George posted this interesting question for you all to think about. I am sure anyone that has been on the Governing Body will understand the dilemma it sometimes poses with a HT present. Please post your thoughts and make this a lively discussion.


How about: is it time to end the Head Teacher's automatic position on the Governing Body?

The basis for the argument is the head is employed by the governing body who also have a supervisory responsibility for the head teacher. Problem head teachers can exert too much power on the governing body making it difficult for the governing body to do their job properly.

In many other organisations the manager is hired to tend to the day to day running with the strategy and decision making being made by the equivelant governing body/management committee. They still attend meetings to give reports and to offer advice as required.

Or does the different setup and unique status of schools means the head teacher must be part of the governing body?

On a similar vein, are our governing bodies fit for purpose? If not how do we change this?

I'm a Staff Governor on our schools Governing Board. It isn't a job that I went out of the way to get but one, because no one else wanted to do it, I got more or less pushed into. At the very first Gov. Mtg I went to, which was a training session, I was asked what I thought I thought about Governors and their role in school. I've a bad habit of not thinking before I speak and I gave my honest opinion. One, I still think holds true, that the role of todays Governors has changed beyond belief. The GB as it was envisaged in the 19C shouldn't be the GB of the 21C. The well meaning people who volunteer and get voted onto Governing boards, really on the whole do not have the knowledge or real power to do the job, which they have committed themselves to for a term of 4 years, properly.

It's a long time since the landed gentry, the local vicar and the good and true made up a schools governors. Now it's mainly parents. school staff, the LEA rep and a few others. The parents volunteer because normally they want to see what's happing with their child, the staff more often or not get volunteered for the job. the LEA rep doesn't normally turn up.

I would be a better governor If I used my knowledge to benefit another school rather than my own. In another school I would actually say what I thought, be it good or bad. Now I will give my opinion if it's good but hesitate more often or not if it's bad. Why, because I'm worried about upsetting the head, the other staff, making myself unpopular.


We've got a good HT, one who has definite ideas on what he wants done but one who will also listen and who won't 'mark your card' if you say something that he doesn't agree with. HTs do not have to be Governors, it's their choice. Our HT is on our GB and I'm pleased he is. He's knowledgeable, answers questions and I see progress being made. Our last HT was also on the GB. There was no discussion as such because more often then not the decisions had already been made. The staff governors hardly spoke because they knew their life would have been made very uncomfortable. The others didn't question, because they didn't have the knowledge to argue anything.

George asked if it was time to stop the Head Teacher's automatic position on the Governing Body? If it was for Governing bodies as they stand now I think a lot would depend on who your HT was.

I would like GB to change. I don't particularly like having parents on the GB of their own school. It's very hard sometimes to talk openly. Even though anything that's discussed is supposed to stay confidential you always worried that it will be a case of 'don't tell anyone but...' As I said before school staff. with their knowledge but be better on a GB of another school. We need business people, people who have the knowledge and resources to help schools.

Sorry for the ramble. I think before I write the sequel to War and Peace I'd better stop. Please give us your thoughts.

I've also been a school governor [coming up to my 8th year now] I have seen changes over the years some positive others negative. When I first joined there was only one parent representative voted in by parents and this person was always someone who was active, knowledgeable and went out of their way to play an active part in governor matters. The others were appointed by the church but had no interest in school [IE no children in school at that time.] One was a retired head from another school. Because we are a Catholic Voluntary aided school and recent changes to the makeup of the governing body the largest proportion of members is made up from the Diocese [the church choosing who to put on without a vote] These people are 'supposed' to be appointed by the Bishop ha ha ha. BUT>>>> it is our local priest [and until this year] head of governors] who appoints them. Unfortunately there are a couple of parents who know very little about the process of governor meetings. {these have been on for two years now and at every full meeting a record is taken of any Governor school visits in relation to curriculum visits. some of these parents come into school to listen to readers or do times tables and will record these as governor visits. The LA clerk then has to repeatedly explain these visits are not governor related but parental help.

As Tikki says confidentiality is a problem, and one of our parents the head has hauled this person into his office a couple of times when confidential governors information has got out..... It gives us all a bad name especially when the parent denies talking so it's back to the rest of us....... we are all under suspicion.

Apart from that we have a very good body of members who are Very active. They are excellent at being critical friends to the head teacher and are not afraid to highlight anything that needs addressing. And yes at times they do put the head in his place [but it's very rare that they have to] But it needs a strong body of people and enthusiasm to attend to matters. [We currently have a barrister on the committee who is great for helping with legislation etc....

