School Leadership & Management

Formerly School Organisation

ISSN: 1363-2434 (Print) 1364-2626 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cslm20

A comparison of the governing of primary and

secondary schools in England

Chris James, Michael Connolly, Steve Brammer, Mike Fertig, Jane James &
Jeff Jones

To cite this article: Chris James, Michael Connolly, Steve Brammer, Mike Fertig, Jane James &
Jeff Jones (2014) A comparison of the governing of primary and secondary schools in England,
School Leadership & Management, 34:2, 104-119, DOI: 10.1080/13632434.2013.849680

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2013.849680

Published online: 25 Nov 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2455

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cslm20
School Leadership & Management, 2014
Vol. 34, No. 2, 104–119, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2013.849680

A comparison of the governing of primary and secondary schools in

England
Chris Jamesa*, Michael Connollyb, Steve Brammerc, Mike Fertiga, Jane Jamesa and
Jeff Jonesa
a
Department of Education, University of Bath, Bath, UK; bBusiness School, University of
Glamorgan, Pontypridd, UK; cWarwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

In England, governing bodies continue to be responsible for the conduct of publicly

funded schools. This article compares the governing of publicly funded primary
schools (for 5–11 year olds) and secondary schools (for 11–18 year olds). The
research analysed policy documents and the governing of 16 primary and 14
secondary schools. The main governance mode for both primary schools and
secondary schools is hierarchical and similar in nature, and the governing bodies of
primary and secondary schools use broadly similar governing instruments. However,
they differ in significant ways. In primary schools, governing is smaller in scale and
less complex. Primary school governing is closer to the school and children, and the
images held by governors of the system to be governed are better developed in
primary schools. Functional knowledge was more useful in primary school governing,
and the use of informal meetings as instruments of governance was more widespread
in primary school governing. The findings and their implications need to be taken into
account in the analysis of and policy making for school governing.
Keywords: governance; management; primary schools; secondary schools; governing

Introduction
In England, all schools that are funded by the public purse – formally called maintained
schools – are required to have a governing body, which is legally responsible for the
school’s conduct. The governing body must have representation from various stakeholder
groups, for example, parents of pupils and members of the school’s wider community and
the staff. Maintained schools can be divided into primary schools, which cater for pupils
aged approximately 5–11 years, and secondary schools, for pupils aged approximately 11
to 16–18 years. The governing of these two types of schools is assumed to be identical.
This article questions that assumption and compares the governing of the two types of
school, a comparison that has not been undertaken before. In addition we seek to inform
debates about the nature of governance. The assumption is often made that similar forms
of governance generate similar processes. In our case the formal definitions about the
modes of governance in schools – school governing bodies in both secondary and
primary schools – are broadly similar. The questions then arise: ‘Are the processes
similar?’ ‘If not, why not?’ and ‘What does that say about understanding governance
arrangements?’

*Corresponding author. Email: C.James@bath.ac.uk

© 2013 Taylor & Francis
 School Leadership & Management 105

In this paper, we draw upon and supplement the findings of a wider study that
analysed the nature and functioning of school governing bodies in England (James et al.
2010). Following this introduction, we explore: current understandings of the governing
of primary and secondary schools; the research we undertook; and the outcomes of our
research. In the subsequent section, we summarise and discuss the substantive issues that
emerged from the analysis and the article ends with some concluding comments on the
issues raised.

Current understandings of the governing of primary and secondary schools

Reports of school governing research in England do not typically contrast primary and
secondary school governing. So for example, Deem, Brehony, and Heath (1995) do not
distinguish between governing in primary and secondary school settings in their
longitudinal study, nor does Farrell (2005) in her more recent study of school governing
body accountability. Scanlon, Earley, and Evans (1999) report that governing body
processes appear to vary in a range of ways, as do Dean et al. (2007), but neither reports
distinguish between the processes of primary and secondary school governing bodies.
Some authors do however focus on one particular school type. For example, Ranson et al.
(2005) examine the governing of primary schools in depth but do not offer a contrasting
secondary school perspective which is our intention in this article.
Research on the functioning of school governing bodies reveals a number of fairly
consistent themes. First, working strategically can be difficult for governing bodies, see
for example Earley (2003). Similarly, Farrell (2005) reported that the requirements of
governing bodies and regulations that encourage an undue concentration on specialist
areas, such as finance and human resource management, hindered engagement in strategy.
However, in their national survey, Balarin et al. (2008) found that the governors ranked
carrying out operational tasks ninth below a range of other more strategic activities in the
activities undertaken by their governing bodies. Again none of these reports sought to
distinguish between the strategic orientation of primary and secondary school governing
bodies.
The governing body role in supporting and challenging the head teacher is a
consistent feature of governing practice in policies and guidance – acting as a critical
friend is the normal metaphor (see for example, DfES [2004] and NGA [2011]). Thus a
second theme in governing body functioning is the balance between governing bodies’
support for and challenging of the head teacher. Perhaps unsurprisingly, various studies
report governing bodies’ emphasis on support as opposed to challenge (Earley 2003;
Farrell 2005; Dean et al. 2007; Balarin et al. 2008), although again none of these studies
distinguish between primary and secondary schools in this respect.
There are some comparative studies, but these focus on outcomes and not on internal
processes. Thus Ofsted, which regulates and inspects schools in England (Ofsted 2013),
reports that school governing is good or better in most schools and satisfactory in all but a
small minority, and has improved slightly during the last 10 years (Balarin et al. 2008).
Primary and secondary school governing bodies have broadly similar levels of
effectiveness overall and across a range of descriptors. The national survey by Balarin
et al. (2008) found that effective primary and secondary school governing bodies shared
the same characteristics. They have a common vision of what the school is trying to
achieve and good communication amongst members. They also have well-attended
meetings where members feel able to speak their minds, work to a clearly structured
106 C. James et al.

