8.4.4 Sustainability of governance structures

8.4.4 Sustainability of governance structures

Because of their voluntary nature, boards might not be adequately equipped for their significant responsibilities

Boards of management have significant responsibilities in spite of their voluntary nature. However, there is evidence that voluntary boards might not be adequately equipped to carry out the range of responsibilities that are essential to the management of a modern school. Changes in employment law, financial management, health and safety regulations, revised child protection procedures, and the lack of growth in capitation funding are placing additional burdens on boards. It can be difficult for board members to dedicate sufficient time to deal with the range of tasks in their role. A number of measures have been put in place to address some of the issues faced by boards, including the provision of training by patrons and management bodies which is supported by funding from the Department.

Figure from page 237

The voluntary nature of school governance arrangements is not sustainable

All members of boards of management, with the exception of the principal, serve in a voluntary capacity. This tradition of volunteerism and civic contribution is a critical component in the day-to-day running of schools. However, as highlighted in the previous Chief Inspector’s Report (2016), there remains a need for reflection and planning at Department level to provide a more sustainable form of school management, particularly in the context of an evolving regulatory and policy environment that is leading to an increased complexity in the management of schools and an associated increase in the responsibilities on boards. In this regard, the Primary Education Forum, comprising all primary education partners, was established in September 2018 to support the planning and sequencing of change in the primary school sector. The forum provides a valuable opportunity for consultation on how existing governance arrangements might be further developed.

Alternative governance structures for schools are being piloted

A shared governance structure pilot project has been in place for primary schools since 2015. This pilot project allows two schools that are under the same patronage to operate a shared governance arrangement, subject to the agreement of the patron. The benefit of a shared governance arrangement is that the same group of people manage issues that arise in both schools in a consistent manner. It is also of particular benefit to small school communities where it may be difficult to find sufficient numbers of nominees to take on the significant responsibilities associated with board membership. During the four-year term from November 2019 to November 2023, schools may continue to operate this arrangement on a voluntary and pilot basis. However, during the period of this report, very few schools availed of shared governance.

To provide for more sustainable school management, smaller schools should be encouraged to establish shared governance arrangements. Other alternative approaches to the current management of schools should also be piloted, and the resultant implications for the system be considered carefully by the Department and by the various education partners.

Recommendations for the rationalisation of governance structures for schools attached to the children detention centre and special care units have not been advanced

The previous Chief Inspector’s Report (2016), highlighted similarities between the cohort of students attending the children detention centre (CDC) and special care units (SCUs), and students in Youth Encounter Projects (YEP) and Youthreach Centres. It noted that these schools required a more effective governance and management structure. It also identified the need for any future rationalisation of the management structures of the CDC and SCUs to include the YEP schools, and to also consider the inclusion of Youthreach Centres.

These recommendations in the Chief Inspector’s report were not progressed during the period to which this report refers. However, a number of schools attached to the CDC or SCUs came under the auspices of local ETBs which also had a governance role for Youthreach Centres. It is hoped that these revised governance arrangements will contribute to the necessary rationalisation of management structures in these schools.

Figure from page 238