tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post7333662545293534687..comments2024-03-07T06:52:34.516+00:00Comments on Exiled Preacher: A Call for ReforMATion in School Governance Guy Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09184743462264437085noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-55747751759710501102016-03-30T11:02:08.450+01:002016-03-30T11:02:08.450+01:00From Naureen: https://governingmatters.wordpress.c...From Naureen: https://governingmatters.wordpress.com/<br /><br />Good to get a debate going. For no 5 above I'd say that this is where Members need to step in. The role and responsibilities of Members need to be made clear and perhaps made slightly stronger. I don't know if Members do step in when things go wrong. This needs looking at, I think.<br /><br />Guy Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09184743462264437085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-91714185674560756342016-03-30T09:20:32.696+01:002016-03-30T09:20:32.696+01:00Hi Naureen,
By way of response...
Rights
2.(a) ...Hi Naureen,<br /><br />By way of response...<br /><br />Rights<br /><br />2.(a) If a MAT developed organically, the first thing would be to agree a common vision to which all schools could sign up. Or if a school was looking to join a pre-existing MAT it should consider whether it could buy into their vision. But individual schools within the MAT should also retain their own vision statements, as a secondary school's vision would look different to that of an infant school's and a church school's (for e.g.) would reflect its faith-based ethos. It would be the job of LGBs to set their school's distinctive vision that also coheres with that of the MAT.(b) Holding HT to account broader than performance management. LGBs should hold HT to account for overall progress of school, outcomes for different types of pupils, attendance rates etc. Don't agree that HT PM should be ceded to CEO/Exec HT with no LGB involvement. See paras 9&10 of this post for my take on this:<br />http://exiledpreacher.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/school-governance-as-we-know-it-is.html.<br />3. I'm with Lord Nash on the ideal size and geographical coverage of MATs 'not more spread out than it takes to travel from one school to another within half a lunch break', not Sir David Carter's 'wider still and wider' approach. My preference would be for all schools in a small town and its surrounding villages, or a district in a big town/city to form a 6 or 7 school MAT. That way all could be equally represented on the MAT board. In the case of larger MATs it could be equitable representation according to school size, with 1 representative for a secondary, 1 for two large primary schs, 1 for three smaller primary schs etc.<br />4. See 2. under Responsibilities. The MAT's power to intervene in a failing LGB would be built into the SofD from the start. But the board would be unable to change the SofD to remove powers from all LGBs without the consent of the majority of constituent LGBs. If a change proposed by the MAT board was reasonable, a failing LGB would not be able to veto it if an overall majority of LGBs were in favour. <br />5. I believe in an element of mutual accountability. What if MAT board was less than the sum of its parts and was holding the MAT back? <br /><br />Responsibilities<br /><br />At least we agree there!<br /><br />Thanks for your comments,<br /><br />Guy<br /><br />Guy Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09184743462264437085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-42326270141164896202016-03-29T23:13:08.172+01:002016-03-29T23:13:08.172+01:00My thoughts on the above:
Rights of LGB:
1. Agree...My thoughts on the above:<br /><br />Rights of LGB:<br />1. Agree<br />2. (a) In consultation with the Board so that there is some synergy amongst all the schools. (b) This function should rest with the "line manager", the CEO. (c) Agree. LGB should ensure VFM for the school budget.<br />3. This may make the MAT board very big if there are quite a few schools in the MAT. For example, if a MAT has 25 schools then that means according to your model there will be 25 LGB representatives on the Board plus others that the Board may want. This makes the Board too big, in my opinion. This may work for smaller MATs.<br />4. In normal circumstances this may work but what happens if the school isn't performing well and the LGB is not functioning well? Its difficult to imagine that a LGB which is part of the problem would agree to be disbanded. <br />5. I don't mind the idea of an annual conference where the Board discusses plans for the next year with the LGB but I don't think this can be viewed as a forum where the LGB holds the Board to account because its the Board which holds the LGB to account.<br /><br />The responsibilities of LGBs in a MAT:<br />1-5. These I broadly agree with.<br /><br />Interesting times ahead!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com