Making the difference – involving parents better in schools

Question 7

Should the Bill provide for ‘composite’ parent forums where this is the preferred option of parents in each school in a combined school or cluster of schools ?

"1”, “No"

"2”, “No - See Question 4"

"3”, “No - as this goes against your original premise of tailored to fit individual schools"

"4”, “Not sure"

"5”, “"

"6”, “Yes - where preferred option"

"7”, “No - this wouldn't work as people will always favour their own school's needs"

"8”, “Yes"

"9”, “No"

"10”, “No"

"11”, “No - parents are only interested in the education of their own children in their own schools.  It would be very difficult to find people to serve on these 'composite' bodies when only a small part of the meeting would be of interest to each parent."

"12”, “"

"13”, “No, each school is different"

"14”, “No"

"15”, “Yes, but as well as not instead of individual"

"16”, “Yes, if it is the preferred and most practical solution i.e. school numbers are small and getting parent representation difficult.  "

"17”, “School Boards should be allowed to operate in this way"

"18”, “School Boards should be allowed to operate in this way"

"19”, “Yes - in principle but not enough information is given as to what it will achieve"

"20”, “A composite parental involvement group could be advantageous depending on a particular school/cluster situation"

"21”, “Yes"

"22”, “Yes"

"23”, “Yes"

"24”, “"

"25”, “Yes"

"26”, “No see question 6"

"27”, “No"

"28”, “N/A"

"29”, “No"

"30”, “No"

"31”, “"

"32”, “No"

"33”, “No"

"34”, “I do not agree with this"

"35”, “No"

"36”, “No"

"37”, “In our situation, one is enough, i.e. School Board - on the mainland it would depend on size of school."

"38”, “"

"39”, “"

"40”, “Yes"

"41”, “Forums are wholly undesirable"

"42”, “This would be a useful addition to individual School Boards.  The members could include a representative of each School Board and other parents from each school."

"43”, “No"

"44”, “No"

"45”, “Board feels that each school should have the opportunity to have its own parent forum/representative body.  However there may be occasions when a cluster or larger group discussion may be relevant and advantageous.  The Board feels that the Education Authority should be in a position to support such a meeting or arrangement, when desired."

"46”, “Can provide for it - but I would anticipate limited demand"

"47”, “Yes - but parents must have full control"

"48”, “We would prefer our own forum - to meet regularly with the option of cluster forum which could meet two or three times a year"

"49”, “"

"50”, “"

"51”, “We were under the impression the Bill was written - is this currently proposed?"

"52”, “Yes - but this must ensure all sets of parents are properly consulted and balloted.  The level of majority needed for change should also be agreed before composite Boards could be formed."

"53”, “We feel that each school needs its own 'body of parents' as problems and issues are very individual to individual schools"

"54”, “"

"55”, “No"

"56”, “No"

"57”, “Depends on local circumstance"

"58”, “Yes"

"59”, “"

"60”, “No"

"61”, “Composite forums may be desirable but should not  be seen as a substitute for individual representation."

"62”, “"

"63”, “If agreed at local level"

"64”, “The School Board is a relatively formal structure and should be kept as such.  It provides a different function  to the PTFA and this should be recognised"

"65”, “"

"66”, “"

"67”, “There are several assumptions in this question.  Our response is that we fundamentally disagree with the draft bill in terms of its proposed abolition of School Boards.  Nevertheless, it might be useful to bring together parents concerned with different aspects of either policy management or fund raising for a school.  It is likely they would wish to engage in dialogue but also work on separate tasks in working groups.  Allowing for this if the proposed legislation goes ahead would be sensible.  We disagree with the bill in terms of the removal of School Boards.  We agree that there should be the possibility of composite forums across clusters of schools but this should be carefully controlled.  It should only take place with the agreement of a majority of parents from the schools represented in proportion to the size of the school roll."

"68”, “No - one school, one Board.  They may meet together if they wish (as already happens) to respond to some 'major new government initiative'"

"69”, “Clumsy and unworkable.  Each school should have its own Board.  We seem to be saying this over and again."

"70”, “The Board felt that the Bill should provide for 'composite' parent forums, however this would not be effective in a location such as (on an island)."

"71”, “"

"72”, “"

"73”, “"

"74”, “Good to promote a network but potential to do this is already there."

