Pages from Appendix 1 - Stand Findings report (1)-4
Argyll and Bute Council · 25 August 2022
Back to Community Services Committee — 25 August 2022 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
189188 School leadership proposal: Consultation findings Findings: Community bodies COMMUNITY BODIES: COMMUNITY AND PARENT COUNCILS SHARING RESOURCES “We are keen to see more resources in schools.” “Synergies of resources and expertise are always welcomed if they benefit pedagogically” “Rural schools are well resourced and there is no need to share with the larger schools.” There is a general feeling that more resources would be better than shared resources . And already well-resourced schools don’t want to share, or lose what they have . “We can see the benefits of schools sharing resources and coming together for certain events, however there is no reason why this can not happen already through improved communication and networking rather than changing the school model . This benefit is not therefore reliant on a new school model .” “Schools working collectively, hopefully all children at the centre . Heads of schools can collaborate, share views, work in partnership for better outcomes for schools in their region .” “It is in the equality between schools and better sharing of resources that we particularly fear losing out, as experience tells us this is harder (and perhaps too hard) to achieve in such a remote location .” “Not many benefits from this proposal, only one benefit we can see is maybe shared resources between schools and more awareness of our special needs school in other schools .” “The purported benefit of sharing teaching material resources between schools is a clear effort at council cost cutting at the expense of students . If a collective only has one set of resources needed for a calendar sensitive class, how are all students in the area supposed to benefit?” “Resourcing discussions for the whole cluster are bound to centralise resource to bigger schools and leave smaller schools at the periphery . In our discussions with the parent community, particular concern was raised around potential centralising of specific specialist areas like ASN support and whether this would continue to be available in every school or would a collective approach to budgeting result in these services being centralised in larger schools with children from outlying areas expected to travel .” “Several concerns are held by the parent forum at present with the main reservation being the belief that resources would be spread too thin or not managed effectively by those in Executive held positions . This is closely followed with feelings of confusion and uncertainty as to how these proposals will effectively assist in resolving the area’s shortage of experienced teachers .” “The need for collegiate working to share resources, expertise, improvement planning, best use of finances etc is obvious and we would be surprised to be told that this does not already happen and that schools in Helensburgh and Lomond do already collaborate and communicate with each other . If they do not this is an easy fix without disrupting the whole system .”
Page 2
191190 School leadership proposal: Consultation findings Findings: Community bodies COMMUNITY BODIES: COMMUNITY AND PARENT COUNCILS CRITERIA AROUND COLLECTIVES “This is a one size fits all approach.” “Who will be in our collective? There was considerable concern that we don’t know what schools will comprise our local collective.” “The proposal repeatedly mentions the importance of equality for all pupils and young people in Argyll and Bute, and across the school network. Whilst equal opportunities are welcomed, it is unclear as to how the collective leadership model will provide these if every school is viewed as the same.” “Could Heads of School move pupils with significant Social, Emotional and Behavioural issues to the smaller primaries where they feel their behaviour could be more effectively managed?” “Does the proposal mean that pupils will be evenly distributed so that there is the optimal teacher:child ratio in each school in the collective?” “We feel that parts of the proposal are vague and not enough details about the ‘clusters’ have been released as to how they will be organised . Therefore this does not fill us with confidence agreeing to the proposal as we have no idea what this is going to look like at our school . How will the clusters be organised? “Will clusters be formed around the demand for Catholic/Gaelic teachers?” “Gaelic is of huge cultural importance to the Mull Community, the lack of any mention of it in the initial proposal document caused great concern . There is no information as to how it will be included in this model and its statutory rights protected .” There is also concern that an Executive Head will not have sufficient knowledge of Gaelic medium education to support a Head of School .” “Our school is a catholic school, so we are unsure to what benefit we would gather, as our teachers also need to be catholic, we would presumably not benefit from sharing teachers strengths and weaknesses throughout the cluster .” “First and foremost, as a Catholic primary school our biggest reservation about this proposal is ensuring the Catholic faith and identity is no way compromised . St . Joseph’s in Helensburgh lies under the Archdiocese of Glasgow, while the other Catholic primary schools in Argyll and Bute are under a different Archdiocese . Has the Archdiocese of Glasgow been consulted and represented throughout this process?” “Is it going to be a cluster of all Catholic schools in Argyll and Bute? Will the Executive Head Teacher in charge of the cluster have Catholic Teacher Approval? We feel this is a necessity to ensure the values and ethos of our Catholic school are not lost .” “Our main concern as a Parent Council is how this would work for a RC school . Every person in a management position involved in the school would need to gain church approval and agree to respect and support the teaching of the faith . We have reservations this would be agreed upon by numerous Heads of Schools .” Community groups want to know how the collectives will be decided, and what their own local collective will be - particularly if their school has a specialist remit .
Page 3
193192 School leadership proposal: Consultation findings Findings: Community bodies COMMUNITY BODIES: COMMUNITY AND PARENT COUNCILS THE HEAD OF SCHOOL ROLE “The proposal is business led, not teaching led .” “Potentially, current Head Teachers could have more time running their school than dealing with bureaucracy, but I doubt it because it simply amounts to a different level of management for the Head Teacher to report to .” “We are very concerned about returning to a shared Head system . We have been under a shared Head previously and it was not a positive experience . Parents felt a lack of contact with the Head Teacher due to the requirement to split time between two schools . We would not welcome a return to this setup .” “There is a big jump in roles from Head of School to Executive Head Teacher - how will the Council train and recruit for this role?” “This, we feel, will take away ‘the point of contact’ within each school . The continuity and stability for the children will not be the same if their Head of School is not there daily . We feel the Head of School will struggle to create and maintain the expected level of relationships with pupils and their families if they are also responsibly for aspects of other schools in the cluster .” “Some parents also felt that a non-teaching Head of School would be distanced from both parents and children so they would not feel confident approaching them to discuss any problems .” “This, we feel, will take away ‘the point of contact’ within each school . The continuity and stability for the children will not be the same if their Head of School is not there daily . We feel the Head of School will struggle to create and maintain the expected level of relationships with pupils and their families if they are also responsibly for aspects of other schools in the cluster .” “The possibility that the Heads of School will be doing the same job as a Head Teacher for less pay . We are unconvinced that the demotion of the Head Teacher role will be beneficial or that a head overseeing several schools will be a better way of working .” “The suggested benefits of ‘collaboration’ seem to imply that Heads of Schools would move around within the cluster . This would risk leaving some schools without a head for significant periods and lessen the engagement, involvement and awareness of the Head . It is also noted that Heads of Schools would naturally tend to spend more time in larger schools and in secondary schools, potentially leaving smaller schools and primaries and nurseries to suffer from a lack of leadership .” “There is a concern experienced teachers will be lost to non- teaching roles.” “The new Head of School roles appear to be a demotion of Head Teachers.” “The replacement of Head Teachers by ‘Heads of School’ has caused significant confusion and uncertainty. It appears the new ‘Heads of School’ will have the same responsibilities as Head Teachers without the salary or status.” There is a broad misconception that Heads of School would not be based full-time in their own schools, combined with the perception that Head of School is a lesser role than Head Teacher .
Page 4
195194 School leadership proposal: Consultation findings Findings: Community bodies COMMUNITY BODIES: COMMUNITY AND PARENT COUNCILS SPECIALISMS FOR HEADS OF SCHOOLS “Current ad-hoc support arrangements between schools mean that if a school lacks a particular specialist, either in the short or long term, they can call upon others within the local area for help and support . Whereas, under the collective model, if for instance the specialist SEN teacher becomes unavailable in a similar manner, the collective is unlikely to have another SEN specialist on hand to fill in .” “There are specific concerns relating to: children with special educational needs; adopted, fostered and looked after children; Gaelic Medium Education; smaller schools . These have not been addressed .” “Within the proposals there would be an element of de-skilling staff if each Head of School is expected to take on a specialism . Presently all teachers and Head Teachers undertake professional development as a matter of course .” “There is confusion about how the adoption of a ‘specialism’ by the Head of School would work . It is suggested that they would become the ‘expert’ in their speciality across the cluster, but it is not clear how this would complement their in school presence and not be an additional workload burden .” “The suggested management of specialisms within the school collective is of particular concern . Whilst it offers prima facia benefits in that schools do not have to organically cultivate specialists in all areas within one teaching body, it results in a significant loss of resilience .” “At an engagement session with the Council on the proposals, we were told that our schools would still have a shared Head of School but also that Head of School positions would become more attractive because they would allow holders to develop specialisms and share those specialisms round schools in the cluster . We asked and were told that for a shared Head already running two schools this wouldn’t apply – so we question where the benefit is for either the teachers or the pupils of the new model when applied to a school like ours .” “Expert specialists (an additional cost of a reorganisation that is described as at no cost) would of course be beneficial, but experts cannot be everywhere at once, so it is not an equal opportunity.” There is concern about specialisms adding to the workload of Heads of School . There is also concern about specialising in one area being to the detriment of all-round capability .
Page 5
197196 School leadership proposal: Consultation findings Findings: Community bodies COMMUNITY BODIES: COMMUNITY AND PARENT COUNCILS EXECUTIVE HEAD TEACHERS “Concerns were raised that Executive Head will be away from each school for days or even weeks at a time, so will have little contact with pupils and will struggle to get to know them .” “If a school cluster includes primary and secondary schools (which is highly likely due to our location), how can an Executive Head have the skills and experience to run both types of schools when the expertise required for each school is very specialised and different?” “The lack of practical details of how this proposal would be implemented has raised concerns about bias with the hosting school receiving greater benefits and whether an Executive Head based in a secondary school will really understand what is important at primary level .” “Individual schools within collectives will have differing community and student body requirements, particularly in collectives that are spread across a large geographical area . An Executive Head will not necessarily have the local knowledge and awareness to balance these needs .” “I feel it is just another level of management and right now our school does not need this, they need feet on the ground!” “We do not believe that an Executive Head Teacher with responsibility for a number of schools will be able to maintain an appropriate relationship with each school.” “How much management does a school need?” “With several schools in their remit, how are the Executive Head Teachers, who are unlikely to be based in a rural school, going to get to know the pupils, the teachers, the local community in a meaningful way?” “The proposal states that the Executive Head Teacher will have oversight across the whole school cluster budget . This is worrying as it is inevitable that larger schools will require larger amounts of funding . What guarantees are there that as a smaller rural school we will not suffer as a result of this?” “The Executive Head role is going to be vitally important to a number of schools . If recruitment is poor this reduces parents’ choice to move to another school due to the poor leadership .” “One Head Teacher managing a number of schools will be ineffective and result in a loss of experienced educators, and schools being run like businesses .” “A school requires full time attention . The pupils deserve more and the teachers require leadership on site . I oppose the idea fully . The Government hits a problem in education and instead of fixing it they produce a distraction, typical .” “Given that Executive Head Teachers will be drawn from the existing pool of Head Teachers and will naturally be based at one school in the collective (although no doubt visiting others) there will be an unavoidable unconscious bias that arises when looking at funding options, so far from generating equality between schools, this will generate inequalities .” Because of the title there is a perception that the Executive Head Teacher will be the only ‘real’ Head Teacher in the school leadership - and that sharing one between multiple schools will be ineffective .
Page 6
199198 School leadership proposal: Consultation findings Findings: Community bodies COMMUNITY BODIES: COMMUNITY AND PARENT COUNCILS RECRUITMENT CHALLENGES “It’s disappointing to see Argyll and Bute Council planning for population decline .” “The Head of school role will be drawn from existing local headteachers - they will be 100% leaders so will we then be short of teachers?” “Advertising used by the Council for Head Teacher and promoted post recruitment is very limited . Housing is an issue; to our knowledge no relocation package exists .” “Attracting and retaining staff isn’t just about the school, its about housing, community, infrastructure and many other aspects . Argyll and Bute needs to address many more issues to attract staff to our schools and specifically our Gaelic units . More GMUs are opening across the Central Belt thus making it harder to attract experienced staff .” “Living on an Island, we are concerned that this new ‘proposal’ will not attract professionals or the attraction will be limited to professionals aspiring to middle management . We see the removal of the position of Head Teacher and autonomy, while creating in effect a demotion of role, as a surety of making working in Argyll less desirable, creating further issues with recruitment and career advantages .” “What evidence or knowledge is available that makes the Authority think that creating those “Super Head/School Head” posts with higher salaries will make working in Argyll and Bute any more attractive?” “Better pay and opportunities would be better than these changes .” “The main problem Argyll and Bute Council has with recruiting teachers to the area is housing . There is no affordable housing . The private sector right now is having to buy properties in order to get employees to the area .” “We are concerned that shared Headship would create a demotion of the Head Teachers role and create more issues for recruitment .” “The difficulty in recruiting Head Teachers was cited as a serious problem and also a driver for the proposals . But the consultation process has offered no data or empirical evidence of this . In fact, the concerns being raised with the Community Council suggest that the proposal could indeed make the recruitment process more difficult due to the limit on career progression making working in Argyll and Bute less attractive for qualified staff . They can simply look to another neighbouring authority with a more traditional Headship model and relocate .” “They need to improve their recruitment policies in order to attract teachers to remote and rural areas, rather than this smokescreen of executive leadership which is a savings plan in disguise.” “More attractive recruitment is of course desirable but how do we know that these new types of positions will be more attractive - many teaching Heads enjoy the teaching part of their role and to remove that may lose us, rather than gain us, good people.” The new collective leadership roles are perceived to be less attractive than existing roles, still available in nieghbouring authorities . And there are unaddressed challenges around rural and island recruitment .
Page 7
201200 School leadership proposal: Consultation findings Findings: Community bodies COMMUNITY BODIES: COMMUNITY AND PARENT COUNCILS STAFF PROGRESSION “An improved career path and management structure aids recruitment and professional development.” “The new model seems to cap progression and autonomy at much lower levels for the vast majority of staff.” “The proposals suggest a lack of job security for Head Teachers and compromised career progression.” “We have real concerns about the impact on staff - job satisfaction, connection with children and mental health . There is wide concern that the Head of School role will be used as a stepping-stone out of area, achieving the exact opposite result we are told these proposals are intended to encourage .” “We are concerned there is a risk people will progress out of this area if the Head of School roles are less attractive both financially and from a control/autonomy point of view compared to Head Teacher roles outwith Argyll and Bute . What is to stop people advancing up to Depute within Argyll and Bute, moving elsewhere for a Head Teacher post, then back to Argyll for a collective lead? How do we make the Head of School posts attractive?” “Why is the grammar school included in the collective? In other collective school situations it is solely primary schools . This means the Executive Head will need to be from a secondary school teaching background . This would not be attractive to a primary school teacher as your career advancement is effectively capped? This doesn’t sound very attractive and is more likely to lead to increased recruitment/retention issues .” There is a fear that teachers aspire to the role of Head Teacher, and will leave Argyll and Bute to get it elsewhere . This stifled discussion about progression for other levels of staff .
