« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
CHAPTER 8: FOUR OTHER PROPOSALS
8.1 Introduction
This chapter provides the analysis of responses to questions 19-22 relating to three of the four additional proposals contained in the consultation document. These four additional proposals were concerned with the following:
1. The new education duty to provide advice and information to parents
2. The appointment of headteachers and deputy headteachers
3. The complaints procedure
4. Transitional arrangements.
8.2 Education Authority Duty to Provide Advice and Information
The first proposal related to the new education authority duty to provide advice and information to parents. The draft Bill proposes that the education authority (or its headteachers or teachers) will have a duty to respond to parents' requests (within reason) for advice or information on any matter relating to the education provided to their child.
In question 19 respondents were asked, "Do you agree with the proposed duty on education authorities to provide advice and information to individual parents on request, on matters relating to the education of their children?"
As illustrated in chart 8.1 just over half (55%) were in favour of the proposal, while only 6% expressed disagreement.
However, just over a quarter (26%) expressed the view that existing arrangements were sufficient or could be developed further to include this duty.
Furthermore, almost a fifth (18%) expressed the view that this was not a new duty or that education authorities already carried this out, while 5% thought that this proposal was already covered by various Acts of Parliament (including the Freedom of Information and Data Protection Acts).
"It is not an area which needs to be a new education authority duty. Surely it is always the position that an education authority should provide advice and information to individual parents; why should this become a new duty placed upon the authority?"
(Education Authority)
Around 14% made other comments on advice and information, including a small number (4%) who requested guidelines on the sort of information that would be covered; including a definition of "reasonable".
The view that the school might play a part in this matter was raised by a small number of respondents with 4% commenting that the school or headteacher should be the first port of call, that the Education Authority should act as arbitrator in any disputes (2%), and a further 3% cautioning that the administrative burden on schools should not be increased.
"It is vital for the headteacher to be involved in parental communication. Otherwise, nothing constructive can result from positive parental input and possible expressions of concern. The headteacher is the medium that connects pupils, parents and teachers - without this link we are left with disparate entities."
(School Boards)
Other issues raised by smaller numbers of respondents (less than 2%) included:
- The need for increased communication with schools and parents
- Full information on the education system for parents (in an easily accessible format)
- The need for a designated member of staff or department at the Education Authority to deal with requests.
Chart 8.1
Duty On Education Authorities to Provide Advice and Information
Base: All Respondents
(Source Q19)
High percentages (75%) of those expressing support overall were in favour of this proposal. However, so too were 49% of those who were against the proposals overall and 57% of those in favour of making changes overall.
A comparison of sub groups responding revealed some variations. Whilst 60% of those responding as individuals supported the proposal, the figure was lower for those from School Boards (51%) and higher amongst those responding from education authorities (63%).
Public Consultation Events
Respondents from the public consultation events felt that this duty already existed especially under the Freedom of Information Act. Clarification was requested on the powers of recourse in the event that an education authority does not adhere to this duty. Some expressed concerns about the resource implications to enable education authorities to respond as required.
In summary the main findings from the analysis of question 19:
- The majority (55%) of respondents expressed agreement with the proposals, welcoming the duty to provide advice and information to parents on request.
- Around a quarter (26%) felt that existing arrangements should be retained or developed.
8.3 The Appointment System
The second proposal concerned the appointment of headteachers and deputy headteachers. The draft Bill proposes to change and modernise the selection and appointment procedures and to support continued parental involvement in this system. Instead of prescribing a new system centrally, it is proposed that the education authority should inform Ministers and parent forums about its procedures to fill these posts and for the involvement of the parent forum in the appointment process. Regulations for the system will be drawn up based on the consultation and exploration of current best practice in both the private and the public sectors. Questions 20 and 21 relate to these proposals.
In question 20 respondents were asked, "Do you agree that education authorities should be enabled to replace the current system of appointing headteachers and deputy headteachers with more modern, flexible processes and procedures?"
As shown in chart 8.2, a third (33%) of respondents agreed that education authorities should be enabled to replace the current system. Less than one in ten (8%) disagreed with the proposal.
Again a number of respondents (12%) felt that existing practices could be modernised or developed and just under one in ten (9%) felt that existing arrangements should be retained.
A variety of suggestions were made by respondents (32% in total) as to who should be involved in the process.
A fifth (20%) of respondents stated that parents must be involved in the appointment process. Church representatives and headteachers and other school staff were each mentioned by 1%. Employers, children and education professionals were also mentioned by small proportions of respondents.
"The current arrangements for the appointment of headteachers and deputies are inadequate. However the lack of detail on this specific proposal is a significant concern. Strangely there is no requirement that education authorities would seek the agreement of parent forums for their new arrangements."
(School Board)
The issue of lack of detail at this stage as mentioned in the quote above, is one that has run throughout responses to this consultation. Similar comments concerning requests for further clarification, was mentioned by just over one in six (15%) of respondents, while a further 2% commented on the lack of evidence given to support the view that change is needed.
As illustrated in the chart, suggestions or perceived problems relating to the appointment systems were given by just over a fifth (21%), with 5% of all respondents commenting on the need for a national or standard procedure.
"We believe this Bill also gives rise to the possibility of up to 32 different frameworks with implications for appointment procedures without a requirement to meet the conditions as set within current School Board legislation."
(Education Organisation)
A further 5% commented on the need for guidance or training.
The chart shows that under one in five (16%) raised questions or issues relating to the process. These included:
- The need for the process to involve more than a single interview and for parents to be involved at all stages
- The need for any new procedure to be negotiated between all relevant parties
- That only experienced people be included in the process
- That employment laws and best practice should be adhered to.
