Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-4271, in the name of Peter Peacock, on the Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Bill. Minister, you have a tight 6 minutes.
In that case I will not hang about.
As the bill reaches its final stage, we have a chance to reflect on it and why we introduced it. First and foremost, the bill is about improving parents' involvement in their children's education and in schools. It is about encouraging parents, schools, education authorities and others to work together for the benefit of our young people. All the evidence is that, when parents are effectively involved in their children's education, the outcome for their children is better.
The bill complements our wider developments in education policy, such as the ambitious, excellent schools programme, devolved school management and "A Curriculum for Excellence", all of which are designed to provide more freedom, trust and flexibility and less central control and direction of education policy. The bill is a vital part of the wider framework that we are developing for Scottish education. Parents and their commitment to their children add value to what we do. This is about parents doing what they can, in their circumstances, to support their children. That is why the bill places duties on Scottish ministers to promote parental involvement and on education authorities to develop strategies for parental involvement.
However, we want to reform how parents are represented. As part of that, we will reform the inflexible system of school boards brought in by the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988. The 1988 act was a creature of its time and the prevailing political environment. In these days of devolution, it is no longer appropriate for the Government to tell parents how many people can sit on their school board, who should be involved in meetings or what should be discussed. Under the bill, parents will have the power to decide locally on the format that suits them and their school. That local flexibility is the key element of the bill and was welcomed by the majority of those giving evidence to the Education Committee when it considered the principles of the bill.
I am aware that some have greeted that flexibility with a bit of alarm, envisaging parents' valuable time being taken up with deciding myriad constitutions and formats. That is why I want to assure members that parents will not be left without good templates, advice and guidance on how to proceed. We will develop a toolkit to enable schools, parents and education authorities to work together to decide on such matters. I anticipate that that toolkit and the guidance that will accompany the bill will be ready this autumn.
I thank those who have contributed to the process of getting the bill to this point: the wide range of individuals and groups who responded to the consultation and gave evidence to the Education Committee; the members of the Education Committee; the clerking team; my bill team; Robert Brown; and the parental involvement field team, which has been working with education authorities to improve understanding of what the bill will mean in practice. All those individuals and groups have contributed to the bill as it is today.
The consultation process enabled us to refine the first draft of the bill. For example, there was a clear call for head teachers to be given the right and the duty to attend parent council meetings and the bill has been revised to address that. There was an element of misunderstanding about what the body to represent parents in a school would look like, so we clarified the two-tier relationship between the parent forum—all parents at the school—and the parent council, which is the body that will represent parents in the day-to-day business of the school. The parent councils of denominational schools will now have representation from the relevant denomination. In the subsequent consultation on the appointment of head teachers, we gave parents and others the opportunity to input to that very specific section of the bill.
I have said many times that the appointment of a head teacher is crucial for a school and the communities that it serves, yet it might happen only once every 20 years or so for that school. We know from our discussions with key stakeholders involved in the process that the arrangements set out in the 1988 act are no longer fit for purpose. Employment legislation and procedures have moved on since then and schedule 2 to the 1988 act has prevented authorities from making full use of the modern recruitment processes now available. Primary legislation is not the right place to set out all the detailed appointments procedures. The bill creates an enabling framework for local authorities, which reflects both employment legislation and the value added by greater participation of parents. It establishes the conditions that the appointments procedures must satisfy and allows for future flexibility in appointing senior staff. That will fit in with our wider education leadership agenda.
Critics have claimed that the lack of prescription will reduce the involvement of parents, but we are absolutely committed to ensuring a robust role for parents in the process; securing the professionalism of the appointments process; and enabling local authorities to develop appointments arrangements that best suit their needs. Our aim is to ensure that parents are involved at all key stages of the process, not only the final interview as at present. Earlier engagement in the process will offer more meaningful involvement. As Robert Brown indicated, we will introduce regulations later in the year and issue guidance to optimise parental involvement in those processes.
We now have a bill that will make a difference to Scottish education and that is flexible enough to stand the test of time. When Robert Brown opened the stage 1 debate on the bill he said:
"the most potent influence on children's education and life prospects is their parents."—[Official Report, 22 February 2006; c 23364.]
