the accountability of school governing bodies.docx

7/30/2019 The Accountability of School Governing Bodies.docx

1/18

The Accountability of School Governing

Bodies

Catherine M. Farrell and Jennifer Law

,

University of Glamorgan Business School, Pontypridd CF37 1DL, tel. (01443)482308, email = [email protected].

Paper delivered at the British Educational Research Association AnnualConference September 1997

No part of this paper may be reproduced or cited without permission.

The Accountability of School Governing Bodies

Abstract

The notion of accountability has been central to the reforms which have been

introduced in education since the Education Reform Act 1988. Governmentreforms have devolved key responsibilities from local education authorities to

governing bodies within schools in England and Wales. Whilst these bodies are

now accountable for many aspects of education provision, it is not clear how thisworks in practice. The aim of the paper is to identify the nature of the

accountability of school governing bodies. The research will involve interviews

with members of a range of these bodies to determine both how they perceivethemselves to be accountable and how it operates in reality. Conclusions are drawn

on the nature and effectiveness of governing body accountability.

Key words: accountability, school governing bodies.

Introduction

Since the early 1980s there have been major changes in the governance ofeducation. One of the most important reforms was the devolution of a number of

responsibilities from the Local Education Authority (LEA) to individual school

governing bodies. The aim of these changes was "to put governing bodies andheadteachers under the greater pressure of public accountability, for better

standards and to increase their freedom....It is that combination of unpaid but

increasingly experienced governors and senior professional staff that is best placedto identify what is required" (DES, 1992:18). The clear assumption in this

statement is that governing bodies would be better able, both to manage and be

accountable than LEAs. This paper concentrates on the issue of governing bodyaccountability and provides an initial analysis of the perceptions and practice of


2/18

governing body accountability. Who do governors feel accountable to and how

does this operate in practice?

Section one examines the legal changes in the accountability of governing bodies.Section two analyses the concept of educational accountability and in section three

we examine the evidence on the operation of governing body accountability.Section four presents the findings from our research. These are evaluated in sectionfive. Conclusions are drawn on the nature and effectiveness of governing body

accountability.

I. Legislative Reform

The Education Act 1980 made it compulsory for each school in England and Walesto have a governing body. Before the Act, governing bodies did not exist in all

schools. The legislation also established the need to include parental and teacherrepresentation on each body. Tomlinson (1993) argues that this legislation wasdriven partly by a desire to promote local accountability in schools. Two further

pieces of legislation greatly reformed governing bodies - the 1986 and 1988Education Acts. The 1986 Act changed the constitution of governing bodies and the

1988 legislation significantly empowered them and enhanced their role. The

reconstituted governing bodies allowed a greater role for individuals, such as thoseinvolved in business and industry and parents. This meant a reduced LEA and tradeunion representation on governing bodies. In terms of representation, parents and

co-opted interests have numerical dominance on governing bodies. Both parent and

teacher representatives are elected with additional members co-opted to the body.The membership of governing bodies is determined by a broad formula related to

the enrolment number of a school. The 1986 Act also made it a requirement for

Governors publish an annual report and to arrange a meeting of all parents. Beckett

et al (1991:98) argues that the purpose of both of these initiatives was the drive toenhance accountability: "to provide a forum of accountability for the governing

body, the head and the LEA, to make each of the partners in managing the school

accountable to parents for their stewardship of it". The Education Act 1988, andsubsequent legislative reform, empowered governing bodies in relation to themanagement of individual schools. School governing bodies now have extensive

powers in relation to the admission and exclusion of pupils, budgetary

responsibilities, hiring and firing of staff and the determination of headteachersalary levels. The governing bodies of GM schools have further powers since they

are the official employer of those working within the school.

School governing bodies have legal responsibilities to LEAs, Inspection authoritiesand to parents. In relation to LEAs, governors are legally obliged to provide the

LEA (and the Secretary of State) with any relevant information or reports about its

school and the work of the governing body that the LEA requires. A written

statement of its aims for the curriculum and of any modification to the LEA'spolicy has to be provided (Welsh Office 1993). It must report to the LEA details


3/18

about the number of children have exceptions from the curriculum and those who

have special educational needs. Governors must also provide the LEA with theirpolicy on sex education and the arrangements within the school for collective

worship. The governing body is financially responsible to the LEA for its decisionsrelating to expenditure within the school and for keeping accurate accounts.

Accurate attendance registers must also be kept and where pupil attendance is low,

the governing body are obliged to report this to the LEA.

Following the Education (Schools) Act 1992, governors also have responsibilities

within the area of school inspection. In general, governing bodies are responsiblefor the provision of relevant information to inspection authorities, for the

distribution of the inspection report to parents and for taking appropriate actionfollowing the inspection. Parents must be informed of the inspection arrangements

and be invited to a meeting with the school inspection team.

