An analysis of the role and responsibilities of chairs of further education college and sixth-form college governing bodies in England

Abstract

This article reports research into the role and responsibilities of the chairs of governing bodies of further education colleges and sixth-form colleges in England. Further education colleges and sixth-form colleges represent a significant part of post-16 educational provision in England. Every college in the sector has a governing body, which has a chair elected from and by the governing body’s membership. Sixteen chairs from further education and sixth-form colleges in England were interviewed and data themes identified: the chair’s role and responsibilities reflect those of chairs in non-further education/sixth-form college settings; a range of expertise is required, but detailed educational knowledge is not a priority in the requisite skill-set; chairs consider they bring a range of high level values and commitments to the role; chairs’ participation in role-specific training and development was not a strong theme; the responsibility of being the chair is substantial and complex; high-quality chair–principal relationships are crucial and complex; the governing body clerk has a significant role in relation to the chair, the principal and college governance generally; and the role and the responsibilities of chairs and the way they are specified locally by their governing bodies have significant implications for further education and sixth-form governance.

The nature of hybrid governance: A case study of a large and well-established European international school

“…Clear delineation between school management and governance is central to this relationship (Connolly & James, 2011), as micromanagement by board members has been found to negatively impact governance (James and Sheppard, 2014). The relationship between the head and the board chair is particularly important: the chair must be a sounding board, an advisor and also a performance manager for the head of school, but may have a high level of dependency on the head of school regarding pedagogical matters (Hill and James, 2017). These conflicting sub-roles have the potential to bolster or damage the legitimacy of the institution.…”

“…It remains unclear if the findings of this study are relevant for Type C schools, which now comprise the majority of international schools, and the emerging group of Type D schools. Nevertheless, given that the importance of board training is visible in the literature from as far back as Kerr (1964), and continues to emerge as important in both the international and US contexts (Hill and James, 2017; Gawlik and Allen, 2019), this appears to be an avenue through which international schools regardless of classification may be able to enhance their legitimacy.…”

The role of the clerk to the corporation in promoting the legitimate governance of further education and sixth form colleges in England

“…These challenges have implications for college leadership and management, which also has various problematic aspects (Elliot, 2015; Jameson and McNay, 2007). All these characteristics have implications for college governance, which in turn has a number of challenging aspects (Gleeson et al, 2011; Hill, 2014; Hill and James, 2015; Hill et al, forthcoming).…”

“…The research literature on the role of the clerk draws attention to a number of issues including: the importance of the clerk in ensuring high quality governance (Gleeson et al, 2011; Hill, 2014; Hill and James, 2015; Schofield, 2009); inadequate understandings of how the role of the clerk is undertaken (Schofield, 2009); an unduly narrow interpretation of the role and the consequent need to specify it (Schofield, 2009); the importance of ensuring clerks have the capacity to fulfil their governance advisory role (Brumwell, 2015; LSIS, 2013), and the related issue of the need for the training and development of clerks (Brumwell 2015; Hill 2014; LSIS 2013; Schofield 2009); ensuring that the status and the value of clerks are recognised and that adequate resources are devoted to the role (Brumwell 2015; LSIS 2013) to guard against the role’s vulnerability to cost-cutting and the consequent impact on governing quality (Schofield, 2009); and the importance of ensuring that working relationships between the clerk, the principal and the chair are appropriate (Brumwell, 2015; Gleeson et al, 2011; Hill 2014; LSIS 2013). The two most recent reports by the FE Commissioner in England (DBIS, 2014, 2015) paint a negative picture of the role in practice in colleges.…”

The challenges facing further education college governors in England

“…The responsibilities of FE college governing bodies seem relatively straightforward. However, at the best of times, governing bodies have to undertake challenging work (see for example, Hill and James, 2015). Very significantly, at the time of writing, January 2016, FE college governing bodies are facing a number of significant, substantial, simultaneous and synergistic challenges.…”