« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
CHAPTER 6: ASPECTS OF THE PARENT FORUM
6.1 Introduction
This chapter deals with two further sub sections of the consultation document covering aspects of the parent forum. These are "Establishing the Parent Forum" and "Membership of the Parent Forum".
In the consultation document two questions (questions 8 and 9) were asked in relation to these sub section, "Establishing the Parent Forum." Although parents have the ultimate say on the structure and composition of the forum, the draft Bill includes provision for education authorities to assist with the establishment of the first parent forum in the school if parents so wish this. A significant number of parents could require an education authority to initiate the process.
The draft Bill also proposes that the forum's constitution would be determined locally either by parents themselves or under the education authority scheme.
Question 8 asked, "Do you agree with the proposal for the involvement of education authorities to get the initial parent forum off the ground? If not, what alternative would you suggest?" Question 9 asked, "The draft Bill leaves the forum's constitution to be determined locally, either by the parents or initially under the education authority scheme. Do you agree with this approach? If not, what alternative would you suggest and why?"
Questions 10-13 were asked in relation to the subsection of the consultation document, "Membership of the Parent Forum". The draft Bill specifies membership should be the "parent" of a pupil in attendance at the school or an individual co-opted by the parent forum. The term "parent" encompasses a child's guardian or other person who has parental responsibilities to the child.
Q10 asked, "Do you agree that membership of a parent forum should be confined to parents (the broad definition) of children attending the school or individuals co-opted by the parent forum? Should parents always be in the majority?" Q11 asked, "Do you have a view as to how the needs of looked-after children should be addressed and catered for in the Bill?" Q12 asked, "Do you agree that the Bill should not result in parent forum members being subject to automatic disclosure checks but that members, like any other parent, should only be checked when engaging in activities defined under the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003?" Q13 asked, "On balance, do you agree that 'rights of attendance' for certain non-members of a parent forum should not be a part of the new arrangements? In other words, do you agree that non-members of the parent forum should attend only by invitation or do you believe the headteacher should have the right to attend, with the councillor or other individual by invitation?"
6.2 Initial Setup of the Forum
In question 8, respondents were asked, "Do you agree with the proposal for the involvement of education authorities to get the initial parent forum off the ground? If not, what alternative would you suggest?"
As shown in chart 6.1, almost two in five respondents ( 39%) were in agreement with this proposal for the involvement of education authorities in getting the initial forum started.
"We would agree with this as it would provide a degree of consistency in relation to standards, values framework (and) purpose. It could also assist in the setting up of accountability frameworks."
(Education Organisation)
Of those in agreement, a minority of respondents (7%) stated that education authorities should be responsible for ensuring that every school has a forum.
However, just over one in five (22%) disagreed with the proposal or were happy with the existing system.
Amongst all those against the proposals, a small number (13%) again argued that the current system should be retained. Others also argued that forums would not work or that education authorities should focus on their core educational responsibilities.
As the chart illustrates, 14% made suggestions for alternative approaches to setting up the forums initially. These included the following suggestions:
- Schools or parents should choose whether the education authority is to be included or not
- A working group or consultation could be held with the Scottish School Boards Association, parents, staff, professionals and other interested parties coming together to assist in the setup of the forums
- School Boards should be involved in the setup
- The setup process should be managed centrally by the Scottish Executive and a national regulator should be employed to track progress and identify unsatisfactory forums
- Headteachers should be involved.
"There is broad agreement that education authorities should work with parents in establishing the first parent forums. Clarification of the role of the headteacher in this process is required."
(Education Authority)
The chart shows that 12% of respondents identified a range of difficulties they perceived might affect the forums or made suggestions to improve their setup. The types of comments included:
- The problem of parental apathy and lack of time
- The need for statutory checks to ensure all constitutions are democratic
- The importance of education authorities listening and paying attention to schools
- The need for clarity and information
- Concerns about funding requirements and bureaucratic burdens.