Governing bodies are also obliged to provide specific information to parents. These

demands are the provision of a prospectus and an annual report. The prospectusmust include details relating to the curriculum policy of the school and complaints

procedures, for example. The annual report includes information relating to themembership of the Governing Body, the election of parent governor information,

financial information, examination and performance details. The governing body

must also hold an annual meeting for parents. The governors are responsible forconducting the meeting. It provides the forum for parents to discuss specificquestions and concerns arising from the annual report and to raise other issues

about the school with the governors.

Governing body accountability is a two way process. In addition to its

accountability to the LEA and to parents, the headteacher is accountable to the

governing body. The headteacher must supply the governing body with anyrelevant information which it requests. Headteachers, entitled to attend allmeetings, are usually a full member of the governing body. Each meeting of the

governing body will normally include the headteacher's report to governors.

II. The Concept of Accountability

Accountability is recognised to be a complex and difficult concept (Day and Klein1987). A simple description is that to be accountable is to be required to explain or

justify ones actions or behaviour. Hence the concept of accountability is closely

connected to responsibility, as those who have been given responsibilities are askedto account for their performance. Stewart (1984:15) suggests that accountability ismade up of two parts, the 'element of account' and the 'holding to account'. The

element of account is the "need for information, including the right to question, anddebate that information as a basis for forming judgements". In giving an account of

performance, information is provided which may be verbal or written, formal orinformal and may or may not be governed by strict rules. However, accountability


4/18

involves more than simply giving an account. The information will be evaluated,

performance assessed and if it is not satisfactory then action may be taken. Thecapacity for action and potential to impose sanctions is what Stewart (1984) calls

the element of holding to account. Dunsire (1978:41) also argues that this isimportant "the answer when given, or the account when rendered, is to be evaluated

by the superior body, measured against some standard or some expectation, and the

difference noted; and then praise or blame to be meted out or sanctions applied. Itis the coupling of information with its evaluation and application of sanctions thatgives 'accountability' or 'answerability' or 'responsibility' their full sense is ordinary

organisational usage". One of the pre-requisites of effective accountability is that

those given responsibility know whom they are responsible to, and for what aspectof performance. Similarly, those who delegate authority know whom to hold to

account. Stewart (1984:16) argues that "the relationship of accountability,

involving both the account and the holding to account can be analysed as a bond

linking the one who accounts and is held to account, to the one who holds toaccount. For accountability to be clear and enforceable the bond must be clear". Inaddition to clarity there also needs to be agreement on the process and content of

the account. Day and Klein (1987:5) state that accountability "presupposesagreement both about what constitutes an acceptable performance and about thelanguage of justification to be used by actors in defending their conduct".

Accountability is straightforward in circumstances when a simple task has been

delegated to an individual however, it becomes more difficult when the services ortasks are complex and greater numbers of individuals are involved. As public

services have become more complex political accountability appears to work lesswell. Political accountability operates when the general public hold their

representatives to account for their performance. For this model of accountability towork, those representatives must be able to hold the service deliverers to account.However, this is difficult in services which are provided by professionals, as their

organisational power enables them to resist attempts to measure the outputs of

services provided (Day and Klein 1987).

There are a number of models of accountability in education developed in the

literature, which specify who is accountable, to whom and for what aspect of

performance (for example Kogan 1986, Ranson 1986). Whilst there is an implicitrole for the governing body in some of these models, none of them fully considerhow the governing body as a whole, or the individuals within it are to be

accountable. The table below provides a summary of these models.

Table 1. Models of Educational Accountability


5/18

The professional model emphasises accountability for the process of education.

This is generally secured through accounting to other professionals through such

mechanisms as self-evaluation and inspections. Whilst there are some professionalson the governing body, the emphasis is the professional model is on accountability

'sideways' to other professionals, rather than upwards to the governing body. In the

contractual model, accountability is exercised through the hierarchy, through thecontract of employment and the democratic process. The education reforms since

1988 have devolved many responsibilities from LEAs down the hierarchy togoverning bodies, so accountability through the democratic process has been

reduced. The governing body forms part of the education hierarchy, but it is unclearwho they account to and what mechanisms they use. Recent ConservativeGovernments have introduced a market approach to accountability. This hasinvolved an emphasis on accountability for results to the consumers, who are given

the opportunity to take their custom elsewhere. In this model, the governing bodyaccounts to its customers through information on examination results and truancy

rates. The final model is public accountability. This method of accounting stressesthe role of parents and the wider community in determining the purpose and

process of schooling. The emphasis is on citizens, rather than consumers and

mutual accountability and partnership between the groups involved (Ranson, 1986;Sallis, 1988). The governing body may be involved in stimulating this parental andcommunity involvement.