agenda, are chaired effectively and are supplied with high-quality relevant information.
Research undertaken by James et al. (2010) found that measures of governing body
effectiveness are more strongly related to pupil attainment in primary settings than
secondary, although the relationship is not strong in either setting.

The research
This article draws on and extends an analysis of the nature and functioning of primary
and secondary school governing bodies in England in relation to school performance and
socio-economic context (James et al. 2010). We studied governing in 16 primary and 14
secondary schools as individual cases to gain a rich and in-depth picture of their
functioning. The governing bodies in the sample had high and low levels of effectiveness
and governed schools that: were geographically spread; had high and low levels of school
performance; and were set in high and low socio-economic status contexts. The profiles
of the schools studied are given in Tables 1 and 2.
In each case, we interviewed the chair of the governing body (ChGB), the head
teacher and at least one other governor. Our primary purpose was to characterise aspects
of governing in the two settings. Interviews typically lasted one hour and explored: the
school and its context; understandings of governing and how governing was understood
by governing body members; the school’s performance and the governing body’s role in
monitoring and improving it; governor recruitment, induction and training; the motiva-
tions of the governing body members; and governing body processes and functioning. We
also observed at least one meeting and took field notes, and we analysed relevant

Table 1. Characteristics of the secondary schools studied.

Socio-
Quality of school economic
governance status

Raw attainment Ofsted Ofsted Survey FSM

scores CVA assessment assessment data IDACI %

S1 509 1011 1 1 7 0.08 3

S2 387 1007 1 1 3 0.09 5
S3 500 1063 3 1 7 0.24 17
S4 389 1010 3 2 5 0.41 22
S5 460 990 2 2 6 0.10 3
S6 444 978 3 3 6 0.13 10
S7 286 975 4 2 7 0.36 25
S8 265 995 3 2 7 0.34 46
S9 457 1009 1 2 5 0.09 3
S10 373 982 2 3 6 0.23 13
S11 373 983 3 3 6 0.09 3
S12 323 971 3 3 5 0.10 5
S13 344 993 3 3 6 0.30 19
S14 362 1021 3 2 7 0.11 52

Notes: CVA = contextual value added. Survey data are the assessment of respondents to the Balarin et al. (2008)
survey of their governing body quality (7 = high, 1 = low). IDACI = Income Deprivation Affecting Children
Index. % FSM = the percentage of pupils entitled to free school meals.
 School Leadership & Management 107

Table 2. Characteristics of the primary schools studied.

Socio-
Quality of school economic
governance status

Raw attainment Ofsted Ofsted Survey FSM

scores CVA assessment assessment data IDACI %

P1 271 102 1 1 6 0.08 8

P2 283 101 2 2 7 0.48 46
P3 205 101 4 2 6 0.15 22
P4 210 99 4 2 7 0.52 53
P5 221 99 3 2 6 0.30 17
P6 300 101 2 3 5 0.05 0
P7 282 101 2 3 5 0.13 11
P8 165 98 4 3 5 0.13 10
P9 204 100 3 3 3 0.48 N/A
P10 185 99 4 3 5 0.52 40
P11 248 100 3 1 7 0.14 10
P12 185 99 4 4 3 0.20 17
P13 300 101 1 1 N/A 0.07 0
P14 190 100 4 2 N/A 0.47 64
P15 N/A 99 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
P16 267 101 2 2 6 0.02 2

Notes: CVA = contextual value added. Survey data are the assessment of respondents to the Balarin et al. (2008)
survey of their governing body quality (7 = high, 1 = low). IDACI = Income Deprivation Affecting Children
Index. % FSM = the percentage of pupils entitled to free school meals). N/A = data not available.

documents such as reports of Ofsted inspections of the school and the schools’ websites.
In each case, we identified emergent themes and we then undertook a cross-case analysis
and identified substantive themes. In addition, we analysed policy and guidance
documents to understand the regulatory context and the nature of primary and secondary
schools as organisations.

Analysis of the data

The mode of governance of primary and secondary schools in England
The key point to emerge here is that the mode of governance, which is predominantly
hierarchical, the specification of the roles, responsibilities and procedures of school
governing bodies, and the regulations controlling the constitution of school governing
bodies in England are the same for both primary and secondary schools.

