Support for School Governors

Best Value - Scoping Report

1. Summary

1.1 Support for school governors in Hampshire is largely delivered through Hampshire Governor Services business unit in the Education Department. Operating as a "one-stop-shop" it enables and co-ordinates access for governors to professional expertise, training and advice throughout the County Council. The Best Value Review Team is led by the Head of Service for Hampshire Governor Services and consists of 10 other members representing governors, County Councillors, staff and experts on school governance matters from outside the county. Team membership is shown at Appendix 1.

1.2 The Review Team has met on two occasions to produce this scoping report which has also benefited from the advice of the elected members workshop.

1.3 The Review team have examined the historical evidence available which meet the best value principles of challenge, competition, comparison and consultation. They have sought to identify where further review would be unlikely to reveal areas for improvement beyond those already in hand. They recognised that the award of the Chartermark in 1995 and 1998 for the excellence of services to governors provides external validation of quality and continuous improvement.

1.4 This report details the relative strengths and weaknesses of evidence available across the service. It seeks members agreement that best value principles are already being applied to training, governor vacancy management and the provision of information and advice to governors and that the service should continue to pursue continuous improvement in these areas through its business planning process and chartermark application.

1.5 Finally the Review Team identified those areas of service where they believe most is to be gained from further review. Recommendations are made accordingly to submit the administration of governing body membership, clerking arrangements and the potential for working with partners outside the County Council to further review.

1.6 A project brief and project plan outline how the review of these three areas of service will be conducted during the summer term making use wherever possible of existing mechanisms for consultation with stakeholders.

2. Service Specification

2.1 Aims of the Service - The service exists to ensure that all Hampshire maintained schools have effective governing bodies able to fulfil their responsibility to promote high standards of educational achievement.

2.2 Outcomes - Analysis of Ofsted Reports' references to the standards of governance in Hampshire schools are provided in Appendix 2. Results need to be treated as indicative only. The basis for comparison is insecure for a number of reasons. Ofsted has changed its foci in respect of governance over the years; there are doubts about the degree to which criteria for making those judgements have been shared by registered inspectors either at a single point in time or from one time period to the next. Nevertheless it is the best information we have about the quality of governance in Hampshire and the country

2.2.1 The county analysis covers the period 1995 - 2000. It shows in broad terms a situation where in 1995 governance was judged unsatisfactory in significant respect in about a third of schools, Good in about one in five schools and satisfactory in about a third.

2.2.2 The position in 2000 shows considerable improvement. Over the last year about 10% of inspections show governance as unsatisfactory, about 1 in 5 satisfactory. Governance in more than 7 in every ten schools is now judged good, very good or excellent. The progress has been most marked in primary schools where 1 in 5 governing bodies were judged good or better in 1995 and in 2000 72% were so judged.

2.2.3 The national picture in 1995 was described by HMCI in his annual report. He reported most governing bodies playing an increasing active role with committee structures making effective use of governors expertise and interests. Most offered good support to headteachers and were increasingly involved in decision taking. However too few were clear about how to monitor standards or the quality of the curriculum. Overall the quality and capabilities of governing bodies varied considerably with many uneasy about responsibilities in financial areas and the setting of clear and relevant performance indicators.

2.2.4 And in 2000 HMCI describes the national picture as: governing bodies becoming more effective in carrying out their statutory duties; over half (54%) are now very effective. In about one in seven cases the governing body relies too heavily on the headteacher to take an appropriate role in the leadership and management of the school with insufficient understanding of strengths and weaknesses and this rises to 20% in special schools. (HMCI report 1999-2000 paraphrase of para 41, 106, 191)

2.2.5 Overall evidence tends to suggest the standards of school governance in Hampshire were close to the national picture described by HMCI in 1995. In 2000 both have improved but the improvement is more marked in Hampshire particularly in the primary sector where over 70% against a national figure of 54% are judged good or better.

2.3 Objectives of the Service - The service works to a Business Plan reviewed and updated annually relevant extracts of which are included in the appendices (Appendix 3). The plan covers the main ways in which the aims of the service will be achieved through provision of:

2.4 Statutory Requirements

2.4.1 Further guidance on the implementation of the County Councils main legal powers and duties in respect of governing bodies are given in the Code, copies are available from Angela Donnelly (01962 845706) or on the web at www.dfee.gov.uk/lea/index.htm

2.4.2 In summary governing bodies operate under statutory powers assigned by Parliament or delegated by the County Council albeit that legislation requires that delegation. However, if delegation is not to be abdication the County Council remains responsible for the effective discharge of those powers by governing bodies. Governing bodies are accountable to the County Council for the proper use of their delegated powers. The County Council provides information, advice, support and training to these "community volunteers" to maximise the effectiveness of self governing schools, monitors, and intervenes to withdraw delegation should that prove necessary.

