Paces

Please, (Sir/Miss as you like), have I reached my potential yet?

Not so long since, I was driving home from Pembrokeshire and up the M42 when I passed a wagon on which was proudly declared that the company that ran it was the largest large vehicle and coach recovery company in the UK.

I remember thinking, for some bizarre reason, I wonder if the guy who runs it has fulfilled his potential?

 

Careers' Master (I went to a boys' grammar school) to bright pupil: You'll go a long way, young man.

Bright pupil to Careers' Master: Yes, I'm going to run the biggest large vehicle and coach recovery company Britain's ever seen.

So there you go. Potential fulfilled.

Actually, I really was at school with a great guy who became, for a couple of years,  Colonel Gaddaffi's personal pilot.  

Careers' Master (all boys school, remember): And what do you want to be when you grow up, young man?

School friend: Sir, I want to be the personal pilot of a mad despotic dictator.

Careers' Master: Well, we'd better qualify as a pilot first, hadn't we?

So, there you go again. Reached his potential didn't he?

As for me, on my school reports, I tended to get stuff, guff, like "Norman isn't working to his potential". "Could do better." (If you think of it "Norman is working to his potential" would sound quite damning, wouldn't it, as if the teacher really wanted to add "... it's just that he's thick.")  

Potential "reached"; potential "fulfilled". Was there ever a politician, trying to say something meaningful about Education, who didn't say they wanted every child to "reach" or "fulfil" his or her potential? (No, I shall resist googling potential in Hansard).

So why this sudden outpouring about "potential"? Because I currently have an active and practical interest in Trustee Board governance. And on twitter about 30 minutes or so ago, I read (Sean Whetstone @schoolgoverning) that 'A Recommended Code of Governance for Schools' had just been published by the Wellcome Trust and thought I'd take a first look. Sounds authoritative.

"The Wellcome Trust believes that good education is impossible without good governance." Just so, I thought. Up-front with a strong statement. Spot on.

"The Recommended Code aims to improve how school governing bodies work, including how they set strategic direction, how they evaluate their own performance, and how they hold the headteacher and other senior school leaders to account for the performance of the school." Just so, I thought, again. Governance in three words: strategy; self-evaluation; accountability. Governance for Dummies: get the book. Or rather "The Recommended Code". So I did. Downloaded it. 

Just at the moment I've been doing some work exploring what performance indicators (cf Ofsted "School Data Dashboard") can mean in an independent non-maintained special school, all of whose pupils have statements of special educational need and which practices conductive education. (As I write that, I'm wondering whether my perspicacious teacher wasn't correct after all about me not working to my potential!).  So I dipped straight into Section C of "The Recommended Code": 

“High-level school performance indicators, encompassing all outcomes for an effective school, on which governors report annually to parents. Linked to the high-level performance information that governors need to monitor the performance indicators.”

And there it was: the very first 'school peformance indicator' that I saw as I scrolled down the downloadable .pdf file:

Do learners at this school achieve to their potential?

I just have no idea what this can mean. Try: "Do teachers at this school teach to their potential?" Is that any more sensible? Does it mean anything more? Does it mean anything? If so, what? 

It just seems so much woolly thinking. Language as fluff. How can anyone know? How will I know when I reach my potential? Perhaps I already have done. Now there's a worrying thought. All down hill from there on? What if my potential peaked when I was 21? 42? 62? Teaching in Kenya in the 1970s? Sharing running the documentary-making company in the 1980s? Having had three great children? Being a loving husband? 

And just how is the Wellcome Trust proposing to measure whether learners achieve to their potential? In special schools, by pupil "Progress against appropriate measures".  Progress against approriate measures is just that, useful and important as it is, a measure not of "potential achieved" but of progress against appropriate measures. 

In what way is "Progress against appropriate measures" any more a measure of learners achieving their potential than it is of teachers teaching to their potential, especially when no-one can possibly yet know the "potential" of either learner or teacher? And when, if "potential" has any meaning whatsoever in education, it can only be something that is not "achieved" or "fulfilled" but "created". And what of the child for whom progress is, maybe only sometimes, agonisingly, almost unmeasurably, slight? Is their progress against appropriate measures evidence of their 'achieving their potential"?

"Potential achieved" is for educational bean-counters. The transaction between teacher and learner in education, in schooling, is transformational or it is nothing.

The real challenge for Trustees and Governors (and how much more so is this true in special education) is how to evidence that the school of which they are custodians and guardians is truly a transformational place for children, young adults and, yes, even the teachers and governors and all the other staff and the parents. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Values and CE organisations

Do Values matter?

The question “How should Paces be, that parents will invite us into their lives?” has intrigued me before.  In essence, this is a question about our Values.

How we present ourselves, how we are perceived, of course, matters. Customer satisfaction is crucial. Similarly, there can surely be no need to argue that we should comply with our statutory responsibilities.  Likewise, that we should be well-run, aspiring to excellence in our services, needs no emphasis. 

In recent weeks, I have been pre-occupied researching, considering and drafting a Governance Framework. Governance is commonly defined in several ways, mostly deriving from notions of management control.

