Making the difference – involving parents better in schools

Question 16

Do you agree that the Bill should designate parent forums as ‘agents’ of the education authority for the purpose of their dealings with third parties, and the issue of insurance should be looked into further? Or do you take an alternative view ?

"1”, “No - if they have no formality they can take no responsibility"

"2”, “No - See Question 4 - School Boards and sub-committees of the School Board could operate more effectively if the matter of insurance could be resolved"

"3”, “No - we take the alternate view that present arrangements continue"

"4”, “"

"5”, “"

"6”, “Yes - good thinking outside the box here"

"7”, “Not sure what is meant by this, but feel anything to do with insurance must be deal with by local authority."

"8”, “Insurance lies with Education Authority"

"9”, “N/A to our views"

"10”, “N/A"

"11”, “Where School Boards exist without a PTA it could be useful to be insured so that they could engage in wider fundraising activities."

"12”, “"

"13”, “School should deal with third parties"

"14”, “Yes, they should be agents but should be covered by the insurance from the authority to engage in activities"

"15”, “No - could only be agent if Education Authority controlled constitution"

"16”, “As I am not sure of parent forums as the new Bill defines then, I do not think they should be 'agents' of education authorities"

"17”, “Yes"

"18”, “Yes agree and support further exploration of appropriate insurance cover"

"19”, “Yes - but why don't you just leave things as they are"

"20”, “The current School Board arrangement is our preferred choice."

"21”, “Yes"

"22”, “No - parent forums are independent but work in partnership with education authority"

"23”, “No"

"24”, “"

"25”, “Education authority should supply blanket insurance to cover all eventuality"

"26”, “See no reason to if PTAs retain wider insurance cover.  School Board, PTA and any 'new' forum could share and co-operate on tasks."

"27”, “Take alternative view"

"28”, “N/A"

"29”, “Would ""as 'agents' of the education authority"" restrict possible activities? and how much involvement would education authority have?"

"30”, “ABSOLUTELY NOT!"

"31”, “"

"32”, “No - I trust that my views will be taken into account"

"33”, “If they are established it would be necessary for them to be 'agents'
"

"34”, “Leave School Boards alone - designating parent forums as 'agents' is paying lip service - forums should have NO statutory rights AT ALL"

"35”, “Alternative view is to maintain the existing system"

"36”, “No"

"37”, “No - the issue of insurance should be looked into further"

"38”, “"

"39”, “"

"40”, “Yes"

"41”, “Alternative view"

"42”, “"

"43”, “No view"

"44”, “Agents acceptable"

"45”, “Yes - parent forum members should be designated as 'agents'.  Legal liability for members should be covered by education authority.  It should be a duty of the education authority to inform members of any limit to cover which is provided"

"46”, “As with existing Boards"

"47”, “I agree the forums will become 'agents' but it would be difficult to fight - e.g. school closures"

"48”, “Yes the forum should be agents of the authority.  Insurance must be in place to allow us to carry out all the fundraising activities currently carried out."

"49”, “"

"50”, “"

"51”, “No"

"52”, “Independence from the local authority is important.  Management decisions, access to the appeals process and policy consultations etc would benefit from this.  It may also make it easier for Boards to access funding for their schools from sources that are not normally open to local authorities.  Insurance in these circumstances needs investigation to cover all activities without becoming a major cost to the Board"

"53”, “"

"54”, “"

"55”, “Once again - we think the present method is fine."

"56”, “Alternative - parents for parenting/schools for teaching"

"57”, “No - how can education authority be responsible?"

"58”, “Yes, Yes"

"59”, “"

"60”, “"

"61”, “Yes - parent forums should be agents of the education authority"

"62”, “"

"63”, “I agree"

"64”, “Can't envisage circumstances when this would be relevant"

"65”, “"

"66”, “"

"67”, “Yes, parents should not be deterred from participation by fears of financial liability.  However, we would prefer a continuation of the current position where a School Board is an agent of the Executive"

"68”, “This is too murky an issue.  Further consideration leading to crystal clear statements of liability"

"69”, “Again we seek to leave the situation as it is.  Otherwise this question is not that clear.  We are against the idea of free agents."