That is why the bill is important and why I commend it to the Parliament. However, it is only a start, as there is much more to be done to implement it. I hope that a strong national voice for parents in future education policy and the representation of their interests will be a by-product of all that we are doing.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Bill be passed.
The process has been frustrating for many of us, but I hope that the minister realises that, despite our reservations about the importance of the bill and the priority that should be given to it, the Scottish National Party has approached it constructively by scrutinising the bill and trying to introduce measures to improve it when we thought fit to do so.
The Parliament must decide when it is time to legislate and time not to legislate; it must decide what is best delivered through policy and what is best delivered through law. The key element of parental involvement in education will not be delivered by law but by policy and enthusiastic people—head teachers, council officials, parents and, indeed, the teachers, who are hidden in the shadows of the bill and do not get a mention.
Despite those facts and the reservations that we expressed at stage 1, when we were concerned that the ministers had rushed the bill's introduction without consulting on the appointments procedure, SNP members will not stand in its way. It is not the most important bill for the Parliament to consider. In the minister's portfolio alone, there are proposals for legislation on adoption and fostering, on children's hearings and much-needed legislation on child protection. The idea that any of that could or might have been delayed because of this bill is of serious concern. Everybody who was concerned with school boards recognised that there was a need for modernisation, but there was no clarion call from school boards, parents or teachers for the bill to be one of the main objects of the Executive's concentration.
There has been much movement since the proposals were first published and progress has been made on a variety of issues. The two-tier solution has addressed many of the concerns about the democratic accountability of ensuring that the parent forums had leadership that could represent parents' views, and the Executive has listened to representations on early years education. I welcome that, but the Executive should also acknowledge that Opposition parties have given it latitude and accepted that more detail should be in guidance. There has been dispute about whether we should have required more detail in the bill, but we have given that latitude in the good faith that, when the Executive introduces the secondary legislation, it will pay due regard to the proposals that the committee made at stage 2.
The SNP will support the bill, but I emphasise that the bill's most important aspect is the provisions on parents' involvement in their children's education. If we are to effect a sea change and ensure that the Scottish children who currently underperform get a chance in education, we must work with parents to achieve that. It will not happen in isolation, because most of a child's education and experience does not happen within school but is formed outwith school. Bringing those parts together is a worthwhile aim.
I sincerely hope that the minister's and the councils' education strategies will reflect those points and that they will be part and parcel of the bill's implementation.
Ministers will not be astonished to learn that the Conservatives would have set about the bill in a different way, especially given the results of the consultation. At present, 97 per cent of secondary schools and 88 per cent of primary schools have school boards, and it would have been our wish for the present system to be modernised and brought up to date, rather than engaging in what I would describe as a gale of creative destruction.
As ministers will recall, only 13 per cent of those who were consulted called for the abolition of school boards. The way in which the bill is being imposed on schools in Scotland does not exactly reflect the wishes of those who were consulted. It does not even reflect the views of the Executive in 2004, when it republished the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988 with a new introduction, which stated that boards were
"in a unique position as a mechanism for the two-way flow of information between parents, schools and education authorities".
If school boards were able to attract such favourable coverage from the Executive two years ago, why is there now such a wholesale push for their abolition?
Since the Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Bill obtained a parliamentary majority at stage 1, we have bent over backwards to improve it. However, with the best will in the world, we cannot escape the conclusion that parental rights to participate in the appointment of head teachers will not be as strong as they were before. Parents were represented in equal numbers with local authority officials, and they had a key role to play in the appointment of head teachers. The bill will not continue that. At question time on 7 September 2005, the First Minister said:
"Of course the new bodies might lose one or two powers".—[Official Report, 7 September 2005; c 18944.]
I accept that parents will be involved in an advisory capacity, but they will not have the statutory rights and the clout that they have today. I respect the minister's views but, although we give maximum support for parental rights, the Executive's policy in that regard is such that we cannot support the bill. We believe that it weakens parental rights and that, like an apple in fermentation, it is good only in parts. As I mentioned at an earlier stage, we would view a diminution in the statutory role of parents as a retrograde step. In spite of all the minister's endeavours, we will be unable to support the bill.