Page 8
203202 School leadership proposal: Consultation findings Findings: Public bodies and community groups Public bodies (in this case professional organisations and the Diocese) and community groups voiced similar concerns: Not enough detail in the proposal at this stage and a perceived bias in the consultation process . Both of these concerns are linked to an underlying mistrust of the Council . There is agreement on the theoretical benefits to schools of collaboration and shared resources, but a widespread belief that these benefits are already enjoyed under the existing system of school leadership . Community groups have been especially vocal in their dislike of the proposal for change . “A key concern expressed about this proposal is the lack of requisite evidence. Without that evidence the proposal cannot be properly assessed.” “Need to know more specifics about our own establishment before making an informed decision. Too many unknowns at the moment.” “No rationale has been provided, no risk assessments or cost analysis, there is no balance of information, no detail of clusters.” “There has been a loss of confidence in the leadership of the Council, and the integrity of the Education team is being called into question.” “All of the proposed benefits refer to things that already happen to a significant extent within our school cluster. These are well established and embedded practice.” “We wonder if all of the education benefits outlined in this proposal would still be possible with a more strategic approach to collaboration across discrete schools while maintaining the current leadership model?” “The benefits laid out in the proposal are assertions with no guarantees. Surely sharing of resources and collaboration exists already and if not why not? Could it not be achieved by communication between schools in the existing model?” PUBLIC BODIES AND COMMUNITY GROUPS
Page 9
205204 School leadership proposal: Consultation findings Findings: Public bodies and community groups PUBLIC BODIES AND COMMUNITY GROUPS Official bodies like the Diocese and teaching unions want more detail on the proposal . Unofficial bodies and community groups have already made up their minds - they are strongly resistant to change . Methodology The Education Manager (Transformation) consulted with the relevant Trade Unions and Professional Associations at school, authority and national levels . They have met with AHDS, EIS and JSC representatives to present the proposal and answer questions . Elected members were invited to attend sessions with the Heads of Service and Education Manager (Transformation) to explore the proposal one-to-one . none took this opportunity . 21 out of 36 elected members engaged as part of workshop sessions . One short written response was received from an MSP, echoing the views already recorded from the public . The Education Manager (Transformation) met with diocese and representatives from SCES on several occasions to discuss the implications of the proposal for demoninational education in Argyll and Bute . The conversation remains open . A briefing was held for members of the local press and representatives of community newsletters . An interview was arranged with the Times Education Supplement . Context EIS actively campaigned against the proposal, even before the consultation was live . It targeted Parent Councils with its opinion on the proposal, influencing the community consultation . The EIS Argyll and Bute Local Association surveyed members in mid-March 2022 on the Council’s collective leadership proposals . Over 52% of EIS members responded to the survey . Only 4 .9% of responses supported the proposal whilst 85% of responses did not support the proposal with 9 .6% remaining undecided . This survey did not require sign-in to vote, any individual could vote, and any individual could vote multiple times . The 52% response they recorded is therefore not robust and reliable . AHDS surveyed its 29 local members at the beginning of March 2022 . 72% of members responded to the survey . Only 9 .5% of responses supported the proposal whilst 90 .5% of responses did not . Wise4All, a local lobbying group, rallied Parent Councils and local press, driving their agenda on the validity of the consultation and promoting a message that the proposal was driven by budget cuts . Press coverage across the authority led on cuts to Head Teachers . This headline remained constant during the consultation period . Observations EIS has interpreted the proposal as Heads of School being equal to Depute Head Teachers - not equal to Head Teachers . Based on that belief, schools would be without a senior leader on site . While EIS are in favour of increased collaboration between schools, they are firmly against changing the leadership model to formalise such collaborative working . As the largest teaching union in Scotland, they understandably have concerns about job titles, remits and pay . AHDS members felt the proposal is too high-level and lacks detail for individual schools . They don’t feel the consultation has been fair . SLS are more positive - supporting the general aims of the proposal - but are clear that they believe five or six schools is the upper limit for workable collectives . The Diocese are broadly positive about the proposal, but want more detail - and commitment to a specific Catholic Education specialist remit being included - before they can endorse it . Unofficial community groups have demonstrated extreme negativity towards both the proposal and the consultation process . Primary complaints have been the lack of detail in the proposal, perceived bias in the consultation, and a general desire to leave schools as they are . There have been a few disruptive individuals within some communities, who have had an effect on the consultation . As a result some Parent Council and Community Council responses were very similar, down to exact phrases and wording, and some Parent Council responses may not be representative of individual schools .
Page 10
207206 School leadership proposal: Consultation findings Findings: Public bodies and community groups PUBLIC BODIES AND COMMUNITY GROUPS THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE OF SCOTLAND (EIS) “The model really relies on a weakening of leadership structures within each school in favour of a model of heroic leadership which places too much responsibility and workload demand upon one individual whilst minimising the day-to-day leadership role of the Headteacher onsite in a school building .” “It is the EIS view that the legislative framework for Head Teachers in Scotland does not envisage a Head Teacher of a collective of establishments, potentially consisting of primary, ASN, secondary and early years settings . Ultimately that is a matter of statutory interpretation which can only be tested by legal action .” “The EIS believes that the fundamental weakness of the Council’s proposal is in the transposition of a multi- establishment Headship or Head Teacher of a single 3-18 school model, often borne out of necessity, applying it (wrongly in our view) to ‘a collective of schools’ as if it had established educational rationale .” “The EIS is in favour of increased collaboration, sharing experiences, specialist PTs, sharing resources etc . The Local Association contend this already happens across the majority of Argyll and Bute schools . This does not provide an explanation or rationale for the Executive Head/Collective Leadership/Head of Schools model .” “I have watched and read all materials promoting this new model from Argyll and Bute . The last thing teachers and pupils need is more people who do not work or spend time in classrooms telling people what should go on inside a classroom . I am STRONGLY against the proposals .” “A money-saving plan . No improved career plan for teachers . Reduces numbers of promoted posts . No sound educational basis for plan .” “All of the proposed benefits refer to things that already happen to a significant extent within our school cluster . These are well established and embedded practice .” “Just trying to get back to pre-Covid teaching styles is difficult, all of this on top is not wanted and not needed .” “Need to know more specifics about our own establishment before making an informed decision . Too many unknowns at the moment .” “The workload for deputies and Heads of Schools are already very high . This workload won’t change but their pay and job status would .“ The EIS Argyll and Bute Local Association surveyed members in mid-March 2022 on the Council’s collective leadership proposals . Over 52% of EIS members responded to the survey . Only 4 .9% of responses responsessupport the proposal with 9 .6% remaining undecided . Several hundred respondents elaborated on their views with comments . While the EIS are in favour of increased collaboration between schools, they are firmly against changing the leadership model to formalise such collaborative working . Where the proposed model is intended to increase collaboration and empower school leaders by creating a broader multi-school leadership team, the EIS believe it will not do this, and instead that the proposed model removes responsibility from individual school teams and shifts power to a smaller central group (the Executive Head Teacher and Heads of School) . The EIS believe that the proposal is counter to the recent (Scottish Government accepted) proposals in Professor Ken Muir’s ‘Putting Learners at the Centre: Towards a Future Vision for Scottish Education’ report . They call the Council’s proposal “directly counter to the empowerment agenda and emblematic of a culture with Scottish education that Ken Muir’s report clearly identified as needing to change’ . “The proposal is that Depute Head Teachers or current Head Teachers can become Heads of Schools and deputise for the Executive Head Teacher who will be out of each school for the majority of the week, providing ‘strategic leadership’ to the collective.” “These roles cannot be “in accordance with the SNCT Handbook” because neither post nor job title exist within the SNCT Handbook. The EIS does not believe these posts can be adequately job-sized.” The EIS has interpreted the proposal as Heads of School being equal to Depute Head Teachers - not equal to Head Teachers . Based on that belief, schools would be without a senior leader on site .
