phases may
include significant turbulence followed by a necessary focus on governor
and staff development to embed change.
The absence of a clear vision may be undermining the work of the
governing body causing too much reliance on the efforts of the chair and
the head.
3.2.3 Learning Points
The Review has identified the following key learning points:
LEARNING POINT 4
Governing bodies need to plan carefully to establish a long term vision
with medium term milestones for transforming the provision they are
responsible for (a single school or a group of schools) and should
ensure they engage relevant stakeholders effectively.
6
Governance Review
LEARNING POINT 5
Having established a vision, use it. In particular, ensure that at least
termly the full governing body and committees consider how it is
informing practice.
3.3
ACCOUNTABILITY
3.3.1 Practice
The Review identified the following practice in specific governing bodies:





Focussing on the use of link governors can considerably enhance
accountability. Linking their role to the development of the school
improvement plan, encouraging them to ask questions and have these
answered as the plan is being carried out and ensuring that in every cycle
of committees leading to a full governors meeting keeps the role active
and real.
A headteacher’s report is considered at the first full governors meeting of
the term. Priorities for deeper discussion are agreed. These are
addressed in more detail in committees, prior to being agended for a
second full governors meeting of the term. Subsequent committee
meetings ensure that agreed actions and commitments are then followed
through upon by the school.
Every governor needs to be supported to understand performance and
financial data. This can be achieved through holding a “Prep” session for
some governors in advance of a formal meeting, using plain English, and
using graphs, as well as through traditional training.
Monitoring and evaluating school practice by governors can be
challenging to both governors and staff. Establishing appropriate
protocols and agreeing the focus for governor monitoring and evaluation
is key.
Committing the whole governing body as well as the headteacher to
achieve headteacher performance management targets can generate a
strong sense of common purpose.
3.3.2 Generic Issues
The following are generic issues which the Review has identified in a number
of governing bodies:


Accountability is improved and sustained though a focus on data and the
use of lead governors who understand their role to question and provide
supportive challenge in depth.
There is a need to ensure that increased accountability does not lead to
governors establishing an executive function by default.
7
Governance Review
3.3.3 Learning Points
The Review has identified the following key learning points:
LEARNING POINT 6
Governors need to ensure that accountability extends beyond the
headteacher and can do this through the production of reports to the
governing body. This can enable the entire senior team, middle
leaders, and other staff to understand their own accountabilities more
clearly and can provide governors with useful triangulation.
LEARNING POINT 7
It is important to remember that while governors and headteacher
share leadership responsibilities, headteachers are the professional
managers of schools. Thus to guard against a blurring of roles there is
a need to regularly reassess a school’s scheme of delegation and its
operation, particularly if governance arrangements are changing.
3.4
SPENDING MONEY WISELY
3.4.1 Practice
The Review identified the following practice in specific governing bodies:




A key driver to federate was a wish to maximise the impact of resources;
Significant efficiencies can be quickly generated across a group of
schools through the pooling and sharing of resources and savings can be
released to have a greater impact on learning outcome;
Often insufficient thought had been given to the governance and
accountability of key leaders including how performance management
systems might apply;
Governors were often unclear how they would assess the impact of
partnership on children’s outcomes in all the schools contributing to the
partnership.
3.4.2 Generic Issue
Efficiencies emerge from changes in practice. Impact must focus on
delivering improvements in learning outcomes. The better planned and the
greater the significance of the change, the larger the potential for efficiencies
to enable resource realignment while improving outcomes.
3.4.3 Learning Point
The Review has identified the following key learning point:
LEARNING POINT 8
When governors consider value for money they should examine the
relative spend on teaching and classroom support staff compared with
similar schools. They should assess the relative impact of their
strategic budget decisions on children’s outcomes.
8
Governance Review
3.5
GOVERNOR SKILLS AND ATTRIBUTES
3.5.1 Practice
The Review identified the following practice in specific governing bodies:






A governing body was successful because governors did things above
and beyond what (the headteacher and chair) expected them to do. As a
result the entire school community saw governors investing in the
success of the school.
A school changed its expectation of governor involvement and input and
this resulted in a higher level of commitment being given.
The role and experience of a single governor can impact on the skill and
confidence of the whole governing body. Thus an ex headteacher who
acts as a clerk to governors, in other schools, developed a wider
understanding of what is meant by good governance.
A meeting between the chair and head is held formally once a fortnight
and informally in-between. This fosters good communication, clarifies
roles and responsibilities and ensures an appropriate focus on children
and their outcomes
The greater the rate of governor turnover, the greater the importance of a
schools’ focus on governor training and development. This is explained
in induction and through a regularly updated school website
A school recognised that the nature of the community it serves was
changing and made proactive efforts to understand and engage with
parents and other representatives of that community in order to improve
their understanding of children’s needs.
3.5.2 Generic Issues
The following are generic issues which the Review has identified in a number
of governing bodies







Committee chairs are appointed following a skills analysis.
A key lesson learnt is that skills change and that a skills audit or analysis
should be undertaken each year.
It is appropriate to consider community need and understanding to be a
relevant skill to support engagement.
A very small core group of governors can be elected with the majority of
governors (including parent governors) appointed following skills
analysis, not election. Strong representative links to key stakeholders
can be maintained, while the skill and effectiveness of the whole
governing body is secured for the longer term.
The critical nature of the relationship between the chair and the head
underpin every aspect of governance.
Confident governors are able to articulate key issues well and as a result
enable them to understand better and use their own contributions to the
success of a school.
The extent to which a chair of governors is recognised as both
experienced and knowledgeable endures that they gain and maintain
respect from all the key stakeholders in the school, especially the
professional leadership of the school.
9
Governance Review
3.5.2 Learning Points
The Review has identified the following key learning points:
LEARNING POINT 9
Ensuring that governors with appropriate skills are deployed into the
most appropriate roles requires a systematic skills audit which is
updated on a regular (2 year) cycle.
LEARNING POINT 10
Where the level of governor commitment expected is high, this usually
results in a commensurate level of commitment being given by
governors.
3.6
STRUCTURES AND PARTNERSHIPS
3.6.1 Practice
The Review identified the following practice in specific governing bodies:



A proposal to merge structures and establish a single federating
governing body was rejected by both governing bodies. Nevertheless
some committees have merged and these are served by school leaders
other than the Executive Headteacher.
Sometimes a simple structure improves participation and engagement
(12 governors and 2 committees – resources and standards).
Meetings are carefully planned. Time is managed collectively and
therefore tightly with no presentation or input being longer than 10
minutes.
3.6.2 Generic Issues
The following are generic issues which the Review has identified in a number
of governing bodies


A significant change of status and structure of a governing body can
become a catalyst for change and improvement in all aspects of
governance and leadership.
Where full governing body meetings are planned in advance for the
whole academic year, there is a greater strategic focus to its work and
less time is taken up by urgent operational matters.
3.6.3 Learning Point
The Review has identified the following key learning points:
LEARNING POINT 11
The 2012 School Governance regulations enable substantial and
radical changes to the structure and membership of a governing body
to be made very quickly with support of a majority of the established
governing body.
10
Governance Review
LEARNING POINT 12
Strategic discussions can be scheduled and prioritised in agenda
setting for consideration by full governing body for the full academic
year. This can be used to plan agenda setting and prioritisation for
governor committee meetings.
3.7
PARENTAL AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
3.7.1 Practice
The Review identified the following practice in specific governing bodies:



The school used the incentive of attempting to secure the “leading parent
partnership” award to accelerate improvements in this area including
developing the school website and the introduction of its Facebook page.
Children and classes regularly blog and parents can contact teachers
directly by email. The extended community served by the school is
engaged positively through these media.
Communication is key and additional effort is required to support parent
governors to remain strategic and make informal decisions. This
includes additional preparation for parent governors prior to meetings to
build their confidence and ensure that they are able to ask appropriate,
challenging questions
Two governors ensure that the school website is updated weekly and
that these updates are used to generate a half-termly newsletter to
parents for circulation through traditional mechanisms
3.7.2 Generic Issues
The following are generic issues which the Review has identified in a number
of governing bodies


