Hampshire Governors' Representative Group
Notes of Meeting
11th June 1996
Present: H Deed (NE); P High (CE); P Whitmarsh (NE);
C Mar-Molinero (SW);
J Bailey (SW); J Brailsford (SE); V Petherick (SE);
E Bishop (NE);
J Watt (SW); A Seber (Ed Dept); J Brown (Pri HC); K
Shorey (Sec HC);
D Jones (Sec HC); R Hendry (Sp HC); A Swann (Sp HC);
J Sheriton (Clerk)
PART 1
1. Communication/Liaison Heads & Governors Representative
Groups
The Chairman welcomed colleagues from Heads Conferences
and Andrew Seber to the meeting and invited heads to
outline their thoughts about communications between heads
and governors groups post LGR.
Secondary Heads Conference: noted that practice
currently varied around the County at patch level - some
patches invited formal representation from heads at
governor forum meeting - some had no heads present - some
allowed heads who were governors to attend in that
capacity. Secondary heads executive considered that this
was a matter probably best left to local agreement
between heads and governors. They did not believe that
governor representation at heads conferences was
desirable and favoured links being developed and
maintained by meetings of this sort from time to time at
county representative level.
Primary Heads Conference: supported the views expressed
by their secondary colleagues
Special Heads Conference: would welcome as much contact
as possible with governors and considered that governor
representation at part of their conference session was a
possibility. Occasions such as today's were supported
and welcomed.
Following discussion it was agreed
a) that governors and heads should discuss and agree at
local level what formal representation of heads/governors
at patch governors forums/heads conference were
appropriate
b) HGRG constitution be reviewed in the light of LGR and
consideration given to the nomination of an HGRG
contact(s) for heads conferences.
The Chairman closed the item by referring to the proposed
HGRG conference and indicated the intent to invite heads
conference representatives.
2. Managing Reports: Governors and heads reported that most
schools had arrangements in place to share reports
appropriately. Those which did not needed to be offered
access to advice and support and the CEOs letter to
heads/chairs of governors should indicate where this was
available. Heads and governors agreed that it was
important that reports should not lose their directness
or focus because they were to be shared with governors-
this should be made clear to inspectors.
It was agreed that the CEO should be asked to amend his
letter to include sources of advice/support to schools
who did not already have procedures in place.
3. Re-organisation in NE Division - Area 2
Governor
representatives from the NE Division outlined the
concerns of governors expressed at patch meetings.
There was anger amongst governors that the original
proposals to pair patches A B and C D was changed to
A D and B C without consultation. B C was now
considered by governors to be unworkably large both
in terms of geography and numbers of schools.
Secondary heads explained that they had objected to
the original proposal as it split an existing
network of schools - the change had resulted from
this objection. Primary heads shared governors
concerns about the size of Area 2 (B C patches) but
the letter (tabled at the meeting) from the CEO
outlining what additional resources would be put
into the area would go some way to meeting those
concerns.
Governors from the NE reiterated the anger and still
considered:
that 107 schools being served by 1 Education Officer was
too large
that such a substantial change to the original proposal
should not have been made without further consultation
that there is increasing concern in the NE about how
re-organisation will work in practice.
NE governors asked whether it is true that MSO support
will not be available for governor patch forums. It was
explained that there is no MSO post in the new structure
but that support to fora was expected to be continued at
current level by Governor Services with other senior
officer involvement as necessary.
The Chairman thanked Andrew Seber and heads for their
input to these discussions and they left the meeting.
Item 11 was taken at this point
11. Needs Led Funding Model: Shirley Goodwin was welcomed
and thanked for her attendance. She explained that the
model had been developed in response to an Education
Committee request. She apologised for the shortness of
the consultation period and explained that it arose
because the report back to Education Committee had been
brought forward by a term as she was leaving the LEA.
The needs led funding model was not about changing the
LMS scheme. It dealt with the age weighted pupil unit.
If committee agreed it was intended to share the model
nationally with all interested parties. Heads had been
asked to brief their governors about the model.
Governors were reassured by Shirley's explanation of the
scheme and the reasons for the short consultation period.
However it should be noted that this had re-inforced
fears that the nature of LEA was changing and that it
would be less consultative in its approach in future. It
was suggested that examples of how the model would affect
smaller schools should be included.
Should the LEA wish to share the model with National
Governors Council Peter Whitmarsh would arrange this.
Shirley was thanked for her time, congratulated on her
appointment as Director of Education to Poole Unitary
Authority and left the meeting.
PART 2
The Chairman introduced and welcomed Peter High a new
representative from Central Division.
4. Apologies: Ian Stemp (SE); Geoff Hawkes (SW); Eddie
Pryke (SE); Terry Tillman (NE).
5. Notes of 29/1/96 were agreed.
6. Matter Arising
- HGRG leaflet had been circulated and the
communication group were congratulated and thanked
for their work
- Initial Teacher Training - no further replies had
been received. No further action was required.
