Taylor (1977)

Notes on the text
Preliminary pages Membership, Preface, Contents

Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 2 Present arrangements for school government
Chapter 3 A new approach to school government
Chapter 4 Membership of the new governing bodies
Chapter 5 Communication and cooperation
Chapter 6 Curriculum
Chapter 7 Finance
Chapter 8 Appointments
Chapter 9 Other functions
Chapter 10 Training the new governors
Chapter 11 Procedural arrangements
Chapter 12 The government of voluntary schools
Chapter 13 Recommendations and implementation
Summary of recommendations

Notes of extension and dissent, minority report

Appendix A Evidence
Appendix B History of school managers and governors
Appendix C Visits
Appendix D Education Act 1944: selected extracts
Appendix E Administrative Memorandum No 25 (1945)
Appendix F Letter to parents
Appendix G Aims into practice

Index

Report of the Committee of Enquiry appointed jointly by the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Wales under the chairmanship of Mr Tom Taylor CBE

London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office 1977
© Crown copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland.

Chapter 2 Present arrangements for school government
[pages 5 - 11]

2.1 In this chapter we examine the existing arrangements for the management and government of county schools. We begin by setting out the present position in law and go on to consider school government in practice, briefly reviewing the evolution of managing and governing bodies since 1945 (1) and analysing their present performance.

The legal background

2.2 The Education Act 1944 (2) requires every maintained school to have a body of governors (in the case of a secondary school) or managers in the case of a primary school. The Act provides for the constitution of these bodies to be prescribed in an instrument of government or management and for the functions of the governors or managers, the local education authority (LEA) and the head teacher to be set out in articles of government or rules of management. It allocates responsibility for the making of instruments and articles or rules between the Secretary of State and the local education authority and lays down certain requirements to be met in all cases. In May 1944 the then Board of Education issued a White Paper entitled Principles of Government in Maintained Secondary Schools (Cmnd 6523). On 26 January 1945 there were issued, with Administrative Memorandum No 25, a model instrument and model articles of government for a county secondary school (3). (Hereafter these documents will be referred to as the 1944 White Paper and the 1945 model.) Generally, over the past 30 years it has been the practice of successive Secretaries of State to uphold the principles set out in the 1944 White Paper and to expect local education authorities to do the same.

2.3 Local education authorities possess a wide discretion in the matter of the constitution of county school managing and governing bodies. Apart from a provision concerned with minor authorities (4), the Education Acts do not stipulate what interests should be represented on these bodies; their constitution is thus a matter for decision by local education authorities who have been able to introduce such elements as they consider right for their own schools. Furthermore local education authorities are empowered to make arrangements for the grouping of any two or more county schools under a single governing body.

2.4 As regards the powers of these bodies, a distinction is drawn in the 1944 Education Act between primary and secondary schools. The functions of the managing bodies of county primary schools are determined solely by the local education authority which make the rules of management; the functions of secondary school governing bodies must be set out by the local education authority in articles of government which have to be approved by the Secretary of State. The responsibilities allocated to governors cover all or some aspects of the appointment and dismissal of teachers and other staff; the admission of pupils; internal organisation and curriculum; finance; the care and upkeep of the premises; and the fixing of certain school holidays.

County school government in practice

2.5 In turning to the actual development of governing bodies of county schools within this legal framework it is useful to summarise the impression likely to have been gained from a study of official reports and parliamentary debates on this subject and the common connotations of a term such as 'governing body'. It might have been expected from such a study that each school would have associated with it a body of interested and informed men and women, concerned with it as an individual institution rather than as a unit within a system. It would have been reasonable to assume that among these men and women there would be some representing the local education authority (whether elected members or not), some appointed or co-opted by reason of their educational or other qualifications, and some who could represent the interests of parents, of teachers and of the community in general. It would also have been reasonable to assume that a governing body so constituted would share with the local education authority and its officers, and with the head of the school, responsibility for the making of appointments, for the general direction of the conduct and curriculum of the school, for the preparation of estimates and for representing the school in issues of importance.

The reality in 1965-69

2.6 Such expectations would have been very far from being met at the time of the research study carried out by Baron and Howell between 1965 and 1969 (5). This showed that of the 78 county boroughs in existence at that time in England (the study did not deal with Wales) only 21 had governing bodies for each of their schools; 25 had governing bodies for groups of 2 or 3 schools; 12 had governing bodies for 4 or more schools; and in 20 cases the borough council simply nominated a single governing body to act for all its schools. In one county borough for example, there was a single body of managers for all primary schools and a single body of governors for all secondary schools; both bodies were composed of the same persons and both were identical with the primary and secondary schools sub-committee of the borough education committee. In the counties the grouping of secondary schools for governing purposes was less frequent, 22 out of 45 counties having individual governing bodies throughout, 20 having a mixture of governing bodies for individual schools and for groups of schools and 3 having only the latter. A similar pattern was found in the counties in respect of the management of primary schools; but in the county boroughs these were still more likely than secondary schools to be governed in very large groups.

2.7 A feature of very many areas, especially county boroughs, was the close control by the local education authority, and within it by the dominant political party, of the composition of managing and governing bodies. The justification put forward for this was an argument that elective local government required not only that the local education authority, but also all its subordinate bodies, must reflect the people's elective will in their composition. In many cases membership was virtually confined to councillors, each governing body worked to tightly controlled agendas and reports and minutes were kept to a bare minimum. In other cases, the membership of governing bodies (and also managing bodies) was extended to take in members of the rank and file of political parties or other people of known sympathy with their policies.

2.8 The 1965-69 research study, in enquiring into the functions performed by managing and governing bodies, paid particular attention to three major aspects of school government: appointment of staff, curriculum and finance. In virtually all areas governors were involved in some way in the appointment of heads of schools, most frequently by taking part in interviewing procedures, either as a body or through representation on a joint committee whose other members were drawn from the authority's education committee. But the true extent of their involvement depended upon a variety of factors, including their part in the drawing up of the short list, the range of information regarding the candidates made available to them, the part played by officers and inspectors or advisers in questioning candidates and the capacities, degree of interest and above all the self assurance of individual governors. In most counties and in a substantial proportion of county boroughs governors took some part in other major appointments. Junior appointments and especially first appointments were often left to the head and the authority's advisory staff.

2.9 There was little evidence to show that, at the time of the study, the standard provision in the articles that 'the governors shall have the general direction of the conduct and curriculum of the school' was taken seriously. Heads invariably maintained that they were entirely responsible for deciding what was taught, although they kept governors informed of any changes of note. Similarly, the most frequent response from governors was that they felt that the curriculum should be left to the head and his staff. There were instances, however, of reports being made by heads of departments or other teachers on aspects of teaching in the school.

2.10 Involvement in financial matters was very slight indeed and seldom went beyond receiving and formally approving estimates drawn up elsewhere. It was argued that the time factor, the administrative discretion needed by officers and heads, the provision by the local education authorities of equipment and for repairs and maintenance, and above all the predetermined nature of the bulk of school expenditure, all combined to leave governing bodies no role in purely financial matters. There were two or three authorities which had introduced arrangements designed, in the main, to give heads rather than governing bodies greater discretion in respect of minor expenditure.

2.11 In short, the extent to which managing and governing bodies carried out the functions assigned to them in rules and articles was slight. In many areas they did not, in any real sense, exist at all. The formulation of instruments, rules and articles and the approval of the latter by the Secretary of State were no guarantee that managing and governing bodies would play the role originally intended for them.

2.12 This state of affairs was due in large measure to developments many years ago which reduced the effectiveness of forms of management and government, themselves inherited from the mid-nineteenth century. As a result of the 1902 Act local education authorities took over the managerial functions which the School Boards had hitherto performed, and could delegate to managers, in respect of 'provided' elementary schools. These included the responsibilities for the care of premises, the making of appointments and all financial matters which in voluntary schools continued to rest with the managers. Like the School Boards, the local education authorities were empowered to delegate their functions to managing bodies but, except in the county areas, were not required to establish such bodies. Provision for secondary schools to have governing bodies was essential when secondary education became a responsibility of local education authorities after the Education Act 1902, because schools which came under local education authority control then received grants directly from the Board of Education and had to have a responsible body to which such grants could be paid. But the need later disappeared when, save in the case of voluntary and direct grant schools, the local education authorities became, for all intents and purposes, the financing agencies.

