Facilitator guide · approximately 3 hours

Making the Board-Head relationship explicit

A half-day workshop for a new Head and board, designed to make existing governance assumptions visible before a difficult situation tests the relationship.

ParticipantsHead, Chair and full board

Core activityFive scenario deep-dives

OutputFour to six shared commitments

ReviewAfter 90 days and the first test

Purpose and outcome

Establish the relationship required for the school's next chapter

This is not a review of past board performance. It is an opportunity to establish how the board and Head intend to work together from now on.

By the end of the session, the group will have agreed:

how concerns reaching trustees should be handled;
where individual trustee involvement ends and collective board authority begins;
how operational expertise may be offered without displacing executive authority;
how the board will scrutinise decisions without managing them;
four to six explicit commitments for working together.

The five questions

Keep these visible throughout. They are the lens through which every scenario is examined.

What would normally happen here?
What should happen?
Who has authority to act?
What is the board's legitimate question?
What precedent might our response create?

Session plan

160 minutes of activity, plus a 15-minute break

Section	Time	Purpose
1. Set the scene	15 min	Frame the conversation and introduce the five questions.
2. Scenario deep-dives	75 min	Surface instinctive responses and governance assumptions.
Break	15 min	Pause before consolidation.
3. Consolidate commitments	20 min	Turn scenario learning into plain-language commitments.
4. Identify gaps	20 min	Test whether obligations on both board and Head are covered.
5. Draft and agree	20 min	Select four to six commitments the group will hold.
6. Shared routine and close	10 min	Agree one reusable question and the review points.

1 · Set the scene · 15 minutes

Frame this as a new agreement, not a judgement on the past

The Chair usually convenes the session, with the Head co-designing it. Where the Chair is part of the pattern to be examined, use a neutral facilitator.

Every board and every Head carry assumptions about how governance should work. Most remain invisible until something difficult happens. This session gives us an opportunity to make our assumptions explicit and agree how we want this relationship to work.

We are not deciding whether previous practice was right or wrong. We are deciding what this board and this Head will agree to do from now on.

Introduce the five questions and explain that participants will not answer them mechanically for each scenario. The aim is for the questions to become instinctive.

Set an expectation that every voice matters. Invite quieter participants to contribute and ask those who usually speak first to listen deliberately.

2 · Scenario deep-dives · 75 minutes

Run five low-stakes stress tests

Allow 15 minutes per scenario: read it aloud, present the provocation, give one or two minutes for individual reflection, then use the questions for whole-group discussion.

The parent concern

Scenario: A parent contacts a trustee privately about a teacher. The parent does not want to use the complaints process because they fear it may affect their child.

“If I just refer this to the complaints process, the parent feels dismissed. Surely listening costs nothing?”

Discussion questions

What is the difference between listening and receiving information that now carries obligation?
If the trustee does nothing with the information, and the child is later harmed, is the trustee culpable?
What precedent does 'just listening' set for the next parent who contacts a trustee?
What is the board's legitimate question here, and is there one at all?

Facilitator crib notes: Listening versus acting

Core tension: Listening versus acting.

Listening sympathetically is not the same as accepting a case outside the process.
A single case referred to process is not lost. The process exists to handle it.
If the trustee believes the process is inadequate, that creates a governance question about the process itself, not a reason to bypass it.
The board's legitimate question may be whether the complaints process is accessible and trusted. That question belongs in a proper board forum, not in the handling of this individual case.

The repeated signal

Scenario: Three trustees have independently heard concerns about the implementation of a new timetable. No formal complaints have been submitted.

“Three of us have heard the same thing independently. If we don't act, we're ignoring a pattern. Isn't it our duty to investigate?”

Discussion questions

What would need to be true for three individual concerns to constitute a board-level signal?
What is lost if trustees compare notes informally before the Chair is involved?
What is the difference between a pattern and a coincidence?
Who should decide whether this rises to board attention, and how should they be told?

Facilitator crib notes: When individual concerns become collective evidence

Core tension: When individual concerns become collective evidence.

Three trustees hearing concerns is not necessarily three pieces of evidence. They may be hearing from the same group.
The appropriate response to a signal is to raise it through an agreed channel, usually the Chair, so the board can decide whether it warrants attention.
If trustees investigate independently, they become caseworkers without authority, accountability or training.
The legitimate board question is what evidence would show whether implementation problems warrant board attention, not whether trustees should gather that evidence personally.

The expert trustee

Scenario: A trustee with considerable financial experience believes the school's procurement arrangements could be improved and offers to work directly with the business manager.

“I'm not telling the business manager what to do. I'm just offering to help. Why would the Head object to free expertise?”

Discussion questions

Where does helpful expertise become interference?
If the trustee works directly with the business manager, who is accountable for the outcome?
What is the legitimate way to offer expertise, and how does the Head decline without causing offence?
What is the difference between the trustee's expertise and the Head's authority to decide how the school operates?

Facilitator crib notes: Expertise versus authority

Core tension: Expertise versus authority.

Expertise offered through the Head or Chair is an asset. Expertise applied directly to staff circumvents the Head's authority over their team.
Direct work with the business manager creates two sources of authority and leaves accountability unclear.
The trustee's expertise is most valuable when directed at governance questions about strategy, risk and policy.
The legitimate question may be whether procurement is delivering value for money. The Head retains the authority to decide how the school responds.

The unpopular decision

Scenario: The Head makes an operational decision that creates significant opposition among parents. Several trustees disagree and are being pressed publicly to intervene.

“I didn't support this decision in the boardroom, and I told the board that. Why should I now defend a decision I argued against?”