"75”, “No"

"76”, “Each school is different especially in rural areas so can't see how composite would work or benefit"

"77”, “No"

"78”, “No - representation should be for individual schools and their concerns"

"79”, “Composite School Boards are acceptable, but this should not be 'pushed' by Education Authorities; any such proposal should only be allowed to come from a parent forum or School Board"

"80”, “No - current practice allows Boards to work together"

"81”, “Yes - in School Board's current format"

"82”, “It would be better to encourage co-operative working within communities within and across educational sectors in order that generic issues can be best addressed as well as the specific needs of individual schools."

"83”, “"

"84”, “Could be looked at as amendment to current legislation"

"85”, “No comment"

"86”, “Yes"

"87”, “"

"88”, “Yes this is beneficial - 'cluster' Boards could be set up via an amended existing framework"

"89”, “"

"90”, “"

"91”, “Yes, when schools are too small to support an independent board; otherwise no.  Democratic representation must be the aim."

"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, each school should have their own parent forum."

"94”, “This would be too unwieldy."

"95”, “Yes"

"96”, “"

"97”, “Yes, if that is the wish of that particular school - but not compulsory.  Sometimes schools might want to retain individuality as well as powers / balances."

"98”, “No"

"99”, “No"

"100”, “Advantage to the children to meet other children Other children in composite cluster schools.
Would this work ?"

"101”, “Yes"

"102”, “No"

"103”, “No.  Every school has it's own issues and problems.  I would look to maintain separate school boards.  There is already a facility where the relevant boards meet in cluster groups appropriate to the secondary school into which they feed.  This should be encouraged."

"104”, “No.  See this as dangerous situation i.e. the forum would have no real power if a school was threatened with closure."

"105”, “No."

"106”, “No"

"107”, “Yes"

"108”, “No"

"109”, “No"

"110”, “Yes, if it is right for the schools involved."

"111”, “Provided each school within the cluster has an equal say and that small schools are not discriminated against."

"112”, “"

"113”, “N / A"

"114”, “No"

"115”, “Yes, if there is seen to be a need, but I believe schools should be responsible for themselves individually.  However this may make up for lack of interest in particular schools."

"116”, “?"

"117”, “Yes"

"118”, “No"

"119”, “Could be discussed in further detail"

"120”, “Removes schools identities"

"121”, “No, there should be separate school boards to deal with issues prevalent to particular schools.  Where there are common issues these could be dealt with through improved co-ordination between school boards."

"122”, “No, as in doing so will not increase numbers on PTA / School Boards, this is why ""tweaking"" the existing bill would be the better option.  In some schools PTA / School Boards work along side each other."

"123”, “It is not a preferred choice for us however it may be appropriate for other schools."

"124”, “No"

"125”, “For each school"

"126”, “I think each school should retain its own board or forum but there should be a better system for sharing information and tackling common interests than at present."

"127”, “No there would be too many separate agenda's and possibly a lack of continuity."

"128”, “Blank"

"129”, “No, each school should retain a formalised body representing its needs."

"130”, “Not necessary - present system adequate."

"131”, “We think each school should have it's own 'forum' as it will have it's own agenda.
A ""sub-committee"" or whatever can be formed of ......... from clusters of schools if required."

"132”, “Blank"

"133”, “No"

"134”, “Yes"

"135”, “No"

"136”, “Blank"

"137”, “No"

"138”, “No"

"139”, “Yes"

"140”, “Parents Consultative Groups already provides this."

"141”, “No"

"142”, “Stick with existing school board legislation."

"143”, “Only if Bill goes ahead."

"144”, “No - could work if a group of schools have a general agenda i.e. re-zoning."

"145”, “"

"146”, “"

"147”, “No"

"148”, “No"

"149”, “No"

"150”, “In each school"

"151”, “N / A"

"152”, “No - representation should be localised."

"153”, “Yes"

"154”, “I agree"

"155”, “Blank"

"156”, “Yes"

"157”, “N / A"

"158”, “Yes, if this is the preferred option of parents."

"159”, “"

"160”, “No. Status quo.
Existing boards can & do co-operate and meet when necessary."

"161”, “Yes - with quarterly meetings."

"162”, “No - need to keep individual school boards.  Does not exclude option to have 'composite' clusters forum. "

"163”, “Yes it should be provided for if the majority of parents wish this."

"164”, “There is no full illustration of how the government sees this working.  I therefore feel that I can only say that due to lack of fully understanding the implications of this suggestion I cannot support this provision."

