School governors have power, but they need training as well

Last updated 11:32, Tuesday, 23 September 2008

The powers and effectiveness of school governing bodies has changed out of all recognition in recent years. They are at the front line, implementing a whole raft of government policies. At first glance it seems eminently sensible to have governors that represent the various constituencies. But a governing body has to act corporately. It is one body; not a group of factions.

They are ultimately responsible for the strategic direction of schools and for the standards achieved. They must ensure that a great range of key decisions are made.

Yet governors are volunteers. Sadly, many are inadequately trained to undertake this demanding role. Is it any wonder that some governing bodies fail to discharge their responsibilities properly?

Back in the 1970s governing bodies were, by and large, controlled by local education authorities. The chief education officer reigned supreme and councillors picked the governors in order to ensure political control.

Thankfully this system was ended when schools were given much greater control over their budgets and more power to hire and fire staff.

The revolution introduced by the Conservatives in the 1980s, and continued by Labour when it came to power in the late 1990s, created governing bodies that had changed out of all recognition. Depending on the type of school, governing bodies now include parents, community representatives, local authority nominees, sponsor governors, church members, the headteacher and elected members of staff.

In the wake of these enormous changes 300,000 governors had to be found to carry out one of the biggest jobs in education.

The fact that this exercise was, by and large, successful is a remarkable achievement. But it was undertaken with inadequate thought for the consequences for schools.

By now it should be plain to every governor that the head is responsible for leadership and management of the school and the governing body sets the strategic direction.

Yet there are still governors who interfere with the management of the school and, even more importantly, there are chairs of governors who fail utterly to understand the proper nature of the relationship between themselves and their headteacher.

One of the reasons for this highly undesirable situation is the lack or training and complete ignorance that exists over the role of governors.

Parent governors should articulate the views of the parent body. They should not use the governing body as a forum to express their own families’ prejudices.

Community governors should be mindful of the needs of the communities the school serves. They must not be swayed by the self-serving interests of vociferous lobby groups or malicious minorities who want to peddle their own agendas.

This is why there is a real need to audit the skills that governors can bring to the benefit of the schools they serve because too often much needed skills are missing.

Some governing bodies make poor decisions that land them in the courts and tribunals. It is also why they end up governing schools that are designated as failing.

And yet the irony is that when a school is labelled as failing it is the head teacher who so often “walks the plank”. The governing body is very rarely replaced, even though they have presided over the disaster.

It is a tribute to the good sense of most governors that the system works well in most cases.

But spare a thought for those schools that have dysfunctional governing bodies.

When people talk about children having only one chance to succeed at school they tend to think entirely in terms of the quality of teaching.

That there is such a lack of knowledge of the power and responsibilities of governors presents a compelling case for the review of the effectiveness of the governing body system announced by schools minister Jim Knight.