Discussion questions

What is the difference between collective responsibility and individual intellectual honesty?
What can a trustee say publicly without undermining the board?
What does the Head owe trustees who defended a decision they personally opposed?
How does the board scrutinise a decision it disagreed with without reopening it publicly?

Facilitator crib notes: Collective authority versus individual conscience

Core tension: Collective authority versus individual conscience.

Collective responsibility does not require trustees to pretend they agreed. It requires them not to campaign against or distance themselves from the decision publicly.
A trustee can say: 'The board considered this carefully and I respect the decision that was made.'
The Head owes trustees private acknowledgement of their disagreement and an explanation of how their concerns were weighed.
The legitimate board question is what evidence it needs to assess whether the decision is working.

The operational disagreement

Scenario: A trustee strongly disagrees with an operational decision made by the Head and is weighing whether to raise concerns with other trustees directly.

“I've raised this with the Head twice and nothing changed. Am I really expected to stay silent when I think a mistake is being made?”

Discussion questions

What is the difference between persistence and interference?
What options does a trustee have when they believe the Head is genuinely wrong?
When does a pattern become a governance issue rather than a series of operational disagreements?
What is the difference between raising a concern with the Chair and raising it with fellow trustees?

Facilitator crib notes: Disagreement without mobilisation

Core tension: Disagreement without mobilisation.

Raising a concern with the Head is legitimate. Raising it again may be legitimate. Building support among trustees before a proper board discussion is mobilisation.
The escalation path is Head, then Chair, then full board. It gives the concern a legitimate forum without undermining executive authority.
A pattern may indicate a governance issue, but identifying that pattern belongs to the Chair in conversation with the Head and board.
The trustee's frustration should be acknowledged. The answer is a clear escalation path, not silence.

3 · Consolidate · 20 minutes

Move from discussion to commitments

Display the table below on a flip chart or shared screen. For each scenario, ask what the pull was and what commitment emerged. Capture plain language, not governance-speak.

Scenario	What to look out for (the pull)	What we commit to
1. The parent concern
2. The repeated signal
3. The expert trustee
4. The unpopular decision
5. The operational disagreement

Push for specificity. “We will refer individual cases to the school's process and will not act on private information” is stronger than “we will respect the complaints process.” Aim for five to ten raw commitments.

4 · Identify gaps · 20 minutes

Make sure the agreement constrains both sides

Test the scenario commitments against these additional possibilities. For each one, ask whether it belongs, whether it needs local wording and what may still be missing.

Additional commitment	Why it matters
The Head does not use “operational” to avoid legitimate governance questions.	The relationship can fail when scrutiny is deflected as well as when trustees overreach.
The Head provides the evidence the board needs for meaningful oversight.	The board cannot scrutinise without information.
Neither the Head nor a trustee claims to speak for the board without authority.	Personal views must not be presented as collective backing.
Trustees bring perspective, not constituency instructions.	Trustees govern for the school rather than represent a stakeholder bloc.
Challenge happens openly in the boardroom, not through private intervention.	The right forum protects both scrutiny and authority.
Board deliberations remain confidential.	Quiet leakage to family, parents or staff damages trust.

Useful prompts: What might tempt the Head to behave badly? What might tempt the Chair? What happens when the Head and Chair disagree?

5 · Draft and agree · 20 minutes

Select four to six commitments

Display all candidate commitments from the scenarios and gap discussion.
Ask each participant to select silently the four they consider most important.
Identify those with most support.
Refine the wording together until everyone can genuinely sign up to it.

Select commitments that address a real risk, are specific enough to matter, and are not so detailed that they become bureaucratic. Record them in the minutes and in the working agreement.

6 · Close · 10 minutes

Agree one shared routine

What is the board's question here?

If the group can identify a question about strategy, policy, risk, accountability or organisational assurance, the board may have legitimate work to do. If it can identify only the action it wants management to take, the discussion has probably crossed into executive territory.

Close with a round in which each participant completes: “One behaviour I will adopt, or stop, in order to support this agreement is…”

Agree to review the working agreement after three months and after the first significant situation in which it is tested.

Facilitator support

Keep the conversation useful when the room becomes difficult

General facilitation principles

Your role is not to provide answers. Ensure every voice is heard and keep the discussion on governance rather than management.
Use the provocations. If the group agrees too quickly, ask who might see the situation differently.
Name the pull when it appears, then ask what would happen if someone acted on that instinct.
Keep the five questions visible and return to them when discussion drifts.
Invite the Head's perspective explicitly and make space for quieter trustees.

Handling difficult moments

If this happens	Try this
A trustee dominates.	“Thank you. I'd like to hear from others before we move on. Who else has a view?”
A trustee becomes defensive.	“We're not judging past practice. We're deciding what we'll do from now on.”
The Head is reluctant to challenge.	“Head, you're a full participant. What do you need from the board that we haven't discussed?”
The group agrees too quickly.	“The provocation suggests someone might feel differently. Who can see why?”
A live issue is raised.	Note it for later. Keep this session focused on how future situations will be handled.
The group cannot agree.	Park the commitment and return to it. The group does not need to agree everything today.
Conflict emerges.	Use the five questions to understand what is happening in the room.

Timing, materials and follow-up checklist

Timing

Each scenario is planned for 15 minutes. If discussion is productive, let it run and compress a later scenario rather than cutting it off abruptly. Use consolidation to recover unresolved threads.

Materials

Printed scenario descriptions
The five questions displayed throughout
A flip chart or shared document
The additional commitments list
The working agreement template

Follow-up

Record commitments in the minutes within one week.
Complete the agreement within one month.
Circulate the five questions to trustees.
Schedule the 90-day review and a review after the first significant test.

Workshop output

Record what the board and Head have agreed

The template turns the workshop's discussion into a practical, reviewable working agreement.

Open the agreement template Return to the article