Improving parental engagement has been achieved through
encouragement, seeking their views and demonstrating that suggestions
are acted upon. This communication effort requires persistence and
flexibility so that even hard to reach parents realise that the school wants
to engage with them.
The views and feedback from parents can influence Ofsted’s approach to
a school and indeed an inspection’s outcome.
3.7.3 Learning Point
The Review has identified the following key learning point:
LEARNING POINT 13
Governors, through attendance and participation in parents’ evenings
and school events, can prompt positive comments and feedback from
parents to be logged onto the national “Parent View” website
referenced by Ofsted.
11
Governance Review
3.8
Drawing the above together two recommendations emerge, one for the local
authority and teaching schools and a second for individual governing bodies and
governors.
RECOMMENDATION 2
Local teaching schools and Sheffield City Council should ensure that the
induction, support, training and development programmes offered to
Sheffield governors build upon the learning points which have emerged
through the Review’s identification of best practice and analysis of key
learning points.
RECOMMENDATION 3
In recognition that this Review has drawn learning points from an
examination of existing practice in governing bodies across Sheffield, and
mindful of our ambition to improve the quality of school governance, every
governing body should develop a plan for change and improvement by
September 2014.
12
Governance Review
Section 4 – Improving the governance of partnership working across schools
4.1
Ensuring effective partnership working through schools working together differently
and through changes in how schools work with the local authority is a core purpose
of the City Wide Learning Body (CWLB). This was considered as a discrete
element of the Review and was a focus of every engagement with every school
participating in the Review.
4.2
It is important to note that every headteacher saw the value of their professional
networks and the majority identified their local family of schools or cluster as an
important source of support. Where governors, often the chair, were able to
participate in a similar network they too spoke positively about this. The most
frequently stated benefits were mutual support, agreeing shared priorities, and
committing together to address a priority.
4.3
Where the Review engaged with academies, federated schools and foundation
(Trust) schools they reported that the decision to move to change governance
structure was used as a catalyst for change and improvement. None of the
governors interviewed could link this to specific expectations that children’s
outcomes would improve.
4.4
In some schools partnerships only operated through either direct provision (delivery
of a CPD input) or the sharing of specific staff. Where governors were aware of and
supportive of this, the Review found that impact and benefits were generally better
understood.
4.5
In contrast, in those cases where the focus of the partnership was to address an
agreed priority it was much more common for governors to be aware and involved
with this. The Review found good evidence that cluster arrangements had seen
improvement in pupil attendance, primary-secondary transition, and parental
engagement. The Review found that these benefits emerge from starting with an
open agenda, being clear that the aim was to learn good practice from each other,
ensuring that any working group includes only one nominated headteacher, and
very importantly through sharing updates at every full governing body meeting in
every school
4.6
As a result of participation in the Review, one formal partnership successfully
responded to external challenge by building upon a culture of mutual trust and
support to establish strong accountability structures. These mirror similar
arrangements which the DfE expect to operate in multiple academy trusts.
4.7
Learning Point
The Review has identified the following key learning point:
LEARNING POINT 14
A range of collaborations and partnerships have existed to provide mutual
support between schools for some time. Some of these have developed
accountability structures linked to addressing priorities for improvement.
Partnerships are most effective where they are focused on improving
children’s outcomes.
13
Governance Review
4.8
RECOMMENDATION
The challenge to consider the benefits and opportunities which might emerge from
strengthening or formalising partnership arrangements should not be
underestimated. Headteachers and governors often need time to consider the
implications for professional autonomy, accountability and structures, and
relationships with local communities. Nevertheless, there is increased
understanding that a school cannot succeed in isolation and that partnerships are
necessary to sustain improvements.
RECOMMENDATION 4
Every governing body should agenda a discussion about how it might
improve outcomes for children through establishing a formal learning
partnership with another school that governors engage with and understand.
14
Governance Review
Section 5 – The implications for volunteers and school leaders
5.1
The City Wide Learning Body (CWLB) values every person who volunteers to help
improve their school by being a governor. How well a governing body does its job
has a real impact on the success of a school. Although they are made up of
volunteers, governing bodies must be supported to develop and to ensure that they
are not approaching their responsibilities in an amateur fashion.
5.2
This Review has found that in the most effective governing bodies there is a
sophisticated and very significant symbiotic relationship between governors and
professional school leaders. While this was often driven by the quality of the
relationship between the chair of governors and the headteacher, where
governance was judged to be outstanding it relies on the active engagement of
every governor alongside every member of the school’s leadership team.
5.3
Notwithstanding their volunteer status, the Review found that governors in effective
governing bodies:






5.4
Have high expectations of each other, of the school’s leadership team and staff,
and most importantly of the potential of every child or young person in the
school;
Regularly undertake a skills audit and reallocate roles and responsibilities to
utilise these skills most effectively;
Always appoint skilled governors, and where necessary plan to grow their own
pool of governors. This is often most significant in the identification and
appointment of parent governors;
Are clear about the time commitment necessary to fulfil their duties and
responsibilities effectively;
Look to partners from other schools to ensure that they are balancing the need
to look inwards and establish appropriate accountability mechanisms, with the
need to be horizon scanning in order to secure the strategic direction of the
school;
Engage local partners, including employers and businesses.
The school’s professional leadership team has an important role to play to secure
effective school governance. The Review found that this includes:







When necessary explaining the value of high quality governance and supporting
its development by identifying and acknowledging its impact in school;
Demonstrating regularly the high expectations the school has for all children;
Actively working to ensure that the relationship between the chair of governors
and the headteacher is characterised by trust, transparency, challenge, and is
underpinned by mutual respect for each other’s role;
When necessary working to the chair of governors as a catalyst for change and
driver of continuous improvement;
Ensuring that the school’s leadership team is developed to understand the value
of good governance and is deployed to supplement the capacity of governors as
they address the school’s priorities;
Being open to peer-to-peer challenge and support, and in particular to learning
and adapting their engagement with governors to maximise its effectiveness;
Working with the whole governing body to succession plan and build capacity.
15
Governance Review
5.5
Governors and the school’s professional leadership team need to work together to
understand each other’s roles and responsibilities and to guard against role drift. In
particular the Review found that it is important that:






5.6
The strategic leadership role of a school governing body is akin to a company
board operating with a company chief executive and senior team;
The different responsibilities between governing body and senior leadership
team are regularly assessed, monitored and confirmed as appropriate. A
regular review of the school’s scheme of delegation can help with this;
The school’s senior leadership team should be clear about the implications of
the governing body acting as their Board, monitoring their performance and
holding them to account for the deployment of resources to secure
improvements in outcomes;
There is mutual understanding and clarity that the board of governors is not a
stakeholder forum. Rather it operates with the involvement of stakeholders
(including children, young people, parents, staff, and community
representatives) to ensure that the resources available to it maximises
outcomes;
There is collective responsibility to develop stakeholders to operate as effective
governors, in particular parent and staff governors. This can be done by:
o Clarifying expectations and role;
o Building the confidence of parent governors;
o Timing meetings so that every governor can participate;
o Recognising that there is often an additional need to support parent
governors to be well prepared;
It is the responsibility of each individual governor to fulfil the code of conduct and
expectations agreed by the whole governing body.
Learning Points
The Review has identified the following key learning points:
LEARNING POINT 15
Notwithstanding that they are made up of volunteers, governing bodies need
to operate in a business-like fashion and must expect to be held to account
for their effectiveness.
LEARNING POINT 16
The success of a governing body is driven in equal measure by the quality of
the input and effort made both by individual governors, in particular the chair,
and the professional leadership of the school, in particular the headteacher.
LEARNING POINT 17
The most effective governing bodies often draw upon a diverse set of
experiences and skills. It is important to value and use experience,
particularly from parent governors. It is also important to build, regularly
review, and if necessary recruit a diverse range of skills within a governing
body.
16
Governance Review
5.7
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Review believes that to deliver a transformation in the quality of governance
across Sheffield that sees every school in the city benefiting from outstanding
governance requires action by every governor and every professional school leader.
RECOMMENDATION 5
Every Sheffield governor should consider if their governing body operates in
a business-like manner, and should also actively contribute to establishing an
improvement plan for their governing body.
RECOMMENDATION 6
Every member of a school’s senior leadership team should consider how they
effectively support all governors (including parent governors) to operate in a
business-like manner, and should also take action to support governor
improvement planning.
5.8
IMPLICATIONS FOR CWLB
These recommendations have the potential to result in the partnership having to
broker additional capacity and/or accelerated skill development within a governing
body and school leadership team. Alongside recommendations 2 and 4 there
needs to be greater clarity about the nature of support available and when this
might best be provided through a learning partnership or from local teaching
schools or from Sheffield City Council.
17
Governance Review
Section 6 – Executive summary
6.1
The Review was carried out by three governors, five headteachers, and three LA
staff with 14 schools or groups of schools. Participants observed practice and fed
back on learning points which emerged on at least two key aspects of governance.
They also considered and reported on practice that they felt every Sheffield
governor should know about and on the implications for improving the governance
of partnership working between schools. A workshop at the end of June 2013,
facilitated by a civil servant who has the national policy lead on school governance,
identified emerging themes. Lessons learnt from the review were explored at the
Sheffield Governors Conference in October. Recommendations have been shaped
through dialogue with partners from across the CWLB Partnership.
6.2
The Review is clear that while governing bodies are made up of volunteers, they
cannot afford to be amateur in how they operate and must be held to account for
their effectiveness. It is therefore important that every governor understands the
purpose and role of governing bodies and their responsibilities. Thus the Review
has identified learning points, drawn from established practice in Sheffield, which
forms guidance on how governors and governing bodies can transform how they
operate and the impact they make.
6.3
We should have high aspirations for all Sheffield’s schools to ensure that all young
people reach their potential. These aspirations for excellence are enshrined within
the constitution of the CWLB and in its priorities and work programme. A specific
recommendation from the Review is a statement of ambition which outlines a vision
for the future of school governance across the city.
6.4
The expectations on school governors are reflected in the law, which states that the
purpose of maintained school governing bodies is to ‘conduct the school with a view
to promoting high standards of educational achievement at the school’. In all types
of schools, governing bodies should have a strong focus on three core strategic
functions:
 set the vision and strategic direction of school,
 hold the headteacher to account for its educational performance, and
 ensure financial resources are well spent.
6.5
In Sheffield the Review proposes that governors should address these expectations
and fulfil their strategic functions through:
 focusing on fairness and governing in the interests of ALL children:
 operating to prevent problems occurring;
 involving children, young people, their parents and carers;
 being aspirational, and;
 developing partnerships with other schools.
6.6
By considering the best practice observed in Sheffield schools that enable
governors to:
 establish a longer term view or vision for a school;
 exercise accountability;
 spend money wisely;
 develop and secure the necessary skills and attributes;
18
Governance Review
 determine the supporting structures and partnerships they require;
 engage with parents and the community they serve,
the Review has identified 10 learning points. Two recommendations also emerge,
one to the local authority and teaching schools asking them to reassess their
training and support arrangements for governors, and one to governing bodies
across Sheffield encouraging them to put some of this learning into practice.
6.7
The CWLB asked that a particular focus of the Review was to examine partnership
working across Sheffield and to consider how this might be developed further. The
evidence collected is addressed in section 4 of the report and the Review identifies
one learning point and a recommendation. The recommendation encourages every
governing body to consider this matter at a future meeting.
6.8
Section 5 of the report considers the role of governors as volunteers and their
relationship with the professional leadership of the school in some detail. The
importance of the relationship between the chair and the head is highlighted. The
need for the whole governing body and the entire professional leadership team of
the school to establish appropriate working relationships is also considered and
learning points identified. The Review makes two recommendations, one a
challenge to governors and governing bodies, the other a similar challenge to
headteachers and other senior professional leaders.
6.9
The Review concludes with a challenge to the CWLB to consider the implications of
implementing the recommendations and building upon the lessons learnt from the
Review. The CWLB needs to consider how transformation will be delivered in every
maintained school and academy. Specifically, there needs to be greater clarity
about the capacity and support available to governors and trustees and when this
might be best provided through a learning partnership, or from local teaching
schools, or from Sheffield City Council.
19
Governance Review
LEARNING POINTS
LEARNING POINT 1
This Review has found that when governance is having a significant impact, every
governor and the whole governing body understand their responsibilities and are focused
tightly on their core strategic functions. Often these governing bodies have ensured that
they are no bigger than they need to be with all governors actively contributing relevant
skills and experience, operating efficiently and effectively through appropriate structures
and procedures.
LEARNING POINT 2
The Review has found that headteachers and chairs of governors can often have a
disparate impact on the effectiveness and impact of a governing body. It is important to
ensure that this does not compromise the fundamental role of governors to challenge or
hold to account the school’s leadership. This balancing act is difficult to regulate for or to
replicate elsewhere, but getting it right is worth some thought.
LEARNING POINT 3
The Review has found that while governors can often talk about and explain the role they
play on a governing body, they sometimes struggle to remember their responsibilities to:
 set the vision and strategic direction of school,
 hold the school through its headteacher to account for its educational performance,
and
 ensure financial resources are well spent.
LEARNING POINT 4
Governing bodies need to plan carefully to establish a long term vision with medium term
milestones for transforming the provision they are responsible for (a single school or a
group of schools) and should ensure they engage relevant stakeholders effectively.
LEARNING POINT 5
Having established a vision, use it. In particular, ensure that at least termly the full
governing body and committees consider how it is informing practice.
LEARNING POINT 6
Governors need to ensure that accountability extends beyond the headteacher and can do
this through the production of reports to the governing body. This can enable the entire
senior team, middle leaders, and other staff to understand their own accountabilities more
clearly and can provide governors with useful triangulation.
LEARNING POINT 7
It is important to remember that while governors and headteacher share leadership
responsibilities, headteachers are the professional managers of schools. Thus to guard
against a blurring of roles there is a need to regularly reassess a school’s scheme of
delegation and its operation, particularly if governance arrangements are changing.
LEARNING POINT 8
When governors consider value for money they should examine the relative spend on
teaching and classroom support staff compared with similar schools. They should assess
the relative impact of their strategic budget decisions on children’s outcomes.
20
Governance Review
LEARNING POINT 9
Ensuring that governors with appropriate skills are deployed into the most appropriate
roles requires a systematic skills audit which is updated on a regular (2 year) cycle.
LEARNING POINT 10
Where the level of governor commitment expected is high, this usually results in a
commensurate level of commitment being given by governors.
LEARNING POINT 11
The 2012 School Governance regulations enable substantial and radical changes to the
structure and membership of a governing body to be made very quickly with support of a
majority of the established governing body.
LEARNING POINT 12
Strategic discussions can be scheduled and prioritised in agenda setting for consideration
by full governing body for the full academic year. This can be used to plan agenda setting
and prioritisation for governor committee meetings.
LEARNING POINT 13
Governors, through attendance and participation in parents’ evenings and school events,
can prompt positive comments and feedback from parents to be logged onto the national
“Parent View” website referenced by Ofsted.
LEARNING POINT 14
A range of collaborations and partnerships have existed to provide mutual support
between schools for some time. Some of these have developed accountability structures
linked to addressing priorities for improvement. Partnerships are most effective where
they are focused on improving children’s outcomes.
LEARNING POINT 15
Notwithstanding that they are made up of volunteers, governing bodies need to operate in