Is Good Governance enough? Or being well managed? Do Values matter?

And if so, what should these be in a conductive education organisation?

I'd welcome your thoughts as I try to set something out for Paces.

A surfeit of Governance

A few days or so ago, it was put to me that my managing style as Paces CEO was “too controlling”.  Quite what was meant I’m not at all clear although I don’t think it was a compliment. Actually, I was quite surprised, as I have always thought that not being ‘controlling’, was one of my strengths.

 

Coincidentally, I had been listening when possible to a series on BBC Radio 4 about Democracy. One week, Professor Ali Mazrui (as I recall, it was) expressed the view that whilst Anarchy, at one end of a spectrum, was a perfect absence of Government so Totalitarianism was a perfect surfeit of Government.

 

A fellow-CEO once expressed a similar spectrum in rather more amusing terms.  At times, he said, he was happy to manage by sitting around a table, holding hands and trying to contact the living; at others, he had a Ghengis Khan-like urge to murder and mayhem just to get anything done.  

 

So it is with Governance. This morning I was amused to read Andrew Sutton – writing that governance is “essential” -  saying of me that  “Norman is the only person in the whole of the UK who gives this topic any explicit attention.”

 

Why “amused”? Because whilst I’m sure Andrew intended a compliment, I could just as well by this be thought to be the last lunatic in Bedlam, or Poor Tom wandering the Blasted Heath. There’s more than one person who thinks I spend my time in the La-La-Land of “Vision” rather than the practical realties of what “really matters.”

 

Governance, of course, matters. Following Professor Mazrui, one might say that Gossip, at one end of the spectrum was a perfect absence of Governance; so, at the other – and I struggle for a single equivalent term – the stereotypic Constitution of an association, perhaps, that are so rigid as to give rise, Ealing Comedy style, to endless ‘points of order’, was a perfect surfeit of Governance

 

The trick, it might be said, for any conductive centre, such as Paces, or conductive education in the UK as a whole, is to strike the right balance between the extremes. 

 

Perhaps, when I was advised I was too controlling, it was being said I was “unbalanced” – suffering from a surfeit of governance? That wouldn’t be a first time either: “crazy parent”.

And so, back to it. Fine week away, too.

And so, ever reluctantly, we returned from Pembrokeshire - a 6-hour, 300 mile run with 2 breaks. Sarah loves it there: 3 consecutive days on the beach sheltering from the sun under beach umbrellas; picnics every day; sleeps well at night - and, for "Auntie Sarah", niece Ria and nephew Ryan to look out for. She takes her duties as an Aunt most seriously!

So, back to an important meeting first thing this Monday morning. A tough meeting for all present, I suspect, trying to sort out 'stuff' that's been building up and getting in the way. I'll say no more on that. Tough meetings, though, I don't mind, provided, like this Monday morning's meeting, there's a meeting of minds and a sense of goodwill and people coming together.

An important issue for the meeting - stated and unstated - was "Governance": The systems and processes concerned with ensuring the overall direction, effectiveness,supervision and accountability of an organisation.

Sounds dry and heavy, compared with the 'real work' of delivering conductive education. There's much advice about Governance - just google the word. ("Good Governance: A Code for the Voluntary and Community Sector" still available on the website of the now defunct ChangeUp Governance Hub, is one useful example.)

For the past 15 months (and more, as we took part in the first national BoardsCount™ programme before that) Governance has not been far from my working thoughts: preparing for and then introducing a Board of Governors for Paces School, as a sub-committee of Paces' main Board of Trustees. This has proved a major change that, despite all my engagement with governance, still surprised  me with its impact.

One thought has come to me though: although much is written on Governance, for me, it comes down in its essence to one thing: conversations. Were I allowed one word to define or characterise good governance, that would be it: conversations. And if allowed to expand a little, I would say good governance is about managing formal conversations: who is talking with whom about what, where.

Now take a leap: when it comes to conductive education in the UK who is talking with whom about what, where ?

Shared CEOs & joint management of charities in conductive education?

Does anyone in the UK know of any examples of charities sharing Chief Executives and having some degree of joint management - whilst preserving the independence of the separate charities?

Communities Secretary, John Denham, today (30 December 2009) set up "a new task force to drive value for money for councils". Whilst I'm a confirmed sceptic when it comes to such initiatives (were Councils previously profligate with public funds, is this obvious question), I actually read the press release with interest.

One of the proposals, apparently, is that more local Councils might save money by sharing Chief Executives and having joint management teams.

The press release references a report published as recently as October 2009 by IDeA (The Improvement and Development Agency for Local Government) "Shared chief executives and joint management: a model for the future?

I've been banging on for a while on this blog about the potential for different forms of collaboration between CE organisations in the UK and intend to be somewhat more pro-active in the New Year. The collaborations reported in this IDeA document are worth reflecting on for charities too.

Anyone interested? 

PS Hat-tip to John Popham on twitter for the Denham PR link.

What next?

"What next?" asked Andrew Sutton, in a blog posting that must be his shortest ever, a Subject line with no Content whatsoever.