"70”, “Yes"

"71”, “"

"72”, “"

"73”, “"

"74”, “No - this would make parents unsure of what they are signing up to"

"75”, “We don't agree with parent forums"

"76”, “N/A"

"77”, “No"

"78”, “Present arrangement to continue"

"79”, “Yes, where this makes life easier for the parent forum, but no where it restricts the scope of their activities.  Insurance issues should be clarified BEFORE the legislation comes into effect"

"80”, “Yes"

"81”, “I personally wouldn't want to be seen as an agent to the Education Authority.  I would prefer people/parents to be aware of my independence"

"82”, “This provision is already part of the existing structure."

"83”, “"

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

"85”, “No comments"

"86”, “Yes - re-look at insurance"

"87”, “"

"88”, “We agree that the organisation should be an agent of the education authority as it is at present"

"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”, “Definitely not."

"95”, “Blank"

"96”, “"

"97”, “Unable to comment"

"98”, “No.  Parent Forums are not 'agents' for the education department."

"99”, “Not applicable.  See answer to question 14 ( Parent forums are not a good replacement for School Boards. )"

"100”, “Yes"

"101”, “Blank."

"102”, “Looked into and clarified."

"103”, “I see no benefit in referring to the forums as agents."

"104”, “Blank"

"105”, “N / A"

"106”, “Agree"

"107”, “Yes, I agree."

"108”, “Yes"

"109”, “Blank"

"110”, “Yes, IF parent forums are to  replace Boards."

"111”, “Blank"

"112”, “"

"113”, “N / A"

"114”, “No"

"115”, “I strongly feel that 'parent forums' and PTA's should remain separate bodies so this would, therefore, not be a problem."

"116”, “No, PTA and insurance issues should be left as they are."

"117”, “Agreed, but it should not prevent fund raising if a parent forum takes on that function."

"118”, “Yes"

"119”, “Blank"

"120”, “No, it would lead to loss of independence"

"121”, “It would seem appropriate, and desirable, that members of the forum are 'agents' of the education authority."

"122”, “Yes, however as we're acting as 'agents' for the education authority insurance should be provided by them."

"123”, “Yes, on a similar view as school boards are at the moment, however concern should be placed over the current set up for PTAs i.e. fund raising."

"124”, “Blank"

"125”, “No"

"126”, “Since I consider school board or forum as being a practical way of consulting with parent on the direction of their children’s education and not a passing of responsibility from the authority there would seem little need for insurance."

"127”, “Agree"

"128”, “Blank"

"129”, “If forums go ahead then some form of understanding should be explored for internal and external events."

"130”, “No - entirely inappropriate."

"131”, “We think the ability of forum / Boards to deal with minor janitorial work could be useful - e.g. an ability to recruit volunteer workers."

"132”, “Blank"

"133”, “Blank"

"134”, “Yes"

"135”, “No"

"136”, “Blank"

"137”, “No"

"138”, “No"

"139”, “Yes"

"140”, “Current insurance requirements are adequate.  School Boards retain independence as opposed to being 'agents'."

"141”, “""(......looked into further)"" - Yes"

"142”, “No"

"143”, “No"

"144”, “Must be looked into further."

"145”, “"

"146”, “"

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

"148”, “Status quo."

"149”, “Status"

"150”, “No"

"151”, “N / A"

"152”, “No - School Boards should be the agents."

"153”, “Agent of Education Authority should be headmistress and teachers."

"154”, “I agree"

"155”, “Blank"

"156”, “?"

"157”, “N / A"

"158”, “Yes"

"159”, “"

"160”, “N / A"

"161”, “Yes - follow the existing board rules with strict limits on the contractual element.  Insurance cover should be as per current arrangements for boards."

"162”, “Any parent forum should NOT be seen as the agent of any education authority.  They should only be representing the interests of parents and pupils of the school."

"163”, “Yes - issues of insurance should be looked into further."

"164”, “I don't have enough confidence in the proposals to be able to say that I could agree to such a body being responsible for dealing with third parties.  So I would have to say that I don't agree with this view."

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

"166”, “"

"167”, “Not agents - no-one affiliated with the Board/forum should be personally responsible/liable for any decisions made or action taken.  However, the policies by which the Authority are bound (equal opportunities/anti racism etc) should also apply to members."

"168”, “The present situation is fine."

"169”, “Legal issues here.  Board already ""agents""  of EA.  Insurance issues."

"170”, “Assuming that the education authority and the school has had input."

"171”, “We agree that the organisation should be an agent of the education authority as it is at present"

"172”, “This could result in a dangerous situation when circumstances are not specific.  More clarification of this is needed."

