Welcome to the NASG website

NASG is regularly consulted, primarily by the DfES, but also by other national and local bodies. Most of the consultations are peripheral to the work of governors, and we send in either a short response or no response at all. Occasionally there is a consultation which could have a major impact on governors. These we respond to in detail, having taken evidence from NASG members and members of the Executive Committee. These responses will be posted on the website.

Archives
The following consultation documents are no longer current but can still be accessed for reference (files will be downloaded in .rtf Word format)

1. The Green Paper sets out a vision for education which is ambitious both in its range and in the proposed pace of change. With a few notable exceptions, the aims and direction of the document are uncontentious and to be welcomed. NAGM is in general agreement with most of the proposed reforms and for this reason the NAGM response will not follow the format of the response form. However, we have substantial concerns about some of the proposals in relation to secondary schools. We also believe that there may be a divergence of view about the underlying assumptions contained in the document and that there are issues in relation to implementation which will impact on the means by which positive change may be achieved.

2. There is very little direct reference to governors (paras 6.46 to 6.51). Governors have responsibilities which include implementation of the National Curriculum, raising standards, the employment of staff, the direction and ethos of the school, inclusion, resources and premises. The implementation of the changes envisaged in this document will have wide ranging implications for both the work and the workload of governors. If these changes, many of which will undoubtedly be beneficial, are insensitively implemented, the effects at school level may have serious repercussions for governors.

3. NAGM thoroughly supports the development of genuine education partnerships and believes that these can be developed beyond the suggestions put forward in this Green Paper. To ensure the success of these partnerships, the main share of the credit for improvements must be given to those who deliver education at the front end. There is insufficient evidence that this is the case so far.

4. This Green Paper provided an opportunity, not fully utilised, for those in high office to demonstrate that they appreciate and value education professionals and recognise that there is much for which they should be congratulated.

5. It is generally recognised that the teaching profession is, at present, suffering from low morale. Teacherline, the national advice and counselling line for teachers states in its latest report:

The majority of callers express feeling totally undervalued and demoralised as individuals, and as members of their profession. Some even express a dread about reading the newspaper or watching television in case they are "told" yet again that they are failing the children in their schools, or that they are expected to take on board yet another new initiative. As more than one caller has said, "It would mean so much to have the occasional, genuine, public pat on the back that recognises my hard work and dedication."

6. Thus, as a result of previous government initiatives and the stance taken by some sections of the media there exists a workforce, many of whom are demoralised, cynical of further initiatives and resistant to change. There are workload issues which have not yet been resolved. There are substantial recruitment and retention problems and there has been both recent industrial action and the prospect of further action. In the view of governors, there is a chasm between the rhetoric of this document and the reality as seen at school and LEA level which will be hard to bridge. As one Head said, 'The Green Paper describes a parallel universe. I don't inhabit that world.' It will be unfortunate if this difference in perception leads those who will be charged with its implementation to dismiss the contents of this entire document as unattainable.

7. In order for there to be a reasonable chance of successful implementation, it would have been helpful for the authors to have acknowledged that governments cannot legislate for good practice nor can they enforce successful change. The integration of good practice and successful change initiatives must be owned by those who are charged with their implementation. The pivotal question for governors raised by the Green Paper is, 'How will the authors encourage acceptance of further change by education professionals who are tired, disillusioned and increasingly cynical about government initiatives and pronouncements?'

8. A partial answer may lie within the document. The two keys to the successful implementation of all the other reforms are contained in one short paragraph (5.39) 'Enabling teachers to teach' and the last sentence of para 6.33. The first proposes to remove the constraints which act as impediments to good teaching. The second alludes to the teaching profession taking control of the reform agenda. In governors' experience, when teachers have sufficient support available to them, from within school, from their LEA and beyond, the proposed improvements may be accomplished. And with this support the teaching profession will be able to take control of the reform agenda.

9. Although most of the aims of the proposed reforms are uncontentious, the premises on which they are based are subject to challenge. This we address below.

