Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Bill: Stage 1
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-3895, in the name of Peter Peacock, on the general principles of the Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Bill.
There is, perhaps, a sense of anticlimax, given the previous debate, about returning to the more mundane matters of school education. However, in our education debates, nurturing, the acquisition of life skills and the development of young people's potential are hugely important matters. We tend to focus on the public bit—the school, the nursery teacher and the teacher—but the most potent influence on children's education and life prospects is their parents. Today's debate marks a significant stage in implementing the Executive's commitment to give parents a stronger voice in their children's education and learning and to involve more of them more effectively in supporting the life and work of their schools.
The bill is based on certain key principles: that parents should be involved fully in supporting their children's learning; that parents should be welcomed and be encouraged to engage with the life of schools; and that the voice of parents should be heard in matters of local policy and representation. The focus of the bill is therefore broader than that of current school board legislation, given that it aims to recognise in a statutory format the vital role that parents play in the education of their children.
It is worth considering basic research findings that underpin the critical importance of parents. For example, research shows that 85 per cent of the language that we use as adults is in place by the time we are five years old, and 50 per cent of it is in place by the time we are three years old. Throughout their school years, children spend only 15 per cent of their time in school. It is significant and interesting that doing homework regularly through the school years has roughly the same benefit as an extra year's schooling. Those are interesting background research points.
The evidence points to the importance of involving parents in different ways from as early a stage as possible. I doubt whether any member would disagree with that central, fundamental point. If we involve parents successfully, schools are stronger and children benefit.
The bill supports parental involvement at three levels. First, it aims to enable parents to do what they can, according to their circumstances, to support their children. The bill places a duty on Scottish ministers nationally and education authorities locally to promote and support that. It requires education authorities to draw up strategies for parental involvement in its wider sense, taking account in particular of the needs of looked-after children, which, as we know, is one of the biggest challenges that we face, not least because, for whatever reason, parental involvement might be defective or absent.
Children 1st has said that the views of children have not been reflected in the bill. Looked-after children do not like the word "parent" being used in the title of a body or in any wording to do with a body. Perhaps using "school council" instead of "parent council" might be a way of reflecting the views and interests of looked-after children who do not have parents.
That is a valid point. It highlights the importance of flexibility in taking the bill forward. The Education Committee identified that. Clearly, parent councils will be parent driven—there is no argument about that—but the ability is there for a council to co-opt people from outside the parent forum and to frame the constitution of the body in such a way as to allow input by teachers and others.
More particularly, I draw Fiona Hyslop's attention to the need for a strategy to take on board the issue that she raises. Bearing in mind the fact that a lot of the policy intention will be implemented by guidance and by what happens later at a local level, there is scope for the point that she raises to be taken on board. I assure her that we will endeavour to reflect that point in the guidance.
The minister talked about local strategies. Does that mean that the Executive is placing local authorities in the position of having different schemes to suit their areas, as opposed to having a national scheme that could be supervised or laid down by ministers?
The central point is the need to consider what happens at the local school level. Parent forums will have the ability to make arrangements at a local level, so the process will be parent driven. Guidance will come from the centre on best practice, the kind of things that people can take on board and the experience of what has happened elsewhere, either under the school board system or in various pilot schemes. That will inform the decisions that are made.
There is a role for local authorities, which must deal with wider issues beyond schools. Further, there are issues around the various levels of schools and sorts of schools and—to take Fiona Hyslop's point—the ways in which we can take on board the interests of looked-after children. Local authorities can have input in relation to all those matters in their particular circumstances, which will stand alongside the guidance that comes from the centre.
The second level at which the bill supports parental involvement is in the wider life of schools. Some parents might wish to help out in the classroom or by offering their skills in the realm of sport or business. Others might wish to help with after-school clubs or outdoor activities. Children learn in all kinds of ways—education is not a job for schools in isolation. Schools, parents and the community, working together, can take a broader approach to education. Strategies for parental involvement can take account of local authorities' wider provision for supporting families and community learning. That relates to David Davidson's question.
The Executive is working closely with local authorities to identify good practice and ways of promoting parent partnership across Scotland. We have been encouraged by the innovative ways in which education authorities are already seeking to involve parents. We will shortly be publishing examples of good practice that authorities, schools and parents can draw on to develop parental involvement with schools and their children's learning. If I have time later, I will give one or two examples of that.
The third level is in the area of parental representation. That is the element on which there has been the greatest focus. We want parents to be able to select a representation system that is appropriate for their school and in which they have confidence. Eighty-three per cent of parents who were surveyed by MORI on behalf of the Scottish Executive felt that parents at a school should determine the format of the body that represents them. The bill will allow parents to do just that.
This is a dynamic bill that empowers parents and gives them local choice and flexibility. It allows them to build on the best of what they have by way of representation, and to develop and adapt it to suit their local circumstances. All parents who have a child at a school will be members of the parent forum, which will give every parent a say in how their school promotes parental involvement and in how their views should be represented. The parent forum can set up a parent council to represent its views to the school and, where necessary, to the local authority and other bodies.
The bill repeals the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988 and moves away from the one-size-fits-all approach to parental representation that it generated. I am glad that there is increasing recognition that that is appropriate. Our bill empowers parents, removes some barriers to widened participation and provides new opportunities for innovation and sharing of good practice.
Inevitably, those who serve on school boards and, in particular, the Scottish School Board Association, have been concerned that the bill might threaten the continuance of the good work that they do and reduce parents' powers. The reality is that the bill builds on existing good practice and strengthens parents' powers. I am glad that that is so clearly recognised and stated by the SSBA in its latest newsletter. I look forward to working with the SSBA and the Scottish Parent Teacher Council on those matters.
