By Larry Flanagan, General Secretary, Educational Institute of Scotland

THE Scottish Government’s proposals for changes to school governance are not set in stone and an opportunity exists to shape the final decisions in a manner which might find some degree of consensus around what would make a difference in the classroom. Reaching agreement is crucial, particularly to the potential future of the proposed regional collaboratives.

In our submission to the review process we highlighted how, on the back of austerity, the level of support offered to schools and teachers had crashed dramatically. That is a result of local authorities stripping out capacity to save money, combined with the singular failure of the newly created agency, Education Scotland, to provide the leadership or support required by schools on curriculum and assessment. Reaching agreement on how best to address this deficit would be hugely beneficial to teachers and students.

Regional collaboratives could be the vehicle for achieving this objective. At the moment, however, they appear more likely to become a point of dispute between the Scottish Government and council umbrella body Cosla in another round of pointless butting of heads. A sensible compromise must surely be possible.

Central to the disagreement is the fact that whilst the proposals talk much about decentralising decision-making, in practice they point strongly to an actual centralising of control through the medium of a “reformed” Education Scotland.

That Education Scotland needs reform, as a minimum, is beyond question; it has failed to deliver the required support or leadership to schools on curriculum and assessment and in terms of the new qualifications it has been posted missing over the last few years. Crucially, the critical challenge of an independent inspectorate has been blunted within what is perceived as little more than a Government agency.

In a binary political atmosphere, the Scottish Government is reluctant to own its own mistakes, but it needs to recognise Education Scotland is a damaged brand; placing it centre stage in the review proposals is a mistake. The widespread disappointment at the news that the Scottish College for Educational Leadership (SCEL) is to be subsumed into Education Scotland, for example, is indicative of how the latter is perceived. SCEL was doing a very good job. Its agenda wasn’t just around headship, it was around leadership at all levels and the most frequently asked question about it being subsumed into Education Scotland is whether it will survive.

A refreshed and reformed Education Scotland could establish collaborative practice as a working norm in Scotland.

For example, the governance review proposes a regional director for every collaborative. The need for such is not quite clear. However, the notion that these directors should all be line managed by Education Scotland represents a degree of centralisation which sits at odds with the asserted decentralisation thrust of the proposals.

Why can’t this local leadership be drawn from the ranks of our local authorities? This could go some way to addressing the concerns being expressed by Cosla around the desire of local authorities to remain involved in policy areas and not simply to be the employer.

The notion that local authorities will largely finance the envisaged professional networks, but surrender leadership of them to a government agency, is fanciful.

Establishing an agreed approach around regional collaboratives would indicate that we might be focusing, finally, on positively changing the culture of Scottish education.