I will start with my convener hat on, rather than my party hat, and thank the Education Committee for the constructive way in which the bill has been dealt with throughout the process—other than during the debates in the chamber, perhaps. The process has been very constructive, and it has been helpful in ensuring that the legislation that we will pass this evening will be better than the bill that was sent to the committee.
I thank the Minister for Education and Young People and his team for the part that they have played, from the original consultation proposals that were published last year, to the bill that was presented to the committee, to the bill that we will pass today. The bill shows that the parliamentary process works, that consultation works and that legislation is improved as a result of what we do here. I thank those who gave evidence to the committee, those who lodged amendments and, of course, the committee clerks, for all their support throughout.
The bill is not just about modernising and replacing—it is not about abolishing school boards, but about modernising and replacing school boards with the new parent forums and parent councils. As Fiona Hyslop has rightly stressed throughout the debate, the bill is also about parental—
Will the member give way a second?
Certainly.
The member says that the bill is not about abolishing school boards. I refer him to section 18, which is entitled "Abolition of School Boards".
It is not about the abolition of school boards; it is about the abolition of the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988, which—
No, it is not.
Let me finish. That act set up a very rigid system for parental representation in schools, which is not appropriate for all schools and does not allow all schools to do the best they can with the opportunities that ought to be available. The bill replaces those school boards with a new structure that will allow more flexibility and let schools develop what best suits their circumstances and needs. That is a positive step forward. This is not about diminishing the rights of parents in any way. In fact, the bill significantly enhances the rights of parents through the establishment of the parent forums and through the flexible arrangements that will be in place for the parent councils that will replace the school boards.
The bill is also about parents' involvement in the education of their children in the wider sense. The most important aspect of the bill is the fact that it places a statutory duty on the Scottish Executive and education authorities to promote the involvement of parents. That is not just about their involvement in the parent forums and parent councils; it is about their involvement in the education of their children. That is a significant new statutory duty on education officials at local authority and Executive level, which could have a major impact on the quality of education. We could all take issue with one or two matters.
It is important to have a clear timetable soon for implementing the bill and to have the guidance and the toolkit, so that existing school boards have a clear idea of the process for managing the change to the new set-up. Many people opposed the abolition of school boards, without knowing exactly what would replace them, through fear that something would be removed. When the legislation is in place, it will allow parents to see that the opportunities of the legislation are much greater than the threats that many people have promoted. Indeed, the Scottish School Board Association, which was a major critic of the draft bill, has said while the Parliament has been considering the bill that the bill provides great opportunities for more parental involvement in schools.
The bill is good. The act that it will become might not be the most important legislation the Parliament has passed, but it is necessary. It has been claimed that school boards could be modernised, but because the process was tied down by legislation, what school boards did could be amended only through primary legislation. That was nonsense. The bill will allow much more flexibility and provide a much better approach for parents.
We now move to the open debate. I call Robin Harper, who has two minutes.
I will restrict my remarks. My colleagues in the Scottish Green Party and I are glad to see the bill. My response to Fiona Hyslop's criticism that the bill might be getting in the way of other legislation on children and young people is that it is a pity that the bill was not introduced earlier—perhaps three or four years ago—so that the quality of responses to legislation that is coming our way would be even better. That is not a reflection on the quality of responses, but the bill will certainly facilitate the full involvement of parents in all aspects of education, including the preparation of legislation.
From my reading of the submissions, I think that Children in Scotland will be pleased with the bill. Its only disappointment might be that amendment 2 was not agreed to. The Commission for Racial Equality made recommendations and described problems that parents experience, such as
"a sense of disenfranchisement, the sense of not having anything to offer and discomfort and isolation",
which are not restricted to people from ethnic minorities. The Executive is right to leave obligations to regulations and to keep them flexible.
The same applies to the debate on the final amendment, which was on the appointment of head teachers. Employment legislation constantly changes and it is essential to have legislation that allows flexibility, to permit continued adaptation to changing conditions.
I am happy to support the bill.
Despite the Education Committee's constructive and productive efforts and the equally open-minded approach of the Executive, which listened to some of the early concerns that were expressed and accordingly lodged amendments, the Opposition parties have shown a lack of support for the bill—I think that the SNP showed grudging acceptance—which disappoints me.
In particular, I am dismayed at Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's description of the bill as spiteful. I have always thought him one of the least spiteful members of the Parliament, but his remark is revealing. Most of us suspect that the initial school boards legislation was motivated by dogma—the political drive to create a device by which schools could opt out of the comprehensive system. Lord James's remarks confirm that, as it is clear that he believes that the only motivation for abolishing school boards is to be equally politically spiteful. I suggest that to think that is to misread the bill and the intentions behind it.
The bill is a practical measure that is designed to introduce some flexibility in what has been an overly prescriptive and rigid system. It is less focused on the nature or form of parental representation than it is on finding the best way to involve parents at all levels in their local school's work.
We should take the opportunity to thank the many thousands of parents who have served on school boards. In my area, school boards have been very successful and conscientious in carrying out their duties and their efforts have been productive, but that has not been the case everywhere. Those of us who are familiar with the formal election processes to school boards know that they can be daunting and that they have clearly been off-putting for many people.
The bill will end the artificial divide between parent-teacher associations and school boards. I thank the Scottish Parent Teacher Council and Judith Gillespie for her evidence to the committee. It is simply wrong to create the idea that a person is welcome in a school if they have something to offer in the way of fundraising but that people have little to contribute to the good running of the institution or to pupils' learning unless they are elected to the school board.
The most important measure in the bill is not that which focuses on the nature of parental representation, the abolition of school boards or the creation of school councils, but the duty on ministers and local authorities to involve parents in the education of their children to a greater extent. That is what will make the difference in our children's achievement and attainment levels and where the clear benefits of the bill will be seen.
I commend the bill to the Parliament.
I did not intend to speak in this debate, but I want to say that I cannot recall being charged with any degree of nastiness in anything that I have done in 26 years as an elected representative. Such charges have been made today to which I must respond.
Adam Ingram suggested that I was chasing lurid tabloid headlines. To be honest, that is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. He may have noticed that I have refrained from seeking personal publicity of late; I emphasise that I did not seek such publicity when I lodged my amendment.
The reason for the amendment's late appearance is that constituents and other groups were disappointed and thought that the matter should have been addressed in the bill and by the committee. They felt strongly that the previous school board legislation had got things right on the issue in question. That is why I presented the case that I presented.
If members who serve in this chamber, which we are told is part of a new parliamentary democracy, cannot stand up and honestly state their views without receiving personal abuse, that is degrading.
We now move to winding-up speeches, which I must keep tight—indeed, I will have to cut them back slightly.
The fear to which Iain Smith referred has been caused by misinformation that was primarily put about by the Conservative party about the bill's provisions and intentions. As Ken Macintosh rightly said, the primary purpose of the Conservatives' previous legislation, which established school boards, was to encourage schools to opt out from local education authority control. As I said in an earlier debate, the legislation was not successful in achieving that aim, but school boards were successful in encouraging parents to become more involved in the running of their children's schools.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I am sorry, but I have only three minutes.
I agree that the bill is not just about sweeping away the previous legislation—it is about building on it and modernising and reforming it to provide a more flexible arrangement that will allow parents to decide how they would like to be involved in school arrangements. The current school boards can be retained if that is what parents want, but the structure of the parent representative body can be changed if it is felt that that is more appropriate to the school.
I am surprised at what Lord James Douglas-Hamilton said. In support of amendment 1, he said that parents rather than the Government should shape how things develop. That is entirely what the bill is about.
I recently attended a forum on discrimination in my constituency. It was specifically said in one workshop that school boards are not inclusive. In fact, I was asked to go to the Executive to suggest that the legislation be reformed. I was pleased to tell the audience that the Executive had already taken the matter on board and that reform was imminent.
As the minister said, the bill is a start in increasing parental involvement in children's education. Legislation alone cannot deliver increased involvement, but it can provide a framework.
I am pleased that the SNP supports the bill, but I wonder why SNP members think that other pieces of legislation have been delayed. I am certainly not aware of other pieces of legislation that have been held back because of it.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I am sorry, but I have only a minute left.
James Douglas-Hamilton mentioned appointments. As the minister said, parents will be involved much earlier in the process of selecting head teachers, so they will have greater influence, but it must be recognised that head teachers are the employees of local authorities and that responsibility for their appointment rests with local authorities. However, it would be an unwise local authority that went against the wishes of the parent council, as that would hardly bode well for the operation of the parent council in future.
Like many members, I was disappointed by Mr Gallie's speech. I will not be verbally abusive towards him, but I feel that his last-ditch intervention—in which he tried to revive the spectres that haunted the Parliament in its early days around the discussions on the abolition of section 2A—was most unfortunate. If his constituents had raised the matter as a concern at that time, the Conservatives should have lodged an amendment at stage 2 and had the matter fully discussed then.
I am pleased to support the bill.
No amount of tinkering with the bill today can disguise the fact that it is an unwanted and unnecessary piece of legislation that is motivated by malice and designed to destroy a structure for parental involvement and representation in the governance of our schools that was one of the many great achievements of the last Conservative Government. The very existence of the bill ignores the evidence of the Scottish Executive's own consultation exercise, which overwhelmingly demonstrated that there is no justification and little support for it. It typifies an attitude of mind that ignores the big issues that Scottish education faces and, instead, prefers to dismantle a system that is working well.
There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that the new parent councils will increase parental involvement either in the overall life of the school or in the education of the parents' children. Parent councils are a very poor substitute for school boards and parent-teacher associations, and the so-called, much-trumpeted new rights in the bill are no more than the enactment of existing good practice. Crucially, the powers that are enjoyed by school boards in relation to senior staff appointments have been emasculated.
The big issues in Scottish education relate to poor attainment levels in the basics of literacy and numeracy; indiscipline and violence against teachers; falling school rolls; the closure and merger of schools against the wishes of parents; the artificial limits that are now placed on primary school intakes; the rise in composite classes; the elimination of parental choice; the running down of special needs schools in the face of what can be described only as a mania for mainstreaming; and the lack of diversity in our system, which, for example, denies Steiner schools a place in the state school system. Those are the big issues that Scottish education faces, but they are the issues that the Scottish Executive will not tackle. The Executive says that it wants to run the best small country in the world. Well, it will not achieve that by being the best small-minded Government in the world.
The bill is petty, pathetic and perverse, and it should be rejected by the Parliament.
As the minister will be aware, SNP members have been sceptical about the benefits to be gained from the bill. It still appears to us to be too much about changing structures rather than changing attitudes and working practices. In particular, we believe that the emphasis on parental involvement in schools should be about building a partnership between parents and teachers, so that the support for learning that is provided to our children at home as well as in schools is of the highest possible order and will enable pupils to take full advantage of the educational opportunities that are offered by our school system.
The changes that the bill proposes will, in themselves, do little to draw in the parents of the persistent 20 per cent of children who appear to derive little benefit from their schooling in terms of attainment or preparation for the world of work. It is a moot point whether legislation of this kind can achieve the culture change that is badly needed.
Although the minister has bowed to pressure to include reference to parental involvement in the early years, which should help with the transition from nursery to primary school, I do not believe that he has gone far enough. We believe that the absence of a duty on education authorities to promote such involvement is a missed opportunity. We will have to return to the building of relationships between parents, early-years staff and teachers if and when the Executive gets around to presenting us with a strategy for the early years and child care. We should be looking at effecting a culture change in that area of policy and attacking the vicious cycle of poverty, deprivation and low educational attainment that blights the lives of one in five Scottish children.
That said, we acknowledge the fact that ministers have addressed many of the weaknesses in the original bill proposals. Despite the somewhat over-the-top attacks from the Tories, most stakeholders, including the Scottish School Board Association, are at least reconciled to the changes that the bill will make to parental involvement mechanisms. It would therefore be churlish of us to turn our scepticism into opposition to the bill. We wish it well for the future.
This afternoon, we have been through the final stage of a legislative process that began, as these things often do, with anxieties and concerns about our purpose, and, indeed, opposition from some quarters. However, as many members have said, the process has refined the bill as we have gone through the consultation on the draft bill and later through the committee process. We have ended up with a high degree of consensus and recognition that the bill is dynamic and flexible enough to meet the needs of different communities around Scotland, and to make a real difference to parents and young people.
