HE case for a decisive role for local authorities in public education has never been stronger. The task is not to exercise power, but to exercise authority through the sharing of power through community planning, treating children as citizens and learners, and supporting parents and families.

Public service is about meeting collective needs. I can only receive a quality education for my son as part of a contractual arrangement with other neighbours and citizens and their children. In addition I have a general interest in the service on offer to others, as I wish to live in a well-educated society.

The word “customer” is used on occasions even in local government. Sometimes the customer is denied a service because his or her need is less than someone else’s. The need for a competitive council is asserted, yet much of the work of a local authority or a school demands co-operation with other public agencies, with the private sector, with voluntary bodies and above all with the community.

Management in schools and local government can learn from the private sector. It is however a mistake to model management in the public sector on the private sector or anecdotes of the private sector. No encouragement should be given to incongruous parodies of effective business managers such as the entrepreneurial head or the macho hospital trust manager. There should be a stress on management for citizenship as well as service to customers. A school has wider obligations than to the current generation of parents.

The political process is not an external constraint on the management of a school but its driving force. Democracy is what marks out the provision of these collective needs as different. Management should express and support the political input.

So-called enabling authorities do not need to be residual authorities doing what nobody else would do or solely market-driven. The local authority should exist to meet the varied needs of its population using whatever channels of provision seem most appropriate. There is a need to emphasise the collective as well as the individual needs and focus especially on the idea of communities.

We are now to have a national debate on the purpose and functions of education. It is appropriate that there are general considerations about key priorities. The standards agenda is crucial and has been well led by HMI in Scotland. This has been expertly pulled together within the quality initiative in Scottish schools, based on self-evaluation, quality assurance and inspection. The key point, however, is to ensure that our expectations are for each and every child and that we assure quality, not merely ensure compliance with the latest advice. Not just standards and attainment, but raising achievement and social inclusion.

Crucially, the challenge and support role for local authorites has to be explored fully. Do we know our schools? Are we raising standards in promoting opportunities for the well-being of the whole child?

In policy terms, the case for local authority leadership of education in the 21st century is based on:

* Linking community schools to community planning.

* Social inclusion, not least through integration of services for children.

* Local democracy through participatory mechanisms and schools as democratic institutions. Training for citizenship.

* Sustainability, both through active citizenship and awareness raising.

In considering these roles, reflect as to whether it is felt a rigid national framework in a country as small as Scotland would achieve as much. The evidence suggests otherwise. Success in raising standards and in looking at the interests of the whole child has come through local initiatives.

The 2000 Act has assisted in clarifying who does what. If local authorities are clear about their role in education and give it full importance, the future is secure. Given a very difficult 10-year period, however, there are issues about confidence, recognising the successful, avoiding complacency and indeed succession planning. Local solutions are crucial.

N Stirling, the role of the authority is expressed for education through the development of children’s services, particularly developing new community schools. First, because we believe in universal service, we think all schools should be new community schools. Second, there is a considerable commitment to community empowerment. Third, there is a need and a commitment to work in the child’s best interests with the co-ordination of support for the family.

In research on the impact of new community schools carried out for Stirling, Jon Nixon wrote that “without the backing of the statutory powers divested in the local authority the project we are studying would be unsupportable”.

He goes on to state that “without a continuing commitment to enablement and negotiation by that local authority in exercise of its powers the project would be unsustainable”. Given the different role of local authorities south of the border and the continuing commitment within certain political quarters to further devolution of powers to schools, this point is crucial.

Despite all the noise in the system, I believe that the agenda for local authorities in the context of integrated services, local democracy and social inclusion has never been clearer or more important.

Gordon Jeyes is director of children’s services with Stirling. This is an extract from a talk last week to the annual conference of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.