The role of the chair of the school governing body in England

Abstract

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.

Opening the ‘black box’: what does observational research reveal about processes and practices of governing?

“…This was particularly evident in one of the boards investigated, 'where the chair was undertaking textbook facilitation behaviours (focusing discussion, keeping the meeting moving and so on) that were viewed by the directors as inhibiting the discussion and effective task execution' (p. 37). A similar concern was noted by James et al (2012) in their study of school boards. Parker's (2007Parker's ( , 2008 participant observation of the boards of two Australian notfor-profit organisations also examined facilitation of meetings by the chair.…”

Primary school headteacher recruitment and selection in England: the processes and the problematic aspects

“…In general, primary schools' capacity as institutions to support the appointment process will be less than that of secondary schools, which are typically larger and have more resources. Primary school GBs, especially those in disadvantaged settings, often struggle to recruit members more so than secondary school GBs, which impacts negatively on their overall capability (James, et al, 2014). This recruitment difficulty may well negatively affect their expertise in headteacher appointment.…”

Managing serious teacher misbehaviour

“…This strategy was part coping mechanism, part pragmatism in that the participants felt only another head could understand the complexity of the task of managing TMB. While HR could discuss the process, they had little understanding of the pressures and multiple accountabilities of leading a school (James et al 2012). Other heads provided essential guidance and support as they understood the contextualised nature of TMB far more than the HR representatives who had never managed a school; as such, they functioned as 'critical friends' (Swaffield 2005).…”