governance good practice guide

board performance

It is important to assess the performance of the board as a whole, as well as the effectiveness of individual members.

This is routinely achieved through measuring how well it has performed its statutory and other responsibilities. While this is a useful check on compliance, the Governance Good Practice Guide (GGPG) promotes the use of more high-level, developmental approaches as part of a board's 'journey towards excellence'.

Compliance with the expected role cannot be a strength – it is a core requirement, a 'given'.

Compliance should be seen as the basis for further development.

A 'strength' represents something the governing board does well, over and above the norm, and reflects a culture of continuous self-improvement.

board strengths and weaknesses

Defining performance helps the board's approach to self-assessment to be directed by its strengths and weaknesses. A board:

• with issues from the Self-Assessment Report Questionnaire (SARQ) and audits of governance would need to focus on compliance initially, and carry out a governance health check
• with poor SARQ and other audit feedback on effectiveness, may want to review what it does against good practice in the FE sector in order to improve
• where members feel that (despite good external feedback) they do not have as much impact as they want, may take a more internal and creative look at effectiveness – through other models of governance, the role of individual members and the chair, satisfaction questionnaires, etc.
• where the college has received average or poor results for inspection, fails to achieve its targets or has low student satisfaction, may want to review the quality of the information and reliability of the data it receives; or analyse how its decisions impact on the college and learner – reviewing overall strategy and policy framework, strategies for teaching and learning, quality improvement, property, target setting, etc.
• that is effective but feels it could do more in terms of leadership, or feels that it is reacting to governance and management rather than leading, may want to review its involvement in the strategic direction of the college, the distinction between governance and management, and its role in modelling the ethos of the organisation, etc.
• where members feel they are not contributing as much as they might, or are not having sufficient impact, may want to consider what value they add by being there and how to improve it; this could be done by identifying and meeting board development needs more effectively and encouraging whole board involvement; by better use of members' skills through changing structures; by setting up a system of linking with curriculum areas; by supporting the college in reaching out into the local community, etc.

It should be noted that all boards, regardless of positioning and performance, should have an exception report on compliance – SARQ – or annual internal audit of corporate governance.

measuring board performance

Board members need to have a shared understanding of what good performance as a governing board means and how it can be measured.

They need to identify appropriate measures to enable them to judge the impact of their performance on the college and learner, measures that are adequate within a changing local and national context.

The following table gives one example of areas of board performance, and the frameworks and approaches that might be used.

performance indicators

Agreeing appropriate and adequate performance indicators (PIs) against which to measure its performance is an essential part of the board's self-assessment process.

Quantitative PIs for board performance – e.g. attendance at board and committee meetings and working groups – are easier to identify and measure than qualitative ones.

The further education model of collective decision-making means that if members do not attend they are not involved in the board's decision-making process, so attendance is clearly important.

However, mere attendance may not be enough. For example, what is the quality of the individual governor's contribution during board and committee meetings? If a governor attends but makes little or no contribution to the meeting, what value does he or she bring to governance?

Attendance at meetings (a focus of interest for external agencies) is not the only way that governors bring value to governance. Governors may contribute in significant ways outside meetings.

Some boards use the number of decisions taken by the board during a particular year as a quantitative performance indicator. The governing board may make a record number of decisions – but are the outcomes of these decisions evaluated? What impact have these decisions had on learners, employers, staff and others? Is it what was expected? If not, why not? Does further action need to be taken? Can anything be learned for the future?

Boards need to have a mixture of quantitative and qualitative performance indicators against which to measure the board as a whole and as individuals. Qualitative PIs help a board identify the difference they make, and provide an answer to the question 'What difference would it make to the college if the governing board were not there?'

PIs should differ from a list of actions or outcomes in that they are long-term indicators that can reveal improvement trends and provide a benchmark. As with the governance Self-Assessment Report (SAR) and Quality Improvement Plan (QIP), PIs must be agreed and owned by all members if they are to have real impact. Performance indicators might include:

• all members showing that they have read papers before meetings, and come ready to participate and challenge
• quality of governor input at meetings
• targets for visits to link areas (where appropriate)
• attendance at college events
• time spent on learner-based issues during meetings
• a focus on strategy
• number of decisions made, linked to the impact of the decisions on the ground
• identifying and meeting governance information and training needs
• succession planning arrangements and targets met for recruitment (with particular reference to equality, diversity and inclusion)
• participation in development activities
• using peer referencing and review to support governance self-assessment and improvement.

The Quality Improvement Agency (QIA) is leading on the development of peer referencing to bolster the capacity of providers to self-assess and improve. 

The QIA also sees peer referencing as one of the key ways in which colleges and other learning providers can develop their collective responsibilities for assuring the quality and standards of provision for learners, employers and communities. They are an important part of proposals for greater self-regulation across FE.

For further information on this work see the QIA website: www.qia.org.uk

action/reflection view all action/reflection points for this section

• Do we have a shared understanding of what good performance as a governing board means?
• Are we an effective board? How do we know?
• How do we define and measure success?
• Are we satisfied with our performance – collective and individual? If so, why?
• What do we do well or less well?
• Are there barriers to effectiveness? If so, what are they and how can they be overcome?
• Do we receive the information we need to undertake our role effectively? Is it in an appropriate format?
• If we need to improve, how can we do this to make a difference?
• How can we measure improvement and impact?
• Are our performance indicators adequate and appropriate?
• Do our performance indicators assess the impact of the board's activities on the quality of provision for learners?
• How good is the quality of governor contribution in and between meetings, and what is the influence on decisions?
• Do I make an active contribution to debate and decision-making?
• How do college managers feel that the governing board performs?
• Is a large proportion of our time spent discussing non-learner and non-employer-related issues?
• Do we know what our students, staff, employers, other stakeholders think?
• Do we listen carefully to them and act upon their views?