Appendix
Government response
Introduction
We would like to thank the Committee for their report
into the governance and leadership of the Department for Education,
and for their thoughtful recommendations. As the Report notes,
the Department has undergone significant change since the Election
in May 2010, and Ministers, non-executive board members and the
senior executive team are conscious of the challenges this poses,
many of which are highlighted in the Committee's Report.
The Committee will be aware that since the Report
was published, the Department has published the findings of the
DfE Review. Many of the Review's themes addressed similar questions
to those raised in the Report and in Select Committee hearings
and Committee visits to the Department. There were specific work
strands on governance, people and cross-site working, the findings
of which might be of particular interest to the Committee. A copy
of the Review is attached to this response for ease of reference
[not printed].
The Review was launched in June, as part of the Civil
Service Reform Plan, and considered how the DfE can best continue
to deliver the Government's priorities whilst meeting the challenges
of budget pressures. Its aim was to look at the Department from
a zero base, and ask some fundamental questions about the size,
shape and role of central government in the education and children's
services sectors.
We are currently in the early stages of implementation.
As a result, some of the elements of this response reflect areas
where the Committee's recommendations are still under consideration
as part of implementation plans.
Conclusions and Recommendations
In the response below, the Committee's specific conclusions
and recommendations are in bold text and the Government's
responses are in plain text.
Changes to the Departmental Board
1. We believe that regular Ministerial involvement
in Departmental Board meetings is a sound feature of the new system,
but caution against political involvement in fundamentally Civil
Service management decisions. We therefore equally support the
retention of an executive management board. We recommend that
the Department pursue Sir Michael Barber's suggestion of further
training from the Institute for Government. (Paragraph 16)
In line with the HMT/Cabinet Office protocol on Enhanced
Departmental Boards, the DfE underwent an internal evaluation
of the Board's effectiveness. In light of that, the Board and
Committee structure has been altered slightly. Since the publication
of the Committee's Report, we have also had the findings of the
governance strand of the DfE Review, which focuses on embedding
the new structure effectively. The previous Executive Management
Board is now a Management Committee, which includes the Permanent
Secretary, three Directors General (one of whom is the Head of
Profession for Policy) and the Directors of Finance, HR and Strategy.
In addition, it includes the Chief Executive of the Education
Funding Agency, in his capacity as Head of Profession for Operational
Delivery, and non-executive board members in a support and challenge
role. This wider membership is proving extremely useful in terms
of having more expertise around the table, and a wider range of
perspectives. The Committee has also taken on the functions that
used to be covered under Nominations and Governance, in keeping
with the evaluation's recommendation to streamline governance
structures. All members of the Management Committee are also members
of the Department's wider Board.
We do not accept that the Department's Board structure
risks political involvement in Civil Service management decisions.
There is a clear protocol set out by the Cabinet Office on Enhanced
Departmental Boards, and the roles of Ministers and Civil Servants
are underpinned by both the Ministerial Code and the Constitutional
Reform and Governance Act.
The Department would agree with Sir Michael Barber
that the IFG's input into the successful running of the Board
has been valuable. We expect to continue to work closely with
the IFG, and are hoping to work with them on a seminar on building
strong leadership teams.
2. We believe the increased number of NEBMs could
bring significant advantages to the workings of the DfE Board,
and applaud the appointment of four skilled and experienced candidates.
(Paragraph 22)
3. We agree with Sir Michael Barber and Sir David
Bell that political affiliations, including donations to political
parties, should not debar an individual from public service. However,
we believe that a more open appointment process for NEBMs would
have put paid to any accusations of conflicts of interests, and
recommend this take place in the future. We recommend, too, that
the appointment process is better structured in future: headhunting,
whilst clearly appropriate for such high-level posts, should take
place as part of a formal interview process, rather than the slightly
informal-sounding meetings which were reported to us. (Paragraph
23)
We strongly agree with the Committee that the presence
of four NEBMs has brought significant advantages to the operation
of the Board and its Committees, and to the Department more generally.