a business-like fashion and must expect to be held to account for their effectiveness.
LEARNING POINT 16
The success of a governing body is driven in equal measure by the quality of the input and
effort made both by individual governors, in particular the chair, and the professional
leadership of the school, in particular the headteacher.
LEARNING POINT 17
The most effective governing bodies often draw upon a diverse set of experiences and
skills. It is important to value and use experience, particularly from parent governors. It is
also important to build, regularly review, and if necessary recruit a diverse range of skills
within a governing body.
21
Governance Review
RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATION 1 – OUR AMBITION
The City Wide Learning Body recognises the important roles played by governors to
ensure that every child achieves their full potential and expects:
 that by September 2016 every Sheffield child is benefiting from school governors who
understand their responsibilities and have the range of skills that ensure they are
judged to be good or outstanding;
 Sheffield governors to recognise and respond to the needs of the whole of the local
community served by a Sheffield school or academy.
RECOMMENDATION 2
Local teaching schools and Sheffield City Council should ensure that the induction,
support, training and development programmes offered to Sheffield governors build upon
the learning points which have emerged through the Review’s identification of best
practice and analysis of key learning points.
RECOMMENDATION 3
Every governing body in Sheffield should consider how its operation might be improved as
a result of examining the learning points identified through this Review.
RECOMMENDATION 4
Every governing body should agenda a discussion about how it might improve outcomes
for children through establishing a formal partnership with another school.
RECOMMENDATION 5
Every Sheffield governor should reassess their approach to school governance in the light
of the findings of this Review and should inform both the chair of governors and the head
teacher what they believe individually and collectively governors need to do to improve to
ensure that the governing body is operating in a professional and businesslike manner.
RECOMMENDATION 6
Every member of a school’s senior leadership team should consider how they effectively
support all governors (including parent governors) to operate in a business-like manner,
and should also take action to support governor improvement planning.
22
Annex A – Findings by school
School A
School A Governance Review. Notes of meetings and e mails with Chair of
Governors at School A Federation.
Summary overview
School A is a relatively newly formed federation (January 2012). The two governing
bodies have joined together to make one new body spanning both the schools.
Identification of innovative governance practice that has the potential to make
significant impact.
By federating the SCHOOL A schools have been able to reform their governing body so as
to make the most of the skills within their community. They started off with a Governing
body of 7, as allowed in the new rules. The parents and staff on this new, smaller
governing body were chosen by an election and all existing parents, governors and staff, if
they wanted to work across the two schools, were invited to stand.
When this new core group of Governors met for the first time they invited others to stay if
they were interested in working across both schools. Some dropped out at this stage.
A skills audit was then used to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the team and
on the basis of the findings other governors were co-opted up to a maximum of 18 people.
This co-option of people with the right skills has been vital to the subsequent development
of the new governing body.
In the first term everyone went to every meeting and then thereafter they chose a
committee to specialise in. Training in areas such as Raise-online and finance was
arranged to address any gaps in knowledge and to help to address any Ofsted key
actions.
The SCHOOL A hard federation is stronger than it was as two separate governing bodies.
With access to a wider skills pool people have been recruited to suit the needs of the
schools and all members are fully committed to working across the two schools.
The three factors that have had the greatest impact on school improvement
1. A focus on data. This has been at the heart of governing body discussions and the
headteacher keeps the governors fully informed in this area. However the
governors believe that it is important to know about the activities that are going on
that can affect the data. For example with school’s current focus on reading,
governors do not only question data, they also go into school to see what is actually
being done to improve outcomes in this area.
2. A focus on the quality of teaching. Governors are used to provide qualitative
evidence to support the Headteacher’s observations in this area and they regularly
question as to how it can be improved. The Head gives reports to Governors and
the quality of teaching link governor also spends time in school building
relationships and the trust of teachers and spending time in classes. These
informal observations are used by the headteacher to help with judgments on the
quality of teaching. Learning walks also occur.
3. A focus on achieving the Headteacher’s Performance Management objectives. By
doing this everyone is working on a small number of priorities and achieving the
greatest impact.
23
Annex A – Findings by school
Shared resources
This is at an early stage. One school approached the other due to budgetary problems
and the resulting federation has enabled it to remain open by using a single executive
headteacher for both sites and a nursery manager instead of a head of school.
There is a shared SENCo and this is already resulting in a more efficient use of staff and
resources such as with the introduction of family CAFs.
Link Governors
This is an area of development for the federation which needs to look at where link
governors are needed. Link governors will be created to fit in with priorities including ones
noted by Ofsted.
Link governors will be encouraged to look at something that is happening in their area of
interest/expertise and to look particularly at the impact this work is having on progress and
attainment.
NB
Despite success in improving standards over the past two years and an active newly
formed governing body the school was given a 3 for governance at an Ofsted in December
2012. The school believes that the governing body was performing above this standard at
that time but this particular team required evidence of how they were challenging the
school and there was not sufficient detail in the minutes of meetings to satisfy them for a
‘good’ judgment. A minute taker now attends meetings for the purpose of addressing this
issue.
24
Annex A – Findings by school
School B
Sheffield Good Practice Governance Review
School: School B
Headteacher: CR
Chair of Governors: J
The make up of the governing body: The governing body is proactive when it comes to
recruitment. They look at the skills which each governor has and then identify any gaps.
This knowledge is then used when it comes to recruiting new members. Again this links
back to vision. Training is important to the governors. When there was an influx of
inexperienced members general training was bought in for the whole governing body and
some members attended relevant LA courses. They are also mindful of the composition of
the governing body and that it represents the make up of the school. Governors very much
see their role as the critical friend and both questioning and supporting the head.
Committee structures include Finance and Premises, Curriculum and Pupil Welfare,
staffing and a full governing body meeting. There is also a steering group which is made
up of the chairs of all the committees although it is open for any governor to attend.
Vision: the school have a simple vision which is known and understood by not only staff
and governors but also by children and parents. From this vision there are 3 key priorities
set and all decisions and school improvement work is linked to the vision. The example of
subject leaders was given. Even though they may write action plans for their own subjects
these have to relate to the 3 key priorities and subsequently to the vision of the school.
Governors use the vision at every meeting. It was used to help make sometimes difficult
decisions regarding budget, staffing and premises.
Accountability: Data is used by governors but does not generally influence decisions as
the data for this school is very good. The governors ask for explanations of reports and
data and will hold the headteacher to account. An example given of this was recent data
regarding FSM children. To allow a greater understanding of information than can be
gained in committee meetings there are different roles with in the governing body. There is
a governor responsible for each of the Ofsted areas as well as SEN and Safeguarding.
These governors are able to question and understand more in depth information about
specific areas.
Joint Working: The school shares a site with School B Junior School. There is one
member of their governing body on the infant governors and vice versa. This helps with
good transition for the children.
Resourcing: budget is tight for the school and governors have some very tough decisions
to make. Those decisions always take into account the clear vision of the school. Recent
decisions have included number of TAs, equipment to deliver the new EYFS curriculum
and some spare money last year was spent on ICT. Money is spent on the professional
development of the staff and this is linked to the school vision. The school is one of the
Innovation Hubs for the city and this was something that the governors questioned and
then supported fully once they saw the benefits for the staff.
25
Annex A – Findings by school
Engaging Parents: the governing body see this as a real strength. The school has
recently been awarded the Leading Parent Partnership award. Governors led on some of
the groups which made this happen. Activities include curriculum meetings, surveys and
sharing the school development plan with parents. Governors led on the website and the
school now has a Facebook page. Governors send out termly newsletters. Classes can
blog and parents can contact teachers by email directly.
Dos and Don’ts of a governing body:
Understand your roles and responsibilities. These should be very clear
You are there to challenge but allow development and the head does manage the school
on a day to day basis
Don’t over step the boundaries - SLT should lead
Parent governors must realise they are not there for their children but for the good of the
whole of the school.
The governing body at this school are successful because they are committed and
do thing above and beyond what they are expected to do. They are invested in the
success of the school.
26
Annex A – Findings by school
School C
Sheffield Good Practice Governance Review
Schools: School C
Executive head teacher: JS
Chair of governors: MA
Focus of good practice to share: working in partnership with an executive head
teacher
Background: two schools were joined together nearly two years ago when the HT of
school one was asked to become the executive Head teacher of that school and school
two. It is likely that this situation with be made more permanent in the future but this is still
to be finalised and is a source of uncertainty. Earlier this year there was a proposal to
merge the two governing bodies, but this was rejected by both sets of governors. They
considered the new framework for governors which recommends reducing the size and as
a result reviewed number of sub committee’s at one school and reduced the number.
HT has worked hard to engage parent governors outside of the meetings so they could be
more active. When she first became executive HT originally had joint meeting, with three
governors from each governing body. This led to some repetition and again when in the
two full governors. They considered combining some of the same meetings. Now meet
governors when needed and chair of governors separately so each governing body keeps
its own identity. This is working more effectively. In order to manage work load HT has
had to delegate some sub committees.
Benefits/lessons of executive HT partnership