10. The document seems to presuppose that there are sufficient school leaders and teachers. Although recruitment and retention problems are acknowledged, their effect on both the maintenance of present standards and improvement in standards is not. Chapter 4 presages profound changes in the curriculum at Key stages 3,4 and 5. Most secondary school governors will welcome this increase in attention to the secondary curriculum. However, at a time of teacher and governor shortage (at both Primary and Secondary level) governors fear that these and many other improvements, though highly desirable, may be impossible to implement.

11. In Chapter 3 there appears to be the assumption that the problems facing Primary schools have been addressed. There is an increasing shortage of good candidates for Primary headship. This is compounded by the lack of non-contact time for Deputy Heads and other classroom teachers with management and curricular responsibilities. The present shortage of supply teachers makes this problem intractable in many schools.

12. Chapter 4 Transforming Secondary Education: It is within this chapter that governors would disagree in greatest numbers with the content of the proposed changes.

13. Chapter 4 (para 4.12) appears to suggest that there is such a school as a 'standard' comprehensive, that other comprehensive schools are necessarily inferior to specialist schools and that each comprehensive school does not already have a distinctive ethos. These misconceptions need to be negated. They show a lack of knowledge of those schools which cater for all abilities without any form of selective admission practice. These schools are proud of their inclusiveness and indeed some comprehensive schools chose Grant Maintained status in order to maintain an all-ability intake. For others, the aspiration to be a 'community' school which serves its entire community, is a sufficient and noble ambition. It must also be re-iterated that there are very many community comprehensive schools which, on any criterion, must be considered academically successful. Their denigration by those who have little knowledge of their value is to be condemned. Those who have intimate knowledge of comprehensive schools would also strongly rebuff the suggestion that each does not already have a distinctive ethos. The statement in para 4.5 that 'progress has been made in giving schools a distinct identity' suggests that a school's ethos can be imposed from outside. This is patently a nonsensical suggestion.

14. In chapter 4 there is the assumption that because the present specialist and faith schools are achieving well, an increase in their number will necessarily raise standards further. The Prime Minister has said he is interested in 'what works'. It is unfortunate that the question as to 'why it works' is not the natural sequitur. There are features of these particular schools which may not be easily replicable. The reasons for their assumed success may be related to the ability and attitudes of their pupils and parents; it may be as a result of the entrepreneurial nature of their leadership or, in the case of specialist schools, as a result of preferential funding. If the 'what works' line of reasoning were taken to its logical conclusion, all schools would be girls' schools.

15. There is an inherent tension between the proposal to increase the number of specialist schools (4.14) and the strategic intention to narrow inequalities between advantaged and disadvantaged areas, groups and individuals (1.29). The practical effect of increasing the number of specialist schools which attract additional funding will be the consolidation of a two-tier system of education. In addition, there is already some evidence that preferential treatment of 'feeder' primary schools by specialist secondaries is leading to a two-tier system at primary level. A further possible outcome of any increase in the number of specialist schools could be the concentration of the most able teachers in these schools with consequent repercussions for recruitment and retention in other schools. Those who can, will, and those who can't are in danger of becoming sink schools.

16. This chapter (Chapter 4), in particular, appears to be based on an 'urban' model of education. In densely populated areas diversity of schooling may be feasible (though might not be desirable). In sparsely populated areas there will be, for reason of distance, no choice of secondary school. Specialisation by that school may inadvertently disadvantage those children whose strengths lie outside the school specialism. The necessary concentration of funding and expertise which supports the specialism could lead to two tier education within a single school.

17. In areas where the ultimate specialist schools exist (grammar schools) it is acknowledged that secondary modern schools suffer from low attainment (4.55). This is an inevitable consequence of selection by ability. There is a body of research evidence to suggest that this selective system produces overall results inferior to a comprehensive system. Partnerships between grammar and secondary modern schools may be partially successful but may not be sufficient to address fully the underlying problem.

