For those of you who have been involved in the governance or leadership of schools for several years, you will be aware of the ever-increasing level of responsibility being imposed on school governing bodies by regulators. Registration language, for example has moved from terms such as “obligations” to “responsibility” and now, more recently, to the “accountability of the governing body”.

This should not be considered to be a bad thing. Governing bodies of schools are ultimately accountable for the safety of all students and staff and, through the principal, for the education of the children. They are also accountable for enterprise risk management, finances, teaching and learning facilities and, above all, for being the drivers of school culture.

In addition, if a governing body is governing effectively, then a substantial portion of their time will be spent on strategic planning and strategic issues such as developing, reviewing, communicating and monitoring the implementation of their strategic goals and strategic risks including:

• monitoring the performance of the principal and the governing body
• having a strategic plan and monitoring the implementation of the plan
• understanding their school’s educational service and being aware of the latest educational research to leverage the opportunities that they present
• monitoring and articulating the school culture and ethos.

These issues have not been missed by the regulators. They are looking closely at the accountability of school governing bodies in relation to these specific issues and others. These are not matters that any school governing body should leave to chance.

What are the Change Drivers?

The school regulators in each state and territory are adding to the governance requirements and spelling out in much more detail the responsibilities and accountabilities of school governing bodies.

The regulators now clearly articulate that it is the governing body’s responsibility to govern the school effectively and will hold a governing body accountable if there are failings at a school level. The requirements ‘around the grounds’ are set out below:

• New South Wales independent schools are required to have structures, policies, procedures and systems in place for the “proper governance” of the school. According to NESA, the “responsible persons” for a non-government school, as defined by the Education Act 1990 (NSW), are accountable for proper governance of the school and for meeting this requirement.
• In Western Australia Section 160(1)(f) of the School Education Act 1999 (WA) sets out four of the matters for which the governing body must be ultimately accountable:
  1. development and implementation of an effective strategic direction for the school;
  2. development and implementation of effective processes to plan for, monitor and achieve improvements in student learning;
  3. effective management of the school’s financial resources in accordance, where relevant, with any purposes for which they were provided; and
  4. compliance with all written and other laws that apply to and in respect of the school and the operation of the school.
• In Victoria the proprietor must structure the governance of a school to enable the effective development of the strategic direction of the school, the effective management of the finances of the school, and to ensure that the school fulfils its legal obligations.
• In Queensland the governing body must be suitable and must have a governance structure to enable it to carry out the functions of the governing body in the governance of the school.
• In Tasmania the governing body has responsibility for the standard of education to be delivered at the school, the strategic direction of the school and the overall management of the school’s finances and the management of the school’s principal.
• In South Australia the school is accountable for a safe, legal and financially viable operation and must have corporate governance arrangements in place to meet these accountability requirements.
• In the Northern Territory, schools must have governing bodies that are bodies corporate, whose directors are persons of good character and between them possess the skills and experience necessary for the proper administration of the school. The school’s methods of governance must be appropriate to its education programs and its students.
• The Australian Capital Territory is the only state or territory not to specify governance-related requirements for its non-government schools.

In addition to the requirements of the regulators, there have also been increased legislative regulation requirements such as changes to the Corporations Act (Cth) in relation to whistleblowing and the governance requirements of the ACNC. The recent ‘Banking Royal Commission’ and the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse have also highlighted inadequacies in governing body oversight and other governance failures.

Finally, and of equal significance, general community expectations are rising with parents and carers frequently asking questions such as “why didn’t the board do this?” or “why has the board done nothing about this?”’ and so on, especially when something goes wrong. The community also has expectation that schools will run in a more corporate and accountable manner rather than the way they may have been run in years gone by. Many schools are yet to fully understand that one of the key objectives of any school governing body should be to maintain the highest possible standards of organisational governance.

What are the Issues that have Resulted from these Changes?

All of this context leads to the following issues for schools:

• there is an increasing need to find people to join school governing bodies with a commercial/corporate board governance experience and expertise and to bring this to the school
• unlike corporate organisations, it is generally acknowledged that non-government school governing body roles are volunteer roles
• not as many people want to be on school governing bodies due to the legal responsibilities (for example, WHS/OHS/OSH issues) and other similar onerous accountabilities.

Being a member of a not-for-profit non-government school governing body should be more than a line on a CV or perhaps used for social media kudos. People who volunteer as governing body members now face rigorous scrutiny regarding their skills and capabilities and their ‘fit’ with the school’s ethos, mission and values. They must also meet stringent child safe requirements in some states and territories, for example being Blue Card holders in Queensland.

As a result of the ever-increasing requirements regarding governing body member capabilities and the increasing scrutiny and accountability, good quality school governing body members are not easy to find.

What Should Schools Be Doing?

School governing bodies are ordinarily structured on the basis of the school constitution and the rules of association or incorporation. The constitution sets out the expected numbers, roles and responsibilities of this body. The constitution may indicate, for example, that there must be one or two parent representatives. Some constitutions also provide direction on the inclusion of alumni ex-students and the qualifications required of a board treasurer or secretary.

Some state and territory regulators are now reviewing school board composition and are including regulatory guidelines within their documentation for school registration and compliance. For example, in Western Australia, in the Guide to The Registration Standards And Other Requirements For Non-Government Schoolsit states: “In assessing fitness and propriety, the Director General will also consider the skills, experience and qualifications the members bring to their governing body roles. As they must be fit and proper persons to operate a school, it is expected that the governing body will include people not only with business-related skills but also with experience, skills or qualifications in an education field”.

Schools, therefore, should:

1. Ensure that their current governing body members have skills that are suitable for their role.
2. Ensure that there is a balance of skills across the whole governing body that enables them to fulfil their governance role to the best of their collective ability.
3. Provide professional development to their governing body members. Once again, using WA as the example, there is a requirement that “Specific knowledge related to school governance may, alternatively or in addition, be acquired by undertaking professional development and participating in appropriate training.” In NSW, NESA has a similar requirement.
4. Develop and implement strategic succession plans that reduce the very real risk of having either an underperforming governing body, or one that is depleted in numbers and struggling to meet their obligations, responsibility and accountability.

A school’s governing body is no longer a group that meets once a month and argues about the budget or maybe changes to the school uniform. They are more accountable than ever for their decisions and how they govern their school.

When a school is well-governed the whole school community benefits - students are safer, staff are happier, educational outcomes improve, community confidence increases, and the reputation of the school is enhanced.

About the Authors

Jonathan Oliver

Jonathan is a Principal Consultant working with CompliSpace education clients. He has more than 10 years experience in the school sector as a teacher, compliance and legal adviser and more recently as a Business Manager. Jonathan has been a solicitor for nearly 30 years and worked in both private practice and community legal centres.

Craig D'cruz

With 37 years of educational experience, Craig D’cruz is the National Education Lead at CompliSpace. Craig provides direction on education matters including new products, program/module content and training. Previously Craig held the roles of Industrial Officer at the Association of Independent Schools of WA, he was the Principal of a K-12 non-government school, Deputy Principal of a systemic non-government school and he has had teaching and leadership experience in both the independent and Catholic school sectors. Craig currently sits on the board of a large non-government school and is a regular presenter on behalf of CompliSpace and other educational bodies on issues relating to school governance, school culture and leadership.