Archived decisions

Contact: Janet Sheriton, Head of Governor Services (01962 845706)

1 Summary

1.1 This paper provides details of the systems and processes in place to monitor, support and, where necessary, challenge the governance of Hampshire County Council's maintained schools.

2 The Context

2.1 The systems and processes have developed and evolved over the last few years alongside the LEA - Schools Code of Practice and the County Council's school categorisation process.

2.2 Their purpose is to support appropriately the over 8000 community volunteers in securing the effective governance of all Hampshire's maintained schools by monitoring and supporting their work in ways differentiated according to need. It needs to be considered in the context of the generally high standards of governance in the county's schools.

2.3 Governance of Hampshire schools is good or better in 75% and in the last year judged to be unsatisfactory in only 4%. The County's governing bodies compare well with the national picture (61% good or better, 8% unsatisfactory) and with other local authorities. Attendances at training per governing body are significantly higher than other southern authorities for whom figures are available and Hampshire delivers whole governing body training to 90% of our governing bodies each year representing hundreds more sessions than others around us.

2.4 Nevertheless there are a few schools in Hampshire where governance is not effective enough to meet the challenges that the school faces and the processes below help to identify and support those governing bodies.

3 The Principles

3.1 Hampshire is an authority committed to openness and partnership and the monitoring, support and challenge of governance takes place against the following principles.

· Where weaknesses are identified or suspected these will be shared with the governing body concerned in a constructive manner but honestly.

· Support to address the weaknesses will always be offered either through the routine training programme or otherwise.

· Significant issues arising from the remote monitoring process will be shared with the governing body.

· Any monitoring visits will be agreed with the governing body and feedback and advice given.

· The LEA's formal powers of intervention will not be used unless the governing body has had the opportunity to address the weaknesses to a reasonable timescale.

· Understanding of the difficulties of governance for volunteers must not get in the way of taking the action which is required for effective school improvement to take place.

4 Monitoring

4.1 Every school is asked in accordance with The Education (School Government) (England) Regulations 1999, paragraph 39 (4) to send the LEA copies of the minutes of all full governing body meetings. These minutes are monitored at a basic level by administration officers in Governor Services against the proforma at Appendix 1.

4.2 Where necessary matters which may be of concern are referred to Governor Services Coordinators or their assistants and occasionally to Deputy or Area School Improvement Managers. Contact maybe made variously with the Chairman of Governors, Headteacher, or Clerk to seek further clarification and/or offer advice where matters referred to in minutes suggest this may be helpful. General issues of a minor nature arising across a number of governing bodies maybe addressed in local newsletters, Hampshire Governor, and the Training Programme.

5 Ofsted Reports

5.1 The governance section of Ofsted Reports for all schools are monitored routinely by the Head of Service and Local Coordinators. Ofsted judgements are aggregated on an annual basis and reported in Hampshire Governor alongside those of HMCI in his Annual Report on the standards of governance nationally.

5.2 Where Ofsted judge governance as unsatisfactory in a Hampshire School consultation would take place with DASIM/ASIM and if necessary the governing body would be offered advice and support to address its weaknesses.

5.3 Should similar issues arise in a number of Ofsted Reports these would inform the training programme and/or be addressed in newsletters.

6 Desk Audits

6.1 After the annual categorisation process the governing body paperwork of some schools requiring some improvement (those with management and leadership issues) and most schools requiring substantial improvement are the subject of a desk audit.

6.2 The papers in the file for the previous year are audited against the framework at Appendix 2 by Coordinators or their assistants and a provisional judgement made as to whether overall the record shows the governing body to be fulfilling its roles effectively.

6.3 These provisional judgements are then the subject of discussion with ASIM/DASIM/AI and further action where necessary agreed.

6.4 Outcomes from this process might be

a) No further action required, monitor governing body minutes at the basic level.

b) Monitor paperwork remotely at a higher level (see 8 below).

c) Offer the governing body for purchase a number of days of additional coaching and support to address weaknesses against an action plan (see 9 below).

d) Attend one or more governors meetings to monitor governance and offer advice to secure improvement. (see 10 below).

6.5 The paperwork of 63 governing bodies (12%) was the subject of Desk Audit following the Autumn 2001 categorisation round.

6.6 In 27(5%) cases the paperwork suggested that governance might be unsatisfactory.

7 Remote Higher Level Monitoring

7.1 Schools categorised as needing some improvement with Management and Leadership issues and schools categorised as needing substantial improvement are normally monitored at a higher level. The governing body will be asked to provide copies of agenda's, papers and minutes of full governing body meetings and committees throughout the coming year. These will be monitored by a Local Coordinator or their Assistant and will be referred to ASIM/DASIM as necessary.

7.2 In 2002/3 this applies to some 51 (9%) governing bodies.

7.3 In some cases governance itself will be weak but in others whilst governance maybe satisfactory or better the complexities of issues in the school may be such that higher level monitoring is necessary to support the governing body in addressing them.

7.4 Governing bodies being monitored at this level will receive a letter and/or other contact in the late Spring or early Summer term.

8 Additional Support

8.1 Additional Support days are offered to those governing bodies where the desk audit suggests that there are weaknesses in one or more areas of their practice which need to be addressed to maximise the general improvement the school needs to make. In 2002/3 38 governing bodies (7%) have been offered between 1 and 4 days of support - some 83 days in all.

8.2 In 19 of these this continues support previously offered and for 19 additional support is offered for the first time. Of the 19 being offered support for 2 or more years, in 8 governance is considered satisfactory but still fragile and in 11 though often improving governance is still considered unsatisfactory.

8.3 Governing bodies to whom this applies will receive letters and/or other contact in the early Summer term which identify the improvements that the desk audit suggests need to be made and offers the additional support days to address these. Governing bodies are offered the opportunity to discuss the findings and to offer additional evidence if they wish. Where it remains the view of the LEA that improvements in one or more areas of governance are necessary the governing body may purchase additional support from Governor Services. Whether or not they decide to purchase this extra support from Governor Services or elsewhere it is expected that they will address satisfactorily the matters of concern in their governance practice.

9 Monitoring Visits

9.1 Observation of and discussion with a governing body is the most secure source of evidence for its effectiveness. It is ten years or more since resources allowed any routine attendance by officers at governing body meetings. That cannot be re-introduced but in 2002/3 in a small number of cases where improvement is needed or the governing body having made significant progress is emerging from a period of additional support one or more monitoring visits will be undertaken by Coordinators or their Assistants to monitor progress and if necessary offer advice. Monitoring visits will be by agreement with the governing body. Summary reports of these visits will be shared with the ASIM and the governing body. In 2002/3 it is expected that approximately 43 governing bodies (8%) will be offered at least one such visit.

10 Conclusion

10.1 Experience has shown and HMI testify that this mix of monitoring, challenge and support has worked well in Hampshire. In the past three years some 90 governing bodies have been supported in this way and 71 have improved sufficiently to no longer require additional support, some to the point of now being amongst our best governing bodies. Whilst occasionally some are initially reluctant to accept the messages and are sceptical of the benefit of additional support those who have received it are overwhelmingly delighted with their progress and with those who have worked with them.

Recommendations

1. That the report be discussed with County Governor Forum and their advice sought in respect of wider dissemination.

2. That the report be noted by Schools Monitoring Panel.