« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
CHAPTER 4: PROMOTING PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT
4.1 Introduction
This chapter provides analysis of the first three questions in the consultation document. This reflects the structure of the consultation document. The draft Bill places an explicit new duty on education authorities to support parental involvement in the education provided to their children both in schools and more widely. The first question explored reactions to this proposal: "Do you agree with the placing of a new duty on education authorities to promote parental involvement?"
The draft Bill also requires each education authority to consult parents and any other relevant parties before preparing a Strategy for Parental Involvement ( SPI) setting out how it would intend to implement this and other new statutory duties contained in the draft Bill. Question 2 explored reactions to these proposals: "Do you agree that education authorities should be required to prepare new Strategies for Parental Involvement?"
The draft Bill also outlines an intention that SPIs would form part of education authorities' Annual Statement of Improvement Objectives. It proposes that School Development Plans should also ensure that commitment to promoting parental involvement would be embedded at individual school level. Reactions to these proposals were explored in question 3: "Do you agree that incorporating these Strategies in existing Annual Statements of Education Improvement Objectives and School Development Plans (as set out in the Standards in Scottish Schools 2000 Act) is the right way for education authorities to set out their intentions? Or should this be done in some other way?"
4.2 Duty on Education Authorities
It should be noted that whilst some respondents answered the specific question posed about the new duty, others made other more general comments on the proposals which did not necessarily relate directly to the question. These additional comments have nonetheless been included.
The first question posed in the consultation paper was, "Do you agree with the placing of a new duty on education authorities to promote parental involvement?"
As shown in chart 4.1, the majority of respondents (61%) expressed broad agreement with the proposal to place a new duty on education authorities to promote parental involvement. A number of comments were made in relation to the specific point that increasing parental involvement is essential and beneficial to children, and has a positive impact on children's achievement.
For example, one response from a School Board stated,
"We welcome the Executive's commitment to parental involvement in the education of Scotland's children at all levels…"
(School Board)
Similarly, a respondent from a school stated,
"We support efforts to increase the involvement of parents in schools… We support strengthening the partnership between parents and schools."
(Education Authority School)
However, as the chart also shows, a significant minority (37%) stated that they disagreed with this proposal or questioned the need for the Bill and they gave a number of reasons for this view. For example, some believed that this duty already existed 3 and that education authorities and schools were already doing a lot to improve parental involvement.
"The vast majority of education authorities are already fully committed to promoting parental involvement."
(Education Authority)
Others argued that the proposals would not make much difference:
"The proposals in the draft legislation are not likely to increase the quantity and quality of diversity of the involvement of parents in Scotland's schools."
(School Board)
The following points, which were not of direct relevance to the question about the new duty were nonetheless made in response to this question. For example, respondents felt that there was no evidence to indicate that the new Bill will bring about improvements and that there was nothing wrong with the current School Board system, which was believed to work well and should therefore be retained.
Additionally, just over one in ten respondents (11%) felt that the best approach would be to build on the strengths and good practice that are already in place rather than replacing the existing legislation.
"It would be preferable to build on what already exists, perhaps increasing the flexibility of School Boards rather than starting from scratch."
(Individual)
To do this, primary legislation would be necessary as the current School Board legislation does not allow for this type of flexibility. It is useful to note here that the new proposals intend to offer parents the opportunity to build on what already exists if that is their preference although this quote suggests that some respondents did not realise this.
Respondents offered a number of suggestions for improvements to the existing arrangements. For example a small number of respondents felt that School Boards are currently off-putting to parents and perceived to be overly formal, inflexible and unfriendly, therefore changes could be made to overcome this. It was also noted that reducing the powers of Boards could de-motivate those parents who are currently involved in them.
As shown in the chart, around one in seven respondents (14%) identified issues that might affect the implementation of the duty and highlighted particular areas where further clarification was needed. These included the following points, each made by small numbers of respondents:
- Parental apathy would not be overcome by the proposal
- The new duty could be time consuming to administer and result in an increase in bureaucracy and administrative costs. Additional funding would therefore be a requirement.
- A clearer definition of parental involvement is needed and more information on the processes and actions required to successfully implement the duty.
- Most parents are primarily concerned with specific issues relating to their own children's day to day learning needs.
- Parents could be put off by the proposed duty or it could alienate those who are currently involved.
- It could place an additional burden on schools and headteachers.
A similar proportion of respondents (14%) made suggestions on what the duty should encompass or how it should be implemented. For example it was suggested that:
- The system should ensure that parents are consulted, that education authorities listen to them, and that there are clear routes of communication between parents and education authorities.
- There should be consistency in parental involvement across all education authorities and the same framework should be applied nationally. It would be therefore be imperative that all authorities enforce the Bill to the same extent.
