At a recent EIS leadership conference, in reference to the Scottish government’s wide-ranging review of governance in education, Professor Brian Boyd remarked that we could be on the verge of a significant change, on a similar scale to the launch of Curriculum for Excellence. It was an interesting perspective, predicated as it was on looking forward rather than immediately reverting to a defence of the current arrangements.
The EIS teaching union is developing a formal response to the proposals, which will be fed in to the government consultation, and it is true that initial iterations of that response begin with “red lines” about what needs to be protected - national pay bargaining and conditions of service, for example.
We have been clear, also, that the review should not descend into a turf war between local and national government about who controls education but rather should focus on what will provide greater support to those delivering teaching and learning. Our strap line is about increased and more effective support for schools and an enhanced learning environment for pupils and teachers.
Helpfully, education secretary John Swinney has been quite clear in ruling out the introduction of English-style academies or free schools (or indeed grammar schools) in Scotland, and at our leadership conference he explicitly committed to retaining local authority control of education, rejecting any notion of a national education service.
Decisions at school level
Things will not remain the same, however. It is clear that Swinney sees a deficit that needs to be addressed. In his statement to the Scottish Parliament, he said: “Our guiding principle for the way our schools are run is simple. Decisions should be taken at school-level. That will be our presumption and we will place it at the heart of this review.”
That is a seductive statement in its simplicity and clarity. Perversely, it could be used to justify the academy model, where local authorities have been removed from the framework and where school boards make decisions - with the disastrous consequences we can see elsewhere in the UK. The important difference, cited by the government, is the existence of a strong policy framework that builds on the widely shared continuing commitment to the core ethos of our highly inclusive system of comprehensive education.
The EIS has no disagreement with the government’s vision of empowerment: “We will empower our teachers to make the best decisions for our young people. We will place them at the heart of a system that makes decisions about children’s learning within the schools themselves, supported by parents and the local community.” But there still needs to be a support structure for schools.
For example, the proposed additional funding direct to schools of £140 million per year is welcome but cannot be allowed to create further workload demands in individual institutions. The scale of the money can easily be accommodated as a budget line in local authorities’ existing arrangements, thereby avoiding the danger of increased bureaucracy but allowing for a degree of government-led ring-fencing of education spending - something that the EIS has long favoured.
Ensuring buy-in is essential to the health of education
As finance minister, Swinney was quite directive in ring-fencing money to maintain teacher numbers in line with the agreement reached with the EIS, so there is a clear precedent for protecting education spending. One position that we will be arguing strongly for is the introduction of a national minimum staffing standard, which would provide local authorities with the flexibility they say they need but also ensure an equitable service provision across the country.
It is important, also, that schools themselves are democratic places where all teachers have a voice in how education is delivered.
One area of significant speculation is the notion of regional bodies, which are unspecified in their nature. While there appears to be little appetite for significant restructuring - and certainly, the experience of EIS members in the college sector is instructive in this regard - there may be scope for greater support being provided to schools without compromising local democratic accountability. Many councils, for example, have lost their capacity to provide significant pedagogical support to schools, with quality improvement officer networks being decimated in recent times.
It is significant, therefore, that the review moves well beyond the role of local authorities, encompassing bodies such as Education Scotland, the Scottish Qualifications Authority, the Scottish College for Educational Leadership, the General Teaching Council for Scotland, not to mention the government itself. The arrangements around these bodies may be the subject of much greater debate than the relationship between the government and councils.
The review questions have been framed in a very open fashion and it is to be hoped that this consultation is merely the first stage of an iterative process, which might mirror the national education conversation before the launch of CfE. Given the potential impact of any changes introduced, it is essential that time is taken to make the correct decisions, rather than simply to make decisions quickly. Ensuring that teachers are involved in the process and that there is subsequent buy-in around proposals is essential to the future health of Scottish education.
Ultimately, the focus of any governance review should be on how teaching and learning can be supported more effectively to deliver a shared ambition around delivering equity and raising attainment.
Larry Flanagan is general secretary of the EIS teaching union