One of the chairs of governors is very experienced and the other is fairly new. The
experienced chair has been able to act as a mentor for the other chair which has
impacted favourably on the ability of the new chair to be an effective chair and also
for both schools to be able to work together when issues are of a common interest.

Staff governors have been able to pick up ideas/best practice from both schools
and share. Issues have been able to be shared and two sets of staff can consider
them.

Experienced building supervisor from one school able to spend time at alternative
school and support new building supervisor from the other school.

Over time the two visions have become more similar, it was important that the new
vision was built up together and not just imposed with the HT strategically taking the
approach of offering suggestions to new school rather than just imposing, this has
been then favourably received by governors and staff.

Communication is key, HT has worked hard to involve parent governors so they can
make informed decisions and become more strategic.
27
Annex A – Findings by school

Issue for governors is balance of challenge and support. Schools are vulnerable
due to some data and governors need to understand reasons behind this data and
more importantly what the school is doing about it and the impact to make sure they
focus on the right things as a governing body.

Both governing bodies have some governors with many skills such as a local
businessman chairing the finance group. This makes a difference to the
effectiveness of these sub committees.

HT prepares parent governors before meetings by going through key papers, this
builds their confidence and enables them to be more strategic and ask questions. A
small group forum enables them to think about what will be discussed.

Dashboard training has been useful for both governing bodies to understand data,
e.g. impact in one school of newly arrives Roma Slovak children on data

Having an experienced Chair of governors has helped bring the two schools
together as he has picked up if one school feeling vulnerable.

Successful governor meetings arise as a result of careful planning, especially of
time so everyone feels they can contribute but meetings don’t go on too long. !0
minute presentations in full governors on things help to keep governors informed.

HT of one school becoming executive HT has helped with her retention, a benefit
for both schools.

Schools now have shared INSET days with some shared training, allows sharing of
expertise between the two schools.

Learning walks by HT and governors help build capacity and understanding of how
schools work.

Been useful for HT to see two budgets, allowed creative but at times difficult
decisions to be made as no one way to staff a school and this allows more
possibilities to be explored.
28
Annex A – Findings by school
School D
School D Federation
X and Y Primary Schools have worked in an informal partnership having acknowledged
that each school has strengths that the other can benefit from. School Y acknowledged
that School X have experience and resources that were not available to their pupils and
believed that working together would enable a skills mix from which both schools might
benefit. Changes in the role of the local authority meant that there would be reduced
support and formalised collaborative working would build on existing positive partnership
arrangements
Lessons Learned
All parties, parents, staff, governors were supportive of the proposals and this is put down
to the trust that has been fostered between all stakeholders and to providing honest and
comprehensive information when the consultation was launched.
Any questions generated were answered promptly.
It is important to be open minded during the process and to be flexible to enable full
discussions to take place.
Visit all schools in the proposed federation early so that governors have a clear
understanding of issues across all schools and are able to effectively plan and contribute
to proposals
Whilst it is acknowledged that governors do valuable work, giving up their time voluntarily,
it is important to maintain a focus on skills required and not to simply accept all-comers
purely because they have volunteered.
Ensure that there is a clear vision for the new governing body, with clear lines of
communication and clarity about where responsibilities lie.
Ensure that decisions of governors concur with the vision.
What would you do differently?
Have in place a committee structure for the Federation Governing Body.
Know your governors in order to make best use of their respective skills.
Prior to beginning discussions formally, engage the services of a National Leader of
Governors or local consultant governor to help focus discussions
Undertake a skills audit and revisit each year.
29
Annex A – Findings by school
School E
Governance Review
I met with the Chair and Vice Chair of Governors at School E and had a 2 hour discussion
to try to identify key reasons for the success of their Governing Body.
The Governing Body consists of:
5 x Parent Governors
3 x Community Governors
3 x LA Governors
2 x Staff + Headteacher
The GB has a core group of long standing members; and there are always some
Governors who are local people. The Chair and Vice Chair feel they have access to good
minutes and that clear agenda are sent out.
At the last Ofsted inspection, the Governance was judged as good:
“Governance is good. Members of the governing body are active and knowledgeable.
They are very determined to carry out their responsibilities for ensuring the general safety
and safeguarding of pupils and are successful in so doing. They hold the school rigorously
to account for its performance. They give very good attention to the welfare of pupils and
staff as can be seen in effective safeguarding procedures. These are regularly updated
and rigorously applied. Consequently, the safety and safeguarding of pupils routinely
pervades the school’s life. This is reflected in the very positive views of pupils about their
school and in the almost unanimously positive responses expressed by parents and
carers.”
What makes them so good?
Structure:
The Chair is a local parent. She is articulate, educated and has a history of working in
middle management. She knows the neighbourhood and understands the community.
The Vice Chair is an ex-Head who also acts as a Clerk for the LA so has a range of
experience of other Governing Bodies. This has had an impact on him developing an idea
of what good practice looks like.
The Head works closely with the GB; she is recently appointed (having previously been a
Deputy at another school) and the experienced GB have had an impact on “moulding” her
– coming to an agreement on how the Head and GB should work together.
The GB insists on a quality Clerk – and have in the past requested a different one from the
one they were offered as they were clear about what they expected.
Clarity of expectations – all the GB are expected to attend the meetings which is made
clear before they join. An Induction is carried out by the Chair with input from the Head.
Consequently, everyone is clear about what is expected of them.
All of the GB are encouraged to attend the LA induction training too.
30
Annex A – Findings by school
There is a “critical mass” of a core group who set the tone of the GB – knowledgeable,
experienced governors. There is the expectation that meetings will be well run as people
are giving up their time to attend.
Most Governors are able to get into school during the day – with some taking annual leave
to enable these visits to take place.
Specific Governors are allocated to anything which has been identified on the School
Improvement Plan. They are invited in to undertake monitoring visits.
Skills:
The following were identified as being key reasons why the GB worked well:

One key member of the GB has experience of working in schools – this means
there is understanding and confidence amongst the GB to rigorously hold the Head
to account.

The same governor has the skills acquired from his role as Clerk to other GBs

Many of the GB are articulate, confident people who respect each other – difficult
conversations could be held because of this.

The GB have a Strategy Group who work with the Head to compile agenda – the
Chair and Head formally meet once a fortnight and both bring issues for discussion.
These meetings are timetabled in regularly,

The Head and Chair have developed a Protocol so Governors have clear idea of
what is expected of them

Data is used and understood – the Head produces ”high quality reports” (the Vice
Chair’s words) which focuses on key issues – including progress

All teachers are held rigorously to account

The GB has the expectation that they will see the school operating on a day to day
basis – there is a Link Governor attached to each phase

Chairs of all the GB in the locality had met to discuss key issues common to all
schools
Sub-committee:
I attended a Progress Sub-committee to see the GB “in action.” The following points were
apparent:
Although it was a sub-committee, there were 11 Governors in attendance plus the Deputy
Head. The meeting was Clerked by the LA – this Clerk was the GB’s regular Clerk.
31
Annex A – Findings by school
The GB consisted of mainly women but the Governors who asked the most questions
were male. There was a mix of ethnicities but the majority of the GB was white.
Teachers from each phase of the school were expected to study and take ownership of
progress against the key issues in the SIDP. A report which the teachers had produced
was studied and the Governors questioned the Deputy Head as to why some areas were
not coded green and what was happening to ensure progress. However, the majority of
the questions were asked by the ex-Head. Some Governors did not speak at all.
The Governors were comfortable in one another’s presence and there was a good
camaraderie between them
The Deputy Head gave a report regarding progress across all areas – including data which
was again questioned by the GB.
Governors were knowledgeable – they spoke with confidence about CAFs and attendance
issues. (One Governor was an employee of AttendanceSolutions so worked with the
Head on attendance issues.) One Governor was a retired Police Officer
The GB worked with the School Improvement Partner and had attended FS1 as a result of
advice from the SIP.
Identification of key issues:
From talking to the Chair and Vice Chair and from my observations of the sub-committee
meeting I would identify the following as key reasons why this GB is rated as “good” by
Ofsted.