"173”, “Yes an agency format would be of greater advantage to the new forums."

"174”, “?"

"175”, “Parents should not be 'agents' of the education authority - they should be free to put their views without consulting the authority.  What insurance?"

"176”, “No"

"177”, “Quite happy with status quo."

"178”, “No - PTAs should still be able to exist outside the statutory set up."

"179”, “The current system works.  A parent forum should be like a PTA.  A body with no legally prescribed constitution or record keeping will be a considerable risk for the education authority and for insurance purposes."

"180”, “"

"181”, “"

"182”, “No"

"183”, “Yes there should be some provision for adequate insurance cover to ensure school fundraising activities are not restricted - this could be through current PTA's with SPTC cover or with sufficient cover through newly established Parent Forums."

"184”, “School Boards already participate in steering groups and involvement with educational issues.  Financially will not be supported if changes to abolish School Boards."

"185”, “"

"186”, “Yes - will need appropriate insurance cover for fundraising activities"

"187”, “Activities should be split between PTA & Boards to allow existing insurances to continue to function."

"188”, “As above.  (  Already provisions in place for this.  )"

"189”, “Unclear what this actually means."

"190”, “No.  Agents of the Education Authority would require to pass through more stringent tests of capability and competence, than a simple proposal and election process."

"191”, “"

"192”, “Benefits outweigh risks"

"193”, “Yes insurance has been flagged up at various meetings and needs to be sorted out.  We do not want any restrictions to fundraising and we are sad to see the PTA has to fundraise to pay its insurance!!!  Authorities should have sufficient ""clout"" with insurers to agree a better deal."

"194”, “If 'agents' of EA ensures insurance then yes we agree."

"195”, “Yes but if already have an existing PTA should work with them."

"196”, “This is a step too far and should not be developed."

"197”, “No"

"198”, “No they do not have the skills to successfully carry out the function."

"199”, “Should the present structure change it would be necessary to look at the issue of insurance."

"200”, “Agree"

"201”, “We don't agree with parent forums."

"202”, “Bearing in mind the flexibility of this approach it would be vital that insurances are adequately dealt with prior to any change in the current arrangements."

"203”, “This depends on what is meant by agent and how clearly defined it is in the final bill if the parent forums are adopted."

"204”, “Yes"

"205”, “Yes"

"206”, “Yes"

"207”, “Blank"

"208”, “Yes"

"209”, “I agree."

"210”, “Yes"

"211”, “Yes"

"212”, “Yes.  Agents of authority."

"213”, “If the current systems in place are adequate they should continue."

"214”, “Yes"

"215”, “Blank"

"216”, “No"

"217”, “Blank"

"218”, “No, too many parents would hinder decision making."

"219”, “Blank"

"220”, “No"

"221”, “Basically Yes, but further discussion would be required."

"222”, “We agree that the issue of insurance should be looked in to further."

"223”, “No.  We believe the current separation of School Board and PTA identity and activity already solves the problem that the new bill will create."

"224”, “"

"225”, “Don't know."

"226”, “No to 'agents' of the Ed Authority."

"227”, “No - the authority should not abdicate its responsibility and a parents group is in no way an agent for the education authority."

"228”, “No"

"229”, “No"

"230”, “Blank"

"231”, “No"

"232”, “"

"233”, “Yes"

"234”, “What is the insurance situation at present ?"

"235”, “Our alternative view is that we don't want parent forums."

"236”, “Yes"

"237”, “"

"238”, “Yes"

"239”, “No"

"240”, “Yes, should be agents to protect them in dealing with third parties, BUT insurance must be looked into so as not to compromise fund-raising ability of group and school relies heavily on PTA funds."

"241”, “Very ""dodgy"" having unregulated forums as 'agents' of the authority.  Surely best to have a regulated body who produces minutes that are checked and recorded."

"242”, “Do not want to be 'agents'."

"243”, “Qs 16/17 Present structure suitable.
Board/forum independent but not for legal issues."

"244”, “Yes"

"245”, “If this is for insurance cover OK.
But remember our current highly effective PSA arranges insurance for all info / treats and third party dealings.  ""Don't restrict them for political correctness"""

"246”, “"

"247”, “"

"248”, “No comment"

"249”, “No adverse comment - further input may be required."

"250”, “?"