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

"166”, “"

"167”, “Only if this is a preferred option and voted on by all schools involved.  Alternatively a sub-group could be created an made up of representatives of each local 'school forum' which would allow a clear channel of communication"

"168”, “The proposal is not practicable due to the geography of this area and the diversity of the schools."

"169”, “Yes in some areas"

"170”, “Each school has very differing needs"

"171”, “Yes this is beneficial - 'cluster' Boards could be set up via an amended existing framework"

"172”, “No the option of a joint committee is not excluded by School Boards. Composite forums are not feasible for the true representation of individual schools."

"173”, “Yes if this enables smaller schools to have a concerted voice."

"174”, “All depends on size of schools (small primaries or large secondaries) small schools could lose their voice if 'lumped' in with larger schools with different issues and concerns."

"175”, “In a combined school or cluster, just get existing School Boards to join together or work together.  Need parents to work within their own school and then share their ideas with their fellow schools."

"176”, “This idea seems to difficult to work properly."

"177”, “Present system is adequate"

"178”, “We wouldn't envisage this for our school but understand it might be appropriate elsewhere."

"179”, “No - not at the cost of individual school bodies. Generally parents are only interested in their own school."

"180”, “"

"181”, “"

"182”, “It would not work - each school has its own needs and requirements specific to their own school."

"183”, “If all the cluster schools are in agreement, a 'composite' parent forum could be an option.  Appropriate representation for each member School should be considered.  The practicalities and role of 'composite' parent forum may be difficult as individuals may be loyal to their own school rather than the forum."

"184”, “Workable : local contacts don't work - talking from personal experience - can expand if required."

"185”, “"

"186”, “Yes providing parents can determine how this works and if they only want to collaborate on some matters that should be possible too"

"187”, “Yes   But it  should be subject to a vote by parents of each school involved & each school should be represented proportionally."

"188”, “No.  As previously stated, each school has different needs..."

"189”, “No"

"190”, “No.  Different people, with different skills, become involved in areas for which they feel best suited."

"191”, “"

"192”, “Not in general - only if smaller schools wanted it.  Would be difficult in practice.  Joint School Board meetings for shared issues can happen already between schools in a cluster as appropriate locally."

"193”, “Yes but thee has to be some uniformity between schools in the authority otherwise too difficult to manage."

"194”, “We are against composite parent forums because of 'conflicts of interests' between the different schools."

"195”, “Possibly"

"196”, “Yes"

"197”, “No"

"198”, “No each school should maintain its own identity.  This seems a recipe for chaos."

"199”, “This system would not be deemed necessary in (our school) but there is no objection to this being an option."

"200”, “Yes"

"201”, “No each school should have its own Board"

"202”, “Such flexibility is highly desirable, particularly in the light of the rural dimension of many ... schools.  it would be very helpful in the cluster schools arrangements and also offer the possibility of secondary/primary cluster arrangements.  Composite parent forums should not be imposed on any school but only be the result of full local consultation."

"203”, “Yes if this is an option."

"204”, “Yes"

"205”, “Yes.  Has to be framework / rules for minimum and maximum numbers."

"206”, “No"

"207”, “No"

"208”, “Up to (individual councils) to decide."

"209”, “No.  Each school should have it's own forum."

"210”, “Yes"

"211”, “Yes but may need more guidance."

"212”, “No.  This would lose the existing focus on individual school performance."

"213”, “No.  Each school has it's own issues to deal with which don't concern the other schools in the cluster.  As under the current system, cluster schools should be able to meet to discuss common issues if required."

"214”, “Yes"

"215”, “We believe the school board could be made up of parents from different schools in either a combined school / cluster of schools."

"216”, “No"

"217”, “There can be a school board for each individual school and a separate cluster board."

"218”, “No"

"219”, “Blank"

"220”, “Blank"

"221”, “N / A"

"222”, “No.  Agendas would not be all relevant or particular enough to each school."

"223”, “No.  Speaking for our own 1000+ pupil secondary school we do not see any benefit in being clustered with other schools."

"224”, “"

"225”, “Don't Know"

"226”, “No"

"227”, “No"

"228”, “No"

"229”, “No"

"230”, “Blank"

"231”, “We would like to see all the small clusters of Primary Schools have a composite group / forum that would jointly combine with the larger High School.  This would perhaps attract more parental involvement."