The minister made a point about parents' powers. This morning, I received an e-mail from a parent who pointed out that, in the secondary school in Inverness that her child attends, it is possible to take only two advanced higher courses this year—Gaelic and maths. Her child wishes to pursue a medical or veterinary career. What power will that parent have under the bill? How will it ensure that there is a wider choice of advanced highers in Inverness and the Highlands?
I do not want to comment on that particular case, which is obviously a matter for the local authority and the people in the area, to whom the local authority is democratically accountable and to whom it will be even more accountable after the 2007 elections. However, the framework in the bill gives parents considerable potential to build the relationships that they want to have with their schools. If parents in the area to which Fergus Ewing refers are so minded, it is possible that discussions could take place on the point that he raises. We have to accept the reality that resource issues lie behind these things, but I am sure that, under the bill, parental involvement in the process will ensure a better outcome.
As the Education Committee's report acknowledges, the bill has benefited enormously from input and comment from many quarters. I thank both the committee and those who took part in the consultation for their input. We will listen carefully to the debate and we will consider amendments to improve the bill without losing the strength of its flexibility. The committee identified a number of things that it wants to see in guidance. Peter Peacock will, as promised, provide the committee with draft guidance before it is issued, so that the committee can comment on it. I will return to the issue of head teachers, which will, I am sure, be discussed during the debate.
Effective parental involvement is a key part of our vision to help every child to improve their life chances and achieve their potential in modern Scotland. The bill represents an exciting opportunity to put in place a flexible framework to help children who are at school and those who are yet to come. I look forward to the debate that will follow, and I commend the bill to Parliament.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Bill.
Before I call the next speaker, let me share some information. I have recalculated the timings: I will have about 25 minutes for the open debate. I have the choice of calling six members for four minutes each or four members for six minutes each. In the interests of balancing the debate as best I can, I will call six members for four minutes each. Members with prepared speeches might care to adjust them now.
I begin by thanking all the parents who serve on school boards—many of whom have done so for many years—to support their children and their school. The minister singularly failed to do that in his speech.
Parental involvement in education is important, but parents' role lies particularly in their own child's education. It is about motivation, help with homework and encouragement. All parents can give their children that help.
The Scottish National Party's position in the debate is reflected in paragraph 2 of the Education Committee's report. Although we are
"supportive of the aim of raising levels of parental involvement in schools",
we doubt
"that the Bill, if passed, would be effective in achieving this aim."
We consider that matters other than those in the bill are higher priorities in education. We need to tackle the fact that one child in five is underperforming and underachieving and has unrealised potential. The education system is not dealing properly with such children. We must also deal with the travesty of educational outcomes for looked-after children.
Nobody disputes the fact that school board legislation needs to change. The Conservatives introduced school boards against the backdrop and incentive of opt-out opportunities for schools that wanted them, but time has moved on. The days of Conservative government are in the dim and distant past, which is a welcome fact to many.
The issue must be the modern representation of school boards. School boards could be modernised. They recognise the need for modernisation, adaptation and change. However, are we seriously saying that they are so fundamentally flawed that they must be abolished? No. The minister had thought that councils would favour the abolition of school boards, but many did not, to the extent that the Executive backtracked before it introduced the bill. The initial proposal was for very weak parent forums, whereas the Executive now says that it wants to have elected parent councils, which will be similar to the old school boards, and that it will not really change all the positions and differences in policies. Given that, why are we removing school boards and creating parent councils, which will be the start of rejecting the promotion of partnership with local authorities, outside interests and pupils? The minister seemed to be interested in my suggestion of the term "school council", but most schools have school councils for their pupils. Why do we not just call the proposed bodies school boards?
I am not interested in the name of the bodies—that is incidental and is up to the parent councils. I am surprised by Fiona Hyslop's position. I do not understand it. I hope that she will explain to members why, if she takes that view, she did not vote in committee against the bill and recommend rejecting it to the Parliament. As she well knows, the reality is that the bill will create a more flexible arrangement, which will enable parents to make decisions.
I abstained on the bill, because we are on a wing and a prayer as to whether it will improve the situation. Minor provisions in the bill might be of some advantage. The main reason for our position is that we should be debating important child protection legislation—the Bichard legislation—and the children's hearings system, which demands legislation. I am not saying that some improvement in and modernisation of school boards is not required.
I need to make progress because of the time limit.
The bill is not the key priority for education in Scotland. From talking to parents who are involved in school boards, I am concerned that a disincentive has been created. The good work that they have done has not been recognised. They will continue to serve on parent councils and parent forums, because they will do what is required and what is in their children's interests. However, they are concerned about the time and effort that will be required to change the system and to move the deckchairs around when the new process will not be much different.
I will move on to why other issues in education are more important. Yesterday's report from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education reflected on leadership, which is important. Leadership is key for well-performing and top-performing schools. Funnily enough, the one bit that has remained contentious in the bill after everything else has been changed and watered down is the appointment procedure for head teachers and senior staff. If leadership is so important—as flagged up in yesterday's report on why many of our schools are not performing as well as they could—why is it absent from the bill? The Executive started to consult after it introduced the bill. I would be up for the Executive saying, "This is what we're going to do; these are the proposals," and making that part and parcel of the bill. However, in paragraph 129 of its report, the Education Committee is right to say that we should not proceed to stage 2 until we know the firm proposals.
The relationship between head teachers and parent councils is key. What has been wrong with the appointment procedure until now if 15 per cent of head teachers are not performing? What can be done to rectify matters? We must engage with such questions and ensure that parents are actively involved. They should not have a token position.
Parents know that people must be professionalised. We cannot expect people to be nominated or approved for serious and responsible voluntary positions without training. Everybody recognises that training is needed. An effective school will work effectively when parents and the head teacher provide strong leadership.
