Head first

Part of a governor’s duties involves performance management of the headteacher. Penny Chapman explains how to spot the early warning signs of a potentially underperforming head and advises how to tackle them

A key feature of a well-run school is a harmonious relationship between the governing body and the headteacher. In this, a school is no different to any charity or commercial organisation in which the governing body and chief executive work in partnership; each knowing their roles and responsibilities and respecting and supporting each other in the performance of them, which is critical to the success of the organisation.

The foundations of good performance
The governors of a (registered charity) school are the charity trustees, as defined by the Charities Act 1993. The governors therefore have a statutory responsibility for delivering the educational objects of the charity, yet the head has the day-to-day task of running the school: as a result, there is an almost inbuilt tension between them.

The head may resent the fact that although s/he has years of professional experience of how the school should operate, s/he is accountable to a group of governors, many of whom may have almost none. However, if the governors are clear from the outset about their strategy for the school and what they are looking for when appointing a head, the tensions should be minimised and issues of underperformance are rare or, at least, capable of being dealt with swiftly.

The school’s constitution should permit the governors to delegate to the head, the bursar and other members of senior staff, sufficient powers to allow them to perform their roles. The terms of the delegated authority should be clearly set out in the charity’s bylaws, standing orders or other policy documents. The governors should regularly review how those powers have been exercised and hold the head to account, according to the delegated authority.

It is advisable for one of the governors to take particular responsibility for the relationship with the head. That person may be the chair, but must be a governor with relevant skills whom the head respects as understanding her/his role; who will act as her/his mentor and ensure that they feel fully supported (although the governing body as a whole must guard against the relationship becoming too cosy, such that the mentor is unable to be objective about performance issues).

Appointing a head
When appointing a new head, governors should compile an induction pack that includes a copy of:
• the school’s constitution;
• the governors’ strategic objectives for the school;
• the policy documents that set out the relationship between the governors and the head, including lines and frequency of reporting, expected attendance at governors’ meetings etc;
• the performance management system; and
• the disciplinary procedure.

The head must be clear from the time of appointment exactly what is expected of her/him, and it is important that the performance management system is implemented from the outset and not only when problems first arise.

Performance management systems
The head should be formally appraised at least once a year by a sub-committee of governors, chosen for their skills, to be responsible for performance issues.

At each appraisal, the governors should:
• set clear objectives for the head;
• identify training and development needs;
• raise any areas of concern; and
• agree with the head a mechanism for following up any points arising out of the appraisal: this should then, in its turn, be monitored.

Early warning signs of poor performance
The performance management tools, mentoring systems and review mechanisms ought to provide an early warning system to the governors if the head is underperforming. If, for example, the quality of the head’s reports diminishes, or becomes less detailed, then it may be a sign that the head is not getting to grips with, or has lost her/his grip, on the management of the school.

Other early warning signs:
• staff complaints;
• concerns raised by the bursar over financial irregularities;
• an increase in parent complaints or falling off of roll numbers;
• secrecy or lack of willingness to share information; and
• resentment of mentor’s role.

The governors will only benefit from these early warning signs if mechanisms are in place for individuals other than the head to communicate directly with the governors. For example, a governor with financial skills ought to have regular one-on-one review meetings with the bursar, another governor should attend occasional staff meetings and, once a year, the governors should consider holding an open forum for parents.

What if there is damage to the school?
The key is to be prepared. Underperformance by the head needs swift, active management, which will need to take place outside the context of the governors’ regular meetings; partly because the governors are unlikely to meet frequently enough to deal with the matter, partly because the head will usually be in attendance at the governors’ meetings and partly to minimise the spread of knowledge of the underperformance unless and until necessary. The members of the sub-committee responsible for performance issues should convene to take control of the situation as soon as they realise there is a potentially serious problem.

The governors will need to consider whether:
• the underperformance is an appraisal issue that needs training or other assistance;
• it is a disciplinary matter requiring the disciplinary procedure to be invoked. If it is or may be, the school’s external legal advisors should be asked to advise on the employment law position at the earliest possible opportunity to minimise any claim which the head might subsequently make; or
• if it is, potentially, a criminal offence: for example, in a worst-case scenario, child abuse, which might need to involve the police. In these circumstances, in addition to the relevant employment/criminal law, the governors must consider reputational issues. It is important to have a pre-prepared communication strategy to invoke in such circumstances and that the governors accept cabinet responsibility in dealing with the matter.

If the underperformance is a general failure to achieve the objectives and targets set by the governors, despite appropriate training and support, it is important that the disciplinary procedures are carefully followed and the head is given the opportunity to improve and to learn from mistakes. However, if the underperformance persists and the disciplinary procedures have been exhausted, the governors must protect the interests of the school and of its pupils, by dismissing the head. Handling the exit of an underperforming head is not easy, but if robust performance management systems are in place from the outset and the correct disciplinary procedures have been followed, the governors should be able to remove the head with the minimum of reputational risk to the school.

If the appointment of the head proves contrary to the interests of the school, the governors should also consider whether they not only need to review the performance of the head, but also the basis on which they have delegated their powers and their own performance in properly monitoring that delegation.

However, no number of policies and procedures can be a substitute for a genuine working partnership between the governors and the head in which each have clearly defined roles and respect for each other, so that matters of concern can be openly addressed at an early stage to minimise the opportunity for underperformance to escalate to the point where it may have a negative effect on the success of the school.

Penny Chapman is a partner for Bircham Dyson Bell and is head of charities.

Return to Governance