The governing bodies of publicly funded schools in England are currently facing a number of substantive challenges of various kinds. Many of the challenges are long-standing, while others relate to the current context for governing wrought by recent education policy developments initiated by central government. A number of the challenges are immediate and intense, and may well develop over time. The challenges result from both policy imperatives and the challenge of governing effectively – procedural imperatives. The intention of this article is to analyse the challenges facing governing bodies in England. We argue that the challenges interact and synergize and could develop into ‘a perfect storm’, which could have significant implications for the security and stability of the education system and for society generally. Our thinking is shaped by the notion of interactive governance (Kooiman, 2003), which posits that the workings of the school governance network, of which school governing is a part, is best understood in terms of interactions. Following this introduction, we provide some background information for those not familiar with the school governing system in England. We then very briefly describe the three research projects in which we have been involved that form the empirical base for the article (Balarin et al., 2008; James et al., 2010, 2012, 2013). The challenges facing governing bodies are considered under the headings: school governing’s low profile; the institution and the environment; accountability; and the role and the responsibility of school governing bodies. The way these different challenges interconnect and add together is discussed in the penultimate section. In the final section, we make some concluding comments.

The research reported here analysed the role of the chair of the school governing body in England, drawing on a national survey of governors and the study of governing in 30 schools. The role encompassed: being a governor; appointing and working with the head teacher; acting as a change agent; active participation in the school; organising the governing body; dealing with complaints; working with parents; and chairing meetings. We discuss the role and the way it is experienced and conclude that the position of chair is substantially under-played; given insufficient status; and is a significant educational and community leadership responsibility.

This article reports research into the nature and functioning of school governing bodies in different socio-economic and performance contexts. The research analysed 5000 responses from a national questionnaire-based survey and undertook 30 case studies of school governing. The research confirmed that school governing in England is a complex and onerous responsibility that places governing bodies under considerable pressure. The socio-economic and performance contexts can be particularly demanding additional pressures. Governing bodies interact with those contexts in a complex way which we explain using the notions of governance capital and governance agency. Governance capital is the network of individuals and their capabilities, relationships and motivations that are available for the governing of a school. It is likely to be greater for schools that: are well regarded; are in high socio-economic status settings; and have high levels of pupil attainment. These effects may add and mutually reinforce creating an 'amplifier effect', which may significantly impact on the governing of a school. Governance agency is the capacity of those involved in the governing of a school to act. It is significant; can ameliorate the effects of low governance capital; and complicates the relationship between governing, performance and socio-economic context.

No abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to evaluate two coaching and mentoring programmes focused on the ever-increasingly important aim of enhancing the chances of professional level employment for undergraduate students, at two UK universities. In addition, to offer recommendations to enhance coaching and mentoring success within higher education (HE).Design/methodology/approachTwo similar programmes are compared; the first study is a coaching programme delivered in two phases involving over 1,500 students within the business school. The second study is a mentoring programme involving over 250 students over a ten-year period within the business school at a different institution.FindingsThe two programmes have been compared against the key success criteria from the literature, endorsed by coaching and mentoring experts. The results highlight the importance of integrating with other initiatives, senior management commitment, budget, an application process, clear matching process, trained coaches and mentors, induction for both parties, supportive material, ongoing supervision and robust evaluation and record keeping.Research limitations/implicationsThe research focuses on two similar institutions, with comparable student demographics. It would have been useful to dig deeper into the effect of the diverse characteristics of coach/mentor and coachee/mentee on the effectiveness of their relationships. In addition, to test the assumptions and recommendations beyond these two institutions, and to validate the reach and application of these best practice recommendations further afield.Practical implicationsThe results identify a number of best practice recommendations to guide HE institutions when offering coaching and mentoring interventions to support career progression of their students.Originality/valueThere are limited comparison studies between universities with undergraduate career-related coaching and mentoring programmes and limited research offering best practice recommendations for coaching and mentoring programmes in HE. The top ten factors offered here to take away will add value to those thinking of running similar programmes within HE.