Over an 18-month period, Heart of Yorkshire Education Group lost four Governors who were in full-time work. Workload pressure was a significant factor. For Andrew, this is more than a retention problem: it could change who is able to serve.
If the role becomes too difficult to combine with work and other commitments, boards may draw increasingly on people with more time available but perhaps less recent experience. Their contribution remains valuable, but a board also needs current professional expertise, community insight and a range of lived experience. The risk is a narrowing of the pool just as the job of governing is becoming more complex and accountable.
The same pressure affects succession. A future Chair may emerge because they are willing and available, rather than because a board has deliberately identified and developed the strongest candidate. Recruitment, retention and succession planning are therefore parts of the same challenge.
Andrew's experience of governance in social housing, health and education gives him a direct comparison. Housing and health board roles are commonly paid, and recruitment is usually formal and competitive. In FE, board roles remain unpaid and colleges can find themselves casting the net, seeing who comes forward and supporting appointees to grow into the role.
He does not present payment as a cure-all. His point is that remuneration changes the relationship. It recognises the time and responsibility involved, while giving organisations a firmer basis on which to expect preparation, attendance and performance.
When time is limited, paid responsibilities will often take priority. That is the reality of asking people to balance several demanding roles.
That comparison raises a question the sector has not fully settled: if payment is accepted in housing and other sectors, why is it still resisted in education? The answer may not be to pay all Governors – perhaps only those with senior responsibilities such as the Chair or committee Chairs. But the current model should be examined honestly if colleges want to compete for busy people with specialist skills.
One departing governor captured the effect of workload plainly: "Every time the board pack dropped into my inbox, my heart sank." This was not a lack of commitment. The volume of information had made the role feel like a burden rather than a rewarding way to contribute.
Andrew's challenge to boards is practical. Are papers concise and decision-focused? Is the overall volume proportionate? Are Governors being given the information, access and development they need to offer effective scrutiny without avoidable administrative effort?
Technology, including AI, may help people navigate large packs and identify the issues that need attention. AI also has the potential to help us think. But the tool is only part of the answer. Some Governors have little exposure to AI, while others cannot access it through college systems. Any use of technology therefore needs to address access, confidence, training, information security and assurance.
Heart of Yorkshire Education Group has made inclusion an organisational priority, supported by its work towards Investors in Diversity accreditation. Even so, Andrew is candid that improving representation at board level remains difficult, particularly when vacancies are approached through a narrow skills-first lens.
Boards do need specific knowledge and experience. They also govern institutions rooted in diverse places and communities. Strong governance depends on both: professional and sector expertise alongside perspectives shaped by different backgrounds and lived experiences.
Visibility matters too. People may be less likely to see governance as a place for them if opportunities circulate through familiar networks or the existing board does not reflect their community. Broadening representation therefore requires more than welcoming a wider field at the end of a process. It affects where colleges look, how they describe the role and how they support people once appointed.
External board reviews could provide another source of collective learning. Taken together, their findings could show where boards are consistently strong, where the same weaknesses recur and which recommendations make the greatest difference. At present, much of that intelligence remains dispersed because the reviews are conducted by different providers and not collated.
Andrew also sees a case for a practical, sector-backed governance toolkit. From his work mentoring Chairs, the same foundations appear repeatedly: a robust skills audit, active succession planning, governor development, effective assurance, clear structures, external review and regular opportunities for challenge and reflection.
The individual elements are not new, and that is precisely the point. Bringing them together in one trusted, accessible resource could help new chairs and governors act on what the sector already knows.
Taken together, Andrew’s reflections show that attracting strong Governors is only part of the challenge. The experience people have once they join a board also shapes whether they remain, develop and feel able to take on greater responsibility. Recruitment therefore needs to be considered alongside workload, governor support, succession planning and the accessibility of the role.
For boards, this means looking closely at how governance works in practice: whether information is focused and proportionate, whether governors receive the development they need, and whether succession is planned early enough to build a strong and diverse leadership pipeline. Sharing effective practice across colleges and other sectors could also help boards address common pressures without each having to develop solutions independently.
These practical changes would make governance more manageable and rewarding. They also lead to a wider question for the sector: as expectations of governors continue to grow, can a predominantly voluntary model attract and retain the range of skills, experience and perspectives that further education will need in the years ahead?
