|
|
|||
|
|
|||
An independent report
prepared by Philip Banks for the Scottish Executive
July 2002
Foreward
In the course of this review, I have had the privilege to meet a very large number of dedicated and experienced parents, teachers and officials who are totally committed to the successful continuation of school boards as an essential feature of the wider parental role in Scottish education. There is a widely held view that the statutory position which school boards occupy is an important strength, indicating a commitment to a permanent place for parental involvement in the education of their children. Many have nevertheless expressed the view that school boards require renewal to reinvigorate them and widen their appeal. This report suggests ways in which a revitalised school board movement could enable parents to make a stronger contribution to the quality of education their children receive.
I am grateful to all who participated in the lively discussions that took place in the six authorities who entered willingly into this review, and to the officials in those authorities who organised so efficiently the programmes for my visits. I am also grateful to officers of the Scottish School Board Association and the Scottish Parent Teacher Council who gave so freely of their time to discuss the issues with me.
Philip Banks
July 2002
1.1 This is a report of a review of support for school boards carried out by an independent consultant on behalf of the Scottish Executive. The decision to conduct the review followed discussions held in February 2002 between the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People and the SSBA regarding support for school boards. The purpose of the review was to evaluate the quality of current support to school boards, and the extent to which the needs of school boards were being met, in order to identify key issues for consideration by the Scottish Executive in its formulation of future policy and strategy. Throughout the review, the consultant worked to task specifications agreed with the Review Steering Group, comprising staff from Schools Division of the Scottish Executive Education Department, the Scottish School Board Association (SSBA), a representative of the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland (ADES) and a member of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education (HMIE). The Steering Group was chaired by Schools Division. This report, while remaining the independent evaluation of the consultant, takes account of views expressed by the Steering Group throughout the process of its production. The full terms of the task specification are given in Appendix A.
1.2 The objectives of the review were:
i. to provide information on local authority support to school boards;
ii. to evaluate the level of local authority support;
iii. to identify the needs of school boards and headteachers in terms of finance and administration, initial and continuing training, availability of information, resources and role development
iv. to evaluate the current contribution of key agencies, governmental and non-governmental, to meeting school boards needs; and
v. to identify key issues for future policy consideration.
1.3 In order to meet the timescale laid down by the Scottish Executive, and to minimize the burden on authorities, teachers and parents, it was decided to pursue a case-study style of review, whereby the consultant drew evidence and evaluations from face-to-face discussions with officials, teachers and parents in each of six selected local authorities. These were Dumfries and Galloway; City of Edinburgh; City of Glasgow; Highland; Perth and Kinross; and South Lanarkshire. The sample was identified on the basis of geographical and demographic range and the differing types of support provided to school boards. The alternative of carrying out an extensive paper survey of views by means of questionnaire was not deliverable within the timescale and would have proved burdensome to those participating. This decision has inevitably determined the nature of this report, which contains no detailed statistical analysis of views, instead offering a discussion and analysis of the conclusions drawn by the consultant from the many rewarding discussions with a wide range of professionals and parents. A grateful acknowledgement of their willing participation is hereby made. All those who took part in these discussions are listed in Appendix B.
The present position
2.1 Teachers, parent members and education officials show great commitment to school boards. However, it is recognised that school boards have difficulty in attracting parent membership, particularly from areas of social disadvantage and ethnic minorities. This affects their ability to represent the full range of parental views. It is felt that the current statutory framework, which prescribes formal electoral procedures and restricted membership, may be in part to blame for these difficulties.
2.2 Headteachers, as professional advisers to school boards, are key agents for their success, placing a premium on effective training to carry out this role.
2.3 School boards carry out their prescribed minimum duties assiduously but vary widely in the depth and range to which they pursue a more challenging role. It is generally felt that a national restatement of the aims and objectives which effective school boards should pursue would be helpful in achieving more generally a higher level of activity.
2.4 The uptake and outreach of training, both at national and local level, is disappointing, although where it is provided, participants regard it as very useful. It is widely felt that training provision could be better co-ordinated, and made more easily accessible in remote areas, building on initiatives already taken in the use of video conferencing.
2.5 Most headteachers and education authorities provide good support to school boards. Local and national information is readily available, although the volume is frequently overwhelming and too little use is made of IT. Local school board support units, where they exist, are most helpful in mediating the flow of information and providing practical advice. The SSBA also performs a valuable national role in this respect.
2.6 The management of finance leaves much to be desired. There is no clear rationale for the allocation of funds and very inconsistent application of resources in the pursuit by school boards of a clear and challenging action plan.
2.7 School boards have a constant battle to keep in touch with the parents they represent although many do it well. Although there are some good local and national opportunities for boards to share experiences and learn from each other, and to participate in policy discussions, these are not as widespread as they might be.
2.8 The SSBA and SPTC perform distinctive roles in support of parental involvement in education. There is a genuine discussion to be had as to the advantages of moving towards a single national body with a wider range of interests than either separately can currently pursue.
Issues
2.9 The key issues which need to be explored further and which are discussed in this report are:
The way forward
2.10 This report identifies a number of key issues relating to the future success of school boards. It proposes a process of consideration of them, which involves all the partners but, most crucially, parents. The Scottish Executive can play an important supporting role in such an exercise.
2.11 The product of these considerations should be an improved framework of national advice and guidance which reflects the needs and aspirations of all partners, which addresses the issues noted above, and which places school boards within the current social and legislative context.
2.12 The process and production of an improved framework should provide Ministers with an opportunity to relaunch the school board policy within the context of their expectations for parental participation in the improvement agenda, which has been set out in recent legislation.
This section describes and evaluates the present position of school boards, drawing on the discussions held with parents, teachers and officials in six education authorities.
The image of school boards
3.1 The vast majority of parents serving on school boards are totally committed to the continuing existence of boards. They regard them as an essential element of their local school in that they allow parents a voice in the progress and development of the education of their children. School boards are therefore an accepted feature of the educational landscape, without which parent members would feel deprived of a crucial opportunity to support their school. Having said this, it is nevertheless a continuing concern of almost all parent members consulted that this positive image of school boards is not recognised by the parent body at large. The extreme difficulty school boards experience in recruiting new blood from the parent population is evidence of the unattractiveness of school boards for parents who stand outside the school board structure. Parent members identify three principal features of school boards as contributing most heavily to this negative image. They are: the complex, bureaucratic and daunting procedures laid down for elections to school boards; the formal administrative procedures of school boards; and uncertainty surrounding the role and contribution of school boards in relation to the quality of education as it affects individual children. Parent members are most concerned about the continuing failure of school boards to attract membership from disadvantaged backgrounds and from ethnic minorities; and they regard the perception that boards are for professional parents, confident in handling the formal business of school boards, as a major obstacle to the effectiveness of school boards.
3.2 Headteachers share parent members’ support for the continuing existence of school boards. Most, but not all, headteachers consulted recognise and value the support they receive from school boards and have developed constructive relationships between themselves as professional advisers and school board chairs and members. They echo parent members’ concerns over the continuing failure of boards to attract parents from the entire spectrum of backgrounds and express widespread dissatisfaction with the procedures for electing members and with the unrepresentative nature of board membership. This has led many headteachers to circumnavigate the school board as a mechanism for gauging parental views, a situation that undermines the confidence of boards.
3.3 A significant proportion of headteachers consulted carried with them the experience of school boards from their inception. The frequency of references to the political context for the introduction of school boards more than a decade ago indicates that there remains in the minds of many headteachers a lingering suspicion that school boards are there to be "handled" or even "manipulated" for the good of the school. This point of embarkation is not the most promising for the creation of constructive symbiosis between schools and school boards and is an unnecessary legacy of the past. When school boards were first introduced they were widely regarded as agents for transition to self-governing status, although very few in fact took this route. They were also an early move to introduce public accountability to a major public service. While headteachers consulted display a high level of comfort with their accountability as professionals, reflecting the wider changes in society as a whole, they clearly continue to regard the political origins of school boards as an inappropriate design feature for boards in the new era. Despite the repeal in recent years of legislation relating to the self-government of schools, reflecting the widespread disaffection with this policy, this legacy remains.
3.4 Discussions with officials in the six authorities confirmed the image problem that accompanies the present nature of school boards. Despite considerable and continuing efforts in most authorities to encourage parents to stand for election to school boards, the response is generally disappointing in terms of competition for places, although a high proportion of schools continue to have school boards, mostly put together by persuasion and cajoling. Authorities therefore have serious doubts about the adequacy of school boards as a true reflection of parental interests, most crucial in consultations over new policies. While authorities are assiduous in pursuing school board views, their insecurity over the representative reach of boards has led virtually all to supplement the school board network with other layers of parental consultation. There is therefore a range of attitudes among authorities: one director feels that school boards are so unreliable in expressing parental views as to be largely irrelevant for consultation purposes; others work hard to incorporate boards within a broader approach to parents. In authorities with significant areas of underprivileged or ethnic minority populations, school boards have failed to make any significant contribution to inclusivity.
3.5 Most authorities visited deserve praise for the professional way in which they have attempted to popularise school boards and make them a vibrant part of their educational provision. In the remaining authorities, there is evidence to suggest that major steps are being planned to improve the situation. All feel, however, that they are not helped by the excessively formal image of school boards or their narrow appeal to the parent body.
Structure and procedures of school boards
3.6 The structure and procedures of school boards are specified in detail in statute and related advice. It is not the intention of this section to rehearse these. However, it will be useful to identify those key elements which those consulted regard as strengths or weaknesses in present arrangements; expressed another way, which aspects support or detract from the success of school boards.
3.7 The parent membership of school boards is laid down by statute. This requires boards to contain between four and seven parents, depending on school size. In addition, two or three members of the wider school community who are not parents or teachers at the school may serve as co-opted members. The membership therefore ranges from maxima of six to ten parents, depending on the roll of the school. Among those consulted there is a general consensus that this relatively restricted parent membership makes for difficulties in accessing the wider parental views which school boards are required to do. The small size of boards also is regarded as limiting the influx of new blood, especially since co-opted members are often parents who have previously served as members.
3.8 All full parent members of boards serve for four years. In general, this length of office is regarded as too inflexible, although it is also generally accepted that a balance needs to be struck to allow parents to develop into the challenges of board membership.
3.9 The procedures for election of parents to school boards are also laid down by statute. This requires parents to stand for election in a formal sense and to make a statement in support of their nomination. The process of elections is administered centrally in the local authority. Many parents consulted feel that these procedures are very daunting and discourage too many parents from considering school board membership. In the light of the concerns also expressed regarding the failure of school boards to attract parents from disadvantaged or minority backgrounds, many of those consulted question whether the formality of the election process is supportive of the wider involvement of the parent body in the work of school boards. On the other hand, there is a strong recognition among parents, teachers and education officers that the preservation of an open electoral process is an important signal of the statutory position of school boards within the education system, without which the essential influence of boards would be jeopardised.
