There are plans afoot to change the way some Scottish schools are led. Both Argyll and Bute Council and Fife Council have plans to introduce “cluster leadership models”, whereby a large number of schools would be brought together under the leadership of an “executive headteacher” - or a “super head”, as some would describe it.
Exactly which schools will be brought together - and whether or not these plans will ever become a reality - remains to be seen. But the Fife proposals relate to the schools in the picturesque fishing towns of the East Neuk.
At the moment, the East Neuk schools, which include eight primary schools and one secondary school, Waid Academy, have six headteachers between them. One proposal is that there should be just one head for all nine schools - the other two models put forward by the council would see the nine schools have two headteachers.
So, under the second potential scenario, Waid Academy and Anstruther Primary would be run by the same headteacher and the remaining seven primaries (Lundin Mill, Kirkton of Largo, Colinsburgh, Elie, Pittenweem St Monans and Crail) would fall under the leadership of a second head.
Under the third scenario, Waid Academy would retain its current leadership model, and the eight primary schools would come under the leadership of a single head.
The Argyll and Bute plans are more familiar given that they came to light in June of last year. Again, the gist of it is that a large number of schools would come together - based predominantly on “geographical and community connections” - and be run by one executive headteacher.
One clear driver for the plans is recruitment. Argyll and Bute believe its proposal will reduce “the likelihood of failure to recruit to key posts”, while the Fife proposals state: “The role of cluster headteacher(s) will be attractive post(s), attracting high-quality candidates, from Fife and from elsewhere across Scotland and beyond... This will help address the issue of attracting staff to the East Neuk of Fife.”
Headteacher posts in Scotland’s small schools are notoriously tough to recruit to, in part because depute heads of large primaries can earn equivalent salaries, so why take on the extra responsibility?
And the requirement that, since August 2020, new headteachers must have the Into Headship qualification has further complicated an already difficult situation. Despite positive reports from new heads about the usefulness of the 12- to 18-month master’s-level course, Argyll and Bute Council staff say it is making recruitment harder.
Reducing the number of heads, therefore, gets round these problems of there not being sufficient candidates, with sufficient qualifications. Under the models being suggested by Fife and Argyll and Bute, headteacher posts will reduce and middle-leadership posts will increase.
This, it is argued, will enable the authorities to grow their own leaders because there will be more opportunities for teachers to hone their skills as principal teachers and deputes. It is also argued that the changes will lead to greater collaboration between schools; ease transition; increase sharing of good practice; and lead to teachers working across sectors
Such arguments are reminiscent of the way Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence, and its emphasis on interdisciplinary learning, has been used to justify the move to create faculties, where multiple subjects are brought under the leadership of a faculty head, instead of each subject having its own principal teacher. With both faculty systems and changes to the role of headteacher, sceptics argue that saving money is the main motivation.
Faculties, it was argued, would lead to greater collaboration between different departments in secondary schools. In reality, academics are lukewarm about the success of faculties. Subject groupings can be “arbitrary”, the University of Aberdeen’s Professor Graeme Nixon recently told Tes Scotland. He has been researching the extent to which schools have moved to a faculty structure and says they have led to problems in relation to “workload, lack of career progression, loss of subject support and specialism, diminishment of mentoring, marginalisation of subjects and demoralisation of staff”.
If the goal is collaboration, rejigging leadership models is unlikely to have much impact, unless the professionals involved have more time to talk to each other.
Meanwhile, both Fife Council and Argyll and Bute Council say the expectation is that these changes will be cost-neutral.
Surely, then, it is time to be candid - the principal motivation for creating cluster leadership models is headteacher recruitment issues.
School leaders’ bodies will tell you that pay is a big problem. So, before councils overhaul how schools are run, maybe councils and the Scottish government should consider paying headteachers properly and giving them the time they need to do their jobs.
That really would be a game changer...
Emma Seith is a reporter at Tes Scotland. She tweets @Emma_Seith