III. The Accountability of Governing Bodies

There is little evidence from the literature about the effectiveness of the practice of

school governing body accountability, or the perceptions of the individuals who areaccountable. There is a suggestion however, that "governing bodies are not

particularly accountable" (Deem et al 1995:38). Many, (for example, Levacic, 1995

and Boyett and Finlay, 1996), argue that recent Conservative Governments havepromoted an approach in which the school governing body fits a model of


6/18

accountability of a board of directors. Boyett and Finlay (1996:32) suggest that "in

this instance however the 'shareholders' were depicted as the parents. Just likecompany boards, governing bodies were now required to produce an annual report

for their 'shareholders' and to hold an annual general meeting, where the governorswere visibly accountable to the parents for their actions over the previous year". In

practice however, official guidance to school governors can be confusing. The

Department for Education and Employment included a fairly wide definitionarguing that governing bodies are "accountable to those who established and fundthe school and also to parents and the wider local community for the way it carries

out its functions" (DfEE 1996:5). In contrast, the Audit Commission and OFSTED

(1995:4) focuses only on parents, describing the accountability of governing bodiesas "making sure that parents are kept informed about what is happening in the

school and that their views are taken into account".

Levacic (1995) argues that the government expectations of governing bodies fit theaccountable model provided by Kogan et al (1984). The accountable model is

based on the premise that the governing body exists to control the activities of theschool. Accountability is a central feature of this type of governing body -accountability to all those who have an interest in the school and its activities.

There is a perception amongst governors that they have an obligation to account for

the way in which the school is performing. Mechanisms of accountability, such asthe annual report, are stressed by this type of governing body. The chair of the

governing body has a crucial role in securing consensus amongst all individualgovernors - chair acts as a de facto Chief Executive of the school. A close and

trusting relationship with the headteacher is essential. Kogan et al (1984) providethree other models of governing bodies: the advisory, the supportive and themediating governing body.

In the advisory model, the purpose of the governing body is to "provide a forum in

which school activities are reported to the laity and tested against their ideas aboutwhat the school should be doing" (Kogan et al 1984:151). For the role of thegoverning body to be effective, the governors must have the authority to be able to

call the school to account. The school, through the headteacher, is obliged to

inform the governing body of its actions and the reasons behind them. The views ofthe governors must be considered in the school's operation. As argued by Kogan et

al (1984:151) "there must be a degree of give-and-take, for an advisory relationship

rapidly becomes meaningless if the advice is never taken". According to Kogan etal (1984), the advisory governing body is professionally led. The supportive model,

whilst centred on the activities of the school, is outward in terms of influencing the

activities of other bodies. Its purpose is to "provide support for the school in its

relationship with other institutions and interests in the local educational system"(p.155). In this model, the school provides an account to the governors, rather than

being called to account. Kogan et al (1984) argues that the governors are likely to

be involved in areas such as resources availability or management problems, ratherthan professional matters, eg. school objectives. The mediating model is based on


7/18

the premise that there are a number of different interests which have a stake in

education. Each of these interests is valuable and has a vital role in the governingbody. It does not specifically consider how accountability may operate.

Levacic's (1994) study of the models indicates that none of the eleven governing

bodies researched operated wholly on the basis of the accountable model. Itsapplication was dependent on the personalities of individual governors. Theadvisory and supportive models were more applicable within the context of the

governing bodies under review. These findings are consistent with those of Burgess

et al's (1992) study of resource allocation in nine Sheffield schools. Governors wereonly actively involved in resource allocation in one of these schools. Levacic

(1995:30) argues that the "apparent rarity of the governing body performing amajor accountability role is related to the absence in schools of a fully developed

rational approach to resource management". Whilst these models are useful for

analysing the role of the governing body, they provide little evidence on bothgiving and being held to account

Giving an account

The governing body as a whole is obliged by legislation to give an account of the

performance of the school. As section 1 of this paper indicates, governing bodiesare required to provide information to parents, the LEA, central government, andthe Office of Her Majesty's Inspectorate (OHMCI) inspectors. However, who do

they feel accountable to? Governors in Warwickshire identified a range of groups.

These included "the head and all staff, to the parents, the local community, localemployers, other schools in the area, to the individual governors constituencies, the

parish or diocesan authority and most strongly (although they did not think of it

first) the children" (Beckett et al 1991:101). Apart from this, there has been little

research conducted on who governors feel accountable to.

How does accountability operate in practice? The vast majority of evidence on this

issue concentrates on governing body accountability to parents. The mainmechanism of accountability to parents is the annual report of the governing body

and the annual meeting to discuss its content. Beckett et al (1991:98) state that the"legislation clearly indicates however that in the governors' annual meeting and

report it is the governing body who will take the lead". Levacic (1995:39) argues

that generally these are poorly attended by parents unless a special effort is madeby the governors. The Audit Commission and OFSTED (1995) also recognise this

problem and suggest ways in which annual reports and meetings can be improved

in order to enhance parental accountability. In the joint Audit Commission andOFSTED (1995) report, the emphasis is clearly on accountability to parents for the

school's performance.

