Appendix 2 - Empowering Our Educators - ICIA - ver 0.3
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
1 Appendix 2 School Leadership Transformation in Argyll and Bute Island Community Impact Assessment 1. Introduction This Island Community Impact Assessment should be read in conjunction with the full suite of papers on School Leadership Transformation presented to Community Services Committee on 25th August 2022. Argyll and Bute Council have proposed transformative changes to school leadership in the authority to address the challenges education faces with both local and national changes. The proposal is based around collective leadership, grouping schools into small collectives, each with a shared collective leadership team. The proposal and collective leadership model was developed by Education professionals across the authority and has been under public and professional consultation for 11 months, to present the benefits and rationale for the school leadership transformation and capture concerns and feedback. In June 2021 the Education Service presented a report to the Council’s Community Services Committee detailing the Education change programme to deliver a sustainable Education service in this rural area. Following a motion at the Committee, members requested that the Education Service progress with a programme of engagement with our communities, our staff and their representative bodies and the wider group of stakeholders in relation to the principles of the school leadership model. And that the Executive Director – Education report back to a future meeting of the Committee on the outcomes from the engagement action, before progressing these elements of the Education Change Programme. This ICIA details the impact on island communities which were raised through the consultation, on the principles of the model, which ran from November 2021 to March 2022. It should be noted that the School leadership proposals do not constitute “relevant proposals” under Schedule 1 of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) 2010 Act and on the basis that the schools retain their own existing identities and locations, then the 2010 Act would not be triggered. Consultation and engagement could therefore follow a format and approach of the authority’s choosing which reflects the needs of our communities, our staff and their representative bodies and the wider group of stakeholders led by the Education Service. The consultation, supported by the council’s external partner Stand, followed Scottish Government Scottish Government’s Consultation Good Practice Guidance and allowed for representation from all stakeholder groups and all communities. According to the 2011 census Argyll and Bute has 23 inhabited islands. Bute, Coll, Colonsay Danna, Easdale, Eilean da Mheinn, Erraid, Gigha, Gometra, Inchtavannach, Innischonan, Iona, Islay, Jura, Kerrera, Lismore, Luing, Mull, Oronsay, Seil, Shuna (Luing), Tiree and Ulva.
Page 2
2 Argyll and Bute has 23 island schools (19 primaries, 1 secondary and 3 3-18 schools) - Arinagour Primary, Tiree 3-18, Tobermory 3-18, Dervaig Primary, Ulva Ferry Primary, Salen Primary, Lochdonhead Primary, Bunessan Primary, Iona Primary, Lismore Primary, Easdale Primary, Luing Primary (mothballed), Kilchattan Primary, Small Isles Primary, Keills Primary, Port Charlotte Primary, Bowmore Primary, Port Ellen Primary, Islay High, Gigha Primary, North Bute Primary, St Andrews Primary and Rothesay Joint Campus. Feedback from all stakeholder groups relating to island communities and or island schools was gathered and segmented to allow for further analysis into the unique challenges for island communities. The school leadership model was developed to be scalable and adaptable to all collectives of schools whether island or mainland, and whether classified as accessible rural, remote rural, very remote rural in the Scottish Government Urban Rural Classification. The proposals offer educational benefits for island schools and communities and support the Education Services to address the challenges of depopulation and falling school roles, an ageing workforce and challenges with recruitment, delivering equity and excellence and ensuring that Argyll and Bute schools are ready for the national changes planned by Scottish Government. Delivering education on island offers challenges with transport and connectivity however the educational benefits of raising attainment and delivering equity and excellence for island schools and their pupils is anticipated to be the same as on the mainland. Many islands are seeing depopulation and the collective leadership model was developed to help address this. The education authority models the school roll projections for all schools and the rolls for 40% of the island schools are projected to decline in the next five years. The collective leadership proposals are new to Argyll and Bute and are seen as an extension of both shared headships and 3-18 schools which have been operating successfully for many years. Other local authorities have also explored and implemented collective leadership models most notably Comhairle nan Eilean Siar. 2. Consultation The consultation was split into engagement with education professionals, engagement with pupils and engagement with the public. Presentations (in slideshow and video formats) were prepared that explained the reasons for change, shared the proposal, and posed questions to help frame responses. The presentations were tailored to appropriate levels of detail for each audience or stakeholder group. The consultation was extended twice and ended on 31st March 2022. A website (Empowering our Educators) was published on 29th November 2021, where information and presentations could be accessed. The website provided clear ways for people to have their say, and included the full engagement timetable. Audience-specific documents were disseminated through the website to:
Page 3
3 • 29 November 2021: Parent and Community Councils; • 29 November 2021: Elected Members; • 3 December 2021: Head Teachers and school enquiries email to disseminate to school staff (prior engagement on the proposals was conducted with Head Teachers in focus groups). The Empowering our Educators website included a questionnaire to enable stakeholders to respond with their opinions on the proposal, positive or negative. Two open-ended questions enabled this input. A short list of the benefits which the authority believe the model delivers was provided for consultees to either agree, or disagree with. And finally an overall ‘highly agree’ or ‘highly disagree’ indication. The website also enabled individuals to schedule ‘one-to-one’ sessions online with education professionals and ask questions directly. Finally, it provided a Frequently Asked Questions area which was regularly updated. Argyll and Bute Council’s social media channels were used to promote awareness of the website, as well as direct email addressed to the Council’s existing education mailing lists. Independent groups (eg. community councils, parent councils) were provided with a toolkit to facilitate their own engagement meetings, curate learnings and feedback through the Empowering our Educators website. Feedback from all island stakeholders, education professionals in island schools, pupils attending island schools and parents, parent and community councils on islands and community organisations representing island interest, has been gathered, analysed and segmented by stakeholder group, island community and unique island specific challenges. 3. Island community impacts I. Education Professionals Feedback from head teachers’ focus groups shows that head teachers of island schools face the same challenges as mainland head teachers, but some challenges are made more complex by their island context. Island challenges identified were: Equity and parity of support for all schools in a collective and a concern that larger mainland schools would have a larger voice in the collective and more resource. Staffing and recruitment which is exacerbated by a shortage of affordable housing and increased cost of living on islands. Collectives would have to be developed with an understanding of context.
Page 4
4 Feedback from teaching and school support staff in our island schools identified the following challenges. The perception here is that island schools can often feel distant and over looked. Small island schools won’t be able to benefit from shared resources and shared curriculum due to geography. Implementing the model in island communities will be more challenging due to the problems with recruiting and retaining staff. Additional and non-productive time wasted when travelling between island communities. Benefits were also recognised: For small island schools the model will bring chances to collaborate with other schools in the area. The model can help with the transition to secondary school on the mainland for island children. Enhanced leadership regardless of smallness of roll is welcomed if it prevents schools from closing II. Pupils Pupil Councils had their own section of the Empowering our Educators website, including presentations, videos and feedback forms. This material was developed through focus groups with pupils and feedback from teachers. Pupils were asked what they liked about the proposal and what they didn’t. Not all schools responded officially with the thoughts of their pupils. 13 pupil councils of island primary schools gave their feedback to the consultation, Iona, Lochdonhead, Ulva, Easdale, Arinagour, Port Charlotte, Small Isles, Bunessan, Lismore, Tobermory, Bowmore, Port Ellen and Salen. Pupils from Islay High and Tobermory High gave their feedback to the secondary consultation. There was misunderstanding about the proposals from some of the primary pupils consulted fearing a loss of head teachers, teachers and that this was a proposal to save money. Primary pupils in island communities do think that collaboration and sharing between schools are a good idea especially for their schools. Benefits for primary pupils in island schools: Opportunities to meet more people, make more friends and work collaboratively. Good idea to share equipment with other schools but it has to be fair. It will help us to see what other children are doing/learning so we can compare, improve and have more learning ideas.