2.13 Efforts were made before and after the passing of the Education Act 1944, to breathe new life into managing and governing bodies but these efforts were largely ineffective. Shortages of money and teachers in the post-war period led to the need to determine priorities and a greater degree of central control became necessary; centralised budgeting techniques were being developed and local education authorities' financial timetables were affected by rate-support grant considerations. Governing and managing bodies consequently found that they had no indispensable role to perform within the executive structures set up by local education authorities. Moreover, in certain county areas the authorities had to delegate certain functions in the sphere of primary and secondary education to the councils of 'excepted districts' and to other divisional executives. The consequence was that any functions assigned to managing and governing bodies were shared by other and more powerful partners, themselves increasingly limited in their freedom by national policies and agreements. The increasing emphasis on party politics in local government also had its effect. Party control of appointments extended to places on governing bodies, and the majority of them were filled by party nominees.

Events since 1969

2.14 During the eight years since the research study was completed there have been very significant changes in the context and atmosphere of school government. Many of the practices described are still to be found, but they are being modified by new forces which were only beginning to emerge during the 60s. These forces derive on the one hand from the reorganisation of local government and the reorganisation of secondary education and on the other from a demand for broader participation in educational decision making which has come from lay and professional people alike.

2.15 The reorganisation of local government in 1974 has had a number of consequences. It has brought about, first, a reduction in the number of authorities and an increase in the size of many local education authority areas, which in turn has created a demand for greater involvement in decision making at school level. This foreseeable consequence was one of the reasons for the attention paid to governing bodies by the Royal Commission on Local Government (6) in 1969. The point was re-emphasised in the Second Report of the Public Schools Commission (7) in 1970. Second, it has often brought under one administration localities in which governing and managing bodies have had some real purpose and others in which they have received only perfunctory attention. This has resulted in the loosening of older traditions in favour of practices more in accord with the times. Third, the coming of 'corporate management' in its various forms has fostered awareness of the value of the governing body as a distinctive means of ensuring proper consideration for the education interest in local government.

2.16 The reorganisation of secondary education on comprehensive lines has been significant in stimulating interest in what is happening in the school system among many who otherwise would have left the running of the school to local education authorities and teachers. Familiar scenes have changed, new and challenging opportunities have been announced and campaigns and counter-campaigns have both reflected and attracted widespread public interest. Active public opinion concerning the schools has become an element in the national and the local political situation of which parties, administrators and teachers have had to take account.

2.17 Concern expressed itself during the 1960s in the establishment of a number of voluntary organisations, notably the Advisory Centre for Education (with its periodical 'Where') and the local associations for the Advancement of State Education, brought together in a national Confederation (CASE) which publishes a quarterly newsletter, 'Parents and Schools'. Both bodies early saw managing and governing bodies as one of the means by which they could achieve the ends they had set themselves. Similar interest was shown by the National Confederation of Parent/Teacher Associations with its journal, 'Parent/Teacher'. Towards the end of the 60s there came into being the National Association of Governors and Managers, with its publication 'NAGM News', specifically for the purpose of revitalising school management and government. The results of the activities of these bodies affected other and much longer established organisations. Managing and governing bodies came to be mentioned more frequently, after long years of neglect, in the proceedings of major teacher and local authority associations. Moreover, they came to be discussed not only in the educational press but also in the general press and to claim the attention of parliamentarians.

The position in 1975

2.18 The situation which we found when we began our work in May 1975 was one of transition. The formal framework of instruments, rules and articles was the same as six years earlier when the Baron-Howell study was completed and many of the practices then noted still continued. Thus one large authority we visited still grouped together as many as 26 primary and secondary schools under one governing body and attached so little importance to this aspect of its administration that minutes were not circulated to members. In another there was a transition to individual governing bodies from a single managing body for all primary schools and a single governing body for all secondary schools. In some other areas we visited, where there was a tradition of each school or small group of schools having their own governing bodies, their part in the making of appointments, in the discussion of school matters and in relating the schools to the communities they served, was minimal.