3.10 The role of headteacher as professional adviser to the board, rather than ex officio member, is a key element of the present structure. It is widely held that the relationship between headteachers and chairpersons is crucial to the success or failure of the board. On the whole, those consulted report positively on the effectiveness of this arrangement, although many note the premium that this places on good training to ensure that relationships are fully understood and developed on both sides.
3.11 School boards may establish sub-committees to take forward different aspects of their activities. On the evidence of this review, this facility to extend the range of their contacts is not fully utilised by school boards.
The role of school boards
3.12 From discussions with parents, teachers and education officials it is apparent that school boards vary widely in the role they perform. The basis of their role is set out in statute: to represent the views of parents, pupils and teachers in the school; to be consulted on the school development plan and to approve the spending proposals of the school; to meet with parents as required; to consider reports from the headteacher on school policies; to contribute towards certain staff appointments; to manage school lets as appropriate; and to fix occasional holidays subject to the advice of the education authority. In addition, school boards have a legal duty to encourage parent-teacher associations in their schools and, more recently, to have a role within the parent body in the improvement of attainment in the school.
3.13 In practice, those consulted report that school boards perform these duties assiduously but with great variation as to the depth and scope of their involvement, depending on their perception of their potential role and the expectations of their education authorities and their professional advisers. Some school boards operate at what may be described as the baseline of their potential: consultation with the wider parent body is minimal; interaction with the school development plan and spending proposals comes at a late stage in the cycle, with limited subsequent interaction; school policies are considered more for information than amendment and there is little or no awareness of ways in which the board may contribute to the improvement agenda. In contrast, many other school boards clearly pursue much more ambitious targets, by undertaking regular consultations to gauge parental opinion; by becoming involved at the earliest stages of development planning and budgetary discussions; by taking a critical and analytical interest in the educational performance of the school; by taking an active role in considering and developing thinking within school policies; and by looking at broad aspects of school life, such as ethos, morale, and the school environment, as key areas where improvements may be effected.
3.14 From all of the discussions held in the six authorities it is apparent that there is a shared desire to see the generality of school boards working to what may be termed this "higher agenda" whereby parent representatives are able to make a significant contribution to the quality of education provided in their schools. The essential prerequisites for the achievement of the higher agenda formed a major part of discussions held in all six authorities. These included:
- a high level of awareness, by both headteachers and chairpersons, of the potential role of school boards;
- a shared commitment to open discussion of the policies and practices of the school;
- a context of education authority policies which illuminate a real role for school boards in taking forward the quality of education;
- an opportunity for school board members to learn from the good practice of others and share experiences.
3.15 The above paragraphs of this section refer to ways in which school boards currently perform their role within the mainstream, day-to-day business of education. There is another aspect to their role which those consulted referred to frequently: namely, school board activities in relation to "issues" such as proposed school mergers, transport, or building refurbishment. In such cases, school boards have a strong track record of activity and involvement. Where conflicts occur in these instances, those consulted clearly feel that communications among interested parties have been weak. Consultation and involvement at an early stage of "an issue" are regarded as essential to maintaining positive and constructive working relations.
3.16 The overriding message of discussions in the authorities regarding the role of school boards is the need for a national restatement of the aims and objectives which good school boards might pursue, taking account of the importance of local flexibility and, above all, of the climate and expectation of parental participation which exists in society now. It is generally felt that such redefinition, through co-operative efforts, would be most helpful to school boards in achieving greater consistency and deeper involvement.
Training
3.17 The impact of current training is limited by its haphazard nature. Much of what has already been said about the performance of school boards across the country underlines the importance of training for enhancing the effectiveness of school boards. This is a view shared widely by parent members and education officers but less so by headteachers. The latter group frequently displays complacency about their own training needs.
3.18 In the six authorities visited, three currently have substantial training programmes on offer; two more are at varying stages of progress towards one; another has none on offer. Such a pattern repeated across Scotland suggests nationally a very disjointed approach. Local training programmes are valued by parent members as opportunities to be inducted into their work on school boards by acquiring the knowledge and understanding required to make an effective start as a board member; to be informed about local policies and priorities; and, during their period serving on boards, to engage with other parent members to widen their horizons, share experiences and learn about good practice. Such training opportunities, of great value to the individuals who take part, are nevertheless limited in their reach because of the small proportion of parent members who participate. In no authority visited did the proportion near fifty per cent; a significant number of chairpersons take up their duties without any induction training at all.
3.19 Headteacher participation in local training programmes, valued by many headteachers for precisely the same reasons as the parent members, is also at a low level. In the best organised authority visited, only about half the headteachers had been trained in recent years, a surprisingly low figure since headteachers, as employees of authorities, might be expected to undertake training which supported authority policies. The voluntary nature of such training is anomalous. However, it is clear from the views expressed by headteachers that their low level of interest in available training is, as much as anything, a reflection on the perceived content of courses, which tend to focus on the work of school boards from a parental perspective. Since many headteachers are experienced in the topic of school boards, their real needs lie elsewhere, for example, in high-level issues to do with raising awareness of the potential contribution to quality issues, rather than the more mundane matters that new parent members have to come to terms with. Headteachers are, in effect, identifying the important need for better differentiation in training, a point that will be picked up below.
3.20 At national level, training is available from SSBA, who charge for courses. Training covers induction of new members and on-going training for both parents and headteachers, covering the tasks of school boards, partnerships and roles, effective communications and meetings, and appointments of senior staff. A new course for all parties involved in school boards is currently under pilot, offering training that is issues or case study based. SSBA has a small central staffing complement, delivering courses across the country by means of a team of trainers. The SSBA training fulfils a very important need for training materials which offer a national perspective and which have the potential to engage participants in the more advanced levels of debate which characterise school board work beyond the routine tasks. However, many headteachers and parent members do not make use of it and many boards are reluctant to buy into courses, preferring to contribute to the school budget. There is also the problem of focus, when a mixed audience gathers to receive training, an issue that SSBA are working on in their new, piloted course. SSBA are very willing to work with local authorities in the preparation and delivery of joint training.
