School Leadership & Management

ISSN: 1363-2434 (Print) 1364-2626 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cslm20

External Inspections, 'Failing Schools' and the Role

of Governing Bodies

Peter Earley

To cite this article: Peter Earley (1997) External Inspections, 'Failing Schools' and the
Role of Governing Bodies, School Leadership & Management, 17:3, 387-400, DOI:
10.1080/13632439769935

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13632439769935

Published online: 25 Aug 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 155

View related articles

Citing articles: 9 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cslm20
School Leadership & Management, Vol. 17, N o. 3, pp. 387± 400, 1997

External Inspections, `Failing

Schools’ and the Role of
Governing Bodies
PETER EARLEY
Managem ent Development Centre, Institute of Educa tion, Bedford Way, London
WC1H 0AL, U K

ABST RAC T Drawing on data derived from on-goin g research projects investigating the priva-
tised inspection process recently introduced for all schools in E ngland and W ales, the paper
considers the role of school governing bodies. Reference is made to the part governors can play
in school improvement, particularly in those schools deemed by the inspectors to be in need of
`special measures’ . It draws upon the experiences of a small sample of such schools and their
governing bodies to suggest ways in which governors are able to play an important role in
increasing their school’ s effectiveness and contribute to its continual improvement.

Introduction

The role of the governing body in school im provement is beginning to attract the
attention of a growing number of researchers and school inspectors in Englan d and
W ales. A n analysis of the governing body’ s role in those schools which have been
inspected and deem ed to be in need of special m easures helps to highligh t key issues
of governing body effectiveness. This paper, after a brief outline of the inspection
process, discusses the experiences of a small num ber of special measure schools and
their governing bodies as they have come to term s with the initial shock of being
publicly labelled as `failin g’ . It also describes how governors and their schools have
worked towards com ing off the special m easures register as soon as possible. T he
manner in which schools and governors approach the inspectors’ report and deal
with the m edia are also addressed before looking at issues of leadership and
performance. The action planning process is next discussed, along with the support
give n by the Local Education A uthority (LEA) and Diocesan Board, partic ularly
with the appointment of additional governors to strengthen the governing body.
Finally, som e com m ents are offered as to how the inspection process, along with
other recent developments, such as targe t setting, has the potential to em power
governing bodies or at least to get them to consider carefully their role and
effectiveness.
1363-2434 /97/030387-14 $7.00 Ó 1997 Carfax Publishing Ltd
388 P. Earley

G overnors and the Inspection Process

The Education (Schools) Act 1992 introduced a regim e of systematic inspections of

all state schools in Englan d and W ales on a 4 year cycle. Inspections were to be
carried out according to a fram ework produced by the newly form ed Of® ce for
Standards in Education (O fSTED ). Inspectors were required to pass a registration
assessment and were contracted to carry out inspections after having a tender
accepted by O fSTED . The inspection of schools by privatis ed teams com m enced in
the secondary sector in Englan d and W ales in Septem ber 1993 and was introduced
a year later into prim ary and special schools. Inspections had to follow a national
framework (OfSTED , 1995a) and were said to have several functions, including that
of school im provement. O fSTED claim ed that inspections provided a spur to
improvem ent in two m ain ways.

· Schools are given a substantial period of notice before an inspection takes

place. Schools can be expected to undertake developm ental and rem edial
measures in this tim e with the intention of avoiding adverse com m ent in the
follow ing inspection.
· After inspection, schools are required to produce an action plan which
addresses areas of weakness identi® ed in the inspection report (M atthews &
Smith, 1995).

The of® cial logo of O fSTED is `Im provem ent through Inspection’ and there is
certainly som e initial evidence that the inspection process is facilitating school
developm ent, although at what cost is not so apparent (see Earley, 1996a, for a
review of the research literature addressing this m atter). The inspection process
provides each school and its governors with a comprehensive analysis or audit of its
strengths and weaknesses. Following an inspection it is the responsibility of the
school’ s governing body to devise an action plan which aim s to address the `key
issues for action’ identi® ed by the inspectors. T his plan should give a concise
overview of proposed actions, identify prioritie s, state what action is to be taken, set
deadlines for targets to be met and identify the resources needed. T he action plan
should also indicate who is responsible for the particular actions, how progress will
be m onitored and how it ® ts in with the existing priorities of the school’ s develop-
ment plan. (See Stiles, 1996 for further inform ation on the inspection process and
in particular how it affects school governors.)
The factors taken into account by inspectors when making these crucial deci-
sions are shown in Figures 1 and 2. N ot all of these factors need to be present for
a school to be judged `failin g’ or likely to fail to give its children an acceptable
standard of education. If such a judgement is m ade then the inspectors have to state
that special m easures are required. A school’ s failure has to be corroborated by H er
M ajesty’ s Inspectorate (HM I) who will visit the school, usually within a few weeks.
In all but a very small number of cases the inspectors’ origin al decision has been
rati® ed and the need for special measures con® rm ed.
If the school is deemed to have `serious weaknesses’ then special m easures will
not apply but this will be m ade m ost clear in the reports to the headteacher and the
 G overning Bodies 389