18. This change of direction away from the 'comprehensive ideal' and towards further selection (by aptitude) is a profound one. It has been taken without there being any convincing evidence that selective education, of itself, produces superior results. Indeed, there is evidence to the contrary. Any form of selective education also has profound repercussions for those not selected. Until evidence is available that all children will benefit from these changes, NAGM will oppose the move to increase the proportion of 'specialist' schools.

19. A funding formula based on pupil needs would be welcome (6.13). The complexity of those needs and their impact, both individually and collectively on schools has proved very difficult to measure. Simple formulae have been found not to be fair and fair formulae have been found not to be simple.

20. It is presumed within this document that Private Finance Initiatives necessarily benefit schools. These initiatives certainly benefit, in the short-term, those who provide capital funding, but in the long-term can be a costly option. Governors have reported that these schemes disempower them by removing some of their responsibilities for premises. This, in turn, can place limitations on the ability of the school to administer its own affairs in the way best suited to the purpose of the school, i.e.. the effective education of pupils.

21. The assumption is made that the Consultation on Governing Bodies will solve the problems which have been identified in relation to school governance (paras 6.46 - 6.51). NAGM has made a full and critical response to that consultation and this response must be viewed in conjunction with that one. We will await the conclusions of the DfES's 'way forward group' before making further comment but we do have grave concerns about the narrow remit of that group.

22. There appears to be the assumption that successful schools having 'earned their freedom from intervention', no longer need the external perspective and support that a competent LEA can provide (para 6.54). An event such as a change of Head or a substantial change of staff can have a detrimental effect on a previously successful school. The principle of intervention in inverse proportion to success is a good one. However, there are dangers in leaving it entirely to schools to determine their own development needs. An additional external perspective can challenge internal assumptions and address any 'blind spots' in the internal perspective. A successful school, without such challenge, can very easily become a coasting school.

23. It is assumed that central agencies are all performing adequately (para 6.61). In a document of 92 pages there is just one paragraph about central agencies and this makes no reference to the quality of the services they provide. Some governors would certainly have strong views about the level and quality of the support they and their schools receive from DfES. Schools and LEAs have been subject to Ofsted inspection and improvement has been noted. The DfES could also benefit from a thorough investigation such as that provided by an effective Ofsted team.

24. The Green Paper outlines an ambitious programme and shows a continued commitment to improving the educational provision for the young people in our schools. For this the government should be commended. Missing from this document is any solid understanding of the reality of the present experience for many working in schools. Also absent is any expression of equal partnership with LEAs and schools - which NAGM would support. Without this, further improvement is put in jeopardy. The present Chief Inspector (Mike Tomlinson) has suggested a change of stance from 'done to' to 'done with'. If the government could fully accommodate that change and learn to trust its education partners, progress might be more swiftly accomplished.

1. For some time NAGM has been of the opinion that a review of governors’ responsibilities is required. For this reason we welcome this consultation and the opportunity it provides for a review of governor responsibilities and the responsibilities of other stakeholders in the education system.

2. Our members have, in increasing numbers, expressed concern at the appropriateness of their extensive and growing list of responsibilities. Prior to this consultation we have elicited their views both formally and informally; formally, in response to surveys undertaken by the NAGM Research Group and informally through our normal contact with members. In response to this consultation we have again surveyed our members. 643 members responded to the survey. The results are attached as App. 1. We have also taken evidence from members of the NAGM National Executive Committee, each of whom has an extensive network of contacts within the world of governance. A list of the Executive Committee appears as App. 2. Evidence from all these sources has been used in the formulation of this response.

3. We are disappointed by the narrow scope of both the consultation document and the range of consultees. The consultation focuses on particular governor responsibilities without a convincing overall rationale. It is evident that any decrease in governor responsibilities requires a commensurate increase in responsibilities elsewhere. In view of the well publicised difficulties in the recruitment and retention of both headteachers and governors, we would have expected a more thorough review of governors’ responsibilities in tandem with a recognition that some others involved in the delivery of education are also, at present, overburdened. In our experience, many heads value the support that governors can provide. In times of difficulty governors can be a valuable additional resource in ensuring that decision making remains strategic. We would have wished for a review which encompassed the relative responsibilities of the head, the governing body and the LEA in the effective delivery of education to the young people in their care. A systematic, in-depth review would have been welcomed by our members.