In addition to accounting collectively, individual governors may also give anaccount to the 'constituencies' they represent. Kogan et al (1984) found that each


8/18

governor knew what category of governor they were, but held differing views on

representing their constituents. Parent governors found it difficult to representparents, and many tried to give information and be in touch with parents through

PTA meetings, parents evenings and talking to parents at the school gate. Teachergovernors found it easier to represent their constituents as "findings could rapidly

be taken, or meetings called, if a matter arose in which a teacher governor felt the

need to canvass the views of his colleagues" (Kogan et al 1984:136). Whilstnominated or co-opted governors were aware that part of their role wasrepresentation, Kogan et al (1984) found that they had "surrendered their interest by

joining the governing body, and were concerned only to use their affiliations and

experience to support or advise the other governors and the school" (1984:137).

Holding to account

Clearly giving information, what Stewart (1984) calls the element of account, is notthe only aspect of accountability. There is also the holding to account. Deem et al

(1995:166) argue that "..few mechanisms are in place to make elected or selectedgovernors accountable to those whose interests they represent". The sanctions of

being removed from the governing body had not been used for parent, teacher orco-opted governors in their study. Levacic similarly (1995:30) states that there is an

absence of "hotly contested elections" in the majority of schools. Hence few

governors will have sanctions imposed.

In order for the governing body to give an account, they need to be able to hold the

headteacher to account for the performance of the school. Day and Klein (1987)found that this link was not evident in their study of LEA accountability. Members

of the LEA felt they had little control over what happened in schools, but, despite

this, were still accountable for it. The shift in responsibilities in the 1980s may

mean simply that this problem has moved from the LEA to the governing body.One of the pre-requisites of holding to account is information to judge

performance. Research (for example, Deem et al, 1995) suggests that governors

find it difficult to obtain information, apart from that given to them by theprofessionals. Most, apart from the chair, spend very little time in the school, andthose visits that they do make are largely concerned with school buildings

maintenance (Deem and Brehony 1993). Much of the information they receive

therefore comes from those who they need to hold to account.

In summary, research suggests that many governors find it difficult to give an

account, both collectively aand individually. Few of them will be held to account.

In addition, the absence of 'objective' information and their lack of power suggeststhat they will find it difficult to hold the professionals to account.

IV. Research Findings


9/18

This research is concerned with both the perceptions and practice of governing

body accountability. The views and perceptions of governors are crucial. AsSinclair (1995:233) argues "accountability is not independent of the person

occupying a position of responsibility, nor of the context. Defining accountability,the way it is internalised and experienced should be our focus". Gray and Jenkins

(1985) similarly argue that insufficient attention has been paid to how and why

accountability has been exercised. The evidence presented in this paper was gainedfrom interviews with a range of governing body members in five primary andsecondary schools within one LEA in a valleys authority in S. Wales. Of the

schools, the two primary schools have 238 and 311 pupils and the secondary

schools have 1092, 1295 and 1430 pupils enrolled. The schools were randomlyselected from within the authority. Recognising that there are "many ideological,

social, political and educational interests" operating within governing bodies,

(Deem and Brehony, 1993:343), an attempt was made to interview a member from

each of the main groups on each governing body: the headteacher, chair, teacherrepresentatives, parents, LEAs and co-opted members. However, whilst this wasnot always possible due to individual availability, a range of governors from each

school have been interviewed. The views and perceptions of 27 governors form thebasis of this research. It is the intention of the researchers to extend this initialstudy to include the views and perceptions of a greater number of governors. The

interviews took place during 1996/1997 academic year.

Giving an account of performance is clearly an important aspect of accountability.The governors in our study identified a range of groups to which they were

accountable, but the most common view was that they were accountable to parents.For example, a co-opted governor stated that they felt that "accountability has to beto parents to start with, but also there's public accountability involved and its

channelled through the local authorities, so there's accountability there. So I think

at the end of the day, it's go to be parents". Some felt that they were accountable toa group, that was wider than this, that is "the people within the catchment area of

the school...especially the parents. And I suppose they act as the voice of thechildren". The view of all of the parent governors was that the governing body was

accountable to parents. One, for example, felt that accountability "was to the

parents. It's really them we're working for aren't we?".

There were mixed feelings about the accountability relationship with the LEA.