F IG . 1. Schools in need of special measures.

governing body. T he resulting action plan of a `serious weakness’ school will be

give n particular scrutiny by Her M ajesty’ s Chief Inspector (H MC I) and the school
can expect a visit from HM I within 6 m onths to 1 year. It is possible for such a
school to be seen as in need of special m easures should H M I be of the opinion that
insuf® cient progress is being m ade. This has happened at some schools.
N ot m any schools fall into either of these categorie s. Of inspections carried out
so far, about 2% of schools have been found to require special measures and nearly
one in 10 to have serious weaknesses. Between Septem ber 19 93 and April 1997, 281
schools were identi® ed as `in need of special m easures’ or, m ore colloq uially, as
`failin g schools’ . A small number of schoolsÐ 10 by the end of the 1995± 1996 school
yearÐ had been rem oved from the special m easures register. T hese schools have
been `turned round’ in about a 2 year tim e scale. The tim e taken before the school
is seen once again as offering an acceptable standard of education will vary, alth ough

F IG . 2. Schools with serious weaknesses.

390 P. Earley

the (then) Secretary of State stated that schools should be improving to the point of
leavin g special measures by the end of 2 years after the date of the initial inspection.
The Departm ent for Education and Em ployment (DfEE, 1996a) , the Teacher
Training Agency (1995) and O fSTED (D fEE/OfST ED , 1995) conducted som e
initial analyses of schools in need of special measures and outlined their m ain
features, whilst, more recently, OfSTED have published an account of how special
measures have helped schools improve (OfSTED , 1997). Other studies of `failin g’ ,
ineffective and dysfunctional schools, conducted by LEA s and university re-
searchers, are beginning to becom e availab le (e.g. R eynolds, 1996; Stoll, 1995;
Gardiner, 1996; Riley, 199 6; W ilcox & Gray, 1996; Stoll & M yers, 199 7), along
with accounts in the educational press of schools which have been removed from the
special m easures register (e.g. Croall, 1996; M ourant, 1996 ; Sharro n, 1996; Pye,
1997; Salm on, 1997; W ard, 1997). A lso in 1996 the D fEE com missioned the
International School Effectiveness and Improvem ent Centre (ISEIC ) at the Univer-
sity of London’ s Institute of Education to produce brief case studies of several
schools who no longer required special m easures and the ® rst of these was published
in Spring 1997 (D fEE, 1997).
It is known that the governing bodies of improving schools have played an
important part in their schools’ achievem ents and have helped to ensure that
progre ss was made towards com ing off special m easures. In the summ er of 1996 the
governor training organisation AG IT (A ction for Governors’ Information and
Training) obtained a small grant from the D fEE to produce a guide for governors
based on the experiences of a small number of `failin g’ schools, several of whom had
com e off the special m easures register (Earley, 1996b) . The follow ing account is
based on the experiences of six schools and their governing bodies. T he schools were
approached by the D fEE and asked if they would be prepared to be involved in the
project. All agreed and the follow ing account is based on data derived from separate
face-to-face interview s conducted with six headteachers (two secondary and four
prim ary schools), their chairs of governors and a senior of® cer in one LEA and one
D iocesan Board. As such the em piric al basis of the paper is lim ited, but hopefully
it will provide som e insights into this process of school improvem ent and the role
that the governing body can playÐ an area which, as noted earlie r, is increasingly
attracting the attention of researchers (e.g. Earley, 1996c ; Creese & Bradley, 1997;
OfSTED , 1997). Two of the schools were also involved in the aforem entioned
D fEE case studies. One of the D fEE case studies was undertaken by the author and
this enabled additional interviews to be conducted in the school with a small num ber
of teachers, parents and pupils.