4. It is of concern to us that the document has not been sent to schools (ref. June Nisbet’s covering letter). The consultation has not been extended to Wales, yet it proposes primary legislation. We see this as the most important consultation for governors for some considerable time and believe that all governors should have been alerted to its existence. We believe that the means by which it has been publicised to governors are insufficient and that, despite the efforts of governor organisations to publicise it, the response may be skewed by the size and composition of the response sample.

5. Notwithstanding the misgivings we have about the effectiveness of this consultation and the usefulness of its results, we have endeavoured to address each aspect of the consultation document in a positive and helpful manner.

6. We applaud the pledge to reduce paperwork. However, it is not the number of documents that is at issue. It is their length, clarity and fitness for purpose. If governors are to fulfil their responsibilities, they need all the pertinent information, and only the pertinent information, but in a form which is user-friendly. The current move to reduce paperwork by listing web addresses is unhelpful. The expectation that every governor will have a computer and web access is divisive and unfounded. For those who do, searching the web is more time consuming than sifting through papers that have been delivered. Consequently, the result is more work for governors, not less.

7. The bold type represents our response both to the questions posed in the consultation document and to other issues which we think require a response.

8. Para 4 by implication suggests that decision-making in school is within the remit of headteachers and the role of governors is merely to support headteachers. Our understanding of the role of the governing body is different from this. For strategic, but not operational decisions, we believe that ultimate decision-making lies within the remit of the governing body and that is the thrust of DfES Guidance 0168/2000 ‘Roles of Governing Bodies and Head Teachers’. This requires restatement.

9. NAGM would wish to see consistency in both principle and procedures across all personnel related matters. Governors need high quality, professional advice to be available and this should be reflected in the funding for governing bodies.

10. Para 5 Governors, at present have responsibility for the appointment of all teaching staff but can delegate the conduct of the recruitment process to the head. In this way, head and governors share responsibility for appointments. (Q1) We believe that there is a strategic element to staff appointments and the present system should continue unaltered. This view is supported by the results of our membership survey; 75% of respondents agreed that governors should continue to carry responsibility for staff appointments.

11. There are also equal opportunities issues in relation to the process being seen to be fair. The perception of fairness is increased if head and governors are both involved in the process. However, it would be helpful to governors if advice were given on appropriate patterns of delegation, whereby the Head is given responsibility for appointment of staff below management team level.

12. We agree that heads should be responsible for making recommendations for approval by the governing body on the use of discretionary pay allowances for all staff other than themselves.

13. Para 6. Given that governors bear ultimate responsibility for appointments, they should bear ultimate responsibility for dismissals. However unpleasant, dismissal is sometimes necessary and has a direct bearing on the task of raising standards, which is a key responsibility of governing bodies. It is a rarity so the question of it being time-consuming is not relevant. In cases where the dismissal process is to be applied, a panel of governors is in a better position to be seen to be acting fairly than is the headteacher acting alone. (Q2) The governing body should have discretion over the extent to which it wishes to delegate responsibility for dismissal to the head which is clearly stated in its policy documentation.

14. The suggestion that governors should not consider grievances against the head in relation to capability procedures is not clear. Who then is to consider them?

15. By a small majority, our respondents agreed that the head should deal with all grievances other than against him/herself. However, we have real concerns about the suggestion that heads acting alone should deal with staff grievances. In some schools the relationship between head and staff is less than ideal. (Q2) We find the proposal that heads alone should determine staff grievances unacceptable. The Governing Body must have the final decision within the school. Our respondents’ view was that governing bodies should continue to be respondents at Employment Tribunals. However, the point must be made that this proposal requires that the governing body defend a decision in which they have played no part at Employment Tribunal. This is contrary to natural justice and we will resist such a change.