The dominant hierarchical mode

The state is central in setting the regulatory framework within which all schools operate –
funding schools, maintaining a focus on pupil attainment and regulating and controlling
schools through Ofsted (James 2012). School governing interactions must thus be seen
against the background of predominantly ‘top-down’ interventions, which are undertaken
by the state and its agencies. These agencies, such as Ofsted in its inspection and
108 C. James et al.

regulatory roles, steer and provide direction to the system, which is controlled both by
legal/constitutional rules, as well as political norms. The current Ofsted inspection
framework (Ofsted 2012) is the same for both primary and secondary schools. School
performance and effectiveness, as measured by pupil attainment, is closely scrutinised
and is important in steering the system (James 2012). We recognise that other
organisations, for example, professional associations and unions, have a role (Stevenson
2012), but nonetheless, the mode of governance of schools in England is predominantly
hierarchical and the work of governing bodies is directed and controlled by government
statute and regulation.
Within the overall regulatory framework, all schools in England are accorded a high
degree of autonomy from local authorities, with local authority education services having
a largely monitoring role. They have the power to intervene in schools causing concern
under the 2006 Education and Inspections Act (DfE 2012a). For example, if serious
governing issues arise local authorities can replace the governing body with an interim
executive board.
The 2010 Academies Act enhanced the autonomy further, allowing schools to
separate from the local authority and to be directly accountable to central government by
adopting academy status. In January 2013 there were 2619 academy schools (12% of all
schools) of which 974 were primaries (6% of all primary schools) and 1584 were
secondaries (48% of all secondary schools) (DfE 2013). Interestingly the proportion of
primary schools taking up academy status is smaller than the proportion of secondaries. A
further part of the changing pattern of autonomy is that, following the 2002 Education
Act, schools are increasingly collaborating formally and informally for various purposes
(DfE 2012b). Collaborations vary with different implications for leadership, management
and governance (Chapman et al. 2010). The collaborating schools may be primary
schools, secondary schools or both and may also include other kinds of school such as
those for students with special educational needs. Perhaps understandably, federations
have the most immediate positive impact on standards when schools with very different
levels of pupil attainment collaborate (Chapman et al. 2009; Ainscow and Howes 2007),
thus achieving more equitable outcomes (Chapman and Fullan 2007). The extent of
collaborations is increasing, but each school, whether in a collaboration or not, having its
own governing body remains the dominant pattern (James 2012).
The rhetoric of increased autonomy has to be juxtaposed alongside this increased
central control. Thus the role of the state is far from ‘hollowed out’ (Rhodes 1997) in the
governance of primary and secondary schools; it has a central role (Bell and Hindmoor
2009; Connolly and James 2011). Within this overall regulatory framework, school
governing bodies are tasked with calling to account those to whom they assign
responsibility for day-to-day operations, thus confirming the overall hierarchical nature
of school governance in England. Significantly, in the context of this article, both the
primary and secondary case study schools were subject to the same regulatory context
and conformed similarly to that context.

The specification of the roles, responsibilities and procedures of school governing bodies
The 1988 Education Reform Act assigned the responsibility for the conduct of primary
and secondary schools to governing bodies. The 1998 Standards and Framework Act
subsequently confirmed this responsibility with the specific duties of: setting strategic
directions; supporting or challenging schools; and acting as ‘critical friends’ by
 School Leadership & Management 109

monitoring and evaluating schools’ progress. Since then, the general responsibility has
been subsequently confirmed in: statute, for example the Statutory Instrument 2000 No.
2122 (DfEE 2000) and the 2002 Education Act; guidance, for example, Ofsted (2002);
and government white papers, for example, ‘Governing the School of the Future’ (DfES
2004). Balarin et al. (2008) drew attention to the various and somewhat confusing ways
the task of governing has been specified in guidance and statute. The latest specification
of the task set out in the 2010 white paper ‘The Importance of Teaching’ (DfE 2010)
emphasises supporting and challenging the leadership of the school and asserts that
school governors should ‘clearly hold the school to account for children’s progress’ (13).
The roles, responsibilities and procedures of school governing bodies in England are
extensive and are specified by central government in a guide to the law (DfE 2012c),
which runs to over 200 pages and applies similarly to both primary and secondary
schools. The statutes that regulate and control the roles, responsibilities and procedures of
governing bodies are thus the same for primary schools and secondary schools.

The constitution of school governing bodies in England

The 1980 Education Act and the 1986 Education (No 2) Act required school governing
bodies to have parent, community and business representation. The change in governing
body constitution enabled by these Acts has been confirmed by subsequent legislation.
Current regulations (DfE 2012c) framing the constitution of governing bodies in
England specify the inclusion of: parent, staff, co-opted/community and local authority
governors; foundation governors from the school’s founding body; partnership and
sponsor governors from the wider (typically business) community; staff and local
authority members; and associate (non-voting) members. Parent and staff governors are
elected; other kinds of governor are appointed. Head teachers are governors unless they
resign the office of governor, which is rare.
Governing bodies should have between 7 and 20 members and comprise at least: two
parent governors; the head teacher and one staff governor; one local authority governor;
and two co-opted members. Governing bodies may specify their overall size. The
number/proportion of the different categories varies slightly according to the kind of
school – for example its foundation or religious affiliation – but the variations apply
equally to primary and secondary schools. The maximum term for school governors is
four years, although governors may be re-elected, re-appointed or indeed change their
designation.
In summary, the regulations controlling governing body constitution, which are
significant aspects of the hierarchical mode of governance, are the same for primary and
secondary schools.