Initial R esponses

Interview s conducted with the heads and chairs of governors in the six schools
suggested that most of the governing bodies were unaware that their school was
lik ely to fail the inspection. If they had been m ore awareÐ and a pre-inspection by
the LEA , for example, m ay have heigh tened awarenessÐ then the school m ay have
been able to com m ence actions to ensure that it did not require special m easures.
 G overning Bodies 391

Governing bodies of schools deem ed to be in need of special m easures were

usually, on their own admission, not operating at their m ost effective; the focus of
their attentions had rarely if ever centred on the standards achieved by pupils and
many were only partly ful® llin g the roles and responsibilities as laid down by recent
legislation.
The inspection process has made m any governing bodiesÐ and not only those
in `failin g’ or `serious weakness’ schoolsÐ give serious thought to the way in which
they are operating. [G overning body roles and responsibilities are described in a
pam phlet issued to all governors (Banking Inform ation Service, 1995), and the
manner in which some governing bodies are effectively carryin g them out described
by the Audit Com mission/OfSTED (1995) ]. M any special m easure school govern-
ing bodies were operating as before the 19 86 and 1988 educational legislation
(which increased the range of governing body responsibilities) seeing their roleÐ or
havin g it de® ned for them Ð large ly in traditional term s of attending school functions
and endorsing or rubber stam ping the decisions of the head. O thers may have felt
that they had been prevented from ful® llin g their roles and responsibilities; they felt
they had nothing to do.
The initial response of staff and governors to the news that their school had
been found wanting was said usually to be one of shock. A school’ s failin g of an
inspection has on occasions been likened to that of a bereavement. People’ s
reactions to traum atic events such as a death in the family are said to go through a
number of stages. Inspection appears to be no different and the acronym SAR AH
usefully describes the process experienced by m ost schools and governing bodies. It
refers to the stages of: shock; anger; rejection; acceptance; help.
The imm ediate shock experienced by m ost staff and governors was said to be
soon followed by anger (`how dare they say this about us’ ) and the rejection of the
message and/or the m essenger. Either the process itself was seen as ¯ awed in som e
way (`how reliable and valid can the judgem ents be?’ , `we had particular dif® culties
that week’ ) or the inspectors were said to be at fault (`they were not prim ary
specialists themselves’ , `they were operating another agenda’ ). H owever, these
imm ediate responses were soon tem pered and staff and governors quickly cam e to
term s with the reality of the situation confronting them. A greater acceptance of the
inspectors’ ® ndings was invariab ly completed by the ® rst visit of HM I who, as earlier
noted, m ust visit schools deemed in need of special m easures to corroborate or verify
the initial ® ndings. (Additional Inspector inspections do not require corroboration
by HM I nor, obviously do HM I revisits to `serious weakness’ schools which ® nd the
school is now failin g.)

Looking Forw ard N ot Back

One of the m ost im m ediate tasks of the governing body was said to be to provide
support for staff who invariably had found the inspection process very stressful. T he
experience of being deemed a `failin g’ school was said to have had devastating effects
on both staff and pupils, partic ularly on their self-esteem. Individuals were likely to
feel bruised, hurt and unvalued and there was often a m ajor job to be done of
392 P. Earley

remotivatin g the school com m unity. The stresses and strains were said to continue
as HM I (usually two or three at a tim e) embarked upon regular (at least term ly)
monitoring visits to talk to heads and observe teaching and learning.
The task of rem otivating and reenergising was lik ely to fall m ainly on the
shoulders of the head in prim ary schools and senior staff in secondaries. In turn, the
schools’ senior managers often looked to the governing body to provide the necess-
ary support and to approve the resources to enable the school to progress. This often
took the form of approving spending on training or simply being availab le to talk
with staff as and when needed. W ith the help of the LEA or Diocesan Board, for
exam ple, it was found helpful to conduct a training needs analysis of the staff and
to undertake an audit of the governing body. In this way it becam e clear what were
the m ain areas that needed to be addressed for progre ss to be m ade.
The research found that special m easure schools were not keen to dwell on the
past, but rather wished to stress the future and to em phasise where the school was
going, not where it had been. There was said to be little point in agonising over the
inspection process and the negativity surrounding the school’ s failin gs. It was m ore
important to stress that the inspection had provided the school with a useful audit
so that there was now a better understanding of what had to be done in order for the
school to im prove.

