Contact: John Clarke, Deputy County Education Officer, County Office
Tel 01962 846459 email [email protected] or

Janet Sheriton, Head of Governor Services, County Office
Tel 01962 845706 email [email protected]

1 Summary

1.1 The paper reports OFSTED judgements on governing bodies in Hampshire inspected between January 2000 and July 2002 as shown in the LEA Panda. Comparisons are made with statistical neighbours and the national picture in primary and secondary schools. It supports Aim 1 of the Corporate Strategy (Maximising life opportunities) by reporting on matters likely to impact upon an improvement in the quality of life for Hampshire people.

1.2 In Hampshire primary schools OFSTED judged governance to be more often good or better than is true of statistical neighbours or nationally. In Hampshire secondary schools the quality of governance was similar in Hampshire to that elsewhere.

1.3 Attention is drawn to the new descriptors for governance from the OFSTED Framework introduced from 1 September 2003. Early indications are that governance is being inspected with more rigour than hitherto. Governing bodies are being alerted to the sharper focus on their work and the need to make sure they are able to demonstrate the quality of the work they do and its contribution to raising standards of education in Hampshire schools.

2 Governance in the Primary Sector

2.1 Primary - Analysis of the Panda (Appendix 1) shows governance in Hampshire primary schools over the period to have been judged by OFSTED to be more effective than either our statistical neighbours or the national picture. One in twenty Hampshire governing bodies needed much improvement, one in fourteen amongst statistical neighbours, one in eleven nationally.

2.2 Over three quarters of Hampshire primary schools were judged to have good or very good governing bodies, compared with just under two-thirds amongst statistical neighbours and six in ten nationally.

2.3 Full inspections showed primary school governance in Hampshire to be stronger than statistical neighbours and nationally in each of the three areas in which judgements are made by OFSTED: fulfilling statutory responsibilities; shaping direction; understanding strengths and weaknesses.

2.4 Nearly two-thirds of primary governing bodies in Hampshire were judged good or better in fulfilling statutory responsibilities compared with around a half amongst statistical neighbours and nationally.

2.5 Approaching 70% of Hampshire governing bodies were judged good or better in shaping the direction of the school compared with 56% amongst statistical neighbours and 51% nationally.

2.6 In understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the school, 8 in 10 governing bodies in Hampshire primary schools were judged good or better compared with around 6 in 10 amongst statistical neighbours and nationally.

2.7 As far as Hampshire governors are concerned the strength of the contribution they are making is a matter for some celebration. Nevertheless, further work is needed by Hampshire Governor Services targeted at the third of governing bodies who need to make some or much improvement to fulfilling statutory responsibilities and their role in shaping the strategic direction of the school, and the one in five who do not yet understand the strengths and weaknesses of their school.

3 Governance in Secondary Schools

3.1 Secondary - Secondary school governance in Hampshire was not judged by OFSTED as being as strong as primary governance overall and shows a pattern much closer to statistical neighbours and the national picture. Around 6 in 10 secondary governing bodies were judged good or better in Hampshire, statistical neighbours and nationally for "the effectiveness of the governing body in fulfilling its responsibilities" although fewer in Hampshire were considered to need "much improvement" : 1 in 20 as opposed to 1 in 10 amongst statistical neighbours and nationally.

3.2 The area in which Hampshire secondary school governing bodies showed most weakness was in fulfilling their statutory responsibilities, where approaching 70% were considered to need some or much improvement. Amongst our statistical neighbours 55.8% and, nationally, 65.4% were judged to be in this position.

3.3 Two-thirds of Hampshire secondary governing bodies were considered to be playing an effective role in shaping the direction of the school, a slightly stronger position than our statistical neighbours or nationally.

3.4 The strongest area of governance in secondary schools in the county (and ahead of primary governance) was our governors' understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the school, where nearly 85% were judged as good or better compared with 65% in statistical neighbours and 68% nationally.

3.5 The focus in Hampshire on the governors' role in school improvement has clearly paid dividends. Further work has been carried out to establish why significantly more Hampshire secondary governing bodies are judged to fail to meet their statutory duties than is the case amongst statistical neighbours or nationally.

3.6 An analysis of the Inspection Reports of the Secondary Schools included in this OFSTED sample has been undertaken. This was to provide more information on the statutory duties which are not being met and to identify any trends.

3.7 Outcomes from this analysis are indicative only, for there is no way of controlling the variations in judgements and language between one inspector and another. Where Hampshire Secondary Schools do worse than statistical neighbours is in the number of governing bodies who fail to meet statutory responsibilities in two or three separate areas. During this inspection period two or three failures tended to lead to a judgement that "some improvement" is needed. Where four or more failures to meet statutory responsibilities were identified "much improvement needed" was likely to be the verdict.

3.8 The statutory duties most often reported as not being met were:

· Collective Worship - (identified for 88% schools)

· RE, DT, ICT curriculum requirements (in order of frequency) at both KS3 and KS4 but particularly KS4

· Governors Annual Report to Parents

3.9 Historically, judgements on governance overall have tended to suggest that being judged unsatisfactory in respect of statutory duties resulted in an overall judgement on governance one grade less than might otherwise have been the case. Early indications are that this is no longer the case.

4 The New OFSTED Framework

4.1 The grade descriptors from the new framework are attached as Appendix 2. These descriptors were introduced from the beginning of this term. They represent a more challenging standard than hitherto. It would be our view that a governing body judged as satisfactory under the previous criteria would not now be so described unless its practice had improved.

4.2 Early evidence is that the judgements concerning how well a governing body discharges its statutory responsibilities are being more rigorously applied under the new framework than the old. This has been the subject of debate nationally and further guidance has been issued by OFSTED in December (Appendix 3 - Extract from Update 43).

4.3 It will be important for governing bodies to be aware of OFSTED's sharper focus on their work and to make sure that they are able to demonstrate the quality of the work they do and its contribution to raising standards of education in Hampshire schools.

4.4 The Standards and Improvement Branch have considered the impact of a sharper focus on statutory responsibilities on their work with schools and governing bodies. A summary of the new OFSTED Form S3 is at Appendix 4. (Governors' Audit of Statutory Responsibilities)

4.5 Discussions will be held with RE, DT and ICT subject leaders by the Senior Secondary Inspector to examine the pattern of findings and determine what action, if any, needs to be taken.

4.6 The Deputy County Education Officer has written to SACRE to share the findings in respect of collective worship.

4.7 The new OFSTED descriptors and the LEA Panda findings on governance will be incorporated into the work with governing bodies in Hampshire, wherever appropriate. In particular, training sessions on the implications of the new OFSTED Framework for effective governance are planned this term.

4.8 County Governors' Forum, through Hampshire Governors' Representative Group and local forums, will draw the attention of governing bodies to the merits of OFSTED Forms S3 and S4 as regular audit tools

Recommendations

1 That the report be noted.

2 That further reports be received.

Section 100D Local Government Act 1972 - Background Documents

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.

NB The list excludes:

1 Published works

2 Documents which disclosed exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act

None