"232”, “"

"233”, “Yes"

"234”, “Yes, where appropriate & where all parties are agreed."

"235”, “Blank"

"236”, “No; School Boards already communicate and work well together."

"237”, “"

"238”, “No.  Parents wish to be involved in issues pertaining to their child and school.
Parents from boards already meet when there is an issue pertaining to more than one school."

"239”, “No.  Separate for each school."

"240”, “No definitely not.  Do not see how this could work.  It is difficult enough trying to gauge one schools parents views, never mind several in a cluster."

"241”, “No.  Each school should have their own board.  Unless the schools had a shared Head Teacher, as is proposed in (our)Cluster."

"242”, “May be useful in some very small schools or where the Headteacher has responsibility for more than one school."

"243”, “More suitable for smaller primary schools or cluster schools.
Large secondary schools have their own identity and need own representation."

"244”, “Only with the agreement of ALL the schools in a cluster, and where it can be workable."

"245”, “No.  Conflict of interest seems quite inevitable and divisionary.  Local schools need individual attention."

"246”, “"

"247”, “"

"248”, “Schools must retain their individuality.  Some parents may feel overwhelmed if there are a lot of parents from other schools."

"249”, “Definitely not - I feel this implies too much cross purpose discussion and private individual school agendas to successfully draw any matter to conclusion."

"250”, “Yes"

"251”, “Yes - some schools in Scotland are not big enough to have a School Board.  Where there are two or three schools working together under one Head Teacher this method may work better - does this mean one forum for several schools?  If there is a good reason, e.g. small schools, then ye."

"252”, “"

"253”, “"

"254”, “The only advantage in this is that you may stand a chance of getting the requisite number of parents."

"255”, “No schools are too individual and each have their own issues"

"256”, “Yes"

"257”, “No"

"258”, “We feel the largest school could rule over the others in this situation - schools have different catchments."

"259”, “Yes but only if majority of parents agree"

"260”, “No"

"261”, “No the current system of regular cluster parental sounding board meetings works very well."

"262”, “Yes"

"263”, “Without loss of individual identity and only where area 'lends' itself to"

"264”, “Yes"

"265”, “Yes if this is the preferred option."

"266”, “No"

"267”, “"

"268”, “"

"269”, “No"

"270”, “No"

"271”, “No"

"272”, “No - we consider that this would dilute the identity of our individual school."

"273”, “No"

"274”, “No you would never get full agreement on this so how would you decide what is the 'preferred option' - a vote?!"

"275”, “No - communication between Boards/forums in a cluster is useful but generally parent members want to be involved in their own school only."

"276”, “Unable to comment as our school deals with its own issues.  Maybe there is a need when there is a cluster issue."

"277”, “No"

"278”, “No - this creates worrying scenarios.  Parents, teachers and co-opted members should be involved in the good work of the school which is pertinent to them.  This is currently the case in the present set up."

"279”, “Only if there is no hidden agenda from members from each school being represented, i.e. one parent pushing for improvements for their school to the detriment of the others."

"280”, “"

"281”, “"

"282”, “No"

"283”, “The bill should permit such opportunities if so decided.  However, the resultant cluster should clearly identify to the education authority the intent to do so, the rationale, objectives and benefits of creating such a cluster."

"284”, “Majority (3) replied no with comments.  Schools cherish their individual identity.
Minority (2) replies Yes and commented only if Bill is passed."

"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”, “Blank"

"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. A provision under an amended School Boards Act could give support to school boards to work together, in different ways, and if required. One meeting a year, sending a visiting representative to meetings or sharing minutes could be ways of linking up."

"295”, “No response."

"296”, “"

"297”, “No."

"298”, “"

"299”, “"

"300”, “"

"301”, “"

"302”, “"

"303”, “"

"304”, “The approach of ""composite parental forums"" currently exists with combining of PTAs and School Boards particularly in rural locations.  In addition, the current infrastructure supporting School Boards such as the Scottish School Boards Association provides opportunities for actively involved parents to share and discuss issues, concerns and best practice.
"

"305”, “"

"306”, “Clumsy and unworkable. Each school should have its own Board. We seem to be saying this over and again.
"

"307”, “"

"308”, “"

"309”, “"

"310”, “Composite forums made up of members of the relevant School Boards would be a good idea where the schools are closely linked, e.g. feeder Primaries and the Secondary they supply."

