Making the difference – involving parents better in schools

Question 15

The Bill has been drafted to allow the parent forum to find out and report the views of parents in the school on any matter which are of interest or concern to them. Do you agree with this open-ended provision or would you suggest defining the areas of interest more restrictively ?

"1”, “No"

"2”, “No - should apply to School Boards"

"3”, “School Boards are obliged in law to do this already!  Continue"

"4”, “There is a lot of apathy around, some people just don't want involved.  What would happen then?"

"5”, “"

"6”, “Yes - agree open-ended provision - current system too prescriptive and stifling to freedom,  Expression/sharing ideas/information"

"7”, “Areas need to be defined or there is a danger of Board being hijacked for 'personal crusades'"

"8”, “Yes - open-ended"

"9”, “Would suggest defining the areas more restrictively"

"10”, “There are no restricted practices anyway"

"11”, “These functions are so similar to those of School Boards that it is difficult to see why it is thought necessary to abolish them."

"12”, “"

"13”, “Open ended provision if related to children, school matters and not individual personalities"

"14”, “We agree with open-ended provision provided it takes into account the rights of the child."

"15”, “Yes, but not individual cases"

"16”, “I agree that parents should be allowed to report on any matters of interest or concern"

"17”, “Yes - agree"

"18”, “Agree with a measure of discretion to protect rights and identity of teachers, pupils and parents"

"19”, “We already do this within the current Act as School Boards have moved on with the times"

"20”, “Bit of a hot potato.  The remit should not be open-ended but must be wide enough to allow parents feel they can make a viable contribution through the new forum"

"21”, “Yes"

"22”, “Open"

"23”, “We should be able to discuss any area of interest or concern.  It should remain open-minded"

"24”, “"

"25”, “Yes"

"26”, “They should be restricted as in my response to Question 14"

"27”, “Define"

"28”, “N/A"

"29”, “What would be discussed at a forum was of major concern.  There needs to be strict guidelines similar to those adhered to by School Boards whereby no child or member of staff or anything of a personal nature is discussed.  General issues designed to raise standards and ethos should be discussed."

"30”, “-"

"31”, “"

"32”, “No - I trust this Bill will get no further"

"33”, “Personalities and individuals should not be subjects for discussion"

"34”, “I do not agree with the Bill.  Who in their right mind is going to be able to find out and report views of parents - a full time job for already busy people who give of their time voluntarily"

"35”, “Parent forums simply will not work in the schools of which I have knowledge."

"36”, “No"

"37”, “If parent forum is open ended then it should mean that."

"38”, “Yes"

"39”, “"

"40”, “Yes"

"41”, “There is no requirement for parent forums"

"42”, “"

"43”, “Far too open-ended, role should be defined"

"44”, “Not open - defining areas"

"45”, “Yes - should be open-ended"

"46”, “More clearly defined terms of reference needed"

"47”, “Not sure"

"48”, “Yes"

"49”, “"

"50”, “"

"51”, “School Board currently open-ended provision should continue to be"

"52”, “Any change in legislation should ensure the Board have the right to pursue effective solutions where appropriate to the education of the children and the greater good of the school.  I should not be so broad that it can become a charter for individuals to fly kites, or follow personal crusades at the expense of the majority."

"53”, “"

"54”, “"

"55”, “Yes - open-ended."

"56”, “Not agree - restrict"

"57”, “No - keep it wide - who knows what might be needed"

"58”, “Ok"

"59”, “"

"60”, “Yes"

"61”, “The relationship between any representative body and the school must be a partnership.  Allowing the representative body to contact parents direct could compromise.  Currently consultation is with all parents and the new structure could lead to certain groups only being consulted which could be discriminatory"

"62”, “"

"63”, “LEAs have their limitations"

"64”, “The HT should remain the primary point of contact"

"65”, “"

"66”, “"

"67”, “Parent forums as is the case with School Boards should be required to make efforts to communicate effectively to all groups of parents with children in the school though a variety of means including annual reports, open meetings and newsletters.  It would be difficult to define in advance areas of legitimate interest for parents in the future so this is better left open-ended. This principle can extend to community groups in certain cases (e.g. where such groups make use of sports facilities in he school in out of school hours"

"68”, “A Board can do this at present.  The legislation proposed is pointless since no-one ever responds to such 'opinion trawls'"

"69”, “A clear definition of interest should be set out from the start."

"70”, “We agree but feel areas may need to be defined."

"71”, “"

"72”, “"

"73”, “"

"74”, “Good to have guidelines rather than rigid rules"

"75”, “School Boards and PTAs already have flexible agendas"

"76”, “I think it should be  open-ended"

"77”, “No"

"78”, “This is currently an obligation of School Boards in law so it must continue"

"79”, “This is a positive aspect of current arrangements, and should remain.  Current restrictions should also remain, i.e. discussion of individual teachers should not take place."

