Introduction
Over recent weeks, I've written quite a lot about quality improvement, inspection outcomes, and the importance of understanding whether the actions we take are actually making a difference. This week I take a look at something that sits behind almost all of those conversations - Governance.
Having reviewed this past week's Ofsted reports and monitoring visits, one theme stood out and that is that there is a significant difference between having governance arrangements in place and having governance that genuinely understands, challenges and improves the quality of education.
Across the reports, inspectors describe governing bodies, boards and those responsible for oversight in quite different ways. Some are providing effective challenge. Some bring valuable educational and sector expertise. Some are helping leaders identify weaknesses in quality assurance.
Amongst all of that there are also examples where governors receive information without gaining a sufficiently detailed understanding of teaching quality, or where governance arrangements are still developing.
So the question is, "Are our governance arrangements genuinely helping us improve, or are they simply providing assurance that things are happening?"
Governance isn't just about receiving information
One of last week's reports describes governors who understand the organisation's vision and the resources required to deliver it. However, inspectors also identify that the information governors receive doesn't focus sufficiently on the quality of teaching.
I think that's a particularly useful finding because boards can receive a great deal of information about achievement rates, retention, attendance, financial performance, safeguarding reports, quality improvement updates, learner numbers, and employer engagement.
All of that information has a place but how much does it actually tell governors about the quality of education learners are experiencing?
Can governors see where teaching is effective?
Where learners are making progress?
Where particular programmes or groups are experiencing difficulties?
Whether the curriculum is being delivered as intended?
And whether quality improvement actions are changing the experience of learners?
Understanding organisational performance isn't necessarily the same as understanding the quality of education. Of course both matter, but they aren't interchangeable.
Effective challenge should lead to action
Another report this week provides a useful contrast. Inspectors describe governors challenging leaders because the information used to monitor learner progress was not sufficiently accurate, and leaders responded swiftly.
That might sound like a relatively straightforward example but I think it tells us something important about effective governance. Governors weren't simply receiving a report and accepting the information presented. What they were doing was questioning whether the evidence was reliable enough to support the judgements being made, and that challenge resulted in action.
That's where governance starts to become meaningful. Not because governors have identified a problem, but because their challenge has helped the organisation respond.
There is a clear difference between, “We've discussed learner progress at the board.”
And, “We've challenged the reliability of learner progress information, identified weaknesses and ensured leaders have taken action.”
The second tells us something about the effectiveness of governance plus it leads to another question, How do governors know whether the response has actually worked?
Challenge shouldn't end when an action is agreed, there needs to be follow-through.
Independence and expertise matter
The monitoring visits this last week also raise some interesting questions about governance arrangements.
In one, inspectors identify that governance and oversight are underdeveloped, alongside quality assurance arrangements that lack sufficient rigour and independence.
In another, governance arrangements are being established, with leaders recognising the value of external expertise in adult learning and safeguarding.
Elsewhere, inspectors describe governors bringing relevant experience from further education, digital industries, accountancy and finance.
These are quite different circumstances but they point towards the same issue.
Effective governance requires more than having people around a table. It requires the right knowledge, the ability to interpret information and the confidence to challenge. That doesn't mean every governor needs to be an education specialist. There is considerable value in financial, commercial, legal, safeguarding and industry expertise. But collectively, those responsible for governance need to understand enough about the organisation's provision to ask meaningful questions.
Leaders need to consider how appropriate independent challenge can be secured, because without it, there is a risk that governance becomes overly dependent on the information and interpretation provided by the leadership team.
That isn't necessarily a criticism of leaders. It's a question about the strength of the assurance process. Who is testing whether the organisation's own evaluation is accurate?
Understanding quality means looking beneath the headline figures
Something else comes through in last week's reports. Governors can have a reasonable understanding of organisational strengths and weaknesses while still needing a more detailed picture of teaching and learning.
One report describes board members challenging leaders about the need to formalise quality assurance processes.
Another identifies that governors understand most strengths and areas for improvement and have a reasonable understanding of teaching quality.
These are positive foundations, but I think they also illustrate why governance conversations need to go beyond performance dashboards.
A provider might have acceptable achievement rates. Retention might be stable. Learner satisfaction might be positive. But those figures don't necessarily tell us whether:
- learners are developing the knowledge and skills they need;
- teaching is consistently effective across programmes;
- apprentices are receiving appropriate support from employers;
- disadvantaged learners are making progress comparable with their peers;
- assessment and feedback are helping learners improve;
- emerging weaknesses are being identified early enough.
Those questions require more than headline data. They require governors to understand what the evidence is telling them about the learner experience, and importantly, where that evidence may be incomplete.
The danger of confusing activity with assurance
This is something I've been thinking about quite a lot recently. We can have very well-established quality processes - observations, learner surveys, quality improvement plans, self-assessment reports are just some of them!
We can report all of that activity to governors, but what does it actually tell them? If a report says that 95% of observations have been completed, that's information. If it says that every quality improvement action has an owner and deadline, that's information too. None of those statements, on their own, demonstrates that quality has improved.
Governors need to understand what those activities have identified, what leaders have done in response and whether the changes have made a difference. Otherwise, there is a danger that the board receives assurance about the completion of processes rather than the effectiveness of provision.
Governance should be interested in what quality assurance achieves, not simply whether it happens.
Are we challenging early enough?
