How can your board most effectively oversee the educational aspects of school life? asks Durrell Barnes

When reviewing governance, we are often asked to consider committee structures. People often expect this to be our starting point, but we tend to return to it at the end of the process when all other questions have been considered. Sometimes it is not what committees you have that’s important but how they are organised. This is not just procedural – concerning arrangements for agendas, minutes, papers and reports, but cultural – relating to how the focus is maintained at all levels on the strategic rather than the quotidian, how support and challenge are balanced, the nature of discourse (especially when disagreements arise), and how time looking forward exceeds time looking back. Once these ways of doing business are established, it’s easier to decide on what to label the different tributaries which flow into the governance river.

For many boards, a big challenge is how to ensure that the school’s principal activity – the education of young people – is properly monitored and overseen. One eminent and ancient independent school board has nine committees, none of which is an education committee (or similar), presumably on the basis that the education of the pupils is the concern of all governors so should already be dealt with by the whole board.

One traditional approach has been to have an academic committee and a pastoral committee and this has been a successful way of ensuring that these twin pillars of pupil experience receive equal attention. But as education is increasingly seen as a holistic process, the separation can seem simplistic, given the connections between academic and pastoral staff in dealing with pupil wellbeing, mental health and safeguarding. And often the separation causes elements to fall between the academic and pastoral stools: where does the co-curriculum fit in; what about the performing and creative arts and sport and physical education; is tutoring academic or pastoral; which group should oversee personal, social, health and economic education, and relationship and sex education; where do higher education and careers sit?

It is partly in order to reflect the holistic nature of the approach to pupils’ education that some schools have brought the monitoring of all aspects of education into a single subcommittee, usually called the education committee, but we increasingly encounter terms like pupil experience committee. This allows for governors to feel confident that all aspects of education are being monitored and overseen by a focused (and often in our schools very expert) group.

However, the problem can arise that there’s so much business to be conducted that full agendas supported by comprehensive reports result in busy meetings with limited scope for constructive discussion and little time for blue sky thinking. Mitigation is attempted through a comprehensive schedule of work, the clearest terms of reference, stretching objectives, reordering agenda items to ensure that the same issues are not always the ones to be squeezed out, providing templates for reports, and even chairs trying to establish key items for discussion ahead of or at the start of the meeting. Nonetheless, such committees are commonly the ones whose members feel that they never quite get to grips with really important issues, and think ahead about the needs of the school in five years’ time or longer.

One way to resolve the dilemma is to have academic, pastoral, co-curricular and perhaps safeguarding subcommittees of an overarching education committee. But it’s hard to believe that this will not lead to more duplication of reporting and discussions and yet more school leadership time taken up servicing and attending meetings.

We have encountered two schools where reflection on this has resulted in successful – and diametrically opposite – approaches. One disbanded its full education committee and created an academic committee alongside a safeguarding, pastoral and boarding committee. After some teething problems it ensured that all aspects of pupil experience featured in one or the other. The presence of the head and the board chair at both committees ensured that they did not go off in divergent directions, and (which in this school was key) the chair of the academic committee also served as the link governor for safeguarding and in that capacity also sat on the other group.

The other example brought together its academic and pastoral committees as a single education committee. After a while, it became clear that this was helping the school’s drive to bring together the academic and pastoral structures and functions of the school, but the committee became very overloaded and the demands on members in terms of preparation (and surviving long meetings) were excessive. This was alleviated by something which is uncommon in schools: increasing the number of meetings each year to three in person and two virtual meetings. However, members of this committee were not required to attend any other committees and so their load remained comparable to colleagues’.

These examples demonstrate that there is no perfect answer applicable to all schools. The key is to have the right structure in place for the challenges facing the school on the education front at this time rather than a structure which was suitable in the past.

Getting the right terms of reference (and, where appropriate, annual objectives) for committees is key. It’s important to have a matrix which lists:

• All aspects of the student experience (including, for example, the curriculum; academic results; provision for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities; pastoral; boarding; co-curricular provision and achievements; safeguarding; mental health and wellbeing; personal, social, health and economic education; relationship and sex education; transition to the next stage of education; and partnerships).
• All parts of the school (so, for example, sixth form, key stages 1-4, early years foundation stage).
• All related support functions (these could include library, IT support, archives, teaching assistants, aspects of HR).

• Key accountabilities (like the Independent School Standards Regulations, the National Minimum Standards for boarding schools, the early years foundation stage statutory framework, the Independent Schools Inspectorate framework sections, public examination results, destinations of leavers).

These must all sit within committees with arrangements for meetings and procedures which will enable all to be fully monitored and overseen without dominating procedures so much that there’s no room for thinking about the future rather than focusing on the past.

That can require some procedural arrangements which will facilitate the conduct of business. A schedule of work should ensure that each aspect is allocated sufficient time at the appropriate stage of the year. Agendas should make clear the purpose of each item. The content of reports should be agreed by the committee chair and the relevant senior leader – be ready for some disagreement about this as senior leaders often want to showcase the hard work of their colleagues. Committee chairs are likely to be more concerned about where governors can assist in bringing about improvement than hearing in detail about repeated successes. Sometimes the quality of reports can be improved by having a title – perhaps in the form of a question – to focus the mind. For example, rather than ‘Public examinations report’, why not ‘Are results in line with the strategic plan?’; or instead of ‘Co-curricular report’, try ‘How far do co-curricular activities promote the aims and values of the school?’

Minutes should act as an aide-mémoire for inspection purposes, as well as acting as the official record. Chairs need to be able to ensure the right balance of support and challenge in monitoring and oversight and that sufficient time is given to thinking ahead.

The new Independent Schools Inspectorate inspection framework serves to assist governors by making it clear that the purpose of self-evaluation, required (in the shape of a self-evaluation form) under the last few inspection frameworks, is not simply to impress the inspectors. What it’s looking for is evidence that governance is characterised by development planning in line with the aims of the school and its culture based on careful reflection on school procedures and pupil outcomes. Therefore, it’s essential that governors overseeing and monitoring the educational aspects of the school are not just interrogating data but can do so based on their observation of the pupil experience by visiting the school, and hearing the voices of pupils, staff and parents (increasingly through surveys).

A final ingredient, of course, is who sits on these committees, however they are constituted. With the wide range of skills and expertise required on boards these days, it’s not uncommon for a board to have no more than two members who have direct experience of school leadership. This is easily compensated for when boards include experience in other key areas like safeguarding, wellbeing, physical and mental health, and of course many governors bring a perspective as former pupils, as parents, and especially as employers of young people. While there is no ideal number of governors with school experience, boards do benefit greatly from having a current senior practitioner. Many are fortunate to have former heads who can offer both expertise and time, but fewer are lucky enough to have a serving head – who may not have as much time to give as they would like. Deputy heads are no time richer, but they have an incentive to serve on boards to gain experience of governance as they develop their own careers.

Most importantly, committees monitoring and overseeing educational provision need to include people with appropriate characteristics, regardless of their experience. I wouldn’t dare to suggest a comprehensive list, but I would think these should include attention to detail alongside the ability to see the bigger picture, respect for expertise but suspicion of jargon and fads, high standards as well as empathy, curiosity and open-mindedness, interest in young people and an understanding of the realities of the world they will live and work in as adults – and a sense of wonder at what school leaders, teachers and pupils can achieve together with direction and encouragement from an ambitious and self-reflective board.

Durell Barnes is head of governance at RSAcademics

Durell Barnes