"251”, “It is essential that the proposed forums should be designated as 'agents' of both the school and the local authority, particularly in their dealings with third parties.  All parental activities, i.e. fund raising, should be covered by the local authority insurance policy as is the current situation with School Boards and PTAs who are currently designated as sub-committees of School Boards."

"252”, “"

"253”, “"

"254”, “No we do not agree"

"255”, “Yes - if the forum is an agent of the authority where do the liabilities start and finish? This needs to be clearly defined."

"256”, “Yes"

"257”, “No"

"258”, “Not enough information currently available to answer this question.  Board is accountable but not liable if a decision made by them goes wrong."

"259”, “For insurance purposes ok but don't know if there other implications of being ""agents"" of the education authority - e.g. restrictions on types of activities undertaken, political interference on workings of forum etc."

"260”, “Don't understand the term 'agent'  Different constitution could mean different insurance.  This needs to be looked at closely."

"261”, “Yes but they should be able to do things independently."

"262”, “Yes"

"263”, “SPTC may not exist to provide blanket cover for fundraising activities.  Insurance in place to cover all activities."

"264”, “We agree"

"265”, “Parent forum/boldly should have a degree of autonomy within agreed guidelines but protected by adequate insurance."

"266”, “Yes and any expanded role should be covered.  However the issues surrounding insurance need to be completely clarified and made available."

"267”, “"

"268”, “"

"269”, “No"

"270”, “No"

"271”, “Alternative view"

"272”, “No"

"273”, “"

"274”, “No - just leave it alone.  Anyway if each parent forum is able to decide its own constitution you can't then have them being told what to do by the education authority."

"275”, “Don't understand this question."

"276”, “Not clear as to the point of this one."

"277”, “No - why would they need to be 'agents'?  What insurance would that be?  They should not be dealing with third parties directly."

"278”, “No - the present system makes provision in these matters and with some adjustment should be kept."

"279”, “"

"280”, “"

"281”, “"

"282”, “Why do we need insurance ?"

"283”, “No, without the legitimacy of election process, in whatever form that takes, thereby assuring the forum is a true representation of the parental community, parent forums as proposed should not act as agents of the education authority."

"284”, “Responses were (2) replied Yes; (2) replied No; (1) no answer)"

"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”, “'PTA' and 'school board' are already recognised names which are associated as 'agents' of the education authority - why change this ?"

"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”, “School Boards legislation is adequate in this regard."

"295”, “Parental Forums should be allowed to be ""agents"" of the authority."

"296”, “"

"297”, “This needs to be investigated further - we are concerned about restrictions on use of the building which is at the heart of a rural community."

"298”, “"

"299”, “"

"300”, “"

"301”, “"

"302”, “"

"303”, “"

"304”, “Under no circumstances should the bill designate parent forums as ""agents"" of the education authority for the purpose of their dealings with third parties.
"

"305”, “"

"306”, “Again we seek to leave the situation as it is.  Otherwise this question is not that clear. We are against the idea of free agents.
"

"307”, “"

"308”, “"

"309”, “"

"310”, “No.  The prospect of this level of responsibility will be enough to deter many parents from becoming involved.  If the members of the forum need to deal with third parties to the point where insurance is a consideration, officers of the Authority itself should be acting for and with them.
"

"311”, “This is currently in place for School Boards. We see no need to change it.

"

"312”, “"

"313”, “"

"314”, “At all times parent should have no liability and should work through guidelines set up by local authority and be under their insurance."

"315”, “No"

"316”, “This must be looked into further."

"317”, “Must be looked into further.  Concern that fundraising may be hindered by insurance constraints.  Does 'agent' simply mean included in local authority's cover?"

"318”, “No"

"319”, “No - the education authority like the forum must equally be accountable not just pick and choose what it requires from a forum.  Does the EA wish to drop controversial subjects under the education or local authority umbrella?"

"320”, “As per School Board arrangements."

"321”, “Must have appropriate insurance."

"322”, “Is the education authority trying to opt out of its responsibilities?"

"323”, “We do not agree with the Bill."

"324”, “Not able to comment.  This has not been discussed with the education authority."

"325”, “I do agree."

"326”, “Yes"

"327”, “The role of the School Board is currently substantially more than an 'agent' of the Education Authority and the proposal for creating a body at a lesser order to function as an agent might be interpreted as giving such a body 'false authority' or an expectation of 'false powers' .  These new proposals offer in reality a much reduced 'agency' for dealings with third parties compared with School Boards and should not replace them."