There are a number of knowledgeable Governors – those who work (or who have
worked) for the LA, in schools or school-related environments or for the public sector

Most of the Governors are confident and articulate

The GB has a real interest and passion about the school – they are proud of what they
have achieved and see themselves very much as part of the success

The Governors expect to, and manage to, visit the school regularly so have a very
good understanding of what is happening in school

There is a clarity amongst all of the GB and the SLT about what is expected of
everyone

The Chair and Vice Chair have great respect and faith in the Head – but feel very much
that they have influenced how the relationship works

The Chair and Vice Chair are pro-active in knowing what is happening in the school,
what needs to happen in the school and how this can be achieved

The GB has a good understanding of the data and the SLT use this well to explain
progress and to identify next steps

Teachers are expected to produce reports for the GB so teachers understand their own
accountability in the process
32
Annex A – Findings by school
School F
SHEFFIELD REVIEW OF GOVERNANCE
SCHOOL F
Notes of a meeting with GB (Chair) and SV (Head)
1. As a result of our discussion I am confident that School F has an effective
governing body. There is a lot of challenge to the head balanced with a high
degree of support. This is not yet supported by KS1 results but the Head says
there will be an improvement in their July data. There is empirical evidence to show
the effect of the initiative to improve parental engagement - see paragraph 11
below. The following is my assessment of the key elements that have contributed
to making them effective.
2. Time constraints have prevented me pursuing many areas that would have been
interesting so this report concentrates on the overall governing body and parental
engagement (which the school considers to be one of their successes). I hope that
it still contributes to the governance review.
The Governing Body
3. There are 12 governors and they see no need to restructure to a smaller size.
There are two committees – Resources and Standards. They have no problems in
recruiting governors and a skills audit shows no deficiencies. Full governors,
committee and whole governing body training meetings are well attended. They
believe that they have adequate data interpretation expertise in non staff governors.
4. When the previous head left the governors came under LA focus to establish a nonstandard leadership system. This pressure increased the governors' negotiating
skills and appears to me to have enhanced them as a team.
5. As an infants only school they have a high turnover of parent governors. Lack of
experience is compensated for by an active training governor encouraging
(bordering on coercion) all governors to do induction training. They also have
whole governing body training.
6. The school website includes details of the level of activity expected of potential
parent governors but it is also used for all governors. In my opinion the level of
commitment expected is higher than for most governing bodies and is one of the
reasons for the commensurate level of commitment given.
7. Unlike in many schools there is an active system of link governors – most governors
have a link either to curriculum areas or to priorities in the school improvement plan.
Keeping them active is ensured by ensuring they report back at full governing body
and committee meetings. See also paragraph 11 below for their involvement in the
School Improvement Plan.
33
Annex A – Findings by school
8. The headteacher obviously believes that an effective governing body is necessary if
the school is going to be successful and so he, and his SLT, go to considerable
lengths to support it. I didn't detect any signs that this compromised the need for
the governors to challenge him – I suspect that he sees challenge as a sign of his
success. His attitude is difficult to regulate for or replicate elsewhere but it is worth
some thought.
9. School Improvement Plan. Governors are involved in every stage of the plan.
Priorities are data driven but, as the plan is drawn up, the audit of current position
includes link governors and they set questions that are included in the plan and
answered by the headteacher and the SLT as the plan is carried out. There is
regular monitoring of the plan but I was impressed by the level of evaluation of the
results of the monitoring. In the light of the evaluation they are not afraid to drop
initiatives and start again or re-plan.
10. Conclusion. On the surface there is very little new here that governors haven't been
encouraged to do for years but I consider that they are the reasons for their
effectiveness – build commitment, training and a high level of involvement in the
school improvement plan by active link governors.
Parental Engagement
11. The strategy is to get parents in for fun and then work on them to get them to
support their children. That the strategy is working is shown by attendance having
risen from 94% to 97.2%.
12. All parents encouraged to come into school for 20 minutes in the morning to read
with their children. Assemblies are open to parents and parent evenings and
workshops are well attended. Evaluation sheets are regularly used and responses
acted on. Important events are duplicated as daytime and evening events. Parent
questionnaires are sent out regularly and the school always responds to points
raised
13. A Parents Forum has been established with a focus is on how parents can help the
school and their children.
14. Hard to reach parents. The school used to have a children's centre and now shares
an inclusion leader with other schools in the cluster. The level of support each child
receives from parents is discussed during transition between year group meetings
of class teachers to make sure that they stay on the radar. Most children of hard to
reach parents have other issues.
15. Comment. The components of the strategy are those used by most schools but
seem to be more effective here. I suspect that the real reason is that the school is
more welcoming to parents than most but this attitude is hard to replicate
elsewhere. The school is assisted in this by the commitment of their staff to the
strategy. Elements that could be used elsewhere are the positive responses to
parents' issues – the evaluation sheets and the reply to the parent questionnaires.
34
Annex A – Findings by school
School G
Sheffield LA “Innovative Practice that has the potential to make significant impact”.
The case study school is a community primary school with a pupil population of 473 pupils
which serves SE Sheffield, an area with significant social disadvantage. The new
leadership of the school, both the Headteacher and the Chair of Governors, were keen to
involve governors more closely in the monitoring and evaluation of the school’s
performance. There was also a desire to encourage governors to see at first hand how
the school worked to raise standards. The Headteacher was clear that she wanted
feedback from governors on their perspective of what they had seen in order to help her,
the other teachers and support staff improve provision and delivery.
There are fourteen governors and twelve are considered to be active governors. Eight
governors, so far, have been involved in the monitoring and evaluation process including
four parent governors. Three staff governors are involved in school monitoring and
evaluation. Establishing appropriate protocols has been an essential part of the process.
The staff are informed in advance that a governor will be attending a class session and the
governor will have an agreed monitoring and evaluation brief. Governors are made aware
that their observations remain confidential to the governing body. It would be considered
inappropriate to discuss findings with anyone outside the school. These protocols have
created the necessary culture of trust between staff and governors.
The school has produced a termly plan for governor involvement in Monitoring and
Evaluation. Governors are taking part in a range of activities which enables them to
experience at first hand how the school is working with its pupils. Governors then provide
feedback to the next relevant governing body meeting and the resulting debate and
discussion informs the school improvement plan. Governor activities so far have included
link governors meeting with the Headteacher and assessment co-ordinator to examine
how the school uses data, observation of subjects highlighted in the school improvement
plan, work scrutiny, regular observation of monitoring reading with the Headteacher.
Governors are also involved in learning walks, and observations by the safeguarding
governor to focus on attendance, exclusions as well as meeting with the school council to
discuss behaviour and bullying.
The school is in its first year of the formal governor involvement in Monitoring and
Evaluation plan.
35
Annex A – Findings by school
Why does this system have the potential to make a significant impact?

Governor activity is directly linked to the school improvement plan.

Over 70% of the eligible governors are involved in one of the monitoring activities.

All the activities focus on monitoring the progress/learning of the pupils.

The Headteacher and the Chair of Governors welcome the scrutiny from the
governors. The Headteacher is committed to learning from governors to
adjust/improve the school improvement plan.

The governor involvement in Monitoring and Evaluation is simple to understand and
its intended outcomes are clear.