Other issues include education, governance and representation. I asked the minister at the Education Committee why there must be a strategy for parental involvement in statute. The answer was that if such a strategy is not in statute, some local authorities will not implement it. If parental involvement is important, but local authorities do not have a strategy for it, we should ask why those local authorities are responsible for delivering education. The Parliament should return to that issue.
Is the proposed legislation worth the candle? Probably not. Will it be approved? Probably. Will it make a difference? We do not know.
I move amendment S2M-3895.1, to insert at end:
"but, in so doing, notes that parental involvement in the management of schools as institutions is not the same as parents' involvement in their own children's education which should be the focus of policy, and regrets that the Scottish Executive has failed to provide detail about its proposals for the role of parents in the appointment of headteachers and senior staff before introducing the Bill or the debate and vote on Stage 1 of the Bill, noting that this is now the most contentious part of the Bill since the Executive latterly introduced proposals for elected parent councils similar to elected school boards into the Bill."
Fiona Hyslop has made an excellent speech that included extremely valuable points. I came to the chamber armed with two speeches, one of which is six minutes long and one of which is four minutes long. In view of your request to make speeches short, Presiding Officer, I will use the shorter speech. In any case, a man of few words is unlikely to have to take any of them back.
In 2004, the Executive published a guide to the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988, which stated that boards are
"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 comment from the Executive only two years ago, why is there now such a push for their abolition?
School boards were established under the previous Conservative Government and have served parents well for approaching 18 years. Currently, 97 per cent of secondary schools and 88 per cent of primary schools have school boards. In East Renfrewshire, which is the local authority area with the highest attainment in Scotland, 100 per cent of schools have boards.
We believe that the key to success in schools is to have more decisions devolved to head teachers and the full involvement of parents. It is clear that parental support is an important factor in children's social and academic success. The Scottish School Board Association has acknowledged that some of the boards' functions would benefit from modernisation. Our view is that that does not require the abolition of school boards, which have important statutory powers that safeguard the educational interests of parents and children.
If the bill receives a parliamentary majority at stage 1, we will seek to improve it at a later stage. I give the minister notice that, in those circumstances, I propose to raise three important issues, the first of which relates to the composition of appointment panels for senior staff. We will seek to amend the bill so that procedures for parental representation in the appointment of head teachers and deputy heads are included in the legislation, with parent councils and local authorities being equally represented on those panels.
Secondly, we would like parent councils to be under a duty to co-opt a certain proportion of their members from the local community, including teachers, although parents should be in the majority.
Thirdly, I will seek to include in the bill a commitment that all members of a parent council will be obliged to undergo a disclosure check satisfactorily.
I remind ministers that the First Minister said at First Minister's question time on 7 September 2005 to my friend David McLetchie,
"Of course the new bodies might lose one or two powers"
and went on to claim:
"They will have different powers, but they will be better powers."—[Official Report, 7 September 2005; c 18944-45.]
Although the Executive's aim of encouraging more parents to become involved in their children's education and in the life of their school is wholly acceptable, the inference to be drawn from the provisions in the bill and those that will be made much later through associated regulations is that school boards' statutory powers to appoint head teachers will be diminished.
Will Lord James Douglas-Hamilton give way?
I will give way quickly and will try desperately hard not to overrun the four minutes.
The bill states that that will continue to be the case. The details are being consulted on and we will come back on that before stage 2, as Lord James Douglas-Hamilton is well aware.
This is a classic example of the Administration putting the cart before the horse. The consultation has not been completed. I have here the consultation document, which states that the responses will be made
"available to the public … by 30 March 2006".
We are a long way away from 30 March and the minister is asking us to sign a blank cheque for him by approving the bill. Frankly, we are not prepared to do that because the indication that the First Minister gave at question time on 7 September, in response to a question from David McLetchie, was that those statutory powers would, in all likelihood, be diminished. As far as we are concerned, a diminution of the statutory role of parents is a retrograde step. That is why we cannot and will not support the bill.
The bill intends to do exactly what it says in the title: to promote the involvement of parents in the education of their children. It replaces a system that was introduced by the Tory Government in the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988. Despite the way in which Lord James Douglas-Hamilton describes it, that piece of legislation was designed to assist and encourage schools to opt out of local council control. As far as I know, that policy is still championed by the Tory party, although one can never be sure with David Cameron. In that regard, the 1988 act was an unsuccessful piece of Tory legislation, as it did not have the desired effect.
Is the member not aware that two acts were passed, one on setting up boards and one on the ability of schools to opt out? The history of school boards in Scotland goes far further back than that. School boards existed before the second world war and used a single transferable vote system. Those schools did not seek to opt out.
I am talking about the intention behind the Conservative legislation that was introduced in 1988 and 1989, which, in Scotland, was unsuccessful at encouraging schools to opt out of local authority control. It was successful in another regard. Although many local authorities and head teachers were, initially, suspicious of the intentions of the legislation, over time, many school boards have been successful, working well with head teachers and making a valuable contribution to local authority education policies. Perhaps Brian Monteith should have listened to the rest of my speech before starting to shout.
The bill builds on the success of school boards but introduces a more flexible framework that will allow parents, if they wish, to continue with their current school board structure as their parent council or to change that structure if they feel that that is appropriate for their school. For example, in small rural schools—I have some in my constituency—the parent council and the parent forum may be the same thing.
I agree that parental involvement is not just about structures; I do not think that anybody in the Executive parties is arguing that. The fact that we have introduced the bill does not mean that we are not concerned about the children who do not achieve, the 20 per cent of children who could do better than they do or the specific problems of looked-after children. The number of ministerial statements that there have been on those issues surely illustrates the importance that ministers attach to them.