Page 11
209208 School leadership proposal: Consultation findings Findings: Public bodies and community groups PUBLIC BODIES AND COMMUNITY GROUPS AHDS “No detail as to how it will directly impact me and the school . All just high level information .” “There is no evidence that these proposals will have any impact on learning and teaching . The current rationale is based on recruitment of leadership . There is no evidence base offered for any of the claims made in the proposal .” “It has not been made clear as to how exactly this will improve learning and teaching . The class teacher will remain the same . There is some talk in the proposals of additional teachers, we have no supply teachers available so it will be impossible to get additional teachers .” “I am struggling to understand where the teachers are going to appear from to allow HTs to come out of class .” “Very little information on how this will improve learning and teaching . Main emphasis has been on savings .” “Small schools will benefit from becoming non-teaching . Big schools won’t have any new benefits, just additional work .” “We have been told that the role of Head of school would be very similar to Head Teacher role and that job sizing would mean the pay would be the same . If this is the case, why change the name of the role?” AHDS surveyed its 29 local members between 25th February and 2nd March 2022 . 72% of members responded to the survey . Only 9 .5% of responses supported the proposal whilst 90 .5% of responses did not . All but two of the respondents were Head Teachers . Respondents elaborated on their views with comments . The first theme reported by AHDS, expressed in almost all comments, was that with the proposal evolving over time (in response to Head Teacher input) it was difficult to be sure that knowledge about the proposal was accurate or current . Several respondents indicated a feeling that this undermined the credibility of the plan and the capacity of school leaders and school communities to properly understand and respond to a partially formed proposal . The role of Head of School was an area that came in for repeated criticism in this regard . The second theme was one of feeling that the consultation was a marketing exercise rather than a genuine consultation . This went hand in hand with the belief that this was a money saving exercise dressed up as a service improvement . The third was to express disappointment at the lack of focus on expected benefits for young people in any practical sense . “Every phase of consultation that I have attended (so far, three) the role of the Head of School has increased. As far as I can see, the Head of School will probably now be doing a Head Teacher role but on a smaller salary!” “I have serious concerns about the process of engagement. There can be no more of a leading question than ‘Which of these benefits of the proposal do you agree most with?’” The Association of Headteachers and Deputes in Scotland (AHDS) reported that their members broadly understand the proposal as presented, but feel unequipped to see how it would apply to their own schools .
Page 12
211210 School leadership proposal: Consultation findings Findings: Public bodies and community groups PUBLIC BODIES AND COMMUNITY GROUPS OTHER TEACHING UNIONS A joint union meeting was held between Oban High School’s union members on 21st December 2021, via Google Meet . Members of The Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS), National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT), School Leaders Scotland (SLS) and Scottish Secondary Teachers’ Association (SSTA) attended . The cross-union group felt positive about the non- teaching role for Heads of School and therefore their increased capacity to lead improvement and support in conjunction with the leadership team within the collective . The group were also positive about the position of Executive Head Teacher within schools, thereby having first hand knowledge of the experiences of the schools within the collective which will allow the strategic direction and council policy to be more relevant for schools . They also felt positive about the greater equity of resources and the greater equity of voice from each school, regardless of size . The group voiced concerns about the size of the collectives, feeling strongly that four or five schools per collective should be the maximum . They also had concerns about specialisms for Heads of School, feeling that whilst specialist roles seem useful for primary schools, they cannot see the benefit for secondary settings . “We appreciated the reassurance that existing leaders would not have to apply for their current posts, and indeed would be able to choose whether or not to be part of the new structure.” “In order for the Executive Head Teacher to lead each school within their collective, it is vitally important that they will be able to be visible in each school and community very regularly . If the number of schools within the collective is too great this would not be achievable . Ideally, each collective would have four or five schools so that the EHT could be part of each school each week to some degree . This would allow for strong links to be forged between the EHT, their schools and communities . These are essential if each school and community is to feel that their unique identity and voice is an important and valued part of each collective .” “We feel that specialist roles need some thought and attention in order to ensure the specialisms are fit for purpose across levels and sectors as appropriate for the collective . For example, specialisms in Learning and Teaching, assessment and moderation, or progress through levels might be more appropriate .” “The local SLS membership support exploring the journey towards the proposed leadership model.” “Their key concern was the impact on leadership of the number and size of schools that could form a collective and they viewed no more than four or five schools to be feasible .” “The national view of the SLS Executive was that they would monitor with interest models that Local Authorities are developing and comment at an appropriate juncture .” School Leaders Scotland (SLS) are broadly positive about the proposal for change . Their main concern is the number of schools in each collective . A joint meeting between members of different teaching unions delivered a positive response to the proposal, with a couple of concerns about its practical application .
Page 13
213212 School leadership proposal: Consultation findings Findings: Public bodies and community groups PUBLIC BODIES AND COMMUNITY GROUPS DIOCESE OF ARGYLL AND THE ISLES “The Diocese cannot currently support this proposal as we do not have a full understanding of the implications for pupils, families, staff and communities .” “We recognise the significant challenges facing the Council and Scotland as a whole with regards to recruitment and retention of teachers and leaders for all schools across the Council area and the ambition of the proposal to refresh the approach to education in the area .” “We would be interested to understand what have been identified as possible dis-advantages and unintended consequences? Furthermore, what measures of success have been identified to know if the new model is working and should be rolled out to the other clusters? What evaluation process will be in place and, should the first adopters not meet the expected success measures are there contingency plan for reversal of this, or would it just not be rolled out?” “The Diocese would ask that consideration is given to the specific professional and vocational development needs of Catholic leaders for schools, including the early identification of potential leaders and their planned formation, within the Council CLPL and Leadership programmes .” “The Diocese would request that consideration is given to a corporate responsibility for Catholic Education within one of these remits, should the proposals go ahead and, should they not go ahead, that this is added to a current remit . We would ask that this includes a holistic approach to the education of Catholic children across Argyll and Bute and is not limited to the provision within the four designated Catholic schools .” The Diocese are cognisant of the challenges facing education in Argyll and Bute and appreciate the Council proposing positive action to mitigate them . However, they feel that the proposal is at an early stage and not yet fully formed enough to base any real decisions on . And, like many, they question whether change on this scale is really needed to achieve the stated benefits - or whether collective working could instead be encouraged and formalised within the existing school leadership model . The Diocese would like assurance that Catholic Education would be formally recognised as a specialism for Heads of Schools, or otherwise formally added to a leadership remit . And they have recommendations about ensuring future Catholic leaders are developed within the new model . Finally, and again echoing the thoughts of many stakeholders, the Diocese have asked about projected risks of the proposed change, which they feel have been left out of the Council’s communications so far . “We appreciate the honest and frank conversation with Council officers regarding the proposal, however, we continue to have significant questions and concerns regarding the benefits of the proposals and the impact on Catholic education.” “We wonder if all of the education benefits outlined in this proposal would still be possible with a more strategic approach to collaboration across discrete schools while maintaining the current leadership model?” The Diocese are broadly positive about the proposal, but want more detail - and commitment to a specific Catholic Education specialist remit being included - before they can endorse it .
