There is a deathly hush in the hall after the chair of governors asks, tentatively: “Are there any questions?”

The two learning support assistants and a single representative of the parent-teacher association twist in their seats. The sole parent present then launches into a bitter complaint regarding her child. The chair has to interrupt gently.

This is one scenario, but there are numerous variations on the yearly meeting when parents meet and question the governors on their annual report. For many governors the meeting is just empty protocol, often consuming disproportionate time. Heads often feel much the same.

Nevertheless, a few enthusiasts believe they have found a magic formula to put bums on seats in the school hall. And there is more widespread respect for the report itself.

Later this year, the Department for Education and Skills plans to issue draft regulations and guidance which it says will throw out the rules and allow governors to decide how meetings are run.

It will also invite ideas for circumstances in which the requirement to hold a meeting could be relaxed. This would apply to schools with a strong record of parental involvement in consultation and decision-making.

A DfES spokeswoman said: “This will benefit schools while still retaining the essential right for parents to question the governing body and the head about the way their child’s school is being run.”

The 1988 Education Act ushered in annual parents’ meetings. These reflected the then government’s business model, which likened parents to shareholders and governors to directors. The agenda, with the presentation of the report and opportunities for questions and motions, was strictly laid down.

Since then, the pressures on schools to deliver, through the Office for Standards in Education, performance targets and more parent governors, have mounted. For the professionals, there is no shortage of accountability through other channels.

David Hart, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, wants the Government to get rid of the parents’ meeting altogether. “It is highly ineffective, badly attended and regarded by most heads as a waste of time and effort, an example of accountability gone wild,” he said.

John Dunford, general secretary of the Secondary Heads’ Association, says abolishing the requirement would make a “symbolically significant” contribution to reducing unreasonable workload for heads.

But what do governors themselves think? Jane Phillips, chair of the National Association of Governors and Managers, says the meetings have never successfully provided accountability, but emphasises the role of annual reports.

“We think each school should work with whatever its culture is. The Government should look at creative ways to encourage accountability, including smaller meetings and governors’ surgeries.”

She also suggests that meetings could depend on direct requests from a small percentage of parents.

There are, of course, evangelicals whose experience transcends the gloom and indifference elsewhere. Ben Rooney, of Great Bardfield primary in North Essex, puts the regular attendance of several dozen parents down to active governors and parent-teacher association plus a close relationship between the village and the school.

Mr Rooney said: “It’s not calling governors to account - it’s giving parents the chance to stand up and ask questions to individual governors. The head, staff and governors are distributed among the parents, not sitting up at the front.”

He worries, however, that accountability, whether it is used or not, would be lost if the annual parents’ meeting were to be axed. At Mount primary in Kingston-upon-Thames, Surrey, parents’ meetings are sandwiched in the middle of entertainment by the children - a real-crowd puller.

There are speakers, and chair Matthew Rees says governors do not worry too much about observing the protocol. But the formula pulls in the punters.

Inevitably, many share a belief that the meetings cannot be salvaged. Bill Noble, a governor at Wedmore first school in Somerset, thinks it unfair to entice parents with entertainments.

“My own view is that this is a legal requirement and we should not be arm-twisting parents to come to boring meetings,” he said.

If the breadth of opinions available is reflected in the DfES consultation, ministers will have plenty to think about.

Eventually, however, they may have to accept that one size will not fit everyone and it is time to allow governors to use their common sense and simply find out what works.