Dealing with the M edia

`Failin g schools’ , with the very active support of their governing bodies, wished to be
pro-active rather than reactive and the interview ees spoke of the inspection as
providing `opportunities to develop’ or to create `centres of excellence’ . In this way
the school was able to have a greater in¯ uence on the response of the m edia. T he
potentially highly dam agin g adverse m edia publicity which focused on what was
wrong with the school was replaced with information and exhortation about what
was being done. Em phasis was not only on the actions that would address the areas
of concern im mediately high lighted by the inspectors, but also on what was needed
to m ove the school forward.
Careful handling of the media, particularly the local press, was said to be
crucial. For exam ple, it was found to be useful if all m edia enquiries were channelled
through one individual, usually the head or the chair of governors. Con® dentiality
was clearly important and news about the inspection was delayed until the school
was ready to announce it, bearing in mind the law which states that parents should
receive a sum mary of the report `as soon as reasonably practicable’ .
Positive relatio ns with the m edia were im portant but needed to be continuously
worked at with the aim of ensuring a `virtuous cycle’ in which the local press helps
`talk up’ the school rather than a `vicious cycle’ whereby the local paper’ s negative
portrayal depresses school m orale and pupil num bers. A positive future-oriented
approach was seen as m ost helpful in helping to create a virtuous cycle.
Parents were generally found to be supportive of their local schools. It was
stated that this support was m ore likely by stressing the positive and by keeping
parents informed by, for exam ple, holding a parents’ m eeting at the tim e of the
 G overning Bodies 393

report’ s publication. The law demands that parents m ust be given a sum m ary of the
main ® ndings of the inspectors’ report (and early enough to allow them to contribute
to the action planning process) and, later on, a copy of the governing body’ s action
plan. (This has recently changed to a summ ary of the action plan.) Copies of the full
report must also be m ade availab le (at cost) to those parents who request it.
The period between the inspection itself and the published report was said to
be m ost dif® cult and there was a need to maintain con® dentiality and prevent
rum ours spreading. It was during this period, usually about 5 weeks, that the school
and governing body had to be m ost active. Although the legislation allo ws 40 days
from receipt of the inspectors’ report by the governing body to submission of the
action plan, there are likely to be m any issues to address.

Leadership and Perform ance

The leadership of the school was, of course, crucial and came up as an issue in all
the interviews. A former Secretary of State once referred to headteachers as the
closest thing availab le to a m agic wand and alth ough recent thinking points to the
signi® cance of leadership at all levels in an organisation, there can be no doubt about
the importance of high quality headship. Governors were give n insigh ts from the
inspectors’ ® ndings as to the quality of the leadership of their school, at both senior
and m iddle m anagement levels. Perhaps unsurprisingly, a signi® cant proportion of
`failin g schools’ , just over one half, have experienced a change of headteacher, either
just before or fairly soon after the inspection (D fEE, 1996a) . (This was the case in
four of the six schools visited but in only one the head had departed as a result of
the inspection.) There are, of course, many reasons for a head’ s leadership to
falterÐ incapability or incom petence may be one such reasonÐ but whatever the
reason the problem of poor or inadequate leadership at all levels had to be dealt with
as soon as possible. So too had issues around the under-perform ance of classroom
teachers. In addressing such issues the ® rst thing governors had done was to seek
advice, usually from the LEA.
The governing body acting alone was said not to be able to m ake the necessary
professional judgem ents about staff perform ance nor was it lik ely to have detailed
knowledge of appropriate personnel procedures. Also, m ost governors were said to
feel that it was not part of their job to m ake judgem ents about the work of
professionals (see also Creese & Bradley, 1997 ). Governing bodies therefore relied
heavily on professional advice and support in addressing such matters. Initial advice
was often sought from the LEA, D iocesan Board or other bodies as appropriate .
M ost LEA Governor Support Units and D iocesan Boards operated a con® dential
helpline, whilst the governor training organisations were also able to offer advice,
guidance and support.
At m ost special measure schools a small num ber of staff left; som e voluntarily,
others had to be persuaded or were subject to poor perform ance procedures. In
some cases the issue of poor perform ance was easily and speedily resolved; in others
it led to the instigatio n of form al capability or com petence proceedings and these
took som e time to resolve.
394 P. Earley