3.21 The general view of those consulted is that a more co-ordinated approach could be taken to avoid overlap between local and national training, provide better differentiation of materials, and to make training opportunities more easily available to remote areas.
Support
3.22 School boards require support on a number of fronts to enable them to perform their tasks well. The first source of support for a board is normally the professional advice provided by the headteacher. It has already been noted that most headteachers have positive and constructive relations with their boards.
3.23 The second most frequently used channel for support, information and advice is the education authority. Almost all school board chairs report that they are able to access an identified individual officer within their authorities with whom they can deal on a personal basis. This is a helpful route for dealing with a wide range of enquiries, often involving officers from other departments of the authority where multi-agency issues arise, such as health and safety, buildings, accommodation and transport. The Scottish Executive also provides important advice on legislation and focus papers on school board issues to those who request them.
3.24 School boards also need information in a usable form about their functions and local policies that affect them. The former is well provided for by national information from SSBA, which can readily be supplemented by means of the SSBA advice line and website. The latter is well provided in all authorities visited although some information is not well presented for a lay reader or can be overwhelming in its volume or lack of selection. Half of the authorities visited have made great efforts in their policy documentation for school boards to place the work of boards within the framework of the broader policy of partnership with parents. This goes some way towards establishing a clear sense of mission for the boards as contributing to strategic discussions within their schools. However, the volume of documentation concerning the procedures of boards always exceeds that which explores the more challenging aspects of their potential role in educational development and improvement, reinforcing the perception that boards are more about procedures than educational discussion.
3.25 Many parent members feel that local information, coupled with a heavy flow of national documents, and regular requests for questionnaire returns, in practice results in overload and confusion. They would welcome a move by all concerned towards tailoring information more specifically for the school board audience. A strong view held by many parent members is that more could be done to use electronic methods to make information more easily accessible and to provide a better signposting system throughout the education and related fields. Existing websites, such as ParentZone, provide a basic service but one that is not reported to be widely used. Parents and teachers alike express interest in the idea of an extended national database for education.
3.26 Those authorities that have established school board units, usually headed by a member of staff at principal officer level, have created the most obviously supportive contexts for their school boards. In three authorities this is the case; one is moving towards it; two have rolled up school board support within other broader duties. The existence of a dedicated officer at the right level, operational rather than strategic, but with direct access to senior directorate members, is the key factor in enabling board members to feel part of a broader network, to reduce isolation, and to mediate the flow of information to be handled. Under these circumstances, local training is often very sensitively planned and reviewed and school boards are brought very much into consultation over authority policies. Nevertheless, authorities have to expend considerable ingenuity to create the right structures to get school boards together to share views, discuss issues and provide feedback.
3.27 At school level, there is a mixed picture of practical support available. Many parent members feel that, while they are accorded a proper status in their links with headteachers and authority officials, this is not always reflected in the facilities made available in schools, for example, in access to IT or accommodation. This leads to feelings of being peripheral to the main business of the school.
Finance
3.28 School boards receive small budgets from their authorities to cover the cost of their activities: administration; travel expenses; the board clerk costs; communication; and training. Recent figures supplied by SSBA show that across the country there is some variation in the budgets allocated to schools of similar size, although the sums concerned are broadly in the same ballpark. The main point relating to finance is not, however, the size of budgets but the way in which budgets are arrived at and used.
3.29 None of the authorities employs a cost-related framework for setting budgets. Figures have become historical and are simply upgraded annually, or not, as the case may be. In most cases, figures predate unitary authorities and are based on a crude size-category allocation, sometimes topped-up with a small per capita allocation.
3.30 Very few school boards spend their budgets each year, most simply using any surplus to buy something useful for the school. Many parent members do not claim travel expenses; schools subsidise printing costs; training costs are often not incurred because parents do not wish to use up precious resources "on themselves"; communication with parents is often not extensive, thereby reducing board costs. A few boards fully utilise their budgets to pursue their own active agendas and a tiny proportion request additional funds from their authorities to cover more ambitious schemes. These are usually forthcoming but school boards generally are unaware that additional bids may be made and authorities do not publicise the fact.
3.31 All consulted acknowledge that this approach is unsatisfactory, leading to underuse of allocated funding for legitimate school board tasks and a disincentive to boards to set and deliver ambitious targets for themselves.
Communication
3.32 All those consulted recognise the challenges that school boards face in communicating efficiently with their fellow members and with their parent constituencies. Many chairpersons outlined successful ways in which they keep members informed but gaps between meetings often lead to long periods of silence, which does not foster informed discussion when meetings do take place. The bulk of documentation to be digested by chairs and circulated to members is a factor in creating this difficulty. The proper use of the board clerk is a key consideration in ensuring boards have ample time to come to terms with matters to be dealt with at board meetings. IT methods of communication within boards are rare.
3.33 The insecurity of board members in representing wider parental views has already been identified as a problem. Those consulted could outline various methods of contacting parents, including regular inserts in school-home communications, dedicated school board newsletters, attendance at parents’ evenings, school board questionnaires and surveys, or special school board events. All of these approaches, while recording some success, continue to be a challenge in terms of the effort required and the limited response from parents. All acknowledge that sustained strategies in this area are necessary if boards are to have confidence that they are taking account of parental views in their discussions.
