Education CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Simon Bale, Chair of Governors, St Mary Redcliffe and Temple School, Bristol

My day began with “Today” on Radio 4 and the crazy words of Sir Michael Wilshaw, head of OFSTED, arguing for paid school governors, across the board (see, eg BBC news). Even though I later heard him clarify that what he meant was for two or three professional governors for each governing body, I can’t help but tear my hair out at the stance that he, and later Michael Gove, have taken to criticise the hard work, and effective work of so many people who give up their time for free often because they know they have the skills and experience to offer schools. Listening to Sir Michael and Mr Gove, it is easy to think that they are suggesting that governors are a hindrance rather than a value to schools.

It couldn’t be more different. And it couldn’t be more disastrous to appoint paid governors. For one thing, it would with immediate effect create a two tier system of control. Pay anyone and immediately they have more power than those who are not paid. It is fascinating that the notion of Big Society seems to have fallen down the back of David Cameron’s filing cabinet. I encourage Mr Gove to return to the idea raised by his leader, and to reflect upon just what that idea implied: people to get involved, for free, in the running and development of their own locality. And—even though I can’t find it right now—I am pretty sure that at some points along the way, school governors have been lauded as just that kind of person: the kind who gets involved, altruistically, and in doing so, bring gifts and skills with them.

Now, with the speech today of Sir Michael, we hear that in his view, school governors often just do it in order to promote themselves, and for their own self-aggrandisement. Apparently, “In the worst cases, governors can be rather like the jury that was dismissed from a high-profile trial last week: ill-informed and not able to make good decisions,” he says. And also, that there is “too much time spent looking at the quality of school lunches and not enough on maths and English.” Now, I know that I am but one lowly governor, and one small cog in a huge national wheel of educational fortune, but my experience of school governance in Bristol is not like his. Having been a school governor for almost ten years, and in significant leadership roles for more than five of them, I do think I am in a position to comment, and my comment would be that Sir Michael is hopelessly prejudiced and in making his prejudice known has done more damage to good governance than he realises. Our discussions at governing body meetings are about strategic direction, about the values and practice of the school and about ensuring the senior leadership team is supported and challenged as appropriate in delivering the school’s own development plan.

Good school governors (ie the vast majority of school governors) do not just seek the glory. They do not just turn up to be recognised as do-gooders. They are fully-aware of the responsibilities they hold, and the influence they can have over the lives of the students in their schools. Where the governor-teacher relationship works well (ie in most places), a governor would never consider their understanding of education to be better than the head teacher, and neither would they seek to control the school in the way Sir Michael seems to imply. “Ill-informed” governors, like all ill-informed people, make bad decisions, but the expertise I regularly witness in the governing bodies of Bristol schools is an entirely different picture to the one being described by the OFSTED head. And I therefore wonder where he gets his evidence from, and also his conclusion that simply through imposed professionalisation we will have better schools.

The governors I work with in Bristol bring skills from commerce, public sector, education and many other aspects of modern society. They, we, work for our schools because we believe that education for the sake of the children is what matters. The job of being an effective school governor is certainly challenging, and is made more so by the regular, and increasingly unpredictable changes of direction imposed on us from Whitehall. As one governor responding to the OFSTED head’s speech remarked, “I don’t need money, I need more time to do it better.”

Having served as a paid governor on an Interim Executive Board (IEB) for a failing school, my job was to work with the head and senior leadership team of the school. My financial remuneration (welcomed as it was by my bank balance) was in no way my motivation for doing it. In all areas of public life, my desire is to serve and to support. I bring personal and professional skills and gifts to that role. Paying me for them won’t change a thing. If Sir Michael wants to change anything, he should focus on celebrating the work governors already do. 

March 2013