Search

Educational management and educational leadership are central concepts in understanding organising in educational institutions but their meaning, the difference between them and their value in educational organising remain the subject of debate. In this article, we analyse and contrast the two concepts. We conclude that educational management entails carrying the responsibility for the proper functioning of a system in an educational institution in which others participate. Carrying a responsibility of this kind is a state of mind and does not necessitate actions, though it typically and frequently does. In contrast, educational leadership is the act of influencing others in educational settings to achieve goals and necessitates actions of some kind. When those carrying a delegated responsibility act in relation to that responsibility, they influence and are therefore leading. Although educational leadership is ideally undertaken responsibly, in practice it does not necessarily entail carrying the responsibility for the functioning of the educational system in which the influence is exercised. Through our analysis, the notion of responsibility, which is underplayed in considerations of organising in educational institutions, comes to the fore. Educational responsibility is an important notion and it should play a more prominent role in analyses of organising in educational institutions.

This article analyses the stakeholder model of boards that is widely used in public and third sector institutions in England and Wales. The central tenet of this model is that such institutions should be strategically led by individuals who are representative of and from the groups that have an interest in them. The article focuses in particular on the operation of the stakeholder model of governing bodies of schools in England and Wales where a range of stakeholders including teachers, parents and the community are represented. The issues that arise from this stakeholder model of governing are analysed and the alternatives to it are considered. A significant alternative is the skills-based model, where boards are constituted on the basis of their expertise and not their interest in the institution. This skills-based model is becoming more prominent in the way governing bodies of academy schools in England are constituted and this is certainly the direction of travel outlined in the 2015 regulations. The article reviews the stakeholder model for the governance of schools at a time when there is much interest in the skills-based approach. The wider implications of shifting from a stakeholder to a skills-based model of public board membership are considered.

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.

The governing bodies of publicly funded schools in England are currently facing a number of substantive challenges of various kinds. Many of the challenges are long-standing, while others relate to the current context for governing wrought by recent education policy developments initiated by central government. A number of the challenges are immediate and intense, and may well develop over time. The challenges result from both policy imperatives and the challenge of governing effectively--procedural imperatives. The intention of this article is to analyse the challenges facing governing bodies in England. We argue that the challenges interact and synergize and could develop into "a perfect storm", which could have significant implications for the security and stability of the education system and for society generally. Our thinking is shaped by the notion of interactive governance (Kooiman, 2003), which posits that the workings of the school governance network, of which school governing is a part, is best understood in terms of interactions. Following this introduction, we provide some background information for those not familiar with the school governing system in England. We then very briefly describe the three research projects in which we have been involved that form the empirical base for the article (Balarin et al., 2008; James et al., 2010, 2012, 2013). The challenges facing governing bodies are considered under the headings: school governing's low profile; the institution and the environment; accountability; and the role and the responsibility of school governing bodies. The way these different challenges interconnect and add together is discussed in the penultimate section. In the final section, we make some concluding comments.

The research reported here analysed the role of the chair of the school governing body in England, drawing on a national survey of governors and the study of governing in 30 schools. The role encompassed: being a governor; appointing and working with the head teacher; acting as a change agent; active participation in the school; organising the governing body; dealing with complaints; working with parents; and chairing meetings. We discuss the role and the way it is experienced and conclude that the position of chair is substantially under-played; given insufficient status; and is a significant educational and community leadership responsibility.

This article reports research into the nature and functioning of school governing bodies in different socio-economic and performance contexts. The research analysed 5000 responses from a national questionnaire-based survey and undertook 30 case studies of school governing. The research confirmed that school governing in England is a complex and onerous responsibility that places governing bodies under considerable pressure. The socio-economic and performance contexts can be particularly demanding additional pressures. Governing bodies interact with those contexts in a complex way which we explain using the notions of governance capital and governance agency. Governance capital is the network of individuals and their capabilities, relationships and motivations that are available for the governing of a school. It is likely to be greater for schools that: are well regarded; are in high socio-economic status settings; and have high levels of pupil attainment. These effects may add and mutually reinforce creating an "amplifier effect", which may significantly impact on the governing of a school. Governance agency is the capacity of those involved in the governing of a school to act. It is significant; can ameliorate the effects of low governance capital; and complicates the relationship between governing, performance and socio-economic context. (Contains 2 tables.)

Debates about governance, across the public sector, including education, continue to generate a substantial literature. The intention of this article is to engage with these debates by reviewing the articles in this special edition. In this review article, we first consider the wider context of the articles by revisiting some of the central debates in the governance literature. We then consider some of the themes that emerge from the articles, which are: the significance of improving school performance and pupil attainment; the dynamic nature of governance and the problematic nature of managing change in school governance; difference and variety; the contested territory of school governing and the conflicting roles and responsibilities; the complexity of school governing especially the complexity wrought by diversity of provision; the complex and demanding capabilities required for, and participation in, governing; micro-macro issues; and joint modes of institutional governance.