School Governors 'should be paid'


Governors of struggling schools in England should be paid, the new chief inspector of schools, Sir Michael Wilshaw, has said.

Speaking before a cross-party committee of MPs, Sir Michael said he wanted more focus on the governance of schools.

Interesting! I know some of our members here have been governors... should they be paid?

I think schools are places of education and not business and thats the way it should be. Bad enough Heads are now classed as managers etc.

Cut the Cak and get on with the teaching.

I don't think Governors (of any school) shoud be paid.

However, this strikes me as another part of the scheme to make 'academies' different and so I would not be surprised to see it introduced, just as I won't be surprised to see LEAs not existing in four of five years.

If you pay gvernors you'll end up in some cases with people doing it for the wrong reasons.
Daedy - some academies have 'boards' who are paid, apparently for their 'expertise'

Doesn't surprise me, Jacqui. And, as I say, I wouldn't be surprised if in 4 or 5 years time every school was an academy and there were no LEA and the Governors were paid. I don't think it's the right thing to do, but it wouldn't surprise me.

What is the logic behind only paying governors or struggling schools, and not those at outstanding or average schools?  Is it to attract people to the job in the first place, because noone wants to do it?  I don't know anything about being a school governor. 

I think that's exactly it, Leeds.

I'm sure we've said this before, but there is a tendancy for schools to spiral up or down. If a school has a good reputation, then parents who care about school try to get their kid in there and support the school in whatever way. If the school has a bad reputation then, in general, the children that go there are ones whose parents won't support the school.

I know, big generalizations, but unfortunately I think true.

So that's parent governors. For other governors I think it's similar. People are willing to be associated with a successful school with that as the only reward. For more challenging schools some might feel they need more incentive.

Finally, of course, it can be argue that a struggling school is more work compared to a good or outstanding school where there's a good head/leadership team, parent support, etc and you are keeping things on an even keel rather than having to make the hard decisions to turn things around.

Ok, so it really is as simple as that.

I don't want to be a school governor but, if I did, I think I would much prefer to be one at a so called challenging school to see if I could help it even in a small way.

You can still help, in a small way, in a successful school.

In fact, I think you have more chance of having a small contribution at a successful school because you can say, "This school is generally doing fine, but how can we do more for/about X?" where X is a minor thing.

With a struggling school (I imagine) it's more focussing on the big issues - attendance, teaching, curriculum, behaviour, attainment, etc - rather than being able to pick something small like - "Are we challenging gifted artists enough?".

At DD's (senior) school, they look for governors with particular talents, eg they wanted one who knows how planning works, one for finance, one for legal etc.  I don't know if they have more "general" ones, but it strikes me as being a huge reponsibilty.