I personally think heads are valuable members of the governing body and contribute positively. It is the makeup of the governing body that needs assessing. It doesn't matter whether the head is present or not, A good body will say what they need to and support or take a vote and that is the end of it. A head is only one member.... with equal voting rights.

In 8 years there is only one incident I can recall where it affected my working day [I got a mouthful from the head the next day in school when I voted against him. [admissions for P&P meeting]. I made an appointment to speak to him and told him I didn't think I could continue as a governor due to his personal attack on me [and told him what I thought of his behaviour]. he obviously realised what he had done was wrong and apologised profusely and begged me to continue. had no problem since then.

so after all this waffle, back to OQ. I do see the benefit of having the head at each meeting but think schools need a strong, supportive but assertive comittee to keep things as they should be.

Sorry, have been trying to reply to this and running out of time.

From the two replies it does seem that some thought about the governing body is needed.

I think part of the problem is due, from my perspective, is the perception of what the governing body is. I also believe this is compounded by the language used - critical friend being a major one, but will cover this later.

Of course my original question may be flawed because of how my view of what the governing board should be has been formed. To put simply simply read governing board as management board. But more and more this is exactly what the governing body is becoming with changes in expectations of schools.

Parent Governors.

Should parents be governors of their kid's school? Absolutely. Schools are public bodies and parents are a major stakeholder. They have a huge investment in schools, primarily their children's education and as I have pointed out in other forums the law states it is their responsibility to ensure their child gets a suitable education, not the school.

The challenge therefore is how schools approach their recruitment to the gb and their development. Schools should be actively identifying potential gb members. Those who may be willing to volunteer, what is needed to ballance the gb to reflect the community they serve. Taking the time talk to these people and introduce them to what is involved, finding out what their strengths and weaknesses are. Discussing what their responsibilities would be, and the possibilities of development within the gb depending on its make up and sub committees.

As I said I don't like 'critical friend'. whatever name you may give the position in what ever organisation, committee member, board member, school governor it comes down to the same thing, these are the directors of the organisation and have certain responsibilities. These apply to all gb members so will not cover them all discussing parents.

It is important for parents to understand the organisation of the school, its structure, policies and procedures, budgetting. Where the school is, where it wants to be and how it will get there. From observations it can take 6 to 12 months for a new member to become effective. This can depend upon the individual's abilities and the training provided.

The issue of confidentiality and being able to speak openly in front of parents.

Talking openly should not be a problem or an issue. With some exceptions individual children should not be discussed in general board meetings, on the occassions where this might happen if the parent governor is the parent or closely related to the child there is a conflict of interest and the person should leave the meeting while the item is discussed.

A common mistake I have seen is the belief that parent governors are there to represent the parents. I have faced similar misunderstanding where local tenants think I am there to represent them and take on the leaseholders on the board. A board member's first and only responsibility is to the organisation, not members or individual groups. This needs to be made absolutely clear to any potential board member, parent, staff, political or other.

Your governance should also include confidentiality and the penalties for breaching this, and there should be no doubt this can include removal from the board.

But whatever else is put across to parent governors training is essential. Yes they are volunteers and it is difficult to force them onto training, however it must be made clear that they have a responsibility to be 'fit for purpose' and the way to do this is to take as much training as possible.

Political Governors

It has been mentioned that these are appointed and will rarely turn up. Your governance should state how many board meetings members are expected to turn, or even if they miss a consecutive number of meetings their position becomes vacant. However if they are not generally attending then go back to those who are appointing them and tell them you want the person replaced and why.

Staff Governors

These are the ones who I really feel for as often they are coerced into what should be a voluntary role. Any board member has the responsibility to think for themselves and to speak out if they have something to contribute. Any headteacher who bullies any member of the board for talking out or voting against what they want is, or at least should be, a serious disciplinary matter within the gb. If this harrasment goes into the work place then it becomes a serious disciplinary matter within the work place. It must be remembered that withing the gb ALL members are equal. From reading posts here something which is not generally understood especially by head teachers.

The Chair holds a special position, but additional respect is afforded to the position, not the individual.

Headteachers,

I don't know if they should or should not automatically have a position on the board. It does place a great deal of power onto a single individual which is open to abuse as has been mentioned.

I don't doubt that headteachers have an important role to play on the board, but not sure if it is as a voting member. After all it is the headteachers responsibility to carryout the aims and instructions of the gb. If the term critical friend applies to anyone it should be the head teacher. They are employed as the 'expert' in the field and should have the ability to look at public policy and analyse the alternative methods of achieving those policies alongside the goals of the gb.

Certainly their advice should be sought by the board and given at least equal weight to any other board member. In certain things more so as they are employed as the expert.

For the time being I do believe that the head teacher once they have proved themselves could be invited to join the board but perhaps not automatically being a member.

Rubber Stamping.

One thing a board should never be is a rubber stamp. Having said that members need to realise that nothing everything can be discussed at length at a full board meeting. This is why we have subcommittees. There are times when officers will meet seperately to discuss something with each other or with the head teacher and come to the board with a recommendation. It should only ever be a recomendation however in appointing these people you should do so because you trust their abilities to do the job you appoint them to. This includes assessing the alternatives before coming up with the recommendation. It is right to ask any questions you may have, and for the full board to ask for those respobsible to relook at an issue. But in general unless something is wrong then most recommendations do tend to be accepted.

Thanks George.Come on let's your views ! Newbies come and post too.

I see your point on parent governors George and I'm prepared to concede that some parents do work to the benefit of the whole school, but a lot don't. On the majority of GB the parents are the largest group. They can put themselves up for election at the relevant times. Only the parents can vote for them.

I don't know how other schools faired, but when we used to have the evening were the Governors reported to the parents, very few parents ever showed up. It was the norm for more governors to be there than parents.

The governing body is part of the school leadership team, responsible for strategic planning and policy development . They work as a team to make sure the school provides a good quality education for all its pupils. Our GB is made up from parents, school staff, LEA, community governors, foundation governors and HT. The parents are the largest group.

It gets harder and harder to get the Governors to come in to school during the working day. That's not their fault. People work longer hours, mothers go out to work. It's now got to the state that it is very difficult for a Governor to be a 'critical friend' when they don't see the running of the school during a normal school day.

Quite often it's difficult to persuade governors to go on training courses. Who wants to turn out at night and maybe have to travel outside their local area after they've worked a full day. We, along with a number of local schools in our area now buy in training. We join together for the training, this also gives us the opportunity for open discussions but also lets us look at neighbouring schools and see what they are doing that we might benefit from.

From my point of view it was an ideal opportunity to see other governors in action. One of the things that frightened me and other staff Governors was the belief by some that they could criticise the teaching and that they didn't really understand the role of the GB.

If we are to keep GB in there present form and the makeup of the GB the same. I would suggest that it might be an idea that, before potential members put themselves up for election, they go on an 'eye opener' day and get to understand what the job really entails.

There are penalties for breaking the 'rules' but it quite difficult to actually have a Governor dismissed the GB.


I still can't get over the feeling though that the powers that be see the GB as a cheap way to keep an eye of a school.

How about: is it time to end the Head Teacher's automatic position on the Governing Body?

The basis for the argument is the head is employed by the governing body who also have a supervisory responsibility for the head teacher. Problem head teachers can exert too much power on the governing body making it difficult for the governing body to do their job properly.

In many other organisations the manager is hired to tend to the day to day running with the strategy and decision making being made by the equivelant governing body/management committee. They still attend meetings to give reports and to offer advice as required.

Or does the different setup and unique status of schools means the head teacher must be part of the governing body? Adifficult question George that I can see poses difficulties either way.Locally I have seen a Governing Body use their powers and eventually within two to three years closed the small school they were governing.The first big mistake they made was to employ a teacher working at the school as an NQT as a Head after her first year! She wasn't up to it and caused a lot of difficulties but having worked for a number of years in the real world she thought she knew everything.Her arrogance turned parents away from the school many of them had gone to and gradually the numbers dwindled further until only four remained and the Local Authority closed it.Had the governing body led by a very forthright and arrogant Chair had more knowledge they never would have appointed someone with so little experience of school life as a HT.Had she not been on the Governing body they could possibly have got rid of her.
On the other hand it maybe that aHT needs to be present in order to continually guide the Governing Body when through lack of knowledge they go off the rails.

On a similar vein, are our governing bodies fit for purpose? If not how do we change this?

In this area they more or less insist that you attend some excellent training about being a critical friend.I think some Governing Bodies are excellent but I have also been on one where they seemed to co-opt their friends who are usually of a like-mind not because the have the qualities of a good Governor.Some of these people have little idea of finances, schools and managing.They pick over for ages small insignificant details and whizz through major ones.I often came home shaking my head. A parent also constantly leaked information to her friends but the Chair didn't think she would because she was a business woman in a good job!Eventually they realised I had been right when a friend knew about a major decision.This is one of the problems of Parent Governors, I was one too and although usually chatty I never mentioned Governors Meetings to anyone.I was surprised at some of the simple jargon they didn't know even after 20 years on the same Governing Body. These people were appointing Heads.Some people actual seek to go on the Governing body because it 'looks good on a CV!'
In some respects I feel they have too much power and a Chair that has been in that position for 20 + years is wrong. What would we replace them with?After all Governing Bodies are an English thing.What would you suggest.