Governors are willing to be challenged by this monitoring and
evaluation role.
The governor involvement in the monitoring and evaluation system will have been
operating for a year at the end of the summer term 2013. At this stage I recommend that
an external evaluation should take place. However I am confident that this approach has
much to recommend for all schools, especially primary schools. It gives governors a
specific role, it challenges the work of the school and gives governors a much better
insight into learning in the school and it makes governor contributions to the school
improvement plan more powerful and relevant. The system is easy to understand, very
manageable and also time efficient.
36
Annex A – Findings by school
School H
Proposal for a Sheffield Secondary School to work with partner schools to acquire a
Trust and become a Foundation School through the Co-operative College
Vision - Why consider a change of status?
 Pressure to adapt to changing world – further changes to the UK education system
could mean that schools
in the near future.
be put under greater pressure to convert to Academies
- Responsibility to ensure that the schools continue to give every child the
opportunity to maximise their potential.
- Responsibility for raising attainment levels by providing excellent teaching and a
broad balanced curriculum.
- Continue to provide learning environments which seek to raise the aspirations of
children and young people and serve their families and the wider community.
- Belief that there would be greater capacity to continue to make the improvements
already seen as a result of the federation process by working more formally in
collaboration with a range of strong partners.
- Schools can benefit from the skills and support of partner organisations to deliver
enhanced learning in the classroom.
 Three options were considered:
- Maintain the status quo and do nothing.
- Consider conversion to an Academy.
- Consider acquiring a Trust to possibly include other schools.
Why make the decision to acquire a Trust?
- It was considered that maintaining the status quo could leave the school open to a
hostile takeover if future government directives put pressure on all schools to
convert to Academy. Acquiring a Trust would help to protect the school against
this.
- It was considered that converting to an Academy could easily force the school to
lose focus on the strong community relationship that the school had built up.
- It was considered that a Trust would be the ideal method to strengthen the bonds
that already exist between the College, Community and neighbouring schools.
Why choose to work with the Co-operative College to acquire a Trust?
- Shared values and a clear vision – self-help, self-responsibility, democracy,
equality, equity and solidarity, working closely with others to become a true hub for
the community, forming of a stakeholder forum.
37
Annex A – Findings by school
Are there any examples of how this has worked successfully?
One successful model can be found in Burton on Trent, Staffordshire where 8 Primary
Schools have formed a Trust with the Co-operative College. They have been working
together since 2011 to form a close working relationship and common vision to raise
expectations, aspirations and standards of teachers and children.
http://public.klp.rm.com/establishments/86066666/BurtonCooperativeLearningTrust/Pages/
default.aspx
Maximising the impact of resources
Over the last few years, the school have built on the relationship that existed with the 5
feeder schools to form closer working partnerships and the development of the Trust
would enhance this. Already, schools in the family meet regularly, carry out joint working
exercises in key subjects areas, host joint training days and have started to share certain
business services such as financial support.
What would joining the Trust mean for the other schools?





Closer working relationships with feeder schools can be formed
Sharing of resources e.g. One system for data collection and 1 data officer shared
between the schools
Opportunities to explore economies of scale from suppliers
Performance can improve by consistency of methods used e.g. Financial systems
Would be able to draw upon the support and expertise from the Co-operative
College
What savings could be expected by the schools joining the Trust and forming closer
working relationships?
The Secondary school proposing the formation of the Trust anticipates that it has already
saved over £100,000 since it began closer working relationships with its closest partner
Primary school after forming a hard federation in 2009. This has been achieved through a
rationalisation of services and restructuring of staffing, but not to the detriment of either
school. The resulting savings have subsequently been used to focus on the needs of the
schools and an immediate benefit of this has resulted in a much improved recent Ofsted
inspection for the Primary.
Another example of how the Primary has benefited is the appointment of an Inclusion
Manager who has taken on the responsibility of Safeguarding and Bullying, previously
been dealt with by the members SLT and teachers. The impact of this has been to release
the Deputy Head and teachers to do what they have to do to improve performance in
school. In the Secondary, the savings have been used to put extra resources into
teaching which has resulted in greatly improved year-on-year GCSE results with record 5 x
A*-C results in 2012. In addition, the schools have appointed staff specifically to work
between the 2 schools. E.g. the sharing of Maths teachers between Y6 in the Primary and
Y7 in the Secondary ensuring continuity of teaching methods between the schools.
38
Annex A – Findings by school
How would governance be improved?
For the current federation, this would create an opportunity to reduce the size of the
Governing Body to comply with the 2012 School Governing Body Regulations, creating a
more effective and focused body. In addition,
- The Trust can nominate governors to become members of the individual school
governing bodies.
- Individual Governing Bodies will able to be able to nominate Governors which will form
the Trust Board which will play a greater overall strategic role within the Trust, leaving
the local Governing Bodies to focus on performance and outcomes.
- Others such as local companies, community health partners, Higher Education
representatives and can also be invited to form the Trust board.
- Greater commitment from Trust partners – not financial but added expertise e.g.
Gripple has a scheme where it encourages members of its graduate scheme to join
the boards of governors.
Concerns raised / Lessons to be learned – Points to anticipate when considering a
change like this
- Loss of identity – feedback has shown that whilst local feeder schools are generally in
agreement with a move to join the Trust, concern has been raised about the possible
loss of identity. Schools are concerned about the individual character of the school
could be compromised by any move towards greater uniformity.
- Cost – there would be an initial legal cost for individual schools in joining the Trust but
after this, no other costs would be incurred for the benefits on offer.
- There had been some natural apprehension from school staff but any fears were soon
dispelled with the reassurance that the joining of a Trust would have no immediate
impact on their role.
- Parents of pupils naturally need to be fully informed and consulted about such a
change – the idea that the schools can retain their strong community focus will only
work if parents and the community are fully engaged with the school. On this
occasion, there was a good parental representation at several consultation evenings
and strong views were expressed by some parents who needed reassurance about
the future of education for their children.
39
Annex A – Findings by school
School I
GOVERNANCE REVIEW –SCHOOL I
The information re School I was collected in two interviews with the Chair of Governors,
and the Headteacher.
The interviews explored two of the key tasks identified by Ofsted for governors – ‘setting
the vision’ and ‘holding the Headteacher to account’. It was noted in the discussion that
some schools had a particular challenge in engaging with stakeholders given the citywide
context of their catchment and the specific needs of individual children. However it is
concluded that notwithstanding those issues there were key learning points of wider value
which support excellence in governance
Learning Point Area A – Vision, Skill and Structure
The particular challenges faced by School I in establishing an effective governing body
after the school was placed in a failing category in 1997 were explored. It was noted that
over the period 1997 to date there had been three effective phases in the improvement
pathway for good governance:
1. Initial recognition of a failure in governance leadership and the replacement of the
Chair with someone who had experience in the management of special schools to
provide effective leadership. First three years focussed on improving
management leadership capacity and establishing a recovery programme.
2. Concentration on improving the longer term organisational capacity and abilities
with a focus around what happens to students both within the school and outside.
This was over a six year period.
3. Development of staff and pupils following the earlier stresses of radical change
which had seen redundancies, etc. Period typified in this phase by confidence in
the leaders and improved ability to work together across the school.
The developments over the period have resulted in an Ofsted judgement of Outstanding in
all key areas in March 2013. On leadership and governance the inspectors commented –
“The enthusiasm, knowledge and forward thinking, ideas of the headteacher, senior
leaders, and of the governing body have seen the school go from strength to strength
since the previous inspection”.
40
Annex A – Findings by school
The movement from Failing in 1997 to the initial Outstanding was a 12 year journey albeit
the initial rapid turn-round phase was achieved in four. The important sharing from this
journey is:
 The need for governing bodies to establish a long term goal identifying key staged
targets and phases required to reach that goal

An acceptance that the initial phase requires a period of significant turbulence
followed by a focus on staff development

For governing bodies to see the need for an experienced and knowledgeable Chair
who can gain respect from all the key stakeholders in the school, especially the
management leadership
It was clear from the discussions that there was a real commitment to effective partnership
and collaborative working not only by the staff but by the governors as well. To ensure this
required the school to see such working as a key element in the ethos established after
1997. This is evidenced by:
 A ‘buddy system’ which allows teachers and support assistants to learn from each
other through sharing ideas, and observing outstanding practice