3.34 Most authorities visited make sterling efforts to set up meetings to allow school boards in their areas to network. School board members value these highly as ways of participating in policy discussions, sharing experiences, considering good practice, breaking down isolation, and building morale. Local and national training events and conferences are valued by board members as important opportunities for achieving similar outcomes but, as noted above, attendance at such events is by no means widespread.
3.35 All authorities visited recognise the importance of rapid and efficient communication with their boards. The best make very good use of school board support units to do this well and rapid response teams of parent members are being used to allow authorities to take the views of parents very quickly. There is some use of IT links but this is generally underdeveloped. The SSBA provides a useful national advice line, which is well used, supplemented by e-mail. Despite all of this, many school board chairs note their sense of isolation, particularly in remote areas.
National agencies
3.36 There are two national agencies for parents in Scotland. The work of the SSBA has already been mentioned in this report in connection with training, information and advice for school board members. The SPTC is an organisation to support parent-teacher associations (PTAs) which predate school boards. PTAs are in most schools noticeably different from school boards in that they usually concentrate on fund-raising, organising and supporting extra-curricular activities, and social events. They have less of a role in discussing educational matters than school boards but nevertheless often engage in activities which are educationally informative for parents. As such they tend to involve a wider range of parents than school boards, largely because they are not seen as carrying the statutory functions of school boards, while tapping into the rich vein of willing general support which most parents display towards their schools. The SPTC is funded principally by PTA membership subscriptions most of which continue to be attracted because SPTC membership allows PTAs to buy cheap insurance cover as part of a group scheme. Without this most PTAs would find the cost of covering their liability over, for example, extra-curricular trips, prohibitive. The SSBA, while assisted for the first three years of its existence by core grant from the Scottish Executive, now funds itself by selling its services to school boards. New projects, such as the development of new training materials or courses, can be funded by Scottish Executive grant. In contrast with PTAs, activities organised by school boards are covered for liability by the education authority insurance schemes, resulting in no cost to school boards.
3.37 Discussions in all the authorities visited included the position of two national bodies for parents, especially since each, in its distinctive ways, is dedicated to assisting parents in making a positive and participative contribution to the health of education in their schools. The views of those consulted provide a mixed picture. On the one hand, the logic and simplicity of a single parent body for each school is recognised, providing opportunities for the functions of both school boards and PTAs to be combined and parental involvement extended. On the other hand, many express concern that the flourishing PTA in their school may lose momentum with a change of designation. Many refer to the good working relations between school boards and PTAs, others to the duplication of activities and natural rivalries.
HMIE evidence
3.38 HMIE do not inspect school boards in the course of their inspections of schools and education authorities. However, they do meet with school board chairs during the course of each type of inspection. They also gather evidence from questionnaires for parents in school inspections and questionnaires for school board chairs in education authority inspections.
The findings of HMIE are in line with the views gathered in this review:
In addition, on the evidence of HMIE inspections of ten authorities to date, mechanisms for consulting teachers, schools and parents, including school boards, are rated as good or very good in six cases; while mechanisms for communicating with the same groups are rated as good or very good in eight cases.
This section identifies a number of key issues that should be considered, drawing on the evidence presented in section three. Each issue is accompanied by a brief discussion of possible lines of approach.
Issue 1: How can school boards be made more attractive to parents?
4.1 The factors to be borne in mind here from section three are:
4.2 The difficulty of involving parents in school boards is part of the wider challenge facing the education service in developing and extending partnership with parents. Much expertise exists in Scotland already in this regard and strategies drawing on good practice should be devised which could be applied nationally. More could be done to publicise and explain the work of school boards as part of a relaunch of the movement within the context of new policies for inclusiveness and recent education legislation. Aspects of school board arrangements could be made more palatable and less threatening for parents who may otherwise be willing to serve on school boards. A closer link between school board activities and the more accessible PTA activities may widen the parent base. Without doubt, increasing parental involvement is the biggest challenge facing school boards and will require a long-term sustained strategy that is the product of the thinking of all the partners concerned.
Issue 2: Should the structure and procedures of school boards be changed?
4.3 The key concerns expressed in section three are:
4.4 This is a matter for political consideration although it could be argued that school boards have been in place a long time and a revision of the style and approach of school boards is entirely appropriate for a new age and a new agenda. There is strong support for this among parent members, teachers and authorities. New-style school boards, re-branded with a new image and set of procedures, could be the subject of consultation. The present school board structure was put in place at a time of considerable debate over the governance of education. There is now a consensus that parents should be directly involved in the way schools operate; the debate now centres on the most effective way of achieving better participation and partnership. A revision of the structure of school boards would require primary legislation. Careful consideration is required as to whether the desired broadening of the school board base may be achievable without legislative change. In any case, a new framework document for school boards is required, involving participation by all partners. This could go some way towards placing school boards, even as presently defined, within a new set of expectations which more closely meet the aspirations of all concerned, including advice aimed at broadening their appeal.
Issue 3: How can school boards be assisted to perform more consistently to a higher level agenda?
4.5 Section three notes:
4.6 Dramatic changes in the politics of education and in relationships between schools and parents and their children have taken place since the introduction of school boards. While many boards, with the support of their authorities, have explored new roles, there is now strong support for a new national framework, which would set a new context for boards and describe good practice. Such a framework would also help improve consistency of approach across the country. The process for a development of this kind is crucial. If a redefinition of the role of boards is to have any influence, it must be the product of grass roots thinking, involving all interested parties, and with strong ownership at local level.
Issue 4: How can training for school boards be improved?
