Next autumn will see the arrival of 60,000 new school governors, according to a survey carried out for the Department for Education and Employment, and the question being asked is whether they should be compelled to undergo some form of training or preparation for their responsibilities?

Many more of the 340,000 school governors in England and Wales will be coming to the end of their four years in office, though over half are expected to serve a further term.

But there are concerns about the effectiveness of existing governing bodies and the erosion of funds meant to pay for training governors. This is leading some to argue that governors should be entitled or required by law to receive training or retraining.

Government funding for training governors was once clearly earmarked. But now it has been lumped together with funds for in-service training and development for teachers in the Grants for Education Support and Training (GEST) aimed at improving school effectiveness. The result is that money for governor training has effectively disappeared.

It is feared that putting funds for training governors in the same pot as funds for training teachers will make it less likely that governors will get adequate training. Either they will not be clear what and where these funds are or they will hold back rather than seek training at the expense of improving teaching.

Governor trainers also fear for the future of governor support services. Governing bodies will be unable or unwilling to buy into them from delegated budgets, they say.

Robin Squire, the education minister responsible for school improvement, told a recent meeting on governor effectiveness organised at the House of Commons by Action for Governor Information and Training (AGIT): “Too many governing bodies are so self-effacing that they treat their own training as a luxury. It is a false economy for governors to make no provision for their training.”

But Mr Squire rejected the idea that governors should undergo compulsory training. He said: “Governing is a voluntary activity and it would be an inherent contradiction to insist on them undertaking training. But I hope they will want to take up training to make their schools more effective. After all, that is the reason they become governors in the first place.”

Some on the receiving end of governors’ deliberations are less happy to leave things to untrained volunteers, however. The National Association of Headteachers has repeatedly complained about governors interfering in the management of schools because they do not properly understand their role.

David Hart, the general secretary of the NAHT, says “Training should be compulsory for all newly appointed governors. They deserve training and the only way of making sure they get it is to make it compulsory.”

Nigel de Gruchy, general secretary of the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers, said: “Governors have considerable statutory responsibilities and there should be some some requirement for their preparation. We don’t let drivers on the road without taking their test. ”

Mr Hart recognises the importance of not dissuading candidates for next autumn’s governor vacancies and the difficulty of making training compulsory when effective training was so patchy. He said: “For every good authority you can find one that is providing governor training of indifferent quality or support not worth the paper it is written on.”

Peter Earley of the University of London Institute for Education, suggested at the AGIT meeting that governors’ entitlement to training should ensured by a voucher they could spend on training. Choice of where to spend this could put a greater onus on trainers to satisfy governors’ needs.

It is not just new governors who cause concern. Existing governors - sometimes long-serving ones - who think they know it all can be just as much a hazard. Felicity Taylor of the independent Institute of School and College Governors. believes that, like National Childbirth Trust practitioners, governors should be required to show they were keeping up-to- date before they are allowed to continue as governors. A requirement to publish details of governors’ initial and refresher training in annual reports might also underline its importance.

The Audit Commission and the Office for Standards in Education have both complained that governors are not carrying out their scrutiny functions effectively. A joint publication from the two watchdogs (Lessons in Teamwork) urges governing bodies to “improve their knowledge and experience through regular training”.

But it says courses and professional support services are only part of this. It suggests governing bodies also organise induction packs (see box), visits to the school and joint discussion forums with governors from other schools.

According to Lessons in Teamwork: “The training governors receive is often haphazard. Governing bodies should take a systematic approach to governor training and discuss it regularly.

“Governing bodies should set aside a small budget for their training,” it advises.

INDUCTION PACK FOR NEW GOVERNORS

One primary provides: * the school prospectus * the admissions policy * the last annual report * the head’s most recent report * school policy statements * current staff list * pen portraits of governors * dates for governors meetings * committee terms of reference * LEA briefing notes for governors * map of school * policy on visits to school * procedures such as fire drills Adapted from Lessons in Teamwork, published by Audit CommissionOFSTED 1995 Lessons in teamwork: how school governing bodies can become more effective HMSO Pounds 6