The provision of a comprehensive programme of training for other schools utilising
the expertise within the school which Ofsted has observed has led to the provision
for pupils and disabled students and those with special educational needs
improving across the local authority
Learning Point Area B – Accountability and Maximising the Impact of Resources
There was excellent awareness of the need to harness and utilise the knowledge and
experience of governors in working with the staff and management of the school to make a
positive contribution to having an impact on improving outcomes for children. The
particular example of good practice that was explored was the use of regular ‘enquiry
walks’ to give members of the governing body a greater understanding of what is
happening in classrooms and of any improvements needed. This feature had raised
particular comment in the most recent Ofsted report.
The introduction of this process commenced well after the initial recovery phase and
sought to utilise the collective knowledge and experience within the governors. The
governors had a well-established Committee structure, comparatively more Committees
than many schools and each involving 2 or 3 governors. This approach reflecting the city
wide distribution of governors and a desire to ensure they were able to effectively meet not
challenged by numerous diaries. The ‘enquiry walks’ approach was not used in all
Committees to start with but crucially it was seen as important to start with the Committee
covering Teaching and Learning. The approach was seen as less restrictive than a formal
Committee approach, offering flexibility to consider specific topics and issues often
involving direct visits to classrooms and experiences on the ground. The Chair indicated
41
Annex A – Findings by school
that the process was initially treated with some suspicion and has had a fairly lengthy
gestation to establish the practise more widely in the way the governors’ work.
It is now felt that the process allows governors and staff to have frank and open
discussions, and it is seen as a key element in ensuring the headteacher is accountable.
The approach also ensures a higher degree of involvement and sharing of the skills of
governors. The challenge has been and remains to ensure that there are enough
governors who can make the necessary commitment.
In sharing this experience more widely the following learning can be identified:
 There is a need to establish what skills, knowledge and experience might be
available within the governing body

The process enables governors to more fully take part in a process where formal
meetings approaches are not always helpful

A need to pilot any innovative approach to identify and deal with concerns and
issues on the part of staff and other stakeholders

The process involves better and more focussed contact by the governors with a
wider range of staff, often on ‘their own turf’

Parent governors in particular are given an opportunity to see the whole school and
not just the classroom of their own child

The headteacher is able to share the reporting process to governors which both
supports improved accountability but also contributes to the development of the
whole staff team

Governors are able to more focus on the cornerstones of key practise and see what
is needed to improve teaching and learning
As a key part of their processes it was seen by the latest Ofsted inspection as
consequential that the governors’ “assessment of the school’s strengths is accurate”.
42
Annex A – Findings by school
School J
Preliminary comments re Governance
School J
Preamble
There is, as yet, no prescribed format provided by the National College in relation to
Governance Audits. This report is therefore based on my findings and my prose.
These comments are based on two meetings with Headteacher JW. I also observed a
Governors’ Strategy Committee meeting attended by Chair of Governors, Vice Chair, the
Headteacher and Clerk. I also have a list of Committees and currently serving governors,
and copies of the two most recent Ofsted Inspection reports. This is not a broad base of
evidence and my comments will need to be seen in those terms.
The current requirements from Ofsted
My suggestions are based on reading the last two Ofsted Reports and on the most recent
subsidiary guidance given to Inspectors in Framework for School Inspection January
2013.
The changes in Inspection emphasis had the purpose of raising expectations of all pupils
whatever their individual circumstances. There is also a far greater focus on the impact of
school leadership in promoting learning.
Governance now merits its own discrete section as part of Leadership and Management of
the School, one of the four key areas, and its quality will directly contribute to the overall
grade in that section.
Suggestions for action
The DfE are seeking smaller, tighter and more focussed governing bodies. (September
2012). This is being reflected in recent pronouncements from Ofsted who are looking for
much the same. As things stand there are twenty two governors at the school. Some
serve on one sub-Committee, others on another. This can create a piecemeal effect,
whereby much of the Governing Body don’t have a first-hand whole picture of the school.
It may be that only the Chairs of sub Committees, who serve on the overarching Strategy
Committee, have a complete picture. The DfE are looking to smaller bodies of perhaps
ten or twelve Governors, who have a complete picture of the school, each with a particular
role in the governance function. I appreciate that this cannot be achieved at a stroke, but
should be a desirable medium term aim.
Moreover a tightly focused Governing Body would help reinforce the drive to strengthen
the School Leadership Team, and develop links with Governors. This was referred to in
the recent, rather positive Section 8 visit by Ofsted. It might be worth at this point to revisit
the key function of governance. Their role is to audit school performance and to ensure
that it is run efficiently and in the interests of students. This is not an operational role, and
while positive links to school staff and particularly School Leadership are essential, it is not
the role of governors to develop an executive function. Such activities as hearing staff
43
Annex A – Findings by school
grievances, for example, should be dealt with by the Headteacher under the terms of the
Grievance Policy of either the school or the Local Authority.
The Ofsted climate has changed since the appointment of Sir Michael Wilshaw. It could
be seen as more “hard-edged”, with a much less effusive tone than was commonly found
in Christine Gilbert’s tenure. The emphasis is on achievement of children and the impact
of good professional practice. If we are to meet these requirements then governance
needs to be unashamedly structured in those terms.
Achievement
Teaching quality
Leadership
Behaviour
Governors have a role to play in all of these areas, particularly the first three.
Parental views are important to Ofsted. They only have a short time to assess the
school, and will go to your website to gather preliminary information. If there are one or
two Governors who can simplify and keep the website updated, this will score points. An
updated newsletter, however short and simple, in which parents are kept abreast of things
by governors, is beneficial; particularly learning data in a simplified form. There are bodies
that present your data in digestible form. I will offer suggestions to the Chair.
Parent View, the website, will be visited by Inspectors prior to their visit. There are 15
current entries for School J, giving a largely positive view of parental attitudes to the
school. It would help if this could be increased to perhaps 40 entries in the short term.
Ofsted don’t have time, or inclination, for surveys any more. Parents need to be
canvassed – Parent evenings are a good time – to put their POSITIVE comments on this
site. The more there are the better. Ofsted have to have regard for the comments made.
Some further initial suggestions
Teaching and Learning needs great emphasis. There should be at least ONE, preferably
TWO governors trained in interpreting the school’s learning data, and reporting back to the
Governing Body.
It is no longer acceptable to passively receive data from the Headteacher.
The National College and others are working on a system for simplifying the result
presentation. Whatever the outcome of that, the Governing Body must be au fait with how
the children are doing. The recent “Dashboard” published by Ofsted does not yet relate to
Special Schools
Governors need to visit the school on a regular and structured basis, and that includes
visiting classrooms. There is a great deal of sensitivity in this, but it must be done. I can
advise on policy. Governors are expected to ensure that where there is weakness in a
classroom that it is being robustly dealt with by Leadership. Similarly Ofsted will ask if
there are any weak teachers and whether they have, for instance, been given a salary
increment. Can governors provide evidence of what they have seen? Minutes of visits
and discussions with the Head required.
44
Annex A – Findings by school
Again, at least ONE Governor needs to meet half-yearly with the budget manager
to assess the budget against the Financial Value Standard. It need not be
onerous, but should be minuted, with report back to Full Governing Body.
How is the Pupil Premium being spent? Ofsted are particularly sticky on this.
Does the Governing Body know how it is spent and what direct benefit it is having
on learning of disadvantaged children. There should be a governor with this
responsibility.
The assessment of teachers has been touched on above. Is there a workable
policy on teacher assessment in line with the 2012 regulations? Is there evidence
of its implementation? (see school visits above).
Finally there must be rigorous management of the Head’s performance. An
outside consultant should be in place. I haven’t yet verified if this is the case.
There should be targets set by the Governors’ subcommittee, in consultation with
the Head and adviser, and ought to be monitored after six months
45