4.7 The key factors concerning training are:
4.8 The ideal situation would be a national requirement for all parent members and participating teachers to receive training that addresses induction and on-the-job training needs. This requires a commitment at local and national level that such a programme of training is deliverable, as well as a commitment by individuals to use training opportunities. It also requires careful consideration of the type of training that is available nationally and locally, to avoid overlap, improve continuity, and provide accurate targeting to meet different needs. A national training plan could be drawn up which makes best use of local and national input and addresses the challenge of equality of access across the country. A possible model for training could be similar to those used frequently in national education developments, whereby local trainers operate within the framework provided by a central team of field officers. There is the embryo of this already in the SSBA deployment of training officers and the use of local staff as trainers within individual authorities.
Issue 5: How can the flow of information to support school boards be improved?
4.9 Section three notes:
4.10 School boards often sink under the weight of paper that comes their way and no doubt all agencies have a good reason to ask boards to consider and respond to their documents. The first recommendation is for headteachers, authorities and others to be clear as to the contribution they expect from school boards, to avoid routine and blanket circulations, and to give boards time and space to respond at the point in the process when their contributions can be formative. This requires a general vigilance and understanding of the context within which boards operate as voluntary, part-time individuals. A second recommendation is that school boards need to have much support at local level to target their activities on key issues, to work within clear locally-defined parameters, and to understand from their own perspective as parents the implications of the matters they have to deal with. Authorities therefore need to ensure that at all times they provide school boards with the right policy contexts to ease their tasks and the right staff support to mediate much of the educational debate which flows in professional, rather than parental language. A third recommendation concerns the use of IT, which should be much more widespread for school board communications and debate, mirroring the facility widely in place already within schools and authorities. Among school boards there is strong support for better electronic information sources and exchanges at national and local level, which could contribute well to the sharing of good practice.
Issue 6: How can funding be better managed?
4.11 Factors from section three include:
4.12 There is a general recognition that the funding regime for school boards should be reviewed to address these weaknesses. While funding will continue to be allocated locally, it would be helpful to find out the true cost of the annual programme which an effective school board might pursue, assuming reasonable expenditure on administration, training, travel and communication. Advice and guidance of this type would sit well within any new framework for school boards.
Issue 7: How can communications be improved?
4.13 Section three notes:
4.14 Throughout section three of this report the importance of school boards communicating effectively with the wider parent body has been emphasised. There are many examples of boards devising successful strategies in this respect but also much evidence of difficulties experienced. Perhaps the best approach to improving the general level of communications is to identify good exemplars of effective communication and to share these models more widely, through enabling school boards to exchange expertise at training courses, and by making models available by other means, such as national advice. The low level of IT use is a related factor; more extended use could facilitate the raising of awareness across school boards, or indeed models could be sought for good use of IT in the day-to-day work of boards with their parents, within their authorities and beyond. The feeling of isolation in some boards should not be insurmountable given the possibilities of the information age and the progress being made in the rest of the education sector.
Issue 8: Should there be a single parent organisation for Scotland?
4.15 Section three has noted:
4.16 This is a matter for careful consideration involving all the interested parties. What is clear is that the current strengths and focus embodied in separate organisations should not be compromised by a cosmetic rearrangement that looks tidy but results in a diffused sense of purpose. However, the prospect of single broadly-based parent bodies operating in schools, encompassing the functions of both existing bodies, looks economical in terms of organisation, communication, and breadth of interest and may address some of the limitations of school boards noted in this report.
A process of review
5.1 This report has attempted to identify key issues for future consideration in relation to improving support to school boards. From the evidence gathered from a wide range of interested and experienced teachers, parents and officials, it is apparent that a flourishing school board movement needs more than material support and resources. It needs the right climate to succeed; and structures which allow it breadth and flexibility. These are complex and sensitive areas, which require further discussion by all the interested parties. To get the balance and approach right for future generations of parents is not something that can be achieved by a report of this type, based on a limited investigation of the field. For these reasons, this report does not propose a set of firm recommendations to address a list of neatly definable problems. Instead, it concludes by suggesting how further examination of the issues may best be taken forward. In other words, it suggests a process that may be set in motion to find practical proposals to ensure the future health of parental representation in Scottish schools.
Ownership
5.2 The education service is there to serve people and society. Parents, as guardians of their children’s welfare, have a key role to play in influencing, supporting and assisting the improvement of the service. Their children too, as pupils, are key stakeholders in education. It is important that the process of review of parents’ participation in education gives major ownership to these constituents and makes their needs and aspirations central. The education professionals - officials and teachers - have an important contribution to make, by bringing to bear their experience and expertise on the issues that need to be addressed. The Scottish Executive should play a supporting role, to bring all parents together and ensure the process of review is inclusive and consultative.
An improved framework for school boards
5.3 School boards need an improved framework to guide their work, which reflects the needs and aspirations of all partners, and which places school boards within the current social and legislative context. The deliberations that lead to the production of the framework should include consideration of:
A national relaunch
5.4 The process and production of a new framework should provide Ministers with an opportunity to relaunch the school board policy within the context of their expectations for parental participation in the improvement agenda.
Review of Support for School Boards
Task Specification
Purpose
1. The purpose of the review is to evaluate the quality of current support to school boards, and the extent to which the needs of school boards are being met, in order to identify key issues for consideration by the Scottish Executive in its formulation of future policy and strategy. This paper sets out the contribution to be made to the review by the consultant.
Objectives
2. The objectives of the review to be carried out by the consultant will be:
i. to provide information on local authority support to school boards;
ii. to evaluate the level of local authority support;
iii. to identify the needs of school boards and headteachers in terms of finance and administration, initial and continuing training, availability of information, resources and role development;
iv. to evaluate the current contribution of key agencies, governmental and non-governmental, to meeting school boards needs; and
v. to identify key issues for future policy consideration.