Page 5
5 It will be better for our transition into secondary as the P7s will get to know more people. More teachers to teach us and help us with our learning. The Head Teacher can focus more on running our school and will get more support. Executive Heads could help with improvements to schools and give support to the head teacher. It’s good to try something new. Challenges: There is no reason to change how it is just now and not everyone likes change. Resources and budgets have to be shared fairly. Executive head teachers won’t know the pupils as well as their head teacher does. Unclear about the role of Head of school and Executive Head. There should be choice as to whether HTs teach. Concern that the right person will be appointed. New staff can have a greater impact in a smaller school. A new head will boss us around. Teachers might not want to come to island schools and some teachers may leave. The timescales are long. It’s confusing. Secondary pupils questioned the lack of detail in the proposals and looked for the detail of the collectives, which is unavailable. Challenges for secondary pupils were: The Executive Head will not get to know the pupils as well as the Head Teacher does and that the pupils wouldn’t have the same opportunity to get to know the Executive Head. No plan to recruit teachers to the island, the proposals don’t make it more attractive. The Executive Head job will be stressful and they will not understand about enough about each school to make informed decisions. Smaller school could lose out to bigger schools with the day to day demands of the Executive Heads job. Don’t want island schools to become the poor relation. The benefits secondary pupils identified were:
Page 6
6 The Head Teacher could focus more on leadership if not teaching. Resources can be shared. Transition into secondary would be better. III. Community Bodies Community and Parent Councils were given toolkits to share and discuss the proposal independently with their members. Chairpersons of Community Councils and Parent Councils across Argyll and Bute were invited to one of five Q&A sessions arranged for them. The Heads of Service and Education Manager (Transformation) presented the proposal and answered questions. Chairpersons were encouraged to then share the proposal with their Community Councils and Parent Councils for discussion, and feed back in a structured fashion through the Empowering Our Educators website. The Education Service offered the support of an education professional to attend their discussions, present the proposals and answer any questions. Out of the 37 community and parent council who took up that offer, of an education professional, 10 represented island communities. The parent Councils of Keills, Small Isles, Easdale, St Andrews, Rothesay, Iona, Gigha and Bowmore. The Community Council of Seil and Easdale and a joint meeting between the parent and community council on Lismore. Responses to the consultation were received from community bodies on the islands of Mull, Islay, Bute, Iona, Lismore, Jura, Tiree, Easdale and Coll. Community bodies were the most negative about the proposals and were critical of the consultation process, seeing it more as PR exercise and stating there was a lack of evidence as to why change was required and why the collective model would offer improvement. Many of the community responses repeated the same negative concerns about the proposals and the concerns were more generic to Argyll and Bute than local to their community most likely due to the high level of lobbying. The community response from island communities was high. Sharing of resources was almost universally welcomed, however, questions were asked as to why this can’t currently be the case. Equity between schools (not pupils) is at the heart of most concerns. Smaller/island schools are concerned they will be overlooked, disadvantaged and unheard if they are included within collectives of larger schools. Mistrust of the Council, loss of unique school identities, makeup of collectives, the role of head of school, specialisms, executive head teachers, recruitment and staff progression were commonly raised. Concerns relating to island communities included a diminishing of the identity of island schools and therefore their community. Recruitment and availability of housing for staff relocating to island communities was raised frequently as an issue. However there were also concerns raised that the model was designed to reduce the number of staff in school and save budget as a result. Several island communities were keen to point out the recent growth in population in particular Islay, Jura and Mull.