"311”, “No.  Once a 'composite' forum is set up, it would be very difficult for parents to reverse this.  Each school has its own identity and priorities and a composite forum would be unworkable.  However, closer communication between Boards as detailed in the answer to Question 6 would provide a working alternative to this. Local Boards could meet to discuss common issues and concerns and set up joint working groups to address common issues.
"

"312”, “"

"313”, “"

"314”, “Yes"

"315”, “No"

"316”, “No this would remove the focus from the individual school, its parents and community - especially in rural areas."

"317”, “Clustering could lead to the closure of smaller schools.  There are limitations to what you can discuss with other schools.  There are personal issues for individual schools."

"318”, “No - too complicated."

"319”, “Each school must have a stand-along board/forum."

"320”, “This is a good example where the School Board Act can be 'tweaked' to include this option if schools wish."

"321”, “Yes"

"322”, “No although a Head Teacher may be in charge of a cluster of schools each school is a different entity."

"323”, “No - bills like this should be scrapped.  Parents of one school should not have a say in what happens in other schools."

"324”, “Where there are a number of small schools close together then this may be helpful.  However it appears to be in the Bill to try and artificially create a more complete level of forums."

"325”, “If a new Act is to be introduced then all parents views should be considered."

"326”, “N/A to our school"

"327”, “The contribution from combinations of clusters of parent-related bodies does not have a history of being effective in Scottish education and the suggestion that this might be an extra 'provision' has a false ring to it.  Where there is the occasional need for such concerted  consideration and action, it can perfectly well take place within School Boards at the moment."

"328”, “Yes"

"329”, “No - the thought of the above changes does not in anyway improve parental involvement."

"330”, “Yes"

"331”, “"

"332”, “Such a cluster could be possible at the moment in an informal way and could be 'legitimised' by modifying existing legislation if necessary."

"333”, “Yes"

"334”, “For areas/schools where this might be appropriate - yes."

"335”, “No to composite - single school status better."

"336”, “Yes.  The situation should be reviewed every 3-4 weeks to check what developments have occurred and what action would be appropriate to the needs of the situation."

"337”, “No"

"338”, “No - need to keep individual School Boards.  Does not exclude option to have 'composite' cluster forum"

"339”, “Parent forum/School Board should not be specific to the school but the legislation should encourage co-operation and networking between cluster schools."

"340”, “"

"341”, “No - a provision under an amended School Boards Act could give support to School Boards to work together in different ways and if required.  One meeting a year, sending a visiting representative to meetings or sharing minutes could be ways of linking up."

"342”, “On one hand the Bill is promoting that each school is ""unique"" - would this make it difficult to influence schools individually?"

"343”, “This question is based on the premise that one accepts that School Boards have been abolished.

"

"344”, “For specific issues - yes, such as local issues at present.  This is also possible with present system."

"345”, “NO -  This cluster. arrangement could have a serious adverse affect on how any one individual school is allowed to develop. If a parent's forum were allowed to become dominated by parents from one school who can then have a strong influence on other schools where they have no children in attendance - then the views of the dominant school would prevail. It is absolutely essential that each school is individually represented by the parents and community - and allowed to be practically empowered to focus on the priorities of that individual school. It is ironic that one of the primary intentions of the Improving Parents Involvement in School Bill is to create greater empowerment of schools - composite or clustered forums would achieve precisely the opposite."

"346”, “Agreed.  'Composite' parent forums must not be imposed and the final decision should be the parents.  Any loss of school / parent forum identity should be avoided.
"

"347”, “Yes - provided that this remains the choice of the parents rather than that of the Authority. "

"348”, “In the event that parent forums are the way forward, this seems reasonable, although we are some way off understanding what happens if a significant minority of parents disagree on the preferred option!"

"349”, “We expect that most schools will wish to have their own parent forum.  However, we support the notion of an overarching parent forum for combined schools or clusters of schools if the schools / parents wish this.  However, there is no desire to return to the old school council system where the needs/voice of individual schools become lost.  However, this approach would reinforce the policy development of New Learning Communities within (our) Council. "

"350”, “As previously mentioned, we are supportive of alternative models of parental engagement, but we consider that this flexibility can be achieved through modernised School Boards.  The 'community school' agenda which is to underpin many educational developments in the years ahead relies on engagement with a far wider number of stakeholders. In addition to health and social work practitioners, it will be important to have effective consultation arrangements with Community Councils and a range of other community organisations.  The Bill does not really address how this wider engagement will be achieved through Parent Forums - who will have a narrower membership than existing School Boards."