Just over one in eight (12%) made suggestions for improvements to be made to the existing system, by modifying the existing School Board system or building on the experience that is already in place in existing bodies. A small minority (less than 2%) argued that new forums should only be used in areas where no School Board currently exists.
"Why increase workloads unnecessarily? Extra resources would be required to get individual, constitutionally sound local forums up and running. It is debatable whether more involvement will result or whether it will still be the same people coming forward. Education authorities already have well informed staff supporting School Boards. Modifications to this legislation could be easily disseminated and a locally flexible, more open, inclusive Board structure could be put into place fairly easily instead. New Boards can always be more actively promoted."
(School Board)
A slightly lower percentage (11%) stated that education authority support would be needed at all times and not just during the initial set up phase. Just over one in ten (11%) respondents stated that the education authority should be committed to parental involvement, using their expertise and resources to provide guidance and support to parent forums.
Chart 6.1
Initial Setup of the Forum
Base: All Respondents
(Source Q8)
A majority (71%) of those expressing overall support for the new system were in favour of this particular proposal, whilst more than a third of those (36%) who were not in favour overall were also against this proposal.
When we examine the different sub groups of respondents, of those responding as individuals, 40% were in favour of this proposal, whilst almost a quarter (24%) of this category of respondent was against it. Of those responding from School Boards 36% were in favour and 21% were against. However, a majority of those responding from education authorities (69%) were in favour and none were against it. However, nearly half (44%) of those from education authorities made suggestions for alternative arrangements as detailed earlier.
In summary, the main findings to the analysis of question 8 are:
- Over a third of respondents (39%) were in agreement with this proposal for the involvement of education authorities in getting the initial forum started.
- Just over two in ten (22%) disagreed with the proposal or were happy with the existing system.
- Over one in seven (14%) made suggestions for alternative approaches to setting up the forums initially.
6.3 Determining the Constitution
In question 9, respondents were asked, "The draft Bill leaves the forum's constitution to be determined locally, either by the parents or initially under the education authority scheme. Do you agree with this approach? If not, what alternative would you suggest and why?"
As illustrated in chart 6.2, almost half of respondents (45%) were effectively against this proposal and some of these suggested further that there should either be a compulsory national framework or a constitutional model that can be adapted by parents. Furthermore, under one third of respondents (28%) was simply against the proposal or stated that they were happy with the existing arrangements.
"A constitution should be standardised nationally to provide a basic framework for guidance. Electoral system needs a structure, where members represent the parent body."
(Individual)
As the chart demonstrates, just under one in seven (15%) respondents were in favour of the proposal.
"We welcome the proposal to have a less formal structure as the current formal and over-regulated structure of the School Board discourages parental involvement and also places an unnecessary administrative burden on the headteacher and the Board itself."
(School Board)
Note that the 15% could be positive responses to either or both suggestions in question 9 but it was not always possible to distinguish which of the two suggestions respondents were referring to.
A quarter of respondents (25%) made a range of additional suggestions to determine the constitution and these included:
- Amend the existing system and build on the current School Board structure
- Ensure that the education authority provides guidance and assistance at the start up phase
- Ensure the use of checks by statutory bodies to ensure all constitutions are democratic
- Set parameters for the size of the forum and realm of responsibilities
- Involve the headteacher.
A similar proportion of respondents (23%) also made suggestions to help forums run smoothly or identified particular difficulties associated with them. Around 6% felt that the system would be open to abuse and would result in extreme disorganisation with the potential for many different schemes in operation. Again, around 5% identified the problem of cliques, interest groups or the power heady dominating the new forums. A similar number also noted the substantial level of effort required on the part of parents to establish the constitution.
Other problems identified by respondents in smaller numbers (3% or less):
- Could be off-putting for people who are not committee minded
- The proposals are too vague
- Costly and time consuming.