Scope
3. It is proposed to base the Consultant’s review on case studies of six local authorities: Dumfries and Galloway; City of Edinburgh; City of Glasgow; Highland; Perth and Kinross; and South Lanarkshire. This sample is proposed in terms of range of coverage of city, burgh and rural education authority areas; range of education authority size; and range of school size and location.
Activities
4. The consultant will include the following activities in each case study:
i. discussion with each director, or head of service, of local authority policy and issues regarding school boards;
ii. discussion with school board co-ordinators, or equivalent, of support provided to school boards and any issues in local areas;
iii. analysis and evaluation of local authority documentation relating to school board policy, support and training;
iv. discussion in each authority with focus groups of headteachers of primary, secondary and special schools, nominated by local authorities;
v. discussion in each authority with a focus group of school board chairs, again invited by the authority and, if possible, providing some overlap with the headteacher group.
5. In addition, the consultant will hold discussions with officers of key national agencies, including the SSBA and SPTC.
Timing
6. The consultant will aim to have completed visits to the six authorities by mid-May. In order to achieve this target, and to have access to key documentation and personnel as outlined above, it will be necessary for the way to be cleared in advance by the Scottish Executive with the support of all partners in the Steering Group.
7. It may be advantageous for the proposed discussions with national agencies, as noted in paragraph five above, to take place in the light of the evidence from the fieldwork in the six case studies, in order to allow focus on salient issues. This would suggest a late May timing.
Reporting
8. The consultant will provide a brief interim report on key issues to the Steering Group and/or Ministers at the end of May. This may best be delivered in an oral presentation at a Steering Group meeting. Views expressed by Steering Group members will help shape the final report.
9. A draft written report will be made available in confidence to the Steering Group during June and the detailed comments of members will be sought.
10. The final report will be submitted to the Scottish Executive by the end of July.
List of those consulted
Maggi Allan, Executive Director (Education Resources), South Lanarkshire
Mary Appolinari, Headteacher, Muirhouse Primary School, Edinburgh
Stuart Armstrong, Chair, Dumfries High School Board
Ken Arthur, Head of Specialist Services, South Lanarkshire
Elspeth Banks, Headteacher, Strathaven Academy, South Lanarkshire
Mary Jane Bennett, Chair, St Mary’s Primary School, Edinburgh
Keith Best, Education Service Manager (Primary), Dumfries and Galloway
Mary Jane Bothoms, Teacher, Castlemilk High School, Glasgow
Colin Brett, Education Service Manager (Secondary), Dumfries and Galloway
Eddie Broadley, Glen Urquhart High School, Highland
Graham Bruce, Headteacher, Durness Primary School, Highland
John Burns, Headteacher, Granton Primary School, Edinburgh
Kathryn Burton, Chair, Dochgarroch, Primary School, Highland
Pat Cairns, Headteacher, Firrhill High School, Edinburgh
Jack Calder, Member, Pilrig Primary School Board, Edinburgh
Lesley Anne Carmichael, Vice-Chair, Greenburn Primary School, South Lanarkshire
Caroline Cawkwell, Chair, Caerlaverock Primary School Board, Dumfries and Galloway
Mary Clason, Headteacher, St Mary’s Primary School, Edinburgh
Ruth Collins, Headteacher, Cathkin Primary School, Glasgow
Patrick Connelly, Chair, Trinity High School Board, South Lanarkshire
Ken Corsar, Director of Education, Glasgow
Rona Craig, Chair, East Craigs Primary School Board, Edinburgh
Robert Crawford, Headteacher, Ballerup High School, South Lanarkshire
Hazel Crichton, Headteacher, Ae Primary School, Dumfries and Galloway
J. Cullen, Chair, Sanderson High School Board, South Lanarkshire
Colin Dalrymple, Depute Director of Education, Edinburgh
Hilda Dand, Teacher, Summerhill Primary School, Glasgow
Des Dickson, Communication and Information Service Manager, South Lanarkshire
Christine Dignan, Head of Education (School and Adult Services), Dumfries and Galloway
Kevin Dool, Chair, Stonelaw High School Board, South Lanarkshire
Bridget Dougan, Headteacher, Lockerbie Primary School, Dumfries and Galloway
Graham Douglas, School Board Unit, Edinburgh
Jim Duffin, Head of School Development Service, South Lanarkshire
Bert Dunwoody, Chair, Hyndland Secondary School Board, Glasgow
Ian Elfick, Headteacher, Graysmill School, Edinburgh
Nancy Ellis, Administrative Officer, Parent Support Unit, Dumfries and Galloway
Steve Ellis, Chair, Stenhouse Primary School Board, Edinburgh
Anne-Marie Fagan, Headteacher, John Ogilvie High School, South Lanarkshire
Pat Fegen, Headteacher, Viewlands Primary School, Perth and Kinross
Christine Ferguson, Principal Parent Support Officer, Edinburgh
Frank Flynn, Chair, Lockerbie Primary School Board, Dumfries and Galloway