What next, indeed?

"Charities will run state services" Third Sector journal reports David Cameron as saying. A spokesperson adding, "It is about removing the barriers to delivery of services by [third] sector organisations in areas such as education and health."

Elsewhere in Third Sector magazine, I read that "Age UK will be the new name of the charity formed by the merger between Age Concern and Help the Aged.

Meanwhile, on 24th November, we at Paces are attending the launch of a new charitable consortium of groups working with adults, aiming to bid for training contracts. 

What's next?  For conductive education in the UK?

What's coming, no matter what we do, or even if we do nothing?

What should be our response as delivery organisations across the UK to the opportunities promised by David Cameron?  How do we position ourselves?  Should we seriously contemplate mergers? Or a new consortium?

Any takers?

Togetherness

The contracting and procurement culture is with us. Of that there is no doubt.

One consequence is that ever larger organisations and consortia will out-bid smaller charities.

More, the trend is already visible towards convergence of education, well-being and employment funding

One consequence is that, small or large, charities locked in single-issue silos will be outbid by organisations that make a broader offer. 

This week, as Chief Executive of Paces, I have been involved in reviewing a proposal for a super-regional association aimed at bidding for adult services contracts.  

All of which challenges our view of ourselves, of our governance and business model, of our ambition for our core client group and for conductive education.

As the founder of Paces and 64 next month, if I were to be convinced that the security of our conductive education programmes lay in the ultimate "togetherness" of a merger, would I be bold enough to recommend it?

On the other hand, if I were to be convinced that the security of our conductive education programmes lay in continuing to go it alone, would I have the courage to say so - knowing to what a hard road I would be committing Paces next CEO?

Fortunately, such an extreme is simply an academic option, not on the table; greater togetherness, however, definitely is.  Our decision could make all the difference.

A time for coming together?

I blogged recently (New Schools. The Tories Big Idea for Education?) about Tory policy for opening schools to new providers along Swedish lines, and the potential thereby for conductive education in the UK.  The Government has also recently broadened the rules on the setting up of Academy Schools to admit new sponsors, that might also have benefit for CE providers.

In that previous blog I asked two questions, the second of which was:

"Do we dare to imagine (and build the platform for) an association of Conductive Education schools across the UK, based in existing schools and centres and ones to be set up in future?".

Andrew Sutton was kind enough to comment favourably on the suggestion.

By "association" I meant no more than the ordinary meaning of the word, the coming together of parties for some particular purpose. (To be clear, I was not calling for a new Association with a capital 'A'.)

I had in mind one purpose: the exploration of the benefits of coming together to take advantage, if advantage can be found, of the Tory proposals or, as it turns out, of the newly announced arrangements for Academy schools.

I had in mind that with the election looming and with the outcome, according to most pundits, like it or not, now a foregone conclusion in favour of the Tories, now might be just the right time for conductive education schools and centres to come together to seek to influence future government education policy as regards arrangements for new schools.

We at Paces are seeking to do just that. You might be doing the same - to influence politicians. My instinct is that the time is right to do so and is better done pulling together from across the UK, rather than individually, alone and separately.

There is, I suggest, much to be gained (including business model and financial benefits) from CE "centres" aspiring to become "schools"; of centres with such an aspiration coming together with existing CE schools; and together campaigning around a new (call it what you like) group, consortium, conglomerate, federation.

If any CE centre or school, anywhere in the UK, however small, can see potential benefit in coming together for yourselves and your own plans, I would be delighted to hear from you with a view to an initial conversation.

Best behaviour - a diversion into Governance

For the few who might be interested in Governance issues in running CE centres and charities .... came across it, oddly enough, via Twitter .... Charity Finance blog, worth a look in itself, for some ... Best Behaviour by Tesse Akpeki

"Behavioural governance takes insights from relationships and the human side of leadership and applies this to the rational, the logical and the analytical aspects of governing and oversight."

"When these aspects are going well, the board and its surroundings can be a great place to be.  This is totally different when it all breaks loose and there are misunderstandings, conflicts, mayhem, infighting, resignations, votes of no confidence and factions." 

Do either of these models sound like your Trustee Board meetings?

Tesse has some insightful thoughts and some of the Comments are thought-provoking too.

One Comment was about the Quaker style of managing meetings:

"Quakers have particular ways of handling business meetings, some of which work very well in a secular context. These include: recognising that everyone has a contribution to make; waiting between those contributions to allow time for reflection or pausing for longer periods of silence; ensuring that those present can in some way be identified by others (go-round intros, name labels etc); and especially the prac tice of writing the minute there and then. It is drafted, presented to the meeting, and amended/agreed before the meeting moves on to the next item.

"This may seem very demanding but is a proven way of (a) finding agreement (b) avoiding later dissension and (c) observing the Clerk (Chair in secular terms) as both the leader and the servant of the meeting. As Quakers are human, we often fall short of the best we can achieve using our own business methods! but I have seen their effectiveness on many occasions. Trustees at Woodbrooke (the Quaker study centre where I am Director) have operated in this way for many years and we offer courses on the Quaker business method......