"80”, “Broadly yes, but again we do not need new legislation to bring this about."

"81”, “Yes"

"82”, “Provision already exists for this in the existing Board structure and within Authority and Inspectorate procedures"

"83”, “"

"84”, “Current arrangements are adequate and should be retained"

"85”, “School Boards currently ask the school questions on behalf of parents across a wide area of interest/concern.  These are always addressed professionally by the head, teachers and education authority officials.  See no reason to limit the asking of legitimate and serious questions.
"

"86”, “Open-ended"

"87”, “"

"88”, “We agree with the open ended provision which reflects the present situation."

"89”, “"

"90”, “"

"91”, “School Boards already do this."

"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, we do not agree with open-ended provision."

"94”, “The views of parents should be sought............concerns the education of their children."

"95”, “Blank"

"96”, “"

"97”, “Agree with open ended provision - parents feel confident that their concern is being addressed."

"98”, “Define the areas of interest more restrictively."

"99”, “Not applicable"

"100”, “Within Agenda, confined..... at all times.  Always with guidance."

"101”, “Blank."

"102”, “Agree"

"103”, “The purpose is raising standards and to do that I believe it must be open ended."

"104”, “Situation that already exists and is the role of school board members to promote communication with all parents.  This could be improved by having an open evening each year with school board members and parents to introduce ideas & procedures."

"105”, “N / A"

"106”, “Agree"

"107”, “Being more restrictive."

"108”, “Yes, open-ended provision is desirable."

"109”, “No, this is a board function"

"110”, “No, we do not agree with open-ended provision.  There are sufficient existing channels already in place."

"111”, “Blank"

"112”, “"

"113”, “Too open-ended"

"114”, “Yes, agree"

"115”, “An open-ended provision would be preferable."

"116”, “Should be refined, or matters that are of no relevance could be discussed."

"117”, “Agreed"

"118”, “It is ""too wide"""

"119”, “Agree"

"120”, “Yes"

"121”, “The areas open to the parent forum should be defined.  It should not be ""open-ended""."

"122”, “Yes, parents should have open-ended provision."

"123”, “Yes, providing the matters are not pupil / teacher specific i.e.. personal issues."

"124”, “I agree"

"125”, “Yes"

"126”, “Yes, it should be open ended other than where the privacy rights of an individual are likely to be abused."

"127”, “Agree with open-ended provision."

"128”, “Blank"

"129”, “We feel that in some areas it should be more restricting.  There are things parents need to know and there are things that they do not need to know."

"130”, “See earlier reply - any body of this type should have an agreed constitution defining its rights and responsibilities."

"131”, “No ...restrictions.. save confidentiality"

"132”, “Blank"

"133”, “Leave open ended"

"134”, “Yes"

"135”, “Yes - there should be no restrictions."

"136”, “Blank"

"137”, “Yes - making it restrictive puts parents off."

"138”, “Yes"

"139”, “Agree with open-ended provision"

"140”, “We agree with this but would point out that this is currently in existence via the School Board."

"141”, “We don't agree, we feel it would lead to inappropriate discussion."

"142”, “Yes"

"143”, “No"

"144”, “Some caution - parents might come to meeting discussing specific children and or families and this is to be avoided."

"145”, “"

"146”, “"

"147”, “N / A as we do not want forums and want school boards to remain."

"148”, “Guidelines needed."

"149”, “Need guidelines"

"150”, “Yes, open ended."

"151”, “N / A"

"152”, “Adhere to current framework"

"153”, “Yes"

"154”, “I agree"

"155”, “Blank"

"156”, “Yes, we agree, but feel it should not be child specific."

"157”, “N / A"

"158”, “I agree with the open-ended provision.  Parents should have the right to express their views on any matter pertaining to the education of their children."

"159”, “"

"160”, “N / A - status quo"

"161”, “Yes - but only for broad educational issue not individual issues / pressure groups."

"162”, “School board already carries out this function.  Forum needs power to ensure ability to deliver rather than being a talking shop."

"163”, “Yes"

"164”, “According to the consultation, the bill does not consider these functions essential but only sets out functions that the forum can engage in.  Recommendations for operation of a parent forum which can do as little or as much as one or a majority of parents want, with or without the staff of the school being on board seems too fluid to be workable.  No evidence has been produced to make us think otherwise.  At certain times I haven't been able to join School Boards or PTAs but have an expectancy that the school will have such groups and that is comforting.  The idea of parent forums could depend on some enthusiasts, who may or may not be available.  In addition, under this Bill it seems that parents will not be able to assist in the management of the school and I think that this is a bad thing.  Any parental group should have a duty to support the aims and mission of the school."

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

"166”, “"

"167”, “No - guidelines should be agreed with forum/Board and Head Teacher on what/when to provide or request information from parents."

"168”, “We do this as a School Board"

"169”, “No - far too open"

"170”, “There are mechanisms already in place."

"171”, “We agree with the principle of open ended discussion as is currently the case under the present legislation."

"172”, “Existing legislation covers limitation of scope.  There is no point in discussing matters of a sensitive fiscal nature that there are no powers over.  There is also a danger of a breach of confidentiality."

"173”, “The open ended provision allows for forum flexibility and should not be restricted."

"174”, “No restrictions on areas of discussion or concern.  Forum must be able to set its own agenda.  Forum has to be seen as a body with importance to be taken seriously"

"175”, “This is what School Boards do anyway and restrictions would not be good for school/parent relationships."

"176”, “Open-ended provision could lead to unending debate on various issues e.g. uniform - for or against."

"177”, “What obligations?"

"178”, “Yes"

"179”, “Current School Board restrictions are adequate."

"180”, “"

"181”, “"

"182”, “They should be issues that affect the whole school and not particular individuals."

"183”, “It is not necessary to define areas of interest or place any restrictions except with regard to championing individual cases.  The aim should be to encourage communication and information sharing."

"184”, “Existing School Boards cover this."

"185”, “"

"186”, “Agree"

"187”, “Agree with open ended provision to allow boards with differing priorities to function effectively."

"188”, “Already provisions in place for this."

"189”, “I agree with the open ended provision so long as we will be listened to and our opinions taken into consideration and not lost in bureaucracy."

"190”, “Not so open ended.
To be guided around appropriate management issues, but not to include quality of teaching."

"191”, “"

"192”, “'Any' matters not appropriate should be defined."

"193”, “The forum should retain current powers of representation as are presently enjoyed by the School Board. We don't want to see a ""dumbing down"" as we don't feel it will bring in more parents anyway."

"194”, “School Boards already report views of parents on matters which are of interest and/or concern to them."

"195”, “Open-ended provision seems to work well."

"196”, “Parents' views are important.  The open-ended tradition is right."

"197”, “School Board does this already."

"198”, “Open-ended provision for 'general' issues could be addressed though forum.  All concerns regarding individual cases should be addressed by the parent directly to the Head Teacher."

"199”, “We would suggest that discussion is restricted to general matters, in the form of the present Agenda to avoid individual personal grievances being raised."

"200”, “Agree"

"201”, “School Boards and PTAs already have flexible agendas."

"202”, “While it is entirely desirable that the forum agenda should be open ended as possible there is concern regarding the potential breaking of confidentiality in some areas so requires sensitive handling and guidance."

"203”, “This sounds like what any good School Board is already doing at present.  Two-way communication with the HT"

"204”, “No - restrict to the status quo with Boards"

"205”, “Yes"

"206”, “Needs to be defined to avoid discrepancy in interpretation."

"207”, “No, I would define areas of interest, since a 'free for all' should be avoided.
School Boards avoid this by default since an agenda is in place."

"208”, “Don't agree with open-ended provision."

"209”, “Yes I agree."

"210”, “How would this be financed?
School Boards have budget and obligation to supply minutes and record of accounts - no such provision exist for Parent Forum - need for accountability."

"211”, “Do not agree with open-ended provision.
Need to define areas of interest more."

"212”, “Areas of interest should be restricted to matters directly affecting the schools activities and performance."

"213”, “Yes - as is currently the case."

"214”, “Yes"

"215”, “Agree with open-ended provision."

"216”, “No"

"217”, “The views of parents can already be canvassed by School Boards"

"218”, “We agree."

"219”, “Blank"

"220”, “No.  Should be more restrictive."

"221”, “The provision needs to be defined on the same lines as at present."

"222”, “The school board already performs this function."

"223”, “No.  The parent members of existing school boards and proposed parent forums are elected as representatives not option pollsters they cannot be both."

"224”, “"

"225”, “Guidance not restriction is required."

"226”, “The areas of interest must be strictly defined."

"227”, “Yes we agree."

"228”, “We believe the views of parents in the school are already represented by the School Board."

"229”, “No"

"230”, “Blank"

"231”, “Yes, we think that parents views / concerns are a most important aspect of their children's education, and whether parents and the school have a good relationship, which thus encourages the child to do the same."

"232”, “"

"233”, “Parent forums may find it difficult to gather views of all parents, since the latter are unable to attend forum meetings."

"234”, “We would retain the restriction of not discussing individual pupils / staff etc.  But other areas of concerns should be unrestricted."

