Diana Daly considers a blatant attempt to force Scots down the
opting-out route by default.
DELIVERING the Charter 88 Lecture on democracy in Edinburgh recently,
the distinguished political journalist Neal Ascherson concluded by
declaring, ''It's time for a mutiny!'' It was a sentiment echoed by the
applause from his audience both to his statement and to an early
question, ''How do we start?''
In response he identified Scotland as potentially the ''escape hatch''
for Britain's democratic aspirations.
Certainly on educational issues Scotland's success in holding the line
against the ideological experiments of the rabid right in the Tory Party
is viewed with some envy by our southern neighbours. But sneaking up on
us, like a wolf in canine clothing, is our biggest challenge yet.
Uh-huh! The inoffensively entitled Local Government Reform Bill,
currently charging through Parliament and priming several timebombs at
the heart of our democratic traditions, particularly in our schools for
our children.
It is a blatant attempt to force the recalcitrant and feisty Scots
down the opting-out route by default -- having failed to present a
single convincing argument to persuade us to do so willingly in the past
seven years (Dornoch Academy, notwithstanding) -- and thus put in place
the elements essential to a privatised, market-driven, means-tested
education system.
Much of the furore over gerrymandering of new council boundaries has
focused on the intention to carve out blue islands in the red, gold, and
yellow sea of the Scottish political map. That part of the exercise may
yet prove to be futile.
More sinister is the effect on schools' confidence in the ability of
small education authorities to deliver the services and the resources
they need. In such areas it is an open secret that head teachers and
school boards are thinking the unthinkable; that to safeguard the best
interests of local children, the ultimate option may be to opt out,
especially if it can be accomplished en masse in the same authority.
Their fears are further compounded by a clause in the Bill which
relieves new councils from the need to appoint education directors or
committees, and by the studied unwillingness of existing councils up to
now to do anything -- officially -- to address the implications of the
proposed changes until the legislation is on the Statute Book later this
year.
Indeed, some councillors appear almost demob-happy, seeing this year's
regional elections as either irrelevant, an excuse to get out now to
avoid being embroiled in the 1995/6 handover, a winding-down period to
retirement or, for younger councillors, a stepping stone in their
political career or to a burgeoning quangocracy.
The Government's proposal to remove the present statutory status of
education directors and committees on the grounds of ''flexibility,'' is
a particularly shabby move, justified by an equivocal response to a
cynical consultation exercise. The idea was floated surreptitiously in a
document entitled Internal Management of Local Authorities in Scotland,
which was distributed to a list of 655 names which ''emerged from those
mainly national organisations who commented on the consultation paper,
Shaping the New Councils,'' according to Scottish Education Minister,
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton. These 655 were selected from the 3317
responses to that earlier consultation, but it ''was not thought
appropriate'' to release the list publicly. In other words, it is an
official secret!
However, what we do know, from the 157 responses which are on public
file in the Scottish Office and analysed by the Scottish Parent Teacher
Council, is that most were unconnected with education. Only 24 could
claim an educational perspective, including education authorities,
teaching unions, parents' and church representatives. Most of the
balance was made up by district councils, political groups, other
special interest groups, individuals and business interests.
Despite this inherent bias, 58 supported retaining the statutory
status of education directors as against 65 who argued for flexibility.
It came out at 62 for and 66 against education committees. The director
of a building firm, in advocating joint boards, offered the sobering
view that the legislation should ensure ''that the new authorities
cannot endeavour to frustrate the policy that has been determined either
centrally or by the joint planning boards.''
Nothing could be more calculated to undermine schools' confidence than
if, as a cost-saving measure, a small council's strategic planning for
education were in the hands of its chief executive, wearing a
multiplicity of hats. But should those schools decide on the ultimate
solution and be rewarded by a grateful Government for their pioneering
initiative, schools elsewhere will certainly follow suit in opting out
for their survival.
This fragmenting of Scottish education will lead to a local version of
the Schools' Funding Agency, the new English education quango. Education
Secretary John Patten, according to a report in The Times, ''wants the
agency to 'mix it' with local authorities (which) will be frozen out of
building new schools,'' and -- sooner rather than later -- out of all
educational responsibility.
Assuming the legislation is not derailed, the final two years of
regional councils will be crucial to building the foundations for
continued confidence and stability; after all, the fledgling councils
are unlikely -- initially at least -- to tamper with any service that is
running smoothly. But the May 5 batch of elected councillors must come
to grips quickly with the implications, if their legacy is to be other
than a shambles.
These regional elections, according to Ian Lang, are about his party's
local government proposals, thus providing the Scottish electorate with
a referendum on the issue.
* Diana Daly is an Executive Member of the Scottish Parent Teacher
Council.
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 hereComments are closed on this article