"351”, “"

"352”, “"

"353”, “"

"354”, “Each school has it's own individual vision, working in it, s own way.  If we were to cluster this into a composite forum we could find that individuality is lost and only the strongest voice is heard.  The Bill intends to seek the parents views but the staff on the P.T.A. and School Board are not given a say at all.  This is not the way to unite parents and encourage involvement."

"355”, “Yes we agree, but schools in clusters should be free to decide whether they operate independently or as a cluster forum.  All schools in the cluster should agree before they become a cluster forum"

"356”, “"

"357”, “We think it is essential that we have our own committee who would serve our own best interests."

"358”, “Composite Parent Forums are unlikely to be appropriate unless the schools are clustered in the sense of sharing a Head Teacher.

However, improved liaison and communication between School Boards (or Parent Forums) from different schools in an area (e.g. the High School and its feeder Primaries) would be appropriate and helpful.
"

"359”, “"

"360”, “Yes - Onus on authority. Authority need to maintain some level of control."

"361”, “- Would say no to composite forum but perhaps a Board/body representing clusters of similar School Boards in same geographic area/town could be encouraged and given legal status instead of the ad-hoc arrangements that already tend to happen, but if this were to happen it should not be allowed to replace the view of the individual School Boards.
- Recently ... , when schools threatened with closure, there was a very effective working together of small Boards, an informal arrangement which worked very well, which could be made more formal. Some schools have six pupils and would benefit from having an umbrella such as a cluster Board a May end up with conflict again.
"

"362”, “NO"

"363”, “"

"364”, “"

"365”, “"

"366”, “N / A"

"367”, “"

"368”, “"

"369”, “No"

"370”, “No - small schools may suffer - they need to work for themselves independently first, then perhaps cluster involvement could follow."

"371”, “No we do not agree with any of the proposed changes."

"372”, “No"

"373”, “N/A"

"374”, “Yes - flexibility required, if preferred by majority of current parents and staff, for small schools, if not imposed on any school."

"375”, “Yes but this could be achieved through an adjustment in current legislation."

"376”, “No - The School Board is the better choice."

"377”, “Various parent forums within one school or cluster of schools in a small town would be almost impossible to manage.  Is it not enough to expect the education authority to deal with all the various schools individual needs without having different groups within one school?"

"378”, “No - this would lead to unequal representation on each composite board and what specific issues affect individual schools."

"379”, “This question is based on the premise that one accepts that School Boards have been abolished."

"380”, “'Cluster' arrangement may have an adverse effect on individual schools, particularly if there is inadequate representation from a particular school."

"381”, “If this is preferred option it may be desirable in certain geographical locations but would be most difficult to try to combine composite forums."

"382”, “No - the School Board is the best option."

"383”, “Provision should be made within the Bill for composite parent forums, if required.  It would be valuable to share experiences, especially in small rural schools."

"384”, “Maybe but I understood that the whole point of the Bill was to promote flexibility in which case why have x number of provision?  Why make it so complicated and therefore to many parents as inaccessible as so much that comes spewing forth from Government think tanks."

"385”, “As long as each school is represented proportionately."

"386”, “Good idea."

"387”, “Yes, again, if this helps involve more parents."

"388”, “N/A"

"389”, “Provision for 'composite' parent forums good idea to encompass the wider community i.e. in case of 'out of school club' representation etc which represent 2-3 or more cluster schools."

"390”, “Yes with reservations but can see benefits to communities."

"391”, “No - this is a recipe for cliques forming in an area from a number of schools.  Each school must have its own parent forum."

"392”, “Yes as this would also sit within the integrated Community School Development and its cluster approach.  It may be a parent rep is part of the cluster meetings."

"393”, “No "

"394”, “This is already done on an informal basis with School Boards."

"395”, “This is already in place informally between the secondary School Boards and its feeders."

"396”, “Can be done anyway and has been done on numerous occasions with other Boards.  New Bill does not need to set this out."

"397”, “"

"398”, “No - this will not work.   It sounds like a good idea.  Parents are involved at present."

"399”, “"

"400”, “Each school should have own School Board"

"401”, “No"

"402”, “There may be benefits of a composite forum though this should have a specified remit and link to individual school forums or Boards."

