Meeting of the Parliament 28 June 2017
If the Scottish Government is serious about closing the multiple attainment gaps, ending inequality and raising standards in education, it needs to listen—to teachers, pupils, parents and others with the knowledge and experience of what works and what does not. So far, the education governance review has been an exercise in collecting the thoughts, observations and ideas of all those with a stake in Scottish education, before roundly ignoring them in pursuit of a significant change that was not asked for, is quite clearly opposed and for which there is no evidence that the quality of education will actually improve as a result.
The motion even calls on the Government
“to engage with all parties and stakeholders, including parents and young people, in continuing to develop these plans.”
However, those who responded to the first consultation will be left wondering why they should bother. We should not forget that some people reported that they felt unable to respond to the consultation in the format in which it was presented.
The next steps report on education reform charges ahead with Scottish Government proposals for widespread governance reform against the express wishes of teachers, parents and educationists.
The Government’s summary of responses clearly acknowledges that there is
“widespread support for the current governance system and an apprehension towards further change within the system”
and that
“the case for significant changes in governance had not been made”.
On specific proposals such as the regional governance structure, the response was even more damning and very clear. The summary states:
“There was strong opposition against the uniform establishment of educational regions, particularly from local authorities, but also from schools, agencies, parent councils and individuals”.
A lot of key players involved in education strongly oppose these proposals. It is therefore alarming to see the Government move ahead with them despite such a negative response. Those people will be wondering why they should bother responding to the next round of consultations on funding models. I hope that the Scottish Government can offer them some reassurance and evidence that it is listening.
Given the lack of support for the proposals among those involved in education, we must ask who beyond the Scottish National Party and Conservative members in the Parliament supports them. The Government quotes in its report Dylan William, a University College London emeritus professor, which gives the impression that it is building on his recommendations. However, his quote was taken somewhat out of context. He said that a number of ways to improve education have been attempted, including changes to the governance of schools—precisely what the Government is proposing—but that
“the net impact at a system level has been close to zero, if not actually zero.”
The OECD report, which the Government commissioned, does not back up the reform agenda either. It states:
“There is no one right system of governance. In principle, nearly all governance structures can be successful in education under the right conditions.”
Why is the Government so obsessed with governance reform? Why does it not address the real issues of budget cuts and staff reductions, which were raised so clearly in the responses to its consultation?
The proposals are not just unwanted or unnecessary; they bring risk. One of the strengths of our education system is its local democratic accountability, which means that decisions are taken at the closest level possible to the people they affect, while allowing for adequate accountability structures.