Parental involvement is very much about the culture of schools and local authorities, about making parents feel welcome and about encouraging them to be involved in their children's education. That is easier for some parents than it is for others. Many parents may have been alienated by their own experiences of school. They may feel intimidated or have preconceived views that are based on unhappy school days. They need to be involved too. Indeed, it is particularly important to involve those parents because their children need to fulfil their potential too. A more flexible approach to parental involvement will allow school communities to develop a structure that is appropriate to that school community, so that people feel ownership of it. The system is not centralised and, as the minister said, it is not ideologically driven and it is not a case of one size fits all.
At the moment, at any one time, only around 1 per cent of parents are involved in their school board and they tend to be middle-class parents. Scottish Consumer Council research of 2002 found that parents with degrees—
Will the member give way?
No, I am sorry, but the member's ex-colleague had rather a long intervention.
Parents with degrees were five times more likely to be school board members than those with no formal qualifications. It is just as important that parents who do not have degrees feel involved in their children's school.
The Education Committee noted a number of issues from its evidence sessions. As Fiona Hyslop mentioned, one of those was that school boards involve not just parents and head teachers; they also have representation from other members of staff and pupils, and local councillors are entitled to attend. We felt that it was important that wider representation should continue and that parent councils should draw members from staff, pupils—in particular—and the local community. I know that ministers are reluctant to include that provision in the bill because they feel that it could be restrictive, but we should consider ways to encourage wider representation and ministers have said that they are prepared to do so.
The bill introduces a power for parent councils to make representations to HMIE as long as they have already made such representations to the head teacher and the local authority and have received replies. In evidence, concerns were raised about that, because the provision was not in the original proposals. Some witnesses felt that there had been inadequate consultation, the Educational Institute of Scotland was concerned that HMIE might be used as an arbitration service, the Scottish Parent Teacher Council did not feel that there was any great demand from parents for the power and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities feared that the power might be used either frivolously or vexatiously.
The minister clarified in evidence that the proposed provision would be an extreme measure. I say again to ministers that there could be a case for parents having the power to go to HMIE about their local authority rather than the school. I am thinking particularly of all the work that we have done on additional support needs, because the provision of such needs is the responsibility of the education authority rather than the school. If parents are concerned about that, they should have the opportunity to go to HMIE.
I welcome ministers' assurances that they are willing to consider amendments that arise from the committee's report, but I finish by asking a question that other members have raised: will the results of the consultation on senior staff appointments and the Executive response to that be available to the committee in advance of stage 2 consideration?
I call Iain Smith, as the convener of the lead committee. In that capacity, he gets six minutes.
This is the first of three trial stage 1 debates in which the Presiding Officer has agreed that the convener or a representative of the lead committee will make an opening speech to outline the committee's recommendations in its stage 1 report. Therefore, I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Education Committee.
I thank the committee for the constructive way in which it conducted the stage 1 inquiry. I also thank the many witnesses who submitted valuable evidence, both written and oral, and the clerks for their assistance in preparing what I believe is an excellent stage 1 report.
Although the committee was divided on whether to support the general principles of the bill, there was unanimity on most of our recommendations. In particular, there was unanimity on the importance of parental involvement in children's education. It is widely recognised that children are likely to perform better at school when they have the active support of parents in their schooling, both individually and in supporting the work of the school.
It is also widely recognised that parents tend to be more directly involved in primary than secondary schools. Whether that is a factor in the problems of discipline and low attainment that we see in the early years of secondary school is a matter of conjecture.
The committee recognises that there is a difference between parental participation and representation. Much of the bill deals with the mechanics of representation. In itself, representation does nothing to ensure that parents will participate in the education of their children. In one of its key recommendations, the committee asks that the duty that the bill places on Scottish ministers and local education authorities be extended beyond ensuring representation to ensure increased parental participation in education.
The bill proposes a more flexible approach to parental representation than the present one-size-fits-all approach. School boards are the same whether they represent a small, single-teacher, rural primary school or a large secondary school with 2,000 pupils. The bill's two-tier approach, in which a parent forum consisting of all parents appoints a parent council, is intended to increase the number of parents who can be actively involved in developing a school's policies and development plans. Such an approach might address Fergus Ewing's point, because parents could be involved in developing policies on, for example, advanced highers in secondary schools.
Although evidence that we received expressed concern that such flexibility could lead to a lack of cohesion in the system and a diminution of the role of parents, the committee accepted that the proposals offered an acceptable degree of flexibility to enable parents in a diverse range of school circumstances throughout the country to devise arrangements for their parent council that best suited local needs.
It is also worth pointing out that, in its most recent newsletter, the SSBA, which understandably expressed concern about the proposed abolition of school boards, now accepts that the
"functions … of an effective School Board are about to be enhanced by the new Bill ".
The committee has major concerns about two areas. First, although it acknowledges that arrangements for councillors, teaching and other staff, pupils and representatives of the local community can best be set out in the parent council's constitution, the bill's present wording does not give sufficient weight to the importance of such representation. Education must be a partnership and the committee's view is that co-option of representatives should be the norm. We urge the minister to consider carefully this part of the committee's report ahead of stage 2.
Secondly, the crucial issue of the appointment of head teachers raised many concerns, particularly from the SSBA, which feared that the bill would diminish parents' role in such matters. The committee acknowledges that, given changes in educational practice and employment legislation since the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988 was passed, it is necessary to modernise appointment procedures. However, it would be fair to say that the committee was uneasy about suggestions from the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland and COSLA that head teachers be appointed to an education authority rather than to a specific school.
Indeed, concern has already been expressed about some education authorities' practice of seconding heads from one school to another, because it creates problems in ensuring continuity in a school and proper parental involvement in appointing head teachers. Indeed, I have recently written to Fife Council about the concerns of parents and the school board of Dairsie primary school in my constituency about how such secondments have affected the appointment of a head teacher to the school.
Although the committee was heartened by the minister's statement on the importance of parents' meaningful involvement in the appointments process, we regret that the consultation on this matter does not close until after the stage 1 debate. The committee asks the Executive to publish the results of the consultation and its proposed response before stage 2 to allow members to take them fully into account at that stage.