Most of the interviewees argued that governing bodies were still accountable to theLEA. For example, one Head said that "I think we are answerable to the LEA, the

Director of Education, although there are some aspects of responsibility where the

governing body has responsibility to work within rules...as I said we are

responsible to the LEA for certain things, but ultimately we are responsible toparents". One teacher articulated the sanctions that the LEA has when asked whothe governing body was accountable to: "at the end of the day this is the authority's

school, educating the pupils of the authority, and at the end of the day if thegoverning body does not do its job right or is seen to be failing, then the Director of


10/18

Education obviously has the right to take back the school under direct control of the

authority". Similarly a co-opted governor, stated that they were accountable "to theLEA. Obviously we are still part, as it is an LEA school, and accountable to at the

end of the day". Some others omitted this level of government, stating that theywere accountable to central government. They felt that they were "accountable to

the Secretary of State for Wales. I don't know what the relationship between the

governing body and the LEA is". Another teacher governor felt that governingbodies "are answerable to the government ultimately I suppose, the people whofund schools".

Other governors felt that there was no clear sense of accountability to the LEA. For

example, one argued that "I don't see a great stress on the accountability towardsthe LEA...I don't see the relationship being one of accountable to the LEA as daft

as it may seem. I think accountability lies with the children, with the students in the

school to ensure that it is a well run school". Another governor reversed theaccountability of the governing body to the LEA to one of the accountability of the

LEA to the governing body. He argued that "if we feel strongly about the way theLEA is acting on a particular matter, then we'll have no qualms about asking theclerk (of the governors) to write a letter expressing our views".

Many of the governors felt that the governing body was not directly accountable to

inspectors. One co-opted member argued, for example that "I don't think we areanswerable to the outside inspectors. We're accountable to parents, yes, definitelyand any criticisms or advice given in the inspectors report, we are answerable to

them to put that right, to the benefit of the parents and the children". One teachergovernor felt that following an inspection "changes started to happen, then we wereall into the accountability stuff and the business people coming in and saying, well

this isn't good enough you know...and there were strong feelings from business

ends certainly, about a certain department which wasn't working and had not been

working since the time of the inspection before and nothing had been done aboutit". Another teacher governor felt that the governing body was only accountablewhen things went wrong. She argued that "I'm not sure they (governing bodies) are

accountable to anybody, unless of course something goes wrong and then they are

accountable to whoever it is". A chair felt that "there has to be some accountabilityto them (parents) because if there is a mistake that is going to be made, then it's the

parents, who are most likely to question decisions that are made".

Some governors also felt that the governing body were also accountable to those

living in the catchment area, not just to the parents. There was a feeling that schools

had to reflect the values of the community and to ensure support for their activities.For example, one teacher governor highlighted the issue of school uniform

purchase and the recommendation made by the governing body that these should be

purchased from a particular local outlet. This decision was taken on the basis of the

school's desire to be community-based.


11/18

Governors also felt individually accountable. Different constituencies of governors

tended to give different views about this. Co-opted members, in general, were morelikely to be unsure who they were accountable to. For example, one co-opted

member argued that "quite where my accountability fits into this, as a co-optedmember, I'm not sure, unless it's to my party (Labour) in this particular case".

Another co-opted member felt that he was not accountable: "I have never felt

accountable and I have never felt part of the decision making process". Others feltaccountable, to some extent, to those who had co-opted them. The perception wasthat this was because of their expertise. As one member argued "well, obviously I

am co-opted by the main governing body. I assume as there are five of us who are

co-opted they want us for some expertise...So, yes accountable to the governingbody who co-opted me".

Teacher governors all felt individually accountable to their fellow teachers. Many

sought the views of staff over some items on the agenda and reported back aftergovernors meetings. This tended to be done formally when there were particularly

contentious issues, such as the proposal to consider GM status, and was not aregular event. One teacher explained that "If I see anything coming up and I knowthe staff are going to be up in arms about it, then I call a meting of staff and say

'look this is coming up, what tactic do you want us to take?' We represent the staff I

suppose, but we are not actually delegates, we don't go there because of the staff,and we can vote whichever way we want". Another teacher felt very clearly that his

role was to represent the staff: "individually I am responsible to the members ofstaff because they have elected me and as such they can also de-select or throw me

out or have a vote-of-no-confidence, or what-have-you."

Whilst teacher governors felt accountable to colleagues in the workplace, parent

governors, in contrast, did not feel that they could possibly be held accountable by

all parents in a school. They regarded their role as one of providing support to the

school and to assist with the provision of "a good education for both my childrenand others". There was a view amongst other governors that, at least initially, some

parents acted on an individual basis on the governing body. A co-opted governor

argued that a parent "came with a very vested interest in his boys reaching A levels.

I think parent governors tend to be initially into that. But once they get in, they dobegin to see the wider view of resources that need to be in place".

