Opinions

Matters of trust

Proprietorial and corporate governance models are regarded as inferior by many in the independent sector. James Croft considers whether the charitable trust framework works as well as is often claimed and reviews the alternatives

Professional governing bodies can be an asset to the effective management of a school, but all too often constrain the school leadership’s ability to respond to changes both in-school and in the market. In an increasingly competitive schools marketplace, those unable to take decisive action when it is needed may find themselves responsible for the closure of their schools.

As things stand, many governing bodies are illpositioned to respond to the challenges of the coming decade. The charitable trust framework draws too many who regard their positions as purely honorary. New openings are frequently filled on the basis of personal connection rather than talent. Many chairs believe that boards should represent and address the interests of key stakeholders, and so end up carrying ex officio figures, alumni, and even parents, who are ill-suited for the role.

These failings can, of course, be corrected; but structural issues are harder to resolve. Over time, structures designed to ensure checks on the executive function, and balanced decision-making, can become unmanageably complex: committee structures evolve, sub-committees are added, and new governors are recruited in response to the demands of changing circumstances. Instead of specifying a specific term of service to address a particular need, many chairs appoint governors on an open-ended basis to build continuity.

Bigger not always better
Experience suggests that the size of a board is a major factor in determining the efficiency of an organisation’s decision-making. The larger boards get, the more bureaucratic and process-driven they become. Illustrating what is at issue, a Wild Search report (Who Governs the Governors?) published last year found that the average number of governors on a traditional (individual) school governing body is 21. By way of contrast, the federations (CfBT, Girls’ Day School Trust etc) typically have between 12 and 15, whereas private-equity backed school chains Cognita and Alpha Plus number eight and six respectively.

Commercial frameworks tend to be leaner and more agile than the governing boards of charitable trust schools. This is no less true of standalone proprietorial schools. In contrast to charitable trust schools, whose boards often struggle to gather termly, most proprietorial schools are run with the day-to-day involvement of one (or more) of the owners, whose decision-making is thus informed by thorough knowledge of the situation in-school and in the local market. Proprietors respond to events as they unfold, consulting experienced non-executive advisors or buying-in expertise as necessary.

And, because they have a direct interest not only in maintaining the school’s legacy and reputation, but also in building on it, they are inclined to look for opportunities to expand. Research for the Adam Smith Institute (ASI) last year revealed that 84 per cent of commercially run schools in England (three-quarters of which are proprietorial) have expanded their provision either up or down a stage, and a third has specialised for a niche market.

The bottom-line
Though the charitable trust model might appeal to those who believe that formal checks and balances are inherently a good thing, there is no evidence to suggest that formal compliance with its structures improves the quality of educational provision. Neither is there evidence to suggest that quality is compromised through exposure to business-run alternatives. In fact, the reverse appears the case: the ASI study found that, even at the lower end of the fee spectrum, the performance of proprietorial and business-owned schools at Ofsted inspection (2007-10), against all key teaching- and learning-related criteria, is significantly more consistent than that of charitable trust schools. The same was true of schools in association inspected on the second cycle (between 2006 and 2009) on both measures of pupil attainment and in respect of their spiritual, moral, social and cultural development.

Evidently, proprietorial/business ownership focuses minds on educational outcomes, and is all the guarantee many parents require that proprietors will govern responsibly and deliver the high standards they expect in a financially sustainable way.

James Croft launched The Centre for Market Reform in Education at The Institute of Economic Affairs. http://www.cmre.org.uk.

Return to Opinions