"235”, “Parents already have this facility through the school board."

"236”, “No.  Parents need to be aware of what the statutory functions are."

"237”, “"

"238”, “Again, present school board's report the views of parents on a wide variety of issues."

"239”, “All aspects of school, including curriculum."

"240”, “Existing procedure works well.  Should not be able to report on ANY matter, as may not be appropriate must protect individuals."

"241”, “If parents have concerns they can / will discuss this with other parents whether there is a forum or not.  It is best that there is an official / regulated body that can step in if the parent does not feel they can approach the school."

"242”, “Open-ended but not in the case of personal matters as this is not the place for such discussions."

"243”, “Already in place - however communication needs to be improved - ongoing!
Losing school boards could result in problems with legal issues - too open-ended.
Current legislation should remain."

"244”, “These are already done by school boards."

"245”, “Open ended provision is far too vague and dangerous.  The current direction given to boards is extremely helpful to both board and management.  ""Individual staff and teacher problems must remain a management issue."""

"246”, “"

"247”, “"

"248”, “We feel that this should be restricted or we could end up with far too many issues - perhaps things which don't really affect parents."

"249”, “Open-ended seems fine as long as control measures are in place, such as response time allocations etc."

"250”, “Yes - agree with open-ended provision"

"251”, “Yes but we do not believe that the proposed parental forums will be any better placed to achieve this aim than the School Boards and PTAs before them."

"252”, “"

"253”, “"

"254”, “This is already done through the PTA and School Board"

"255”, “Yes however the emphasis should be on finding positive solutions to any difficulties and moving the school forward.  This needs to be done with a group that always has the ability to make things happen and that the local authority must listen to."

"256”, “Guidelines are essential - No to open-ended provision"

"257”, “Yes - keep an open-ended provision"

"258”, “Sometimes a struggle to involve parents as it is.  Open-ended provision could end up encouraging a ""pressure group"" - Areas of interest already covered by existing Board."

"259”, “Open-ended provision ok"

"260”, “Continue as present"

"261”, “Important to be open-ended - equal rights for all to express views - provided there is an agenda.  Bear in mind issues of confidentiality."

"262”, “As open as possible"

"263”, “Agree"

"264”, “Any parent body has to fully discuss and report to appropriate other body any concerns that parents, staff or pupils have."

"265”, “Parents to have wide ranging remit while still retaining the same areas of interest currently ""maintained"" by existing School Board."

"266”, “This is a positive aspect of current arrangements that should remain.  Current restrictions should also remain, i.e. discussion of individual teachers should not take place."

"267”, “"

"268”, “"

"269”, “No School Boards can already do this."

"270”, “Function of current School Boards"

"271”, “Yes to defining the areas of interest more restrictively."

"272”, “No"

"273”, “An open-ended provision is more likely to encourage parental involvement in School Board activities."

"274”, “If parents have a 'view' about their child's school then they should go to the child's teacher or Head Teacher.  This is a very woolly provision, unworkable and open to misunderstandings."

"275”, “This is too open-ended.  The only parents who attend will be those with some specific axe to grind, which may be quite inappropriate or not representative of the larger parent body."

"276”, “The only concerns the parents have are of the state of our schools and the time and expense wasted on this sort of thing."

"277”, “Yes - though in practice a working model would need to set boundaries and certain areas would need definition and there should be some space for miscellaneous items."

"278”, “The present system allows for the views of parents to be reported and in relation to any matters which are of interest or of concern to them.  In practice many parents go straight to the Head Teacher."

"279”, “Parents views should always be taken seriously but certain areas would be restricted, i.e. when a problem becomes personal between a parent and member of staff etc."

"280”, “"

"281”, “"

"282”, “Specific guidelines are important to give the body a clear role.  Avoid ""What shall we do tonight""."

"283”, “Guidelines should be issued on the legitimate boundaries of role and responsibility to parent forums."

"284”, “Majority replied Yes (3) with comments: if these matters are also educationally relevant.; if emphasis is on support rather than.....................   Minority replied No (2) comment - too vague."

"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”, “What was wrong with school boards doing this ?  Heads listen to Boards more than to parents."

"288”, “Surely this is exactly what the PTA already does."

"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”, “The present legislation covers this provision appropriately,"

"295”, “As stated in the previous statement, there should be no barriers to parental involvement in the work of the school."

"296”, “"

"297”, “Yes we agree - but would argue this is already in place today."

"298”, “"

"299”, “"

"300”, “"

"301”, “"

"302”, “"

"303”, “"

"304”, “Under the Freedom of Information Act, parents have significant rights of access to information. Accordingly the question of an ""open ended provision"" in the draft consultation document is irrelevant. Representation by the Headteacher and teaching staff at meetings is beneficial since it provides immediate information and facilitates communication. School Boards and PTAs already have these arrangements in place and therefore parent forums are not considered to be a positive development.
"

"305”, “"

"306”, “A clear definition of interest should be set out from the start.
"

"307”, “"

"308”, “"

"309”, “"

"310”, “There is little point in School forums finding out and reporting on matters which they have no powers to influence. The Education Authority must produce guidelines to define what can and cannot be effectively tackled.
"

"311”, “Our School Board currently canvasses the views of parents on matters which are of interest or concern to them. If we are unable to deal with matters due to confidentiality or inappropriateness, we can advise parents on whom to approach.
However, we have been unable to spend the time we would have wished this term as our time has been spent in consultation and discussion on this draft Bill. If this Bill is passed, we will then lose at least another year while new arrangements are put in place.
This is a huge loss of time when the existing arrangements work effectively in most cases. Where Boards / PTAs are not effective or not in existence, we feel that it is unlikely that the proposed arrangements will attract parental support.
"

"312”, “"

"313”, “"

"314”, “Certain matters regarding individuals should not be discussed as is present set up."

"315”, “School Board already fulfils this aim.  'open-ended' provision would result in little being achieved."

"316”, “We consider that some framework and parameters should be designated.  For example, current School Board regulations preclude the discussion of individuals or particular incidents.  The parent representative body should not be able to micro-manage the school on a day-to-day basis."

"317”, “Difficult to answer without the structure defined and in place, however this is already covered by our School board."

"318”, “No"

"319”, “Who would the forum be accountable to?"

"320”, “No - some restrictions required of a personal nature e.g. staff issues or pupils."

"321”, “Agree"

"322”, “Parents already have this right in the School Board."

"323”, “This is no different from the existing Act.  Why change?"

"324”, “This already exists as an option and as a School Board we frequently request the views of the parents.  However responses are low and we believe that the silent majority doesn't exist.  Those who attend School Boards would probably instigate the forums."

"325”, “I do agree."

"326”, “We welcome this, although school management should be given opportunity to manage school appropriately with professional respect of Board."

"327”, “Open-ness must be permitted, encouraged and not 'dressed up' as an 'open-ended provision'.  This open-ness (in the context of specific activities relating to report, debate and decision making) already happens with School Boards and there is no need to change a successful system."

"328”, “Yes"

"329”, “We feel School Boards do the kind of work at present therefore should PTAs need help in the above regard then they make contact with their Agents (the School Board) to act on their behalf."

"330”, “Current restrictions need to be enforced."

"331”, “"

"332”, “Currently Boards can seek the views of parents on any matters that they think fit.  In reality the range of issues involved is likely to be quite restricted but to set limits by statute would seem unnecessary."

"333”, “We agree with this open-ended provision."

"334”, “I think this open-ended provision could allow parents to feel more able to voice matters of interest and concern and provide a good channel of communication between parents and school."

"335”, “School Boards do this at the moment."

"336”, “I would suggest defining the areas more restrictively."

"337”, “Leave as it is "

"338”, “School Board already carries out this function.  Forum needs power to ensure ability to deliver rather than just being a talking shop."

"339”, “Yes - we agree with an open ended approach."

"340”, “"

"341”, “No - the present legislation covers this provision appropriately."

"342”, “(Our) School welcome parents to address their individual concerns to the school, I'm unsure whether a parent would be forthcoming with a point as constraints of confidentiality may become an issue but certainly make it as open-ended as possible."

"343”, “School Boards currently ask the school questions on behalf of parents across a wide area of interest/concern. These are addressed professionally by the Head, teachers and education officials. We see no reason to limit the asking of legitimate and serious questions - by the School Board."

"344”, “This needs further consideration.  Examples would help us to consider this."

"345”, “The proposed School Forum responsibilities suggests an increased number of responsibilities - our concern with these is that it introduces the danger that such enhanced duties will conflict (and cause confusion) with the duty of the head teacher to ensure that parents are adequately informed and involved at all times."

"346”, “No restrictions.  Exception is those which already exist.
"

"347”, “It is important that forums should avoid individual - specific issues concerned, for example, with specific members of staff or specific pupils. "

"348”, “From a parental perspective, this seems reasonable and you'd imagine that if the school/parent partnership was operating effectively this would happen anyway, regardless of efforts to define interests more restrictively. The concern though would be that without some guidance the School Board or parent forum may not be the best place for the interest or concern to be addressed and time would be taken up with individual issues, hobbyism or the trivial - all of which need a place with which to be dealt, but perhaps not the Board or forum e.g. direct contact between school and individual parent.