At an individual level, LEA governors did not feel accountable to the LEA. One

member argued "I have been appointed and they leave me to it". Another, when

asked whether she felt accountable to the LEA responded simply "not as yet". LEA

members typically felt that their input into school governing bodies was concernedwith both the provision of information relating to new legislation and initiativesand also one of information feedback to the LEA.

Few of the governors felt that the annual meeting was an effective mechanism ofaccountability. The meeting, which provides the forum for discussion of the annual


12/18

report, is attended by only a few parents in any of the schools. One governor stated,

"you get ten parents turning up and you've got twenty governors there". Anothersaid that "the attendance will be appalling, but then equally we don't make any

attempt to make it more fun. The agenda is a standard one for all schools and isextraordinarily boring". Many felt that a low turnout at the meeting was an

indication that parents were happy with the school, so for example, "I feel it is a

compliment because they trust the school".

In all schools, apart from one in our study, the preparation and writing of the annual

report and the school prospectus was done by the head and others within the schooland then passed to governors for comments and amendments. One governing body

had a small PR sub-committee to take charge of it and the chair commented that"this year we have made a conscious effort to try and write more of it (the annual

report) ourselves and take some of the work off the school, although it is not a

perfect way of working, but we take responsibility for getting it printed anddelivered". One headteacher highlighted that the annual report for her school

included the information which it is legally obliged to contain and as such it is "notvery user friendly to parents, it's not that they do not understand it, but theterminology is not user friendly". This particular school is committed to examining

the presentation and content of the report in order to make it more appealing and

attractive for parents.

Informal mechanisms of accountability also operated in all schools. These includedschool newsletters, reports of success in the local media and informal meetings

with governors. One parent governor, for example, typically stated the she wasfrequently approached by other parents when she goes to the school to pick up herchildren. In one of the schools, the governing body have met with student

representatives of the sixth form in order to put forward their ideas. These informal

mechanisms of accountability are widely considered to be effective by individual

governors.

None of those governors interviewed could recall any governor not being re-elected, or any co-opted governor being removed from office. The only case ofgovernors being removed from office was the case of the chair of one governing

body, who was deselected as chair, as he had been one of the main instigators of a

failed move for grant maintained status. Whilst not a deselection, a governor at oneof the schools involved in this research actually withdrew herself from the

governing body of another institution because she did not feel that she was "doing

any good there. I feel that the chair is weak and not in control and I don't want to be

associated with the decisions that are coming out of that governing body".

Few of the governors felt that their role was to hold the headteacher to account for

the performance of the school. Most described the operation of the governing body

as the headteacher putting forward ideas and these being discussed. One describedthis as "the governing body questions most things. Not in terms of opposing what is


13/18

proposed very often, but just seeking further information. Very often it is a

consensus, but nothing goes through on the nod, the head or ourselves as staffcertainly couldn't put anything over their heads" (teacher governor). Whilst some

governors felt that the headteacher was in control, the majority of governors feltthat they were involved in the school and its management. Most felt that whilst the

headteacher and the senior management team were responsible for the day-to-day

running of the school, they, as governors, were responsible for setting policy.However, some did not agree with this. When one teacher was asked whether shethought management or the governing body establish strategy, she replied "No, I

think the Head does everything...Its the Head who comes in and says 'well look, we

must discuss these, this is the agenda' (for the governing body)". Another said thattheir role was "essentially to review and monitor performance in resources terms,

performance terms, that's how I perceive it".

The majority of governors got all their information from the Head. One governorstated that "most of the information we get is from the Head, in fact I can't think of

anything that isn't". Some governors visited the school, but on an occasional basis.One headteacher stated that "governors have not been involved in any classroomobservation or anything like that, but certainly visits to the school to discuss

various aspects of school life". All the secondary school governing bodies analysed

examination results, and one governor said that "we created hell last year becausethe examination results were so low". In general, headteachers' did not encourage

governors to visit schools uninvited.

V. Responsibility and Accountability?

School governing bodies have been allocated new responsibilities as a result of the

educational reforms. To what extent are they accountable for the exercise of these

responsibilities ? Accountability involves both the element of account and theholding to account. With respect to the element of account, governing bodies areexpected to provide information to a number of interests on the performance of a

school/institution. In order for accountability to operate effectively, the informationmust be evaluated and appropriate action taken in response. This research hasfocused on how individuals on governing bodies perceive the accountability of the

governing body. The majority of governors feel that the governing body is

accountable to parents in the first instance and to a lesser extent the LEA. A fewgovernors also highlighted accountability to those living within the catchment area

as a whole. Whilst not feeling directly accountable to the inspection authorities,

governors perceived themselves to be accountable for the performance of the

school indicated in an inspection report.