Primary and secondary schools in England as organisations

Arguably, a key variable in governing practice is the nature of the organisation to be
governed. It substantively shapes governing images, which are the ‘visions, metaphors,
models, knowledge, facts, judgements, pre-suppositions, hypotheses, convictions, ends
and goals’ (Kooiman and Jentoft 2009, 820) that inform governing actions. In this
section, we seek to distinguish between primary and secondary schools as organisations
and to explore the effect of the differences on governing interactions.
110 C. James et al.

The students attending maintained schools and the curriculum

All children in England are required to attend school for 11 years from the age of five
years. Those attending maintained schools go to primary schools from Years 1 to 6, and
secondary schools from Years 7 to 11. In some instances, primary provision is divided
into infant schools (Years 1 and 2) and junior schools (Years 3 to 6) (Directgov 2010).
Because of the difference in pupil age and therefore, typically, their capabilities, the
work of primary and secondary schools, as exemplified by the curriculum, is different.
Thus although the range of subjects in the curriculum is broadly similar, the depth at
which they are studied and the outcomes of that study are at a lower level in primary
schools (QCDA 2010a). The secondary curriculum ‘builds on young people’s experiences
in the primary phase’ (QCDA 2010b, 1). Arguably, the curriculum content and processes
of primary schools, for example, learning to read and write, are likely to be more familiar
to governors than those of secondary schools. In primary schools, the curriculum for a
pupil is typically provided by one teacher while in secondary schools, the curriculum is
provided by a number of teachers. The management of curriculum provision is therefore
more complex in secondary schools. The complexity of curricular provision is likely to
condition the images – the ideas, knowledge and goals for governance (Kooiman and
Jentoft 2009) – held by governors of the two types of school. These images may in turn
shape their day-to-day governing interactions differently.
Primary schools in England are on average much smaller than secondary schools
(DCSF 2010). In 2010 for example, the average size of primary schools was 233 pupils
and secondary schools 983 pupils. No primary school had more than 1001 pupils.
Secondary schools ranged in size from those with fewer than 100 pupils (0.2% of the
total number) to those with over 1600 pupils (6.5% of the total number). Primary schools
with fewer than 100 pupils numbered 2499 and constituted 14.7% of all primary schools
(DCSF 2010). In general, organisational complexity increases as size increases (Lane
2000), though that relationship is of course multifaceted – see for example Feinman
(2011). Nonetheless, the size–complexity relationship has implications for governors’
knowledge about the school and their interactions with it.
The age range and curriculum differences between primary and secondary schools
may have consequences for parents’ involvement in and relationship with their children’s
learning at school, which may have repercussions for the governing interactions of parent
governors. A primary school pupil’s teacher may become a ‘significant other’ for pupils
and their parents and be well known to them. That is less likely to be the case in
secondary schools. Parents’ involvement in their children’s education generally has
increased in recent times (Peters et al. 2008) but as Desforges and Abouchaar (2003)
report, parental involvement reduces as children grow older. This disparity in involve-
ment may contribute to a difference in parent governors’ knowledge for governing – an
important issue – which has implications for the nature of governance in the two types of
school. Interestingly, the interventions by which school governing is steered and
controlled – the accountability mechanisms and the legal statutes – take no account of
the typical organisational differences between primary and secondary schools.

The context for governing

We have articulated the broad context within which school governing operates above and
now intend to focus down on the specific environment of our case study schools. In a
 School Leadership & Management 111

number of cases, the context for governing both primary and secondary schools had
changed quite rapidly and substantially in recent times. The schools may have faced a
crisis of some kind, such as: an unsatisfactory Ofsted inspection outcome, as in the case
of P10; a significant change in school leadership and governing personnel, for example
S6 had had three new head teachers in as many years; a merger, as in the cases of P15 and
S14; a change in ethnic mix of the area the school served, as at P14 and S7; and a decline
in pupil numbers, as was the case at S14 and P15. These changes could radically shift the
strategic challenge of the school and in turn generate tensions and concerns for the school
governing bodies. Differences in the ways primary school governing bodies and
secondary school governing bodies reacted to these challenges were not apparent. The
response was more likely to be determined by other factors such as the capabilities of the
head teacher and governors, especially the chair, and relationships between significant
individuals on the governing body.

The antecedents for governing

Governing body constitution
The governing bodies of all the case study schools varied considerably in the number and
types of governors. Nonetheless, all the case study schools’ governing bodies conformed
to the regulations in the way they were constituted. Significantly, the primary and
secondary school governing bodies in the sample did not differ in the number and type of
governors even though, as discussed above, the two types of school varied considerably.