Page 14
215214 School leadership proposal: Consultation findings Findings: Public bodies and community groups PUBLIC BODIES AND COMMUNITY GROUPS COMMUNITY GROUPS Wise4All are a lobbying group of Mull residents, focussed on education and schools . Their opinions have come through strongly via Community and Parent Councils but they also wrote a detailed letter themselves . “No rationale has been provided, no risk assessments or cost analysis, there is no balance of information, no detail of clusters .” “We believe the consultation process is deeply flawed, and it does not meet with Scottish Good Guidance for Consultation or Scottish National Standards for Community Engagement .” “There has been a loss of confidence in the leadership of the Council, and the integrity of the Education team is being called into question .” “Parent Councils should be able to maintain independence and by presenting this they could be perceived to be selling it, they feel their independence has been compromised .” “Parents/carers have no idea of how Gaelic will fit into the model in the long-term, and it is unclear how its cultural significance will be protected in the ‘model’ on offer .” “How ASN staff and resources will/would be shared is of great concern, and there is no clear indication how this has been provided for in this model .” “The model has been agreed even before island impact assessments have been undertaken . The need for volunteers to monitor their Council to ensure provisions such as the Islands Act are adhered to is a waste of volunteers’ time, that could be better spent on community projects .” “Parents/Carers have expressed a strong desire to hear directly from the teachers in their schools . They worry what they deem is good for young learners and staff, may not be, they feel they lack the necessary expertise to make this decision .” “There is a consensus that the problems that the Council have identified as driving the need for change will simply be carried over to any new ‘model’ .” “The case for radical change has not been established, collective working and sharing of resources happens under the current system .” “The leadership of our schools has been identified by HMIe as one of the key strengths of the ‘status quo’ so why change it?” Argyll and Bute Community Network for Carers of Care Experienced Children (a volunteer group with 19 members) responded to the consultation with a letter rejecting the proposal in its entirety . “Strong, safe relationships are key to our children . They need school to be predictable and consistent where routines are firmly in place . They do not need changing staff, stressed staff and/or unexperienced staff .” “We have huge concerns that the introduction of school clusters will, in reality, create a remote layer of management that is less likely to understand our children, their families and the communities in which they live .” “It is imperative that Heads of Schools/Head Teachers are accessible to organise and/or support Child Plan meetings, SEN assessments and plans and to be part of the supportive GIRFEC team around a child and the family . This cannot be deferred to Deputy Head teachers if they too will be overworked as a consequence of the proposed model and additional duties being passed to them .” “We have serious concerns over sharing resources in the proposed model . The proposal does not suggest examples of what kind of resources and the grave concern would that this would include resources such as specialist staff (ASNs) and specialist equipment (such as sensory and nurture equipment) .” North West Mull Community Woodland Company Ltd are a charity based on the Isle of Mull . They attended the Community Council meeting about the proposals and wrote a letter to the Council in response . “When we make key decisions on behalf of the Charity/ Community we are required to do so based on evidence . A key concern expressed about this proposal is the lack of requisite evidence . Without that evidence the proposal cannot be properly assessed .” “We are concerned as to how small island schools will be accommodated by this model, and whether they will be able to continue to thrive . This concern is partly driven by attempts to close small schools in the past .” “At present, this proposal is too “light on evidence”, with no risk assessments, cost analysis, no rationale or balance of evidence to make an “intelligent consideration” of it . It is a model/proposal in principle without any accompanying detail or evidence .” “We reject the proposal and would welcome working with our Council to have a new and inclusive discussion about the future of Education and its implications for our schools and island way of life .” Unofficial community groups have been among the most vocal and resistant to the change proposals, and some have lobbied other audiences with their opinions .
Page 15
217216 School leadership proposal: Consultation findings Findings: Public Many members of the public who responded voiced mistrust of the consultation and the reasons given for change . Press coverage across the authority led on cuts to Head Teachers . This headline remained constant during the consultation period, and led to widespread concerns about a perceived removal of Head Teachers from schools . Residents (non-parents) seem unaware of shortcomings in the current school leadership system, so they struggle to see the need for change . “I feel the proposal is pulling the wool over peoples eyes.” “I would strongly urge the council to cease this PR campaign that claims to be in the interest of our future generations and find some other way to save money that doesn’t jeopardise hundreds of children’s futures.” “This proposal seems to be based on cost cutting. Very disappointing.” “A larger and bureaucratic management structure has no efficacy when running organisations based on people. You need a leader of a school to be there every day.” “Having a leadership team which does not do hands on teaching anymore is frightening.” “I do not think that one model can be applied to the whole of Argyll and Bute. Challenging as it is, different solutions require to be found for different issues/geography.” “Every one of these things can, should, and almost certainly is already happening in Argyll and Bute schools.” PUBLIC
Page 16
219218 School leadership proposal: Consultation findings Findings: Public PUBLIC Quantitiative research methodology Public responses were collected through an online survey hosted on the Empowering our Educators website . If there was more than one response from the same email address, both were analysed and counted . There were some misunderstandings on how the response form worked . The multiple choice question of “What do you think the main benefits of this proposal could be?” was not mandatory, and users could choose to select none . However, many responders selected “Other (please explain below)” and used this opportunity to express, in their view, there were no benefits . Therefore, any selection of “Other (please explain below)” was not quantified and counted as a benefit . For open-ended questions in the response form (“Other Benefits”, “What are your main reservations about the proposal?” and “Is there anything else you would like to share?”) and any responses received via the support@ empoweringoureducators.co.uk email address, responses were categorised under 26 wide-ranging themes . For example, if one respondent mentioned the “Consultation process”, “Detail of the proposal” and “Mistrust of the council” within their question responses, then this would be counted against all three themes . This was to give a broad overview of the most common points of discussion . Those submissions received outwith the portal (to the support@empoweringoureducators.co.uk email address) did not answer the multiple choice questions - therefore these responses are not quantified in: “Which of these best describes you?”, “What do you think the main benefits of this proposal could be?” and “Having engaged with the proposal, do you believe the School Collective Leadership model will positively affect the future education of young people in Argyll and Bute” . Responses Total number of responses 461 Duplicates omitted N/A Respondents (Selected from list) Number A parent or guardian 375 Resident of Argyll and Bute 82 Non-resident of Argyll and Bute 2 Secondary school pupil (S1-S3) 1 Primary school pupil 1 Q . What do you think the main benefits of this proposal could be? Benefits (Selected from list*) Positive responses More teachers in classrooms 55 Sharing specialists (like science teachers) with neighbouring schools 80 Giving Heads more time to lead schools, instead of having them teach as well 57 More equality between schools, with resources better shared 61 Expert specialists in local schools (like assessment specialists, or early years specialists) 55 More collaboration between schools 73 Improved progression for pupils between primary classes and when moving to secondary 43 An Executive Head Teacher whose job is to drive improvement across all the local schools 54 Q . Having engaged with the proposal, do you believe the collective leadership model will positively affect the future education of young people in Argyll and Bute? Answer (Selected from list) Number of responses Strongly Agree 27 Agree 22 Neither agree nor disagree 32 Disagree 76 Strongly disagree 304 * Respondents were able to select multiple or no answers .