Governing bodies needed access to high quality advice and guidance so that
they were at least aw are of the range of options availab le to them . Interestingly, of
those schools which had made considerable progress since their inspection, not all
have had a new head or experienced major changes to their staff. In som e cases the
intensive training and development of existing staff, along with classroom m onitor-
ing and a greater awareness of what was required of them (particularly in terms of
raising expectations) had been suf® cient. The governing body needed to ask ques-
tions about what staff training was necessary and, wherever possible, to ensure it was
funded. (A residential training event for both staff and governors was found to be
most helpful.) Although, as noted earlier, there were usually some changes in
personnel, the vast majority of school staff rem ained the sam e. Their training,
motivatio n and m orale had therefore to be addressed. Interviewees rem arked that
the staff should be seen and see themselves as part of the solution to the school’ s
current dif® culties, not the source of the problem. It was said that the governing
body had to ensure plans for im provement were in place, it had to look to outside
support and advice where needed and to back up the headteacher if some teachers
were resistant to change.
In the ® nal analysis it was the teaching staff who had the greatest in¯ uence on
the standards achieved by pupils. Governors therefore needed to give urgent priority
to im provem ent plans and staf® ng mattersÐ by both making good appointm ents and
encouragin g trainingÐ to ensure that the quality of teaching and learning was as high
as it could be. G overnors, it was said, m ay not be able to delive r the educational
experience directly to the children but they were able to in¯ uence it by ensuring that
certain issues were addressed. They needed to balance their support of the head’ s
leadership role and responsibility to the pupils again st the requirem ents of em ploy-
ment legislation. A gain , the importance of draw ing upon the availab le expertise in
personnel m atters, m ost likely from the LEA or D iocesan Board, was stressed.
Addressing issues of staff under-perform ance, particularly incom petence,
proved to be both time consum ing and traum atic. M atters were said to be m ade all
the m ore dif® cult for governors by the fact that not all the governing body was able
to be kept inform ed of developm ents. There was a need for som e governors to
remain `untainted’ to enable them to serve on appeals comm ittees.

Action Planning

The action plan attem pts to state very clearly and precisely how the governing
bodyÐ and it is referred to as the governors’ action planÐ will address the key issues
identi® ed by the inspectors. It provides a unique opportunity for governors to be
fully involved in the school. However, research conducted with a sam ple of schools
inspected in 1993 found that alm ost half of the respondents (usually headteachers)
thought that their governors had played little or no part in the creation of the
post-OfSTED action plan (O uston et al., 1996a). A m ore recent survey of secondary
schools inspected in 1994 found evidence of a little more involvem entÐ only 39% of
heads reported their governors as having m ade little or no contrib ution, with
 G overning Bodies 395

18% (com pared with the earlier survey’ s 14% ) stating that the governing body had
made a m ajor contribution (O uston et al., 19 96b).
M ost of the ® rst schools requirin g special m easures found the formulatio n of
the action plan a very dif® cult process, largely because they were exploring new
ground and there was little advice availab le. This situation no longer applies, as in
January 1996 the D fEE issued a guidance docum ent on the preparation of Action
Plans for special m easure schools. This docum ent is m ade availab le to all such
schools (D fEE, 1996b).
Interviewees reported that they had found it helpful to form small sub-comm it-
tees or working parties to guide the development of the plan or to work on individual
key issues. These groups, which m et regularly, usually involved both governors and
staff as well as LEA or Diocesan Board mem bers. They were said to have provided
excellent opportunities for all parties, but particularly governors and teachers, to
work together and address the key issues facing the school.
It is also worth noting that governors in these schools were involved in the
whole process, alth ough not all were involved in everything. T hey were involved
from the form ulatio n of the draft plan to be presented to the D fEE to the m onitoring
of progress on individual key issues for action. It was stressed that governors needed
to balan ce their involvem ent in the detail of the action plan again st the need to
maintain an overview . The latter allo wed the governing body the perspective to
prioritise and to view the plan with a necessary elem ent of detachm ent.
It was usual for the D fEE and H M I to m eet with the school and LEA shortly
before the action plan was dispatched in order to explain the special m easure
arran gem ents and to offer inform al com m ents on the draft plan. (The m ost com m on
criticism of draft plans centred on the inadequate arran gem ents for m onitoring and
evaluation; see also OfSTED , 1995b.)
W hilst the school was under special measures the action plan was likely to
replace the school’ s developm ent plan (where it existed). W hen the school cam e off
the register the new action plan (which had to be produced following the HM I’ s
report that special m easures were no longer required) was usually incorporated into
the SD P. Governors needed to m ake decisions about the issues to be give n priority
in any plans.
The process of producing and monitoring the action plan resulted in governing
bodies beginning to act in new ways. They were now said to have become m ore
directly involved in curriculum m atters and the raising of standards. In some, for
exam ple, governors had attached themselves to partic ular school departm ents or
curriculum areas or they had taken part in staff appointm ents and school visits and
give n presentations (with the relevant teacher) to the whole governing body. At-
tempts were being m ade, in a variety of ways and with the active support of heads,
for the governing body to becom e better informed about the school and all its
workings. This had often m eant, for both staff and governors, a change of culture (or
`the way things are done around here’ ) to which some were said to have adjusted
better than others. G overnors were said to be m ore aware of how they could
in¯ uence events and there was a greater willin gness for them `to get their hands
dirty’ . Governors needed to get to know their schools and be aware of what was
396 P. Earley