Recruitment
Recruitment to governing bodies was a concern for both primary and secondary school
governing bodies. In both types of school, recruitment could be more difficult in schools
located in areas of socio-economic disadvantage such as S6 and P4, or in schools in very
ethnically diverse settings, such as P2 and S13. Our interpretation here is that the
resources of civil society for the governing of any particular school, which we have
referred to as governance capital (James et al. 2010, 2011), are powerfully influenced by
the socio-economic context. The performance of the school and the esteem in which the
school is held, which are images for governance, also impacted on recruitment.
Recruitment was generally easier to governing bodies of schools with high levels of
pupil attainment or that were well regarded, for example S1, S10, P6 and P13.
Importantly, despite the general recruitment difficulties experienced in both primary
and secondary settings, recruiting secondary school governors was generally more
difficult for a number of reasons. First, as already argued, secondary schools may be
viewed as larger, more complex and difficult to govern. For example, a governor at S11,
who had been a governor in a primary school before joining the S11 governing body, felt
that ‘there is more to do in a secondary school. Everything is on a bigger scale’. His view
was supported by the ChGB at S14: ‘Secondaries are bigger, more complicated’. A
governor at P8 felt that:

in primary schools you are so much closer to the school and the children, it’s ‘hands on’ and
direct. Governing a secondary school is so much more like running a business.
112 C. James et al.

Here we have an important articulation of governing images. Second, governing in a

secondary school may also connect with unattractive images in the minds of potential
recruits. Thus, the S14 ChGB felt that:

potential governors may be deterred because secondary schools are full of unruly boys and
girls in the minds of many. This puts people off.

Thus the images of what potential governors will be governing, in this case their
knowledge, judgements and assumptions, influence the engagement of potential
governors in school governing. These images appear to be very different for primary
and secondary schools. Perhaps unsurprisingly, therefore, recruiting secondary school
parent governors appeared to be more difficult than in primary settings, and it could be
especially difficult in disadvantaged settings. In S8, S9 and S14 it was a particular
problem. In addition, potential parent governors’ changing relationship with their children
and their children’s education, as discussed above, may influence recruitment. This
changing relationship affects the capacity of civil society to support school governing,
possibly reducing it in the case of secondary school governing.

The capabilities for governing and their development

Across the case study set, the overall level and nature of capability for governing emerged
as a significant theme in the data. Governing capability and effectiveness varied, for
example, in the extent to which challenging questions were asked, but not in any
consistent way in relation to the type of school. The main themes were as follows.

Knowledge and interpretation of the task. Knowledge of the task of governing emerged
as an important theme. Descriptions of the task by primary school and secondary school
governors were not discernibly different. Respondents typically drew upon the specifica-
tions of their task in guidance and statutes in their descriptions. For example, respondents
from both settings were aware that their governing actions should be strategic in nature.
The importance of challenge, a significant governance instrument, was similarly well
understood, a finding which contrasts with some research reports, for example, Earley
(2003) and Farrell (2005).
Governors’ interpretation of the normative, specified governing task was a significant
aspect of their interaction with it in both settings. Thus the level of scrutiny, support for
the school leadership and calling the leadership to account varied in the meetings we
observed. Their interpretation of the designated task in relation to their values and
principles was also significant. Interviewees often conveyed a sense that the governing
body collectively held the responsibility for the school’s conduct reflecting the
responsibility as defined in regulations. However, many extended their interpretation of
that task to acting as custodians, supervisors and guardians of the school; it was their
responsibility to safeguard, defend and care for their school. Thus governors’ individual
and collective interpretation of the task of governance is an important and perhaps crucial
image for governing. Importantly, this interpretation was configured by governors’ values
and principles. Interestingly, from the case study data set, the values, norms and
principles articulated by individual governors or evident collectively amongst governing
bodies were broadly similar in primary and secondary settings.
 School Leadership & Management 113

Knowledge of the school and educational matters. Knowledge of the school and of
educational matters in general was an important theme. A governor at P10, who was also
a governor at another nearby primary school, was clear:

Governing bodies should understand education. Governors need to experience the school
directly. To govern, it’s important that the governors know the school or they don’t know
what to look at. Scrutiny yes, but you have to go in and experience it; they need to visit the
school.

At the P8 governing body meeting, the ChGB urged governors to ‘Visit the school,
and get to know people’ (ChGB). Governors’ in-school presence/involvement could be
quite substantial, for example at P3 and P9. The in-school presence/involvement of
governors in the school thus emerged as a significant theme. It enabled the development
of the image of the school that was being governed.
The data indicated that primary school parent governors often visited the school
frequently. Many would bring their children to the school at the start of the day and
collect them at the end. They tended to meet other parents, members of staff and perhaps
other parent governors more frequently than their secondary counterparts. Primary school
parent governors acknowledged this closer contact which supports the finding of others,
for example Deem, Brehony, and Heath (1995). It was not that lay members of secondary
school governing bodies were never in the school. For example, the S9 ChGB was often
in school, working with and mentoring pupils and he occasionally attended the daily staff
briefing. However, this degree of in-school involvement was exceptional. Primary school
governors’ involvement in the daily life of their schools was typically greater than that of
their secondary school counterparts. Arguably, as a consequence, primary school
governors may have better-developed images – knowledge and understanding – of the
school they are governing than secondary school parent governors.

Functional knowledge. Within all the governing bodies – primary and secondary – there
was evidence of functional knowledge in, for example, human resource management and
finance. However, expertise in particular features of the more functional aspects of
governing was often considered more useful in primary schools. Typically, such expertise
was not available from the administrative/management staff of the school again simply
because they were smaller and did not have the resources. For these schools, the
resources of the civil society were important. Examples of governors in primary schools
undertaking operational and functional activities were very evident in the data. For
example, at P1, governors were directly involved with managing contracts, monitoring
health and safety matters and managing the premises. This very practical operational
work by governors in this and other schools was not however seen as part of governing. It
was simply work undertaken by governors. However, the benefit of this interaction with
significant aspects of the operational management of the school was the development of
knowledge of the school, an important governance image.

