Whisper it but we may be entering a golden age of governance in FE.
One indication was a recent invitation for me to attend an Office for Students event on the future regulation of HE governance. It was gratifying to see this part of government looking to FE as a potential model for where good governance practice lies, alongside their live consultation around effective governance in HE. I wasn’t expecting that.
Comparison can too often be the thief of joy and FE too often compares itself unfavourably to schools and universities, as the ‘sandwiched’ sector. There are good reasons for that of course, including stark funding disparities. However, with governance perhaps FE is knocking it out the park right now, at least in comparison with our institutional counterparts.
I don’t have an evidence base at my fingertips but I have heard some pretty hair-raising anecdotes about underdeveloped and under resourced governance support in some very large multi academy trusts. Similarly, I’ve had FE college chief executives express incredulity at my desire to serve on a university board. Apparently, many vice chancellors will prioritise almost anything in their remit above the effective governance of their own institution. Perhaps that’s one reason why so many universities have found themselves in such dire financial straits. A grossly unfair caricature I’m sure, and offered at a highly social meeting of senior FE leaders I attended. But it got me thinking.
The government, the FE commissioner, the Association of Colleges and the Education & Training Foundation all need to share some credit for having invested in developing FE governance in recent years. National Leaders of Governance are an excellent resource for colleges for example, whilst the AoC and ETF run many programmes designed to support and develop governors. Messages about the central importance of the ‘triumvirate’ of chair, chief executive and the director of governance role (increasingly designated by colleges as a ‘senior post holder’ reflecting its level of strategic importance) are really beginning to cut through.
So, whilst never complacent, it looks like a good story for FE governance right now.
But where do we go from here?
Well, firstly FE needs to shout about something that it’s doing well. Humbly shout, maybe, if that’s not a contradiction in terms – offering our support, insights, services and partnership to schools and universities.
Secondly, chairs and governors need to continue to join up with each other in local and regional areas to pool the message and evidence that good and active governance is helping to get ahead of future organisational and operational challenges. This message needs to be packaged up and communicated to government at official level, through the place-based teams and the FE commissioner and her team. This could be supported by the AoC’s National Chairs’ Council which I’m pleased to have recently joined as a member.
Thirdly, college chairs need to be paid. If you don’t pay them, you risk the hard-won gains that have been made in recent years slipping away. There are a whole host of arguments in support of paying chairs – they are important roles, with serious accountability for often large and complex businesses. For organisations operating on the scale of most colleges in this country they need to be treated more like a part time job, albeit one without executive responsibility rather than in the spirit of community volunteering which is the prevailing attitude in many parts of the country. I hope that government says something about this sooner rather than later but colleges shouldn’t wait for ‘permission’ to proactively decide to pay their chairs.
If FE governance can secure for itself this strong and confident platform – reassuring government that it is actively supporting the sector’s resilience and effectiveness through periods of future growth and challenge – then it could seek to also have a national policy ‘voice’ alongside our principals and chief executives, advocating for positive change in the areas we are all familiar with including funding, qualifications and curriculum and the size and shape of the FE estate.
At that point you wouldn’t need to whisper that FE may be entering a golden age of governance – the noise would be so loud everyone would hear it!
Unfortunately an article that given the publicity this week on appalling governance at Weston is probably a little misplaced but I do agree with your comments about he and particularly mats
The problem as Weston proves is one person can always override when they are in the driving seat for the appointment of governors and chairs
Having sat in many many governance meetings, I can tell you that what happens on the ground is very different to how things are polished for board papers.
I’d go as far as to say that in some cases Governors are ‘spared’ the truth to insulate them from accountability.
Paying Governors? Perhaps that’s something that can be looked at after frontline staff pay has been sorted. I don’t have the evidence base at my fingertips, but it feels reasonable to assume a disproportionately low number of Governors use foodbanks.
Of course it’s wonderful tell that to the poor people working at Weston
Thought this was an April’s fool until I checked the date
…seriously!!!
I do not believe that there is any evidence that paying chairs will improve the performance of governing bodies or colleges. In fact there is plenty of evidence to the contrary in other sectors. Paying chairs would take funds away from the front line and encourage those motivated by money to come forward to the detriment of values driven leadership.
Strongly advise against paying governors, or chairs. It attracts very different people, focused on their own NED portfolio development. This conflicts heavily with the very strong social values of people who work in colleges and those who kindly volunteer their skills and time to govern colleges.