Home Page

Executive Members

How To Join

Papers and Publications

2005 Award
for Outstanding Clerks

Links and Resources

Governors' News
- June 2003
- September 2003
- November 2003
- February 2004
- April 2004
- June 2004
- September 2004
- November 2004
- February 2005
- April 2005

Consultation

Research

Contact Us

GOVERNORS' NEWS
NASG members receive the in-house journal, "Governors' News", five times a year. As well as the latest news and reviews on the latest developments across the profession, every issue contains special features designed to help support you in your professional capacity

GOVERNORS' NEWS - April 2004

CONTENTS PAGE

A VIEW FROM THE CHAIR

THE EMOTIONS OF GOVERNING
- OR GOVERNING YOUR EMOTIONS

How is it that we continue to believe that we are rational beings? A look at the evidence shows that all human beings are, to a large extent, ruled by their emotions - and that includes governors! This has some very positive consequences - but it also has its downside.

You don't need to be a follower of Star Trek to have heard of Mr Spock who was half human and half Vulcan - the latter race being truly rational. There were many things on his human side which he found 'did not compute'. This emotional/rational dynamic - heart and head - is not confined to our private lives, it surfaces in our governor role too. All the decisions we take, all the choices we make are to some extent ruled by our emotions. And hooray for that - I don't want to be a Vulcan.

A couple of pieces of evidence to help prove my point:

It would be rational to support the football team most likely to win. But do we? No, because we have an emotional attachment to 'our' team which endures through good times and bad. Likewise 'our' school - this emotional tie has benefits for those schools which are in difficult circumstances. Committed governors stay the course through all sorts of difficulties - and it is their emotional attachment which makes them hang on in there. A rational decision would have them out without a backward glance.

It would be rational to vote for a political party purely on the basis of its policies. But do we? No! We are swayed by the physical attractiveness or otherwise of the party leader - and whether or not they have hair! Why else would politicians spend vast sums on image consultants and voice coaches? It's a pity about the hair though - neither shiny pates nor wigs seem to work. (Here's another piece of information to store until November; in ten of the last thirteen elections for US President it was the taller candidate with the most hair who won!) The consequences for governors of this human predisposition to vote for the most attractive candidate can have far-reaching consequences if they are not rigorous in their staff selection procedures. Naïve interviewers can confuse enthusiasm with competence and select an attractive headteacher who can't do the job!

These emotional aspects of governance manifest themselves in the way we all talk about 'our school' and the reasons we give for continuing as governors. The NAGM annual Governors' Responsibilities Survey gives an indication of the motivations of governors. The most frequent reasons given for continued involvement are

• involvement in the life of the school,
• working with and supporting staff,
• being part of and celebrating school success,
• making a difference, and
• pupil welfare.

Not exactly hard-nosed, business reasons for being a governor!

That's why I think Federations are ill-conceived. How can any governor have an emotional attachment to five schools?

Good governors care deeply about their school. And when we care deeply about something, we are prepared to put in a good deal of time and effort to promote its well-being. That's the positive. But this emotional commitment can have negative consequences - and this depends largely on how we express our emotions - and the level of our social and communication skills.

In my long and varied career in governance I've met so many people who want to make a difference in their schools (with good reason!) but have just gone about it the wrong way. And I am not without sin here either. As a new governor I have blundered in with size eleven boots and had to retrench and spend time building trust. Since then I've learnt that schools are highly charged emotional institutions - much more so than most workplaces. So, particularly in schools, it pays dividends to think about your impact on others before you open your mouth or put fingers to keyboard. Not that I get it right all the time!

One person's assertion is another's aggression. (If you want to take this further, there is a paper on assertiveness in the resources section of the website www.nagm.org.uk)

Now, here's a gloomy note on which to end. We have falling rolls nationally. Many schools will, in the near future, be faced with the prospect of closure. For any school, this is a really emotional time. I've been a governor of a closing school and it's not much fun. But the governing body has a key role in managing its emotions, helping others to manage theirs, and leading the school to an orderly closure in which disruption to children's education is minimised. When a school is closing, a united and effective governing body can do much to ease the pain. It's a cruel twist of fate that such a governing body comes into it own just before it is disbanded. C'est la vie!

Jane Phillips, NAGM Chair.

[ Top ]

NEW RULES ON
WHAT SUPPORT STAFF CAN DO

John Fowler helps governors to get to grips
with the rules about Workforce Reform

New rules were introduced in Autumn 2003 about the tasks which school staff can undertake as part of the DfES's Workforce Reform. Section 133 of the Education Act 2002 gives the circumstances where teaching assistants can do the work normally undertaken by qualified teachers. This article describes the rules and guidance. It is expected that Wales will have similar rules in place by Summer 2004.

