If the FE sector is to thrive in an era of devolved authority and heightened accountability, one thing is clear: governance reform can’t wait. Too many colleges are stuck in a cycle of complacency, where boards are packed with allies, scrutiny is superficial, and term limits are ignored.
The result is a system that values stability over challenge and conformity over innovation.
The fix? Two fundamental changes: mandatory term limits for governors and independent recruitment processes.
Without these, FE governance risks becoming an echo chamber where accountability statements collect dust and real oversight takes a back seat.
Self-perpetuating boards and the ‘old guard’
A senior governance colleague recently told me: “When new governors push for progress, they’re often vilified by the ‘old guard’, leaving them intimidated into silence.”
Sound familiar? It’s a culture that’s all too common. CEOs and chairs handpick governors who won’t challenge them, long-serving members dominate discussions, and promising candidates are rejected for fear they’ll rock the boat.
But here’s the thing: harmony isn’t the goal of governance, robust scrutiny is.
As one Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development review notes: “The governance office is the conscience of the organisation, ensuring short-term pressures never eclipse long-term values.”
Why term limits are essential
Guidance on governor tenure is so vague it’s practically an invitation to overstay.
While the FE Code of Good Governance suggests nine years as a benchmark, many treat it as a starting point, not a limit.
The fallout? Groupthink, reduced independence, and boards that lack the fresh ideas needed for today’s challenges, from local skills improvement plans to devolution.
Mandatory total term limits of, say, eight years max, would ensure a steady influx of new ideas while keeping institutional memory intact through staggered rotations and succession planning.
Meanwhile, allowing CEOs and chairs to dominate governor recruitment is a glaring conflict of interest. Instead, FE colleges should adopt independent nomination committees to bring in diverse, skilled appointees.
Skills-based recruitment should be the norm, prioritising expertise in finance, education and digital transformation. And boards should reflect the communities they serve, not just the inner circle of leadership. Whilst this is seen and done in many colleges, it is too often controlled from the top.
This isn’t pie-in-the-sky thinking. Australia’s TEQSA (Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency) audits and enforces strict governance standards, and Canadian colleges use independent panels to appoint board members.
Training and culture: Learning from Weston
The Weston College scandal around the chief executive’s pay laid bare the gaps in governance training. While the Institute of Directors’ Governance Professional Programme is a step in the right direction, we need mandatory training for governors as well, covering financial oversight, risk management and inclusive leadership.
A national governance qualification, written for governors, backed by the Association of Colleges and the Education and Training Foundation, would raise the bar.
Whistleblower protections are a must, so concerns can be raised without fear.
And we must guard against items such as accountability statements being treated as tick-box exercises. Because if that’s all they are, then once completed they become forgotten and any potential for behavioural change is lost.
Change for the better
Governance needs a cultural change with boards’ performance being measured. Such measurement could be undertaken via an annual review, and overseen by a specialist body such as the Association of Colleges or even the FE Commissioner’s team.
The FE sector isn’t a collection of independent fiefdoms, it’s a cornerstone of the public sector that is accountable to mayors, employers and learners. To meet its responsibilities governance must step up with term limits, independent recruitment and professionalised training.
Governors are ready to lead this change, but they need support from policymakers and sector bodies to speak up and break the status quo.
Your thoughts