Before I close, I want to draw the Parliament's attention to several other issues. First, we must have proper guidance to ensure both that referral to HMIE is seen as a measure of last resort and that parent councils do not discuss matters relating to individual pupils or staff. Moreover, the Scottish Executive needs to facilitate and support the establishment of a national parents' body. Finally, we need to resolve questions about the insurance and charitable status of the new parent councils. That issue is causing concern, particularly with regard to the ability of those organisations to fundraise on behalf of their schools. I hope that the minister can address some of those issues before stage 2.
I commend the Executive for publishing the bill in draft form for consultation and for amending the draft in the light of the comments received in the consultation before introducing the bill. There is no doubt in my mind that, as a result of the consultation, this is a better bill that will lead to better legislation. That is why the Education Committee recommends to Parliament that the general principles of the Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Bill be approved.
The question at the heart of this debate—whether it is a good idea to involve parents in the running of schools and in the education of children—is an absolute no-brainer. Of course it is a good idea; the challenge is how we maximise that involvement. One particular element of this bill appeals to me. The changes that Iain Smith referred to, which were made as a result of the welcome process of consultation, mean that there will be flexibility to allow the nature of the parent council to vary from school to school, depending on the circumstances of those schools. Obviously, the capacity to make arrangements for a parent council will be different whether the school is an urban school with 500 pupils or a rural school with a roll of perhaps 20 children.
It is absolutely essential that, throughout the system, we do everything possible to maximise parents' involvement in the running of schools and in supporting education provision. I encourage the Executive not to attempt to create more cumbersome legislation that goes into excessive detail about the components of representation without thinking about policies through which we can encourage and maximise parents' participation in schools and in their management.
I reassure Mr Swinney that creating cumbersome legislation is exactly what we seek not to do. We are trying to move away from a system that prescribes all such matters to a parent-led system—that is the objective of the exercise and I am glad that Mr Swinney supports it.
I hope that that is how the bill ends up. I will reserve my position until I see what it looks like before I vote for it finally. It is important that we maximise participation, because that is the most important characteristic of what the bill can create.
The exchange between Elaine Murray and Brian Monteith about school boards and their purpose felt like a blast from the 1990s. We need to move on from that debate, because whatever the history of school boards, they have acquired a beneficial role in the management of schools in Scotland and in encouraging participation by parents in the running of schools. The Government should avoid doing anything that puts off parents and should take steps to encourage and maximise parental involvement. In the light-touch regulation to which the minister alluded in his intervention, the Government should specify clearly what responsibilities will be applied to the parent councils. If the Government does not take seriously and accept the Education Committee's arguments about ensuring that parent councils have a statutory right to have a major say in the appointment of head teachers, the bill will diminish the level of participation by parents, which would be regrettable.
I hope that the Government errs on the side of maximising the opportunity for participation, while minimising regulation and bureaucracy. The bill should give a steer from Parliament to parents throughout the country—whether in small, rural primary schools or larger schools in cities—that parental involvement in the management and development of schools is of inestimable value in boosting the educational opportunities of all our children.
I come at the issue from a slightly different angle. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child gives children and young people the right to be involved in decisions that affect their lives, a principle that is supported in the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000, which states that education authorities must give due regard to the views of children and young people. However, that does not seem to be reflected in the bill, which is far too flexible and general.
Paragraph 13 of the Education Committee's report states:
"The Committee acknowledges that under the Bill, arrangements for councillors, pupils and other representatives of the local community to become members of parent councils can be set out in the constitution of the parent council."
How generous. The report continues:
"However, the Committee calls on the Minister to consider whether or not such arrangements should be set out on the face of the Bill."
I argue strongly that they should be set out in the bill.
We already learn so much from consultation of children throughout Scotland. Highland Council has produced a consultation entitled "What difference would there be if children's experience framed policy?" It was a consultation for children with special needs, which produced good ideas from the young people who were involved. Highland Council is also consulting children on the design of a new school building at Acharacle. It would be bizarre if we allowed school councils and parent forums to be relaxed about whether they involve children and to decide how much representation they should have. Despite what John Swinney said, I argue strongly that there should be more detail on that matter and that it should be incorporated in the bill.
Does Robin Harper accept that the basic principle underlying the bill is the principle that underlies the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, which is the need to involve children? That principle should be mainstream in everything that we do.
I am simply voicing my concern that the involvement of children is not as high up the scale as I would like it to be. I echo what Fiona Hyslop said about children who are cared for. The very title—a parent forum—is not one that they favour. Why not just call it a school forum?
I forgot to mention that I am still a member of the Educational Institute of Scotland, although I venture to disagree with my union.
In paragraph 14 of its report, the Education Committee recommends that
"attendance at a parent council meeting should be both a ‘right and duty' of headteachers".
I agree. I support paragraph 16, which says that
"it would be inappropriate for parent councils to discuss matters relating to individual pupils or staff".
However, I do not agree that guidance should be issued on that. It is an important issue, which should be incorporated in the bill.
I agree with Fiona Hyslop that the bill is not the most important piece of educational legislation that has come before the Parliament. Much of it needs to be tightened up and, if it is to proceed to stages 2 and 3, we need to do a lot of work on it. We need to have detail on the involvement of children in the parent forums and the school councils—or, to use the term that I would prefer, the school forums and the school councils.
I rise with a degree of nervousness about parental involvement in schools. My experience of parental involvement was a visit to the school by my father to have a discreet chat with the head teacher about my conduct.
