OFSTED descriptors for judgements on governance

(First published 30 May 2003, effective from 1 September 2003)

Very good (2)

Creativity and dynamism in reflecting upon performance, promoting change, and capitalising on links with the local community suggest excellent (1) governance

The governing body makes a major contribution to the leadership of the school and its successes. It is fully involved in strategic planning and formulating policies, and supports staff in implementing them. Governors keep in close touch with the school's work across all stages, and this cements the partnership between the governing body and the school. The pattern of the governing body's work meshes well with the school's development cycle, so that both are very influential. Governors are well aware of the school's strengths and weaknesses and deal with them openly and frankly, contributing fully to development planning. Performance management procedures are very effective and are monitored closely by the governing body.

Good (3)

The governing body influences the work of the school and its policies through challenge and support. It has a good grasp of the school's strengths and weaknesses and has a significant, strategic influence in leading the school's development, with a clear focus on raising standards and improving the quality of provision. The governing body is prepared to take difficult decisions where necessary. It is well organised and it improves its own performance through appropriate development opportunities or training.

Satisfactory (4)

The governing body ensures that the school meets its statutory responsibilities, and has clear aims and policies. Its performance management policy operates effectively. Corporately, it sets an overall direction for the school and formulates policies that reflect the individual character of the school. It reviews performance data to monitor the school's work, and its recommendations for action are followed up. All governors understand their role and any specific responsibilities. There is a businesslike relationship between governors and senior staff in leading the school.

Unsatisfactory (5)

The school fails to meet one or more statutory responsibilities and lacks some of the policies that are required. The governing body relies too heavily on the headteacher. Although they are supportive, governors play a slight part in leading the school and do little to hold the school to account. Their work lacks focus and influence. They have insufficient knowledge of one or more of the stages. There is little corporate agreement about the school's strengths and weaknesses. The governing body has a limited grasp of the performance of the school and only modest effect on its development.

Poor (6)

High vacancies, poor attendance, hostile relationships and almost total reliance on the headteacher are indications of very poor (7) governance

Important statutory responsibilities are not met. The governing body is remote from the school. Relationships between members of the governing body or between it and the senior staff are at best indifferent and may be hostile or acrimonious. Governors' business is badly organised and their conduct presents a barrier to school improvement. Governors are largely unaware of the strengths and weaknesses of the school and, in particular, the effectiveness or otherwise of its senior managers. They have a limited influence on the work of the school. The governing body presents no challenge. Standards and quality are not assured and it fails to set a clear direction or policies for the school's work.