Amid tight finances, workforce pressure and continued policy and curriculum change, the quality of leadership and governance has never mattered more. Professor John Jerrim, from UCL IOE, has shown that leadership and strategic direction are the strongest predictors of staff retention and job satisfaction. With this in mind, what do we know about the experiences of leaders and governors driving schools? TEP’s first national leadership and governance census, analysed by Professor John Jerrim and published alongside the National Institute of Teaching as a strategic partner, explored this question. It gathered responses from governors, trustees and leaders across 140 schools and central trust teams, exploring leadership and governance dynamics alongside pupil and employee experience data. The research is feeding into NIoT’s school trust CEO Programme, supporting fellows to build sharper sightlines between boards, executive teams and the communities they serve. Governance views were not examined in isolation. Instead, boards were asked to predict pupil and employee responses, which were then compared with their actual engagement data. Critically, the findings suggest that boards often view pupil and employee sentiment more positively than the data supports. Overestimating safety When predicting how safe pupils felt in their school, boards scored around one point higher than pupils themselves. They understood which schools were stronger or weaker, but overestimated overall safety. Executives and leaders predicted their pupil scores almost exactly. Governors need to be aware of this perception gap, so they can ask the right questions and shine a light in the right places. A similar pattern appeared in secondary workload. Governors believed employees in their school had a more acceptable workload than employees elsewhere, while employee responses tended to suggest the opposite. Executives are least reassured on the risks they would have to manage CEOs and executives were notably less assured than trustees and governors on succession planning and diversity: less confident their organisation could cope if a key leader left, and less convinced boards prioritise diversity when difficult trade-offs are required. Where executives feel less assured, boards should ask whether the risks they carry are visible enough at board level, and whether further challenge or support is needed. The gender gap Boards reported high confidence on safeguarding risk, with little gender difference. By contrast, confidence on financial and regulatory risk was lower overall and showed a distinct gender gap, with men rating their understanding higher than women. Given current pressures, this gap is worth exploring. Confidence does not always equal understanding, but it can point to blind spots and board training priorities. Primary leaders rated their governance experience more positively than secondary leaders across every measure, with primary governors showing the same pattern to a lesser extent. This mirrors TEP’s termly pupil and employee engagement data, where primary schools typically report stronger engagement than secondary schools. For secondary boards, the largest gaps are decision-making and meeting quality, areas they can directly review and improve. Confidence increases over time Across almost every measure, confidence increases with time served. Newer members are least confident, while longer-serving members are more assured. That matters for board development. Recruitment is of course important, particularly where boards need broader representation or expertise, but as the data shows effective governance is also built through induction, development and retention. The experience of NIoT fellows reinforces this. Governance understanding develops through exposure, practice and discussion with chairs and peers. Strong boards need both organisational memory and fresh perspective, and must understand how people become effective over time. As Kamal Bodhanker, NIoT’s head of leadership faculty, puts it: “Effective governance is not about having all the answers in the room; it is about building the evidence, routines and trust that allow leaders and governors to see their organisation clearly.” The data in this study is a starting point, not a verdict. But it offers something governance has often lacked: a way to compare what boards think they know with what people are actually experiencing.