Page 17
221220 School leadership proposal: Consultation findings Findings: Public PUBLIC PARENTS AND GUARDIANS Parents and guardians voiced mistrust of the consultation and the reasons given for change . They are concerned about a perceived removal of Head Teachers from schools . Methodology Overall, we received 387 responses from respondents self-identifying as parent/guardian . 375 of those (96 .8%) were made through the Empowering our Educators portal and 3 .2% were submitted by email or post . As part of each response, individuals self-selected as either ‘parent/guardian’ or ‘Argyll and Bute resident’ . All parents of children and young people in Argyll and Bute schools received a summary of the proposal titled ‘In a Nutshell’ via the Xpressions app . This was also shared with all school staff by email . The facility was provided for any individual to book a one-to-one call with an education professional from Argyll and Bute Council to personally discuss the proposal . This opportunity was promoted through local press and social media . 28 such calls were held . Three sets of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) were collated, responded to and published through the website . Observations Mistrust of the consultation and the reasons for change were strongly voiced by parents and guardians . Much more detail was wanted on specific collectives and on the costing . There were questions on why they are only seeing one proposal, and not a range of alternative possible ways forward . Parents and guardians shared a deep mistrust of ‘management’ and perceived bureaucracy . They feel that teachers know best - and include Head Teachers in that assessment . There is a critical misunderstanding of the proposed Head of School and Executive Head Teacher roles, demonstrated by concerns about schools not having leaders on site, or about there only being one school leader across each entire collective . Understandably, parents and guardians place the wellbeing of their children front and centre . They generally see the proposal as disruptive - and disruption is not welcome . Parents and guardians worry about equity of education provision . They feel that one style of leadership cannot possibly work for both small/rural and large/urban schools .
Page 18
223222 School leadership proposal: Consultation findings Findings: Public PUBLIC: PARENTS AND GUARDIANS CRITICISM OF THE CONSULTATION “This proposal seems to be based on cost cutting . Very disappointing .” “In the middle of the Covid pandemic, with staff absences and pupils being sent home en masse, having a Head Teacher who can step in and teach classes is what is saving our schools, not an expensive consultancy firm trying to reinvent the wheel .” “I feel that that a more transparent discussion relating to the reason for the proposed changes would be beneficial . I accept the current pressures and difficulties that the Education Service is experiencing, however the way the changes have been presented feels misrepresentative .” “The costs savings that this model would result in should be shared as part of the consultation, allowing stakeholders to make an informed choice .” “The video and associated information mention that there will be more teachers on the ground with this model . How will this work and does it mean that there will be increased costs with this model? How do support staff tie in with this model? Lots of questions and not enough ways of getting information .” “We don’t need sweeping changes, we need to rebuild our children’s futures after a major disaster . Whomever dreamt up this proposal is not considering children’s education!” “Very concerned that we as parents are not been given the clear picture, or honest, straightforward answers .” “Children with ASN needs stability and support . Parents need to have a relationship with the educators . This proposal is poorly considered, lacking evidence and aimed at keeping those at the top in high paid, cushy jobs .” “Proper consultation needs to be done with parents in sessions run by Education Dept/Council NOT Parent Councils, they do not have the knowledge to answer all our questions AND to be frank it is not their job to do the consultation for you .” “I think a parent forum should of been involved with the earlier stages of any changes to the education system .” “I don’t believe this proposal should have gotten as far as it has without a wider forum input . I think whilst some aspects might benefit smaller schools, for larger schools this proposal will not work . I think the porposal needs to be far more transparent and the details need to be shared .” “Such a drastic change to the educational structure must have an evidence base . No trial has been proposed . Why? Surely that is the only way to test whether this can work . I also consider that you are asking people to vote on an unknown entity at this stage, as the authority have not presented detail as to what schools will be in a collective . I don’t understand the logic behind this omission .” “I cannot understand how additional senior posts can be added without additional resource . This must have negative impact somewhere else in the system .” “You say there are a lack of experienced teachers? How does this model do anything to improve this? Surely the problem still exists that it is hard to recruit into Argyll?” “We need assurance that you can recruit teachers . The issues around recruitment lie in the housing sector which is something that cannot be solved by the education department .” “I would strongly urge the council to cease this PR campaign that claims to be in the interest of our future generations and find some other way to save money that doesn’t jeopardise hundreds of children’s futures.” “The Council state that the proposal will be cost neutral, but the Heads of School will no longer teach. If this is true, how will we pay for the teaching time our Head Teachers will no longer be covering?” “I love my school the way it is, my children are within an environment in which they thrive. Their teachers and headteacher know them on a personal level.” Mistrust of the consultation and the reasons for change were strongly voiced by parents and guardians . Much more detail was wanted on specific collectives and on the costing .
Page 19
225224 School leadership proposal: Consultation findings Findings: Public PUBLIC: PARENTS AND GUARDIANS COLLECTIVE LEADERSHIP “A larger and bureaucratic management structure has no efficacy when running organisations based on people . You need a leader of a school to be there every day .” “What we do not need is ‘pen pushers at desks’ writing vision statements whilst standards drop before our eyes and the welfare of our kids is neglected .” “Why can’t teachers lead and teach? One teacher said to remove the teaching element out of their job would ‘remove the glitter from it’ .” “The term ‘drive improvement’ sets my alarm bells ringing . Let teachers teach .” “We walk to the school every morning and there you see the Head Teacher greeting us with a smile which is so welcoming and if there is anything, you can address it straight away and she knows every single child and parent . A cluster Head Teacher would not have the time to meet you or have a chat every now and then .” “I agree Heads should lead rather than teach . They are currently providing a supply role when teachers off sick .” “How will paying people at a higher management position directly benefit my child? These new positions will just add another layer of bureaucracy, place a burden on already tight budgets, and not raise attainment levels.” Parents and guardians shared a deep mistrust of ‘management’ and perceived bureaucracy . They feel that teachers know best - and include Head Teachers in that assessment .