Governors were clear about their accountability to parents. In contrast, there was

less clarity about their accountability to the LEA. The widespread awareness

amongst governors that their powers over school management have been enhancedappears to have affected their perception of the accountability relationship to the


14/18

LEA. Apart from having a general perception that the school must operate within

legal and financial requirements, the vast majority of governors were unawareabout what governing bodies actually account to the LEA for, and the way in which

this operated. Headteacher governors were much more aware of their accountabilityobligations to the LEA than other governors. This suggests that headteachers are

more involved in accounting to the LEA than the governing body. This finding fits

into the wider arguments by those such as Walsh (1995:177) about the role ofindividual governors in comparison with that of the headteacher on the governing

body. He argues that "the governing body has gained power, but its influence is

often limited compared with that of the headteacher, and as the degree of

hierarchical control by the local education authority has declined, that within theschool has increased".

This research has highlighted the accountability felt by individual governors to

their constituencies. Teacher governors felt that an important aspect of their role asa governor was both to represent the views of staff within a school and to report the

decisions of the governing body back to staff. In contrast, parent governors, whohave also been elected, did not perceive direct accountability back to parents as partof their role. This may be because of the more diverse range of parental interests

which exist within a school or may be a function of the fact that parents do not

often meet as a group. Co-opted governors and LEA members were least aware ofany level of individual accountability to their constituents. These findings support

those of Kogan et al (1984).

In this research, governors were aware of their accountability to parents - that theymust formally provide an annual report, a school prospectus and conduct an annualmeeting. The central issue is the effectiveness of these mechanisms of

accountability to parents. With the exception of one school, the majority of

governors felt that they had little involvement in the preparation of either the

annual report or the school prospectus. The governors felt that these documentswere written by the headteacher and the school management team. The high levelof involvement of the headteacher and the school, rather than the governors,

suggests that these mechanisms of governor accountability to parents could be

strengthened. As it currently operates, this mechanism of accountability exists fromthe headteacher to parents, rather than from the governing body. In addition, the

accessibility of the annual report to parents requires examination. The Audit

Commission and OFSTED (1995:16) have raised this issue in their report on schoolgoverning bodies. In their report, it is argued that "parents are likely to read reports

which are written in a clear and accessible style and are enlivened by illustrations".

The governing body which has taken responsibility for the annual report in this

research appears to have a much more involved role than other governing bodiesand, consequently, a more effective means of accountability to parents.

The annual report and meeting is a mechanism of giving an account ofperformance, but the meeting is also an opportunity for parents to hold the


15/18

governing body to account. All governors reported the apparent lack of parental

interest in the annual meeting at which the annual report is discussed. The meeting,which provides the forum for parents to raise specific issues about the annual report

and the school more generally with those who have responsibility for them, must,as one of the key mechanisms of accountability, therefore be considered

ineffective. This is because parents have not 'held the governing body to account -

rather only the 'element of account' is present. One of the governing bodies in thisresearch is attempting to address this problem by conducting the annual meetingwith parents at a different time in the school calendar, possibly on the same evening

as a meeting of the school PTA. This initiative may serve to enhance the

effectiveness of the annual meeting to parents as a mechanism of accountability inthe future. Governors were not held to account as a group at the annual meeting. In

addition they were rarely held to account as individuals by those that they

represented. Just as Levacic (1995) found, few governors in out study had the

sanctions of not being re-elected or co-opted for another period of office.

The Conservative Government (DfEE 1996:5) has suggested that governing bodiesare also accountable to "the wider community". However, although governing

bodies in this research perceive an accountability to the communities in which they

are located, no formal mechanism by which governing bodies can account to this

group actually exists. In the absence of a mechanism of accountability, it can beargued that governing bodies are not formally accountable to their communities at

all. Informally, a school governing body may wish to consider "the widercommunity" in making decisions. Additionally, any information which governing

bodies provide to the community represent the element of 'giving an account',rather than being 'held to account'.

The operation of the more informal mechanisms were viewed by many governors

as important in terms of accountability to parents, prospective parents in the school

catchment area and the wider community more generally. However, whilst therewas a perception that informal approaches to accountability such as these wereeffective, this is dependent on the individuals' willingness to become involved and

undertake relations at this level. Clearly, the 'holding to account' element of

accountability may not always be present in informal approaches. However, thismay exist where governors are dependent on the support of their constituents in

their re-election to the governing body.

None of the governors in this research felt that they held the headteacher to

account. The governors' role was to comment on documentation and policy

proposals which usually originated from the headteacher. This suggests that, ofKogan et al's (1984) models of governing bodies, the accountable model is the leastdominant. Rather, governing bodies perform a mixture of advisory and supportive

roles. In the majority of cases the head gave an account to the governing body,

rather than the governing body exercising their authority to hold the head toaccount. The absence of headteacher accountability to the governing body found in


16/18

this paper has also been found by Deem and Brehony (1993:347). In this study, the

authors noted that all of the headteachers "set out to 'manage' their governors"where they were able to "control, determine or influence significantly, the decisions

governors made and limit the extent of governor involvement in the day-to-dayrunning of the school". More effective accountability at this level is dependent on

governor involvement and participation in decision making.