The development of images through training and development. Participation in training

and development by both primary and secondary school governors was extensive. For
some governors, induction could be particularly important. The ChGB at P7 felt that
some governors only fully understood the significance of their responsibilities following
their induction. A governor at P13 felt that the ‘induction moment’, as he put it, had been
114 C. James et al.

particularly important. It is as if at that moment an important image – knowledge of the

governing task – became clear.
Training and development activities clearly impacted on participants’ images and
understanding of governance instruments, such as scrutiny, questioning, data interpreta-
tion, performance reviews, meetings, policies, development plans and evaluation
instruments. Importantly, they broadened participants’ images for governance, for
example, the ends and goals – the outcomes of governance.

Governing processes
Governing processes are essentially how governing takes place and where instruments are
put to use as governance actions. Interestingly, the governing processes in primary and
secondary settings were broadly similar although they did differ in some aspects. The
account here reflects those similarities but focuses mainly on the differences.

Formal governing body meetings

Governing body meetings varied across the whole data set, and primary and secondary
governing body meetings were not discernibly different apart from the scope of the
discussions (see below). The degree of formality and informality of full governing
body meetings varied as did participation by individual governors. Head teachers
typically took a significant role in these meetings (see Ranson et al. 2005; Farrell
2005). Governing bodies in both settings seemed generally to be involved similarly in
policy development, scrutiny and implementation. Discussions at meetings, for
example, the debates about finance and pupil numbers at P11 and the budget at S5,
were often complicated, which says much about the sophistication of the images
required for effective governance in both settings and the subsequent knowledge for
instrumentation. Articulations of values and principles were often evident in these
discussions.
Importantly, the meeting content in the two contexts varied and the discussions
appeared to have a different scope. Matters were discussed at primary school governing
body meetings, for example, the arrangement of teaching groups, teaching methods and
teaching assistant recruitment, which would probably not reach that level in secondary
schools. However, although the scope of primary school governing body meetings may
be different, the matters discussed still had strategic significance in a way that they might
not have for secondary schools.

School performance review

Primary and secondary governing bodies had a wide and sophisticated view of school
performance. For example, the S6 ChGB had an all-embracing view: ‘results;
extracurricular provision; and how the pupils develop as people and as members of the
community’ (field notes). The dominant image of performance of the ChGB at P2 was
complicated: ‘Value added. Our kids start low and have to achieve more than they would
[in more advantaged settings], emotional intelligence and personal and social skills’.
Despite the breadth of the image of school performance, the scrutiny of pupil academic
performance and attendance were dominant in both settings and were important. The
 School Leadership & Management 115

choice of these instruments or tools for governing is perhaps unsurprising given the
importance accorded to pupil attainment by the state.

Meetings of governing body committees

The meetings of committees of the governing body were very significant first-order
governance instruments enabling particular aspects of the schools to be scrutinised in
depth. Considerable debate took place and decisions were made in committee meetings.
The arrangements and functioning of committees in our sample of case study schools
varied in number and type but not consistently so between primary and secondary settings.

Informal meetings
Unofficial meetings of groups of governors, including the head teacher and lay governors,
ad hoc groups and chairs of committees featured extensively in the data. Ideas were
developed, problems were solved, policy proposals were shaped and strategies were
clarified in these meetings. They were important instruments/tools for governing.
Importantly, informal meetings as governance instruments appeared to be different in
primary and secondary settings. Governing in primary schools appeared to involve and
take advantage of the more informal contacts that were available. Primary school
governors were likely to be ‘in school’ more and perhaps more involved in the life of the
school. Parent networks seemed to be closer which facilitated encounters. For example,
parents (including parent governors) often gathered at the school gates at the start and end
of the day, having brought and to collect their children, and might informally meet the
head teacher at those times. Such meetings, which were useful governance instruments,
were much less likely in secondary schools.

Discussion and conclusion

In summary, the predominantly hierarchical mode of governance, the way the roles,
responsibilities and procedures of school governing bodies are specified and the
regulations controlling the membership of school governing bodies in England are
the same for both primary and secondary schools. Perhaps unexpectedly, therefore, the
governing bodies used a broadly similar set of instruments – full governing body
meetings, review of school performance and development plans, and governing body
committee meetings. Primary and secondary school governing body members seemed to
interpret the governing task similarly. Despite the identical regulatory control and
specification of the governing of primary and secondary schools, governing in the two
settings is very different. The differences are shown in Table 3.
The governing of primary schools and secondary schools differs in a number of ways:
their nature as organisations; important governing images, especially the image of the
school, are different and are more accessible and better developed in primary settings; and
informal meetings are more available as instruments for governing in primary school. The
differences arise in part from: the size and complexity of the two types of organisation;
their core work – the curriculum and its management; and the engagement of parents and
governors with the organisation. We consider that these differences explain the stronger
relationship between governing body effectiveness and pupil attainment in primary
schools compared with that relationship in secondary settings (James et al. 2010).
116 C. James et al.

