THE Government’s intention to place more powers (and responsibility) in the hands of headteachers is a bold step. As Sir Humphrey would have put it, “A brave decision, Minister”. There’s no guarantee of success, particularly in closing the attainment gap, which remains the SNP’s principal educational goal.

If still in a headteacher’s chair, I would welcome some of the proposals, such as freedom to tweak the curriculum. Most heads however, are cautious by nature and it will be interesting to see how many take the opportunity (and risk) to radically change what is taught in their schools. With additional powers comes additional accountability. In Cabinet Secretary John Swinney’s brave new world, the buck stops with headteachers. Who can blame them if their default position is to play it safe?

It’s likely they will be judged mainly on how well pupils achieve in beefed-up national testing, examinations such as National 5 and Higher and the attainment of youngsters from less well-off families. Yet, as any headteacher will attest, there’s more to a successful school than raw exam data; but, then again, that can’t be reduced to a political soundbite.

A revised role for Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education (HMIE) could be helpful in that respect. Enabling teachers to evaluate their own and their colleagues’ work has been beneficial. Nevertheless, self-evaluation too easily becomes self-delusion. The key to improvement and closing the attainment gap lies in the classroom and more regular HMIE presence where it matters will sharpen the focus on improved classroom practice.

Greater flexibility in appointing staff and managing budgets is also welcome. Yet, in areas such as Aberdeenshire, recruitment, especially in shortage subjects, will remain difficult. On several occasions, I was faced with the dilemma of continuing with a vacancy or appointing a sole applicant who might not be entirely suitable. The additional powers will not enable heads to conjure up non-existent teachers. Managing budgets and recruitment could be especially challenging for primary heads with little experience or administrative backup.

The other side of the coin is dealing with underperforming staff. Heads are regularly frustrated by teachers who consistently sell short both their pupils and colleagues. It’s unlikely that the extended powers will enable heads to grasp that particular nettle.

Mr Swinney’s proposals take for granted that all heads are uniformly talented and able to lead and manage the necessary improvements. That’s a huge leap of faith, for heads are a mixed-ability class. The Peter Principle, whereby a manager rises to his or her level of incompetence, applies in all walks of life, including education.

The disappearance of assistant headteacher posts removed an important step on the road to headship. For some, the leap from deputy head or even class teacher is a step too soon and too far. It’s too late to discover someone’s not up to the job when they are installed in the headteacher’s office.

At present, underperforming heads can be removed quietly to “back-office” tasks, particularly if near pensionable age. The back office may require an extension if significant new demands are placed on already toiling heads.

The challenges facing heads vary hugely from school to school. Heads in high performing, leafy suburb schools are not necessarily better at the job than inner – city counterparts where attainment bumps along the bottom. Some argue that heads (and staff) in high performing schools should take their turn in more challenging environments. If it really is their skill and ability that makes the difference, the attainment gap would disappear in no time.

The proposed reforms are unlikely to increase the number of aspiring heads. The deepening pool of vacancies and the precipitous decline in applicants suggest teachers are not queuing up to become heads. The pressure and workload is already crushing. Sixty and 70-hour weeks are commonplace. The prospect of even more responsibility and being held more publicly accountable is not a great incentive.

Councils also appear to have cut back on advertising headteacher vacancies. Many rely on national and local websites. Some use Facebook and Twitter. It’s hard to believe other organisations advertising posts of comparable status and importance would do so in such a seemingly haphazard way.

Heads will view the proposals with great caution. They require significant additional resources and backup to take on more responsibility while remaining focused on where it really matters: the classroom. Additionally, they would be daft to take on additional work and accountability without a significant hike in salary. Heads in England are much better paid. Some 1,300 heads in England are paid between £100,000 and £120,000 a year. The boldness of the Government’s proposals is not in doubt. The likelihood of success is much more problematic. A brave decision indeed, minister.