Chart 8.2
Whether Education Authorities should be enabled to replace appointment system
Base: All Respondents
(Source Q20)
An analysis of sub group responses reveals that Directors of Education and education authority respondents were most likely to agree (69%), while only just over a quarter (26%) of schools were in agreement.
Public Consultation Events
The respondents from the public consultation events wanted the role of parents in the appointment process to continue. Some also felt that parents could be involved in the appointment of positions at other levels in the school, and that training and support were also needed to enable parents to fulfil this role.
In summary the main findings from the analysis of question 20:
- Those in favour of the proposal outnumber those against by four to one.
- A fifth (20%) of respondents felt that parents should be involved in the process .
8.4 Disagreement with the Principle of Parental Involvement in Appointment Processes
Question 21 also related to second proposal: the appointment of headteachers and deputy headteachers. At question 21 respondents were asked, "If you do not agree that the principle of parental involvement should be retained by the involvement of parent forums in the new senior appointments processes, please give your reasons."
As shown in chart 8.3, the overwhelming response to this question was from respondents reiterating their belief that parents should be involved in the process. This is shown as 26% of the total sample, but in fact made up 70% of those actually responding to this question. A small number of these expressed the views that involvement should be strengthened (3% of all respondents) or that parents should be involved in appointments of all school staff (1% of all respondents).
"Parental involvement must remain a key part of the appointments process."
(School Board)
Again, the view that the present system could be utilised or modernised was mentioned by a small number (6%).
Various issues were raised by 5% of respondents. This included the need for parents to receive training, which was raised by 2% of respondents.
One respondent stated,
"…that parents should be involved in the appointment of all staff…. What provisions are there in the Bill for training Forum members to sit on interview panels? At present School Board members receive training to enable them to sit on interview panels."
(School Board)
The need for more information (2%) and the need for accountability (2%) were also mentioned.
Only 4% of respondents identified reasons for not involving parents in the appointment process. Amongst them, they cited:
- Parents lack the relevant knowledge and experience
- Responsibility should rest with the employer
- Bad appointments would have a lasting affect on schools
- That single issue groups may abuse the process
- That there would be no common ground if a variety of Forums were introduced.
Chart 8.3
Reasons for Disagreeing with Parental Involvement in the Appointment Process
Base: All Respondents
Source Q21)
The strongest supporters of parental involvement at this question were Directors of Education and education authorities (50%) compared to respondents from other categories.
In summary the main findings from the analysis of question 21:
- Most of those responding to this question took the opportunity to restate their support of parental involvement in the appointments process (70% of those responding)
- Of the 4% who gave reasons for not supporting parental involvement, a lack of knowledge and/or experience was the main reason given.
8.5 Complaints Procedure
The third proposal concerned the complaints procedure. The draft Bill proposed that following consultation with parents and parent forums, an education authority should establish a procedure for handling complaints (or other representations made about the authority's exercise of its functions under the Bill) and publicise it.
In question 22 respondents were asked, " Do you agree with the proposal to require education authorities to establish complaints procedures in relation to the way they exercise their functions under the Bill?"
A majority (53%) were in agreement with the proposal.
"It is preferable to concentrate resources on promoting a constructive, forward looking partnership developing solutions rather than tying managers up dealing with complaints. However, knowing there is recourse to an independent complaints / appeal procedure in the event that matters cannot be satisfactorily resolved is welcome."
(School Board)
"Any effective authority will have a complaints procedure already available and usable by parents and others alike. This would hardly seem to be necessary as a requirement under a Bill, but should be the normal way in which authorities operate."
(Education Authority)
Only 3% of respondents disagreed with the proposal.
Nonetheless, 17% suggested retaining or developing the existing arrangements. Indeed, the feeling that an effective complaints procedure already exists was mentioned by one in eight (13%) of all respondents.
The main comments (4%) or suggestions (10%) relating to the proposed complaints procedure, included:
- It should be a national procedure contained in the legislation
- The need for the procedure to be widely disseminated and easily accessible
- The need for accountability
- The feeling that complaint information is useful for improving systems
- The need for an independent arbitrator or ombudsman
- The feeling that there should also be a feedback procedure for success or good practice.
A further 1% of all respondents questioned whether it was appropriate for Education Authorities to set procedures for complaints against themselves.
Chart 8.4
Whether Education Authorities should Establish Complaints Procedures
Base: All Respondents
(Source Q22)
Half of respondents who expressed disagreement with the proposed changes to the system of parental involvement overall were nevertheless in favour of the complaints procedure (50%) as were over half (52%) of those who would like to see changes made, and 78% of those who expressed agreement with the proposed changes to the system of parental involvement overall.
When we examine the main sub groups of respondents, the figures for those in agreement with this proposal were fairly consistent, with individuals showing the greatest support (57%). Slight smaller proportions of respondents from School Boards (49%), education authorities (44%) and PTA committees (35%) were in favour of the proposal.
In summary the main findings from the analysis of question 22:
- Over half (53%) of respondents agreed with the proposal that Education Authorities establish complaints procedures in relation to the way they exercise their functions under the Bill.
- Under a fifth (17%) thought current procedures were sufficient or could be developed.
- Only 3% disagreed with the proposal.
8.6 Transitional Arrangements
The fourth and final proposal concerned transitional arrangements. The draft Bill intends to include transitional and commencement provisions to allow new arrangements for parent forums to be phased in if appropriate. No question was included in the consultation document in relation to this proposal.
« Previous | Contents | Next »