What do parents and teachers really think of school governors?

[DiggerMum]

I am a primary school governor and have a strong background in education and children's services. I feel I have some relevant support and experience to offer my school and put in a lot of hours and effort, as do lots of the other governors I know. I sometimes feel a sense of ambivalence/ defensiveness from some (not all!) teachers and similarly with some parents (again certainly not all!) - some parents for example seem to talk to me thinking I can sort an issue with the school for them (not my role!) or think I do it to advance my own child. I was in a conversation with a teacher recently (not from my school) in which she said that governors were just for decoration, didn't contribute anything and really just a waste of space - according to her, all teachers think this, and most parents, but just go along with it as the government says it is what we have to do. In my opinion Governors are very useful and are currently put under increasing pressure in terms of management and leadership in schools. I suppose I am just therefore pondering what parents and teachers really think of them/ people like me and is it worth doing what I do?

If a school needs professional services, it should engage a professional. Relying on someone whose dayjob is roughly in the right area is fifty years out of date.

I completely agree that it would be a recipe for disaster for a school to rely on a volunteer with say a legal or accountancy background for professional advice. Unfortunately most state schools simply could not afford to have external professionals involved at all stages in every aspect of running the school.

However, in my experience someone with a relevant professional background can be useful in helping staff and governors without this background to understand issues. For example, an accountant could help explain the budget, balance sheet etc to the other Governors and it would be harder for a headteacher to try to pull the wool over his/her eyes if there was a discrepancy. Similarly a lawyer might be able to point out possible legal issues that the Head might not have thought about and someone with a HR background would be useful to involve in recruitment matters etc. However, the school should always also have proper professional advisers involved where they need advice as such. I suppose for me the point is that since schools cannot afford to employ a team of professionals to deal with all the financial/legal/HR matters it is better to have someone involved who can help explain the basics and signpost when to get proper advice than for there to be no-one involved with any relevant experience.

I think that in reality, in view of schools' limited budgets it should be a bit like asking a friend who is a dentist for advice on brushing your child's teeth but still taking them to a dental practice for regular check ups and any dental work.

I'm a primary school governor. I was a teacher for all of my career and have taught primary and secondary, been an advisory teacher, class teacher, SLT, managed a team of 25 over the years.

I think people with experience in education are vital because of the experience they've had, but I also think schools need governors with other business experiences, particularly finance are very useful.

I've been a governor for a couple of terms, have been on lots of courses, done training, attended in service days, am on working parties, sub committees and a variety of meetings in school. I haven't been to all the school events, but think that is less necessary that being part of the process that influences the strategic development of the school.

I've always been welcomed, but there is an underlying feeling sometimes of people being wary. I believe the role should be always strategic, but the divisions can sometimes be blurred and there is the potential for clashed between the operational and strategic.

I am in school at least twice a week, but haven't been involved in a learning walk. I can see how someone with no experience of teaching could be irritating to a teacher, but I've done learning walks and observations as a teacher and been observed of course, as well.

Yes, I have no issue with NQTs but I have seen them given jobs that it later transpired, they weren't (yet) equipped to handle. And even seen kids put in dangerous situations because of it (one NQT who had so little control, one of the kids ran out of school and down a busy road, on her watch).

I totally understand why someone would employ someone who is automatically £11,000 pa cheaper than myself. £11,000 is a lot of resourcesfor a school - and this was years ago, when it was even more considerable. I guess tory governments would take that as an excuse to lower everyone's wages, academy style.

I've read on teachers' forums about experienced, good Heads of Department losing their jobs in restructuring and ending up literally as Tescos shelf stackers. Their only way back into the profession is to work in a shitty academy. Governors and Heads should have a role in making sure they do retain people with valuable experience.

Have been interviewed by Head and Governor combos, and it was an uncomfortable experience with the governor often asking naive questions (not that many Heads are much better). But yes, it left you thinking "Amateur", like it or not.

BTW, those governors who say teachers are friendly - of course they are. It's part of their job, that public face, putting on a professional front and at the end of the day, you just get the public face and professional front, because there is no context for you to have any meaningful interchange with them and they come from a culture where you are an intrusive amateur (even if you're not). You are yet another person to keep onside, so the teacher can get on with their job. Behind closed doors, many teachers are less friendly towards you, than they might appear.

And posting on this thread, it occurs to me that apart from my son's friend's mum (who I don't know), I have no clue who any of my sons' school's governors are.