Page 7
7 Many community bodies claim that cluster working already works well in island schools and the sharing of resources between schools, especially on smaller islands was seen to more challenging and would lead to a loss of resource in remote schools. Travel time between islands for any shared or visiting staff was highlighted. Island communities are keen to be consulted when detailed proposals are worked up and collectives identified to ensure that unique island needs are understood and the leadership model within the collective would be responsive to maintaining and supporting island communities. Island community bodies emphasised the requirement of an Island Community Impact Assessment relating to a policy change. IV. Community Organisations Bòrd na Gàidhlig The Education Service met with representatives of Bord na gadhlig and Comann nam Pàrant to discuss the proposal and explore opportunities for sharing Gaelic culture and language in the proposed school collectives. This was followed up by consultation sessions offered to parents of children and young people in Gaelic Medium Education on 22nd March 2022. A fourth set of FAQ documents specifically for Gaelic related questions – both in English and Gaelic was also published and shared on the website, disseminated to school staff and parents and shared through social media. Concerns that Gaelic had been overlooked and the proposals would erode Gaelic culture and GME education and challenges with recruitment of Gaelic teachers were raised by teaching staff, community bodies and the public. Feedback from Bord na gadhlig highlighted the importance of promoting and supporting Gaelic Medium Education within the leadership model and specialisms, collaborative working across schools and increased collaboration amongst practitioners. Feedback from Comann nam Pàrant highlighted opportunities for growth, development and further expansion of GME within the new structure. Could there be an opportunity for clusters with GME provision to develop a stronger Gaelic ethos throughout the schools in the collective? Support should be given to attracting Gaelic staff to Argyll and Bute and opportunities for promotion for GME teachers within the new structure. The protection of total immersion and immersion for Gaelic medium classes, parents have raised concerns that movement of teachers within a cluster may result in non-Gaelic speaking teachers being more frequently deployed to cover Gaelic Medium classes. Diocese of Argyll and the Isles
Page 8
8 The Education Manager (Transformation) met with Diocese and representatives from SCES on several occasions to discuss the implications of the proposal for denominational education in Argyll and Bute. The conversation remains open. There is an island denominational primary school on the Isle of Bute, St Andrews Primary. 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 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. V. Community Groups Community groups were amongst the most vocal and resistant to the proposals and lobbied other audiences with their opinions. 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. North West Mull Community Woodland Company Ltd, a charity based on the Isle of Mull wrote to the Council laying out concerns about lack of evidence and that the proposals failed to address concerns about the future of island and rural schools, and island and rural communities. They were concerned as to how small island schools will be accommodated by this model, and whether they will be able to continue to thrive. They state that their concerns are partly driven by attempts to close small schools in the past such as Ulva Primary School, and Lochdonhead Primary School. NWM Community Woodland are open to working with the Council to have a new and inclusive discussion about the future of Education and its implications for island schools and their way of life. Wise4All, the local lobbying group from the Isle of Mull, 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 and drove the general understanding of Argyll and Bute residents on the subject. Wise4all’s opinions came through strongly via Community and Parent Council and they wrote a detailed letter themselves stating the consultation to be flawed in not meeting good practice Scottish Government guidance. This leading to a loss of confidence in the leadership of the Council and questioning the integrity of the education team. Concerns were also raised about Gaelic and protection of Gaelic culture.
Page 9
9 In Wise4all’s opinion the model had been agreed even before island impact assessments were undertaken. Stating that 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. Ultimately Wise4all rejected the proposals in their entirety and disagree that there is a need for change. VI. Public All parents of children and young people in Argyll and Bute schools received a summary of the proposal titled ‘In a Nutshell’ via the Expressions app, the Education services method for sharing information with parents. 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. The specific island issues raised during the unscripted one to one calls included referring to a remoteness and disconnect from the national improvement agenda. Preferences was also given by one caller for collectives to include only island schools. Three sets of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) were collated, responded to and published through the website. A fourth set of FAQ documents specifically for Gaelic related questions – both in English and Gaelic was also published. An analysis of feedback from the general public, parents and guardians highlights the following issues unique to island living and education in their view: Island travel Travel logistics including overnight accommodation leading to increased costs Difficulties commuting between islands without travel via mainland ports Regular ferry disruptions caused by an ageing ferry fleet and increase in poor weather Lack of local accommodation for visiting staff Island living Increased cost of island living Lack of affordable housing and a housing crisis that is affecting all walks of public sector life Island education Island schools don’t have the same facilities as schools on the mainland
Page 10
10 Reliance on video technology would be a poor substitute for teachers in the classroom Transitions into mainland high school and hostel accommodation are a significant adjustment for pupils Island schools have small rolls and therefore don’t have the budget to afford additional support. Remote island locations makes achieving the positives a huge logistical challenge, but surely not insurmountable as technology advances. School leadership The executive head will not know the island families or have an understanding of island issues. They won’t be able to recruit or retain teachers as they will not know them. Contact between all the schools and the executive head will mean less time for a head to make dedicated individual decisions. Education on the island won’t necessarily improve because an executive who doesn’t know teachers or learners dictates how things should be done. The Head Teacher of an island school is a lonely job, 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. Will the executive head have a background in Gaelic Island recruitment Head Teachers of island schools won’t be attracted to the post of executive head as they do not have the same career aspirations. Rural and Island communities are suffering due to their geographical position. More needs to be done to attract and retain up and coming talented teachers and for them to live locally. Offering temporary contracts are less likely to be attractive to teaching staff relocating to islands. Argyll and Bute has active and engaged communities both in and out of schools. All members of the public who responded voiced mistrust of the consultation and the reason for change. Many residents (non-parents) seem unaware of shortcomings in the current school leadership system and they struggle to see the need for change. 4. Feedback per island community Much of the feedback from community bodies across Argyll and Bute was templated and similar issues were raised irrespective of geography and community identity. Many island communities were critical that no island community impact assessment had been completed prior to the proposals being shared for consultation showing a misunderstanding of the legislation as detailed in the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018.
