Contents
- Attendance
- Subordinate Legislation
- Subject Choices Inquiry
- Petitions
Subordinate Legislation
Head Teachers Education and Training Standards (Scotland) Regulations 2019 [Draft]
Good morning, and welcome to the 18th meeting of the Education and Skills Committee in 2019. I remind everyone to turn their mobile phones and devices to silent for the duration of the meeting. We have received apologies from Tavish Scott MSP.
Agenda item 1 is consideration of draft subordinate legislation that is subject to the affirmative procedure. Information about the instrument is provided in paper 1, which explains that the affirmative instrument spans two agenda items. The first is an opportunity for the cabinet secretary to explain the instrument and for members to ask questions of him and his officials. We will then turn to agenda item 2, under which there will be a debate on the motion and the instrument.
I welcome John Swinney, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, and, from the Scottish Government, David Roy, the head of teacher education and leadership, and Claire Cullen, from the school education branch of the legal directorate.
I invite the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement on the instrument.
I welcome the opportunity to address the committee in connection with the proposed introduction of the requirement that, from August 2020, all teachers who are appointed to their first permanent headteacher post in local authority or grant-aided schools should hold the standard for headship. The standard is awarded by the General Teaching Council for Scotland on successful completion of the into headship programme, which is offered by seven universities.
A priority of the Scottish Government is to improve the life chances and education of all children in Scotland, and leadership is recognised as one of the most important aspects of the success of any school. Highly effective leadership is key to ensuring the highest possible standards and that expectations are shared across schools to achieve excellence and equity for all. In turn, that helps all children to achieve the best possible outcomes. Currently, there is no requirement for headteachers to hold the standard for headship prior to their appointment. Nonetheless, since 2005, there has been an expectation that teachers should meet the standard of headship before they can be appointed as a headteacher, by completing either the Scottish qualification for headship programme or the flexible route to headship programme or through the judgment of local authorities as employers.
The SQH and FRH programmes are no longer available and were replaced by the into headship qualification in 2015. At the same time, it was decided that holding the standard for headship should be a legal requirement for all permanent headteacher appointments. The standard for headship is one of a suite of professional standards that are managed by the General Teaching Council and that support the self-evaluation and professional learning of those who are in, or who aspire to, leadership roles in schools.
Powers were acquired under section 28 of the Education (Scotland) Act 2016, which amended the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 by inserting sections 90A and 98DA into the 1980 act. That allowed Scottish ministers to make regulations prescribing the “education and training standards” that are needed before a person can be appointed as a headteacher by an education authority or managers of grant-aided schools. The Education and Skills Committee took evidence on that proposal as part of the development of what became the Education (Scotland) Act 2016.
During the passage of the 2016 act, there was agreement that the regulations relating to the independent sector would not be brought forward, because we were bringing in GTS registration in full for all teachers in the sector. At present, it is not our intention to extend the requirement to hold the standard for headship to headteacher appointments in independent schools; therefore, only state and grant-aided schools fall within the scope of the regulations that are being considered today.
It was clear from early discussions with stakeholders and the consultation on the draft regulations that there were reservations about a sufficient number of teachers having achieved the standard for headship to fill future vacancies when the regulations were to come into force. We took those concerns on board in two ways—by moving the coming-into-force date from August 2019 to August 2020 and by extending from 24 months to 30 months the period during which a teacher who does not hold the standard can be appointed to a headteacher post on a temporary basis. That measure provides a temporarily appointed headteacher with sufficient time to undertake the into headship programme, which is usually completed within 18 months, and gives the local authority reasonable flexibility in workforce planning. The education sector is fully aware of the intended commencement date of August 2020, and local authorities are taking steps to plan, encourage and select teachers to undertake the into headship programme.
Through the recommendations in the headteacher recruitment working group’s report, which was published in November, we are working in partnership with the sector to enhance the support for teachers, to encourage them into leadership roles. The Scottish Government fully funds the into headship programme because we understand the importance of excellent school leadership and we do not want fees to be a barrier to those who want to take the step to a headship role. As of the summer, nearly 800 teachers will have embarked on the into headship programme. We are committed to investing in inspiring headteachers and we want to provide them with high-quality professional learning. We will, therefore, continue to fund the into headship qualification to the end of this session of Parliament. Further support will be provided through the enhanced leadership support package, building on the existing suite of programmes that are managed by Education Scotland, along with our continued investment in the into headship and excellence in headship programmes and the headteacher leadership academies.