Chart 6.2
Determining the Constitution
Base: All Respondents
(Source Q9)
Among those suggesting alternatives in the form of a national or model constitution, this included more than half (53%) of those who supported changes overall, 41% of those who expressed support overall for the new system and slightly less of those who were against the new system overall (35%).
Almost half (46%) of those who were against the overall system were also against this particular proposal, and the same number of those who were in favour of the system overall were also in favour of this proposal.
When we examine the sub group categories of respondents, the proportions are broadly consistent with the balance of responses overall with the exception of education authorities and PTA committees. The proportion of respondents suggesting alternatives in the shape of a national or model constitution among individuals (41%) or school boards (44%) rises to 78% among education authorities. In contrast, amongst PTAs the proportion is only 18%.
While just over a quarter of School Boards (26%), and 30% of those responding as individuals were against this proposal, only 13% of those responding from education authorities were against it.
In summary, the main findings from the analysis of question 9 are:
- Almost half of respondents (45%) were effectively against this proposal and suggested further that there should either be a compulsory national framework or a constitutional model that can be adapted by parents.
- Under one third of respondents (28%) were simply against the proposal or stated that they were happy with the existing arrangements.
- Just 15% of respondents were in favour of the proposal.
- A quarter of respondents (25%) commenting at this question made a range of additional suggestions to determine the constitution.
6.4 Membership of the Parent Forum
In question 10, respondents were asked, "Do you agree that membership of a parent forum should be confined to parents (the broad definition) of children attending the school or individuals co-opted by the parent forum? Should parents always be in the majority?"
As illustrated in chart 6.3, the largest number of respondents (56%) made a range of suggestions as to which non parent members should be permitted to participate in forums, indicating that these respondents felt that membership should be broadened in various ways.
"Parents (using the broad definition) should be in the majority, but if parent forums are to promote involvement in school and/or education there must also be representation from the school - including Teachers and headteachers. Involvement of local Councillors is also invaluable."
(Individual)
Respondents felt it was important that the legislation would enable non parent members to be co-opted on to the parent forum if so decided by parents members, as it was recognised that they can offer valuable advice and support. This was suggested by around 30% of respondents. In addition, teaching and other school staff was suggested by 26%, the headteacher was suggested by 15% and community members was suggested by 15% of respondents.
Small percentages of respondents suggested that the following members could also be included:
- Local authority elected members (ie councillors)
- Representatives from the Church
- Pupil representatives.
Views varied on whether or not membership should be exclusive to parents with almost half of respondents (48%) stating that parents should be in majority, 15% stating that membership should not be confined to parents and just 6% agreeing that membership should be confined to parents only.
As one respondent stated,
"It is very important that the parents of children currently at the school retain control of the new forums".
(Education Organisation)
One in six respondents (17%) identified difficulties or made suggestions to improve parent forum membership. These included the following points:
- The need for partnership
- Ensure broad inclusion of parents from different social and cultural backgrounds
- Limit the number of members and period of membership
- Ensure an "objective" balance of parents and staff
- Non parent members would be beneficial
- All parents should be members but additional members invited
- Depends on the size of the school
- Members should be elected.
The same number of respondents ( 17%) stated that they were happy with the existing arrangements and would prefer the current system to be retained.
Chart 6.3
Membership of the Parent Forum
Base: All Respondents
(Source Q10)
Among those making suggestions for additional non parent members, it should be noted that this included a majority (63%) of those in those in support of changes overall and over a half (54%) of those in support of the new system overall. However, this also included 48% of those who were against the new system overall.
Those stating that parents should be in the majority included over half (54%) of those who were in favour of the new system overall and again 54% of those in support of changes overall. This also included 36% of those who were against the new system overall.
When we examine the different sub-groups of those responding, a majority of those responding on behalf of School Boards (63%) and those responding on behalf of education authorities (91%) but under half (42%) of those responding on behalf of individuals, made suggestions for additional non parent members.
