Reflecting the sentiments of the Dearing Review in 1997, the Governance Code of Practice in the CUC Guide recommends that "the governing body shall keep its effectiveness under regular review" and ensure that a "parallel review is undertaken of the senate/ academic board and its committees". Many institutions have found effectiveness reviews of their governing bodies helpful, and are interested in obtaining the same benefits in reviewing academic governance.
Governing bodies have an unambiguous responsibility for all institutional affairs, including academic matters. In post-1992 institutions this is explicitly identified in the board's responsibility for "determining educational character and mission". However, the 2004 CUC study on good practice in governance identified considerable uncertainty in the minds of many governors about their responsibilities for academic issues, and these could usefully be clarified. This is particularly important given the increasing financial and strategic issues concerning how teaching and research is funded, and the interests of external stakeholder bodies.
In practice, in many institutions the activities of senates/ academic boards have changed considerably in the past decade or more. Some institutions report that what these bodies actually do bears little relation to their duties as defined in statutes (pre-1992s) or articles (post-1992s). Where this is the case it follows that reviewing the effectiveness of these aspects of governance may be important to ensure 'fitness for purpose'.
A survey on this topic published by CUC in January 2006 (published on the CUC web site) suggested that of 93 institutions replying 43 (45%) were in some way involved in a review of the effectiveness of academic governance. Of these, approximately 31 had been completed and 12 were ongoing. Although numbers will have increased since the CUC survey, it is likely that more than half the HE sector still have to undertake a review.
The funding bodies have begun to clarify their expectations of governing bodies in this area. In 
Scotland, the SFC now requires governing bodies formally to approve learning and teaching strategies, and in England the revised Financial Memorandum includes the expectation by HEFCE that governing bodies will assure themselves that there is an effective framework, overseen by the senate / academic board, for managing the quality of teaching and learning and for maintaining academic standards.
The LFHE has produced a template to help governing bodies who are considering reviews of the effectiveness of academic governance (Word, 264 kb) to identify the purposes of what they are trying to achieve and the methods by which they might do it.