"328”, “Views vary - would need clarification of why and when we would be acting as 'agent'"

"329”, “Why change a 'winning hand'.  If School Boards act as agents why suggest changes in this bill."

"330”, “Do not wish to restrain current activities and need to be informed about insurances.  Some sort of umbrella could be set up."

"331”, “"

"332”, “Yes"

"333”, “If it worked for School Boards in similar areas then why not designate parent forums as 'agents' of the education authority when dealing with third parties."

"334”, “If designated agents, parent forums may possibly have more credibility with some third parties which may be beneficial in certain cases.  If insurance is going to be a problem perhaps it should be investigated further."

"335”, “Disagree with the Bill.  Education to deal with all insurance issues."

"336”, “This area needs greater clarification.  There are a number of legal issues here which must be looked into carefully.  The insurance issues are extremely important and must be dealt with by fully qualified experts."

"337”, “Leave as it is"

"338”, “Any parent forum should not be seen as the agent of the education authority.  They should only be representing the interests of parents and pupils of the school."

"339”, “"

"340”, “"

"341”, “No - School Boards legislation is adequate in this regard."

"342”, “If the forum became an ""agent"" it would at least give the group an element of formality."

"343”, “Once again your question takes the establishment of parent forums at its starting point."

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

"345”, “As an agent of the education authority, a forum might be restricted to only participating in activities that are covered by the local education authority's insurance arrangements. This would mean that forums could, for example, hold sales of work as is current possible by PTA's (as they receive wider insurance coverage from the Scottish Parent teacher Council)."

"346”, “Insurance would have to be further explored.
Appropriate insurance should be put in place.
Parent Forums should remain agents.
If Parent Forums are producing their own constitutions there may be a need for individually tailored insurance
Rules or constraints on what may or may not be appropriate activity may require to be put in place to reduce insurance premiums.
"

"347”, “Yes."

"348”, “Seems reasonable. "

"349”, “Individual authorities will have different restrictions on what they will allow those for whom they carry liability to do. The 'agent' status also suggests that the parent forums are in some way controlled by the authority. Since the parent forum is there to represent parent interests rather than to act on behalf of the authority, a separate, national system of public liability cover is desirable.  This would be similar to the SPTC insurance for PTA events. "

"350”, “If Parent Forums are to be introduced, it is appropriate that the Bill should designate them as agents of the education authority.  It is also important that the Scottish Executive explore practicable ways of overcoming the existing restrictions in insurance cover.  It can be inferred from the consultation document that one of the contributory reasons for School Boards and PTA both operating in schools is due to the existing insurance restrictions on School Boards.  If such problems were resolved by the Scottish Executive it would allow greater flexibility for parents in a school to decide that the School Board and PTA should function as one integrated body.  The George Street Research highlighted that certain parents were confused by the existence and roles of the two parent bodies and thus allowing them to operate as one this would afford greater flexibility at the local level - something that the Scottish Executive wishes to achieve. (Note: It is recognised that an integrated approach would most likely require changes to the existing School Board legislation)"

"351”, “"

"352”, “"

"353”, “"

"354”, “NO. The education authority should quite clearly be responsible for this.  They are the professionals in the school field along with the staff of the school and not the parents.  If the educational authority want this run they must pay for it."

"355”, “Yes broadly speaking and we do believe the issue of insurance should be looked into to provide at least the same cover as that currently provided to PTAs but would like further guidance on the implications of being agents of the education authority before committing ourselves. "

"356”, “"

"357”, “The parents forum or preferably existing School Board must operate as agents of authority - otherwise this is another cutting of ties with the Authority and an inappropriate shift of responsibility. "

"358”, “Yes, if the change to Parent Forums is made."

"359”, “"

"360”, “Needs further looked into. There should be insurance.
"

"361”, “- They want PTA to be forum.
- No need to change what is already happening
"

"362”, “The present arrangements for School Boards as ""agents"" work well.
If this Bill is passed, the issue of insurance should be looked into further."

"363”, “"

"364”, “"

"365”, “"

"366”, “N / A"

"367”, “"

"368”, “"

"369”, “No - content with current Board arrangements."

"370”, “No they should not act as local authority agents."

"371”, “N/A - do not agree with proposals."

"372”, “Yes"

"373”, “N/A"

"374”, “Yes"

"375”, “If these forums were to be formed they would require to be 'agents'"

"376”, “No - School Boards at the moment work as an agent to the education authority.  I don't know about insurances."

"377”, “No - they should look at the way it is undertaken at present and see if it needs to be changed under the current system."

"378”, “I do not believe that parent forums or their members should have any such authority, ostensible or otherwise."

"379”, “Once again your question takes the establishment of parent forums as its starting point."

"380”, “As an agents of the education authority, a forum might then be restricted to only carrying out activities that are covered by the education authority's insurance arrangements  e.g. forums could not hold sales of work etc."

"381”, “We are interested in the promotion and effective running of good educational establishments for children to develop.  Where would this nonsense stop - in the litigation courts!!"

"382”, “No"

"383”, “Perhaps parent forums as 'agents' of the authority should be looked into further, especially with regard to the insurance cover.  If a school combines School Board and PTA the lack of insurance cover could restrict their activities."

"384”, “Sorry but I can't get my head around this question."

"385”, “Yes (as agents of the education authority)"

"386”, “As long as the education authority act responsibly and fully comply to parental views, then they are the right people to have as agents.  Insurance should have its own individual section and what is all involved."

"387”, “Yes"

"388”, “Already in place."

"389”, “Yes"

"390”, “"

"391”, “If parent forums are to be designated as 'agents' of the education authority then the parent forums must be operating to the same constitution otherwise it is a recipe for anarchy."

"392”, “Yes"

"393”, “If they were to exist - then yes."

"394”, “Agree - if it every happens."

"395”, “Yes"

"396”, “Agreed - if parent forums go ahead."

"397”, “"

"398”, “No - Far too loose.  Forum would be involved in too many aspects."

"399”, “Should not be 'agents''"

"400”, “Should be insured by education authority."

"401”, “Yes"

"402”, “No - they should not be 'agents' - this destroys their independence."

"403”, “"

"404”, “We agree that parent forum should be designated as ""agents"" of the education authority for the purposes described in the consultation paper and that the purposes out with current School Board functions they should be covered by insurance arranged on their behalf by the authority."

"405”, “(Our) Primary School Board agrees with this proposal.
"

"406”, “At present, the separate arrangements for the Board and PA are adequate for the activities in which we wish to engage.  It seems daft to introduce the apparent insurance minefield when the current arrangements work fine.
"

"407”, “Yes, this would be the preferred option. A fundraising PTA organisation with additional insurance could be affiliated to the Forum to overcome this."

"408”, “"

"409”, “Present arrangements for School Boards to continue."

"410”, “"

"411”, “"

"412”, “"

"413”, “"

"414”, “Blank"

"415”, “"

"416”, “"

"417”, “"

"418”, “"

"419”, “"

"420”, “"

"421”, “"

"422”, “"

"423”, “Yes."

"424”, “We feel the current arrangements should continue - we are unaware of any problems with current arrangements."

"425”, “"

"426”, “The issue of insurance should be looked into further.  These groups must be able to operate and fund raise as we do presently. Difficult to comment more  fully until the organisations and structures are decided upon first."

"427”, “We do not think that the parent forum should act as an agent of the local authority.
"

"428”, “If Parent Forums are to be introduced, it is appropriate that the Bill should designate them as agents of the education authority. It is also important that the Scottish Executive explore practicable ways of overcoming the existing restrictions in insurance cover.

It can be inferred from the consultation document that one of the contributory reasons for School Boards and PTA both operating in schools is due to the existing insurance restrictions on School Boards. If such problems were resolved by the Scottish Executive it would allow greater flexibility for parents in a school to decide that the School Board and PTA should function as one integrated body. The George Street Research highlighted that certain parents were confused by the existence and roles of the two parent bodies and thus allowing them to operate as one this would afford greater flexibility at the local level - something that the Scottish Executive wishes to achieve. (Note: It is recognized that an integrated approach would most likely require changes to the existing School Board legislation).
"

"429”, “The Board does consider that dealing with insurance issues should be looked into further as part of the existing School Board legislation."

"430”, “We agree that forums, if they are to be set up, should act as 'agents' for the Authority.  The issue of insurance is a definite requirement for protection of the members of the forum."

"431”, “No.  We would regard this function as correctly remaining with modified School Boards."

"432”, “Yes, but forums need to be aware of the responsibilities and restrictions this entails.  They need to be aware of what activities the insurance allows them to engage in."

"433”, “Blank"

"434”, “The Board would question whether education authorities will be happy to have parent forums designated in all cases as their agents.  What will happen in a case where the parent forum drafts its own constitution, which may be contrary to the ethos of the education authority?  Any action taken by the parent forum may bind the education authority.  How will this arrangement operate in practice?"

"435”, “This is a formal duty requiring formal arrangements, not best suited to informal types of groups like forums.  In the event that current parent bodies decide that forums are the way to go forwards with parental involvement, we do not feel that forums should have the power to act as agents.
At the end of the day, who would decide which forum at a school was best placed to deal with such matters?  Also, School Boards and PTAs keep minutes and a record is kept of where every penny is going, however forums are described as not being required to carry out such duties making them too informal to handle such matters.  With regard to the insurance issue - keeping it simple is the most straightforward and effective way for dealing with such matters. School Boards are already covered by setups currently in place as are PTAS.
"

"436”, “No, we do not agree that the Bill should designate parent forums as 'agents' of the education authority."

"437”, “- The SPTC may not exist to provide blanket cover for fundraising activities.
- Appropriate insurance should be put in place to cover all activities presently undertaken by Boards and PSAs.
"

"438”, “The existing arrangements are generally satisfactory.  Some of the matters regarding insurance arrangements are technical and could be resolved by modifications to the existing arrangements."

"439”, “Yes.  This could be useful in giving school forum a stronger position in potential conflict situations and therefore issue of insurance will require to be looked into further."

"440”, “The status quo should remain in relation to School Boards and any other organisation in the school should arrange their own insurance."

"441”, “Yes"

"442”, “Yes"

"443”, “"

"444”, “"

"445”, “"

"446”, “Yes."

"447”, “Yes"

"448”, “"

"449”, “Left as is at present."

"450”, “No, about agents.  Yes, about insurance."

"451”, “No"

"452”, “"

"453”, “No !"

"454”, “Yes, parent forums should be authorised and insured by the education authority."

"455”, “"

"456”, “"

"457”, “Yes"

"458”, “Yes"

"459”, “More information needed to answer this fully.  Issue of insurance should be looked into."

"460”, “No.  We strongly oppose the Bill and support the school board system."

"461”, “School Board arrangements work fine."

"462”, “Blank"

"463”, “No, school boards should stay."

"464”, “Difficult to respond - need to explore insurance issue."

"465”, “Legal issues here.  Boards already ""agents"" of this EA.  Insurance issues."

"466”, “Agree"

"467”, “Yes"

"468”, “Don't really understand question."

"469”, “We feel that issues of insurance should be looked into further."

"470”, “Yes"

"471”, “Would not be happy with forums as agents of education authority."

"472”, “Fund raising days, events, etc are insurable at present, if this will be refused in the future it is a bad idea, the insurance issue must be carefully explored."

"473”, “If school boards are abolished, parent forum should be designated as agents of the education authority.  Insurance cover should be wider.  Perhaps the education authority's own insurance cover should be reviewed."

"474”, “As an agent of the education authority, a forum might then be restricted to only carrying out activities that are covered by the education authority's insurance arrangements.  This would mean that forums could not hold sales of work for example. (PTAs can currently do so because they get wider insurance from the Scottish Parent Teacher Council)."

"475”, “If parent forums come into being, they need to be insured as necessary."

"476”, “Yes, but they should be able to do things independently."

"477”, “Yes."

"478”, “No"

"479”, “No, I do not think parent forums should be agent of the authority.  Any parent body designed to replace school boards should work in partnership with the authority, with the authority listening to and acting upon the request of the parent body."

"480”, “Parent forums should be answerable to the education authority."

"481”, “No.  The current system with boards as ""agents"" should continue."

"482”, “Parent Forums should be answerable to Local Education Authorities, to avoid ""too many chiefs and not enough indians"" scenario arising."

"483”, “Believe it should be as existing."

"484”, “Does 'agent' simply mean included under the EA insurance cover ?  It is vital that the forums can be the fund raise and contact with third parties without running into insurmountable cost otherwise insurance issues.  A workable model must be presented."

"485”, “Parents should be answerable to the parent body and Scottish Executive not authority for LA - may want to take different new from LA."

Parent Forums - Draft Bill