2.19 But there were significant differences to be noted. Several authorities had set out to institute carefully planned and effective systems of managing and governing bodies where these had not existed before. Their emergence was something not to be observed in the mid 1960s.

2.20 Another difference and one of likely great significance was the widespread acceptance of parental representation. The research study revealed formal provision for parental representation in only 9 counties and 11 county boroughs, though, of course, many of those appointed as councillors or as other representative or co-opted managers or governors were parents. A survey published by the National Association of Governors and Managers showed that in May 1975 provision was made for parents to be represented on governing and managing bodies by 70 out of the 82 local education authorities which provided information.

2.21 At the time of the research study in 1965-69 teacher representation was still more infrequent than parental representation; only a few authorities allowed teachers, whether in their own service or not, to serve on managing or governing bodies. The survey by the National Association of Governors and Managers showed, however, that 62 of the 82 authorities had set aside places for teachers.

2.22 Two other groups with claims for representation had hardly asserted themselves at all in 1969 when the research study was completed. These were the pupils in secondary schools and non-teaching staff. Now, although the practice is not widespread, a number of authorities make provision for pupils over the age of 18 to serve on governing bodies and in some cases a lower age limit may have been set. Some authorities arrange for pupils to have observer status only. There are also authorities which provide for non-teaching staff (secretaries, caretakers, groundsmen, technicians) to appoint members of managing and governing bodies.

2.23 By and large it is in the structure and composition of managing and governing bodies that change has been most marked in recent years. Redefinition of function has not proceeded at the same pace, possibly because the changes in structure and composition are, in many cases, only very recent. It would seem that where individual governing bodies have replaced large groups there is greater involvement by governors in the making of appointments, and necessarily the affairs of each school receive more detailed attention. But there are few indications that governors have gained any real financial powers. In those areas where there is some freedom of resource allocation at school level, it is the head rather than the governors who makes the effective decisions. There is little evidence that governors have in the last ten years exercised a significant influence on what is taught in the schools or on the methods used, and the governors' power over the direction of the school curriculum remains in general a dead letter. Certainly in the course of our visits there was rarely any challenge to the convention that, with few exceptions, these territories are the preserve of heads and teachers alone. The Tyndale case (8) may be a notable exception, but the recent growth in some areas of short training courses for managers and governors which are likely to lead to a questioning of constraints hitherto unquestioned, could be an important new factor. The following chapters spell out the way in which a positive contribution could be made by parents and others, without undue interruption of the school's daily activity, by careful definition of the possible area of debate and discussion and the forum in which it is to be conducted.

Footnotes

(1) Developments prior to 1945 are dealt with in Appendix B.

(2) Relevant extracts of the Act are given in Appendix D.

(3) The administrative memorandum and the model are reproduced in Appendix E.

(4) Where a county primary school serves an area in which there is a minor authority, Section 18 of the Education Act 1944 requires that two thirds of the managers shall be appointed by the local education authority and one third by the minor authority. The definition of 'minor authority' given in Section 114(1) of the Education Act 1944 was amended by Section 192(4) of the Local Government Act 1972. As from 1 April 1974 a 'minor authority' is, in England, a parish council (or the parish meeting where there is no such council) and, in Wales, a community council; or, where in either country there is no parish or community council, a non-metropolitan district council. Where the area served by a school takes in any combination of such councils the expression 'minor authority' has to be construed as referring to all of these authorities acting jointly. Section 31(10) of the London Government Act 1963 provides that in relation to any school maintained by the Inner London Education Authority, the expression 'minor authority' shall be construed as a reference to the councils of the inner London boroughs and the Common Council.

(5) Cf. Baron and Howell, pages 3 and 4 (see paragraph 1.7 footnote).

(6) Royal Commission on Local Government in England 1966-19.69 (Cmd. 4040) HMSO 1969.

(7) Public Schools Commission. Second Report HMSO 1970.

(8) See paragraph 1.10.