Governor Mark The National Quality Mark for School Governance Assessor Training 2009

Ground Rules During this course we will be using real material from Governor Mark applications (used with permission). We will also be discussing outcomes and experience from real assessments. We are sure you will respect the confidentiality of these governing bodies and assessors.

Agenda 09.30Background to Governor Mark Understanding the Standard Principles The Assessment Process Pre-assessment report Assessing against the evidence grid 12.30Lunch 13.00Assessing the impact statement Site visit planning Writing the feedback report Final recommendation for accreditation or not 15.30Close

Background From September 2003 the School Inspection Framework for Schools included criteria for the inspection of governance. Clear, unambiguous criteria assist the making of judgements about the quality of governance The new Ofsted inspection regime gives schools only 48 hours notice of inspection. This process has the potential to exclude the governing body from active engagement with the inspection team and thereby makes judgements on the quality of governance very difficult. This Quality Mark, therefore, takes, as part of its core, the work and expectations of Ofsted towards governing bodies, within the framework for school inspection. This Quality Mark is linked to the Ofsted prescribed school self- evaluation process, and to the incoming descriptors for governance in the draft 2009 Ofsted Framework

What is Governor Mark? is designed to recognise the quality of the contribution to school leadership and management governing bodies make is a non prescriptive model which measures the working practices of the governing body and their impact on school performance recognises that there are many approaches to achieving sustainable excellence in school governance within the leadership and management structure of the school is a mechanism to achieve accreditation against an agreed quality standard if desired

How was it developed? GLM – Oxfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Warwickshire County Councils working in partnership Consultation with interested bodies – eg Department for Children, Schools and Families Process linked to Ofsted inspection and LA statutory duties Parity with other quality marks – eg Charter Mark

Structure of the Standard Governor Mark has 3 strands: The ethos and working practices which underpin the work of your governing body The statutory framework within which the governing body works (i.e. its roles and responsibilities) The impact of governance, influencing achievement in the school A Governor Mark assessment focuses on the statutory framework and the impact statements

Structure of the Standard Ethos and working practiceThe statutory framework 1. Organisation and Teamwork 5. Strategic Leadership 2. Recruitment and Retention 6. Statutory Responsibilities 3. Self-review and Change 7. Strengths And Weaknesses 4. Principles of Good Governance 8. Support and Challenge Impact School Improvement Every Child Matters The Life of the School The Community 50% of Judgement 50% of Judgement Not graded in first instance

Underlying Principles A focus on impact – making a difference A focus on the needs of parents and children Leadership and unity of purpose Use of data for decision-making People development and involvement Continuous learning, innovation and improvement Internal and external partnerships Public responsibility to the community

Group Task 1 If a governing body supports these principles, what would you expect to see them doing? In your group list two to four ideas for each of the two principles that have been allocated to you.

What are we looking for? Assessors will be seeking to ascertain that the governing body is actively engaged and not a passive beneficiary of very good leadership. A warning sign is an application entirely driven by the headteacher or deputy head The incoming Ofsted framework evaluates: ohow well governors and supervisory boards fulfil their statutory responsibilities; ohow effectively governors help to shape the direction of the school; ohow rigorously governors and supervisory boards challenge and support leaders and managers, holding them to account for tackling weaknesses and further improving outcomes for all pupils.

Take a break….

Audit Trail Logic What is the issue? Why did the governing body decide to tackle this? What did the governing body do? What was the impact? How was this evaluated?

Assessment Process School completes and returns application Assessor(s) assigned, agree date for visit Pre-assessment Desktop assessment and further evidence sought Site visit Judgement made, and feedback to GLM Governor Mark awarded Standard not yet met GLM decision

Group Task 2 Please scan through the standard as shown in the application form and evidence grid. Identify anything you do not understand or wish to clarify. Discuss these questions in your group. Anything you are unable to resolve should be brought back to the main group for discussion.

Pre-assessment (1) Most schools will qualify for Routeway 1, so long as they can show that pupils are making progress: The last Ofsted (if it is not more than two years ago) The school CVA data (Contextual Value Added). This information may be found in the RAISEonline report (or equivalent) School tracking data, supported by the SIP (or equivalent) Other schools would benefit from following Routeway 2, which involves a second assessment visit. This may be particularly useful for governing bodies of schools causing concern or in an Ofsted category.

Pre-assessment (2) Governors provide the following information: Application, includes evidence grid, impact statement and contact details The school Self Evaluation Form RAISEonline or other external data Ofsted report (or date of it) On the basis of these documents GLM provides a pre- assessment report. This gives assessors suggested areas to explore in the assessment. Key issues to note: Assessors form their own agenda, and this is just a steer; Its intention is to encourage a consistent approach in Governor Mark assessments.

