NORFOLK GOVERNORS' NETWORK

This case study is from a Norfolk junior primary school which partnered with a neighbouring school.Initially this was driven by a need to fill a Headteacher vacancy but then the schools moved to a formal partnership and much closer working between the governing bodies.

Why enter into a partnership?

A school nearby, another junior school, was without a Head and given the current climate was unlikely to recruit, the highly skilled Head they wanted, due to the school size and budget. The chair of governors made an approach to our school.

Our Head likes challenges so it was an attractive proposition. However the main driver was and is the desire for all the children in the neighbourhood to get the best possible education.

What happened next?

Both schools convinced the Local Authority(LA) this was what we wanted. We had a meeting with governors from both schools and a LA Officer. We agreed to work with a temporary arrangement for a year.

The LA gave strong advice on the salaries of the Head and deputies. The governing bodies agreed revised staffing arrangements to give the deputies more management time.

The governing bodies carried on independently. Our governing body monitored that there was no adverse impact on our school by asking the parent governors for ‘the views from the street’. Neither the governing body nor the school received any complaints.

The other governing body was getting used to working with the new Head. Perhaps there was a feeling they were sharing a Head.

There was some closer working between staff, exchanges of professional practices and joint training. Setting the budget in the midst of that year was a marathon 5 hour meeting with the Finance Officer. Not due to a shortage of money but lack of clarity of what had been coded and what should be coded and how much this temporary partnership would get. With the help of the Finance Officer (yes both school now have the same one) it was sorted.

Do we continue next year?

Towards the end of the trial year, the question was asked “Do we want to continue?” We said yes. The matter was discussed and agreed at the governing bodies meetings. Both schools sent a letter to the parents explaining what was happening and invited parents to a meeting to explain further and to answer any queries. We held the meeting, the coffee was ready, but no one came.

Putting the partnership on a formal footing

This meant we had an Executive Head and the opportunity to have joint committees. Governors had to recognise that being an Executive Head of two schools does not mean twice the work. It means working smarter and delegating. The same applies to the governing bodies it does not mean twice the number of meetings.

Joint committees

Our governing body had clearly defined documented ways of working; the other did not have so many documents. Whilst we had committee terms of reference (TOR) and were happy to share these, would that seem like taking over? - Telling the other governing body what to do? The governing bodies had different skills and experience but we needed to work together to move forward for the benefit of the pupils of both schools.

It was better to do different

Martin Pounce principal speaker at a Norfolk Governors’ Network conference had talked about a grid of responsibilities and this suggested a way forward. With the help of Martin’s talk and the National Governors Association ‘Support and Challenge ‘ publication the chairs of both governing bodies went back to basics and looked at what we needed to do and who should do it. Using the grid it was easy then to attribute tasks to committees.

Each school decided that they needed their own Finance and Premises committees. But we would have two joint committees.

• Strategic Management and Collaboration (SMC) Committee
• Curriculum, Personnel and Safeguarding (CPS) Committee

The members of the SMC are chairs and vice chairs of the governing bodies, and Executive Head and deputies.

The members of the CPS are governors from both schools, the two chairs attend but are not members. Would the curriculum be the same? The answer was nearly. Was the SIDP the same? Some parts identical e.g. raising standards in English, some different e.g. actions from an Ofsted inspection or from being a VC school. Governors from both schools needed to understand the data, the way attainment is recorded and the results attained by both schools to look to learn from each other. There were some initial uncomfortable feelings when governors discussing data from ‘the other school’, but that is being overcome.

Issues

Do we have a joint pay committee?

Whilst the rules regarding setting the ISR (Individual School Range) are easy to find, rules around the pay committee are either well hidden or nonexistent.

One reply was that the pay committee could only be governors from the school which held the Head’s contract; this meant the other school felt left out of discussions which could affect their budget. Other advice referred us to the regulations concerning collaborations, which are quite short, and thus the CPS committee decided looking at the guidance that pay can be delegated to a committee as long as the committee was set up correctly and this is what would be recommend to our individual governing bodies.

Do we need so many governors?

Fewer committees, and the need to keep the CPS committee with a reasonable number of members, we didn’t want governors to feel that they were not being involved so decided that we would not attempt to fill an Authority and a Community governor vacancy. However we are seeking to keep our full number of parent governors if possible, as we considered that parents could feel excluded without fully understanding the reasoning.

The future?

• We will review the makeup of the governing body (currently 18) at the end of this academic year.
• We will look to share staff when appropriate
• We will continue to develop the governing bodies; a joint self review is planned.

Questions to consider

• Does the success of the current arrangement rely too heavily on the personalities involved would it work with different people?
• Is this arrangement sustainable through change?
• Are the children in the neighbourhood getting the best possible education? Yes but there is always room for improvement.