Abdulla Sodiq
Lecturer in Education Studies
On a sunny autumn afternoon in Birmingham, our research team convened in the bright space at Birmingham City University’s Curzon Building to deliver our draft recommendations from the two year-long education governance project funded by the British Education Leadership Management Administration Society. We delivered our findings as the keynote address at a BELMAS Governance Research meeting that we hosted at the venue. Our draft research-informed recommendations were presented to our specialist governance audience - essentially, a focus group of experienced governance practitioners, researchers, academics, and students from the educational leadership field.
We started from the premise that academic staff governors (ASGs) play a crucial yet often overlooked role in educational governance. As both educators and governors, they bring extensive and invaluable lived experiences and perspectives into boardrooms. Yet our findings from interviewing staff governors indicates that their voices are not being heard as loudly as they deserve within what should be a democratic and deliberative environment.
To address these issues, arguably failings of governance, we proposed four recommendations for the education sector:
Managers’ Presence Affecting ASGs’ Contributions: Firstly, in the governing boards of schools, colleges and universities, some governance deliberations should occur in spaces without senior leaders or line managers present to enable an open and challenging discourse. This point is also supported by previous research into FE college governance (Sodiq, 2022). Could this be extended to exclude the head (the Vice Chancellor of universities; Principals or headteachers of colleges and schools) from the board as ex-officio board members using the argument that their presence can inhibit frank deliberations and scrutiny. Excluding them from selected talks empowers boards. Allen (2017) argues, too that CEOs become powerful governance actors within their own board and thus a weakened form of self-governance is enacted and the board, ultimately, becomes less democratic.
Utilising ASGs’ Professional Capital: Secondly, governing boards must do more to recognise and indeed, utilise the “professional capital” of ASGs as they are educators with crucial insights. We find that these insights are grounded in a wealth of teaching, learning and assessment expertise and their access to active and relevant educational networks both within and outside the institution. There was clear evidence that governing boards do not make the best use of such ASGs’ professional capital in their decision-making. Thus we argue that boards may unwittingly foster restricted roles for ASGs. In order to better utilize and liberate the expertise of Academic Staff Governors (ASGs), it is felt that governing boards, whether in the school sector, further education or in higher education must acknowledge ASGs’ extensive professional capital. Despite their invaluable insights, boards often underutilize ASGs' expertise in decision-making. Our research project collected evidence of ASGs’ diverse knowledge and contributing to topics such as equality and diversity at management level as well as amongst staff and students, progression rates for ethnic minorities, student satisfaction levels across the institution; insight into the performance of academic programmes; the nature of online teaching during Covid-19; the institution’s investment in building/space projects; and the institution’s public reputation. Additionally, ASGs view their role as professionally enriching and advocate for educators to consider board involvement as part of their career development (see Communities of Practice below).
Encouraging ASG Participation and Conflict of Interest: To optimize their contribution, boards should encourage ASGs to participate actively in strategic discussions, while also recognizing potential conflicts of interest. Facilitating separate discussions for ASGs and senior management, as well as implementing digital tools for anonymous input, for example in voting, can enhance ASGs' involvement without reservation. We found that governance protocols at the institutions do not allow ASGs to act as a formal link between boards and teaching staff’s interests. The ASGs also believed that it is not practical for an ASG to play such a role. Clear guidance is needed to navigate potential confidentiality and conflict-of-interest issues where ASGs seek to represent staff agendas. ASGs should gather staff input judiciously, focusing on general matters without personal agenda.
Governing boards must leverage ASGs' professional capital effectively, fostering an environment where their expertise is valued and utilized in decision-making processes. By providing clear guidance and support, boards can ensure ASGs contribute meaningfully to governance while upholding professional standards and integrity. Such experience should not be a prerequisite for ASG roles, as the main focus lies on educational expertise rather than managerial skills. Insisting on managerial experience may limit early career educators' participation in governance.
Accessibility of ASG Roles: Thirdly, creating accessible roles for ASGs is a strategic imperative to encourage participation. For example, the length of tenure can be reduced from four to two or three years. Furthermore, meetings can be scheduled to take place during the working day. Attending evening board meetings from the data (and from the personal experience of the researchers) ensures a 13-hour day in the workplace for the ASG. Attendance at some meetings can also be made remotely where appropriate. These initiatives are likely to encourage more education professions to apply to be governors and are key initiative to facilitate forms of democratic participation. It is observed that current practices inhibit participation.
Cross-sector Communities of ASG Practice: Finally, establishing cross-sectoral communities of practice for ASGs would enable valuable collaborations amongst ASGS across the education sectors. Joint CPD and knowledge-sharing events can build competencies and confidence for exerting greater influence (Iredale, 2018; Lave and Wenger, 1991). From our data, it appears weak understanding or uncertainty of the ASG role has affected the ASGs’ engagement with the governance process. With an ASG Community of Practice established across institutions could address a plethora of issues that we observed: ASG recruitment; handling dynamic identities (ASGs as teaching staff, manager, parent; community member; governor); harnessing specific skills, for instance, educational budgeting and finance; challenging own line managers in governance and confidentiality issues and conflict of interest within the role. Such a support network could even lead to a fuller engagement by ASGs, whereby they regularly contribute to all aspects of governance, including the less active areas for ASGs such as recruitment of senior leaders or in aspects of senior leadership appraisal.
Our recommendations aim to amplify the voice of ASGs as critical governance actors. What are your thoughts on strengthening ASGs' roles? Please Join the discussion in our social media comments, by contacting the researchers directly, or by participating in the BELMAS Governing and Governance Research Interest Group, Governance & Governing - BELMAS.
References
Allen, A. M. (2017). Empowered participatory governance? A case study inquiry into a Co-operative academy model (Doctoral dissertation, Teesside University).
Iredale, A. (2018). Teacher Education in Lifelong Learning: Developing Professionalism as a Democratic Endeavour. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65819-3
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
Sodiq, A. (2022). Academic staff governors’ power and professional status in the governance of further education colleges in England. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 27(1), 98-127. https://doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2021.2011512