16. Para 9 The proposals in relation to financial management mirror the present process in most schools. Most governing bodies agree proposals put forward by the head or staff member responsible for finance. (Q3) We find the role suggested for governors appropriate and sensible.

17. Para 10 (Q4) The proposal that the role of the governing body is to ensure that a risk assessment is undertaken by a relevant professional, for approval by the governing body, is both sensible and very welcome. 90% of survey responses were in accord with this view.

18. Para 11 Schools do not exist in a vacuum and LEAs have a responsibility in relation to the provision of school places. The present system of adjudication and monitoring is ineffective and the regulations should be clarified in the light of the difficulties inherent in a ‘mixed economy’ of admitting authorities. (Q5) We believe that LEAs and other admission authorities should be consulted separately on this issue. Consultation on admissions policies is very important and we are doubtful about dropping the requirement for annual consultation.

19. Para 13 Our previous research into governors’ responsibilities concluded that the responsibilities that governors felt most inclined to relinquish were those aspects for which they felt they had insufficient professional or specialist knowledge. Two areas were felt to be particularly problematic, i.e. specific areas of their personnel and curricular responsibilities. Results of our present survey (q9) concur with previous findings and we believe that the precise responsibilities of governing bodies, heads and others for the following matters should be subject to further examination:

20. Para 14 Proposed new duties; (Q7) In line with the ‘more strategic, less operational’ rubric, we believe that the provision of school meals and milk is largely operational and should only be the responsibility of the governing body with the proviso that decision making can be delegated to the Head (ref: DfES Guidance 0168/2000). 75% of respondents believe that this should not be a governing body responsibility.

21. We agree that the governing body should agree the head’s proposals for allocating school bonuses. (80% agreement)

22. We strongly agree that, in cases where a headteacher is accused of misconduct under child protection procedures, a named governor should be responsible for liaison with outside agencies. (80% agreement)

23. We do not agree that the governing body should be required to prepare an accessibility plan, but as in our response to risk assessments, it should ensure that professionals were employed to draw up such a plan for its approval. In other words the Governing Body has the responsibility to secure that this function is carried out. (Responses from the membership survey were mixed.)

24. Para 16. We endorse the idea for governing bodies to have a permissive power in providing child care.

25. Para 17 It is certainly the case that governing body responsibilities have been added to in a piecemeal and ad-hoc way. (Q8) We would wish to strengthen the ‘gate-keeper’ proposal provided that the two governor organisations (NAGM and NGC) take a leading part, with other interested groups, in a thorough, systematic and continuing review of the responsibilities of all who have statutory responsibilities for the provision of education in schools.

26. Paras 18 - 21 There is a growing governor recruitment and retention problem. In our view, the answer does not lie in reducing the size of governing bodies - especially so soon after their size has been increased. Thought needs to be given to the reasons for the shortfall. If the reasons are identified and problems addressed so that governorship becomes more attractive, recruitment and retention might be less problematic. We believe that decreasing the size of governing bodies could add to some existing problems. Since the proposals do not significantly reduce governing body workload, reducing the size of governing bodies may even exacerbate recruitment problems as fewer governors cope with the same (or similar) workload. A ‘difficult’ governor will probably be harder to contain on a small governing body. 60% of respondents wanted no change to the size and constitution of governing bodies. (Q9) We believe that there should be no change, at present, to the size or composition of governing bodies.

27. Paras 22 – 25. Many governors will be irritated by the suggestion that joint governing bodies be re-introduced. There will be some who look back to the distant past and see the iniquities that occurred under a system where several schools shared a governing body. Others, who were members of joint governing bodies of linked Infant and Junior schools until they were forced to separate by recent statute, will be equally dismayed. The formation of separate governing bodies under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 caused problems for those schools. They will see this immediate reversal as an instance of a government not knowing what it is doing! When a school has its own governing body the governing body has a greater focus and sense of identity and the school benefits from this. A great deal more research is needed into the benefits and problems attendant on the grouping of schools. 60% of respondents disagreed with the re-introduction of grouped governing bodies. (Q10) We believe that, until there is evidence of the benefits of grouping schools under a single governing body, the present system should continue but be kept under review.