"403”, “"

"404”, “The Board is not in favour of such a system.  It would dilute the important relationship of parents in one school to the Head Teacher."

"405”, “No. Each school should have a school board.
"

"406”, “We feel this is not necessary if the Bill already provided for local flexibility.
"

"407”, “ No. Composite Forums within a school would lead to confusion as to which Forum should be consulted
 by the LEA, and which, for example, would be involved in the Head Teacher appointment. It should be
 possible for Forums to form sub committees to look at particular topic or to organise fundraising, etc. it
 would be wrong to allow for a number of different, unaffiliated forums to exist within a school as this will
 lead to division between groups of parents and make it difficult for Heads to deal effectively with parent
 representation.
 We would also not agree to Forums for a cluster of schools as each school has an individual identity and
 requires it's own Forum or Board to focus on its requirements and local situation."

"408”, “"

"409”, “No.  The whole point of Boards and I assume (Forums) to promote links between parents and their children’s school and this suggestion makes a nonsense of that premise."

"410”, “"

"411”, “"

"412”, “"

"413”, “"

"414”, “Blank"

"415”, “"

"416”, “"

"417”, “"

"418”, “"

"419”, “We are not sure that shared/cluster parent forums will be a popular option, most parents get involved because they have a specific interest in a specific school."

"420”, “"

"421”, “"

"422”, “"

"423”, “The draft consultation suggests that there is a need for flexible individual approach for each school.   There would therefore be a need to establish a parent forum for each school regardless of the management systems in place i.e. whether combined or involved in a cluster management."

"424”, “Composite forums already exist (here) but at a level ABOVE existing School Boards (School Board Cluster group arranged with a Secondary School and feeder primaries and School Board Forum - rep. from every SB in attendance).  The current system is effective as the local SB addresses local issues whilst the wider forums address LA wide issues.
One single local composite would have far too many conflicts of interest (catholic education issues influencing schools where the ethos differs)."

"425”, “"

"426”, “We still believe that there are personal issues for individual schools - limitation to what can be discussed with others. We see this ""clustering arrangement"" as being part of some bigger plan where 1 Headteacher would be in charge of 3 schools, for example."

"427”, “We do not think that this is necessary and do not think it would work.  Each school has its own policies and issues, and fund raising activity works best when targeted locally.  It is important that members of the parent forum have 'ownership' of their agenda.  We feel however that there could be occasional meeting  to exchange information across Parent Forums, as for example occurs at Area School Board meetings."

"428”, “As previously mentioned, we are supportive of alternative models of parental engagement, but we consider that this flexibility can be achieved through modernised School Boards.
The 'community school' agenda which is to underpin many educational developments in the years ahead relies on engagement with a far wider number of stakeholders. In addition to health and social work practitioners, it will be important to have effective consultation arrangements with Community Councils and a range of other community organizations. The Bill does not really address how this wider engagement will be achieved through Parent Forums - who will have a narrower membership than existing School Boards.
"

"429”, “In general, no - although it could be useful in the exceptional case of a school unable to form a board. The current system would be improved if the education authority would facilitate contact between the boards of an associated schools group."

"430”, “In a 'combined school' (which we take to mean a school with both primary and secondary levels) then it may well make sense to have one parent forum representing the whole school.  However the same does not necessarily make sense for a cluster. In a cluster a Parent Forum will sensibly be made up with a majority of parents from the largest school and decisions taken could well militate against the wishes and needs of the smaller schools. It may be that in very small schools the Parent Forum is much better organised and run by the whole group of parents as they will be closer to the needs of their children."

"431”, “Such a provision does seem sensible- though only relating to parental forums similar to those outlined in our response to Question 6 and not those described in the draft bill. This could be a very attractive option to parents in some circumstances (such as for joint-campus schools), and would be welcomed provided it were optional - and not enforced, e.g. as a cost saving measure."

"432”, “Yes"

"433”, “Parent forum/school board should not be specific to the school but the legislation should encourage co-operation & networking between cluster schools."

"434”, “There is already provision for cluster School Boards at present and these operate effectively where there is a local issue which affects all the schools in the area. If school forums were to be created, the Board can see the merit for such provision.  This could operate in more remote rural areas to provide for one parent forum for a number of schools and in other areas, as a supplementary body to the parent forums of individual schools, for specified issues of regional importance."