Anthony Salz, John Nash, Theodore Agnew and Dame Sue John have
brought a wide range of valuable expertise to the Department,
both via formal Board meetings and in their wider work with officials.
In terms of the Committee's recommendation regarding
the appointments process, the relevant process is set out in the
HMT/Cabinet Office publication: Corporate governance in central
government departments: Code of good practice 2011—guidance,
available on the HMT website. Since the Committee's Report was
published, members will be aware that both Anthony Salz and John
Nash have left their roles as NEBMs. We are beginning the process
of replacing them, in discussion with Cabinet Office, and will
be seeking to ensure that we maintain a wide range of expertise
on the Board.
The Executive Board
4. We accept the explanations offered to us concerning
the significant number of changes to the Department's Executive
Board. We applaud the Permanent Secretary's decision to maintain
stability with interim Directors General, but would encourage
him to make substantive appointments soon, as he suggested he
would do. (Paragraph 30)
5. We understand the Permanent Secretary's rationale
for changing the way in which corporate services functions are
managed, but recommend that the Department evaluate fully the
likely impact of any structural changes before they are made,
considering the number it has already undergone in recent years.
(Paragraph 31)
The DfE Review addressed both of these issues. It
concluded, in line with the Committee's concern, that we should
make no further substantial changes to the Department's fundamental
structures. The Review also concluded that although there should
not be a standalone corporate services directorate, there should
be direct reporting lines between the HR and finance/commercial/estates/IT
functions, and the Permanent Secretary. Further details are set
out in the Review document.
Following confirmation that the Director General
roles in the policy directorates remain unchanged, we will move
shortly to advertise the roles on a permanent basis.
Evaluating the Board's performance
6. We support the Institute for Government's recommendation
that Boards should be subject to annual, external evaluation of
their performance, and recommend that the DfE implement this.
(Paragraph 34)
7. We understand that full Departmental Board
minutes cannot be published because of confidentiality and, in
the DfE's words, "the need to preserve the candidness of
discussion in a free and frank environment." However, we
believe that, in the spirit of the Government's drive for increased
transparency, minutes ought to provide the public with as much
information as possible. Furthermore, we regret the Department's
failure to publish minutes in a timely fashion, as it has promised
to do, and urge it to rectify this: summary versions of the last
13 months' meeting should be made available immediately. (Paragraph
36)
The Review included a strand on governance, details
of which are set out in the attached document. The Department
agrees with the Committee and the IFG about the value of external
evaluation of the Board's performance. Given the recent changes
to the Board structure explained under recommendation 1, and the
findings of the DfE Review regarding the streamlining of decision
making, we are keen to monitor the effectiveness of the Board
arrangements and will seek an external evaluation, as the Committee
suggests.
The Department has published summary versions of
minutes from meetings between November 2011 and October 2012.
As part of the implementation of the governance strand of the
DfE Review, we will continue to consider how we can publish as
much information as possible whilst maintaining the meetings as
a forum for free, frank and confidential discussion.
Restructuring the Department for Education and
its associated bodies
8. Particularly in light of the recent reshuffle,
we urge the Department to maintain focus on the critical children's
policy agenda, and to ensure these areas receive adequate Ministerial
and senior official attention. The DfE should consider appointing
a non-executive Board member with specific knowledge of such issues,
as it has done for schools policy. (Paragraph 41)
Across all areas of the Department's business (both
education and children's services), we are, in line with the Review,
prioritising our scarce resources on the most critical areas of
business. Across the board this means highlighting areas which
need the most resource and identifying work that can be stopped,
or delegated if it is best delivered by someone other than central
Government. We do not recognise, however, the picture painted
by the Committee of focus shifting away from the children's agenda.
We agree with the Committee that it is important that this area
receives Ministerial and senior official attention, and this is
already in place on crucial policy areas including SEN, safeguarding,
adoption and fostering, early education and childcare. As noted
above in response to recommendations 2 and 3, there are impending
changes to the non-executive team, and we will consider the need
for children's services expertise when appointing new NEBMs.
