Elected police chiefs

[SULLY COULDNT SHOOT]

I can't really see that this is necessarily the outcome -what do you base these conclusions on ? Not that I agree with the concept, anyway.

Let's take a place in Essex where I once lived. If they were elcting their local police chief tomorrow, that chief would be one who would be hard on crime, suspicious of anyone who wasn't white (a la Starkey), thought the term English Muslims was an oxymoron and believed hanging was too good for some criminals. Somewhere between the Ku Klux Klan and the Tea party.

 

[SULLY COULDNT SHOOT]

Are you talking about meddling in education policies, or - to use the parallel from the rest of the thread - parents having the right to elect teachers?

That would be the end of civilisation. God forbid!

 

[The Large One]

The most direct parallel is clearly at school level, but really at all levels. The most obviously crass being the 'free schools' set up by wealthy parents, who might have money to buy it but no idea about education itself. Perhaps we should have a 'free police force' for the wealthy, and load everyone else into Croydon.

I'd forgotten about that 'free schools' thing. I don't think it is seen as 'acceptable', especially not among many education experts.

My partner has been trying to get her school into the state sector for years. Ironically (considering her political leanings), it was the Tories who seemed to offer the best way in - via a version of the 'free schools' route last year. But Michael Gove made such a pig's ear of it. She initially presented the papers, with all relevant and pertinent questions answered in as full a way as possible. The signs at the time were certainly for a sympathetic hearing from the government for this to happen. Then...

Four weeks after she submitted the papers, she was told that all of the time and effort in preparing answers (not inconsequential) were worthless because mid-consultation, the government had changed most of the criteria for entry - without telling any applicants. So everyone had to start again.

Nowadays, the highest priority for entry into the 'free schools' system is to prove you have a good business case to run your school. Educational quality is not considered a high priority when determining the appropriateness of an application, especially as you get to opt out of OFSTED inspections. Sad, but true.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Are you talking about meddling in education policies, or - to use the parallel from the rest of the thread - parents having the right to elect teachers?

One of the most difficult processes I've been involved in, when I was a school governor, was the appointment of a new head teacher. Most of us agreed that none of the candidates that we interviewed was suitable. We decided not to make an appointment, and re-advertise the job.

It was the parent governor who disagreed. What she wanted was an appointment to be made, because what she felt the kids needed was SOMEONE in the job as quickly as possible.

At the second attempt, an excellent candidate was found and appointed.

The parent governor was, of course, the only elected governor. Just because someone has been elected (and is "accountable") doesn't make them a better decision maker than a group of people who think carefully about what they are deciding.

 

[User removed 4]

One of the most difficult processes I've been involved in, when I was a school governor, was the appointment of a new head teacher. Most of us agreed that none of the candidates that we interviewed was suitable. We decided not to make an appointment, and re-advertise the job.

It was the parent governor who disagreed. What she wanted was an appointment to be made, because what she felt the kids needed was SOMEONE in the job as quickly as possible.

At the second attempt, an excellent candidate was found and appointed.

The parent governor was, of course, the only elected governor. Just because someone has been elected (and is "accountable") doesn't make them a better decision maker than a group of people who think carefully about what they are deciding.

Basically what you're saying is, the opinion of the parent ( who actually has some stake in the decision) was less valid than a group of professional busybodies/committee members.

 

[Tooting Gull]

Basically what you're saying is, the opinion of the parent ( who actually has some stake in the decision) was less valid than a group of professional busybodies/committee members.

The word is 'expert', and yes, their opinion is a lot less valid. You wouldn't get a parent going in to a solicitors office and telling them who to recruit.

 

[Tooting Gull]

One of the most difficult processes I've been involved in, when I was a school governor, was the appointment of a new head teacher. Most of us agreed that none of the candidates that we interviewed was suitable. We decided not to make an appointment, and re-advertise the job.

It was the parent governor who disagreed. What she wanted was an appointment to be made, because what she felt the kids needed was SOMEONE in the job as quickly as possible.

At the second attempt, an excellent candidate was found and appointed.

The parent governor was, of course, the only elected governor. Just because someone has been elected (and is "accountable") doesn't make them a better decision maker than a group of people who think carefully about what they are deciding.

I only wish that outcome was always the case. I fear it isn't.

 

[User removed 4]

The word is 'expert', and yes, their opinion is a lot less valid. You wouldn't get a parent going in to a solicitors office and telling them who to recruit.

What exactly makes a professional busybody like lord bracknell, and the rest of his ilk on that committee "experts"? Their experience on endless other committees ?

 

[Simster]

What exactly makes a professional busybody like lord bracknell, and the rest of his ilk on that committee "experts"? Their experience on endless other committees ?

After reading this thread, I am genuinely interested in how governers are appointed. This page seems to explain it best:

Why be a school governor? - Stockton Borough Council

It seems to me that there are various ways of becoming a governer, appointed by different stakeholders at the school. ON the face of it, this seems sensible. There is already a "parent governer" position in place, but you also have the LEA, the staff, the local community and the diocese (church schools) able to appoint their own governers.

Having a board comprising of nothing but parents ignores all other stakeholders. As for the question you ask, I guess it depends on who is doing the appointing. Someone like Lord Bracknell might make an excellent local community governer, for example. Professional busy body or reponsible figurehead in the local community - I guess that is for the governing body to decide.

 

[Tooting Gull]

What exactly makes a professional busybody like lord bracknell, and the rest of his ilk on that committee "experts"? Their experience on endless other committees ?

If you mean loads of previous experience of appointing head teachers and ALL the issues arising, then yes that would do it.

 

[BigGully]

One of the most difficult processes I've been involved in, when I was a school governor, was the appointment of a new head teacher. Most of us agreed that none of the candidates that we interviewed was suitable. We decided not to make an appointment, and re-advertise the job.

It was the parent governor who disagreed. What she wanted was an appointment to be made, because what she felt the kids needed was SOMEONE in the job as quickly as possible.

At the second attempt, an excellent candidate was found and appointed.

The parent governor was, of course, the only elected governor. Just because someone has been elected (and is "accountable") doesn't make them a better decision maker than a group of people who think carefully about what they are deciding.

What a high opinion you have of yourself and your cronies .........

The parent governor and it seems others within the committee held a different view than some others but luckily you knew better !!!

Rather than tell us what a great decision you and your mates made, why not recommend a fully elected and accountable committee to make these decisions.

Meanwhile that Parent Governor may still have her children attending that school whilst you have moved on to yet another committee to help more poor souls that need your superior opinion.

 

[The Large One]

What a high opinion you have of yourself and your cronies .........

The parent governor and it seems others within the committee held a different view than some others but luckily you knew better !!!

Rather than tell us what a great decision you and your mates made, why not recommend a fully elected and accountable committee to make these decisions.

Meanwhile that Parent Governor may still have her children attending that school whilst you have moved on to yet another committee to help more poor souls that need your superior opinion.

The point he was trying to make, the one you have deliberately ignored, was that you being elected doesn't necessarily make your value to a committee greater (or lesser) than those who are appointed.

 

[BigGully]

If you mean loads of previous experience of appointing head teachers and ALL the issues arising, then yes that would do it.

Great so when you are hoping to be elected to that committee state your case and if your convincing you will get my vote, if your a bluffer I will vote for another.

 

[BigGully]

The point he was trying to make, you have deliberately ignored, was that you being elected doesn't necessarily make your value to a committee greater (or lesser) than those who are appointed.

Did not deliberately ignore, I just hadn't as you have accepted that his view or even the overall decision made by his committee was a correct one, I do not know.

I actually feel his view might be less valid than that of the elected parent governor.

 

[The Large One]

Did not deliberately ignore, I just hadn't as you have accepted that his view or even the overall decision made by his committee was a correct one, I do not know.

I actually feel his view might be less valid than that of the elected parent governor.

But you're not in a position to know that, but - not for the first time - have made a judgement that you are.

 

[BigGully]

But you're not in a position to know that, but - not for the first time - have made a judgement that you are.

I haven't made a judgement on the decision, but on the process where an unelected individual has stated that his view was more valid and offered a superior outcome to the elected parent governor that had a different view.

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

So it's an extra layer of bureaucracy - someone the Chief Constable has to report to?

Pretty much!

 

[Superphil]

Surely you haven't formed you own opinion yet, or are you involved with the decision making process?

 

[The Large One]

I haven't made a judgement on the decision, but on the process where an unelected individual has stated that his view was more valid and offered a superior outcome to the elected parent governor that had a different view.

I never said you made a judgement on the decision.

You said 'I actually feel his view might be less valid than that of the elected parent governor.'

You simply cannot state that with certainty. You're assuming that an elected individual's viewpoint is more valid and better formed than an unelected individual. It might be the case that the elected individual's viewpoint is more valid, but it won't necessarily be because they've been elected.

Lord Bracknell's (valid and correct) point was to say that because they've been elected, it doesn't make them better at the job - it just makes them more accountable. You chose to dismiss his summation with ill-thought out sarcasm.

 

[sten_super]

I haven't made a judgement on the decision, but on the process where an unelected individual has stated that his view was more valid and offered a superior outcome to the elected parent governor that had a different view.

Do you really subscribe to the view that in every single case an elected person is better than an unelected one, or are you just trying to score cheap points?

I don't actually think that LB's example is the best if trying to compare to an elected police commissioner (I accept that this isn't what he was trying to do), because the fact that the parent governor was elected wasn't (necessarily) the reason that they had their view - it was more to do with their role as a stakeholder.

It seems obvious to me that committees such as a school governor's board need a mixture of people, probably both elected (in the case of parent and teacher governors) and unelected (headteacher, business manager, etc.) and from ideally a mixture of staff, parents, and concerned outsiders (such as LB in his example) in order to consider all viewpoints and hopefully make the decision that is best for the school. However an elected police commissioner isn't one person amongst several on a board appointed to make decisions - he/she is one individual placed in charge and seemingly solely responsible for local policing policy. I find it extremely difficult to believe that this role would in all cases be best served by someone who has the best rapport with the public.