Philobiblon

This evening I finished an eight-hour training course (done in four parts) that might have been entitled “the bare basics of being a school governor”. (There are many, many more courses to come… on PANDAs (a grid on which the school’s results are judge against others’ – now badly delayed, like much else, by computer problems); on SEFs (self-evaluation forms – vitally important as one of the chief ways Ofsted judges a school); on SIPs – which can be school improvement plans, or school improvement partners – roughly the old Ofsted link inspectors; on new disability legislation, and more.

I’ve now, I think, at least been lined up with the right buzzwords, and have a grasp of the overall framework in which the English education system is supposed to operate. (At least this year.)

Everything is captured under the “Every Child Matters” framework, which aims for five outcomes, for children
* to be safe
* to be healthy
* to enjoy and achieve
* to make a positive contribution to society
* to achieve economic wellbeing

This is the framework for all services – not just education, but also housing etc. It applies to under 18s, and under 19s with statements of special educational needs.

Under the Education Reform Act of 1988, every child is entitled to a curriculum that is “broad, balanced and relevant”, as, it is said, is set out in the 1989 national curriculum. That’s except religious education, which is still covered by the 1944 Act, which provides for a compulsor act of collective worship, although parents have the right to withdraw a child, and must be told they have that right.

Progress is spoken of in two ways: attainment, which means academic results, and achievements, which means social development, sport, music etc

Many things are analysed by means of the SWOT framework (a four square grid of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats). And targets are supposed to be SMART – specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-limited.

The latest buzzword is “impact assesment”, which means evaluating the effects practices have on outcomes. Why you can’t just call it results … well, you know. It comes from the law providing for the new disability equality duty. (About to come into effect for secondary schools; next December in primaries.)

Measurement is shifting from looking at raw test scores to considering not just value added (say between key stage 1 and key stage 2 – year 3 and year 6), but also contextual value added – looking at the individual children, their family financial situation, ethnic background, if they are English as an Additional Language speakers, etc. The magic point is achieving “level 4” at the end of key stage 2, which means the expected level for a child in that class – measured in literacy, numeracy and science.

Governors have three roles. They are supposed to be:
1. Strategic planners
2. Critical Friends – so supportive of the head and staff, but always questioning to ensure targets are challenging and best value is being obtained.
3. Accountable to Stakeholders – parents, children, local education authorities, communities, the department of education, etc etc. (Responsible for budgets – quite a big thing if, like one governor at the training tonight, the school is to be totally rebuilt.)

When you think about it, that’s an awful lot to ask of a disparate collection of 18 or so people – some parent governors (who have a pretty big stake in this, but may not, certainly in central London, find it easy to absorb a flood of paperwork and jargon), a member of staff or two, and a dozen well-intentioned people from the “local community”. In a small rural village that local community may indeed exist and be strong, but to find such a thing in London to provide a governing body is one very big ask.

To anyone who has read to the end of this without falling asleep – well done!