Page 11
11 However an analysis of feedback per island highlights some unique and local challenges which should be considered and mitigated against for the benefit of the island community should the proposals be developed further. Islay – rural and island infrastructure is a challenge with lack of housing and childcare concerns highlighted by the community. The population of Islay is growing and in the opinion of the community the proposals will not attract professionals to move to Islay and the attraction would be limited to professional educators aspiring to middle management. In parents views there is a strong robust and collaborative cluster already functioning in Islay and Jura. Port Charlotte parent council stated that if the parent council were to be asked to participate in a further consultation it could endanger the future of the parent council. It is also the view of the community that the Gaelic medium units has the support and knowledge within the community from a head of school who has a sound understanding of the principles underpinning Gaelic medium education and thus have the confidence to lead effectively. There is also concern that an executive head may not have sufficient knowledge of Gaelic medium education to support a head of school. If it was a requirement to hire a Gaelic Speaker to manage a school with GME – concerns that this would further limit employment opportunities and possible positive discrimination in seeking GME skills over the many other skills required for Head Teacher positions. Jura – parent and pupil satisfaction with Small Isles primary is exceptionally high and therefore the community opposes any change which unnecessarily threatens their status quo. In their view any change to the school leadership will risk destabilising the entire island and doctors, carers, nurses, physios, hospitality staff will not live and work on the island if the school changes. And again in their view currently people are moving to Jura because of the school. Mull – increasing school rolls for some primaries notably Lochdon and a new housing development proposed at Craignure for 90+ homes. There are a number of young people living on the island and training to be teachers who would like to teach on the island. A collective which includes all of Mull and Iona primaries could prove challenging with two feeder high schools. Collaborative learning is something Tobermory High School has done in the past with Tiree High School’s Music, and Biology departments and it worked well. Tobermory High School currently works with other schools, and it has been indicated the primary schools on Mull and Iona have worked well/do work well together. Tobermory High school has had two years of upheaval with an active head teacher on-site for 2 years and would welcome a period of stability. Salen parents are satisfied with the present situation at Salen Primary School and that this level of change is not necessary. There are concerns about the lack of affordable housing on the island. Iona – Iona primary is the only school on an island off an island and are therefore to the community feels very much the end of the line. Parents are attracted to the proposition of an Executive Head driving improvement across a cluster, and can see a direct link between the reform proposals and this outcome. An executive headship could protect against the risk of any head teacher making themselves a silo and ploughing entirely their own furrow in their approach to the curriculum. They are also attracted by the prospect of more teachers in classrooms, were this to happen as outlined in the proposal but are sceptical that this would happen in practice, particularly in their smaller schools where there is a strong precedent for teaching heads, and even more so in "hard to reach" locations like Iona. Iona parents are looking for the detail of the collectives so they can understand what the proposal would mean for the island. They suggest a conversation with island parents, perhaps via an Island Parents Forum, so the authority can truly understand what it means to be at the end of the chain. It is in the equality between schools and better sharing of resources that they particularly fear losing out, as experience tells us them this is harder (and perhaps too hard) to achieve in such a remote location.