- Partnership working with other stakeholders and agencies to obtain their support in improving involvement should be developed.
- All parents should become more involved, including those from socially or economically disadvantaged backgrounds and it would be important to adapt strategies to foster greater interest amongst the larger body of parents.
Further comments made by smaller numbers of respondents in relation to this theme included the need for clear guidelines, the importance of integrating schools into their surrounding communities, not overly privileging parental influence on educational delivery or the curriculum, and focussing developments in areas where School Boards do not exist.
Chart 4.1
Placing a New Duty On Education Authorities
Base: All respondents
(Source Q1)
It is interesting to note that 48% of those who said they were against the new system overall still expressed a positive view on this particular proposal.
When we examine specific sub-groups of those responding, around six in ten of those responding as individuals (61%) were in favour of the proposal. The figure was similar for School Boards with 56% in favour of the proposal, and this figure rose to 78% of those responding from education authorities.
Public Consultation Events
Respondents from the public consultation events agreed that this proposal was a good idea but were concerned about the resource implications, especially administrative support. They also expressed preference for a consistent national strategy to be used across all education authority areas. These respondents also supported an assessment of some sort to be conducted perhaps by HMIe. Again, greater clarity on the role of parent forums was requested.
In summary the main findings from the analysis of question 1:
- The majority of respondents (61%) expressed broad agreement to the proposals, recognising the benefits of parental involvement for achievement, and the flaws associated with the current system.
- Those who were not in favour of the new duty and/or the proposals generally argued that the existing system of School Boards currently works effectively and the proposed duty would be unlikely to result in an improvement to parental involvement
- Further concerns about the proposals were expressed:
- The new duty could be time consuming and expensive to administer
- There is a lack of clarity about how to implement the proposals successfully
- Parents could be put off or alienated further by the new proposals
- Those against the new duty and/or the proposals in general expressed preference for an approach that would build on the School Board system and utilise expertise that has already been developed
- Suggestions were also made to make the duty work effectively and included:
- Clear communication between parents and education authorities
- Consistency in the framework at a national level
- Partnership working
- Strategies to ensure that all parents are involved regardless of their background.
4.3 Strategies for Parental Involvement
Respondents were asked, "Do you agree that education authorities should be required to prepare new Strategies for Parental Involvement?"
As shown in chart 4.2 just over two in five respondents (42%) agreed with this proposal.
The following illustrates the type of comment received from those in favour:
"We support the suggestion that Education Authorities draw up strategies for parental involvement in schools."
(Education Authority)
In contrast just over one in five (21%) were either explicitly against the proposal or stated that they were happy with the existing arrangements.
The following statement reflects the position,
"The responsibilities of parents within the context of School Boards are presently substantial and potentially influential. It is unlikely that new Strategies for Parental Involvement will enhance or improve these responsibilities. The current provision for Schools Boards is stable, responsible and highly relevant to promoting parental involvement. There is no empirical evidence that this provision is any way inappropriate and its replacement is therefore unjustified."
(School Board)
A minority of respondents (10%) also stressed that improvements could be made to the existing system. Amongst the types of comments made here was the suggestion that it should be up to the individuals schools themselves to decide whether or not the new strategies are needed; they might only be useful if more effective than the existing systems.
A range of issues that might affect the implementation or preparation of strategies was identified by just over one in four respondents (27%). The main factors of concern that were mentioned included:
- The importance of encouraging parents to get more involved, for involvement to be meaningful and for direct consultation between education authorities and parents
- A need for the proposals to be supported and promoted by the Scottish Executive and the development of a consistent approach across Scotland
- A need for greater clarity and a need for more detailed information and a clear framework for the strategy. As one respondent noted:
"It must be clear how these new strategies are devised, who is consulted and how implementation is monitored and evaluated."
(Education Organisation)
- The importance of increased flexibility.
A number of other problems were also identified by individuals and organisations responding to the consultation. These included:
- The considerable variation between individual schools which makes generalised approaches problematic.
For example one respondent noted that,
"Whilst diversity is in many ways a good thing, a wild and unstructured system is not…It would have been more realistic to have agreed strategies once the process of deciding on parent forums, or other means of consultation and involvement of parents, has been agreed."
(Education Authority)
- The lack of parental interest in issues beyond those that affect their own children. This means that the onus on parental involvement for the success of the proposals is problematic.
- An increase in administrative, bureaucratic and financial burdens.
Further comments identified by small proportions of respondents (less than 2%) included the view that it would be more appropriate to place responsibility for this on headteachers or schools rather than the authority; it would be essential to ensure that every education authority is actively involved to the same extent and it could be difficult to legislate in this area. For example as one respondent pointed out:
" It can be difficult to mobilise parents to become involved for a range of complicated reasons, some of which cannot be addressed by placing an obligation of involvement on schools."