Chartermark Scoring System Best Practice - all aspects of the element are met, and the applicant can demonstrate that they have gone beyond the requirements and this practice is transferrable Full Compliance - all aspects of the element are met Partial Compliance - some but not all aspects of the element are met and remedial action to meet the remainder could be put in place within a short period of time (maximum of three months) Major non-compliance - none of the requirements of the element are met, or the assessor concludes that remedial action to address those elements that are not met would require a time scale in excess of three months

Assessing against the Criteria Are they compliant in all four criteria, fulfilling the required number in each of sections 5 to 8? Does the evidence presented validate the compliance judgement? Are there any areas of significant non-compliance that undermines the overall quality of governance? Apart from where explicitly stated, there is no particular weighting to the criteria. These four criteria make up 50% of the judgement The evaluation of impact statements will also inform the assessment of these criteria.

Group Task 3 Evaluating Criterion 8 Individually read through the evidence presented by the governing body for Criterion 8 Do you agree with the governing body’s judgement judgement? Does the evidence support the judgement? Compare your conclusions with those of your fellow team members. Reach a consensus view on how the applicant should be judged on this part. Was the consensus different from your original conclusion? If so, what made the difference?

Time for lunch….

Assessing impact statements All four impact statements needs to be reviewed, but most time will be spent on School improvement and ECM Does the statement prompt the response ‘show me’, i.e. focus on governor impact on school outcomes? Does the statement prompt the response ‘so what?’, e.g. focus on internal governing body processes as an end in themselves? If impact turns out to be weak, it is likely that some of the ‘fully compliant’ or ‘best practice’ grades in the evidence grid may need to be marked down.

Group Task 4 Evaluating Impact Individually read the impact statements provided, then discuss with colleagues in your group What issues are raised? What documents would you like to see? Who would you want to talk to? What would you be looking for? What questions would you ask?

Planning the On Site Visit (1) To go through the application, both criteria and impact statements, and make a note of questions you would ask, together with potential good practice that can be shared with others. Read the pre-assessment report provided – GLM will tell you if this has been sent to the school (normally they are not) Prepare the questions you would ask on the visit Decide who you would like to talk to on the visit (head teacher/ chair of governors/ committee chair/ clerk/ department head/ new governor/ staff governor, etc) Plan to spend some of the 3 hour visit with individuals, and some with groups. You should not plan to interview pupils or parents.

Planning the On Site Visit (2) Identify areas of partial compliance that will need further exploration Identify areas of non-compliance that may place the school ‘at risk’ in terms of statutory requirements or guidance Identify areas of best practice that can be shared with others. Identify unclear evidence, ‘oversold’ evidence, and conflicting evidence. The purpose of the site visit is to confirm the governing body’s judgements and to test the integrity and robustness of their analysis. You need to select a few areas to explore – you cannot evaluate everything.

Making the Visit (1) Refer any uncertainties to GLM. However difficult you find things, always present an absolutely professional face to the school. Make the arrangements for the visit in a timely way. Liaise with a colleague if one of you is ‘riding shotgun’. You will only have 3-4 hours on site for the visit. Each subject you wish to explore will take at least 15 minutes. Leave some breathing space in the timetable. Focus on the things that will make a difference to your judgement of the governing body’s application.

Making the Visit (2) At the end of the visit: You should not tell the school on the day the recommendation you will be making to GLM. You should not act as a consultant You should share some of the feedback – best practice, things they do well, and areas for improvement. You should complete the Feedback Form and return it to GLM within 7 days. This triggers payment for the assessment.

Pause….

Writing the Feedback Report (1) Evidence grid: You do not need to put something in every box in the section against the evidence grid; Most comment will be in the sections ‘what the governing body does well’ and ‘areas for development’; Only raise issues for urgent attention where there is significant risk; Issues of ‘best practice’ should be few – aim at 3 or 4 maximum. Transferability is critical. They may be wonderful people, but this is not easy to transfer!

Writing the Feedback Report (2) Impact Statements: You will need to comment on all 4 impact statements; Most comment will be in the statements on school improvement and Every Child Matters; School improvement is all about – er – improving the school, not about reorganising the governing body; Have particular regard for safeguarding – governors must do more than just have a policy and delegate it to the head; Look for many things to praise – governors are volunteers, and recognition of what they do well makes the improvement issues easier to accept.

Group Task 5 Feedback form: Look carefully at the impact statement on school improvement provided. Comment on this on the feedback form (10 mins) As a group: Share your findings and agree whether the governing body has a positive impact in this area (15 mins) Be prepared to feed back a summary of your group’s decision at the end.

Keep in touch!