It
would be more accurate therefore to say that governance is ‘a speaking not a
doing role’. But even that is open to misunderstanding, as it makes governor board
meetings sound like a glorified talking shop. What to say, then? I think we
need to break down the thinking/doing, speaking/doing dichotomy that is
inherent in the NGA's definition and my suggested alternative. We may profitably do that
by drawing on the insights of ‘speech-act theory’.
'What's that when it's at home?' I hear you ask. Well, 'speech-act theory' is the understanding of linguistics developed by Oxford academic J. L. Austin. The brainy prof cautioned that speaking is not to be set in opposition to
acting. Rather, speech is a form of action that has practical effects. Austin proposed that language may be broken down
into three component parts: First we have basic units of speech, or words. Second there is the use to which we put our words, such as as making promises, or issuing commands. Finally, what we do with our words has an effect upon others as promises believed, or commands are obeyed. That in essence is 'speech-act theory'.
Words
then are not ‘just words’. When we speak we are engaging in ‘communicative
action’, to use the jargon. For example,
you order a home delivery pizza over the phone, promising to pay for it on when
it comes. It arrives piping hot 30 minutes later (hopefully) and you eat
it. Your words of promise and command spoken
to the person in the pizza shop did something.
They were communicative acts that made stuff happen in the real world.
Now for a thought experiment in an attempt to apply the insights of 'speech-act theory' to the role of governance. To return to our pizza
illustration, it isn’t the job of governors to cook the thing. That's the operational bit. If the school were a giant pizza parlour, staff and students would produce the goods, not the governors. We set the strategy by ordering the exact kind
of pizza we want and then hold the head to account to make sure we get what we ordered. Governance is more than a ‘thinking role’ because we don't just idly dream of the educational equivalent of great pizza. We use words to order it. It involves more than aimlessly sounding off, because our
speech is intended to have a practical effect upon the school: the production of outstanding pizza student achievement.
Without the aid of Italian fast food, it works
like this. The governors' Statement of Vision and Values sets the school's destination of
travel. Our strategy provides the ‘route map’ that will help us get there.
It includes detailed coordinates such targets for exam results, improvements in
student behavior and attendance, and enhancements to the quality of teaching. By
setting the vision and strategy and holding the head to account against key performance indicators governors help keep senior leaders on their toes, thus driving forwards the
process of school improvement. And so it is that the words we use have the
desired impact on our students’ learning outcomes. They are not 'just words', but ‘speech-acts'. Geddit?
To bring this discussion to a conclusion, in place of the NGA’s construction of governance as ‘a thinking not a
doing role’, I propose that governance should be defined as a ‘strategic
speech-act’. Admittedly it may not catch on as a snappy slogan. But putting it like
that safeguards the strategic/operational divide without the danger of implying
that governance is all thought/talk and no action. We speak therefore we do. The communicative actions of
the board promote high standards of educational achievement in
order to ensure that every student exceeds their potential.
For evidence of the impact of the board's 'strategic speech-acts', check out the Board of Governors' Report to Stakeholders 2013/14 that will be sent to parents and carers at the end of this term.
For evidence of the impact of the board's 'strategic speech-acts', check out the Board of Governors' Report to Stakeholders 2013/14 that will be sent to parents and carers at the end of this term.