being asked of teachers, partic ularly in terms of the day-to-day delivery of the
curriculum . Greater ® rst hand experience of schools was said to enhance the
partnership between teachers and the governing body and ensure greater apprecia-
tion, mutual understanding and trust.

Su pport from LEAs and Diocesan Boards

Legislation give s the LEA , acting as the appropriate appointing authority (for
LEA-m aintained schools), two additional powers to help it support schools in need
of special m easures. (These powers do not apply to schools with serious weak-
nesses.) T he local authority: `has the power to suspend the school’ s righ t to a
delegated budget’ and `m ay appoint any num ber of additional governors to the
governing body’ .
In the case of Voluntary Aided or Special Agreem ent schools, the appropriate
appointing authority, in most cases the D iocese, has the power to appoint additional
governors.
At the earliest opportunity the LEA m et with the headteacher and the chair of
governors. The LEA is required to prepare a statem ent of action for OfSTED and
the D fEE indicating what action the local authority proposes to take to assist the
`failin g’ school. Copies of this action plan are sent to mem bers of the governing
body. The LEA m ust also produce a com mentary on the school governing body’ s
action plan givin g its opinion of the school’ s ability to im plement the plan. T he
implem entation of the school’ s and LEA’ s action plans will be m onitored both
centrally by HM I and by the LEA. Governors too m ay be involved in the m onitoring
process.
All the LEAs and Diocesan Boards involved were givin g high priority to special
measure and serious weakness schools which cam e under their control. Exam ples of
form s of assistance offered by local authorities included additional resources being
found (in some cases schools were allo wed to spend over budget for a short period),
advisers or co-ordinators were attached to schools or seconded senior staff m ade
availab le. Similarly, where applicable, D iocesan Boards were working closely with
their schools and the LEAs to ensure maxim um and co-ordinated support.
LEAs and D iocesan Boards were able to offer governing bodies additional
training, partic ularly around issues of their own effectiveness, which may have been
¯ agge d by the inspectors. (A re more recent OfSTED reports givin g governing
bodies m ore attention than before? How often does a `key issue for action’ include
reference to governors?) This training can be delivered by LEA s them selves or
others. The LEA or the D iocesan Board may provide support, for exam ple in the
form of a clerk, who, along with the link adviser, can provide an important source
of professional expertise to the head and governing body, as well as being a link to
the LEA or the Board. T he LEA or the D iocesan Board m ay also wish to strengthen
the governing body by providing additional governors. T his had occurred in several
of the schools.
 G overning Bodies 397

Additional G overnors

A governing body of a `failin g’ school is likely to decide that the time is right to take
stock of the issues raised by the inspection, to compare these with its existing
expertise and to suggest to the LEA or the D iocesan Board that it helps ® nd
additional governors with the kind of expertise that is needed. Indeed, m ost special
measure schools m ade changes to the composition of the governing body. LEAs and
D iocesan Boards often used their powers to appoint additional governors, bringing
in people from a variety of backgrounds who they felt would make the governing
body m ore effective.
Headteachers and chairs of governors also spoke of how they actively sought
new recruits to add expertise to the governing body or to ® ll vacancies.
Being a governor was said not to be the job it once wasÐ schools needed
enthusiastic and comm itted individuals who were prepared to give up their tim e to
perform the roleÐ and other research into school governing bodies suggests they can
ill-affo rd to have too m any `passengers’ on board (Earley, 1994). This was even
more true of serious weakness schools and those in need of special m easures. For
this reason the period im mediately after the inspection was said to be an opportune
tim e for governors to give consideratio n to the role and their degree of comm itm ent
to it. Som e governors decide the time is right for them to step down to allo w m ore
active people to take their place. Sim ilarly, for a num ber of reasons it was dif® cult
for som e governors to make a m ajor com mitment to the school and the opportunity
to resign was taken up. A gain , the LEA or the D iocese was said to play a most useful
role here in encouragin g the governing body to consider its roles and responsibilities
and the contrib ution of individ ual governors.
Those schools which have m ade considerable progress since their inspections
have not, however, been charac terised by m ass resignations of governors. N either in
the small num ber of schools involved in this research had the in¯ ux of new or
additional governors meant the form ation of polarised governing bodies made up of
an `A ’ team and a `B’ team . Special m easure school governing bodies had generally
welcom ed the appointm ent of additional governors and saw them as an im portant
source of extra support, expertise and new ideas. Their attitudeÐ which as earlier
noted, tended to be positive and forw ard lookingÐ was one of `if these individuals
will help us to get off the register sooner rather than later then so m uch the better!’