On balance therefore defining what is not Board or forum business e.g. an individual issue affecting a single child/family (and no implications for others) may be helpful.
"

"349”, “In the same way that some School Boards have struggled to define their purpose, the open-ended provision in relation to consultation and representation may lead parent forums into similar difficulties.  Being more specific in relation to these functions would be beneficial.  There should be a very strong emphasis on the need for the parent forum to communicate with the parents it represents.  Skills-based training for parent forums in respect of this task may be required.  Complaints should not be part of a forum's remit and there should be no discussion relating to named individuals."

"350”, “What is being proposed for Parent Forums is what has been the practice of School Boards for many years. School Boards reflect the key issues for their school communities and will work in partnership with their Headteacher to address them.   It is disappointing that the Scottish Executive did not seek best practice examples from current School Boards and PTAs to inform their thinking - prior to suggesting a system of Parental Forums whose remits may actually be far more restrictive than the School Boards they may replace."

"351”, “"

"352”, “"

"353”, “"

"354”, “This could turn into a negative ""slagging off"" forum and we are sure that this is not what is intended.  Without structure this may only serve to create split away groups and dissent.  It may also prevent parents from wishing to take part in case they become a ""monster"" in the eyes of others and  become excluded. When there is a strong Head Teacher there is direction and clarity and usually in these cases Heads are willing to discuss matters with parents.  Without the structure what happens if the majority of parents disagree with the Head ?"

"355”, “We believe that it is best to keep an open ended attitude to subjects that can be taken up but believe that dealing with individual complaints, particularly in sensitive areas (for example bullying, disputes with school staff members) should be left to the head teacher and education authorities. "

"356”, “"

"357”, “Adequate mechanisms already in place."

"358”, “See response to Q14 above."

"359”, “"

"360”, “Restrictions of confidentiality on children and staff."

"361”, “Already exercised by this Board."

"362”, “We do not agree with this open-ended provision. Great care must be taken to ensure confidentiality, and non-conflict within parent forums, and their relationship with school staff and the welfare of pupils.

Parents views must be shared with the Headteacher, and addressed diplomatically and confidentially. An open-ended provision could again lead to parent ""talking shops cliques"".
"

"363”, “"

"364”, “"

"365”, “"

"366”, “Should board does this already."

"367”, “"

"368”, “"

"369”, “Any matter relating to the School that has the effect or potential to affect the children's education is of concern to the School Board."

"370”, “Each school will have its own special interests.  The spectrum of areas of interest to the parents forum should not be restricted."

"371”, “The current School Boards already have the means of finding out the views of parents and reporting findings.  It works well."

"372”, “Open-ended acceptable"

"373”, “N/A"

"374”, “Yes - some areas might need to be restricted - discussion of individuals, no restrictions, must respect individuals rights."

"375”, “See no need for change here."

"376”, “The School Board at present is open to all parents.  The parent rep representatives should be listening to all views at the moment.  So there is no need to change."

"377”, “We already have a policy where parents can highlight their interests and concerns with us or the teaching staff.  Encouragement in this area would be useful but certainly not by way of parent forums."

"378”, “Agree that parent forums should be allowed to report on all issues affecting parents and children but not 'individual' issues as opposed to collective issues."

"379”, “School Boards currently ask the school questions on behalf of parents across a wide area of interest/concern.  These are addressed professionally by the Head, teachers and education officials.  We see no reason to limit the asking of legitimate and serious questions - by the School Board."

"380”, “No - confidentiality of pupils and staff could be jeopardised."

"381”, “Mechanisms already in place for this with School Boards - leave well alone."

"382”, “An open-ended provision is a bit woolly."

"383”, “It would be important to work within the guidance of a constitution.  The remit should be the same as at the present School Board.  There should be restrictions on confidential matters."

"384”, “I agree, although there could be problems if an issue were to be raised concerning a particular child, for example.  Would this raise in turn issues of confidentiality versus informing interested parties?"

"385”, “Yes -open-ended provision is fine."

"386”, “Don't have a problem with this.  It is sometimes necessary to have all parental views and to restrict those views might not be in the interests of the individual school concerned."

"387”, “I agree with an open ended approach, different will have different situations, therefore different issues."

"388”, “Already in place."

"389”, “Views on matters/issues of interest/concern should be reported on restrictively."

"390”, “The word restrictively is confusing.  The term should be clarify.  Parents should have specific roles in specific forums."

"391”, “The open-ended provision could lead to conflict if the parent forum moved into areas that relate to the direct management of individuals/teacher performance.  There must be a more restrictive provision."

"392”, “I would struggle to pre-determine what may or may not be of interest to other parents therefore advocate an open-ended approach."

"393”, “This is a duty of the School Boards and Boards have developed workable and creative ways of eliciting views and reporting to parents.  Framework is necessary."