Page 12
12 Bute – There have been challenges with recruitment to leadership posts in schools on Bute. A unique concern for St. Andrew’s primary is their faith Status. The Catholic Church has yet to decide if St. Andrew’s can be part of such a model. Consideration should be given to options if the model is adopted on Bute without St. Andrew’s and how it would work for St. Andrew’s. Rothesay Joint Campus parent council do not see the proposals as encouraging families to move to or stay on the island. Nor will it increase the range of courses or career opportunities offered at Rothesay Academy. Lismore – Lismore Community Council are keen that whoever is leading and managing the school on a daily basis is able to live locally and serve as a key member of the community, as has been the case up until now. Lismore Community Council and the community that they represent are not averse to change, provided that this offers demonstrable benefits to our school and community and they would be prepared to give consideration to a model that relates to Lismore. However, they would not be supportive of a model that resulted in the loss of a Head Teacher or Head of School post based within the school. They wish to see a detailed proposal for Lismore that clearly describes the model and how it would work within our community. Easdale – the primary school is within a shared headship with their partner school Luing which is mothballed. Easdale parents welcome working with other schools and their children benefit hugely from interaction with their peers it is difficult to see how a ‘cluster’ would work for them. Easdale parents value and trust their Head Teacher’s ability to make decisions in their school that will benefit our children. Their concern is that the larger schools within the collective would be more likely to attract the attention and resources at the disposal of an executive head. Parents have seen with the mothballing of Luing School that even simple matters such as the transportation of children to adjacent schools can lead to challenges. Classroom teacher posts would become less attractive adding to the recruitment challenges the school currently faces. Coll – The model supports improved progression for pupils between primary classes and when moving to secondary. An executive head teacher may ease recruitment challenges. Tiree - Tiree Community Council consulted with the whole community on the proposals. In their view Tiree High School’s partnership with Oban High School is currently closer to the proposed model than most other schools in Argyll and Bute. Some members of school staff said they valued working with colleagues at Oban High School. However, the majority of community thought that the model would not help teaching or learning in Tiree High School. Respondents were evenly split on whether the model would increase the range of courses and opportunities offered at Tiree High School. Large majorities thought that the model would increase the numbers of young people leaving Tiree and that the model would not attract families to the island. A number of respondents pointed out that there had been substantial investment in the school over the last two years. However, most people thought that the proposed model would ultimately lead to an overall drop in funding for smaller schools like Tiree. The majority believed that the model would result in less Gaelic being spoken on the island. In their experience the closer links with Oban High School have led to an increase in teaching using VC at Tiree High School. Significantly, a large majority (including all responding pupils and a majority of responding staff) wanted to see a reduction in VC teaching. In conclusion, on unique island concerns island communities are split with some seeing the benefits that the proposals were designed to address benefitting their school community. Others saw challenges. Repeated by the majority of island communities was the phrase “one size will not fit all” and this is clear
Page 13
13 from the views shared that our islands are unique places and their communities are advocates of island life and passionate and protective in retaining their identities. 5. Next steps If community Services Committee approves the school leadership model and collectives are developed further, consultation should take place with island communities to ensure that the collectives of island schools will address the unique island concerns as identified in section 4 above. This consultation should be constructed to support island communities to develop and implement a school leadership model which will mitigate against the concerns and unique challenges of island life. If the proposals are accepted by the Community Services Committee in August 2022 and further engagement involving island schools is agreed, island specific outcomes should be identified for those island communities and monitored on an ongoing basis by the Education Authority and reported to Community Services Committee to ensure the leadership model address the challenges for pupils and staff living and learning on our islands. A further ICIA will be prepared at this time. The Empowering Our Educators ICIA will be included with the reports on School Leadership Structures presented to Community Services Committee on 25th August 2022. Following committee the ICIA will be uploaded to the council’s website Equality and Socio-Economic Impact Assessments (argyll-bute.gov.uk) and will be shared with island communities who responded to the consultation. 6. ICIA Sign Off Lead officer details: Name of lead officer Morag Brown Job title Business Improvement Manager Department Education Appropriate officer details: Name of appropriate officer Douglas Hendry Job title Executive Director Department Education
Page 14
14 Sign off of ICIA Date of sign off 18.07.2022