Tow ards Effective G overnance

It appears as though the inspection process may be encouragin g governing bodies to

consider how they are currently perform ing their duties; for many it has the potential
to em power them, particularly as they exam ine their role in relatio n to the post-in-
spection action plan. Inspection makes it clear to the governing body that it has an
important responsibility to ensure that their school is an effective and well-managed
one. For governors of special m easure schools the learning curve was said to be very
steep indeed. Governing bodies of such schools, for a varie ty of reasons and on their
own adm ission, had not been operating very effectively or had a lim ited understand-
398 P. Earley

ing of their role, particularly in relation to the curric ulum and helping to raise pupil
achievem ents. As a Chair of governors rem arked:

W e tended to concentrate on buildings, painting the corrid ors, looking

after the m oney and fending off all the LEA’ s docum ents! W e had very
little to do with the quality of learning.
The governing bodies of these special m easure schools were now being asked to
work closely with their schools to undertake key tasks.
In their recent review of evidence from just over 200 prim ary, secondary and
special schools under special measures, OfSTED (1997) suggests governors have
helped their schools in a num ber of ways. These include:

· supporting the headteacher to im plem ent change;

· developing the skills to m onitor the school’ s perform ance;
· organising the governing body m ore effectively, usually through a series of
com mittees, which have well-de® ned roles;
· taking an active and high pro® le interest to support and promote the school;
· tackling dif® cult issues resolutely, for exam ple ineffective leadership or teach-
ing, de® cit budgets, health and safety issues;
· keeping parents inform ed about how the school is improving (O fSTED ,
1997, p. 15).

OfSTED also provides a list of questions that governors, staff, pupils and
parents m ight ask as a way of ® nding out how well things are going and whether the
school is im proving. For the governors they suggest the follow ing questions:

· is the governing body aw are of its responsibilities?

· do governors know what is happening in the school?
· do governors have clearly de® ned roles, are they ef® cient and effective?
· is the governing body fully involved in the preparatio n of the action plan, are
governors m onitoring and evaluating the im plem entation of the action plan?
· is the governing body m onitoring pupils’ standards of achievem ent?
(OfSTED , 1997, p. 29)

In the A GIT research, m any governing bodies, on their own admission, were
still som e way from operating as they should or as they would like to, but there were
signs of considerable progress being made. They were becoming more effective,
making better use of their lim ited tim e and assisting their schools to come off the
special m easures register. Governors rarely directly affected the learning experiences
of pupils; indirectly, however, there were many ways that governing bodies were able
to in¯ uence those experiences and help raise standards of achievement. By acting in
this m anner the governing bodies involved in this research study should be able to
play an important role in ensuring that their schools never require special m easures
again and that they continue to develop and im prove. The degree to which
governing bodies in general are able, or willin g, to contrib ute to school im provement
requires further investigatio n (Creese & Bradley, 1997). The tools are increasingly
becoming availab le (A GIT, 199 7) and governing bodies have recently been given a
 G overning Bodies 399

statutory role in setting targets with their schools for pupil achievem ents (D fEE,
1996c). W hether governors will be able to take on these new challenges or if they
will be allow ed to do so is a key issue (Corrick , 1996).

REFERENCE S

AGIT (1997) School Effectiv eness: governors’ toolkit (Coventry, AGIT ).