Page 20
227226 School leadership proposal: Consultation findings Findings: Public PUBLIC: PARENTS AND GUARDIANS NEW LEADERSHIP ROLES “The teaching community is facing challenges, mostly because education is not seen as an investment . Budget and staff have been cut relentlessly over the last few years .” “You seem to have a very weak understanding of the duties and responsibilities of teaching staff, or you are assuming that the general public does . Schools need more staff in the classroom, but not only teachers, they also need teaching assistants and support staff . The paperwork load needs to be eased so that staff can concentrate on pupils and teaching . Head teachers are under a lot of pressure, they need to be able to delegate - more Deputy Heads would be useful, not an Executive Head .” “Schools need a Head Teacher that is present and knows the pupils, staff, parents and community. An Executive Head Teacher will not have these relationships. Asking a teacher to essentially take on being a Head Teacher in everything but name is not justifiable.” “Making less Head Teachers is not the way forward as will remove this essential support for both staff and parents .” “If Head of School’s will potentially move from school to school according to the needs of the school will this result in a reduced understanding of the young folk/staff/ parents in the school, every school is presumably very different and therefore takes quite some time for a Head of School to gain the trust of all, potentially resulting in a disconnect if they are moving around?” “As a Higher Education professional I strongly disagree with the assertion that 100% non teaching roles are a good thing . This is absolutely not the case and I’m astounded that it is presented as a positive aspect of this plan .” Concerns from parents and guardians about schools not having leaders on site demonstrate a critical misunderstanding of the proposed Head of School and Executive Head Teacher roles .
Page 21
229228 School leadership proposal: Consultation findings Findings: Public PUBLIC: PARENTS AND GUARDIANS WELLBEING OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE “The mental health of our children over the last two years has suffered and many Care Experienced children and their families have really struggled with high levels of anxiety, depression, anger and in some cases, child on parent violence .” “The real focus following the pandemic (and now in the face of a possible war in Europe) should be on the emotional wellbeing of our children, finding ways to support and help families whose children are struggling to even attend school because of extreme anxiety and unmet needs and our children’s fundamental need for stability and security .” “More watering down in the quality of children’s education .” “I don’t agree with this proposed approach, I think it’s at the least going to cause problems through confusion and staff ‘settling in’ and more likely going to cause - unintended perhaps - harms to the children .” “Having a leadership team which does not do hands on teaching anymore is frightening . I have seen the Curriculum for Excellence come in and most parents are shocked at how much the standards have fallen as a result . Education Scotland was reported in the national press for putting biased pro-Scottish independence material on its website . All my children learn about is climate change, and anti-English history .” “I feel this is a cost cutting measure that will end up actually costing more, both financially and in relation to the education and wellbeing of the children and young people in Argyll .” “I am shocked that the benefit to children’s education is not considered important enough to even make it on to your list of possible benefits .” “Removal of posts in already understaffed schools . Why should my child’s education suffer because of their postcode? I thought the drive was to attract people to go rural areas?” “The education of our children cannot, and should not, be treated in the same way as a business . There needs to be direct personal involvement with the education and well- being of every child .” “There’s no one size fits all approach and to try this during an already unsettling time is, in my opinion, careless and quite frankly dangerous to the emotional wellbeing of our children who are faced with yet more upheaval and change!” “To improve education, all we need are teachers who get ‘hands on’ (an old fashioned term) with the kids.” “As much as I can see the benefits of the new proposal, I still believe that rural pupils will be disadvantaged. It is a small step in the right direction, but more thought needs to be put into it from the pupils’ perspective.” “It’s hard to believe that this isn’t just another way to save money at our young people’s expense.” Understandably, parents and guardians place the wellbeing of their children front and centre . They generally see the proposal as disruptive - and disruption is not welcome .
Page 22
231230 School leadership proposal: Consultation findings Findings: Public PUBLIC: PARENTS AND GUARDIANS IT’S NOT FOR ALL SCHOOLS “I’m not in favour of one Head Teacher being in total control of several schools, especially within a very small area e .g . 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?” “Helensburgh and surrounding areas do not face the same challenges as the more rural and isolated parts of Argyll and Bute . Reducing the role, responsibility and perhaps pay of Heads of School in favour of an Executive Head will create problems attracting key staff from surrounding areas .” “I worry that our independence might be jeopardised by the imposition of a collective leader . And that a collective leader who has no real experience of our community might enforce blanket policies that are not suitable .” “The model does not work, as we are dealing with two completely different environments . With some areas of the region being remote/rural and others urban, the model cannot be effective . The needs and requirements of both are completely different, as you would expect .” “I fully appreciate that an alternative structure may need to be developed for our outlying areas and understand that similar models may already be in place in other regions .” “By including Helensburgh in this model, I fear irreparable damage will be done, and our children will suffer .” “There is a lot of negative feeling around the idea of change and I think that anyone who is ‘for’ the proposal is nervous to say so out loud!” “I don’t believe that one size fits all and currently we are only being offered one proposal. I feel like a lot of money has already been invested which could have been invested elsewhere.” “How will schools effectively share resources, considering the long distances between sites?” “The proposal is ridiculous . And definitely not suited for a rural area like Campbeltown .” “I think those whom require more support and already lost in the system are going to be failed further .” “Not sure that any of these apply to our school . Possible that it could help Argyll and Bute overall with recruitment and retention, but doubtful this would be the case here .” “From what I have heard it seems Helensburgh is being asked to fit with a rural model to suit the rest of Argyll and Bute . Which in my opinion would not get it right for the children of Helensburgh .” “I do not think that one model can be applied to the whole of Argyll and Bute . Challenging as it is, different solutions require to be found for different issues/geography . This is not unique to the local authority, it is the same in health .” “I do not agree to this new mediocre system that you are trying to introduce, it will only affect the education of our child and the relationship we have with the headteacher . We are a small village with an amazing community and all this new system will not work in here .” Parents and guardians are primarily concerned about whether they feel the proposal would work, or not, in their own child’s school . Most feel that one style of leadership cannot possibly work for both small/rural and large/urban schools .
Page 23
233232 School leadership proposal: Consultation findings Findings: Public PUBLIC ARGYLL AND BUTE RESIDENTS Residents seem unaware of shortcomings in the current school leadership system, so they struggle to see the need for change . Methodology We received 87 responses from respondents self- identifying as Argyll and Bute residents . 82 of those (97 .7%) were made through the Empowering our Educators portal and 2 .3% were submitted by email or post . As part of each response, individuals self- selected as either ‘parent/guardian’ or ‘Argyll and Bute resident’ . All parents of children and young people in Argyll and Bute schools received a summary of the proposal titled ‘In a Nutshell’ via the Xpressions app . This was also shared with all school staff by email . The facility was provided for any individual to book a one-to-one call with an education professional from Argyll and Bute Council to personally discuss the proposal . This opportunity was promoted through local press and social media . 28 such calls were held . Three sets of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) were collated, responded to and published through the website . Observations Residents of Argyll and Bute who responded to the consultation are deeply mistrustful of the Council and many are dissatisfied with the consultation process . They feel not enough evidence has been presented to justify the proposed changes . This mistrust leads many residents to believe the proposal could be the first step towards closing rural schools . Residents’ opinions included whether geographical issues restrict which schools should be in a collective, and whether the model can tackle isolation in rural teaching . While many residents acknowledge the potential benefits, most feel that schools are already doing these things - working together - so there is no need to introduce a new model . Residents’ opinions are divided over the idea of Heads of School being non-teaching . Some see the benefits, others feel Heads cannot understand their children without teaching classes . Most residents questioned the need for Executive Head Teachers, with the role being almost universally disliked .