I welcome the SNP's support for the bill, even if it is a little grudging.
It is very clear that young people benefit from parental interest and involvement in their futures and in their education in particular. As many have said, the legislative process is the beginning, not the end. The culture change that we want will come out of what happens thereafter. With the guidance and toolkit that are in preparation, the legislation will provide the skeleton, but life will be breathed into it if it engages the interest and enthusiasm of parents throughout Scotland during the transition year of preparation for the new framework and during the years to come.
I encourage schools, parents and education authorities to take this opportunity to look anew at the way in which parents are involved and represented. I encourage them to use the flexibility that the bill will offer, to be creative, to build on the work and success of the school boards, and to look wider, to consider the weaknesses of the current system, the reasons why relatively few parents get involved, the challenges and barriers to greater parental involvement, and to make arrangements that are more participative, more inclusive, more outward looking and, dare I say it, more fun.
Some schools and education authorities are already doing quite exciting things. For example, at a primary school in the Borders that does not have a school board, the head teacher set up a school interest group to work towards improving partnership, to support the school through social and fundraising events and to act as a consultative group. There is a primary school in Angus—again without a school board—that developed a parent support group through advertising in the paper and sending letters home with the children. Again, that group sought to promote co-operation between parents and teachers in an informal and flexible way.
Just as different styles of education and pupil engagement can motivate and excite pupils, so can different styles of parental involvement engage parents. The range and potential informality of the new parent councils should be a big bonus that is capable of attracting the best of the school board and PTA traditions and something else besides.
As we are all aware, the bill is not just about representation. I am thinking of the secondary school in Edinburgh that identified the fact that parents and children have worries about the transition from primary to secondary school and took steps to address those worries. I am also thinking of the primary school in North Lanarkshire that spotted the need to make parents feel welcome in the school and evolved a welcoming reception area with facilities and information specifically aimed at parents.
Those are small things in themselves, but they are important and go to the heart of what the bill is about—and they are the kind of things I want to happen throughout Scotland. There should be not just pockets of good practice in individual schools, but innovative and relevant ideas that come from the people who know best about the needs of their children. The bill will place a duty on education authorities to take a strategic approach to parental involvement, to ensure that those sorts of examples are not unique to particular schools. The challenge and excitement of parental involvement should be firmly on the agenda across the board.
Will the minister give way?
I am sorry, but I do not have time in this brief summing up.
If the bill is passed, the Executive will provide support and direction for parents, school staff and education authorities.
As the bill will not be fully commenced until August 2007, the Executive's intention is to use the intervening year to work with stakeholders to ensure that the transition is as smooth as possible. The field team will continue to work with individual education authorities to encourage the sharing and spread of good practice and practical support. As it travelled around Scotland, the field team saw the mood among authorities and parents shift, as it has in the Parliament, from one of weariness and apprehension at the prospect of change to one of anticipation and eagerness to get going.
I must confess that I was disappointed by the Conservative party's opposition to the bill. Frankly, the unusually baleful press release that came from Lord James Douglas-Hamilton—at least, it was in Lord James's name—was unworthy of the generous spirit that he normally brings to such matters. In this modern David Cameron age, the Tories will need to keep control of these Thatcherite—or perhaps Gallie-ite—press officers if they want to be taken seriously in our debates.
The bill will give parents serious opportunities and provide them with far more rights than are available under the current highly regulated and centralised structures. The Executive is about liberating parents to work most effectively for the best interests of their children; the Conservatives are about restricting, regulating and controlling them. The Tories are about scaremongering, doom, gloom and populist headlines; we are about engagement, involvement, empowerment, trusting parents and, as I said before, fun. The key to the success of the bill lies with parents, who will be able to grasp the opportunities and the encouragement that the bill gives them. We believe that parents and education authorities will rise to the challenge.
The bill is part of our wider jigsaw of education reform and improvement, to give more children a better start and greater opportunities in life. We are providing better schools, more teachers, better training and the dynamism of real parental involvement in the education of their children.
I commend the motion to the Parliament.
As we have finished one and a half minutes early, I will suspend the meeting until 16:59.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—