UNGOVERNABLE GOVERNORS
Michael Trend investigates an 'Albanian election' at a Roehampton school
PROPOSALS for the greater involvement of parents in the running of their children's schools — especially through parental rep- resentation on the governing body — are central to the Government's strategy in Kenneth Baker's Education Reform Bill. But many commentators, including some Conservative backbenchers, have a grave suspicion that these proposals may lean towards Conservative idealism rather than a more traditional Tory pragmatism. They are saying to ministers: 'These ideas are all very commendable, but will they actually work?' Some have speculated on the 'dreadful things' that might happen when the new Act becomes law and a governing body with full control of its own extensive budget behaves in an 'irregular' way. Who will govern the governors?
The potentially scandalous story which follows about a recent parent-governor election at Roehampton Church School widely thought to be among the best primary schools in London — illustrates this in a particularly timely fashion. And it will surely revive anxieties not just about schools like Roehampton — where the parents have been seen to be very active in the interests of their children — but in those many, many others where the oppo- site is the case; where supine indifference is the usual response of the parents, and chairmen of governing boards or heads have their way largely unopposed. (Many people who have served as school gov- ernors in recent years will know that all sorts of 'irregularities' — by the strictest definition — are nodded through, usually for the sake of convenience.) What might happen, for instance, in a new grant- maintained school which had fallen into the hands of, say, political — or religious — activists, who then 'fix' elections, espe- cially as the Bill as it stands lays down that 'the proceedings of the governing body of a grant-maintained school shall not be invali- dated by . . . any defect in the election or appointment of any governor' (Clause 45 [1] (b))?
In itself the 'Roehampton Scandal' could well have come from the pages of the chronicles of Clochemerle and should nev- er have been allowed to develop in the way
that it has. Its contribution to the `case law' of the English education system began last September when an election for a parent- governor was held. As a result of the ballot one of two candidates was declared elected. But, by the governors' own later admission, the wrong man got the job. In answer to vehemently expressed objections from some `dissenting' parents the validity of the election was questioned. Mr Roy Knight, the chairman of the governing body, called an emergency meeting to receive a report on the conduct of the election from the local vicar, the Revd David Painter — who had come to the view that the election was in fact invalid — and the headmistress, Mrs Pat Lowe. Without imputing any blame to anyone, the dissent- ing parents believed that as both Mr Painter and Mrs Lowe had been involved in running the election an outsider should have been appointed to look into the situation. A fuller inquiry was offered, this time by Canon Gerald Greenwood, the diocesan director of education for South- wark. The dissenting parents complain that Canon Greenwood then appointed himself to undertake the work: 'What of nemo judex in re sua?' as one of them put it. His report was not in any case published and some parents believe that it is 'not exten- sive'. Could this be a whitewash, the dissenting parents asked themselves?
The chairman of the governors then reported the board's view. He went down a well-worn way when he explained the irregular events as a 'misunderstanding': a confusion over the ballot forms, which involved various coloured envelopes in differing states of 'staple-sealing'; 'human error or forgetfulness' were to blame; both 'Perhaps M. Chirac will send back the hostages.' candidates were apologised to and `one would hope for signs of reconciliation and generosity'; we must look to the future not the past, etc. He also added by way of further explanation: 'Most of us . . . at some time encounter situations that cannot be explained and mysteries that cannot be solved.'
The report also regretted the `play- ground parental gossip' and the 'wagging of tongues'; but the dissenting parents quite rightly, many will think — decided not to leave matters there. The evidence that they gathered was impressive. It seemed to show quite clearly that at least 32 fewer votes were registered for the candidate who was originally defeated than were actually cast: this was determined when fellow parents declared to each other exactly how they had voted. These `dis- appeared' votes were in themselves enough to swing the election. But, curiouser and curiouser, for two categories of the voting figures it was then revealed that the actual votes counted exceeded the potential max- imum: in these two categories it seemed that 103 per cent and 120 per cent respec- tively had voted. They might be proud of such a turnout in Albania, but the 'dissi- dent' parents took a dim view of things.
This apparent `fixing' of the election was bad enough; but worse was to come. The parents then wrote to the school author- ities requesting that the evidence — the ballot papers — be safely looked after, especially as one parent numbered among those whose voting slips had joined the `disappeared ones' — no less a local worthy than Mr Dick Tracey MP, the former sports minister — had by chance marked his paper in a distinctive fashion. It was later discovered that the ballot papers had in fact already been destroyed, well within the six months which the guidelines for voluntary schools lay down.
The new chairman of the governors wrote back to the parents: it was the governing body which, in law, was the `responsible authority' in this matter, not the local education authority, nor the diocesan board of education, nor the pa- rent body. And, having fired off his big gun, the representative of the 'responsible authority' had this message for parents: `A point must be reached, and we believe this cannot indefinitely be delayed, when the gospel of forgiveness and reconciliation must be seriously attended to; when the words of the Lord's Prayer must not only be repeated but practised.'
The chairman then made much of the election of Mr Hamish Henderson to the governing body, the man who was original- ly 'defeated' but subsequently elected when the ballot was repeated under the proper offices of nothing less than the Electoral Reform Society. (It was interest- ing that in the first — the 'Albanian' ballot — the votes said to be cast were 91 per cent of the potential total, and in the second that of the ERS — when parental interest would, it is not unreasonable to conjec- ture, be much higher, only 77 per cent. In the first election Mr Morrison, the original victor, had polled 58 per cent; in the second 24 per cent. In the first election Mr Henderson had polled 42 per cent; in the second 76 per cent.) But this would still not satisfy the dissenting parents, who wrote to Mr Baker. They have been careful throughout not to point the finger of blame at any one individual involved: they merely make the reasonable point that in such important matters of principle a proper and open investigation should have taken place and that the evidence which would be part of that investigation should have been preserved. They suspect, of course, a 'cover-up'; and rightly say that unless the matter is cleared up in a proper way the finger of blame will point itself indiscrimi- nately — at the chairman of the governors, at the diocesan representatives, at the headmistress, at the school cat or a grand conspiracy of them all. Unwisely baulked at an earlier stage when this matter could probably have been resolved diplomatical ly, the parents are now asking the Secret- ary of State as an authority 'of last resort' to make a 'scrupulous inquiry'. We must wait and see what sort of response Mr Baker's officials will give; but we can easily guess at some of the ques- tions which will be going through their minds as they consider the case. Have they got a clear definition of the powers of the DES in cases of this kind? Do they even want to be involved in cases of this kind? Is it possible that there may be no curb on governors acting in irresponsible ways? And is it not inevitable that in the new system cases of this kind will become increasingly common? Or can the DES accept that some situations 'cannot be explained' and that there are 'mysteries that cannot be solved'? And, in the lighter vein that the chairman of the Roehampton governors injected into this dispute, should the DES have a position on the Lord's Prayer— or at least a part of it, selectively quoted?
Some of the DES officials will no doubt go further and question again the wisdom of the proposals to give vastly increased powers to governing bodies when cases like Roehampton seem so very difficult to settle. They fear that they may open a Pandora's box. From Mr Baker's point of view, however, the best thing to do — if he doesn't hear these particular alarm bells ringing — would be to settle the Roehamp- ton business as quickly as possible and make clear that if anything untoward did happen in the first parent-governor elec- tion and subsequently, then it is not to be glossed over with banal pieties. And he must also make sure that such cases are not allowed to arise again in the future. For the 'local trouble' at Roehampton is a clear symptom of a more general disorder that might later seriously undermine an impor- tant part of his programme.
Previous page