7. HGRG Conference. There was general support for the
conference and the general outline circulated. After
discussion it was agreed that the appropriate time would
be January rather than October.
IBM had agreed to provide the venue at Hursley free of
charge and Hugh Deed would check its availability for the
3rd or 4th Saturdays in January. Hugh would continue
negotiations with IBM to see if they would fund lunch and
coffee/tea.
HD
The venue could accommodate 120 delegates and it was
agreed that 60 places should be by invitation and 60 on a
first come first served basis.
Bookings would be through the Governor Training Service
who would also be commissioned to provide a Conference
organiser. The conference organiser would work with the
HGRG project group of Peter Whitmarsh, Hugh Deed; John
Brailsford.
JS
PW
HD
JBd
HGRG would want the conference to
- educate governors and increase "networking"
- increase governors awareness and ownership of their
representative structures.
- act as a shop window for HGRG work
8. Governor Training Performance - Report to Education
Committee
HGRG endorsed the report
9. Patch Items
Patch D - 1) Nursery Vouchers - Governors support LEA
in making up any shortfall in class R budget caused by
nursery vouchers.
Agreed HGRG would write to House of Lords members
requesting their support for an amendment to delay
implementation until there had been a full evaluation of
Phase 1 scheme. John Brailsford to provide draft to JS
who would send letter
JBd
JS
[Post meeting note: Lords passed amendment without HGRG
letters!]
2) Revised SEN funding - Governors were concerned that
the new model was producing more loser than winner
schools. One school had £7000 less than it needed to
implement statemented provision. There was suspicion
that there had been a cut in special needs provision and
that a prejudice against taking special needs children
would develop in future.
Agreed to request item on County Governor Forum agenda
seeking
an answer to the fact that:
"there is a belief that schools which have a high number
of statemented children are not funded at a level to
deliver the statemented requirements".
JS
3) Needs Led Funding Model - see item 11 above.
4) Patch Reorganisation - see item 3 above.
There were no further Patch items.
10. County Governor Forum - Draft Agenda
Item 3&4 - Hugh would be abroad on CGF date so Peter
Whitmarsh would report from HGRG
PW
Item 5 - Request amendment to CEO letter as Item 2 above
JS/CEO
Item 6 - More analysis was required indicating how big a
problem RNOR is and what the swings are
JS/HT
Item 8 - Add Clerk to distribution
Insert reference to Chairman's Reception
Allow endorsement of nomination by two governors
JS
Add item on operation of SEN funding model
JS/FR
Governors commented on the improvement in CGF Agenda
Items and its increasing governor focus.
11. Taken above.
12. Chairman's Items
1) Resignation Jack Ashton - members discussed the
matters raised in the letter but did not feel that they
reflected their own experience of the operation of HGRG
and/or local fora.
2) Career Service Consultative Body - Clerk to identify
a governor (from staff or beyond) who is interested in
attending as nominee of HGRG
JS
3) Nominees for LEA Recruitment Process - Members who
were prepared to help should contact Roger Mead direct
4) HGRG Officer 96/7 - It was agreed that current
officers would remain in post until LGR is completed.
5) Letter from Tony Barron re Education Committee
membership - deferred in the absence of Eddie Pryke
All
Next agenda
6) Common questions on governorship and some answers had
been prepared by Jim Watt. Circulate with these minutes.
JS
7) Restructuring HGRG post LGR - Hugh and John Brailsford
will prepare paper for discussion at next meeting
HD/JBd
13. National Governors Council Items
Peter Whitmarsh to let Clerk have latest Newsletter to be
circulated with these minutes.
PW
Change of Chair of NGC to Pat Petch of Richmond LEA.
NGC press releases to be passed by PW to Jim Watt and Hugh
Deed in future so they are better briefed for press calls
PW/HD & JW
14. Education Committee Items - None in the absence of Eddie
Pryke
15. Treasurer's Items
Travel Claims - new mileage rates had been advised.
Budget 96/7 - The attached budget was adopted.
16. HGRG Meeting Dates were agreed as:
Tuesday 22nd October 1996
Tuesday 10th December 1996 (Budget)
Monday 3rd February 1997
Wednesday 11th June 1997
all 5.30 p.m. for 6.00 p.m.
all at Divisional Professional Centre, Romsey Road,
Winchester
17. Communication
Jim would produce a communication plan for the conference
JW
18. Any Other Business
Claire Mar Molinero informed members that this would be her
last meeting as she was standing down as a governor in
August. She wished to place on record how well she thought
HGRG had developed and what a good job it does.
Members thanked Claire for her contribution to HGRG since its
inception.
The meeting closed at 10.00 p.m.
From: Jo Hayles,itcsjo
Document No: 96204PRO0110
Date: 22/07/96
Top of this page
Hantsweb Homepage