Should training be compulsory?
The general consensus held amongst most governance coordinators was that some training should be compulsory. Coordinators across four areas reported particular elements of governor training that should be made compulsory, including induction training to ensure that governors are better placed to fulfil their role effectively. Moreover, two coordinators reported that other areas should be compulsory for specific governors. For example, a governor on a finance committee should attend some financial training.
A further three coordinators identified particular governors for whom training should be made compulsory including chairs of governors, new governors and clerks.
One interviewee asserted: ‘It’s such an important role [...] it should be given the resources that it merits.’
The main benefit of such a requirement identified amongst coordinators was that it would provide volunteers with a good level of knowledge and understanding in order to carry out their role effectively. For example, one coordinator expressed her frustration at governors having the option not to undertake training:
You would never expect a magistrate to start passing sentence on people if they hadn’t had the training, so why should we have people managing sometimes multi-million pound budgets and affecting the education of our young people without having had the training to do it?
However, there was some recognition amongst interviewees that given the voluntary nature of the role, if training were to become compulsory, there could be less interest in becoming a governor. For example, one coordinator remarked: ‘You get a certain amount of resistance as soon as you tell someone they have to do something.’ Moreover, coordinators across three areas concurrently highlighted the need to consider the cost associated with compulsory training.
The full Nfer Report by Tami McCrone,Clare Southcott and Nalia George can be found below
http://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/publications/LGMS01/LGMS01.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment