Making the difference – involving parents better in schools

Question 5

The Bill does not prescribe the means of appointment to the new forums (elections to Boards are mandatory) but provides for parents to decide this locally. Do you agree ?

"1”, “No"

"2”, “No - See Question 4 - If the size of parental representation within existing legislation was relaxed there would be no reason for parent elections.  The statutory involvement of Headteachers, teachers and Councillors lies at the heart of the effectiveness of School Boards and should not be removed."

"3”, “No - you must have a formal procedure - not perhaps in the present formal, structure to protect as well as elect"

"4”, “Not sure how this would work"

"5”, “No"

"6”, “Yes - each school will need to tailor structure according to local needs and parent wishes (primary schools vary greatly this area relative to rural or urban for instance)"

"7”, “No - open to abuse - easier for individuals to 'dominate' others"

"8”, “Yes"

"9”, “Some form of change needed.  Elections at present are too formal."

"10”, “Yes, our decisions are already made locally."

"11”, “No - there must be a transparent and national scheme of election to parent organisations so as to prevent any danger of a particular interest group taking over the organisation.  However, this is an area where there could be simplification of the election process as it currently exists."

"12”, “"

"13”, “No, elections for a fixed term should be held."

"14”, “No, we feel we should keep elections"

"15”, “No, should have some elected, but shorter period than present.  Need some guidelines and constitution to provide structure"

"16”, “Who is on the Board or Forum should be decided between staff and parents using guidance as to the best way of doing so and suggestions on who should be represented"

"17”, “Guidelines and best practice should be provided with minimum requirements specified e.g. advertising for new members"

"18”, “No - National guidelines and best practice should be provided following consultation and identification of best practice.  Minimum procedures should be provided which can be tailored to suit individual schools."

"19”, “Yes - in principle but the same could be said for School Boards.  We think you should just amend the Act to change the election procedure"

"20”, “No - a formal appointment system is necessary to give a focus to appointment.  It also avoids the prospect of the 'forum' being hijacked by a minority interest group"

"21”, “No - definite guidelines should be set"

"22”, “I feel that all parents should be told that they are members of the parent forum which should have office bearers which could be nominated or elected or invited"

"23”, “Yes"

"24”, “"

"25”, “Yes"

"26”, “The situation should remain as at present"

"27”, “No"

"28”, “N/A"

"29”, “Structure and guidance would be needed - the suggested forum is too vague"

"30”, “No"

"31”, “"

"32”, “Don't agree with Bill"

"33”, “The appointment of members of the Board could be by a more flexible, locally influenced system."

"34”, “I do not agree with this"

"35”, “Existing system works - do not change it"

"36”, “No"

"37”, “No"

"38”, “Yes"

"39”, “"

"40”, “Yes"

"41”, “Unless the elected body is retained one suspects that the so-called parent forum would rapidly deteriorate into a clique which would represent the views of the few rather than the many!"

"42”, “The Bill should prescribe a core structure for all Boards.  However there should be flexibility for Boards to appoint members in a way that is relevant to the needs of each particular school."

"43”, “No"

"44”, “No"

"45”, “No - there is a need for a centralised system to provide for a 'core' membership with the ability to increase this as is decided at a local level (i.e. minimum core requirement to be met).  Board feels strongly that both parents and staff, and in particular the Head Teacher, need to be represented on any parent forum.  Board feels that the purposes of any forum could only be met if parents work in partnership with staff."

"46”, “No - but some formal structure required"

"47”, “No - clear guidelines should be given"

"48”, “Yes -Individual schools should choose, not the council"

"49”, “"

"50”, “"

"51”, “No - leaves free for all a possibility"

"52”, “No - Having to draft or modify our own constitution from scratch, then having to decide on and run our own selection process without the statutory support and funding that School Boards currently enjoy is a daunting prospect.  Board members are volunteers and there is a limit to the amount of time and resources local people can put into developing new processes.  Modification of the School Board system to allow more flexibility seems to be a far more practical and effective approach"

"53”, “No - parents need the structure of a Board.  These 'forums' will dwindle away because nobody will know what happens or who does what."

"54”, “"

"55”, “No - we don't.  We think the present structure works well.  Parents have easy access to Board members and are invited to all Board meetings."

"56”, “No"

"57”, “No - consultation will take ages, lead to several committees being formed and everyone's eye will be off the real ball"

"58”, “No - we think staff member or members and the Head Teacher should be required to attend.  Co-opted community members have a useful input too."

"59”, “"

"60”, “"

"61”, “No if elections are not held how representative would such bodies be?  There are facilities currently to co-opt to fill casual vacancies.  The method prescribed need not be the same as present but there does need to be a clear process"

"62”, “"

"63”, “School Boards should decide on appointment mechanism"

"64”, “"

"65”, “"

"66”, “"

"67”, “No we believe that leaving this to parents to decide on a local basis has a number of dangers without necessarily encouraging great numbers of parents to come actively involved in supporting the work of their local school.  First, there is the danger that those elected under the existing democratic procedures (similar to those used for the election of MSPs) might be replaced by cliques of parents with their own narrow agendas.  Secondly, we believe that a potential loss of the existing means of electing parent representatives might result in a loss of transparency and accountability (e.g. requirement to present an annual report)  Finally existing School Boards make efforts to encourage new groups of parents to support the education of their children through a variety of means including open meetings and newsletters.  There is not guarantee that the new arrangements would promote this type of engagement more effectively."

"68”, “No - this would merely promote chaos and inaction"

"69”, “We are in favour of a formal procedure which is open to scrutiny to ensure fairness and equality."

"70”, “No - we feel all parent forums should have safeguards of elections of members as mandatory"

"71”, “"

"72”, “"

"73”, “"

"74”, “No too many types of arrangements would be difficult to monitor effectively.  People feel more comfortable with a structure since they know what they are taking on is developing a constitution etc. Concern that new system may be open to abuse. Also good to have a forum when needed"

"75”, “Already locally although the election process could be made easier."

"76”, “No still needs to have formality"

"77”, “No"

"78”, “Membership of School Boards should be less formal, however election of chairs etc is necessary in order to validate their decision making"

"79”, “Parents should be able to decide locally, particularly when schools are small, so that as many as possible are engaged in the process"

"80”, “Any body that is worth serving on, deserves some type of appointment arrangement.  I would support making the election system more flexible, such as wider powers to co-opt"

"81”, “ No - I believe that there has to be some level of formality to encourage Board members in the understanding of the responsibilities of their post.  Dedicated elected members might adopt a more responsible approach"

"82”, “Appointment should continue to be through an election process with increased flexibility for Boards to use co-option to tap into the skills and qualities of the parent body and wider community on a needs basis"

"83”, “"

"84”, “No chaotic if everyone doing their own thing with no framework"

"85”, “No - parental involvement in schools requires structures, it requires roles and responsibilities and these need to be firmly laid out.  The proposed flexible system as laid out in the consultative document is woolly and will be of little value to parents seeking to establish a Parental Forum.  What parents need from the Executive, if they are insistent on change, is options (which will include the current system) that have been tested and evaluated which show the strengths and weakness of each so that parents can make informed choice as to the best model that suits their particular school.  The appointment to these new forums needs a system that makes it clear and precise how membership is conferred"

"86”, “Yes"

"87”, “"

"88”, “A statutory framework is useful however the idea for more co-opted members o represent a more flexible approach and include a wider spectrum of the community is very good.  We suggest a revision of the present system involving adaptation and development would be the most productive way forward."

"89”, “"

"90”, “"

"91”, “No"

"92”, “We, as a school board, representing the views of parents whose children attend (our) school, are unanimously rejecting the new proposal, and are against abolishment of the Scottish School Board 1988 Act."

"93”, “No"

"94”, “We do not agree as this could lead to inequalities and diversity of provision, which could lead to imbalance nationally."

"95”, “No - no-one would agree."

"96”, “"

"97”, “Yes - agree that election process puts many people off.  Need less formal system, but still structured."

"98”, “Is this not what happens already."

"99”, “No"

"100”, “Guidance with this.
How long should a parent be on a forum."

"101”, “Yes"

"102”, “No - some form of election should be required and this should be appropriate to the school."

"103”, “No.  I believe elections avoid cliques and encourages participation from a wider spectrum."

"104”, “Area of elections to Boards is one that could be made more flexible to include more parents on the Board where desired & reduce formality of appointment system."

"105”, “No."

"106”, “Should be decided per school"

"107”, “I don't agree.  I think it should be by election."

"108”, “No"

"109”, “No"

"110”, “This seems to be a recipe for chaos and instability."

"111”, “Some guidelines must be given and rules set otherwise a ""talking shop"" with no chair, secretary, obligation to attend would result in no continuity and little achievement."

"112”, “"

"113”, “No"

"114”, “Yes"

"115”, “No, what other fair and democratic way is there of going about it."

"116”, “No, there has to be continuity across schools."

"117”, “No.  A better way would be for each forum to decide its own maximum size, which could be larger than current boards if desired, and for the authority to supervise elections if that size would otherwise be exceeded.  Elections would then be rare, confined mainly to cases of genuine conflict."

"118”, “No"

"119”, “Yes"

"120”, “No"

"121”, “This is a recipe for disaster!  There needs to be guidelines and a structure put in place."

"122”, “Appointments should still be made in writing indication the wish to join, they will be accepted, this is just a minuted record for any future reference.  Any positions within the Board would be democratically voted."

"123”, “TOTALLY ! More user friendly."

"124”, “Yes"

"125”, “No"

"126”, “Since school boards found it difficult at times to reach a proper number this would be the end of real parent involvement."

"127”, “Do not agree.  Some form of organised structure required."

"128”, “Blank"

"129”, “No, for boards or forums.  There must be some sort of elective process.
We feel that their should be uniformity throughout the country - as is supplied by the school board system."

"130”, “Such a proposal would result in unrepresentative groups putting themselves forward with the consequence of potential conflict facing the school and the authority.  The prospect of a number of disparate groups forming themselves into forums would create impossible tensions for the school authority."

"131”, “We think there should be a basic formal network, set of guidelines.
We think recruitment / appointment needs to be formal in order for the 'forum' to have a recognised framework.
We think the 'forum' will have more ""authority"" when dealing with third parties if it is created under a recognised system."

"132”, “Blank"

"133”, “I do not agree, as in some areas as happens now, parents are reluctant to stand in appointment."

"134”, “Yes"

"135”, “Each school has different needs and therefore it would make sense for this to be done locally."

"136”, “Blank"

"137”, “No - I think there is a need to retain chair / vice chair and secretary otherwise meetings would be shambolic."

"138”, “Yes"

"139”, “N / A"

"140”, “No"

"141”, “No"

"142”, “No"

"143”, “No. Elections are a democratic necessity."

"144”, “No"

"145”, “"

"146”, “"

"147”, “No.  This would be an invitation for potential trouble and negativity."

"148”, “No"

"149”, “No"

"150”, “No"

"151”, “No but we feel that election process should be less formal."

"152”, “No"

"153”, “No"

"154”, “I disagree"

"155”, “Blank"

"156”, “Yes"

"157”, “N / A"

"158”, “No"

"159”, “"

"160”, “No"

"161”, “No"

"162”, “No"

"163”, “Yes"

"164”, “No I don't agree that parents should decide locally on the means of appointment.  This system confers no duties on parents and that seems unsatisfactory.  It may work in some schools but if there is no  appointment system in place there will be many schools where unsatisfactory systems (or none at all) will be in place."

"165”, “Not willing to answer 'loaded' questions about something unnecessary."

"166”, “"

"167”, “There has to be national legislation with regard to appointment of members, perhaps by holding a vote at an AGM.  This would hopefully remove the opportunity for elitism and be more inclusive.  It should be a condition that the forum include the Head Teacher and or one staff member."

"168”, “No each Board/Forum should be directed by the Education Authority at least, if not countrywide."

"169”, “No.  Formal election process could be changed.  Some form of structure is essential otherwise huge differences across Scotland.  Must be time limit on membership."

"170”, “The existing system provides for local decision making particularly in remote rural areas with individual needs."

"171”, “A statutory framework is useful however the idea for more co-opted members to represent a more flexible approach and include a wider spectrum of the community is very good.  We suggest a revision of the present system involving adaptation and development would be the most productive way forward."

"172”, “We would wish for the mandatory elections to remain"

"173”, “Yes, but this could be introduced within the existing structure.  Drivers have to be in place to enable formal construction of representation."

"174”, “No - forums without prescribed method of appointment.  Could result in more than one forum from each school with own agendas.  Could result in single issue groups with short life spans or individuals who could take over groups or discussions without being able to be removed."

"175”, “No - if no leadership after school Boards dissolved, who would persuade parents to come forward - need legislation."

"176”, “The Boards may be mandatory but not all schools have them.  It is doubtful if forums would be any different."

"177”, “Without some form of mandatory procedure parents are unlikely to become involved."

"178”, “No there needs to be some regulation to ensure appointments are open and transparent."

"179”, “No - minimum levels of membership need to be prescribed."

"180”, “No we feel legislation is required for an appointments system although it could be adjusted to be less discriminatory: some formal structure is still necessary."

"181”, “"

"182”, “No we feel that again a basic structure is required which could be adapted to particular situations.  Transparent method of election and maximum term of office and a basic simple constitution."

"183”, “We feel there should be some structure to this process.  Membership should be clearly outlined in the constitution.  We feel that membership should be open to all parents but feel there should be a limited term of office, to prevent dominant individuals having undue unlimited influence."

"184”, “No - don't be silly!"

"185”, “"

"186”, “Yes"

"187”, “No (Rules on election should be prescribed and equal for all.)"

"188”, “No there has to be some form of legislation to enable some structure (with flexibility) for elections."

"189”, “No"

"190”, “No as per QS 4.  (  No. Too much opportunity for organised groups with own interests and agendas to misrepresent the school.  )"

"191”, “"

"192”, “No - should be standardised."

"193”, “No - the Authority should make up a guideline to be followed - some room for manoeuvre - term of office, representation from each class, all parents automatically members with committee on top."

"194”, “No keep it as it is at present regarding elections on to the Board."

"195”, “As already stated, we feel the existing system already works well for us."

"196”, “An agreed protocol across the authority though not mandatory."

"197”, “No"

"198”, “No - seems unworkable, there is little proof that this would encourage parents to become actively involved."

"199”, “If a change to the present system is required this could be agreed locally."

"200”, “May lose support and involvement of men if forums become too informal. There seems to be a trend that in School Boards there is a higher proportion of men than in a PTA.  Is this because men relate and work better with the formal structure, voting system etc?  Perhaps if school forums were too informal not so many men would choose to be involved.  It would be a tragedy to lose the involvement of men as research shows it is beneficial to a child's education if father actively involved in their education."

"201”, “Already locally, although the election process could be made easier."

"202”, “Elections aren't necessary"

"203”, “Appointment should be more flexible/easily accessible - the current election system can be very off-putting for parents who would perhaps be excellent School Board members.  This should however be done under local authority guidance."

"204”, “No"

"205”, “No.  The current election system should be made more 'user friendly'.  The 'Sell Yourself Essay' could be replaced by set questions."

"206”, “No"

"207”, “No"

"208”, “Would need to be as for School Boards - otherwise there would be nothing done !"

"209”, “Yes.  A democratic system."

"210”, “No:- School Boards have an electoral system which enables the members to speak for the parents - without a legal fair election system the forums cannot speak for the parent body and therefore the risk of being ignored by Local Authority."

"211”, “Yes but there should be guidance from the education authority."

"212”, “No"

"213”, “No.  The current system does not work.  The election process could be made slightly less formal but there needs to be a system to decide who joins the forum / Board if there are more interested parents than places.
There also needs to be a set period that a parent is involved, as at present.  There needs to be commitment but also parents should not be able to remain on the Board / forum if other parents would like to be involved."

"214”, “No"

"215”, “Disagree with parents being able to decide locally periods of time which parents serve on specific posts on school board."

"216”, “No"

"217”, “Blank"

"218”, “No"

"219”, “Blank"

"220”, “No"

"221”, “This could be decided later."

"222”, “No"

"223”, “No.  We believe that the existing clearly prescribed arrangements are simplest fairest and best being less likely to become hijacked or mired in debate on trying to agree on structure and process before any structure or process is in place."

"224”, “"

"225”, “No"

"226”, “No
Maintain the status quo."

"227”, “No - if elected the members of a school board have a responsibility to carry out their duties in a prescribed manner.  This method we believe to be the most democratic and ultimately inclusive method."

"228”, “No"

"229”, “No"

"230”, “Blank"

"231”, “No"

"232”, “"

"233”, “No - means of appointment to any new forums should be prescribed nationally"

"234”, “Yes.  We believe that all parents should have an equal chance to be involved, and at the level of involvement they want.  Whatever replaces elections must allow this.  Some alternative to elections must be recorded by each school."

"235”, “No"

"236”, “No"

"237”, “"

"238”, “No.  These procedures are too vague."

"239”, “Not at all, too loose.  Needs more prescriptive guidelines."

"240”, “No, as above ( No.  Should alter the less flexible more formal parts of School Board legislation. Do not see how it is possible to get consensus of all parents and have constantly changing forum.  Common phrase heard: 'Don't fix what is not broken'. ), as do not see how this is workable."

"241”, “No.  Parents can always put themselves forward at election time.  Any parent can attend meetings and get access to minutes within current system."

"242”, “No.  Requires consistency."

"243”, “Qs 4/5 Flexible system proposed too loose - could be one parent.  Difficult to achieve anything !
Present structure and numbers at present suitable for (our SB).
Enough flexibility in present system to suit school needs.
Could cause political issues if no formal structure."

"244”, “Yes, but there should be a basic framework set."

"245”, “We agree the election system is far from ideal and need reform but a fair uniform system is required which affords continuity for both parents and staff.  Bear in mind parents and children migrate & consistency is required for parental re-involvement."

"246”, “"

"247”, “"

"248”, “No we disagree with this.  We feel there should still be a means of electing parents."

"249”, “No - I believe appointments could involve gathering feedback on decision making processes at parent level but ultimately decided under the existing School Board guidelines."

"250”, “No"

"251”, “No - timing of all appointments should be contained within the locally agreed plan from committee.  It would need a convenor to hold a meeting - and date/time advertised."

"252”, “"

"253”, “"

"254”, “No there needs to be some recognised national structure"

"255”, “No we think things work well the way they are.  If very informal then they are unlikely to achieve anything.  There needs to be dedicated numbers and the requirement to change the members from time to time."

"256”, “No - a less cumbersome democratic system should be put in place."

"257”, “No - may cause no parents to stand, or same parents every time"

"258”, “Flexibility may bring inequality - we advocate equal power to all Boards otherwise some will be fighting their own corner to the detriment of everything else. - stick to the existing structure"

"259”, “No - some prescription necessary to ensure - 1.  that schools/parents do something
2. some accountability exists"

"260”, “No it was felt that there needs to be certain appointment - perhaps Perth and Kinross could set up its own system that would suit our area.  It was agreed that the Forum needed to have a purpose."

"261”, “No - difficult to manage forums with no formal structure.  Has to be some framework for the new forums to work."

"262”, “Yes"

"263”, “Disagree - needs some form of checks/balance"

"264”, “Office Bearers should be elected as there is/should be accountability."

"265”, “Parents should be able to decide the means of appointment but individuals appointed should have accountability for the position they hold."

"266”, “The School Board should decide on appointment mechanisms"

"267”, “"

"268”, “"

"269”, “No - election is best"

"270”, “No"

"271”, “No"

"272”, “No"

"273”, “No - this could lead to very unbalanced representation."

"274”, “No - again how do the parents decide?  Too wishy-washy."

"275”, “We believe that meetings simply would not happen and a forum would not exist if it was not for the formal system currently in place."

"276”, “No"

"277”, “No - this is a recipe for non-involvement.  It is difficult enough to get interest from parents.  This would end up with cliques being formed.  At least the present system requires committed parents to stand for election.   Parental representation should be voted for by parents of children attending the school.  There should be a set of rules/guidelines for all schools.  No, because it will be difficult to get all parents in a school to agree on how it should be run.  It will lead to chaos and with different forums with different agendas throughout the city and different ideas about what they are for."

"278”, “No - there has to be a consistent framework - a structure to work to.  This bill opens the door for individuals with a grievance or groups with an agenda.  There has to be system of fair and free and democratic election."

"279”, “No - some form of uniformity is required when setting up a School Board, although the strict mandatory rules regarding elections should be relaxed in someway so that the process is not as formal."

"280”, “"

"281”, “"

"282”, “No"

"283”, “No - membership should be reviewed on a regular basis.  There should be terms of office for parental representation.  Appointment cannot be left solely to local arrangements or selections, they must be legitimised in some manner.  The existing school board election process should be amended to be less daunting to parents."

"284”, “Majority (3) replies Yes - if its by consensus.
Minority (2) replies No - conflict of interest"

"285”, “"

"286”, “NB It is the view of (our) school board that these questions are too prescriptive in nature and do not give an opportunity to address some fundamental matters raised by the proposed new bill as drafted.  Please see our response in the additional comments box."

"287”, “Elections are democratic and because they are mandatory it has to happen.  Apathy could kill the forums."

"288”, “Yes"

"289”, “"

"290”, “"

"291”, “We, as a school board, representing the views of parents whose children attend (our)Primary School, are unanimously rejecting the new proposal, and are against abolishment of the Scottish School Board 1988 Act."

"292”, “"

"293”, “"

"294”, “No, this is too open. The parent community will not be able to decide the means of appointment without a statutory structure to give guidance."

"295”, “No. Similar to the previous question, I am not happy that there is a lack of control and no definition over the whole process."

"296”, “"

"297”, “No. How do you reach agreement if one parent disagrees ?  There should be a common framework."

"298”, “"

"299”, “"

"300”, “"

"301”, “"

"302”, “"

"303”, “"

"304”, “The absence of a prescribed means of appointment to the parental forums would be a significant weakness and would generate significant problems and frustration for the school community, education authority and parents. It is essential that forums have a prescribed structure and appointment system in order to ensure acceptance by all participants.
"

"305”, “"

"306”, “We are in favour of a formal procedure which is open to scrutiny to ensure fairness and equality.

"

"307”, “"

"308”, “"

"309”, “"

"310”, “This could make things too flexible and be counter-productive.  Parents may be even less inclined to get involved if they know they will have to create a constitution, etc before they can do anything constructive.  The formation of new group after new group may make it even harder for them to be effective as it will take time to establish how they are going to run every time there is a start-up."

"311”, “We do not agree with the proposed Parents Forum but some structure is required to maintain quality and consistency of approach. To modernise School Boards, an election process with secret written votes is desirable but it should be less daunting with no requirement for a written manifesto which can be daunting to parents considering Board membership.
"

"312”, “"

"313”, “"

"314”, “This needs authority monitoring"

"315”, “No"

"316”, “No we disagree.  For there to be responsibility and accountability within the parent representative body there must be a framework for appointments with consistence across the education authority area."

"317”, “A better solution would be to re-work our existing Boards as a national framework re election process needs to be in place."

"318”, “No"

"319”, “No"

"320”, “No there needs to be a structure in place that regulates appointments similar to elections, possibly an AGM where voting can take place, but not decided locally which could create great differences between schools depending on the knowledge of the parents involved."

"321”, “No - there should be national uniformity of structure."

"322”, “Individual schools can have sub-committees as necessary which takes care of local problems."

"323”, “No - elections are necessary to prevent the cliques running the forums."

"324”, “No - we are concerned that the new forums could be taken over by special interest groups or could be unsupportive of the teaching staff.  The present system that matches parent numbers against external representation seems much safer."

"325”, “No I see this as a problem area."

"326”, “No - While we welcome easier arrangements for election process we favour a regulated system to maintain consistency/standards."

"327”, “Certainly not.  Such insecure and transitory arrangements have no place in good management.  Proposals of this nature send all the wrong messages to parents (and others) about how they can make a significant and recognisable contribution to the school attended by their children.  The rationale and procedures of School Boards serves the functions of motivated parents far better."

"328”, “Yes"

"329”, “No - School Boards generally do not have concerns with elections and to suggest  mandatory  election to Boards is not in our opinion a major concern"

"330”, “Yes"

"331”, “"

"332”, “No - how would parents make this decision?  Some form of representative body would need to exist to decide on a means of appointment.  This is an unnecessary complication that would be unlikely to increase parental involvement.  It could easily result in  feeder primaries having different systems from each other and from their local secondary school - this would create great confusion."

"333”, “Yes but national standard first for 2 to 3 years until parent forums are established."

"334”, “Not sure.  It could be difficult to decide how best to do this and with each new parent intake this could change.  Some guidelines would be useful."

"335”, “Yes"

"336”, “In some areas this might work.  In the majority of areas, this would be impossible due to lack of secretarial facilities and only the school had addresses of the parents (Usually the school simply gives out notices to the children to take home - addresses of others are not disclosed)"

"337”, “No"

"338”, “No"

"339”, “A nationally agree format is essential to standardise and allow for effective networking but less formal than the present system - e.g. an AGM"

"340”, “"

"341”, “No - this is too open.  The parent community will not be able to decide the means of appointment without a statutory structure to give guidance."

"342”, “A system must be implemented that is fair and structured - perhaps a representative from each class."

"343”, “No.  Parental involvement in schools require structures.  Parental involvement in schools requires roles and responsibilities and these need to be firmly laid out.  The proposed flexible system as laid out in the consultative document is woolly and will be of little value to parents in the event of their seeking to establish a Parental Forum.  What parents need from the Executive, they are insistent on change, is options (which will include the current system) that have been tested and evaluated, which show the strengths and weakness of each, so that parents can make an informed choice as to the best model that suits their particular school. The appointment to these new forums would need a system that indicates clearly and precisely how membership is conferred."

"344”, “No, too flexible.  If a school can have a school board then so be it. To have no school board would be too risky - a few parents could push for something which was unrepresentative. It is not a true representation.
"

"345”, “NO - While this might sound appealing on paper - this open-ended approach creates enormous confusion and lack of a workable framework for both local authorities and communities.  This is an example of 20,000 ft policy statements that really does not consider the enormous practical difficulties this would entail in making such a statement an operational reality.  It would also be liable to creating unfair and unbalanced forum representations in some Schools and lack suitable corrective or balancing measures needed to ensure the needs and wellbeing of the entire school population was being represented by the forum."

"346”, “There should be uniformity applied to the appointment of core positions within the parent forum i.e. chair, vice-chair etc.

The existing National structure affords this uniformity across School Boards at present. The parent forums would result in different authorities doing their ""own thing"", this would not be an improvement.  However, if there was a good, consistent approach within Perth and Kinross that may be sufficient.

There is no prescribed route available for dispute resolution where these cannot be resolved locally.

It was felt that there are no major issues in the process suggested for making appointments to the parent forum.

The constitution would have to be robust enough to contain any extreme elements.

Education authority has too much power in this area.

It should be a requirement that Staff Members are part of the parent forum.

Office-bearers required for all parent forums should be agreed. Co-opting as required should be an option.

Overall the answer to question 5 is No.
"

"347”, “No.  The fact the Boards are elected is very important in terms of giving them a democratic mandate and a sense of authority and accountability. There should be uniformity or approach at least in terms of the office holders. "

"348”, “We believe that the draft Bill would be better written to address the shortcomings in the current system, which may be preventing the establishment of Boards and/or reducing the level/breadth of representation.

We would counter-propose new measures to increase parental involvement in the formal structure as follows:

Amend the existing Act such that local Boards have greater freedom to determine the number and method by which appointments are made to the Board. We believe a larger Board than now is manageable in terms of the practicalities of running meetings etc. and we would also wish the flexibility to hold elections for some/all of positions, as we believe this is a good discipline in a democratic society.
However we also recognise that this formality may discourage people from standing and therefore the ability to make a proportion of appointments, in particular to increase the diversity of representation, would be welcome.
We would wish flexibility over the length of time to be served on the Board. Whilst continuity is important, a mix of terms would again perhaps encourage a wider breadth of representation, if the legislation is sufficiently broad then there would be no need again for duplication of effort across schools in deciding upon their ""own rules"".

See also below ideas on widening parental involvement, outside of the formal structure.
"

"349”, “It is acknowledged that the current system of elections is too bureaucratic and off-putting for some parents. However, there needs to be clear national guidance as to how the parent forum should be formed and examples of possible models provided.  The democratic accountability of the parent forum is crucial and the system must be seen to be fair and easily defendable. "

"350”, “In allowing the proposed Parent Forums to choose locally how they would elect themselves is symptomatic of the Scottish Executive effectively abdicating their responsibility to ensure that there is a fair, open and inclusive system of parental involvement in schools and the wider provision of education.
Again the Scottish Executive presents no evidence to support their stance of not recommending a means of appointment. Surely there must be best practice elsewhere within the public sector that can form the basis of appointment procedures?
The Scottish Executive has not addressed in any detail the practicalities of what may happen in a school.  It does not appear that the Bill adequately addresses the situation where two subsets of parents in a school both want to establish their own Parent Forums. The current mandatory School Board elections at least give all parents an opportunity to stand for election every two years.  What would happen if a Parental Forum had no formal reselection processes.  Does the Scottish Executive really think that a parent who does not feel comfortable in standing for election to a School Board, would challenge a Parent Forum whose operational processes are not required to comply with any nationally set standards?  We think not.
"

"351”, “"

"352”, “"

"353”, “"

"354”, “Without clear guidelines, parameters and structure the whole idea becomes very woolly.  The most appropriate would be similar to what already exists.  It may appear very bureaucratic but we do live in a democratic society and this should be the key in any decision process.  Otherwise people could follow their own private agendas, creating problems- Who would they be accountable to ?"

"355”, “Yes, as long as it is agreed by democratic vote, at a specially called meeting of all parents of children at the school but we believe it should not be possible for this meeting to decide the minimum number of parents to form the forum.  We believe that legislation should lay down a minimum number of parents, close to the numbers involved for school boards of schools of various sizes as at present, in order to make the body reasonably representative of a cross section of parents at the school.  Beyond this minimum the local forum should decide what additional members it requires.  Elections should be local and not through the education authority as we believe this would make the parent forum"

"356”, “"

"357”, “To have rules within the bill but ways of local implementation - might lead to confusion.  Current system is adequate although a more parent friendly system - election letters from the school rather than authority - might be welcome."

"358”, “I am unable to comment about pros and cons of elections in areas where elections are frequently called into play.  Presumably, it can be argued that in these areas election is the best means of ensuring that the membership is representative. In areas where elections are rarely necessary, it would be interesting to know if it is really the possibility of an election which deters people from putting themselves forward for the School Board.

If the Parent Forum is to operate as a Committee, being responsible for making decisions and/or taking actions, then it may be necessary to limit the numbers in some way. If the Forum were to be a membership organisation, the Committee could be nominated and elected as happens in other membership organisations, e.g. at an AGM. The success of this would depend on getting sufficient people along to the AGM to ensure it was representative.

Being given the option to decide things locally may simply mean that nothing happens at all - that is, that no Parent Forum is set up.
"

"359”, “"

"360”, “Clear guidelines (not mandatory) - checks and balances. Elections put people off."

"361”, “- Categorically no.
- A body on which any parent/guardian can attend or not attend will not work and potentially could become a talking/gossip shop and not benefit the school in any fashion.
- What happens if appointments are questioned?
- Elections should be mandatory and done properly and officially.
"

"362”, “NO.  We would like the means of appointment of any new forum to be prescribed.  The present provision under the School Board Act could be ""tweaked"" and updated for this 21st century of parental involvement.
"

"363”, “"

"364”, “"

"365”, “"

"366”, “N / A"

"367”, “"

"368”, “"

"369”, “No"

"370”, “Guidance on appointments would be essential."

"371”, “No - the current system works well (here)."

"372”, “No - feel it would be difficult to get momentum going for a whole new process without any 'rules' already prescribed."

"373”, “N/A"

"374”, “Yes - a template would be desirable, structured elections required or could be a free for all."

"375”, “Definitely not.  Current systems protect both schools and parents from a range of problems - conflict of interest, discussion of individual children, time limits on serving time on Boards to prevent cliques."

"376”, “No - I think that there is not enough structure but it could have some minor adjustment."

"377”, “As we do not agree with the overall principle of parent forums, then we will have to answer no here.  Also there does not appear to have been much thought into the fact that one school could have several different forums with no main structure to them and this can surely only lead to disaster."

"378”, “No - the lack of rules of procedure for appointment will cause differences of approach and potentially lead to confusion and conflict."

"379”, “No - parental involvement in schools require structures.  Parental involvement in schools requires roles and responsibilities and these need to be firmly laid out.  The proposed flexible system as laid out in the consultative document is woolly and will be of little value to parents in the event of their seeking to establish a parental forum.  What parents need from the Executive if they are insistent on change, is options (which will include the current system) that have been tested and evaluated, which show the strengths and weakness of each, so that parents can make an informed choice as to the best model that sits their particular school.  The appointment to these new forums would need a system than indicates clearly and precisely how membership is conferred."

"380”, “There needs to be a fair system of appointment which ensures that all parents have equal opportunity to be appointed.  How would this be rationalised across all schools?"

"381”, “No - guidelines are needed on any open appointment or forum but we feel it is far better to leave well alone, local decision or introduction of parent forums could have many undesirable consequences."

"382”, “No - too much room for manipulation for personal gain - not the best interests of parents/children."

"383”, “Yes - the present system of election is too formal and is one aspect that needs to be changed.  The proposal however is too vague and unstructured and will not provide continuity and progression for parent forums.  A system of nominations would be a better system to fill vacancies for a set period of time."

"384”, “Yes"

"385”, “No - some form of election is necessary to enable us to show the procedure has been democratic."

"386”, “No you have to be very careful to get the right people for the job and elections to Boards can do this."

"387”, “No - I do not believe decisions like this should be taken locally, as could cause problems in individual schools.  Direction should be given at least by the local authority if not by the Scottish Executive."

"388”, “Elections should be more often."

"389”, “No - formal and fair selection process should be maintained."

"390”, “No - will lead to a variation in standards/commitment/interests etc."

"391”, “No - the means of appointment must be defined.  If it is left for parents to decide the means of appointment locally then this is bound to lead to significant variations and opens the possibility for local abuse."

"392”, “As long as the agreed methods are transparent and above board and that resources are available to fund and administer them."

"393”, “No - need structure, need to have a framework and good that it is consistently adhered to across schools/nationally.  Can build in more flexibility."

"394”, “No - there needs to be uniformity, some form of election - even nominations at an open meeting."

"395”, “No"

"396”, “No - need standardisation"

"397”, “No - this could be problematic i.e. if a parent has a particular ""axe to grind"" with the school."

"398”, “In practice I don't think this will happen.  I don't agree.  Need elections to make it official."

"399”, “No"

"400”, “No"

"401”, “No"

"402”, “The means should be specified."

"403”, “"

"404”, “We are not in favour of parents deciding appointments to the new forums locally.  We are also not convinced of the arguments in the consultation paper against elections.  It is strange that politicians who accept the principle of democratic representation by election in relation to their own holding of public office do not support the same principle for other representative bodies.  If the broad proposals do go ahead, at the very least a council-wide scheme is needed to ensure consistency and parity of esteem in the same area."

"405”, “No.  There should be consistency.  At present in Scotland consistency is developed by having appropriate regulations to operate School Boards.  The current Act is not ""one size fits all"" as the size of Board is dependent on the roll in each individual school.  Whatever type of body is generated from this consultation, it is imperative that there are guidelines and frameworks created to allow the groups to function with consistency on a national basis.
"

"406”, “We recognise that the formal election process is daunting and may discourage parents from standing.
However, we do feel that other formal methods are feasible, for example a lottery of interested parents, or a selection process that ensures representation across year groups or across geographical districts. We also find the ability to co-opt very valuable, and we are in favour of retaining a maximum period of membership.
"

"407”, “No, unless all parents are going to be on the forum (which would surely be unworkable), there will have to be some form of election. The current system may be off putting for some parents, but there are other options.  Although uncomfortable, going through the election process demonstrates the commitment of the parent member and also gives them the confidence that they have a mandate from the other parents in the school.  We would recommend a list of options for election procedures from which Forums, or reformed Boards, could choose according to their local situation."

"408”, “"

"409”, “No.  There must be a prescribed means of appointment by a more simplified and localised election procedure.  ELECTIONS must be mandatory to give the body democratic status and make those elected accountable to their parent body"

"410”, “"

"411”, “"

"412”, “While it would be preferable to reduce the formality by not requiring elections, this could cause difficulties - for instance, without elections, if ""difficult"" people wished to be on the Parent Forum there would be nothing to stop them. One option would be for membership to require nomination by other parents. We do prefer the idea of less formality, but are unsure how this should be achieved.
"

"413”, “"

"414”, “Blank"

"415”, “"

"416”, “"

"417”, “"

"418”, “"

"419”, “Whilst flexibility in the appointment of new forums might be useful to suit different circumstances, the lack of a prescribed structure might in itself be a barrier to the development of any new organisations.  However, as we don't agree with the formation of the new forums, we can hardly agree with the method of their appointment."

"420”, “"

"421”, “"

"422”, “"

"423”, “No. The current strength of School Board system is that formal structures exist in order to ensure consistency across schools, within regions and at a national level. The research carried out does not support the need for any major changes to the current structure. The research suggests that as children grow older that there is a lesser degree of parental involvement. An informal structure already exists in the form of PTAS. PTAs provide a more flexible informal opportunity for parents to be active in aspects of the school, such as coffee evenings, specific events. This mechanism provides an alternative choice of
 involvement within the school to those parents who would prefer not to participate within the more formal structures of a School Board. Memberships of PTAs is not restricted to specific number of parents and therefore any parent who wants to participate can become involved."

"424”, “Do not agree.  A democratic process which is good enough for the election of government should be good enough for a local school.

Where there are problems recruiting SB members the current system allows for co-option of parent members without election - so alternative methods already exist to the standard election process."

"425”, “"

"426”, “A National Framework re Election Process would need to be obtained."

"427”, “No. We feel that it is very important to guard against self promotion and cronyism.  We feel that some mandatory components are necessary, in particular that members serve for a maximum term (say three years) to ensure continual refreshing of membership and to give opportunities for engagement of a wide group of parents."

"428”, “In allowing the proposed Parent Forums to choose locally how they would elect themselves is symptomatic of the Scottish Executive effectively abdicating their responsibility to ensure that there is a fair, open and inclusive system of parental involvement in schools and the wider provision of education.

Again the Scottish Executive presents no evidence to support their stance of not recommending a means of appointment. Surely there must be best practice elsewhere within the public sector that can form the basis of appointment procedures?

The Scottish Executive has not addressed in any detail the practicalities of what may happen in a school. It does not appear that the Bill adequately addresses the situation where two subsets of parents in a school both want to establish their own Parent Forums. The current mandatory School Board elections at least give ALL parents an opportunity to stand for election every two years.  What would happen if a Parental Forum had no formal reselection processes?  Does the Scottish Executive really think that a parent who does not feel comfortable in standing for election to a School Board, would challenge a Parent Forum whose operational processes are not required to comply with any nationally set standards?  We think not.
"

"429”, “No. The Board does not agree with the purposes set forth in the Bill. In all but exceptional circumstances a process of election would be preferable."

"430”, “Merely disestablishing School Boards does not necessarily answer the needs of parents.  What suits parents in one locality may be satisfactory for them, but current levels of parent apathy in others may well result in little or no parental involvement in school life. Guidelines need to be laid down or even made mandatory."

"431”, “Definitely not! Greater flexibility in the existing School Board legislation is certainly required.  The research stresses parents' tendency to be motivated to activity directly to improve their own children's progress.  It also notes the known difficulty in attracting parents to existing parent forums.  To start new statutory bodies with the twin needs to define their own appointments procedures (surely a logical absurdity?) and constitutions would almost guarantee their failure to attract parents.
The research does not support our experience of PTAs - which is of extremely effective and well-regarded bodies.  To risk undermining PTAs by fledgling parallel organisations, which may involve competing fund- raising activities, appears unwise.
"

"432”, “No - this leaves the forum open to conflict from the start.  There should be a basic format for setting up a forum and appointing office bearers that can be built on to suit individual schools needs and circumstances."

"433”, “A nationally agreed format is essential to standardise and allow for effective networking but less formal than the present system. E.g. An AGM"

"434”, “No.  Although the Board accepts that the format of applications should be reconsidered, it still favours the process of election.  This will ensure that those representing the parents have the mandate of the parents and are not part of a self-interest group.  It also reinforces the concept of accountability, which is central to the representation of the parent body."

"435”, “No.  One is informal (PTA), while the School Board is regarded as formal. Without means of appointment our Working Group agreed that there would in effect be no protection against ""dangerous"" people joining new forums.  The lack of legislation would result in there being no screening process regarding who was coming on board.  There is an element of safety in mandatory elections.  Even PTAs have some formality - maintaining minutes, treasurer's report, etc.... Parents being able to set up their own groups without means of appointment would allow unscreened individuals access to the school and the children. Safety issue is highlighted here."

"436”, “No. We do not agree with the Bill in the first place. Nor do we agree with the fact that it does not prescribe the means of
 appointment. Some kind of structured appointment procedure is required although not necessarily the one currently in place.
"

"437”, “Disagree.
- We are content with the flexibility suggested for appointment to the parent forum, but with checks and balances built into the constitution.
- The constitution would have to be robust enough to contain any extreme elements.
"

"438”, “No.  We believe that there needs to be some consistent & democratic means of appointing representatives.  Our Board experience has been that there are rarely elections due to the difficulty in getting parents involved.
In practice the difficulty is not made worse by the thought of elections.  The difficulty is in getting parents involved due to the pressures & competing priorities of modem living.
""Parental Involvement"" has not been clearly identified or defined in the Draft Bill.
"

"439”, “No.  We think if election to the new forum was not mandatory, it would be very easy for forum to fail or be run by the same group of parents for a prolonged period of time. Having a fresh intake of parents every 2 years ensures that people with new ideas & interests get involved with the Board.
We do however think that the current election process requires to be modified with less barriers.
If the Bill does not prescribe the means of appointment, what guidance would be in place to decide how the forum is formed?
"

"440”, “There should still be a means of appointment to forums but with a structured framework of questions to give guidance rather than the personal statement for elections. This would be less intimidating and encourage people to come forward.  There has to be a means to notify parents how to apply and to establish interest."

"441”, “No"

"442”, “Not entirely.  It may mean that some parents might ""miss out"" if local decisions are not well publicised, depending on how local decisions are reached."

"443”, “"

"444”, “"

"445”, “"

"446”, “Yes"

"447”, “Yes, in many places elections are unnecessary but in some areas this may be needed if large numbers want to be involved."

"448”, “"

"449”, “No"

"450”, “No"

"451”, “No"

"452”, “"

"453”, “Yes"

"454”, “No"

"455”, “"

"456”, “"

"457”, “Yes"

"458”, “Still unsure where these local parents are coming from who will be interested.  Formation of 'Cliques' is a danger."

"459”, “Yes, but guidelines required."

"460”, “No.  The formal structure of the school board is one of its strengths."

"461”, “If no election then which individuals will co-ordinate ?  If no personal statement or similar then how do parents decide ?  Hustings!!?"

"462”, “Elections - open to manipulation and corruption.  Rather than widening parental involvement this might reduce it - lead to domination by small groups who have a particular agenda."

"463”, “No"

"464”, “No - definitely need a standardised approach."

"465”, “No.  Formal election process could be changed.  Some form of structure is essential otherwise huge differences across Scotland.  Must be time limit on membership."

"466”, “Disagree, but some structure should be put in place"

"467”, “No"

"468”, “No"

"469”, “Flexibility is welcome but we would still like clarity of protocol to elections and criteria for appointment."

"470”, “A democratic principle should apply with a national guideline on constitution.  Could be more flexible."

"471”, “Again, this could lead to a 'hotch-potch' of appointments procedures and leaves the system open to cliques and favouritism."

"472”, “No - a legal structure is essential and each forum or board should be identical in approach & format."

"473”, “No"

"474”, “We Disagree.  All organisations require a degree of structure and it would make sense for all schools to follow the same basic structure."

"475”, “No we believe that it is important for a national procedure to be set down and followed.  We feel that if appointments are decided locally the system will be open to abuse and the formation of cliques.  We believe it will deter parents rather than encourage them to participate as the system would be confusing.  It is useful to have time limits and rules on length of service."

"476”, “No - with no formal structure, it would be very difficult to get any decision made - only those most forceful or vocal would be involved in the decision."

"477”, “No.  Guidance needs to be given to ensure that everyone eligible to join the forums has an equal chance to do so, that the process is seen to be open and fair.  This proposal could be abused, leading to members being ""hand picked""."

"478”, “No.  This is too vague.  No one will volunteer for something with so little legal requirements of involvement."

"479”, “No, the appointment to school boards is fair and representative of the parents population. Everyone with a child in the school has the right to nominate and elect representatives to the school board."

"480”, “Some schools would have no appointments, while others may have one or two parents within their own agenda.  I think there should be elections."

"481”, “No, while we agree that elections can be off-putting it is important that parents choose who will represent them."

"482”, “The flexible system proposed, may mean that some schools would have no parental representation of any kind.. It is open to abuse and could, by it's nature, cause ill feeling leading to a none productive forum."

"483”, “No - experience shows that this could be time consuming and ultimately non-productive."

"484”, “Some national framework must be defined at least for the 'nucleus' of the parent forum through which outside agencies  ( like the EA ) will communicate with the parent forum that nucleus will look much like a school board with PTA and other parent committees represented at the table we're back to improving what we have."

"485”, “Elections are democratic and only necessary when there are - were then required - applying for position.  New proposal would result in some parent(s) being in.....    .......... all the time and ............."

Parent Forums - Draft Bill