We are almost 20 years on from the 1988 legislation. Brian Monteith gamely indicated the broad intentions of not just the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988 but other legislation in the 1980s for which the Conservative Government was responsible. Mr Monteith waxed lyrical about the old school boards. It is true that in the pre-war period in Scotland, particularly in Glasgow, the school boards were the crucible of political and educational debate, largely because people wanted to ensure that Tories were removed from the school boards so that working-class children could gain access to mass education and the Irish in Glasgow could legitimately expect to be educated. In that period, those were the critical issues that people had to address through school boards.
School boards have an interesting history. I hear Brian Monteith saying that there were no Tory Governments in the 1920s and 1930s. That is an interesting contribution.
Will the member take an intervention?
Not at the moment.
In the debate at a local level, the intervention by what were then called progressive unionists would indicate a significant Tory influence in education policy throughout Scotland.
The Education Committee's considerations have been identified by the convener and committee members already, so I do not want to dwell on them too much other than to say that we must ensure that the legislation has the flexibility to reflect emerging circumstances in parents' participation. Expectations differ as each generation moves on and the legislation must be flexible enough to reflect that.
There are positive experiences of school boards throughout Scotland, one of which is their role in ensuring that parents have greater involvement. However, their exclusive nature often puts parents off becoming involved. I hope that, as the bill progresses, we will have legislation that ensures that people have a greater and more effective role in their schools and in their children's experience of school.
I take on board what Robin Harper said about ensuring that involvement—or what I call the ecology of education—is properly addressed. Children's participation should not be excluded; neither should the involvement of parents, staff and head teachers in leadership, nor the significant role that local authorities can play. For example, due to changes in the direction and leadership of East Renfrewshire Council and many of its schools, those serving the more disadvantaged communities in the area have seen remarkable improvements in the quality of education provided. However, as a Glaswegian, I cannot deal too much with East Renfrewshire's successes.
We must address the ecology of education to define the role of parents, pupils, teachers, head teachers, the wider school staff and local authorities. If the bill ensures that those partners can facilitate each other's work and work much more effectively, progress will have been made on the ambition of 1988. That will serve forthcoming generations well.
I welcome the bill and hope that it will progress speedily through all stages.
When I was a councillor, there were eight school boards in my ward, one of which was a high school board. I must point out to Robin Harper that there was willing pupil involvement on that board. The primary school boards all followed the same model of legislation that we introduced, but they were all different. The idea of a Stalinist approach under Conservative leadership is nonsense. Each school did things in its own way but to the same set of understood rules and opportunities.
I can only sing the praises of the teamwork on those school boards. I saw that in action many times when I attended meetings. Despite what Elaine Murray suggests, those boards contained a wide range of parents from different backgrounds—they were not middle class; they were anything that they wanted to be.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I will not.
The one thing that they had in common was that they were parents who were interested in the welfare of all the children in the school. To talk down school boards is an insult to the wonderful work of head teachers and boards across Scotland in the past few years.
That said, I am not convinced about the Executive's independent research. I was staggered to hear the minister introduce a bill while admitting that consultations on it have not yet finished. That is an insult to the chamber. The purpose of presenting legislation at this stage is for the Executive to put its final recommendations to Parliament for scrutiny.
We would have been at stage 3 but for the fact that the Education Committee had to stop the bill's progress to take on an emergency bill on joint inspections, so the situation is actually even worse.
I thank the member for that support.
Councils are opposed to what is being proposed. The former deputy secretary of the Educational Institute of Scotland claimed that what is being proposed is no different from a parent-teacher association. The Headteachers Association of Scotland, which represents the people with the ultimate professional responsibility in a school, does not support the Executive's proposals. As James Douglas-Hamilton pointed out, the First Minister claimed at First Minister's questions that there would be fewer but better powers. Which powers have been removed and in what way are the new powers better? We have not heard about that from the minister.
It sounds more like political spite. We are changing things for the sake of it and are throwing the baby out with the bath water. It is utter nonsense to suggest that the bill will make much difference or do anything except alienate parents and write off their work over the years.
Questions exist about resources for the proposed parent councils and about their composition. There is a larger question about the powers of parent councils. The bill will remove some legal rights from parents. In the past few years, whenever a school closure was threatened, the best vehicle that parents used—particularly in Moray, Aberdeenshire and the Borders—was the school board. School boards have led to the saving or rethinking about closure of many schools in Scotland. That is proof enough that they work.
As PTAs have existed alongside school boards, I am unsure of the proposals' intentions for them. What we will see is more powers going to local authorities. Teachers can be shared or reallocated to another school against the interests of an already established school team. That is not in the children's educational interests.
As I have said before, this bill is ill prepared. Much that could have been done has been ignored. Why not simply modernise the existing school board system and bring it up to date? Why not work with boards and parents so that they can build on work that has already been done? The minister said, and we would all agree, that parental involvement is paramount. I wish his actions matched his words.
One area of consensus exists in the chamber: we would all like key stakeholders to be more involved in children's education and in schools. School boards and parent-teacher associations have been doing a good job, and examples of good practice can be found right across the country. However, some marginalised groups are not involved.
I welcome a greater involvement for stakeholders, but I have various concerns. For a start, I am concerned about the use of the term "Parental Involvement" in the name of the bill. A whole group of children will be left out unless we dramatically change the bill.
My vision is of integrated community schools—schools in which the community participates. By community, I mean the parents, the grandparents, the extended families and community activists. All those people should be involved in the school and the education of our children and young people. However, at the moment we have this bill, so we have to consider how we can improve it at stage 2. When we do that, I hope that we can consider the groups who are missing—the groups who may not be included no matter what we do.
Some groups will remain marginalised; 20 per cent of young people are failing daily in our schools. They may come from families that, for whatever reason, do not have the ability, the time or the motivation to become involved. It is all very well for us to say that we want to increase participation in our schools, but if we are not improving the lot of that 20 per cent of children, we are putting the chicken before the egg.
We should be debating how to include all those young people in our schools; we should be considering lowering class sizes; and we should be considering extending community schools properly—an idea that seems to have been left hanging in the balance. I do not think that community schools are working terribly well but the idea is a good one. We have a long way to go, and we should ensure that everyone is included. That will mean more youth workers and social workers, and more integration of nurses, health visitors and so on within our schools.
The bill misses the opportunity to give parents a say in the kind of things that they want to see in schools. From my case load, I can tell members that parents are much more interested in how to attain access to an assessment or an identification of difficulty than they are in running some kind of fundraiser in the school, and they are much more interested in finding out how to help their child with maths homework than they are in trying to get into the school as a parent helper. Yes, we want parents in schools as parent helpers, but we need to concentrate on the areas that are of greater concern to parents.
Robin Harper spoke about involving children and young people. That is a crucial point and children in Scotland make it very well. They also ask us to consider the use of the words "parental" and "involvement", which I mentioned earlier. I hope that the minister will consider the point and give us some answers today.
I would like the minister to consider extending parental involvement into early years education. That is when parents are willing to become involved and often when they have the time. We should integrate them in the early years. Good practice exists—the Education Committee visited some areas where such integration can be seen. If we could extend that and build on it, we would be doing a much better job.
I will finish with another point about trying to involve everybody. The Commission for Racial Equality makes a number of good points, expressing the concern that, without targeted effort, only those parents who are already vocal in their children's education will be represented. The CRE's concerns relate mainly to ethnic minority parents, whom the CRE considers will continue to feel that they have no voice, but I would add that there are other hard-to-reach groups in our deprived areas. I hope that the bill can include such people.
I support the idea behind the bill at this stage. With the indulgence of members, I will explain why I would like to see what the bill can do, which must be examined at stage 2 and stage 3. I have given the minister due notice of what I am about to say and Mary Scanlon will understand where I am coming from.
We are talking about parental involvement, so I will give an example of that in my constituency. As we speak, groups of parents are trying to safeguard a number of nursery units in the county of Caithness. At Keiss, Thrumster and Dunnet, there are working nursery units attached to primary schools. As Robin Harper mentioned, the Highland Council is considering downgrading—and perhaps even closing—those units, which would mean that the small children who would naturally attend them would be provided with nursery education in another nursery school further away. That strikes me as being insane. What is the point of taking a child from a village such as Thrumster to a nursery school in Wick for only one or two years when they will have to go back to Thrumster to go to primary school? That will dislocate the child from their siblings and lead to transport difficulties for the parents. In my view, such practice is deeply unsettling for small children of nursery age.
Parents in my constituency are deeply worried and are trying to safeguard the units in question. I am talking not about the principles behind the bill but about what is happening on the ground. It may be too late to save the nursery schools that I have mentioned, but the litmus test is whether the bill will give parents and communities the power to prevent such decisions from being made.
It is opportune that I am making a speech this afternoon because I heard not long ago from Linda Malik, a constituent of mine who has children at Thrumster nursery, that it appears that the Highland Council is going to say on Monday that, as part of its examination of the problem, it will extend its consideration to as many as 10 nursery units in the county of Caithness. That will mean that the bad news will be spread even further afield.
Surely that flies in the face of something that not just the coalition parties but the entire Parliament has been proud of since its inception, which is the increase in nursery provision and the fact that every child, regardless of where they live, should have the opportunity to receive such education. It is surely wrong for a child and their family to be disadvantaged because of geography. That flies in the face of some of the Parliament's greatest efforts.
Will the member give way?
No—I am in my final minute.
The bill should proceed but, for me, the acid test is whether parents will really be involved in decisions about their children's education. Will they be hurt by the powers in the land or will their needs be assessed and taken heed of? If the legislation does not achieve that, it will not be worth it.
It is too bad that something that we are trying to achieve in the Parliament for our young people may be being stymied. I have it on record from the chair of education on the Highland Council that its considerations are not being "driven by budgets". If that is the case, what are they being driven by? I do not have the answers yet. I hope that members will forgive me for raising the matter, but in my constituency it means a huge amount.
The bill will be of enormous interest to me. When members of the Education Committee such as my colleague Iain Smith consider it, refine it and make it more specific, I make a plea to them to remember what it is about delivering. I believe that it is about delivering a genuine voice for parents on their children's needs.
I can give Christine Grahame three minutes.
I have been truncated again.
The bill is well meaning, although I think that it is misnamed. I agree with the points that Robin Harper and Rosemary Byrne made. Given that we know that many children's family structures do not involve parents, "Parental Involvement" smacks of another century. Unfortunately, we cannot change a bill's title.
The minister says that the aim of the bill is to provide a stronger voice for parents, but I wonder whether it will. Perhaps the bill is just an exercise in rebranding. I never thought that I would defend a Conservative policy, but mercifully—thanks to Scottish parents—school boards were allowed to evolve. I was a member of the first school board at Portobello high school, which adapted to what the school required. School boards throughout Scotland have adapted to suit the culture of their schools and to reflect the different cultures in primary and secondary education.
I do not know where we are going with the bill. I do not think that by legislating we will ensure that more of those parents who do not take part in the education process, even when it affects their own children, will become involved in it. I speak as someone who taught for 12 years. I assure the minister that I could guarantee that the very parents whom I wanted to see on parents night were the ones who did not turn up. I knew which parents would come; they always did and we could have a love-in about their child. For a variety of reasons, the parents of children from disadvantaged backgrounds did not come. Building other structures will not change that, whether parents are from an ethnic minority, have a deprived background or are a single parent who cannot get out at night to go to the supermarket never mind attend any kind of meeting because they have young children to look after. The bill will not change those things.
An issue that was reflected in evidence to the committee is the different cultures that prevail in primary and secondary schools. The parents of primary school children are invariably involved in all aspects of school life. They become involved in the PTA, help to raise funds and act on the school board. However, the culture in secondary schools is very different. That issue has to be addressed.