28. Paras 26 - 29 It may be that, on very rare occasions, the best interests of the pupils are served by the removal of the entire governing body. This should only be considered when strengthening the governing body with additional governors has failed to bring about sufficient improvement. 55% of respondents believed that the Secretary of State should have such power but only 30% that LEAs should. However, any interim team cannot be considered a ‘governing body’ in the usual sense of the term. Another title should be found to avoid confusion. (Q11) We acknowledge that, on very rare occasions, it may be necessary to remove the entire governing body. We suggest that the procedure should be that the LEA, in the event that its support systems fail, should advise the Secretary of State who will make the final decision.

29. This is a very serious step as it will remove local accountability and democracy from that school. 65% of respondents believed the triggers to be correct. (Q12) However, we think that, in addition to these, formal identified weakness of the governing body, normally (but not exclusively) from an Ofsted report should be a pre-requisite of this action. This would require both a better evidence base and a better understanding of the role of governors than is currently the case. The precise wording of the triggers would require very careful consideration and consultation.

30. (Q13) If, as stated above, the interim team, are not called ‘governors’, and given their special and temporary role, it is appropriate that they be paid. However, we believe that any replacement governing body should not be paid. (65% response in agreement). We would anticipate great difficulty in recruiting a new governing body following the withdrawal of the interim team.

31. Paras 31 - 34 Ofsted inspection of LEAs has shown governor support as a consistent strength. They provide a service which is tailored to local needs. Best practice within LEAs is already being spread by the governor trainer networks. This should be further encouraged and supported by the DfES.

32. In LEAs where the DfES’s governor training pack for Performance Management was delivered without substantial revision, it has not been well received. Governors deserve a high quality service to meet their training and development needs. (Q14) We believe that the track record of LEAs indicates that, at the present time, they provide a well-regarded service for governors and deserve to be better supported by central agencies. We agree that a particular impetus needs to be given to whole governing body development.

33. Paras 35 -36 A good clerk has a sound knowledge of the law and can improve both the procedures and the teamworking of a good governing body. S/he can make the difference between relative success and failure for a weak governing body. The main issue for most schools, when deciding on clerking, is funding, together with identifying eligible people and ensuring a high standard of training for them. A good clerk will seem expensive when there are other, more immediate, calls on the budget. For these reasons, many schools have a current employee of the school as their clerk. We see the potential for a conflict of interest in this event. (Q15) We think that the return of earmarked funding for governor support (sufficient to include both training and clerking) would encourage governors to prioritise their own needs and that this would ultimately benefit the pupils in their care. Any pooling of resources by governing bodies to enhance staffing support should however be a matter for voluntary mutual agreement and not external imposition. There is a need to increase awareness that the governing body should bear responsibility for the appointment of its own clerk and has responsibility for determining its own agenda.

34. Paras 37 -38 NAGM has long campaigned for separate funding, from outside the school budget, for governors‘ expenses. Governors give their time freely but should not expect to be out of pocket. Many refuse to claim legitimate expenses because they see this as depriving pupils of funding. This situation brings with it the issue of the representativeness of the governing body. Those on small incomes cannot afford to become governors, consequently there is a preponderance of middle-class governors even in deprived areas. Respondents believe that the most important means of improving the representativeness of governing bodies lies in ring-fenced funding for governors’ expenses. (Q16) We see separate, ring-fenced funding for governor expenses as essential. In addition to ensuring that no governor needs to be out of pocket, this will address the difficulties caused to low income families in undertaking governorship.

35. Question 16, as put, is unhelpful. Additional administrative, clerking and ICT support for governors would all assist in improving the effectiveness of governing bodies, but each school has different needs and priorities. Of the support mechanisms stated, respondents believed that the most important and cost-effective way of increasing the effectiveness of governing bodies is by providing additional administrative support. (Q16) We see earmarked funding, which could be used to support any or all of these, as befits the needs of that governing body, as the optimal solution.

