ANYONE embarking on a major new project in the their lives or careers will experience feelings they might categorise as excitement or anxiety. The distinction between these states is not always clear. They merge. They swing one way. They swing the other. It is all perfectly natural.
Thus it is understandable if headteachers are, in the words of Education Secretary John Swinney, feeling “a mixture of excitement and anxiety” over new financial responsibilities. Earlier this year, Mr Swinney announced a £120 million Pupil Equity Fund to help improve standards in schools and close the attainment gap between rich and poor areas. The more disadvantaged the area, the more money goes to the school. And the more responsibility the headteacher has for how this is spent.
Hence, in some circles, the anxiety (and, in some circles, excitement). The idea is that headteachers know best about what is needed in their schools. The concern is that being a good educationist and being financially astute aren’t always qualities compatible in all individuals. The hope is that most will manage.
The real concern for headteachers might come in proving it. This is a flagship policy for the Scottish Government. Ministers will want to see a return. They will want evidence the attainment gap is being closed, even if it would be absurd to place all responsibility for that on headteachers.
This is uncharted territory for everyone. The key will be that, as the project develops, so does a means of evaluating it, along with a system of checks and balances. For example, a balance might be necessary between what a school thinks is the right use of resources and what the wider community does.
Certainly, as Graeme Logan, strategic director at Education Scotland, said yesterday, it won’t just be about browsing through equipment catalogues. It’s more likely to be about dealing with issues such as attendance, literacy, and building bridges between home or community and school. To that extent, the fund provides an opportunity for improvement.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here