Table 3. A summary of the differences between the governing of primary and secondary schools and
the influences on governing in the two settings (GB – governing body).

Analytical dimension Primary schools Secondary schools

Students attending Younger (5 to 11 years) Older (11 to 16–18 years)

Curricular provision
Size
Scale of governing task
Level of complexity
Closeness to the school/children
Image of the school being
governed
Functional knowledge image
Informal meetings
Simpler More complex
Smaller (Ave. 239 students). Larger (Ave. 976 students)
Smaller scale Larger scale
Less complex More complex
More hands on. Closer to the Less direct engagement
school/children Somewhat more distant from
the school/children
Images more accessible and Images less accessible and less
well developed. Images of the well developed. Images of the
school and students more school and students less
attractive attractive
May be more valuable May be less valuable
Easier and used more More difficult and used less

Notwithstanding the various ways the governing task has been defined in statute and
guidance over time, the general specification of the governing task in guidance and
statute is an important feature of the hierarchical mode of governance. The task as
specified was expressed variously by respondents and often in a metaphorical and
sophisticated way. The governance task is thus a significant image. The point here is that
the images guide ‘the how and why of governance’ (Kooiman and Jentoft 2009, 820).
The task image – what governors know about the task, the metaphors they use to describe
it and what the task is intended to achieve – ends and goals – are important.
The research reported here has analysed and compared the governing of primary and
secondary schools in England. In essence, the mode of governance for both primary and
secondary schools is hierarchical. There are important differences, however, in the
images of the school that is being governed; in the opportunity for informal meetings in
primary settings; and in the scale and complexity of governing and ‘closeness’ of
governing bodies to their schools. It is as if secondary school governing is akin to
steering a big ship while primary school governing is a more intimate affair. These
differences need to be taken into account in analyses of, and policy-making for, school
governing.

Funding
We would like to thank CfBT Education Trust for funding the research.

Notes on contributors
Chris James is Professor of Educational Leadership and Management in the Department of
Education at the University of Bath. He has published over 200 books and articles, and his research
interests include the affective aspects of educational organisations, collaborative working in
educational settings and school governance.
 School Leadership & Management 117

Michael Connolly is Emeritus Professor of Public Policy and Management in the University of
Glamorgan School of Humanities and Social Sciences, where he was formerly the Dean. He has
published four books, and more than 50 articles and book chapters; his research interests include
leadership and change in public sector institutions.
Steve Brammer is Professor of Strategy at the Birmingham Business School. His research addresses
the links between organisational strategy and social responsibility, and focuses on how
organisations build effective relationships with stakeholders including employees, communities,
investors and suppliers. He is a leading researcher in his field with an international reputation, and
has been published in major scholarly and practitioner journals.
Mike Fertig is a Lecturer in Education in the Department of Education at the University of Bath,
where he is Director of Studies for the Department’s initial teacher education programmes. His
research interests are in effective schools in developing countries, and school leadership and
management in the UK, in international schools and in developing countries and he has published
widely in those fields.
Jane James is a consultant and researcher working mainly in education. Her research interests
include leadership, action learning, school governing and systemic constellations where she is part
of an extensive international network. Jane works closely with a number of educational institutions,
coaches educational leaders, and has been a school governor for more than 15 years.
Jeff Jones is an educational consultant and researcher, and previously was a Principal Consultant
at CfBT Education Trust. During his time working with CfBT he participated extensively in the
design, delivery and quality assurance of national training programmes, research and evaluation
projects, and a variety of school improvement consultancies. His area of expertise focuses on
continuing professional development, school leadership and management development, performance
management and school governance.

References
Ainscow, M., and A. Howes. 2007. “Working Together to Improve Urban Secondary Schools: A
Study of Practice in One City.” School Leadership & Management 27 (3): 285–300. doi:10.1080/
13632430701379578.
Balarin, M., S. Brammer, C. R. James, and M. McCormack. 2008. The School Governance Study.
London: Business in the Community.
Bell, S., and A. Hindmoor. 2009. Rethinking Governance: The Centrality of the State in Modern
Society. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Chapman, C., and M. Fullan. 2007. “Collaboration and Partnership for Equitable Improvement:
Towards a Networked Learning System?” School Leadership & Management 27 (3): 207–211.
doi:10.1080/13632430701379354.
Chapman, C., G. Lindsay, D. Muijs, A. Harris, E. Arweck, and J. Goodall. 2010. “Governance,
Leadership, and Management in Federations of Schools.” School Effectiveness and School
Improvement 21 (1): 53–74. doi:10.1080/09243450903569734.
Chapman, C., D. Muijs, P. Sammons, P. Armstrong, and A. Collins. 2009. The Impact of
Federations on Student Outcomes. Nottingham: NCSL.
Connolly, M., and C. James. 2011. “Reflections on Developments in School Governance:
International Perspectives on School Governing Under Pressure.” Educational Management,
Administration and Leadership 39 (4): 501–509. doi:10.1177/1741143211406560.
DCSF (Department for Children, Schools and Families). 2010. “Schools, Pupils and their
Characteristics: January 2010.” DCSF. Accessed December 2011. http://www.education.gov.uk/
rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000925/index.shtml
Dean, C., A. Dyson, F. Gallannaugh, A. Howes, and C. Raffo. 2007. School Governors and
Disadvantage. London: Joseph Rowntree.
Deem, R., K. Brehony, and S. Heath. 1995. Active Citizenship and the Governing of Schools.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
118 C. James et al.