Executive Agencies
9. We recommend that the Department carry out
a full evaluation of the impact of its structural changes, both
as a result of shifts in policy priority and of creating new Executive
Agencies, after a suitable interval. This evaluation, should,
critically, have input from staff at all grades across all DfE
sites and should consider, amongst other issues, the impact on
the changes on policy development, on Departmental efficiency
(financial, technological and communicatory), on staff morale
and workloads, on provision of front-line delivery and customer
service (including input from the front line where appropriate),
and on the roles and responsibilities of senior managers. (Paragraph
45)
The DfE Review strand on the role, size and shape
of the Department looked in detail at its structures, including
the effect of structural changes made since the Election. The
Review process involved staff from all grades across all sites,
and this will continue throughout the implementation phase. We
agree with the Committee that a focus on the roles and responsibilities
of senior managers will be important, particularly as the Department
moves to a more flexible staffing model. The Department will need
to monitor and evaluate the effect of both organisational changes
and its policy and delivery programmes over the coming years.
Input from the front line will be important for this, both in
terms of qualitative feedback from professionals and quantitative
data on the impact of the reform programmes across education and
children's services.
Working across Government
10. We agree with Zoe Gruhn and Anthony Salz that
lead non-executive Board members might play a valuable role in
improving cross-Government working, and encourage the Department
to pursue innovative ways of improving this at senior and operational
levels. (Paragraph 46)
The Department works closely with a number of other
Departments, for example the Department of Health on special educational
needs, the Ministry of Justice on family justice and the department
for Business Innovation and Skills on Apprenticeships. The fact
we share a joint Minister with BIS is a very specific demonstration
of our commitment to cross-Government working. Our NEBMs have
been active participants in cross-Whitehall events, particularly
focussing on where Departments can learn from one another to improve
practices around efficient and effective working. More generally,
the standard elements of cross-Whitehall machinery (for example
Cabinet Committees), continue to encourage effective cross-Government
working. At official level, there are a number of cross-department
networks, particularly amongst senior leaders on leadership programmes,
and those who form part of the Top 200 Civil Service group.
Engaging with the front line
11. We agree with Sir David Bell and Jon Coles
that the Department needs and benefits keenly from front-line
input, particularly at senior levels, and believe that more could
be done to ensure this, particularly in light of the bringing
in-house of so many delivery functions. As a starting point, we
recommend that the Government return to our own previous recommendations
in this field, including the appointment of chief professional
officers and widening opportunities for secondments in and out
of the Department. (Paragraph 50)
Operational delivery is as significant as policy
development in the Department's role, and includes but is not
restricted to the role of Department's executive agencies. As
part of the Departmental Review, we therefore considered whether
the Department has the right people in the right roles in order
to be able to deliver ministerial policy and delivery priorities
as efficiently and effectively as possible. As mentioned above,
this included an analysis of the shape and structure of the Department,
including the make-up of the senior team.
The Department agrees fully with the Committee's
views on the importance of securing significant frontline input
and expertise into both policy development and delivery. Rather
than focussing this expertise in two senior chief professional
officer roles, we have chosen to bring in expertise in a wider
range of ways. Spanning both education and children's services,
there is of course the statutory role of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector,
with whom the Department works closely. On the schools side, we
have appointed Charlie Taylor (a former head teacher) as Chief
Executive of the Teaching Agency, and Dr Elizabeth Sidwell (a
former Academy principal) as the Schools Commissioner. We continue
to maintain the arrangements which have worked well since Sir
Michael Barber's time of ensuring that we have expert education
advisers (including, for example, former headteachers or Ofsted
HMIs) on flexible contracts to the Department providing useful
front line input and experience into our day-to-day business.
On the children's services side, we have engaged the expertise
of, amongst others, Sir Martin Narey, Eileen Munro and Dame Clare
Tickell to assist in our development of policies on adoption,
safeguarding and early education. We will shortly be recruiting
a Chief Social Worker whose role will include advising Ministers
on front line social work practice. Across the piece, we will
be recruiting a number of Policy Fellows as part of the implementation
of the policy strand of the DfE Review.