This is where I think the conversation becomes particularly important. Governance is often described in terms of holding leaders to account, but do we sometimes focus too heavily on accountability after something has gone wrong?
A decline in achievement. A missed target. A safeguarding concern. A poor inspection outcome. A funding compliance issue.
At that point, governors quite rightly want to understand what happened and what leaders are doing about it, but perhaps the more important governance question is: Could we have seen it coming?
Were there early warning signs?
Were learners beginning to fall behind?
Were withdrawal patterns changing?
Were particular programmes performing differently?
Were employers raising concerns?
Were improvement actions repeatedly being carried forward without evidence of impact?
And was that information reaching governors early enough for them to challenge and influence the response? The earlier we understand a problem, the more opportunity there may be to change the outcome.
When governance becomes a question of organisational risk
There is another example from recent weeks that I think makes this conversation particularly important.
An apprenticeship provider received an Urgent Improvement judgement for achievement. Leaders subsequently implemented changes, and when inspectors returned for a monitoring visit, achievement had improved to Expected Standard.
That was a significant improvement, but there was a complication. The provider's apprenticeship contract had already been terminated following the earlier inspection judgement, around a month before the improved judgement was published.
I think this raises an important question for boards and governing bodies: What happens when improvement takes longer than the accountability process allows?
We often talk about governors holding leaders to account when performance falls below expectations, but in some cases governance needs to be asking those questions much earlier.
Are we identifying emerging risks before they become poor outcomes?
Do governors understand the relationship between achievement, quality, funding compliance and contractual accountability?
Are they receiving information early enough to challenge leaders and influence the outcome?
And when improvement actions are introduced, can they see whether those actions are working?
This isn't about suggesting that governors can prevent every poor inspection outcome or funding intervention. It's about recognising that quality, financial sustainability and organisational risk cannot be considered separately.
An improvement plan may be entirely appropriate, but if the consequences of underperformance arrive before the improvement can be demonstrated, the organisation may already be facing decisions that are difficult to reverse.
That only reinforces the importance of governance that looks forward, not backwards. Governors shouldn't only be asking why a result happened. They should be asking what the evidence suggests might happen next.
Good governance needs more than a RAG-rated report
I think most of us working in quality have seen board reports that are heavily focused on red, amber and green ratings and there is nothing inherently wrong with that.
RAG ratings can help governors identify where attention is needed but they are only useful if the underlying judgements are accurate and supported by evidence.
A green rating might mean performance is meeting target, but does it mean quality is consistently effective?
An amber rating might indicate that an improvement action is underway, but is the action actually working?
A red rating might indicate a significant concern, but how long has the issue been developing? What was known before it reached that point? What action was taken?
Governance reporting should help governors understand three things.
1. What is happening?
Accurate information about performance, quality, learner experience and risk.
2. Why is it happening?
Evaluation that explains the underlying causes, rather than simply describing the result.
3. What difference are our actions making?
Evidence that interventions are improving outcomes, or an honest acknowledgement that it is too early to know.
That final point is important because governors don't always need to be told that everything is working. Sometimes they need to hear, “We've identified the issue. We've taken action. But we don't yet have sufficient evidence to know whether it has worked.”
That's a much more useful conversation than presenting an action as complete simply because it has been implemented.
What should governors be asking?
The reports this last week seem to suggest a few questions:
Do we genuinely understand the quality of education and training? Not just achievement and retention, but what learners experience and how effectively they develop.
Can we trust the information we receive? How is it validated? What independent challenge exists? Where are the gaps?
Are we seeing the whole picture? Do headline figures hide differences between programmes, cohorts, employers or learner groups?
Are we identifying risks early enough? Or are we waiting until underperformance becomes a result?
Are improvement actions making a difference? What has changed for learners, and how do we know?
Are our questions changing anything? Governance isn't effective just because challenging questions are asked. It becomes effective when those questions contribute to better decisions, stronger assurance and improved outcomes.
Final thoughts
Last week's reports provide some useful examples of what governance looks like in practice.
There are governing bodies providing effective challenge.
There are boards drawing on valuable educational and sector expertise.
There are examples where governors identify weaknesses and leaders respond.
However there are also findings where governance arrangements are still developing, where independent challenge needs strengthening or where the information governors receive doesn't sufficiently explain the quality of education.
Having governance arrangements in place isn't the same as having effective governance. It's whether governance helps the organisation understand its provision, recognise emerging risks, challenge decisions and improve outcomes. In an environment where inspection judgements can have significant funding and contractual consequences, that matters more than ever.
“Are we asking the right questions, early enough to make a difference?” is the all important question.
Good governance shouldn't only help us explain what has happened. It should help us influence what happens next.
How AiVII can support
Through AiVII Consulting, we support FE & Skills providers with quality assurance, inspection readiness, funding compliance, curriculum and strategy, and leadership development. Our approach focuses on helping leaders understand the quality of their provision, evaluate risk and strengthen the evidence behind their decisions. That includes supporting the kind of honest, evidence-led conversations that effective governance depends upon.
The AiVII Platform provides the technology layer, helping organisations bring together performance, quality and compliance information so that leaders have greater visibility of what is happening across provision. Better governance doesn't necessarily need more reports. It needs better information, stronger evaluation and the confidence to ask the questions that matter.
Follow AiVII for weekly Ofsted insight briefings, toolkit interpretation and practical guidance for FE & Skills leaders.