Desforges, C., and A. Abouchaar. 2003. The Impact of Parental Involvement, Parental Support and
Family Education on Pupil Achievement and Adjustment: A Literature Review. DfES Research
Report RR433. Nottingham: Department for Education and Skills.
DfE (Department for Education). 2010. The Importance of Teaching. London: DfE.
DfE. 2012a. “Schools Causing Concern: Guidance for Local Authorities.” Accessed January 2013.
http://www.education.gov.uk/aboutdfe/statutory/g00192418/scc
DfE. 2012b. “Collaboration and Federations – An Overview.” Accessed January 2013. http://www.
education.gov.uk/a0056911/collaboration-and-federations-an-overview
DfE. 2012c. “A Guide to the Law for School Governors.” Accessed January 2013. http://www.
education.gov.uk/schools/leadership/governance/guidetothelaw/b0065507/gttl/
DfE. 2013. Information on How Many Schools in England are Currently Academies or in the
Process of Becoming Academies. London: DfE. Accessed May 2013. https://www.gov.uk/
government/news/more-than-2600-schools-now-open-as-academies-with-a-further-500-set-to-join-
them-soon
DfEE (Department for Education and Employment). 2000. The Education (School Government)
(Terms of Reference) (England) Regulations. London: DfEE.
DfES (Department for Education and Skills). 2004. Governing the School of the Future. London:
Stationery Office.
Directgov. 2010. “Understanding the National Curriculum.” Directgov. Accessed November 2010.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/Schoolslearninganddevelopment/ExamsTestsAndTheCurricu
lum/DG_4016665
Earley, P. 2003. “Leaders or Followers? Governing Bodies and Their Role in School Leadership.”
Educational Management, Administration and Leadership 31 (4): 353–367. doi:10.1177/
0263211X030314002.
Farrell, C. M. 2005. “Governance in the UK Public Sector: The Involvement of the Governing
Board.” Public Administration 83 (1): 89–110. doi:10.1111/j.0033-3298.2005.00439.x.
Feinman, G. M. 2011. “Size, Complexity, and Organizational Variation: A Comparative Approach.”
Cross Cultural Research 45 (1): 37–58. doi:10.1177/1069397110383658.
James, C. R. 2012. “Trends in the Governance and Governing of Schools in England.” Local
Government Studies. doi:10.1080/03003930.2012.722839.
James, C. R., S. Brammer, M. Connolly, M. Fertig, J. James, and J. Jones. 2010. The ‘Hidden
Givers’: A Study of School Governing Bodies in England. Reading: CfBT.
James, C. R., S. Brammer, M. Connolly, M. Fertig, J. James, and J. Jones. 2011. “School Governing
Bodies in England under Pressure: The Effects of Socio-Economic Context and School
Performance.” Educational Management, Administration and Leadership 39 (4): 414–433.
doi:10.1177/1741143211404258.
Kooiman, J., and S. Jentoft. 2009. “Meta-Governance: Values, Norms and Principles, and the
Making of Hard Choices.” Public Administration 87 (4): 818–836. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9299.2009.01780.x.
Lane, J. 2000. The Public Sector: Concepts, Models and Approaches. London: Sage.
NGA. 2011. Support and Challenge. Birmingham: National Governors Association.
Ofsted. 2002. The Work of School Governors. Report from the Office of Her Majesty’s Chief
Inspector of Schools. London: Ofsted.
Ofsted. 2012. “The Framework for School Inspection.” Accessed January 2013. http://www.ofsted.
gov.uk/resources/framework-for-school-inspection
Ofsted. 2013. “About Us.” Ofsted. Accessed May 2013. http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/
About-usp10
Peters, M., K. Seeds, A. Goldstein, and N. Coleman. 2008. Parental Involvement in Children’s
Education 2007. DCSF Research Report RR034. London: Department of Children, Schools and
Families.
QCDA (Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency). 2010a. “The National Curriculum.”
QCDA. Accessed November 2010. http://curriculum.qcda.gov.uk/index.aspx
QCDA. 2010b. “About the Secondary Curriculum.” QCDA. Accessed November 2010. http://
curriculum.qcda.gov.uk/key-stages-3-and-4/About-the-secondary-curriculum/index.aspx
Ranson, S., C. Farrell, N. Penn, and P. Smith. 2005. “Does Governance Matter for School
Improvement?” School Effectiveness and School Improvement 16 (3): 305–325. doi:10.1080/
09243450500114108.
 School Leadership & Management 119

Rhodes, R. A. W. 1997. Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and

Accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Scanlon, M., P. Earley, and J. Evans. 1999. Improving the Effectiveness of School Governing
Bodies. London: Department for Education and Employment.
Stevenson, H. 2012. “New Unionism? Teacher Unions, Social Partnership and School Governance
in England and Wales.” Local Government Studies. doi:10.1080/03003930.2012.726142.