At primary school, I had more of an idea. Always struck me that it was odd for people to get so deeply invested when, once their child leaves, that's them done with that place. And they did strike me as the kind of people who were either out for status (imaginary) in the community, or who think the world begins and ends at the school gates and are incredibly wrapped up with their child's primary school, not rgasping that in a few short years, they won't give a feck.

the kind of people who were either out for status (imaginary) in the community, or who think the world begins and ends at the school gates

Well that makes for depressing reading. Honestly, reading that and some of the other posts on this thread makes me wonder why I bother

Joff I also agree with what you are saying too. When I joined the governing body I was immediately struck by how hard it was for parent governors because there is so much they need to know very quickly. It's absolutely not something that should be used as has been mentioned by others as a way of addressing individual concerns or be privy to confidential information. I don't think parents are made aware enough about the requirements of the role which is very demanding.

Ultimately I left for reasons that I can't go into. I used to advise parents with significant issues to go through the school's complaints procedure if need be. I always believed a schools governing body would be able to objectively and professionally deal with problems. I can see now that at some schools this just isn't the case. Name change time!

what about parent governors who were also teachers at a school? surely they might be able to access what could be confidential paperwork? the thought of a person with fingers in lots pots in the same school makes me feel uneasy. if not for the gossipy sharing of information to others then for the sheer nosiness of knowing yhe private affairs of children and their familes

sorry! the conversation seems to habe moved on more quickly than my phone.

They're completely unpaid and can offer their professional expertise from relevant areas such law, finance, recruitment, building, catering, management, etc. They also take on a hell of a lot of responsibility, criticism and aggravation for their non-existent salary.

Anyone can be a governor and I think most schools are crying out for more people to be involved, because it's a lot of work and pretty thankless.

I'm not a governor BTW but a close family member is.

It's all well and good citing lawyers, accountants and ex teachers as governors. I don't think any of our governors have that kind of experience! One of them is the local UKIP councillor

I'm a governor although not of a school. The Governors we have are a mixed bag bringing lots of different skills to the table, often ones that teaching staff don't have but which the head and other senior staff need to run the organisation. So some are former OFSTED inspectors who can help with an inspection readiness plan, some are retired heads who can provide a bit of mentoring and support when our head needs it, some have legal and financial backgrounds and can spot mistakes in the finances pretty quickly. We also set and review key performance indicators both for senior staff and for the school as a whole. We review these and make sure that the head is monitoring poorer staff and supporting younger staff. We look at academic results and challenge why they aren't better in weaker subjects and ask that the stronger departments share their best practices. We have champions for areas like safeguarding H&S and equalities and we review the policies and any complaints in these areas. We also help recruit more senior staff.

Our job is not to check up on teachers - that is the job of senior staff. Our job is to act as a critical friend who will check that senior staff are doing theirs but also to provide them with support and advice to help them do their job as well as possible.

Wow- I'm a bit aghast at the governor hate on here.

Obviously, a board is as good as it's members, but governors should absolutely NOT have access to confidential info, nor should people be on boards if they have personal agendas (though of course this happens)
But there are a lot of governors putting in hours of their time, on a voluntary basis, for the good of your children's education.

Again, I'm not in the UK, but I am an experienced Governor in a British Curriculum school and I'm a bit alarmed at the way some boards are apparently conducting themselves.

I'm a bit torn on this. I believe that parents & the local community should have a voice within schools and should be working with the school for the best possible outcomes for the children.
I don't think this is best done with an attitude of support rather than judgment holding people accountable.

Oops. I do think.

The problem is, while governors CAN come into the role with a wealth of expertise it shouldn't be assumed that they do.

It's not an ideal system, but I don't think parents or teachers would be happy to see funds diverted away from the school to pay for a professional organisation to provide the sort of things that governors are supposed to offer. Likewise I don't think the school would be happy to proceed with absolutely no external input on these matters. It's kind of community peer-review.

They're completely unpaid and can offer their professional expertise from relevant areas such law, finance, recruitment, building, catering, management, etc. They also take on a hell of a lot of responsibility, criticism and aggravation for their non-existent salary.

Anyone can be a governor and I think most schools are crying out for more people to be involved, because it's a lot of work and pretty thankless.

Agree tenfold with this quote from Mackereloffact - (Great username btw)

I am really rather depressed by the governor hate on this thread. Yes I am biased as I was previously a governor who put an awful lot of time over many many years into a school. There were a couple of people doing it for gossip but information about individual children was never shared, so they soon left when they realised they weren't getting the info and it was actually a lot of work and hassle to be a decent governor.

The main thing that struck me was the amount of responsibility that falls to unpaid volunteers is enormous. Yes I was active and involved, but i worked out when I left that I had actually put between 1000-1200 hours into the school over the years. That is a f**k of a lot of time in addition to a job and a family.

I should also point out that we never judged teaching or meddled in day to day management of the school, that was not our role and anyone who tried to do so was quickly shot down.