Conclusion

The enhancement of the power of governing bodies has impacted on accountability.

Governors feel that they accountable to the parents and students of their schools.Their perception of LEA, inspection authority and catchment area accountability is

weaker than that attached to parents.

The element of 'holding to account' and the mechanisms to secure this areimportant aspects of accountability. Governor awareness of their accountability toparents is clearly apparent. However, the mechanisms by which this accountability

is secured could be made more effective. The annual meeting with parents isviewed by governors as a key element of accountability. However, governors, on

the whole, were resigned to a lack of parental interest in the meeting. The decision

of one school to hold the meeting at a different time in the school year mayencourage governors to view this as a more effective means of their accountabilityto parents. Placing responsibility for the annual report with the governing body,

rather than with the headteacher, may also enhance governor perception of this

mechanism of accountability. Further, governor involvement in the mechanisms ofaccountability to the LEA may improve awareness of their accountability to this

group.

In conclusion, the perception amongst individual governors is that governingbodies are accountable. Primarily, governors are fully aware of their accountability

relationship with parents. The nature of their accountability to the LEA, inspection

agencies and to those within the catchment areas requires some clarificationamongst the governors of individual schools. Once clarified, the mechanisms by

which accountability is secured need to be re-examined so that governors are notjust responsible for schools - they are also fully accountable for them.

Bibliography

Audit Commission and OFSTED. 1995.Lessons in Teamwork: How SchoolGoverning Bodies Can Become More Effective. London: HMSO.

Beckett, C., L. Bell and C. Rhodes. 1991. Working with Governors in Schools.

Milton Keynes: Open University Press.


17/18

Boyett, I. and D. Finlay. 1996. 'Corporate Governance and the School Head

Teacher'.Public Money and Management. April-June.

Burgess, R.G. et al. 1992. Thematic Report and Case Studies. Sheffield: SheffieldCity Council.

Day P. and R. Klein. 1987.Accountabilities: Five Public Services. London:

Tavistock.

Deem, R. and K.J. Brehony. 1993. 'Consumers and Education Professionals in theOrganisation and Administration of Schools: Partnership or Conflict?'Educational

Studies. Vol.19. No.3 pp.339-355.

Deem, R., K. Brehony and S. Heath. 1995.Active Citizenship and the Governing of

Schools. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Department of Education and Science. 1992. Choice and Diversity: A NewFramework for Schools. London: HMSO.

Department for Education and Employment. 1996. Guidance on Good

Governance. London: Department for Education and Employment.

Dunsire, A. 1978. Control in a Bureaucracy. The Execution Process. Vol.2.Oxford: Martin Robertson.

Gray, A. and W. Jenkins. 1985.Administrative Politics in BritishGovernment. Brighton: Wheatsheaf.

Farrell, C.M. and J. Law. 1995Educational Accountability in Wales, York: York

Publishing Services for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Kogan, M. 1986.Educational Accountability. An Analytic Overview. London:Hutchinson.

Kogan, M., D. Johnson, T. Packwood and T. Whitaker. 1994. School GoverningBodies. London: Heinemann.

Levacic, R. 1994. 'Evaluating the Performance of Quasi-Markets in Education', In

Bartlett, W., Propper, C., Wilson, D., and LeGrand, J. (Eds.) Quasi-Markets in theWelfare State. Bristol: Saus Publications.

Levacic, R. 1995. 'School Governing Bodies: Management Boards or Supporters'

Clubs?'.Public Money and ManagementApril-June.

Ranson, S. 1986. 'Towards a Political Theory of Public Accountability inEducation'Local Government Studies No. 4 pp.77-98.


18/18

Sallis, J. 1988. Schools, Parents and Governors: A New Approach to

Accountability London: Routledge.

Sinclair, A. 1995. 'The Chameleon of Accountability: Forms andDiscourses'Accounting, Organisations and Society. Vol.20 No.2-3 pp.219-237.

Stewart, J. 1984. 'The Role of Information in Public Accountability'. in A.

Hopwood and C. Tomkins (eds.)Issues in Public Sector Accounting. Oxford:

Phillip Alan.

Tomlinson, J. 1993. The Control of Education. London: Cassell.

Walsh, K. 1995.Public Services and Market Mechanisms: Competition,Contracting and the New Public Management. Hampshire: Macmillan.

Welsh Office. 1993. School Governors: A Guide to the Law. Cardiff: Welsh Office

the accountability of school governing bodies.docx

Documents