(School Board)
Chart 4.2
Strategies for Parental Involvement
Base : All Respondents
(Source Q2)
As might be expected, when we examine specific sub groups of those responding, almost three quarters (74%) of those who expressed support for the new system overall and over two in five (42%) of those who supported changes, were in favour of this proposal.
An examination of sub groups responding shows that the numbers in favour were fairly consistent across all the main respondent categories. Of those responding as individuals, nearly half (47%) were in favour of the proposal, whilst over half (56%) of those responding on behalf of education authorities were in favour. Of those responding from School Boards the figure was somewhat lower with 37% in favour.
In summary, the main findings from the analysis of question 2 are:
- Over two in five (42%) of the respondents were in favour of the proposal.
- Just over one in five (21%) were against the proposal.
- Respondents identified a range of issues that could affect the implementation of the proposal.
4.4 Appropriateness of Incorporating Strategies into Existing Annual Statements of Education Improvement Objectives and School Development Plans
The third question asked respondents, "Do you agree that incorporating these Strategies in existing Annual Statements of Education Improvement Objectives and School Development Plans (as set out in the Standards in Scottish Schools 2000 Act) is the right way for education authorities to set out their intentions? Or should this be done in some other way?"
As illustrated in chart 4.3, almost two in five (39%) were in favour of this proposal whilst only 17% were against it. Of those expressing favour, respondents noted that it would be easier to plan, monitor and review progress and that information would be more easily accessible to parents and other stakeholders.
For example, one respondent stated that:
"Incorporating strategies for parental involvement in the Annual Statements of Education Improvement as set out in the 2000 Act will ensure that the SPIs have the same status as other Improvement Objectives. If they were dealt with separately, there would be a danger that they would be overlooked or treated as less important."
(Education Organisation)
"The process of dialogue, role identification and resource planning (should) be incorporated into the School Development Plan."
(Unknown)
Amongst those who did not agree with the proposal, around 3% of respondents emphasised the appropriateness of the current system. A small number of respondents (less than 2%) felt that these strategies were not necessary, that Development Plans should be the responsibility of the schools and that the education authorities should focus on core educational responsibilities.
Again, a small minority of respondents (4%) suggested that improvements could be made to the existing system.
Just under one in five (19%) expressed a range of preferences for content, presentation and dissemination of the strategy. For example they emphasised the need for a clear and simple dissemination processes, and the development of ways to make the strategy relevant, interesting and accessible to parents, for example, through the use of newsletters or electronic media.
"It is highly unlikely that parents will access these documents and thus distribution to and accessibility by parents is an issue that needs to be addressed."
(Education Organisation)
A small percentage of all respondents (4%) requested the use of a separate document rather than incorporating this as proposed, and that this should be written in Plain English. A small number (less than 2%) also suggested involving parents in developing plans to ensure their trust. Development Plans should also be streamlined with a clear structure. It was also stated that a flexible approach should be used.
Just over one in ten respondents (12%) identified a wide range of issues that they felt might affect strategies and their incorporation. These included the following:
- Concerns about the implications of an increased bureaucratic burden
- Involving and consulting with existing School Boards before and during the change-over
- The importance of effective communication between the education authority and schools and other stakeholders was also emphasised
- Ensuring that involvement is meaningful to parents concerned
- The provision of increased funding
- The need for independent monitoring of legislation and the implementation of the system (perhaps by HMIe)
- Listening to parents' views and needs
- Relating the strategy to other strategies
- A single national policy rather than a variety of local or school based ones
- A need for guidance.
For example, one respondent stated that,
"Guidance will be necessary to ensure that there is a level of consistency across education authorities and to ensure that the issues surrounding parental involvement and representation are not buried under the other statutory sections of School Development Plans."
(Representative Body)
Chart 4.3
Incorporating Strategies
Base: All respondents
(Source Q3)
When we examine specific sub-groups of those responding, it is not surprising that well over half (56%) of those who expressed support overall for the new system and 41% of those in favour of making changes overall, expressed support for this proposal. However, nearly a third (32%) of those who were against the new system overall, expressed support for this particular proposal.
Two in five (40%) responding as individuals and 36% responding on behalf of School Boards were in favour of this proposal. The figure was lower for those responding from schools: 30% said they agreed with the proposal, and markedly higher for education authorities amongst whom 63% were in favour.
In summary, the main findings from the analysis of responses to question 3 are:
- Almost two in five (39%) of the respondents were in agreement with the proposal
- Almost a fifth of respondents were against the proposal
- Just under one in five respondents (19%) made a range of suggestions in terms of content, presentation and dissemination of the strategies that they felt could influence strategies and their incorporation.
« Previous | Contents | Next »