Hi I am a teacher and I am also a governor at my kids' school - have been for 5 years. Am in my third year as a teacher. At the school where I work, which is an academy, there are regular governors' meetings in which books are scrutinised. They also undertake learning walks outside of school hours to look at displays and books. The feedback from these meetings is often quite critical (it comes from the Head) and offers quite demanding targets for improvement. For example after the latest book scrutiny it appears the governors feel teachers should be double-marking all work, e.g write a comment, child responds, teacher then goes back and writes something else to 'lead learning on' etc etc and a whole dialogue emerges. This is time consuming and not always achievable, frankly. At the school where I am a governor at no point have we ever been asked to scrutinise books, nor would I have dreamed of doing so when I was not a qualified teacher. Even now that I am, I would not expect to be asked to do so. We do sometimes sit in on lessons but in the role of 'critical friend' only. The Head does not discuss teacher performance except in the context of results; these are discussed in detail when necessary. The school in which I am a governor is a 'good' school; the academy in which I work is RI. Is that the reason for this difference?