Page 24
235234 School leadership proposal: Consultation findings Findings: Public PUBLIC: ARGYLL AND BUTE RESIDENTS CRITICISM OF THE CONSULTATION “I don’t think there are benefits and do not like this leading question .” “I feel the proposal is pulling the wool over peoples eyes .” “In my opinion this is a poorly constructed and biased survey . From the survey multiple choice section, the council seems to be saying that this proposal only has benefits, and no potential disadvantages?” “This is either astounding optimism bias, or intentionally a tick box exercise to say we were surveyed and lots of support for supposed benefits? I think a lot of parents will find this approach disrespectful to providing meaningful input .” “There is not enough evidence to base any thought on this . Not enough information given as to the future under these new proposals . Where is the evidence this is better? Why is there a need for this change? What is wrong with the current situation? Why now? Where is the funding coming from?” “To be transparent, this document should have included the reservations expressed by teachers’ unions. as it stands it is a piece of propaganda This proposal will create another layer of management which is exactly what NHS suffers from.” “Where is your evidence? What other options did you consider? What are the financial implications for this proposal?” Residents of Argyll and Bute are deeply mistrustful of the Council and are dissatisfied with the consultation process . They feel not enough evidence has been presented to justify the proposed changes .
Page 25
237236 School leadership proposal: Consultation findings Findings: Public PUBLIC: ARGYLL AND BUTE RESIDENTS ISLAND/RURAL SCHOOLS “It’s a lonely job, teaching Head in a remote, single teacher, island school. With careful planning and organisation this could reduce isolation, lead to greater opportunity for children and give teachers time to teach, plan and think. And provide greater access to expert specialists.” “Isolated island schools, with limited transport links to either the mainland or other islands are not going to benefit .” “Careful consideration would have to occur if trying to combine island schools as the distances are prohibitive, unless the proposal is for a private boat issued for this purpose!” Residents’ opinions included whether geographical issues restrict which schools should be in a collective, and whether the model can tackle isolation in rural teaching .
Page 26
239238 School leadership proposal: Consultation findings Findings: Public PUBLIC: ARGYLL AND BUTE RESIDENTS NO NEED FOR CHANGE “Every one of these things can, should, and almost certainly is already happening in Argyll and Bute schools.” “I believe that most of our local schools already actually talk to each other and are fully capable of, and already are, making the most of the ‘possible benefits’ you have listed (within the current rules they are told they must work to) .” “Anyone involved to any extent in the provision of education across this local authority will be aware that the ‘benefits’ above have always been available to schools and clusters of schools for many years . The barrier to full achievement of these benefits has been in the past, and will continue to be so in the future; the limitations of financial resources, availability of staff, recruitment and retention of staff, access to transport between schools and clusters etc .” While many residents acknowledge the potential benefits, most feel that schools are already doing these things - working together - so there is no need to introduce a new model .
Page 27
241240 School leadership proposal: Consultation findings Findings: Public PUBLIC: ARGYLL AND BUTE RESIDENTS CLOSING SCHOOLS “I am very sure that you can provide ‘absolute evidence’ that your current proposal will not result in any local school closures, however, I do sincerely believe that the results of this project will be used in the next step of the process to provide ‘absolute evidence’ that we should all now send our children to the new ‘good’ big schools.” “This is nothing more than a blueprint for future reductions .” “This exercise appears to be a standard precursor to the inevitable next step of ‘centralising’ our education system and it will inevitably result in another consultation exercise which will detail the list of reasons why we should close our local community schools and make everyone travel to new ‘good’ big schools because, as a result of this exercise, we now know how well they work .” Mistrust of the Council leads many residents to believe this proposal could be the first step towards closing rural schools .
Page 28
243242 School leadership proposal: Consultation findings Findings: Public PUBLIC: ARGYLL AND BUTE RESIDENTS NON-TEACHING HEADS “The burden of juggling management/ leadership responsibilities, in addition to a teaching commitment for headteachers of smaller schools is a challenging and difficult task .” “A Head Teacher does not need to have a teaching remit to be effective but they must have a presence .” “Are there no benefits from headteacher’s teaching children, as well as ‘leading’? Surely they understand pupils in their school better, and also, the pupils benefit from these more accomplished teachers on a day-to-day basis.” “I think it would be far more positive to retain teaching Heads, who can focus on education and deal with the things they became a teacher to do, and really improve the provision of financial management and administrative support provided to a group of schools by a dedicated administrator .” “Giving Heads more time to lead schools, instead of having them teach as well - therefore losing valuable skills and ability to understand teaching needs .” Residents’ opinions are divided over the idea of Heads of School being non-teaching . Some see the benefits, others feel Heads cannot understand their children without teaching classes .
Page 29
245244 School leadership proposal: Consultation findings Findings: Public PUBLIC: ARGYLL AND BUTE RESIDENTS EXECUTIVE HEAD TEACHERS “Why do we need leaders of leaders . What next … leaders of the leaders and their leaders? We already have this, so those people should be leading on the improvements not structural change to a department because it sounds good .” “Executive Head defeats the whole purpose of small schools as they cannot have intimate knowledge of the individual ethos of the schools and pupils they are responsible for .” “I have taught in various education facilities and feel that more leaders are not required. More teachers and smaller classes wins every time.” Most residents questioned the need for Executive Head Teachers, with the role being almost universally disliked .
Page 30
247246 School leadership proposal: Consultation findings Conclusions CONCLUSIONS
Page 31
249248 School leadership proposal: Consultation findings Conclusions The Council asked that the community be consulted on the proposed model . Five months of consultation followed, supported by significant resources from the Argyll and Bute Council leadership team to help respondents understand how the education service runs and the considerations that need to be made around this proposal . The response from both professionals and public has shown that consulting on a ‘theoretical’ model results in mistrust . It has also shown that reasons for change can be easily dismissed if they are not supported by clear evidence . Even with the significant amount of engagement undertaken by educationalists to support the consultation, the theory of the proposed model was swamped by the depth of explanation required . One repeating mantra was ‘If it isn’t broken, then don’t fix it’ . If this proposal is to move forward, it’s time to help local communities recognise that everything is not currently perfect in Argyll and Bute’s schools . The sustainability of schools is at risk and Argyll and Bute’s Head Teachers are struggling to deliver while juggling increasing demands on their time . Recruitment challenges, an ageing workforce and education reform do not resonate with the majority of respondents . And to their eyes these challenges certainly don’t justify a full scale change to the way our schools are run . 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, further engagement with public/community stakeholders is not recommended . Our firm recommendation is to work exclusively with Head Teachers at the next stage, to shape a tangible model . Only then should you take this back to wider audiences for consideration . The qualitative work done with Head Teachers at the end of the consultation period showed high levels of willingness to engage . This is not to be confused with acceptance of the proposal . Head Teachers appreciate the challenges involved and can help develop the model to best fit their needs . Head Teachers need to see a clear reason for their change of title, and they need to be meaningfully engaged in the next stage of development . Co-creating the new leadership model with Head Teachers will benefit all parties . A pilot scheme, as previously planned, is also essential . It will provide the evidence so many have called for . Education is complicated CONCLUSIONS
Page 32
250 School leadership proposal: Consultation findings www .stand .agency 0141 222 2999 1st Floor Queen’s House 29 St Vincent Place Glasgow G1 2DT United Kingdom Brouwersgracht 130-134 1013 HA Amsterdam The Netherlands