In summary, the main findings from the analysis of question 10 are:
- The majority of respondents (56%) indicated that membership should be broadened.
- Almost half (48%) agreed that parents should be in the majority.
6.5 Looked After Children
Question 11 explored the issues concerning looked after children. Respondents were asked, "Do you have a view as to how the needs of looked-after children should be addressed and catered for in the Bill?"
It should be noted that 59% of respondents did not comment in relation to this question.
As shown in chart 6.4, just under a third (30%) felt that the parents of looked after children should be treated in exactly the same way as other parents. Around one in five (20%) of all respondents noted that carers and guardians have the same involvement as a parent and should have equal parental rights.
For example, one respondent said,
"Carers should have the same rights as parents and those standing in loco parentis."
(School Board)
And another said,
"We feel that who ever has responsibility for a child should be allowed to stand for election to a School Board/forum if they so wished."
(School Board)
Around one in five of the respondents (19%) made a range of suggestions to more effectively address the needs of looked after children. For example, it was suggested by one in ten respondents (10%) that social workers or education authority staff should be included. Each looked after child should have a link to a specific named or nominated individual person acting in this capacity on their behalf.
Additional suggestions made by smaller percentages (under 3%) included:
- Parents and carers should be encouraged to become involved
- There should be equal opportunities for inclusion in the forum
- Guidance should be taken from headteachers and education professionals in dealing with this issue
- Careful attention should be give to children in care as they tend to need more support
- There is a need for clear and effective communication mechanisms between schools and carers and for advice to be provided to parents of looked after children.
Further clarification on this aspect of the Bill was requested by 5% of respondents.
Chart 6.4
Looked After Children
Base: All Respondents
(Source Q11)
Regardless of the extent of their support for the system overall, respondents were fairly equally balanced in their views to this question. For example, broadly similar proportions of respondents from all three categories (those in favour of the proposals overall, those against them and those supporting changes overall) felt that there should be no distinction made to the parents of looked after children, cited by 35%, 26% and 31% respectively.
When we examine specific sub-groups responding, 28% of respondents from School Boards, more than a quarter (26%) of those responding as individuals and 60% of respondents from education authorities stated that no distinctions should be made between parents of looked after children.
In summary, the main findings from the analysis of question 11 are:
- Almost a third (30%) of respondents felt that the parents of looked after children should be treated in exactly the same way.
- Further suggestions were given to address the needs of looked after children
- A small number (5%) of respondents requested further clarification of this part of the Bill.
6.6 Automatic Disclosure Checks
At question 12 respondents were asked, "Do you agree that the Bill should not result in parent forum members being subject to automatic disclosure checks but that members, like any other parent, should only be checked when engaging in activities defined under the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003?"
As illustrated in chart 6.5 just over one in two respondents (52%) felt that automatic disclosure checks were not necessary while around one in seven (14%) felt that only the checks that are defined in the act would be necessary when parents are carrying out duties working directly with children. In contrast, only 8% stated that the checks were necessary and therefore should be automatic.
As one respondent commented,
"There is no scope for 'opinion' about disclosure checks. They are either required by law or not required by law."
(Education Organisation)
Less than one in ten (9%) made additional comments on the issue of disclosure checks. These included comments such as:
- Could put parents off as they may be perceived to be intrusive and involve a lot of administration
- Who would pay for them? Could be a financial burden on the forum
- The individual forum should decide themselves if such checks are necessary depending on the activities and areas of discussion they expect to have.
Chart 6.5
Automatic Disclosure Checks
Base: All Respondents
(Source Q12)
A majority of respondents in favour of the proposals overall (72%) and a smaller majority of those supporting changes overall (52%) felt that checks are not necessary, along with just under half (49%) of those against the proposals. However, notably more of those who were against the new system overall (13%) stated that checks would be necessary in comparison with those who were in favour of the new system overall, where only 5% stated that checks were necessary.