I should also add that we had a Chartered Accountant, a Chartered Surveyor, HR director and various other useful professions amongst our governors so I do actually feel we had relevant expertise to offer.

It's kind of community peer-review.

Yes, I think that was what I was trying to say. This is what a good governing body should be, governing bodies are not another OFSTED. It makes me sad that many governors see their job as 'holding them accountable'.

I too am depressed by the negative feelings about governors.

Our GB is made up of lawyers, education academics, educational psychologists, accountants, CEOs, very experienced teachers, people with experience of managing facilities etc. We bring a huge range of experience and expertise that our school's senior leadership team would not be able to easily access in any other way. We don't offer professional services to the school (e.g. an HT specialist wouldn't be writing employment contracts). But in our discussions with senior leaders we aim to test ideas, raise concerns, question assumptions, advise caution and offer encouragement. Because of our experiences in the world outside of eduction, or in education in different contexts, we hope our discussions add value to decisions that are made by the school's leadership team. This is exactly the same role the boards play in corporate and non-profit governance.

We don't interfere in operational matters. We don't campaign for special privileges for our kids. We visit the school. We put in hours and hours of work, all unpaid. If people don't turn up or contribute, they are asked to leave.

Wow just returned to this thread and it has really taken off, makes for a very interesting and fascinating read with a really diverse set of opinions. As a governor I contribute about 2-4 hours every week, I regularly review the schools data, check pupil progress, support school activities, look over and review policies, support staff recruitment and help allocate resources. My job is not to be an expert on teaching or interfere in day to day activities but instead to question and hold the school and headteacher to account in a supportive and collaborative way. So for example I do look at the trends in the school data or the anomalies and raise questions - i.e. how are we supporting pupils struggling with reading or maths, what provision is in place for disadvantaged pupils, how are we tackling attendance issues..... It is quite sad/ demoralizing to read how negatively governors are viewed by some. I have met so many others through training (and yes we attend a lot!) who have always appeared extremely dedicated and hard working in their voluntary position.

Our GB is made up of lawyers, education academics, educational psychologists, accountants, CEOs, very experienced teachers, people with experience of managing facilities etc.

Lovely. This would be a high-achieving school with low FSM, excellent results, low staff turning, low levels of SEN and reasonable facilities, in an area in which social workers are relatively uncommon, most parents are in work and the children have high aspirations, yes?

It's hardly difficult to get good outcomes from such schools.

Now, consider a school in a deprived area in an ex-industrial town with >50% FSM, >50% EAL, >30% SEN, >50% of children in workless houses, 5% if that HE takeup in the students and substantially less amongst the parents. How well do you think that governing body is going to work? No one disputes that successful schools in easy locations with biddable intakes and professional governors can work well but, frankly, even without governing body the school would basically run itself: the head's biggest issues are going to be whether to fund A Level Music and whether you do the day trip for raising aspiration to Oxford or Cambridge this year.

There's a massive "let them eat cake" going on here. Failing schools in deprived areas just need to recruit more people like you to the governing body and it'll all be pukka.

I can't see any 'hate', just valid concerns and misgivings.

People should be permitted to raise concerns without individuals behaving wounded or personally insulted. There are fabulous governors out there, but where hey are not, consequences can be catastrophic.

Bolograph, you speak the truth.

I worked in schools where it was impossible almost to persuade people to be parent governors, the demographic was not a Boden clad one.

So if a child came to a school because they'd been repeatedly excluded from others for little things like - trying to stove a teacher's head in against a wall, say - then within a short period of time, that child's mother was 'parent governor' (a) because no-one else gave a shit and (b) because she figured out that way the child wouldn't be excluded yet again and (c) the Head was scared of her and the child but wanted the extra £1000 it was in those days, for taking on a child other schools found too challenging.

That was the calibre of governor we had to work with. And same in the 1970s at my own shit comprehensive school. Greasy local businessman whose son was the biggest bully in the year? A shoo-in for parent governor. Suddenly little (well not so little) Peter had carte blanche to disrupt every single one of the top group's lessons, even though he was too thick to be in the top group - and we probably all lost a grade because of it.

Leafy villages round here often have those bragging signs outside declaring ofsted (another bunch of tossers and amateurs) think they're "OUTSTANDING". It's not hardto be outstanding when your class size would be the envy of the local prep school, your staff realise it's a cushy job and stay for years, and your parents can fund whatever you need them to fund.

katemiddleton are you kidding me??

Here are a few direct quotes from this thread:

The parent governors are in it for the gossip
They are useless
Governors here a bit of a grim clique who gossip in the playground
The HT's tame stooges
Parent governors are the worst
They're very up themselves
HT's lackeys

You call that 'raising valid concerns'??! I think you are reading the bits you want to read!