Subordinate Legislation
Item 3 is subordinate legislation. We have only five Scottish statutory instruments to consider, although we were expecting considerably more.
Why did we expect more?
We heard rumours that a large number of instruments were coming the way of committees, but there have been fewer than expected. I am not sure whether that means that there will be a big batch of instruments waiting for the new Parliament and the new Education Committee.
The Subordinate Legislation Committee has drawn this committee's attention to an issue with SSI 2007/132, regarding parental involvement in the appointment of head teachers and deputy head teachers, which we will deal with when we come to it. We have a paper showing the Subordinate Legislation Committee's concerns and the Executive's response.
Education (Assisted Places) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2007<br />(SSI 2007/114)<br />St Mary's Music School (Aided Places) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/115)
If members have no comments, do we agree that the committee has nothing to report on the regulations?
Members indicated agreement.
Parental Involvement in Headteacher and Deputy Headteacher Appointments (Scotland) Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/132)
I draw members' attention to the additional paper from the Subordinate Legislation Committee and the Executive's response. Do members have any comments?
Our opposition to the abolition of school boards is well known. I will not oppose the regulations, as they give guidance on the recent Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Act 2006, but parent power is being restricted compared with the school boards system.
I have one technical point. The Subordinate Legislation Committee's reservation about the appointments procedure is valid, because there is uncertainty about what would happen if a deputy head teacher was to be appointed in a school that had only an acting head teacher and the local authority deemed that person unsuitable to head the appointment panel. That would be a rare eventuality, but we should invite the Executive to address the matter in guidance, which I am sure councils would be happy to consult in such circumstances.
I am a member of the Subordinate Legislation Committee, and we raised that point with the Executive, which responded by saying exactly how it thought the regulations would be interpreted. Appendix 3 of paper ED/S2/07/7/1.1 contains a copy of the response, which specifically states:
"Where … the chairperson is not a person specifically as prescribed in terms of regulation 7(2), ie as a result of those rare circumstances where the education authority does not consider appointment of the acting headteacher as chair to be appropriate, the appointment panel members would not however be precluded from appointing one of their number".
The Executive has worked out—or suggested—what to do in that circumstance.
I have concerns, which probably go back to the 2006 act, regarding the role of parents in the appointments procedure. I believe that much is left to local discretion, which to an extent is welcome, but the problem is ensuring that councils maximise their involvement and connection with parent councils in particular.
Using professional discretion about professional abilities and so on is more likely to be part of the screening process when a long leet is being drawn up. Parents would have more involvement at that stage. However, the short leet is fundamentally more important in deciding who is appointed, and parents would probably be less involved at that stage.
Having debated the issue, we know why we must ensure that we professionalise the approach to head teacher and deputy head teacher appointments, but we should bear in mind what I have described. Trinity academy school board contacted me, as one of its MSPs, and raised concerns about appointments. The important point is the emphasis that local authorities place on ensuring that they actively involve parents in the process.
I have a concern about regulation 5(3), which makes it clear that regulations 5(1) and 5(2), on the short leet procedure, will not apply when a head teacher is to be redeployed. The definition of redeployment is wide—it covers any head teacher "currently employed elsewhere". It does not necessarily mean redeployment within a council area; it could be redeployment across Scotland. When Ewan Aitken was the education spokesperson for the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, he was keen for councils to be able to redeploy head teachers at will without involving parents. Regulation 5(3) will allow that to happen.
I acknowledge that we must proceed with the regulations, but I am concerned that they negate the involvement of parent councils in redeployment. Parents should still have a role, even in redeployment. I am concerned that regulations 5(1) and 5(2) will not apply to redeployment.
We must proceed with the new procedure for professionalising the employment process. I suspect that we will have considerable experience of that in the next year to 18 months, given that many head teachers are likely to retire. I do not know whether similar regulations will be considered regularly or whether these regulations are a one-off, but a strong case exists for examining how the provisions work once they are up and running.
I am concerned about regulation 5(3). Do other members have a view? Do they, like me, read it as allowing local authorities to do what they want and not involve parent councils when head teachers are redeployed?
I understand your concern, and I admit to having some concern about regulation 5(3), but the context is that it will operate
"following consultation in terms of regulation 4",
so the parent council will have to be consulted before the head teacher can be redeployed; it will not be excluded from the process. Perhaps we need to say that the guidance must make clear the importance of continuing to involve parent councils, even when redeployment is to take place. If the redeployment of a head teacher is proposed, I see no reason why the parent council cannot interview them before the redeployment is agreed. Perhaps the guidance, rather than the regulations, could cover that.
I feel strongly that that should be the case.
I suggest that although we have no concern about noting the regulations, we should say that the committee's successor should see the guidance in draft form before it is published, so that if any concern is expressed that the guidance on involving parents is deficient, it can be addressed before the guidance is issued.
Okay.
Do members agree that it is advisable to ask for the draft guidance to be issued to the committee?
Members indicated agreement.
Subject to that, do we agree that the committee has nothing to report on the regulations?
Members indicated agreement.
Education Authority Bursaries (Scotland) Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/149)
If members have no comments, do we agree that the committee has nothing to report on the regulations?
Members indicated agreement.
Teachers' Superannuation (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2007<br />(SSI 2007/189)
Do members have any comments? I shall question you on the regulations' intricacies shortly.
Has the committee received no representations about the regulations?
There have been none.
Do we agree that the committee has nothing to report on the regulations?
Members indicated agreement.