"394”, “I feel we need a clearer definition of the areas of interest.  The School Boards deal with this already."

"395”, “The School Boards already deal with this.  Open-ended provision can be dangerous and abused."

"396”, “Board already deals with views of parents effectively and does not need replacing with parent forums with vague duties.  Open-ended provision is worrying."

"397”, “"

"398”, “I don't agree but would expect that someone not on a School Board might agree - It's too vague."

"399”, “This is already being done by existing Boards."

"400”, “School Boards can do this already.  Who listens - would they act?"

"401”, “Woolly"

"402”, “The open-ended provision is ok if it is put in the context of a specified remit, process and structure."

"403”, “"

"404”, “We believe this provision should be open-ended.  If (p15) the intention is that a forum ""should... be clearly representative of, represent the views of and be accountable to all the parents in the school"" it seems self-defeating to place a restriction on the areas of interest upon which those can be sought."

"405”, “These functions are broadly similar to Boards and they should continue. They should deal with all relevant matters which affect the children and the running of the school.
"

"406”, “Similar answer to 14.
"

"407”, “No, this again is too vague. The Forum's remit must be to be concerned with:
 1 .The school, its children and facilities.
 2. School policies on education and behaviour.
 3. The schools use of budget and resources
 4. Standards and quality of teaching within the school.
 5. Parent/ Teacher relations and parental involvement in their child's education.
 6. The schools links with the wider community.
 7. LEA and Government education policies.
 There are some areas which must be out of bounds:
 1. Discussions of individual children or teachers
 2. Teachers employment contracts or disciplinary issues"

"408”, “"

"409”, “School Boards are already obliged under the Act to do this and that obligation should continue."

"410”, “"

"411”, “"

"412”, “"

"413”, “"

"414”, “Blank"

"415”, “"

"416”, “"

"417”, “"

"418”, “"

"419”, “"

"420”, “"

"421”, “"

"422”, “"

"423”, “No. Any parental forum should have clear objectives. The aim to provide a flexible and individual approach to parental involvement will result in a cocktail of aims and objectives. This likely to create a greater lack of understanding of the purpose of the proposed body and would not encourage additional participation of parents.
 
The bill does not set out the structure or procedures for meetings or provide guidance on conduct of business.  Without the requirement for communication to all parents through circulation of agendas and minutes of meetings there is a risk that even more parents will be detached from the process."

"424”, “Currently the School Board does report the views of parents (legal obligation) - Scope of responsibility of School Board could be broadened to include, ""any area"" however there needs to be boundaries set in terms of confidentiality, professional educational knowledge and areas of sensitivity."

"425”, “"

"426”, “This is a difficult question to answer without the structure defined and in place- in principle We believe that the same restrictions (e.g. as pertaining to confidentiality) should be retained."

"427”, “We agree that it should be open ended."

"428”, “What is being proposed for Parent Forums is what has been the practice of School Boards for many years. School Boards reflect the key issues for their school communities and will work in partnership with their Head teacher to address them.

It is disappointing that the Scottish Executive did not seek best practice examples from current School Boards and PTAs to inform their thinking - prior to suggesting a system of Parental Forums whose remits may actually be far more restrictive than the School Boards they may replace.
"

"429”, “The Board does not agree with the concept of the parent forum."

"430”, “Open-ended provision for matters of interest is too prescriptive.  Some restrictions must be laid down which limit the areas into which parents can properly be allowed to engage.  The Forum should have the responsibility of where this line is drawn and act as the filter for some areas of interest.  In consultation with the Forum the Head teacher should be the arbiter of where the line should be drawn. At present any parent can request of the Head teacher information pertaining to his or her own child as a matter of course.  This should remain the norm."

"431”, “It is this potential operation of parent forums (similar to those we outlined in our response to Question 6) which we feel would be the greatest enhancement of existing School Boards, after they have been amended. Here, an open ended provision seems entirely appropriate."

"432”, “Yes, as long as it is appropriate."

"433”, “Yes we agree with an open ended approach."

"434”, “For the reasons outlined at the beginning of this paper, the Board has some considerable concerns about the extent of issues, which may be debated by parent forums. Care would have to be taken to ensure compliance with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (""ECHR"") (the right to privacy), particularly where action is taken in relation to issues which may encroach into the private lives of pupils or teachers. How would provision be made for confidentiality?"

"435”, “No, we do not agree with this open-ended provision.
Regarding parental involvement in school, parents who choose to join flexible forums would expect to find that flexibility within the forum set-up.
Our question here would be: How effective could such a forum be in carrying out a role entailing gathering information from the 'entirety of the school's parental community?  Minus the formality in place needed to carry out such a duty effectively, we find it hard to imagine that highly effective results could be obtained in reasonable amounts of time.  Surely any forum would only be able to report back with informed opinions on matters their forum is directly related to.  Open ended arrangements would open up the likelihood of forums ""drifting"" from specific areas of forum concerns onto other matters they are not informed enough to report on.  This would suggest opening up a pathway biasing the opinions of readers of such reports.
The School Board is currently the best body placed to fulfil the functions of reporting to/from and on behalf of parents.  You need a few, key, responsible people to handle such issues.  The figure of speech ""Too many cooks spoil the broth"" comes into play when considering handing such roles over to informal bodies with unlimited numbers.
Defining areas of interest more restrictively that is the other option suggested by the question would require structuring the forums.  The nature of this suggestion implies the need for structure.  Without this, one would be leaving oneself in the hands of whoever is on the forum at any given time.  This could result in dividing parents rather that bringing them together should parents disagree over conduct regarding differing opinions.  Provisions in the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988 already allows the Board to deal with the role of reporting views of parents effectively through provision of newsletters, etc....
"

"436”, “Again, given that we do not agree with the Bill in the first place, we do not agree with the open-ended provision"

"437”, “Agreed"

"438”, “The existing arrangements are generally satisfactory.  The existing arrangements allow for this.  Note that this question is poorly stated.  The question assumes that the Draft Bill arrangements are inevitable.  The question infers that School Boards and the existing arrangements do not find out & report the views of parents."

"439”, “Yes- open ended provision ensures sufficient flexibility which allows each forum to concentrate on areas of specific interest to them at any point in time."

"440”, “The status quo should remain and forums should be open-ended and free to discuss any matters which are raised but with a focus.  There should be financial provision to allow forums to carry this forward effectively.  No individual should ever be able to be identified either during or as the result of discussion."

"441”, “Yes, as long as the views relate to the school and the education of the children and not used for other issues."

"442”, “No"

"443”, “"

"444”, “"

"445”, “"

"446”, “Open-ended provision."

"447”, “Open ended - different situation will lend themselves to different issues of concern."

"448”, “"

"449”, “Left as is at present."

"450”, “Yes, we agree.  No it shouldn't be restrictive."

"451”, “Parents already have the right through school boards."

"452”, “"

"453”, “Yes.  School Board do this at the moment."

"454”, “Guidelines would be necessary to give the parent forums focus."

"455”, “"

"456”, “"

"457”, “Yes"

"458”, “Yes"

"459”, “Yes, open ended provision."

"460”, “No.  Where, who would parents take their concerns to, who would be responsible for this.
Our concern would also be that if you take away the formal school board system - confidentiality would be compromised."

"461”, “Open-ended."

"462”, “Blank"

"463”, “School boards should stay"

"464”, “Certainly not.  Defining areas of interest is a must."

"465”, “No, far too open."

"466”, “Disagree"

"467”, “Yes"

"468”, “No, this whole plan / consultation is open-ended, make school more parent friendly."

"469”, “No - parents should be able to report or gain information in all areas of concern."

"470”, “Blank"

"471”, “Define more restrictively."

"472”, “It is too broad.  There should be control over areas over confidentiality and employment."

"473”, “This is a licence for parents to dictate policy to head teacher and staff.  Areas of interest should be defined very restrictively."

"474”, “We disagree with the open-ended provision and suggest more defined areas are identified as per the present system."

"475”, “We feel that, as a member of a parent forum, it is not clear what  you would be trying to achieve.  It is confusing as to what the functions are.  The open-ended provision could be open to mis-interpretation."

"476”, “Yes - but with the existing restrictions with regard to confidentiality, etc."

"477”, “No.  Some restrictions, such as school boards already have, should be in place i.e. individual cases should not be discussed."

"478”, “The existing Act should provide this already but has a structured procedure which allows each board to deal with issues in relation to their own school without a ""free for all"".  discussion occurring."

"479”, “At the moment the school board considers any matter of interest and concern to parents.  Parents either speak to board members or attend meetings themselves to raise issues - whether it is to do with teaching methods, the scheme of work, behaviour etc.  Anything different would be a backward step."

"480”, “I think the areas should be defined."

"481”, “The Board currently does report the views of parents on any matter to the appropriate authorities currently all parents who 16 board members are to approach them.  Who would be ""in charge"" of Forum ?"

"482”, “Areas should be defined."

"483”, “Surely this provision already exists with current school boards."

"484”, “The same guidelines operated by school boards - e.g. on matters of confidentiality - should be retained as a starting point."

"485”, “Should be defined - what they 'can't' interfere with i.e. it's running of school - but can forum on supporting delivery of curriculum."

Parent Forums - Draft Bill