This week Guardian Further Education carries a debate about whether college governors should be paid or not. The three contributions clearly set out some of the issues at the
heart of the issue.
The article reminds me of the debate in the social housing sector a
decade ago.
In 2003 the Housing Corporation allowed
housing associations to pay board members who had previously been volunteers –
like college governors are now. As a board member in the Midlands and opposed
to board remuneration. I am now less sceptical.
Across the housing association sector, board
remuneration was tied to governance improvement plans which saw good practices
being introduced including board member appraisal and term limits on appointments.
(Essential good practices not seen on too many college governing bodies.) Moreover,
remuneration often ended board recruitment problems and promoted a
professionalisation of governance.
So should college governors be paid? Maybe –
it depends on the balance of costs and benefits being thoroughly and
objectively analysed. Scarce resources spent on governors won’t be available
for teaching and learning. On the other hand, if paying governors is used to
improve governance we should end up with a better governed and stronger FE
sector. The arguments for paying governors are likely to be particularly strong
for the larger colleges.
In the
Guardian FE piece, all three contributions came from the sixth form college
sector rather than the general FE sector. The largest of the three sixth form
colleges has an income of £14 million. Could board remuneration be justified
for colleges of that size? I doubt it.
In 2011/12
(the latest year for which we have published figures) 17 colleges had income
over £50 million. For such large and complex organisations, board remuneration
may be appropriate and, perhaps, essential. A debate over board remuneration has
a particular relevance for this sub-sector of further education – rather than
for sixth form colleges.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment