CABINET Secretary John Swinney is clearly determined to deliver on his promise to cut bureaucracy and teacher workload in schools. A number of councils have been named and shamed for responding too slowly. Also, the removal of unit assessments at National Five and Higher will have gone down well in most staff rooms.

In theory, the reduction in school level assessment should free up teacher time and energy to create and deliver more challenging and innovative learning experiences for all pupils. Robust monitoring systems will be needed to ensure that the additional time is reflected in improved attainment for all pupils and for the lowest attaining youngsters in particular. Mr Swinney rightly puts his trust in teachers to deliver the necessary improvements at local and national levels. They are at the sharp end day in, day out and are best placed to make the difference. There is much less confidence in the potential contribution of the Scottish Government’s much-vaunted International Education Panel.

The members are all worthy and some have even written fine textbooks. I may have been unlucky but most academics I have come across would have done well to cope with primary three until Monday playtime.

Mr Swinney’s determination to “place teachers at the heart of the system” is reflected in his intention to devolve greater powers and responsibility to school level.

On the surface at least that makes sense. Shorter lines of communication should enable those on the ground to take and resource decisions best suited to local needs.

Teachers, and headteachers in particular, will be understandably wary until they see the detail of what Mr Swinney has in mind. There would have been more incentive to assume increased responsibilities at times of increasing budgets. Those days have gone, however, and increased responsibility and accountability will set be in the context of greater demands and contracting budgets. Unsurprisingly, some heads already fear they are being handed a poisoned chalice.

Many already feel they are between a rock and a hard place and under pressure from parents, staff and councils. Headteachers will doubtless rise to the challenge but will require additional powers to do so effectively. To what extent, for example, will they be permitted to use budgets imaginatively to recruit staff in shortage areas such as computing and technology? Will there be more flexibility in addressing the perennial issue of under-performing staff? What will be the response to heads and teachers who are bold and take risks with the what and how of learning?

It is also unclear the extent to which devolution of responsibility and decision-making will impact positively on the festering sore of the attainment gap. A great deal of additional money has already been invested in schools with historically poor attainment records to no great or lasting effect.

Mr Swinney’s intentions are bold. Time will tell if his proposals will create a system sufficiently flexible and light on its feet to meet future challenges.