« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
APPENDIX 6: SUMMARY OF KEY THEMES ARISING FROM THE 12 PUBLIC MEETINGS APRIL-MAY 2005, SCOTTISH CIVIC FORUM
This report is a summary of the main issues that were raised in the twelve public meetings held around Scotland by the Scottish Civic Forum, for the Scottish Executive, as part of the consultation process on the draft bill on parental involvement in schools. As the discussions in the meetings were primarily structured around six questions that had been identified by the Executive, the key themes have been grouped under the questions; there is also a section on other issues that were raised. Some themes appear under more than one question as they were raised in meetings in response to different questions. It is not possible to include exhaustively every single point that was raised, as this is a summary document - individual points can be found in the reports written from each meeting. Instead, the attempt has been to summarise points that came up repeatedly or to raise matters that may be uniquely significant.
Q1: Do you agree that there should be a new system of parental representation in schools - Parents' Forums?
In the twelve meetings there were mixed feelings about this. Many participants felt very strongly that the proposed legislation was not acknowledging the good work that boards have already done. Some participants felt it would be simpler and better to work with, and improve, what is already in place. Many pointed out that their particular boards work well and people were uncertain what effect the proposals would really have on the 11% of schools without boards. On the other hand, even those who felt that school boards in general, and their boards in particular, worked well felt that it was possible to improve on the present system, and indicated a need to amend the legislation. It was thought that some boards needed to be better at keeping parents informed and there were many who expressed concern about the formality of boards, the need for quorum and the election/ selection system: these could be offputting and needed simplifying. Some raised concerns that it might not be a good idea to totally get away from any sort of election since having a democratic mandate meant that cliques could be avoided and felt that having some elements of a formal structure, such as minute taking and the ability to co-opt people, gave structure and focus to meetings. It was also pointed out that having limits on the length of time that a board member could serve acted as a guard against an individual or individuals dominating a board for many years Clarification was sought on what the position would be in relation to those who would sit on Parents' Forums.
Suggestions were made as to how to improve parental representation: expand the number of parents who could be on a board, ensure that parents from each year could be on a board, allow for flexibility around lengths of time served, e.g. 1 year, give parents time off work in order to attend meetings. It was felt that giving more responsibility and power to the forum would attract more parents, otherwise there could be a drop in interest, especially by those already involved.
Much concern was raised that in the new proposals there was no requirement for the involvement in forums of teaching staff (especially) and representatives from the local authority. Good relations with these were essential and the proposals would not benefit such relations; a few participants said that some teaching staff needed to be more supportive of parental involvement, or that existing relations were not necessarily good, but, generally speaking, participants were concerned that the current good relations should be continued and supported and that teaching staff should not be excluded from meetings.
The subject of merging the functions of boards and PTAs was raised with mixed responses, some regarding this as a good idea and others not.
What was of significant concern to participants was that the proposals were too woolly and that more clarity was needed in how parent forums were to be structured; some were also concerned that the proposals as they stood would not make any difference to parental involvement. Some suggested that some parents were not that interested in further involvement.
It was pointed out a number of times that forums needed resources - there were fears over the loss of clerks, for example - and that a lack of a common structure would make organisation problematic.
Q2: Do you agree that the Parents' Forums should be set up in a way that parents want and focus more on representing the views of parents in the school than on the school's management?
A few voices stated that parents should not be involved in school management and that this should be left to teaching staff, as the professionals. Most said that the management role was a very important aspect of school boards and that taking this away would be to the detriment of parents' forums. Without a management role the parents' forum could simply be a forum for people to moan and it would have little influence with the local authority; some felt that in fact a parents' forum needed to have more teeth than school boards, not less. A view was expressed that the current role of school boards meant they could really achieve things and on some occasions boards are able to act as an honest broker representing teachers' and parents' concerns to the education authority.
The perceived vagueness of the proposals, the vagueness of the language used and the lack of clear structures for parents' forums, were all areas of worry. Models of best practice were needed. The vagueness would lead to a focus on process and on setting up forums, thereby dissipating energy, leading to apathy and also intimidating people, such as when faced with having to write a constitution, and it could lead to a lack of accountability and the formation of cliques, for example. More guidance was needed in what to do in situations such as more than one parents' forum being set up in a school. There was a fairly widespread view that the variety of different models that would emerge would make it problematic to organise training and national representation and there were concerns about the role of the education authority and how it would interact with the parents' forum.
Participants were generally unhappy at the idea of teaching staff, and other education authority representatives, not being involved in parents' forums. It was a strength that they presently have to be involved. There was a concern that the power for 30 voting parents to call a meeting would be lost.
Suggestions were made for inter-school forums and clusters of forums and that parents of nursery school and primary school children should be represented on (secondary school) boards. A few thought it a good idea that the proposals allowed for flexibility, such as in the organisation of parents' forums for smaller schools, and that parents' forums could bring forth issues of concern to parents, although some felt that school boards already represent parents.
Q3: Do you think that the new system will encourage more parents to get involved in their children's schools?
Many participants were concerned that the proposals would not actually increase parental involvement, though there was great enthusiasm for the idea of more parents becoming involved. There were fears that some parents would disengage because of the perception that parents' forums would have less power than school boards, because of the vagueness of the new proposals and/or because of the lack of a formal structure to parents' forums. It was noted that if people felt they could really make a difference then they were more likely to be involved, thus it was necessary for parents' forums to have real teeth.
There needed to be more focus on strategies for improving involvement. Some participants were concerned that the proposals may not improve levels of parental involvement because many parents simply don't have the time to be further involved or are apathetic or are disengaged.
