By diverse means, we arrive at the same end.

The conclusions reached in the recent report of the Commission on School Reform (By Diverse means: Improving Scottish Education) began with Montaigne’s words.

It’s an obvious, but nevertheless crucial, observation, especially in the field of education. One summary point elaborated:

“The autonomy of schools should be greatly extended. As a general principle, decisions that can competently be taken at school level should not be taken elsewhere.”

Most involved in schools, particularly effective institutions, would happily concur with this view. There is nothing more frustrating than reflecting, planning, and putting in place a vision for development or improvement, and then being stymied in its enactment because, as an individual school, progression is beyond your remit.

Like most things in education, however, it is a question of balance.

Procurement of resources is a case in point. Whilst an authority wide system obviously benefits from economies of scale, it can also lead to situations where individual schools are spending more than they need because of central constraints.

Schools have links to the community which can lead to favourable deals and conditions, often involving close working with parents or local companies; these opportunities may not be available across the authority – so if all cannot access, should none be able to?

I’ve contributed to a number of working parties where excellent recommendations came forth. On occasion these were not adopted because it was felt certain schools would be unable to match the requirements for success; we sometimes moved at the speed of the slowest not the quickest.

The issue of ‘balance’ also reflects local political responsibility. It is right that schools be accountable to those who fund them – the voters and taxpayers, but they also have a duty to meet the needs of their own community –pupils, parents, staff and neighbours, be it in curriculum, ethos or additional support. 

It is the assessment and awareness of these needs, and the meeting of them, which denotes a successful school.

The same applies to local authorities. They should have a close working relationship with their schools so that they can support them towards effectiveness. Then they would know they can trust them with more autonomy, and facilitate them in those decisions, rather than restraining individuality.

Why shouldn’t schools, their parents and pupils and local councils negotiate the level of autonomy for individual institutions? A school community that can present its case, involving all ‘stakeholders’, can justify its ability to make decisions appropriate to its own set of circumstances.

Likewise, a local authority (interesting word!) should be confident enough in the support and leadership it provides to trust schools with these decisions, within agreed national guidelines.

I recently received a form letter from the council’s Head of Service. It was addressed ‘Dear John’, my formal name. However, I am always known in school or education as ‘Sean’. Before signing the page, she had crossed out ‘John’, and inserted ‘Sean’.

That’s a tiny symbol of the kind of close working relationship between council education departments and individual schools, staff, parents and pupils, that can lead, paradoxically, to more autonomy.

It reflects an educational insight: As long as you know what they are doing, and they’re doing it right, let them get on with it!