A Scottish council has provoked the ire of parents and teaching unions with an attempt to revamp the way its schools are run.
Argyll and Bute Council wanted to bring multiple schools together in “collectives” and introduce the new role of “executive headteacher” to run them, at the same time as changing the title of “headteacher” to “head of school”.
Early proposals indicated that executive heads could lead as many as seven primary schools and one secondary, with opponents concerned that the current role of headteacher would be badly undermined by the plans.
Now, however, it seems likely the plans will be dropped.
The council argued that the changes would “future proof” the authority’s schools amid falling rolls and make it easier to recruit school leaders, especially to small rural primaries. It was suggested that because heads of school would be non-teaching and have a cluster-wide specialism, the role could command a higher salary - and that the executive head role would provide a promotion route for school leaders.
However, following a consultation on the so-called “collective leadership model”, that received over 800 responses and ran from November to March, the council’s Community Services Committee, which is due to meet on Thursday, is now being advised to “agree that the proposals as consulted on are not progressed”.
The consultation involved pupils, parents, the public and school staff. It found that 67 per cent of school staff - from headteachers to support staff - were against the plans.
We take a look at where it all went wrong.
The proposals lacked detail and the council failed to make the case for change
The report on the consultation findings says: “Respondents wanted to know about individual school collectives (which have not yet been decided), to see detailed remits for new roles (which have not yet been written) and to see alternative proposals (which do not exist).”
The consultation also found - alongside this “lack of detail in the proposal” - a lack of clear evidence supporting the need for change.
The council said the changes were necessary to improve consistency of education delivery across schools and to future proof the authority’s schools, amid falling rolls and difficulties recruiting and retaining headteachers. But the consultation report said “most respondents (except headteachers) believe the current system ‘isn’t broken’” and that “any perceived issues with schools are blamed on funding and resources - not on school leadership, workloads, or individual remits”.
According to the consultation, this lack of information on how the model would work and the evidence for change left a gap “for people to insert their own theories on why change is proposed” - usually, this involved a perception that the council was “cost-cutting and defunding of education”.
The consultation report recommended no further engagement with the public and community “until the council is able to present a compelling case for change and a tangible model with fully described roles and clear information on what individual school collectives would look like”.
The ‘deep-rooted mistrust of the council’
The consultation report says: “Respondents communicated mistrust in the Council and thus in the proposal.” It adds that: “Teachers demonstrate a mistrust of management or authority in general, and the council specifically. This manifested in mistrust of the proposal, with many concluding it must be primarily a cost-cutting exercise.”
One teacher in the consultation commented that this lack of trust needed to be addressed “before significant changes are proposed”.
The teacher added: “We need an education system built on mutual trust, cooperation and highly effective communication.”
‘Lobbying bodies’ accused of spreading ‘misinformation’
The “promotion of misinformation” coupled with a lack of trust in the council “resulted in a highly negative response to the proposals”, says a paper written by Douglas Hendry, the council’s executive director with responsibility for education.
He says that this ultimately led to “stakeholders being misinformed in respect to key aspects of the proposals”, including that headteachers would be removed, risks of school closure and reductions in pupil-teacher ratios and teacher contact time, and “claims of illegality with regard to the creation of executive heads”.
The consultation report also says that the consultation was disrupted by “a few loud campaigning voices with an unclear agenda”.
It adds: “This is expected as part of any consultation process but was seen to be exceptionally effective here.”
Failure to understand the ‘emotional weight’ of the ‘headteacher’ title
The consultation report says: “The title of ‘headteacher’ holds emotional weight. Changing it will never be popular, and proposing to do so has hampered consultation.”
The consultation found that the change of title among the authority’s current heads was “causing mistrust in the whole proposal” and was “a major barrier to open discussion”. One school leader explained that being a headteacher is more than just a job title - it is an occupation.
They said: “When people talk about how they love being a headteacher, it’s not the title. A doctor is a doctor, and we are headteachers.”
Another headteacher said they had previous experience of being known as a “head of school”, but the change of title didn’t last because “heads felt like lesser mortals compared to headteachers”. Other heads saw the title change as being “demoted”, saying the new role was “obviously meant to be lesser, with less pay and fewer conditions”.
This perception persisted even though the council said the head of school role could potentially command a higher salary because they would have a cluster-wide specialism. But it was just not serving headteachers who could not see past the change of title.
The consultation report said, “almost all respondents are very strongly against removing or changing the ‘headteacher’ title”. It said this one element of the proposal had “disrupted the whole consultation and distracted from the rest of the story” - including “encouraging a misconception that headteachers would be removed from schools”.
It added: “There is no specific dislike of ‘head of school’, but rather there is a complete dismissal of any title that is not ‘headteacher’.”
Fear over loss of individual school identities
The consultation report found that teachers felt “personally invested in and attached to their own schools” and were worried about “intangible ‘school identity’ being lost in the collective model”.
It was not just teachers who were concerned about this; “most respondents” were, said the consultation report. It noted that a pupil’s analogy of their school becoming “part of a chain of schools - a bit like a branch of McDonald’s” had “described this fear perfectly”, and that “a sense of place and belonging” was “highly valued”.
One parent said: “I’m not in favour of one headteacher being in total control of several schools, especially within a very small area eg, on an island, as this seems too authoritarian to me. Schools are all individual little communities and their own identities will be lost within a new, collective identity - dare I say, brand?”
The Community Services Committee will meet on Thursday 25 August at 10am. The papers for the meeting can be read here.