2.5 Links to Corporate and Departmental Aims

a) Corporate Aims - Over 68,000 individual volunteers have been governors of Hampshire schools over the last 12 years. Currently over 7500 are serving governors. These people are recruited from communities all across the county to play a major part in Hampshire schools in partnership with educational professional and the County Council. The Council's corporate aims of promoting involvement, participation and partnership to develop strong communities is furthered by the work of the service in recruiting, developing and supporting these individuals.

b) Departmental - The Service is the principal means by which the education department delivers one of its key intentions in the Department strategy

2.6 Equality

2.6.1 Staff are recruited in accordance with the County Council's guidelines. Two thirds of the staff work part-time or in job shares which suits their family or other circumstances. Performance reviews and development opportunities are available to all staff.

2.6.2 Profile of GBs.

All Governing Bodies

Gender

59% female - 41% male

Age

Under 30 31-50 51-65 65+

4% 64% 25% 7%

Length of service - years

<1 1-2 2-4 4-8 8-12 12+

16% 26% 22% 18% 12% 6%

Special needs

15 people

Ethnicity

0.8%

Chair of Governors

Gender

56% male - 44% female

Age

31-50 51-65 65+

56% 33% 11%

Length of service - years

<1 1-2 2-4 4-8 8-12 12+

- 10% 21% 29% 23% 17%

Special Needs

2 people

Ethnicity

0 people

2.6.3 Access to Services are provided to governors as far as possible to take account of any special needs they may have. Information on special requirements are collected on appointment and arrangements made to ensure equal access to services. Information can be made available in suitable formats for the sight impaired. Training sessions are arranged to take account of those with limited mobility. Signers can be arranged for the deaf. Translations can be arranged for those for whom English is a second language. Events are arranged at a variety of venues and times to enable access for governors whatever their personal circumstances.

2.6.4. Content of Training - Within the training programme legislative requirements in respect of gender, race and disability are covered in employment and access training courses. Briefings for governors are about to take place on the corporate equalities strategy and the Disability Discrimination Act to be followed later in the year by similar events covering the Human Rights Act.

2.7 Environmental, economic and social sustainability - Travel for governors to training sessions is kept to a minimum. Events are run in multiple locations across the county including over half in governors own schools. Tutors are travelling to governors rather than the other way around so reducing petrol usage and its environmental impact.

2.7.1 The website will over time reduce our dependence on paper as the main means of written communication.

2.7.2 Governors in their role are responsible for the value for money of their own schools and the standards of learning achieved with pupils. Advice and training cover both these areas. Clearly economically run schools and well educated pupils contribute to the economic well being of the community.

2.7.3 Although the training provided is clearly designed to maximise effective governance the experience and skills gained are nevertheless transferable. Thousands of individual Hampshire citizens have learned skills at governor training sessions and in their role as governors which they have put to use in the economic and social life of their communities.

2.7.4 Targeted recruitment activity seeks to ensure a continuing supply of volunteers from all sections of the community to serve as school governors.

2.8 Service Activities - The service works for two main customer groups:

2.8.1 Services provided to governing bodies and funded by the County Council are shown in the Business Plan at 5a(i).

2.8.2 Service activities delivered for the County Council are shown in the Business Plan 5a(ii).

2.8.3 Services provided for purchase by governing bodies are shown in the Business Plan at 5b.

2.8.4 Functional activity divides as follows with the percentage of total expenditure included

and administration of GB 16% strategic, regulatory and

membership administrative

Administering governor

Forums 2% strategic and consultative

2.9 Service Delivery Methods

a) Clerking and Clerking Service - Most governing bodies in Hampshire (80%) directly employ their own clerk. Seventy per cent of these are drawn from the school's staff. The service provides advice (telephone and ISCG Clerks Handbook), training (Induction) and support (termly support meetings) to them.

b) Core Training Programme - Around 100 core training events are delivered in venues across the county each year. About a third of these are 6 hour induction events for new governors staffed by service personnel supported by headteachers, experienced governors and associate tutors paid on a claims basis. Induction of and meetings with training liaison governors from across the county account for 20% of the core programme. Induction and support of Chairmen of governing bodies and Clerks account for about 20% of the core. The remaining 30% of events are centre based briefings delivered by officers throughout the County Council on new areas of legislation or policy.

c) Extension Training Programme - This programme is bought on an annual subscription or pay-as-you-go basis by governing bodies. Between 650 and 700 events are delivered each year. Most of these events (75%) are tailor made for an individual governing body and delivered usually at the school by officers from within the County Council or associate tutors and consultants paid on a claims basis. The remaining events are off-site at venues across the county. Consultations on the content of the programme is annually with officers of the County Council and throughout the year with training liaison governors at approximately 15 events across the county.

d) Information and Advice - This service is funded by the County Council. The main form of written information is by newsletter. Twice yearly Hampshire Governor is provided to the home addresses of all governors in Hampshire maintained schools. This is supplemented by area circulated newsletters each term for governors and for clerks distributed through the schools courier service. An annual county-wide Directory of Training is published each January supplemented by area termly updates. Written guidance is available on the election of parent, teacher, staff and the appointment of LEA governors. A new series of topic specific advice is being developed in leaflet form.

e) Monitoring Governing Body Minutes - This is a desk based activity undertaken for the County Council to provide an oversight of governing body work. Minutes of full governing body meetings are routinely collected from all Hampshire maintained schools. Monitoring is at two levels:

f) Additional Support to Governing Bodies in Schools of Concern

g) Recruitment, Appointment and administration of GB membership

h) Administering Governor Forums - The service supports and administers a network of local governor forums throughout the county. Both the local forums and the County Governors' Forum meet termly and are the arena for discussion on policy matters between the County Council and the governing bodies of maintained schools. Around twenty governor forum meetings are held annually across the county.

2.10 Service Staffing, Organisation and Budget

2.10.1 The service employs an establishment of 21.6 fte, 6.6 of them on fixed term contracts. Staff are sited in 5 different locations. The staffing structure and distribution of staff is shown in the Business Plan at Appendix 2. The Head of Service is supported by 5 local co-ordinators deployed around the county. There are a further 5 assistant co-ordinators and 10.6 administrative officers.

2.10.2 In addition to the establishment staffing governors are supported by contributions from many individuals on the casual payroll and from officer time purchased throughout the department. This aggregates to a further 5 fte. This is further supplemented by the use of national figures and consultants from outside the county when appropriate. This is a particular feature of area and county conferences. This arrangement provides a massive amount of flexibility to meet governors needs with appropriate expertise. It does however produce a complex management challenge in terms both of appropriate deployment and quality control.

2.10.3 Budget details are shown in the Business Plan at Section 9 - Sources of income, and Section 10 - Trading Account. A breakdown of the distribution of the County Council's core budget is shown in the Business Plan at Appendix 1. An Income and Expenditure Analysis by service function is in the Business Plan at Appendix 9. The summary for the 99/00 year is as follows

GBs/HCC Additional support 59.4k 49.8k (+17.7k

HCC Core Training 108k 123.8k

HCC Information and Advice } 118.5k }

HCC Monitoring } 24.5k }

HCC Recruitment, appointment } 287.5k 125.8k } 283.2k

HCC Governors Forums } 14.4k }

2.11 Current Methods of Consultation

2.11.1 Consultation within the County Council

2.11.2 Consultation with Governors:

2.11.3 Minutes of local governor forum meetings (13 annually), HGRG (4 annually), CGF (3 annually) are published on Hantsnet and the Website. Forum meetings are run by governors who set the Agenda for business. They cover education policy development and implementation. Officers attend by invitation. During the last year major items of business have included:

2.11.4 Training Liaison Governors (TLGs) have met some dozen times in various groups across the county in the last year. They consider the shape, content and quality of the training programme. Notes of meetings are attached at Appendix 8. Main items covered included:

2.11.5 The Service Review Group (SRG) operates as the "governing body" of Governor Services and meets termly. It considers all aspects of service delivery, finance, quality and the Business Plan. Notes of meetings during 2000 are attached as Appendix 9. Over the past year discussions have covered:

2.11.6 Taken together these various embedded consultation arenas show the degree of

2.12 Performance Data

a) Training

b) LEA Clerking Service - This service was inherited in 1997 following the amalgamation of governor training and governor support. Previously it had operated on a pilot basis in one part of the county. Following an evaluation of the pilot it was re-priced and the service availability extended across the county. The number of schools buying the service has more than doubled since then and action to improve administrative efficiency has eliminated the loss it was making. Currently 20% of schools buy the service.

c) Clerks employed directly by schools - Most governing bodies employ their own clerk. A recent survey (Appendix 10) showed a wide variety of practice and remuneration across the county. In Community and Controlled schools the County Council is technically the employer of these clerks just as it is for teachers and support staff. Work is in progress with the Education Personnel Service to analyse the current position and make recommendations for any necessary action, advice and/or guidance.

d) Recruitment, appointment and administration of GB membership

e) The administration of appointments to governing bodies and the maintenance of the database are possible areas in which efficiency gains might be made. The current recruitment strategy is providing improvements in the vacancy situation although more needs to be done. Recruitment, appointments and database management relies on a complex web of stakeholders: County Councillors, minor authorities, governing bodies, business and commerce. The Best Value process would lend itself well to reviewing current practice and proposing improvements.