Background

Governors will know of Workforce Reform, the DfES initiative to improve schools by focussing teachers' time and energies on teaching and learning and using support staff to carry out many tasks previously done by teachers. Although NAGM, in common with other governors' organisations, was not part of the Workforce Agreement, the DfES circulated a pack of information jointly prepared with NAGM to Chairs in Autumn Term 2003 which included Workforce Remodelling - a Guide for Governors. (You can download this pack from www.governornet.co.uk)

This is a controversial issue; the largest teaching union, the National Union of Teachers, refused to sign the agreement and there have been stories in the press about support staff taking on work previously done by qualified teachers. There are doubts as to whether there is sufficient money to implement the reforms especially on guaranteed time for planning, preparation and assessment which will be introduced for all teachers in 2005. The Guide for Governors describes the strategic role which the new rules give to governors to develop all their staff, including giving support staff 'a more coherent career structure, improved conditions of service and appropriate training' and asks governors to reassure parents that 'remodelling does not mean substituting qualified teachers with support staff'.

Rules and Guidance

Full information can be found in The Education (Specified Work and Registration) (England) Regulations 2003 and the DfES publication Time for Standards: guidance accompanying the Section 133 Regulations issued under the Education Act 2002. (This document can be downloaded from www.teachernet.gov.uk) The rules aim 'to safeguard standards in the classroom and preserve the role, status and overall responsibility of qualified teachers in schools', and address the 'uncertainty about what duties and activities ... support staff may or may not undertake'.

Specified work

The rules define 'specified work' as:

• planning and preparing lessons and courses for pupils;
• delivering lessons to pupils (which can include distance learning or computing aided techniques);
• assessing the development, progress and attainment of pupils;
• reporting on the development, progress and attainment of pupils.

The list is not exhaustive of the tasks which teachers undertake. Teachers paid according to the Pay and Conditions Document need to follow the contractual duties as set out in the document. 'Specified work' does not include:

• the 24 tasks set out in the National Workforce Agreement, including photocopying, record-keeping and other administrative and clerical work, that have traditionally been carried out by teachers but that teachers should not routinely be required to undertake from September 2003;
• tasks that often fall to headteachers (for example financial and premises management, procurement and sponsorship): these tasks should be transferred where practicable to senior administrative staff, or site managers;
• supervisory and pastoral activities that require behaviour management experience and in some cases counselling skills, but that are not directly related to classroom teaching. These range from playground supervision and exam invigilation to elements of pastoral care.

Also omitted from 'specified work' are duties that only qualified teachers are expected to carry out - for example, appraising the work of other teachers.

Persons able to carry out 'specified work'

'Specified work' can only be carried out by teachers with Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) or someone who satisfies 'other requirements'. The latter includes teachers without QTS as well as support staff. There is not space here to describe all the categories of teachers without QTS but such teachers include student teachers, instructors in the sports and arts, graduate teachers and teachers on employment based routes into teaching.

Support staff who may undertake 'specified work'

Support staff may undertake 'specified work' if:

• they carry out 'specified work' in order to assist or support the work of a qualified teacher;
• they are subject to the direction and supervision of a qualified teacher in accordance with arrangements made by the headteacher;
• the headteacher is satisfied that the support staff member has the skills, expertise and experience to carry out the 'specified work'.

The DfES expects that support staff carrying such work will be Higher Level Teaching Assistants (HLTAs) and advises that where more demanding aspects of 'specified work' are carried out by support staff, such as work with whole classes, the headteacher needs to consider whether the support staff member has the necessary level of skills and expertise as described in the standards for HLTAs devised by the Teacher Training Agency.

Supervision of support staff undertaking 'specified work'

DfES guidance expects schools to have clear documentation on the supervision of support staff undertaking 'specified work' stating:

• which elements of 'specified work' can be carried out by which particular members of staff;
• which qualified teacher is responsible for supervising that work and how that supervision will be delivered.

An inexperienced teaching assistant would require direct supervision and should not be left alone with the class, while an experienced teaching assistant who has undergone training and meets the national standards for HLTAs would not require a qualified teacher assigned to that class to be present at all times. The guidance distinguishes between the supervision of support staff by qualified teachers and their line management, which need not be undertaken by a qualified teacher.

The guidance comments on the particular case of support staff doing 'cover supervision'. This may not involve elements of 'specified work', as the work with pupils is purely supervisory in nature, 'However, even 'cover supervision' may involve elements of 'specified work' such as supporting pupils by answering questions about the work they have been set'.

John Fowler, TEN associate
John Fowler is the author of the forthcoming book Education Act 2002: Regulations and Guidance published by The Education Network and the Advisory Centre for Education.
He can be contacted by email jrm_fowler@btinternet.com or through the NAGM office.