36. The position of Chair of Governors is becoming a very difficult position to fill and solutions need to be sought. The idea of an honorarium for Chairs might be considered alongside other solutions. However, it raises several serious questions. This proposal breaches the principles of voluntary service and brings into question the voluntary status of the recipient. Payment would make Chairs accountable in a different way and could bring questions about their employment status. Chairs actually have very little personal responsibility (action in an emergency) and in a well run governing body, responsibility is shared. Paying honoraria could be divisive and would it be feasible to draw the line at the Chair? What about the Vice Chair or committee Chairs?

37. Para 39 It is certainly the case that the headteacher has a pivotal role to play in ensuring that the governing body can carry out its duties in an effective way. However, there is a dichotomy in question 17. The governing body is now responsible for all four of the ‘line-management’ duties in relation to heads, (hiring, monitoring performance, deciding pay and firing). The question, as put, suggests that heads are to be expected to train their line-managers. (Q17) We believe that a large element of the training for potential and serving heads should exemplify and encourage effective working with their governing body. There needs also to be a recognition that governing bodies can and do assist the development of headteachers.

38. Paras 40 - 43 The shortage of governors is a problem in many schools and has reached a level in some schools which makes it impossible for the governing body to function. Questions 18, 19 and 20 treat the symptoms rather than the causes of the shortage. They may be useful as additions to addressing the causes. If being a governor is made more attractive and affordable, there would be no shortage. Recent, high profile cases demonstrate the critical importance of governing bodies in the governance of schools, but there are also signs that they are having an impact on recruitment and retention of governors. We believe that a thorough review of the responsibilities of governors and others, which aligns the governor’s role more appropriately to that of a volunteer, would substantially reduce recruitment and retention problems.

39. This consultation suggests simple solutions to complex issues. It should be viewed in conjunction with the DfES Regulatory Reform Review, and other initiatives. An overview would show that the workload of governors cannot be seen in isolation.

(a) Headteachers should have responsibility for recruiting all staff except heads, deputies and other members of the leadership group.

(b) The present system should continue where the governing body retains responsibility for all teaching appointments but can delegate the conduct of the recruitment process to the head.

	Frequency	Percent
a. Heads	155	24.1
b. Governing body	478	74.3
Missing	10	1.6
Total	643	100.0

2. The headteacher should have responsibility for determining all staff grievances other than those against him/herself.

	Frequency	Percent
Agree	328	51.0
Disagree	300	46.7
Missing	15	2.3
Total	643	100.0

3. The governing body should continue to be the respondent at Employment Tribunals to defend grievance decisions taken by the headteacher.

	Frequency	Percent
Agree	450	70.0
Disagree	159	24.7
Missing	34	5.3
Total	643	100.0

4. The governing body's role in risk assessment should be limited to ensuring that a Risk Assessment is commissioned and considering the implications of the subsequent report.

	Frequency	Percent
Agree	578	89.9
Disagree	55	8.6
Missing	10	1.6
Total	643	100.0

These proposed additional duties should be the responsibility of the governing body:

	Frequency	Percent
Agree	147	22.9
Disagree	485	75.4
Missing	11	1.7
Total	643	100.0

6. to agree the head's proposals for allocating pay bonuses in schools winning School Achievement Awards

	Frequency	Percent
Agree	509	79.2
Disagree	118	18.4
Missing	16	2.5
Total	643	100.0

7. allowing a "named governor" to have responsibility for liaising with the local education authority or Social Services Department where a head teacher is accused of misconduct under Child Protection procedures

	Frequency	Percent
Agree	495	77.0
Disagree	135	21.0
Missing	13	2.0
Total	643	100.0

8. requiring a maintained school governing body to prepare an accessibility plan

	Frequency	Percent
Agree	312	48.5
Disagree	268	41.7
Missing	63	9.8
Total	643	100.0