A UD IT C O M M ISSION /O F STED (1995) Lessons in Team work: how school governing bodies can becom e
m ore effective (London, OfST ED).
B A NK IN G I N FORM A TION S ERVICE /D F EE/OfSTED (1995) Governing Bodies and Effectiv e Schools
(London, DfE E).
C O RRICK , M . (1996) Effective governing bodies, effective schools?, in: P. E A RLEY , E. F ID LER & J.
O USTO N (Eds) Improvem ent through Inspection? (London, David Fulton).
C REESE , M . & B RA DLEY , H. (1997) W ays in which governing bodies contribute to school improve-
m ent: ® ndings from a pilot project, School Leadership and M anagem ent , 17, pp. 105± 115.
C RO ALL , J. (1996) Schooled by scandal, Tim es Educa tiona l Supplem ent , Prim ary Update, 7 June,
p. 4.
D F EE/O F STED (1995) The improvement of failing schools: UK policy and practice 1993± 1995,
O E CD U K Sem inar , November (London, DfEE).
D F EE (1996a) How weak schools recover: September 1993 to June 1996, background note for
conference at Institute of Education, London.
D F EE (1996b) G uidance Notes on Preparing an Action Plan for a School U nder Special M easures ,
School Intervention Team (London, DfEE).
D F EE (1996c) Self G overnm ent for Schools , White Paper, Cm 3315 (London, DfEE).
D F EE (1997) The Road to Success: four case stud ies of schools which no longer require special m easures
(London, DfE E).
E ARLEY , P. (1994) School Governing Bodies: m aking progress? , (Slough, NFER).
E ARLEY , P. (1996a) School improvement and OFSTED inspection: the research evidence, in:
P. E ARLEY , et al. (Eds) Improvem ent through Inspection? (London, David Fulton).
E ARLEY , P. (1996b) Schools in Need of Special M easuresÐ a governors’ guide (Coventry, AGIT ).
E ARLEY , P. (1996c) Governing bodies and school improvement: a research agenda, in: Team work
for School Improvem ent: a report of the DfEE /O fSTED governors’ conference , Bristol, M arch
(London, DfE E).
G ARD IN ER , J. (1996) Ills could be diagnosed before inspectors call, Tim es Education al Supplement ,
6 December, p. 14.
M A TTH EW S , P. & S M ITH , G. (1995) OFSTED: inspecting schools and improvement through
inspection, Cam bridge Journa l of E ducation , 25, pp. 23± 34.
M O U RANT , A. (1996) Darkness turning into light, Times Educa tiona l Supplem ent , 1 November,
p. 13.
M Y ERS , K. (1995) Intensive care for the chronically sick, paper presented to the BER A C onference,
Bath, September.
OFSTED (1995a) The O FSTE D Framework: framew ork for the inspections of nursery, primary,
second ary and special schools (London, HM SO).
OFSTED (1995b) Planning Improvem ent: a report on post-O FSTED action plans (London, HMSO).
OFSTED (1997) From Failure to Success: how specia l m easures are helping schools im prove (London,
HM SO).
O USTO N , J., F IDLER , B. & E ARLEY , P. (1996a) Secondary schools’ responses to OFSTED: improve-
m ent through inspection?, in: J. O USTO N , P. E A RLEY & B. F IDLER (Eds) O FSTE D Inspections:
the early experience (London, David Fulton).
O USTO N , J., F ID LER , B. & E ARLEY , P. (1996b) W hat do schools do after OFSTED school
inspectionsÐ or before?, School Leadership and M anagem ent , 17, pp. 95± 104.
P Y E , S. (1997) Sweet revenge of once failing school, Tim es E ducation al Supplem ent , 25 April.
400 P. Earley

R ILEY , K. (1996) Operating with blunt instruments, Guardian , 26 November.

R EYNO LD S , D. (1996) Turning around the ineffective school: some evidence and some specula-
tions, in: J. G RAY , D. R EYNO LD S , C. F ITZGIBBON & D. JESSO N , (Eds) M erging Traditions: the
future of school effectiveness and school im provement research (London, Cassell).
S ALM O N , J. (1997) Back from the brink, G uardian Education , 28 January.
S H ARO N , H. (1996) Back from the brink: ® rst failing school gets all-clear, M anaging Schools Today ,
January, 12± 14.
S TO LL , L. (1995) The challenge and complexity of the ineffective school, paper presented to the
BER A Conference, Bath, September.
S TO LL , L. & M YERS , K. (Eds) (1997) Schools in Dif® culties: no quick ® xes (London, Falmer Press).
S TILES , C. (1996) School G overnors and Inspection (Coventry, AGIT).
T EACH ER T RAINING A GEN CY (1995) Combating failure at school, OE CD U K Sem inar , November
(London, DfE E).
W ARD , L. (1997) Shame, blame, acclaim, Independent, E ducation Plus , 6 M arch, p.6.
W ILCO X , B. & G RA Y , J. (1996) Inspecting Schools: holding schools to account and helping schools to
improve (Buckingham, Open U niversity Press).