The draft regulations that are before the committee have been drafted to provide that, from 1 August 2020, only headteachers who have been awarded the standard for headship can be permanently appointed as a headteacher in an education authority or grant-aided school. There are two exemptions. The first applies to any permanent headteacher who has been appointed to a position in an education authority or grant-aided school or an independent school on or prior to 1 August 2020. For individuals in that category, holding of the standard for headship is not a requirement. The second exemption enables education authorities or managers of grant-aided schools to appoint a person who has not attained the standard for headship to a headteacher post on a temporary basis, for a period not exceeding 30 months after 1 August 2020.
I am happy to answer any questions from the committee.
Thank you, cabinet secretary.
For the avoidance of doubt, I should say that I support the instrument. It is a good move in terms of raising the standard and the status of the profession of headteacher. However, I want to raise a concern that is based on the recent workload survey that was produced by the Association of Headteachers and Deputes in Scotland, of which the cabinet secretary will be aware. One of the most worrying tables presented in that survey shows the enthusiasm and keenness among deputy and principal teachers in primary schools to move on and become headteachers. The survey shows a very low level of willingness to consider that move. Clearly, people think twice about the increased responsibility and accountability, and we are introducing a further requirement of people who make that jump. What can the cabinet secretary do to address that potential problem with the recruitment of headteachers?
I welcome the context within which Mr Gray set his question. I acknowledge the detail of the survey that has come from the AHDS and the requirement for us to address that substantively. There are a number of things that we can do. The first relates to the pay deal that we agreed with the professional associations some weeks ago, which I deliberately extended to include issues of workload. One element of that is about working with our professional associations collaboratively to tackle the genuine concerns that they have expressed about workload. I want to embrace the professional associations as partners in considering what we can do collaboratively and constructively to tackle the workload issues and address the perceptions that Mr Gray highlights.
The second thing—this is perhaps less relevant in some primary schools, but it will be relevant in many—is that we have to ensure that career development structures enable individuals to break down the gap between, for example, being a classroom teacher and being a headteacher. We will shortly receive the recommendations from the panel on career pathways, which Moyra Boland from the University of Glasgow has been leading for us. That will give us more career development opportunities to break down the existing gap. I accept that, for some people, it is a big gap to contemplate. Even the gap between a deputy headteacher and a headteacher is big. In due course, those issues will be considered by the Scottish negotiating committee for teachers.
The third thing is that we have put in place other supports to enhance the professional development of individuals, which will enable them to be more professionally confident in taking on such roles. Interventions such as the Columba 1400 programme, which is now available to deputy headteachers as well as headteachers, are an important contribution to addressing some of the professional development requirements that individuals feel they need to progress to a headteacher role.
A combination of professional development and tackling workload issues will provide us with some of the means to address the legitimate issues that the survey raised.
That is all welcome. Some people think that one of the problems is that, sometimes, depending on the size of the school, the salary differential between the deputy headteacher and the headteacher is small and does not reflect the increase in workload. Sometimes, the differential is nothing at all. Does the workload consideration that you have just described encompass the job sizing of primary headteacher roles and that pay differential?
That is part of the work that we will undertake in implementing the pay and workload agreement that we reached a few weeks ago, when I accepted the need to revisit the question of job sizing for headteachers. There is substantive evidence of issues that we need to address.
Thank you.
I, too, welcome these measures. They have also been broadly welcomed in principle by many teachers and the associations that represent them.
Cabinet secretary, I have two technical questions. You mentioned that the regulations provide that, from 1 August 2020, headteachers will need to have achieved the standard for headship. How long does the course take, and at what stage will you be able to tell the Parliament how many teachers are undertaking that course to meet that deadline?
The course normally takes 12 to 18 months to complete. The into headship qualification has been operating since 2015. I can put the data on the record. In 2015, 119 teachers achieved the standard; in 2016, 142 achieved it; in 2017, 155 achieved it; in 2018, 166 achieved it; and, in 2019, 180 achieved it.
As members will recognise, those numbers are rising year on year, which is an encouraging trend. Interestingly, in 2019, there is a larger differential between primary headteachers and secondary headteachers. For example, in 2015, the numbers for primary school and secondary school were pretty much 50:50. In 2019, the numbers were two thirds for primary school and one third for secondary school. Perhaps that also addresses some of the issues that Iain Gray raised.
That is an encouraging trend in the number of headteachers who are coming forward. As one would expect, because there are seven times as many primary schools as there are secondary schools, the split is now weighted more towards primary schools than when the standard began.
I will make a final point of clarification. I might have misheard what Liz Smith said, but there is no requirement for an existing headteacher to undertake the standard. Subject to the exemptions that I have set out, any aspiring headteacher who is seeking to fill a post will need the headship standard by 1 August 2020.
So, they are included in the last figure that you gave—because, I presume, they have started.
Yes, and that total is more than 800.
Thank you.
09:45
I have a question to help my own understanding. Is it entirely up to the individual, or is there a gatekeeper somewhere who determines whether someone can undertake the programme, given that it is being funded? In those circumstances, how are we ensuring that there is diversity and that men and women are equally able to take up the opportunities?
Eligibility for the programme is determined by local authorities, which identify candidates as part of their workforce planning. Individuals will present themselves as willing to do it and local authorities will consider the potential for individuals to achieve the standard.
Do you think there is a place for monitoring what is happening? If it is a matter for local authorities, we would want to know how widely they are spreading the net and how encouraging they are of folk who have caring responsibilities or whatever, who might find it difficult to take on that kind of commitment, or how encouraging they are of folk who may not have thought about it.
We should monitor those issues very carefully. I have recently responded to parliamentary questions about the diversity of the teaching profession, and there are systemic issues around the diversity of the profession in general that we need to consider. The questions about eligibility for the into headship programme are no different from the questions that arise out of that analysis.
You would expect local authorities to be transparent about how they are identifying people for the programme.
Yes.
This question is, again, for my own understanding. If somebody is on a 30-month temporary contract and they have not completed the programme, will the authority have to find somebody else to be a headteacher on a temporary contract?
That would not be in the spirit of the regulations if the person was endeavouring to complete the programme and something had got in the way, such as a caring responsibility, illness or some other circumstance. The regulations are not set out in such a fashion that there is no scope for discretion in understanding particular cases. Flexibility would exist for the local authority, as the employer, to make that judgment.
So, despite the regulations, people could continue on temporary contracts over a longer time.
That, too, would be against the spirit of the regulations, which say that, after 1 August 2020, it should be a mandatory requirement that a headteacher has the standard. If somebody demonstrated no intention of completing the programme, that would, in my view, be against the spirit of the regulations. However, if they had commenced the programme and something had got in the way, that would be different.
Therefore, if somebody is on a temporary contract under the condition that they complete the programme and they do not do so, the local authority will need to interview and appoint someone else, who may also be on a temporary contract. Will that not create instability in the school system? How strong is the regulation as against the discretion? We could end up in a position in which people do not engage with the programme, for whatever reason, and the school or local authority has to reappoint.
The letter of the regulation says that, after 1 August 2020, an individual must have the into headship standard unless they are appointed for a temporary period of up to 30 months. That is a hard boundary, so I suppose that the literal answer to Johann Lamont’s question is that if, at the end of 30 months of a temporary contract, somebody has not completed the into headship programme, they should not be able to be a headteacher.
The constraints of the regulations do not remove the discretion to take account of legitimate circumstances that might have prevented somebody from completing the programme. However, if somebody did not complete the programme just by habitual non-participation or non-engagement, the parameters of the regulations would be applied and the local authority would have to get somebody else to be the headteacher.
That person might also be somebody without the qualification.
They could well be. For completeness, I should add that it is in the nature of workforce planning that local authorities would try to avoid situations of that type arising.
We will move to agenda item 2, which is the formal debate on motion S5M-17293, in the name of the cabinet secretary, on the Head Teachers Education and Training Standards (Scotland) Regulations 2019. I remind members that Government officials are not allowed to contribute to the formal debate.
Motion moved,
That the Education and Skills Committee recommends that the Head Teachers Education and Training Standards (Scotland) Regulations 2019 [draft] be approved.—[John Swinney]
Motion agreed to.
The committee must report to Parliament on the instrument. Are members content for me, as the convener, to sign off that report?
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes our consideration of subordinate legislation. I will suspend the meeting for a few seconds to allow the officials to change over.
09:51 Meeting suspended.09:52 On resuming—
Previous
Attendance