Some welcomed the potential introduction of more flexible approaches but many cautioned that they may not actually make a difference. Some noted that it would be better to improve current practice than to change legislation. There was thought to be a need to improve communication from school boards to parents. Other strategies suggested to involve parents more - and used by some school boards already - were to talk to parents at venues where they were likely to be, such as at parents' evenings or at the school gates when collecting their children, and to allow anyone to attend school boards' meetings. Other suggestions were to 'induct' parents of children new to the school, to pay people for their time and to provide childcare. These suggestions are also linked to the need for proper resources for parental involvement. There were mixed views on merging the functions of school boards and PTAs. Some thought it could be a good idea, others were concerned that doing this would dilute the energy put into the various different functions.
It was noted that while the elections are often seen as a disencouragement for involving parents, they did actually force parents to engage with the school board. Others raised concerns that school boards may be seen as only being for certain types of people, or as too formal, and that easier routes into representation were needed for parents. There were fears that in parents' forums it would be easier for cliques to form. It was raised that special schools had particular problems.
There were concerns that education authorities already ignore school boards and that the situation would not improve with parents' forums. It was noted that teaching staff are crucial in encouraging parental involvement and a worry was noted that teaching staff could ignore parents' forums. It was thought a good idea to have HMIs looking at parental involvement.
Some thought that the focus should be on the 11% of schools that do not have school boards and that there should be pilots of parents' forums.
Q4: Do you agree that education authorities should have a new duty to support parental involvement and draw up strategies showing how they will make this happen?
Many thought that this was a good idea but were worried that not enough resources would be available, to the local authorities and to parents' forums, such as in clerking support. There were some who thought that their local authority simply would not be capable of doing it while others felt that this was already in place, that their local authority was doing well and that the measures were actually not challenging enough. Some noted that it would end up being teaching staff who bore the brunt of this duty to support - and they were already very busy - and there were concerns if teaching staff were not interested. It needed to be a partnership between parents, teachers and the local authority.
It was thought that specifics were needed, that 'parental involvement' needed defining and that strategies should be in place. 'Parental involvement' was a vague term and the emphasis should be on actual achievement rather than simply promotion. There were concerns that education authorities could end up with powers or undue influence over parents' forums, for example, what would happen if an education authority decided to withdraw support? It was thought that parents' forums needed statutory teeth in order to affect any local authority decisions. There was a concern that because teaching staff were not obliged to attend parents' forums meetings then this would actually weaken parents' forums' role in parental involvement.
It was noted that if there was a diversity of types of parents' forums then this could create problems for local authorities in trying to support the forums and parental involvement. There needed to be a national strategy; it was suggested that the Scottish Executive should do this rather then local authorities.
Many were supportive of some sort of assessment being carried out of parental involvement, for example through HMIs, though a concern was raised about what would happen if an HMI did not like what was being done.
It was suggested that there needed to be clarity on the role of parents' forums and what would happen if there were disagreements within a forum, that parent forum liaison officers were needed and that the local authority could take on the duty of distributing information to parents.
Q5: Do you agree that education authorities should have a legal duty to respond to requests from parents for advice and information about their children's education?
Many participants stated that they believed that this already existed. Some noted that there were also other mechanisms for delivering information such as parents' evenings. A few stated that education authorities did not always respond and clarification was wanted about the powers of recourse, should the duty not be adhered to; it was noted that school boards help where there are problems with this and there was a perception that a complaints procedure is in place.
Some were concerned that there would not be the resources in place for education authorities to respond. Other concerns were that a parents' forum is not the right place to raise individual issues and that confidentiality was important.
Q6: Do you agree that parents should still be involved in new systems to appoint headteachers and deputies?
Generally, participants wanted this to continue as parents brought valuable elements to the process such as external experience, the parental voice, balancing the role of the local education authority and knowing the ethos of the school; it was noted that in small schools and in rural communities it was particularly important that the right person was appointed and parents could assist in this. Some participants thought that parents should also be involved in other levels of appointments in the school. Many noted that training and support were needed for parents to fulfil this role appropriately. There were concerns that the bill proposals were too vague on what 'involved' actually meant.
Some participants thought that it was inappropriate that parents were involved or they had reservations about the role of school boards/ parents' forums in the appointments process; there was a concern that there were too many lay representatives and that too much emphasis was put on their views; more input from teaching professionals was wanted. The suggestion to modernise the process was welcomed by some.
Additional points
There were many concerns raised about the consultation process itself, such as the timing of events, the advertising, the geographical coverage of the meetings, the fact that people who attended the meetings were self-selecting and that it would be better to speak to parents at events that many attended, such as parents' evenings. There were questions over the research methodology and questions as to who were the 'silent majority'. Many participants stated that the draft bill showed that the results of previous conversations with SEED had been wilfully ignored. Some questioned whether the introduction of the bill was politically motivated - to reduce the power of the school boards or, for example, getting rid of previous legislation because it was Conservative party legislation.
It was pointed out that the suggestion that the draft bill allowed parents to retain their school board if they so wished was incorrect, since the bill would reduce the powers of the school board and take away its teeth. Many were concerned that the lack of consistency in parents' forums, because they could be any way that parents wished, would be problematic, e.g., for training, for national representation (what would happen to the Scottish School Boards Association?), for the way that local authorities dealt with and supported parents' forums in their area. It was noted that local authorities should have a duty to respond to complaints.
There were many concerns about reducing the role of teaching staff, particularly headteachers, in the parents' forums. Their presence was seen as vital; many also felt that the presence of local authority representatives was also vital, as was the ability to co-opt people.
There were questions about the timing of the bill with regard to school board elections, the risk of litigation against parents' forums, the potential need for Disclosure Scotland certification to be on a school board and the powers of parents' forums over out-of-hours and community use of schools.
It was suggested that parents' forums could be piloted in the 11% of schools without a school board and that good practice of parental involvement should be disseminated.
« Previous | Contents | Next »