Taken together, these measures have and will continue
to ensure we gain specific insight into our wide spectrum of policies,
rather than attempting to secure the expertise, perspective and
skillset in one or two particular individuals.
Turning to the second element of the recommendation,
we agree with the Committee about the importance of opportunities
for secondment both in and out of the Department. Whilst we make
extensive use of secondments out of DfE (and currently have a
range of staff on secondment, for example, to Academy sponsor
chains, local authorities and the voluntary sector), we will consider
further how to increase secondments into the Department.
Personnel issues
12. We acknowledge that the current economic climate
and the inevitable change following the General Election may have
impacted on staff survey results in 2011, and we similarly recognise
that the DfE has continued to outperform many Whitehall Departments
in those results. However, we are concerned at the Permanent Secretary's
view that he is "not dealing with a disaster situation";
with 4 in 5 staff believing change to be managed poorly, and only
half believing the Department itself to be well run, this looks
complacent. We recommend that the Department adopt a little more
urgency in dealing with staff morale, especially given the results
have dropped significantly from the 2010 survey. Particularly
in straitened times, a Government Department's people are its
most valuable resource. They deserve to be managed effectively
and have their views taken seriously. (Paragraph 55)
The Department welcomes the Committee's acknowledgement
that the current economic climate and degree of change in DfE
has had an impact on staff survey results. It is also the case
that since the Report was published, the results of the 2012 survey
have been published. It is worth noting that the 2012 results
are not a like-for-like comparison from 2011, due to the incorporation
of the new executive agencies. The 2012 survey was also conducted
during the period in which the DfE Review was underway, which
caused some uncertainty amongst staff.
Turning first to the Committee's findings on the
2011 results, the Department does not recognise an assessment
of 4 in 5 staff believing change to be managed poorly. The 2011
results show 32 percent of staff agreeing that the DfE manages
change well, with a further 34 percent expressing a neutral view
on the question. The fact that a further 34 percent of staff disagreed
that change is managed well was concerning, and the Permanent
Secretary and the rest of the Board have sought to address that
in managing the further changes the Department has undergone.
The Permanent Secretary's agreement with Mr Coles about "not
dealing with a disaster situation" is a reflection of the
fact the DfE results are in line with Whitehall averages. It is
also a reflection of the wider results in the 2011 survey, including,
for example, the fact that 73 percent of staff reported a sense
of personal accomplishment from their work, 79 percent had confidence
in decisions taken by their manager and an average of over 86
percent reported being treated fairly and with respect at work.
All of these could be useful indicators of staff morale. It is
also the case that whilst it is a very useful management tool,
the staff survey is just a snapshot, which should be viewed in
the context of a wider range of indicators. The fact that DfE
has had amongst the highest response rates in Whitehall in successive
years (at 89 percent and 92 percent respectively) does not suggest
a disengaged workforce.
It is undoubtedly the case that the DfE Review poses
some significant challenges to the Department and its leadership
team over the coming months, including in terms of staff morale.
The need to make further administration savings will result in
headcount reductions and closure of some of our sites. We do not
underestimate how difficult this will be for staff, and a significant
amount of senior officials' time across the organisation is being
devoted to managing this implementation well.
Like all organisations, it is very important that
we are conscious of the morale of our staff, and that we monitor
it and take steps to ensure morale is high and staff are engaged
effectively on delivering the Department's priorities. The DfE
Review was established with a specific people strand, which looked
at a range of issues affecting all staff. Whilst the Review did
not make the case for making fundamental changes to the structures
of the Department, it did conclude that a range of changes are
needed on ways of working. Implementing these changes will mean
that all of our staff have varied, well-defined and high-priority
jobs, and are freed up from low-value activities like inefficient
decision-making and multiple layers of clearance. The Department
will ensure that the right learning and development opportunities
are available to all staff, and that all staff are well managed
and given opportunities to progress in the Department. We will
also, as the Committee suggests, continue our focus on effective
communication with staff, and on providing forums for them to
express their views so that the leadership team's decisions are
well-informed.
| 