Hugh Fraser, Head of School Support Service, Highland
Jane Gabb, Chair, Victoria Primary School Board, Edinburgh
Marlene Galashan, Headteacher, Stenhouse Primary School, Edinburgh
Peter Galloway, Headteacher, Trinity Academy, Edinburgh
Judith Gillespie, Development Manager, Scottish Parent Teacher Council
Kathleen Glass, SSBA Executive Member, Dumfries and Galloway
Ann Grayshan, Chair, Graysmill School Board, Edinburgh
David Greenshields, Headteacher, Uddingston Grammar School, South Lanarkshire
Lesley Haigh, Headteacher, Victoria Primary School, Edinburgh
Jack Hamilton, Headteacher, Boroughmuir High School, Edinburgh
Jean Haston, Teacher, Kirkton Primary School, South Lanarkshire
Graham Herbert, Headteacher, Lockerbie Academy, Dumfries and Galloway
Ann Hill, Chief Executive, Scottish School Board Association
David Hill, Chair, Boroughmuir High School Board, Edinburgh
Doreen Hislop, Vice-Chair, Davidson’s Mains Primary School, Edinburgh
Sheila Inglis, School Board Training Officer, Edinburgh
William Jackson, Chair, Annan Academy School Board, Dumfries and Galloway
Roy Jobson, Director of Education, Edinburgh
Carole Kelly, Chair, Simshill Primary School, Glasgow
Charles Kiddie, Rector, Perth Academy, Perth and Kinross
Catherine King, Chair, Cleveden Secondary School Board, Glasgow
Loraine Kinghorn, Parent Support Officer, South Lanarkshire
David Knipe, Rector, Auchterarder High School, Perth and Kinross
Susan Laidlaw, Headteacher, Liberton Primary School, Edinburgh
James Leggat, Headteacher, Annan Academy, Dumfries and Galloway
Ed Ley-Wilson, Chair, Crown Primary School Board, Highland
Anne Lumsden, Chair, Cleveden Secondary School Board, Glasgow
Dianne Lynas, Headteacher, Braidwood Primary School, South Lanarkshire
Kay Mackenzie, Headteacher, East Craigs Primary School, Edinburgh
Euan Mackie, Headteacher, Lochardil Primary School, Highland
Linda Mackie, Headteacher, Springholm Primary School, Dumfries and Galloway
Donny Macleod, Headteacher, Drummond School, Highland
Sylvia Marshall, Chair, Nethermill Primary School Board, Dumfries and Galloway
Laura Mason, Headteacher, St Dominic’s Primary School, Perth and Kinross
Len McConnell, Depute Director of Education, Perth and Kinross
Alan McDougall, Member, Braidwood Primary School Board, South Lanarkshire
Paul McGarry, Headteacher, Our Lady of Lourdes Primary School, South Lanarkshire
Maureen McGeever, Headteacher, Ashcraig School, Glasgow
Lynne McGhie, Chair, Bankhead Primary School Board, Glasgow
Peggy McIntosh, Headteacher, Kelvindale Primary School, Glasgow
Colin McKenzie, Chair, Ae Primary School Board, Dumfries and Galloway
Jan McKeran, Headteacher, Dalserf School, South Lanarkshire
Bill McKerrow, Chair, Inverness Royal Academy, Highland
Scott Meal, Headteacher, Davidson’s Mains Primary School, Edinburgh
Wilma Millar, Chair, Loreburn Primary School Board, Dumfries and Galloway
Alan Milliken, Headteacher, Udston Primary School, South Lanarkshire
Colin Mitchell, Headteacher, Dumfries High School, Dumfries and Galloway
Arlene Mooney, Headteacher, Willowpark School, Edinburgh
Jane Morton, Member, Lanark Grammar School Board, South Lanarkshire
Karine Murray, Chair, Greenburn Primary School Board, South Lanarkshire
Sandra Napier, Chair, Cawdor Primary School Board, Highland
Margaret Nicholls, Chair, Bankhead Primary School Board, Glasgow
Joyce Nisbet, Communications Officer, Edinburgh
Moira O’Hara, Headteacher, St Angela’s Primary School, Glasgow
Clive Preston, Chair, Trinity Academy School Board, Edinburgh
Liz Rankine, Headteacher, Broomlea School, Glasgow
Roddy Renfrew, Rector, Perth Grammar School, Perth and Kinross
Bruce Robertson, Director of Education, Highland
David Robertson, Finance Officer, Edinburgh
Karen Robertson, Administration Manager, Perth and Kinross
Fraser Sanderson, Director of Education, Dumfries and Galloway
Alison Scobie, Chair, Silverknowes Primary School Board, Edinburgh
Alice Simons, Chair, Oxgangs Primary School Board, Edinburgh
Ken Smith, Headteacher, Kirkton Primary School, South Lanarkshire
Moira Snodgrass, Headteacher, Strathpeffer Primary School, Highland
Graham Spence, Headteacher, Millburn Academy, Highland
Kay Stairs, School Boards Co-ordinator, Glasgow
Jim Steven, Headteacher, Invergordon Academy, Highland
Karen Traill, Chair, Liberton Primary School Board, Edinburgh
Ian Valentine, Headteacher, Cleveden Secondary School, Glasgow
Mark Valentine, Headteacher, Nethermill Primary School, Dumfries and Galloway
George Waddell, Director of Education, Perth and Kinross
Anne Wallace, Vice-Chair, Townhill Primary School Board, South Lanarkshire
Donald Wallace, Headteacher, Dalbeattie High School, Dumfries and Galloway
June Waters, Teacher, Ballerup High School, South Lanarkshire
Sheena Wigglesworth, Headteacher, Caerlaverock Primary School, Dumfries and Galloway
Susan Young, Vice-Chair, Stonelaw High School Board, South Lanarkshire
Canon Bob Fyffe, Chair, Perth Academy School Board
Ian Jackson, Chair, Viewlands Primary School Board
Maitland Kelly, Chair, Braco School Board
Ken Charleson, Crieff Secondary School Board.
