Sir Michael Wilshaw, President of the UK’s Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills, has called for compulsory training for all members of school boards. Sir Wilshaw has argued that given the legal complexity involved in contemporary school governance, amateur governors who have little to no expertise in relevant areas are the reason why so many school boards have been declared unfit for purpose. The Guardian reports that although mandatory training was raised as a possibility last year, the lack of meaningful action has led Sir Wilshaw to commission a survey into school boards to provide insight into the quality of school governance across the board in the UK.
In the UK, school governing bodies are usually run by volunteers called school governors, similar to school boards in Australia. Every state school in the UK has a governing body, as do most independent schools, although the latter are able to determine the make-up and powers of the boards. These governing bodies can be in charge of overseeing the school’s finances and performance and make key decisions that can determine the future of the school. School governors can be made up from members of the school community, including parents of students. They do not currently require any specific qualifications or training to become a member of the governing body.
The lack of training for governors poses a significant challenge to effective school governance, given the complex legal landscape of education in the UK. School governing bodies often lack the expertise to effectively evaluate the performance of the school and of staff, and can lack the confidence to challenge senior members of staff as they are not as comfortable discussing legal technicalities. Sir Wilshaw spoke of “stories about governing bodies nodding through wildly excessive remuneration packages for head teachers and lacking proper oversight of school finances”, which could compromise the efficiency and effectiveness of the school.
In addition, there are reports that governors focusing on issues that are more easily observed or evaluated in terms of quality, such as school lunches, uniforms or building maintenance. This is at the expense of issues such as student academic performance, the effectiveness of staff, school culture and legal compliance issues.
Recent scandals such as the “Trojan Horse schools” incidents in Birmingham have served to further damage the reputation of school governors. In those cases, the Guardian reports that several school governors were using their positions to insert their own political and religious agendas into schools. Five schools have been subject to special measures and may be incorporated into other local academies. The lack of oversight and the improper use of the role of governor led to calls for systemic reform of the school governance board system.
Most stakeholders agree that compulsory training would lead to a more effective system in which school governors will be better equipped to meet the demands of their role. Sir Wilshaw discusses the “goodwill and good intentions” of current school governors, but argues that they need expertise in school governance in order to have the ability to navigate the legal requirements of modern schools. In addition to training, other proposals include initiatives to improve the quality of candidates through targeting directors from the corporate sphere.
In Australia, the boards of non-government schools play a crucial role in the governance of a school. The need for individuals involved in the running of a school to be qualified is already acknowledged in New South Wales, which has introduced compulsory training for all “responsible persons”. However, training is just as relevant for schools in all States and Territories given the complicated nature of legal obligations that apply to schools. The difficulty of compliance faced by school staff was recently raised in the paper “The Challenges Faced by Non-Government Schools in Complying with a Complex Matrix of Ever-Changing Laws, Regulations and Regulatory Guidance“ presented by CompliSpace Director David Griffiths at the ANZELA Conference earlier this year. In the paper, Griffiths describes legal obligations as “an intricate web of obligations for schools that is in a constant state of flux.”
School boards face the challenge not only of complying with legal obligations, but identifying them in the first place. Obligations can be drawn from a myriad of legislation, regulations and best practice standards which are unique to the jurisdiction. In addition, there are regulations and recommendations drawn from the Not-For-Profit Compliance Regulations, Teacher Accreditation Authorities and various Departments of Education. This can be overwhelming for senior members of staff, let alone volunteers who lack specific training in the area. Griffiths argues that compliance also requires schools to “predict the likely impact of future changes and consider how to resource their compliance functions to continue to address their obligations in a sustainable manner”. This is an area that requires constant monitoring, as evidenced by the multiple changes to child protection laws across many jurisdictions as a result of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.
Given the importance of meeting legal obligations such as child protection or financial viability, a school board must ensure that they are meeting their legal obligations. All board members should research their obligations thoroughly and appreciate the importance of compliance, given that non-government schools often rely on excellent governance practices to maintain registration. Additional training, like that being proposed in the UK, would only serve to help school boards better understand and meet their responsibilities.