Parent governor role to be scrapped in schools shakeup

[JC Footy Genius]

they really should introduce classes on government, then people would maybe learn that a white paper is a document for discussion, not a fixed statement of policy. an awful lot of assumptions, fear and indignation for something that is speculative.

Quite!

*Off topic*

Would it be possible for the OP to produce links with his numerous Guardian copy paste threads in future? (Standard practise on most forums?)

Link http://www.theguardian.com/educatio...-role-scrapped-schools-teacher-qualifications

*On topic*

The Guardian unsurprisingly bigged up a controversial element, on further reading of the entire article and reading less partisan sources* the white paper sets out many ideas (both good and bad) which will probably be much changed by the time it comes to firming up government policy and a vote. So those who view this as the end of the world/death of education don't need to man the barricades quite yet.

*Heads who take over struggling schools are to be given a two and half years reprieve from Ofsted inspections, to enable them to turn things around.
The plans come in a white paper on schools, which signals a shake-up of teacher training and school governance.
Heads who take over failing schools have long complained that they risk their careers by doing so.
It is hoped the reprieve will encourage more of them to work in challenging areas.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35831935

 

[Bold Seagull]

The point is that it is an unnecessary change. We all appreciate that those with expertise may probably be parents as well but why do they actually have to remove the requirement. What additional cost is there to have a volunteer parent on the board of governors. Probably very negligible. It's removing a potential obstacle.

All governors are volunteers.

 

[Hastings gull]

I assume that these 'professionals' with the 'right skills' will be paid the exact same amount the governors are at present? It must be a very enticing opportunity for these 'professionals' to work for such a great rate.

This is of course working on the assumption that any given parents don't already have the right skills, and that an outsider with no vested interest in improving the place is willing to come in.

Jesus wept.

This comment that mirrors so many others on this thread, shows how important it is to be sure of one's facts, before you post. Firstly, governors are not paid, and the "professionals" to which you allude will NOT be paid either. Pressure is quite rightly on governing bodies to be an effective part of the school's management, and to this end they look for people in the wider community, who would have knowledge that they could bring to bear, that parents would not necessarily have. Knowledge of finance is usually snapped up, because the sub committee dealing with this aspect of the school tends to be very small, as so few governors understand the complexities, or are even interested. Governing bodies now do skills audits and check regularly that they have a range of talents. Parents will NOT be forced out, because they are parents, as such, but the fact remains that reserving places for parents, however committed they might be, is not always the best use of talent. Far too often, parents join governing bodies because they think it is rather like the PTA or because they have an intense interest in the fortunes of their own child rather than those of the school in general. Of course, some parents bring good outside experience to the governing body, such as a PCSO and a solicitor in one school, and they will doubtless continue to play an important role, but reserving places for them, simply because they are parents and volunteers, however laudable, does not always represent best practice. This is what the legislation is trying to address, and has nothing to do with privatisation etc.
By the way, I work as a clerk to governing bodies.

 

[LamieRobertson]

This comment that mirrors so many others on this thread, shows how important it is to be sure of one's facts, before you post. Firstly, governors are not paid, and the "professionals" to which you allude will NOT be paid either. Pressure is quite rightly on governing bodies to be an effective part of the school's management, and to this end they look for people in the wider community, who would have knowledge that they could bring to bear, that parents would not necessarily have. Knowledge of finance is usually snapped up, because the sub committee dealing with this aspect of the school tends to be very small, as so few governors understand the complexities, or are even interested. Governing bodies now do skills audits and check regularly that they have a range of talents. Parents will NOT be forced out, because they are parents, as such, but the fact remains that reserving places for parents, however committed they might be, is not always the best use of talent. Far too often, parents join governing bodies because they think it is rather like the PTA or because they have an intense interest in the fortunes of their own child rather than those of the school in general. Of course, some parents bring good outside experience to the governing body, such as a PCSO and a solicitor in one school, and they will doubtless continue to play an important role, but reserving places for them, simply because they are parents and volunteers, however laudable, does not always represent best practice. This is what the legislation is trying to address, and has nothing to do with privatisation etc.
By the way, I work as a clerk to governing bodies.

Interesting points but u narf sound like a broadcast on behalf of the Conservative party..............were any of these changes in the last manifesto?

 

[Buzzer]

This comment that mirrors so many others on this thread, shows how important it is to be sure of one's facts, before you post. Firstly, governors are not paid, and the "professionals" to which you allude will NOT be paid either.

I think that was the point being made. In fact, I'm sure of it because the partner of the poster you quoted runs a local school.

 

[Hastings gull]

Interesting points but u narf sound like a broadcast on behalf of the Conservative party..............were any of these changes in the last manifesto?

I have no idea whether they were in the manifesto or not; I am just simply giving you the rationale behind the changes, which in my experience is probably a good idea. No one is saying that there should not be parent governors, just that they should not have a reserved place, which by implication, given that governing bodies tend to be limited in size, would exclude someone whose skills might be more needed. Of course you can have a parent governor who can bring much needed expertise from their professional life, to the school, and this will always be welcomed.

 

[seaford]

But is the Academy program not a way of removing the influence of the LEA? A lot of LEA services are now becoming services that you can opt in or out of. Academy chains have their own payroll and HR as well and as such do not require LEA input.

Over time the LEA will be just another service provider that competes for each school or academy chain business.

Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland are all Academy free.

 

[LamieRobertson]

I have no idea whether they were in the manifesto or not; I am just simply giving you the rationale behind the changes, which in my experience is probably a good idea. No one is saying that there should not be parent governors, just that they should not have a reserved place, which by implication, given that governing bodies tend to be limited in size, would exclude someone whose skills might be more needed. Of course you can have a parent governor who can bring much needed expertise from their professional life, to the school, and this will always be welcomed.

I respect your undoubted experience...but to not reserve just that one place makes me feel uneasy....still this is only at white paper stage (from what I understand) so a lot to be debated and hopefully given lengthy time...something I will follow with interest

 

[ROSM]

Currently staff governors and parent governors are elected. Co opteds are selected for a fixed period by the elected members and the lea currently nominate governors

Going forward there will be no elected governors so who Co opts? Who can hold governors accountable?

 

[Hastings gull]

I respect your undoubted experience...but to not reserve just that one place makes me feel uneasy....still this is only at white paper stage (from what I understand) so a lot to be debated and hopefully given lengthy time...something I will follow with interest

Yes, this might be a compromise, but usually it is more then one, typically two or three out of perhaps 8 or 9 governors in total, who have reserved places, and of course, that one place might go to someone who has really useful knowledge. Parents governors will still be recruited, but it could well be that they will be questioned as to what they can bring to the table in addition to parenthood. That would be an undoubted improvement.

 

[HOFNSKIN]

"Before the election councils in England held the title deeds to schools and land valued at over £2.5 billion

But most people don't know the very fine print of the academies bill means

1. The title deeds of the school and the land are transferred to a private company when the school becomes an academy

2. Michael Gove borrows £25,000 to pay the legal fees for the private companies to ensure the title deeds are transferred from the council (us taxpayers who paid to build the schools - to these private companies)

So far £1billion of title deeds for schools have been transferred from taxpayers - with Michael gove increasing the deficit by £481,750,000 - just for legal fees to transfer ownership of the schools from councils to private companies

So who has the title deeds now

Tory party member Philip Harris has his hands on £millions worth of title deeds. (Philip Harrismade donations to David Cameron as leader of the Conservative Party. He is considered to be one of his personal friends

Stanley Fink, another friend of Cameron has donated £2.62m to the Conservative party and David Cameron made Fink a Lord as soon as he came to power, and David Cameron has since made him Tory Party Treasurer and also handed his company £millions title deeds for schools

And today David Cameron has told us, as well as changing the law to transfer state assets to Tory party members (and I thought only China did that) - now he is changing the laws to allow them to start selling the Land

Just so you know - Stanley Fink - his company states in their accounts - any extra money - his company has a policy to transfer the funds to the Cayman Islands - via a stockbrokers that Stanley fink just happens to be on the board of

Now if I remember correctly the directors of southern cross did the same thing with care homes - selling them off - the money disappears offshore the company goes bust and pensioners left high and dry (with taxpayers expected to step in)

Well Cameron has just announced Tory party members who have their hands on the title deeds for our schools and the school land can start doing the same thing

And just to be clear - Stanley Fink's company accounts for the schools also state - if Stanley fink's company controlling the schools, the school budgets and the title deeds goes bust - Stanley Fink (Tory party treasurer on the Times rich list) only has to pay £10

Academies are not about education - they are about asset stripping and English parents and children, will find themselves, just like the pensioners and their families who were left without facilities due to the very rich directors of Southern Cross selling off the assets and disappearing in to the sunset

Do MIchael Gove and David Cameron shout from the rooftops that they are spending £25,000 per school to cover legal fees to transfer the title deeds to Tory Party members - no

I wonder why not - could it be they don't want England's parents to know the real intentions of the academies bill - it's not about education - it is about asset stripping by Tory Party members - thanks to David Cameron, Michael Gove, every Tory MP and every LIberal MP

These are your schools - they do not belong to the Tory Party (well they do now)

Ask Michael Gove if your council gets the money when they sell off school land

Ask Stanley Fink (ARK SCHOOLS) - will this Tory Party treasurer be selling playing fields and as his accounts state, the money be transferred to the Cayman Islands (with his stockbrokers taking a cut along the way)

Serious questions - £1billion worth of assets stripped -- £half a billion in legal fees to pay for it (which we the taxpayers must pay back as Gove had to borrow the money)
Add message | Report | Message poster flexybex Wed 15-Aug-12 00:08:36
If you look at the sale of playing fields info from another thread:

This article references 'Eliot School' in Wandsworth as one that is selling part of its land.
www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/aug/14/school-sports-fields-government-olympics?CMP=twt_fd

This is a link to information on the school's web-site. Look at what they're disposing :
www.elliottschool.org.uk/_files/66D14D277842D144432DA00E5A121604.pdf

Eliot School becomes an ARK academy in September.

The country wil never, ever get that land back. And we are all letting it happen.
Add message | Report | Message poster BeingAMumIsFun Wed 15-Aug-12 00:18:56
NO surprise there then - already Stanley Fink - Tory Party Treasurer - selling your children's playing fields (the same one's you owned until Gove transferred the title deeds)

A study of ARK accounts for the 8 schools they controlled in 2010 - showed Stanley Fink and the other directors of Ark Schools - underspent the education budget for the children attending the 8 Ark Schools by 7% - and all the money that they were given to education children which Stanley Fink chose not to spend went to the Cayman Islands via his stockbrokers - to the Ark Cayman Island Fund

No surprise an ex employee of Rupert Murdoch is the managing director of Ark Schools

All in it together

This land is yours - David Cameorn did not ask English parents if Tory party members should be given the title deeds and then start selling everything the minute they got their grubby hands on them

You paid for the schools. You paid for the land

Stanley Fink did not pay 1 penny for any of the schools he holds the title deeds for

Stanley Fink did not pay 1 penny for the playing fields he is now selling

These belong to you, your village, your town -

Just because Cameron and Gove changed the law does not make it legal or right

If English Parents don't stand up now and demand these schools are transferred back to your council, like Southern Cross, you will have no schools and no land

And who is Stanley Fink selling the land to and how much for?

Where does the money go?

If that was my school and my children's playing fields I would be holding sit ins until the title deeds are handed over

Schools are not assets for stripping - schools are there to educate English children

But David Cameron, Philip Harris and Stanley Fink all believe it's not education - its assets for selling

Save your schools - save your school land - demand the title deeds back into the safe hands of your councils - after all you elected councillors to run schools and they did it for years without selling the land and the title deeds were kept in trust for you

And councils have never transferred education funds to the Cayman Islands via Stockbrokers they own

Which is exactly why only democratically elected, accountable councillors can be trusted with the title deeds for your schools"

 

[drew]

All governors are volunteers.

I know but the point I was making that does it make any difference whether you have four, five or six governors. If a school currently has 5 governors, including the head and one parent, If they want four governors with certain expertise then all they need now is 6 governors (if the parent government doesn't have one of the fields of expertise they are looking for!). There is no need to legislate to remove parent governors unless there is an ulterior motive.

 

[vegster]

It's difficult to trust the Tories on this. Independent governors think outside the box and can ask the questions that need to be asked... mind you, maybe I should re-train and try to get a governor's job , it's probably better than what I'm paid currently thanks to previous Tory legislation.

 

[Hastings gull]

Currently staff governors and parent governors are elected. Co opteds are selected for a fixed period by the elected members and the lea currently nominate governors

Going forward there will be no elected governors so who Co opts? Who can hold governors accountable?

All governing bodies have what is called an Instrument of Government, and this stipulates the composition of the governing body which would include an LEA governor. The LEA does not nominate governors in general, which your sentence seems to imply. As to who holds governors accountable, this would be done by the LEA, should, say, the governing body have presided over a financial irregularity. LEA accountants scrutinise governors' decisions from the minutes of the meetings, and I know of one incident where they took the Chair of the Finance Committee to task, as three quotes had not been sought by the school.Though I have never come across this, I dare say that the teaching unions would also have something to say, should governors have made a decision, that the teaching profession considers to be reckless or illegal.

 

[Stato]

But is the Academy program not a way of removing the influence of the LEA? A lot of LEA services are now becoming services that you can opt in or out of. Academy chains have their own payroll and HR as well and as such do not require LEA input.

Over time the LEA will be just another service provider that competes for each school or academy chain business.

Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland are all Academy free.

The Local Authority is already a service provider that competes for school business. Academy chains require that the services schools require are purchased from them. Experience shows that this policy actually has the effect of removing schools' freedom to choose where to buy their services.

The government are removing the schools freedom to choose because schools are not making the choices it wants them to. Too many have decided to stay with LAs because they have long term relationships with professionals that they trust and contrary to what the government would like people to think, get good services that are value for money.

The LA will not become a competing service provider. The LA will simply cease to be involved with supporting schools. It may retain some kind of overseeing role, but there seems little doubt that this policy will cost many very experienced and knowledgeable people in local authorities their jobs; not because they are not good at them, but simply because they are part of local authorities. This is less about Labour versus Tory as Blair had the same problem with local authorities that this government does. This is far more about the continuing removal of local democracy and gaining of central control.

 

[beorhthelm]

I appreciate it's not a statement of policy but it is a statement of intent, surely and yet another controversial one. And it's messing about with education. Again.

agree, and i dont think this is positive. but i dont know that its negative either. the suggestion is professional people will take over the roles and this is immedately assumed to be negative too, overlooking people need to govern schools and be skilled at that. i imagine that the skills of people getting involved in governing schools varies wildly across the country, indeed across country and towns as demographics change, so a more consistant approach might have merits and parents may still be asked to be governors. from the reaction anyone would think the current education system is brilliant, its been used as a political tool for 50 years so no political side has claims to a solution.

 

[ROSM]

All governing bodies have what is called an Instrument of Government, and this stipulates the composition of the governing body which would include an LEA governor. The LEA does not nominate governors in general, which your sentence seems to imply. As to who holds governors accountable, this would be done by the LEA, should, say, the governing body have presided over a financial irregularity. LEA accountants scrutinise governors' decisions from the minutes of the meetings, and I know of one incident where they took the Chair of the Finance Committee to task, as three quotes had not been sought by the school.Though I have never come across this, I dare say that the teaching unions would also have something to say, should governors have made a decision, that the teaching profession considers to be reckless or illegal.

I'm a parent governor (and a vice chair) so I know this. Our governing body has just reconstituted

LEAs do screen and select Lea governors and governing bodies subject to their instrument will have at least one lea governor

So I refer back to my point. Who will Co opt the Co opteds and how will scrutiny be given as no elected members?

And it won't be the lea as they won't exist

 

[Hastings gull]

]It's difficult to trust the Tories on this. Independent governors think outside the box and can ask the questions that need to be asked[/B]... mind you, maybe I should re-train and try to get a governor's job , it's probably better than what I'm paid currently thanks to previous Tory legislation.

Try reading all that has been written and you will realise that finance does not come into play here. Your first sentence does not make sense - the whole purpose of the legislation IS to get independent governors involved, who can indeed ask pertinent questions, but whose potential involvement is denied, because the committee has to have parent governors who may or may not have the skills needed to ask those very same questions.

 

[Hastings gull]

I'm a parent governor (and a vice chair) so I know this. Our governing body has just reconstituted

So I refer back to my point. Who will Co opt the Co opteds and how will scrutiny be given as no elected members?

And it won't be the lea as they won't exist

In the case of the academies, where I now largely clerk, as the schools converted, the sponsor sends a representative to the meetings, and the Chair has to give a written report after each meeting, which is questioned. This did not happen under the old system, where no one read the minutes.

 

[mr sheen]

I'm a current chair of a governing body. Parent governors can be a pain in the area for a variety of reasons, but parents are an essential stakeholder in any school, and need to be represented. If they come with skills great. If they don't, they can still make a massive contribution. I've experienced shit parent governors, LA governors, associate governors and Co-opted governors. But also great ones from all groups.