In part two we discuss how to find a reviewer and what to expect from your internal review
Find a reviewer
Boards should ensure the person conducting a review has the appropriate background, skills and experience to fully understand the individual characteristics of your organisation and the governance structure in which it operates. Designated national leaders of governance (NLGs) can undertake external reviews of governance. You can use an organisation to commission a review; they may be able to help you identify a good match, and may offer additional quality assurance to add value to your review. Be aware that the ideal reviewer for an individual organisation at a particular time will not, necessarily, be the ideal reviewer for a different organisation or at a different time.
You can find a reviewer by contacting:
education service providers;
sector membership organisations;
independent governance consultants;
relevant professional bodies;
professional services providers (such as lawyers or auditors) – but be careful to avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest.
Things to consider when commissioning a reviewer
When commissioning a reviewer, you might want to identify:
similar organisations, based on geographic location, pupil demographics and/or educational performance, to request endorsements or references;
a reviewer who has experience of delivering excellent governance at an organisation like yours, so that they have a working understanding of an organisation with similar demographics and demands as your own;
a reviewer who belongs to a governance membership organisation or professional body;
look at the reviewer’s previous experience of undertaking ERGs – they should provide evidence of the improvement outcomes that their previous reviews have resulted in, and evidence of the expertise, experience and the capacity necessary for each review they undertake;
for reviews of MAT governance, seek a reviewer who has a sound understanding of the academy trust sector, and a breadth of experience of academy trust governance; it might be helpful if they have experience of governing, or working as a governance professional in an academy trust, and an understanding of academy trust structures;
a reviewer who has specific technical knowledge to understand the needs of your organisation – for example, an organisation with financial governance concerns may require a reviewer with a more detailed understanding of finance, or more than one reviewer might be appropriate where there are multiple complex issues. Technical knowledge is also important where there are particular characteristics – for example, religious characteristics;
how the reviewer keeps their skills and knowledge up-to-date; for example, when did they last undertake training or development, and are they currently personally involved in school, academy or academy trust governance?
how the reviewer quality assures their reviews – are they part of a wider organisation or network that can deliver an element of quality assurance?
check whether the reviewer(s) have any previous links with the board or executive, and if so in what capacity. Reviews must be impartial and independent and the reviewer must remain fully objective and able to provide a robust and challenging evaluation.
Reviewers should demonstrate how effectively they can:
analyse governance and governance support;
identify improvements and communicate these effectively;
assimilate school performance data, budgets and finance and evaluate how school improvement priorities are being monitored at board level;
diagnose governance issues.
What to expect from your external review
A review should be personalised to your organisation, detail well-evidenced findings and provide recommendations for improvement where necessary. Some common characteristics of the most effective reviews include:
A clear scoping exercise prior to the review
Before a review is undertaken the board and the reviewer should be very clear about aims and expectations. This includes establishing the areas of concern or improvement, anticipated outputs, and understanding what can and cannot be delivered within the boundaries of the review, as well as how the review will be undertaken.
The organisation and reviewer should agree terms of reference before the review commences; these should specify the objectives and scope of the review and the process to be followed. The organisation should not, subsequently, seek to amend the terms of reference without the agreement of the reviewer. Timeframes and costs should also be clearly set out, including payment of any expenses, and contingency for unplanned costs or time.
A review will usually comprise several stages, including remote testing of compliance with requirements for published information and other supplied information which should include examination of the board’s governance documents and any supporting information, meeting agendas, papers and minutes, discussions with trustees, governors, executive leaders, governance professional and the board, and report writing. These will vary in duration depending on the complexity of the board structure and the depth of review required.
Evidence of board interactions
Reviews can assess the effectiveness of board interactions though a number of channels. By allowing a reviewer to observe board and committee meetings, or to undertake a facilitated discussion or self-review, a better understanding can be developed of the board dynamic, working relationships and the levels of understanding and challenge across the members of the board. However, infrequency of board meetings, or the timing of the review, may make it difficult to observe a board meeting, so this will need to factored in when planning the timing of the review. Good quality minutes can provide some evidence of the nature of discussions and themes explored – although it can be difficult to understand the depth and effectiveness of challenge from minutes alone.
Interviews with governors or academy trustees, headteachers or chief executive officers, chief financial officers, governance professionals, local or board chairs, members and so on, to gather evidence on what they understand about good and effective governance and how they are discharging their duties can also be useful.
Testing compliance
An ERG is a good opportunity to undertake a thorough test of an organisation’s compliance with mandatory and legislative obligations, as set out in the governance handbook and also, for academy trusts, in the academy trust handbook, and the academy trust’s articles of association in order to check the appropriateness of terms of reference, schemes of delegation and so on.
Be the first to comment