This article lays out the options available to you when it comes to how your board operates. If you're in a multi-academy trust and would like to change the way that your whole trust organises its governance, have a look at our article on developing a governance structure that works for your trust.
If you're thinking of making a change to your governance structure, read our chair’s guide to help you through the process.
No committees – the circle model
Maintained school governing boards aren't required to have any committees. So some choose to operate without them – this is also known as the 'circle model'.
Academies: you must have an audit and risk committee (see the standing committees section below), but you can operate a circle model with this exception.
| Advantages | Disadvantages | |
| It's easier for the chair and headteacher to maintain strategic control of the agenda and decision-making | The chair and headteacher could have excessive influence over proceedings | |
| There aren't specialisms – so everyone has a degree of proficiency across all areas of governance | May make decision-making less efficient, and may make it harder for governors to participate, particularly new governors or governors with a more specialist skill set | |
| All governors have access to information and reporting at the same time – this can avoid repetition and prevent mixed messages | Makes detailed scrutiny more difficult | |
| It can promote teamwork among governors | Can mean a heavy workload for the chair and headteacher | |
| Some decisions can only be made by the full governing board, so it may save discussion time | Other governors don't get the chance to develop chairing skills, which may make succession planning more difficult | |
| No committees means the chair and headteacher may be able to manage communications more effectively, especially if the school is going through significant change or crisis | Sensitive issues may be harder to address in a large group | |
| There may be fewer meetings, so governor participation may improve | Harder to respond quickly to urgent issues, as meetings of the full governing board tend to be longer, and happen less frequently than committee meetings. This could mean the senior leadership team may not be held to account so effectively | |
| No need to agree terms of reference or committee membership |
School example
Maidensbridge Primary School in Dudley operates a circle model of governance. They meet 6 times a year as a full board and have link roles allocated either to individuals or 'monitoring pairs'. As well as the statutory link roles, they allocate monitoring responsibilities based on the school improvement plan.
Standing committees
'Standing committees' are permanent committees appointed by the board to manage specific functions.
Academies must appoint an audit and risk committee (see paragraph 3.6 of the Academy Trust Handbook), either as a standalone committee or combined with another committee. Academies with annual incomes of more than £50 million must have a dedicated audit and risk committee.
In addition to audit committees, multi-academy trusts (MATs) normally have local governing bodies (LGBs) within each school. These LGBs act like standing committees.
Aside from these, governing boards can tailor their committee structure to suit their needs. Some governing boards have committees to focus on very specific areas, such as standards or curriculum, or committees combining related issues such as finance, premises and health and safety.
| Advantages | Disadvantages | |
| Workload is spread across the governing board | Can be difficult to 'keep tabs' on everything and make sure all the work gets done | |
|
Everyone is equally involved and has a share of responsibility, which is good for succession planning
| Smaller committee memberships can hinder meaningful discussion | |
| Clear lines of delegation | Governors may need to sit on multiple committees, which can be more time-consuming | |
| Reduced workload for the chair and vice-chair | It takes time and effort to set up and to make sure all constituent groups on the governing board are involved | |
| Staff with a particular area of responsibility can report to governors in more detail. This improves knowledge sharing and relationships between governors and staff, and means strategic priorities are shared | If the different committee remits are unclear, some decisions can fall through the net | |
| Governors can ask more specific questions, which increases their understanding and enables them to fulfil their monitoring and evaluation role more rigorously | Decision making can be less straightforward and take longer. This could happen if, for example, there are implications for staffing and finance which may be relevant to 2 committees | |
| Meetings may be more frequent, so decisions can be made more quickly | Governing board discussions can be repetitive | |
| Governors with a specialist knowledge or skill can use it more effectively | Governor discussion may be in danger of becoming too detailed and less strategic | |
| Committee chairs can report back to the full governing board. This increases governor participation and may use time more efficiently in full governing board meetings | Clerking and minute-taking may be more problematic and expensive | |
| A smaller group of governors who meet regularly around a specific topic are more likely to build their knowledge base and confidence |
School example
Wood End School in Hertfordshire has 2 standing committees that report to the full governing body: resources and curriculum. They set out the responsibilities of each committee on their website.
Working parties
Boards with or without committees can use working parties, although boards using the 'circle model' are more likely to use them.
For example, many governing boards have used working parties to explore the possibility of becoming an academy.
| Advantages | Disadvantages | |
| Can be as small as 2 governors, eliminating the need to appoint chairs or have formal meetings | Doesn't allow governors to develop expertise in any specific area | |
| Limited in time, so these can be set up quickly to meet tight deadlines | The view is more narrow, so there's the potential to miss the bigger picture | |
| Limited in scope, so governors can research an area in more detail | Each working party will need terms of reference | |
| Gives governors an opportunity to explore multiple issues, developing a broader view of the school |
School example
Fawbert and Barnard Infants' School in Hertfordshire operates a circle model of governance, and sets up working parties as and when required.