"435”, “Such a ""cluster"" arrangement could have an adverse effect on how individual schools such as Catholic schools in our case are enabled to develop.  In such cases, such schools could be adversely affected, particularly in the case of forums being dominated by parents from particular schools who could in effect end up n key positions to influence decisions being made regarding schools where they have no children in attendance. You would need to ensure that all parents; each time new members joined forums in any of the concerned schools belonging to such composite forums; agreed to this 'composite' idea."

"436”, “No."

"437”, “- Agreed.
- ""Composite"" parent forums must not be imposed and the final decision
 should lie with the parents.
- Any loss of school 1 parent forum identity should be avoided.
"

"438”, “No.  Each school should have the right to its own identity in a School Board.  Some modifications to the existing arrangements may be appropriate in cases of rural Schools with a very low pupil headcount."

"439”, “Maybe suitable for smaller schools but not ideal for secondary schools.  Different schools have different issues, a cluster is useful but each individual school would need their own forum or group, with perhaps a 'cluster' meeting once or twice a year."

"440”, “We feel that this would only apply to smaller schools."

"441”, “No"

"442”, “Yes"

"443”, “"

"444”, “"

"445”, “"

"446”, “No"

"447”, “Yes"

"448”, “"

"449”, “No !"

"450”, “No"

"451”, “No"

"452”, “"

"453”, “No"

"454”, “Yes"

"455”, “"

"456”, “"

"457”, “Yes"

"458”, “Yes"

"459”, “Yes, but equal representation required."

"460”, “No"

"461”, “Yes, if it is preferred."

"462”, “No - less involvement  - cop out."

"463”, “Why should there be a need for a cluster of schools to have a parent forum ?  Will this improve the behaviour of children ?"

"464”, “No !"

"465”, “Yes, in some areas."

"466”, “Each school should have their own parent forum"

"467”, “No"

"468”, “No"

"469”, “Only as an extra not an alternative to individual school representation / Boards."

"470”, “Yes, but if there is no democratic background how will this be determined.  Could there be sub-committees of forums particularly where special units are attached to larger schools.  This would ensure input from parents from special needs pupil in units."

"471”, “No, this could have an adverse effect on the individualism of each school involved with the forum being dominated by perhaps one set of parents and having a major say in a school of which they are not parents."

"472”, “No - individual school will all have individual requirements and should not be amalgamated into unwieldy groupings."

"473”, “No"

"474”, “Such a ""cluster"" arrangement may have an adverse effect on how an individual school is enabled to develop.  What if a ""parents"" forum becomes dominated by parents from one or other school who can have a strong influence on schools where they have no children in attendance?  This could lead to some schools (especially single faith) being adversely affected."

"475”, “Not applicable to our situation."

"476”, “No - the current system of regular cluster parental sounding board meetings works very well."

"477”, “No.  But liaison between schools should be encouraged."

"478”, “Any modification should allow flexibility to allow the needs of schools or communities with special requirements  (e.g. small or rural schools) to be met.  However the removal of legal guidelines leaves the way open for ambiguity.  Composite forums for clusters of schools is all obvious risk entirely dependent on the equal participation of parents from all concerned schools to avoid over representation and conflicts of interest and shouldn't be allowed as is currently."

"479”, “No, I think that every school is unique and has unique concerns.  Every school at the moment is required to have a school board.  Small schools will have a smaller board but they will still have a voice.  There is nothing wrong with seeking the views of other boards to help support your case in certain circumstances."

"480”, “Now there are Learning Communities parents may wish to meet with the parents of other schools, especially if there is no school board."

"481”, “No.  In some areas, where schools are small, there may be the need for composite boards but this could be incorporated in to the 1988 Act by amending the Act."

"482”, “With the advent of learning communities where schools have not been able to establish their own school board / parent forum, this could be a way forward."

"483”, “No - this would broaden the forum to a point where the needs of the school would not get addressed.  Parents hardly have spare time to devote to their own school never mind anyone else's."

"484”, “Can't quite picture how a single group will represent a number of separate schools.  It will take a chain of extra ordinary skill to ensure each school and it's advocates are treated evenly by the joint parent forum - probably unworkable.  Each school will probably have to be encouraged to represent themselves.  There is no reason why those separate forums should not pull resources on a matter of common interest."

"485”, “We already have learning communities and 'clusters' happen on School Boards meet occasionally and keep in local primary and secondary cluster."

Parent Forums - Draft Bill