[ Top ]

Looking after the governor is the business now -
HOW DO WE RETAIN OUR SCHOOL GOVERNORS?

Retaining school governors in post is no less of a challenge than retaining teaching staff. Teachers are retained by 'golden handcuffs' in various guises; LEAs and schools rack their brains to offer staff development, technical support, promotion prospects and working environments that meet staff expectations. What are the rewards that motivate school governors and attract their continuing hard work and loyalty, however?

794 governors from business, recruited by the School Governors' One Stop Shop (SGOSS), were contacted in order to quantify their views on the key factors that had motivated them to remain in governance, since only 27 had resigned since the SGOSS's launch in 2000. 276 respondents (almost 35% of those contacted) provided high quality feedback on their perceptions of the positive and negative factors in governance.

Positives that made governors feel valued and want to stay in post

• 'Being welcomed and accepted by the headteacher' (84%) was the highest response rate of any in the survey. The positive relationship between the headteacher and the governor was considered to be of paramount importance in releasing the added value that the newly-recruited governor can provide and it is a key factor in governors feeling valued. 71% responded that 'supporting the headteacher' was one of the things they found particularly satisfying in governance. Elsewhere in the survey 52% mentioned that they gained satisfaction from 'acting as a critical friend' and easing 'the burden on the head'. Do headteachers recognise the overwhelming significance of the relationship with their governors?
• 'Being welcomed and accepted by fellow governors' (70%) was also an extremely significant factor in governors feeling valued.
• 'Being invited to use their skills' was given by 63% as a significant factor in feeling valued. 71% had identified this as a key aspect of the role that was satisfying and 74% had already identified that the opportunity to use existing skills in a different context was a reason for becoming a governor. Finance and accounting skills were mentioned by 22 governors; personnel, HR and interviewing skills by a further 27 respondents. A significant number (9) brought Health and Safety knowledge to the school, 6 identified the use of their IT skills. Governors also rated 'being accepted into the work of the governing body' and 'being involved in key planning/tasks' as very significant factors in feeling valued. 'Being proactive' was given by more than one third (37%) as an aspect of the role that they had found satisfying. Many wrote that they enjoyed being involved in the 'strategic decision making' of the school (50%). Some respondents, who had joined schools in particular difficulties including special measures, found the work rewarding (if exhausting!).

Is there sufficient training for headteachers in the management and motivation of governors? How much more emphasis should be placed on the training/briefing of headteachers to develop their skills in this aspect of people management?

Negatives that frustrated governors and that were identified as potential threats to governor retention by some respondents

The two most significant were:

• Frustration about the level and the complexity of school funding was a 'serious irritant' and was mentioned by 21 respondents. There appear to be (at least) two issues causing concern: the level of funding and the complexity of the funding formula. Firstly, the 'lack of adequate funding', 'funding issues impact on ability to improve', and more alarmingly, 'lack of funding to carry out certain improvements - in regard to health and safety', were all examples. Secondly, the 'complicated financial reporting due to various income streams', and the 'funding cycle' were some of the ways respondents expressed an opinion about the latter irritant. This cohort of governors has a background more exposed to the business and commercial world than the modal school governor and is likely to be able to distinguish between inadequate and ill-used funding. Moreover a commercial background might well expose individuals to complex funding regimes. Yet still many governors found the funding procedures complex and obscure. 'Should the DfES make school funding more transparent?' is an obviously rhetorical question.
• Criticism of the LEA/Government. One difficulty in interpreting this category of responses was that of disaggregating statements about the LEA from those about central government. Complaints about 'policy' could, for example, be read either way and this category necessarily overlaps with frustrations about funding. However, in all, some 31 remarks might be placed under this combined heading which range from very direct comments such as: 'As a governor at two schools in different LEAs the key irritant is the poor service/advice/info given by the LEA in key areas, i.e., personnel, contracts, continued improvement', to more reconciled: 'Good things happen in spite of (the influence of government and the LEA) rather than because of their involvement'. (NB No information of any type was elicited or kept about individual LEAs)

This evidence of positives and negatives in governance confirms what experience has already told us. Good people management and a reasonable recognition of the time and effort spent go a long way towards making governors feel valued, despite contextual drawbacks. Are governors who work in the business sector any different in their views, aspirations and needs from other governors? Probably not.

The SGOSS can be contacted at: info@schoolgovernors-oss.co.uk 0870 241 3883

Dr. Ann Punter and Professor John Adams
John Adams and Ann Punter carried out this research at the School of Education, University of Hertfordshire. John Adams is a member of NAGM Executive.

[ Top ]