When we examine specific organisation sub-groups responding, broadly similar proportions stated that checks were not necessary. This was 47% of School Boards, 59% of education authorities and 56% of those responding as individuals. The figure was slightly lower amongst those responding from schools where 46% stated that checks were not necessary.
In summary, the main findings from the analysis of question 12 are:
- The majority of respondents (52%) felt that automatic disclosure checks were not necessary.
- Only 14% stated that checks were necessary as defined in the Act and a further 8% stated that checks were necessary.
6.7 Rights of Attendance of Non Parent Members
In question 13 respondents were asked, " On balance, do you agree that 'rights of attendance' for certain non-members of a parent forum should not be a part of the new arrangements? In other words, do you agree that non-members of the parent forum should attend only by invitation or do you believe the headteacher should have the right to attend, with the councillor or other individual by invitation?"
As illustrated in chart 6.6, a majority (62%) of respondents mentioned that the headteacher should attend the forums (either by invitation, by obligation or by right). Around two in five (39%) respondents felt that the headteacher should have the right to attend, whilst around one in seven (16%) respondents felt that the headteachers should be obliged to attend. Less than one in ten of all respondents (8%) stated that the headteacher could attend in an advisory capacity.
"The notion of a Parent/Partnership Forum existing without the involvement of the headteacher and indeed staff, pupils, local community members and Councillors is unthinkable. The Forum needs to be inclusive and therefore a Partnership Forum rather than a Parents Forum would be worthy of consideration".
(Education Organisation)
Just over two in five respondents (41%) mentioned the attendance of other categories of people. These included the following:
- All interested parties or stakeholders should either be invited or have the right to attend
- School staff, including teachers should be encouraged to attend to foster partnerships
- All parents
- The Forum could co-opt members
- Church representatives
- Education authority representatives
- Other community members
- Pupils or class representatives.
"This proposal removes the current provision whereby the Church has a right to be represented by a co-opted member when the School Board of a Catholic School chooses to co-opt members. We object to this proposal as a weakening of our statutory rights."
(Religious Organisation)
In terms of the attendance of councillors, 24% of respondents felt that councillors should have the right to attend; 7% said that they should be invited to attend and 3% said that they should be obliged to attend.
Additional comments on attendance at the forum and its general operation were suggested by just over one in four respondents (27%) commenting on this question. For example a small number (5%) suggested that there could be some open sessions and some closed/ parent only sessions. In contrast a similar number of respondents (4%) stated that all meetings should be open to guard against the emergence of a secret society.
Others suggestions by respondents in small numbers (2% or less) included the following:
- Everyone should be able to be represented
- Could modify or build on School Board arrangements
- Arrangements for attending the Forum should be agreed in the constitution and limits may need to be set for safety and practical reasons
- The Forum should have the power to request the attendance of certain personnel such as Directors of education, education author staff and others
- Should be regular communication between forum and school
- Voting arrangements will need to be clarified.
Only 3% of respondents agreed that rights of attendance should not form part of the arrangements.
Chart 6.6
Rights of attendance
Base: All Respondents
(Source Q13)
Regardless of the extent of their support for the system overall, respondents were fairly equally balanced in their views on the attendance of the headteacher. A majority of respondents from all three categories (those in favour of the proposals overall, those against them and those supporting changes overall) felt that headteachers should be able to attend the forum. This was 68%, 53% and 67% respectively.
When we examine specific sub-groups responding, we see that a majority responding from School Boards (68%), or as individuals (54%) stated that the headteacher should attend the forum. This figure rose to 91% among education authorities.
Public Consultation Events
The respondents at the public consultation events also felt that teaching staff and representatives from the education authority should be included, and noted that good relations with these parties were essential.
In summary, the main findings from the analysis of question 13 are:
- The majority of respondents (62%) mentioned that headteachers should be present at the forums (either by invitation, by right or by obligation).
- Inclusion of a wide range of other categories of person was mentioned by 41% of respondents.
« Previous | Contents | Next »