f) Additional Support for Governing Bodies - This area of work began in 98/9 when 18 governing bodies received an average of 9 days intensive support to improve governance in special measures and serious weaknesses schools. In 99/00, 33 governing bodies received an average of 7 days additional support in schools causing concern. This year the number is 66 receiving 5 days on average as mechanisms for identifying need and earlier intervention push up the number but decrease the time taken to bring about improvement.

g) Information and advice

h) Service Self-Assessment

3. Competition and Other Providers -

3.1 Significant areas of work to support school governors are statutory duties of the County Council and could not currently be provided outside the County Council. Examples are:

3.2 Other areas whilst underpinned by legislation which give the County Council duties are "duties to secure" and could allow for the provision of services from outside the County Council. Major areas are:

3.3 Governing bodies receive information from a variety of sources, chief among them are:

3.4 Money to cover the costs of training for governors is delegated to schools. Governing bodies can buy training from anywhere or nowhere.

3.4.1 Training providers for governors in Hampshire outside the County Council provision are:

3.4.2 Central government attempted to create a market from the provision of performance management training for governors which consisted of a variety of "approved" providers including independent providers advertised through CEA. Anecdotal evidence seems to suggest however that the vast majority of training across the country was delivered through existing LEA providers and that was certainly the case in Hampshire.

3.4.3 The biggest competitor for governor training income are other calls on the school's resources and the priorities that governors set on their own training and development. Relatively few governing bodies attend no training provided by the County Council at all in any year (6 in 1999-2000). The County Council itself supplies within its various packages independent consultants and national figures where appropriate or on request.

3.4.4 Few local alternative providers offer the range of courses or can make available the degree of local knowledge and expertise as that provided by the County Council. The integration of the county's governor training provision with the other services and responsibilities of the LEA is its unique selling point and are highly prized by governors. The use made of other sources of provision in Hampshire is largely accessed within this programme.

3.4.5 Following local government re-organisation in 1997 Hampshire Governor Services continued to provide services on behalf of Southampton and Portsmouth City Council to governing bodies in these areas. Take up and satisfaction ratings

3.4.6 There are few if any direct competitors for the sort of service the county offers. However the degree to which other providers may have a larger part to play will be the subject of further review in the summer term.

4. Key Issues facing the Service

4.1 Section 6 of the Business Plan (Appendix 3) records the SWOT analysis of the service undertaken in Spring 2000. The December 2000 review using EFQM criteria reinforced many of the identified strengths and weaknesses but also raised the profile of others.

5. Programme for Further Improvement 01/02

5.1 The service review in December 2000 (Appendix 12) identified the progress made and adjustments needed to the current Business Plan to improve progress in some areas

5.2 A number of issues were identified during the December service self review which need to be added to the current Business Plan and progressed over the coming financial year.

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

6.1 The Best Value Review Team met on two occasions to produce this scoping report. (Appendix 13 Notes of Meetings). They examined the evidence available principally, in the Hampshire Governor Services Business Plan, of the current levels of performance in relation to the support available for school governors in Hampshire. They used the principles of Best Value: challenge, competition, comparison and consultation, to assess the weight of that evidence and to determine which areas of service would most benefit from further review under the Best Value process. The review team were mindful of the County Council's determination to concentrate efforts where they are most likely to secure improved service and/or improved economy.

6.2 The team took account of the assessment process associated with the award of the Chartermark to the service in 1995 and 1998 and the validation against national standards and continuous improvement that this provides for all its traded services. A re-application for chartermark will be made later in the year and the Review Team were satisfied that the criteria that would again have to be satisfied make further review of some parts of the service through the Best Value process unnecessary.

6.3 The team also took account of the improvement processes already in place in the service's business plan. It examined the evidence available to support the identification of these current priorities for improvement and the progress being made to address them in the current business plan. The team shared the view of the Head of Service that a Best Value Review of clerking in the county and of the provision of a clerking service would inform the future direction of this important area of work. Other areas for improvement in the current action plan will be further progressed during this year.

6.4 The review team examined the outcome of the service self-evaluation undertaken by staff in December using EFQM criteria. Staff clearly believe they are working in a good service and chartermark and other evidence confirms this.

6.5 Finally the review team believed that there was merit in further exploration with stakeholders of the potential for working with other partners outside the County Council to improve the quality or reduce the cost of services to governors. This emerged as a relative weaknesses against both chartermark and EFQM criteria.

6.6 The Review Team for Support to School Governors recommends that the following should be subject to Best Value Review: