School Governors, the new academies etc

I am in exactly the same position - but I have not resigned.

Ours is a tiny village school and is a risk of academisation and being forcibly attached to some amorphous group of schools.

if it ain't broke and all that.....this school is lovely: dedicated staff, committed governors, family atmosphere, good values, imaginative teaching (in spite of the dreaded SATs and the dead hand of data collection). So...let's just destroy it all shall we Ms Morgan...why not?

We are lucky (and it is pure luck) to have a group of governors with a spread of skills and total commitment. But we are all under pressure. OfSted is looming and we have just heard that the inspectors are emphasising governors' knowledge of policies - the school has about 50 or so compulsory wordy policies - there is no way we can know every word of each one. We all go off on courses and do out best to keep up. It is a hugely burdensome task - thank goodness we care enough to take it on.

It is madness to starve the LA Education depts and leave all the management and support to unpaid non-professionals. Total lunacy.

I am just setting off to school now to hear children read.

Schools need people like you newnana - if we all jump ship, what the heck will happen? I do not say this to make you feel bad about your decision - you must do what is right for you - I do understand fully why you have made this choice.

Actually your reply has made me reconsider! I have emailed the chair and head saying I will resign if they can get someone with a better skill set. I can do stats etc but have no educational background and at our local briefing it seemed that was very important! Like yours ours is a great school with lovely children. I still think I'll go if they can get someone better. I said I will not leave them non-quorate. I still intend to go into school and do buddy reading whatever happens.

Well done newnana - I too do not have a background in education but in social work (which has relevance) and in media (so I help with the marketing). They need a mix of skills. I think your decision is a sensible and balanced one and I am sure the school will appreciate it.

If they only want people with a background in education then they will be stuffed, as they say - especially in rural areas. We have an accountant as our finance committee chair and his input is beyond price - which tallies with him not being paid!!

I don't think either of you should resign. Michael Wilshaw criticises everybody except himself!! I remember seeing a video he made before Mossbourne (the school where he was head) was built and I bet he regrets saying some of the things he did.

I was a teacher for nearly 30 years and, sometimes, governors could be irritating. Often they would believe everything the head said and never talk to staff or pupils. Others would try and tell you how to do your job.

I think the main role of a governor should be to QUESTION. You can't be expected to know every latest government edict, but you can ask from the point of view of an intelligent outsider. Even if you're a teacher, you can't know the ethos and aims of another school inside out. The head should be transparent with answers and a good governor should be able to see through spin.

I think it's totally wrong for governors to be EXPECTED to provide services such as accountancy, HR or law 'pro bono'.

Sadly daphne that is no longer how it is. Governors are basically unpaid managers with someone breathing down their necks all the time. We are no longer required to be intelligent outsiders but we now have to go endless courses: safeguarding, data, RaiseOnline, special needs, policies etc. etc. We have direct responsibility for all of these and much more; and our performance as governors is assessed by OfSted and can make or break the level at which the school is graded. It is incredibly daunting, which is why I understand where newnana is coming from.

I sometimes wonder if I am up to the task - and feel the huge responsibility of not letting the school down. But then I realise that if I resigned there is no-one else waiting in the wings to take my place.

I am chair of the staffing committee and every year I get together with all the staff to discuss with them how they are feeling, if they have any concerns etc. The head is not there when this happens. I would not feel I was doing my job if I did not so that.

It's uncanny how you say what I am feeling. I said to my head I am worried about being interviewed in case I say the wrong thing and let them down. I am responsible for English and so my observations are mainly based on that. I know how the phonics and writing are really good but am worried my evidence won't be good enough. It is nerve wracking!

The buzzword is (I am told) triangulation. OfSted want to know that you have gleaned evidence that the school is delivering English as it should by more than one (preferably three!) means - e.g. scrutinizing books, learning walks (another buzzword!) and discussions with staff about their plans.

It is indeed nerve-wracking - I have done this once before and the inspector was quite abrasive with the governors to start with but mellowed in the course of the hour.

Last time we all got together beforehand and decided on "tactics" - e.g. what things we wanted to emphasise, which governors would address which sorts of questions, which items we ALL needed to have a bit of a grip on etc. We did find that helpful on the day - we went in prepared which helped to give us confidence. We know the strengths of the school and we had listed those in detail and tried to slot them in at every available opportunity.

Newnana, my son works in a secondary school. When it was made an academy he resigned as teacher governor because they told lies about staffing.
However, the rest of the staff have now persuaded him to go back and voted him back on the board because they were not finding out what was going on. As a parent governor, you must have input.
If all governors have to have good qualifications suitable for running a business, what a narrow set of abilities there will be.
Isn't Wilshaw against all schools being made academies?

luckygirl, I know that the role of governors has changed. I wasn't suggesting that you should be doing the things you're now expected to do. I was trying to get over what your role SHOULD be. I think it's highly dangerous when unpaid volunteers are expected to do professional work, because it opens up a scenario where they might expect some 'favours' in return.

I would hope that sensible heads would have surgeries for parents. I know the head of my son's school does. These aren't opportunities to discuss individual children, but for parents to discuss general issues which might concern them.

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/124702/signatures/new

Against turning schools into academies. Over 130,000 signatures already.

I don't understand why all schools must be academies.
Why no national curriculum, which has been established with such force over the decades?
Where is the money coming from?
I am confused...it all seems mad to me.
The biggest problem in schools is lack of teachers who are prepared to be bludgeoned by the demands placed upon them.

I cannot understand why there are no headlines in the papers saying ALL ENGLISH SCHOOLS TO BE PRIVATISED, because this is what is happening. This idea came from the USA whose Charter Schools movement started in the 1970s. Even they have not insisted all schools go down that route.

As originally conceived, the ideal model of a charter school was as a legally and financially autonomous public school (without tuition, religious affiliation, or selective student admissions) that would operate much like a private business—free from many state laws and district regulations, and accountable more for student outcomes rather than for processes or inputs (such as Carnegie Units and teacher certification requirements).
I'm sure you all know but for "public" in the USA read "state" in the UK.

How are they doing in the US?

Multiple researchers and organizations have examined educational outcomes for students who attend charter schools. In general, urban charter schools are a better alternative for urban minority students than traditional urban schools in poor neighborhoods, but students in suburban charter schools do no better than those in traditional suburban schools serving a mostly middle-class white population.
I can only believe that the same would happen here so many schools that are already successful are being pushed into this for purely ideological reasons.

Ideological reasons...and to make money for some!

This blog explains the process and outcomes

disidealist.wordpress.com/2016/03/20/the-mysterious-case-of-the-disappearing-schools-how-state-schools-will-be-privatised-without-anyone-noticing/comment-page-1/#comment-6811

Nicky Morgan was heckled at the NAS conference.
Education only gets onto page 13 of the Guardian today. Headline, "Being a parent won't make you a good governor".

Jertemy Corbyn's speech doesn't even get a headline.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Sorry - in trying to get the right thread I ended up on the wrong one. I will copy this to the budget thread but sadly can't delete it.

It deserves to be on two threads, Gracesgran.
Who would have thought it, the Economist telling Cameron to break the promises on which he was elected.

Hopefully it will be deleted on here Jen (I have asked) so do put this on the other one and then I can agree with you!

This is from the rest of the article. It's in the public domain, so I guess it's not breaching copyright...

-----------------------------------------------------------

Mr Duncan Smith’s motives may be dubious and his complaint off-target (the proposed disability cuts were less egregious than some others). But he has stumbled on something that matters. The budget was regressive, cutting welfare as it reduced income tax for the top 15% of earners and capital-gains taxes mostly paid by the asset-rich (see article). Ministers say that a forthcoming increase in the minimum wage compensates for the cuts. In fact it most benefits middling households (since its recipients often support a higher-earning partner) and is part of a wider post-election tilt towards the better off. According to one estimate, changes announced since the Conservatives won a majority last year will leave the average annual income of the top 30% of households £280 ($400) higher and that of the bottom 30% £565 lower. Meanwhile the jobs engine is slowing, wage growth is faltering and the wealthiest are roaring ahead. The fall in inequality over the previous parliament will probably be wiped out over the course of this one.

Blame politics. The Conservatives won the election partly by pledging a rush to budget surplus through welfare cuts so stringent that the Labour Party could not bring itself to match them. It also promised to ring-fence sensitive budgets like hospitals, schools and foreign aid, and committed to a “triple lock”, increasing the state pension by the rate of inflation, earnings growth or 2.5% a year, whichever is greatest. Such promises have left Mr Osborne with little option but to dip into the pockets of poorer, younger Britons who, conveniently, are less likely to vote. And with a divisive EU referendum looming in June, local Tory associations in revolt and a leadership election on the horizon, no minister wants to sting the plump, grey Conservative base. The Labour Party may have trooped into the left-wing wilderness under Jeremy Corbyn, but the centrist overtures with which the prime minister has recently wooed the opposition’s more moderate supporters have been confined to safe schemes like improving mental health and sprucing up sink estates.

------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with the article. Cameron and Osborne have made so many 'back of fag packet' promises to win votes that they've made a rod for their own back.

Ooops! Which thread are you putting it on? I'll have to get my post(s) changed as well.

The 'Economist' has a liberal (in the classic sense) viewpoint (usually) and knows a bit more about Economics than Osborne!

Miliband actually saw what was happening, but was rubbish at communicating. It's not just that inequality is unfair - it's bad for the long-term economy as well. Unfortunately, most people will look after 'Number 1' and still think that a national economy can be run like a household budget.

Learning walks? I'm assuming that these are not the enjoyable nature walks of long ago, before the 'joyful spontaneity of the junior school' was spotted and stifled.

Sadly not. Another buzz word! Means you walk round each class seeing what's happening generally rather than the observations which are for your governor specialist subject! Interesting that this us all falling apart

Thanks Newnana - I've read the official line on this and it just makes me glad to be out of it all although concerned for current governors, teachers and, above all, children. What a farce.