9. Which other governing body responsibilities do you consider to be inappropriate for governors?

	TOTAL
General curriculum matters	43
Sex education	12
Pupil performance targets	24
RE/collective worship	17
SEN matters	79
Budgetary matters	16
Staff, performance and pay	82
Staff discipline	1
Selecting clerk	3
Admissions	4
Equal opportunities	3
Pupil discipline policy	16
Pupil exclusion	16
Attendance records	13
Deciding school sessions	6
Supplying information to LEA and S/S	9
Annual report/parents' meeting	38
Supplying school prospectus	4
Keeping educational records	9
Mediating parents/OFSTED	9
Action Plan/SDP	9
Health and Safety	63
Litter	21
Charging arrangements	7
Community use	4
Other	20
TOTAL	528

10. The size and constitution of governing bodies should be altered in line with the proposals

	Frequency	Percent
Agree	256	39.8
Disagree	370	57.5
Missing	17	2.6
Total	643	100.0

11. The size and constitution of governing bodies should be altered in a different way

	Frequency	Percent
Agree	85	13.2
Disagree	400	62.2
Missing	158	24.6
Total	643	100.0

	Frequency	Percent
Agree	203	31.6
Disagree	387	60.2
Missing	53	8.2
Total	643	100.0

	Frequency	Percent
Agree	358	55.7
Disagree	260	40.4
Missing	25	3.9
Total	643	100.0

	Frequency	Percent
Agree	189	29.4
Disagree	427	66.4
Missing	27	4.2
Total	643	100.0

15. The proposed triggers for the removal of governing bodies are the correct ones.

	Frequency	Percent
Agree	417	64.9
Disagree	139	21.6
Missing	87	13.5
Total	643	100.0

16. In the case of the removal of a governing body, the replacement governing body should receive payment over and above expenses.

	Frequency	Percent
Agree	203	31.6
Disagree	406	63.1
Missing	34	5.3
Total	643	100.0

17. Which do you think the most important in improving the effectiveness of governing bodies?

	Frequency	Percent
a. Additional admin	363	56.5
b. Governor expenses	106	16.6
c. Chair's honorarium	46	7.2
d. ICT support	95	14.8
Missing	33	5.1
Total	643	100.0

18. Notwithstanding that no costings have been provided, which do you think the most cost-effective in improving the effectiveness of governing bodies?

	Frequency	Percent
a. Additional admin	380	59.1
b. Governor expenses	87	13.5
c. Chair's honorarium	34	5.3
d. ICT support	103	16.0
Missing	39	6.1
Total	643	100.0

19. Which do you think the most important in improving the representativeness of governing bodies?

	Frequency	Percent
a. Additional admin	191	29.7
b. Governor expenses	263	40.9
c. Chair's honorarium	25	3.9
d. ICT support	80	12.4
Missing	84	13.1
Total	643	100.0

20. Type of governor? If a governor of more than one school, place a tick for each school.

	Frequency	Percent
LEA	224	34.8
Co-opted	113	17.6
Parent	110	17.1
Additional	2	.3
Other	16	2.5
Foundation	126	19.6
Headteacher	35	5.4
Teacher	3	.5
Staff	14	2.2
Total	643	100.0

	Frequency	Percent
LEA	12	1.9
Co-opted	19	3.0
Parent	14	2.2
Additional	1	.2
Other	3	.5
Foundation	11	1.7
Teacher	2	.3
Staff	2	.3
Missing	579	90.0
Total	643	100.0

	Frequency	Percent
Under 1 year	41	6.4
1-4 years	200	31.1
4-8 years	152	23.6
More than 8 years	249	38.7
Missing	1	.2
Total	643	100.0

22. Type of school? If a governor of more than one school, place a tick for each school.

	Frequency	Percent
Nursery	24	3.7
Secondary	195	30.3
Primary	395	61.4
Special	18	2.8
Missing	11	1.7
Total	643	100.0

	Frequency	Percent
Nursery	2	.3
Secondary	3	.5
Primary	79	12.3
Special	4	.6
Missing	555	86.3
Total	643	100.0