My final point is on the selection process for senior staff. I have an idea to float—I realise that I should have done so more timeously and I point out that I am speaking personally. I am concerned about the fact that the casting vote for the appointment of a head teacher or a deputy head may not lie with a professional. There should be parental and local authority involvement in the process but, if I were being judged for the position of head teacher or deputy head of a school, I would want to be judged not by my peers but by those who have superior expertise and experience and who know the requirements of the post. I would not want to be put in the position of choosing my general practitioner, for example. A candidate may have a good bedside manner but be useless medically. The selection process is an issue; I hope that it will be addressed before the bill progresses any further. I understand why my colleagues have said that they will abstain in the vote on the motion and why Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has said that he will vote against it.
I welcome the bill. It provides an impetus to further the good practice that is happening already in many of our schools. The Executive's commitment to driving up standards in our schools has been demonstrated not only through legislation but through its investment and faith in the teaching profession and the school-building programme. Achievement and attainment levels—and, indeed, international comparisons—reveal how well our young people are served in most of our schools.
However, as the minister flagged up, there are many schools that, in the words of the traditional school report, "could do better". As the minister identified in his opening remarks, improving parental involvement is the key to making further gains. Schools need to reach out beyond the school gates to ensure that a child's home life and learning at home supplement and complement what happens in the classroom.
I was interested to hear Fiona Hyslop's remarks on the role that school boards play and the proposed new structure of parental representation. It is important for us to put in place structures that include and do not exclude parents. However, as Elaine Murray pointed out, the bill is about far more than structures. It places a duty on authorities to draw up a strategy to promote parental involvement.
I agree that many school boards have worked well. I take the opportunity to thank Lord James Douglas-Hamilton for two aspects of his speech. First, his remarks were brief and, secondly, he praised East Renfrewshire's schools for having the highest attainment and achievement levels in Scotland. However, as Frank McAveety said, that has as much to do with well-run school boards as it does with the political leadership of the Labour and Liberal-led council.
Does the member agree that East Renfrewshire is not a good example to use? East Renfrewshire lacks the deprivation of areas such as North Ayrshire, for example. The comparison is not a fair one.
It is very easy to stereotype East Renfrewshire as being just a leafy suburb. That is to be blind to the fact that although East Renfrewshire has areas of quite severe deprivation, the schools in those areas are high achieving. That is the real success of East Renfrewshire.
Not only have school boards not extended to all schools in Scotland, but it is accepted that the rigidities of the school board system have alienated many families. It is worth commenting that the Executive addressed the strong concerns that the Scottish School Board Association and some existing boards expressed by making substantial amendments from the draft bill. That approach is to be commended and I am sure that that attitude will continue to influence decisions on some of the issues that are still to be addressed as we move to stage 2.
I will not comment on all the issues that we still need to address, as Iain Smith and others have highlighted some of them. We have welcomed the power for parents to invite the involvement of HMIE, but there are still issues to be clarified on that, as we would not wish to confuse the roles of HMIE and the existing complaints mechanisms. As the minister has accepted, there is also a need for further guidance on the issues that parent councils can discuss to ensure that they do not stray into matters that are too personal. During the stage 1 inquiry, the minister confirmed his support for a national parents body, and the committee looks forward to seeing what shape that body will assume. Several members have talked about the need to have further information back from the consultation before we agree to the system for appointing head teachers.
In some ways, the biggest challenge will be challenging and changing attitudes, including—as Robin Harper highlighted—the attitude of young people. One of the witnesses to the committee pointed out that parents are rarely out of the nursery schools, are often in the primary schools but very rarely go into the secondary schools. Often, that is to do with the attitude of young people rather than the teaching profession. Often, the only time that parents turn up at the school is to hear about discipline problems, as in Frank McAveety's case—in my case, it was when the embarrassing dad turned up at the school disco.
The bill is not about structures; it is about strategies to tackle the disadvantaged children to whom we need to reach out. I am not surprised that the Scottish National Party has taken a decisive and principled decision on the bill—it has decided to abstain—but I am surprised by the Tories' decision to vote against it. What happened to the Conservatives' support for parental choice? The bill, more than any other measure in recent years, empowers parents to take an active role in their children's education. It not only encourages parents; it gives them legislative authority.
I commend the bill to the Parliament.
I will start with a quotation:
"When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change."
Those are the words of Lucius Cary, Viscount Falkland, which were first voiced in 1641 and echoed more than 300 years later by President John F Kennedy. They are wise words that should be borne in mind at all times by those who contemplate the passage of legislation in our overgoverned and overregulated world. The same sentiment is often less elegantly expressed as, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The bill is a prime example of the failure to observe both dicta.
We have a meddlesome Scottish Executive in a Parliament that is temperamentally inclined to be meddlesome—with the honourable exception of its Conservative members. That constant meddling is, in part, a reflection of the size, scale and reach of government in Scotland today. "Leave well alone," are three words that a Scottish Executive minister rarely voices.
Is it not also a symptom of the fact that the Parliament does not have the strong powers that SNP members believe are appropriate to allow us to take some of the larger decisions that might change people's lives?
As a first step, we should make a much better job of using the powers that the Parliament has. We could change the Scottish Executive to very good effect in that respect.
There is meddling, and there is meddling with malice. The bill is about meddling with malice because it is designed to tear down a structure for the representation and involvement of parents in the governance of our schools that was one of the most successful reforms introduced by the Conservative Government in 1988, as a number of speakers from all parties have been gracious enough to acknowledge in the debate.
The Scottish Executive likes to make great play of its many consultation exercises, but it is not so enthusiastic about listening to what is said when it does not suit its political agenda. Of the initial 1,025 responses to the Executive's consultation on the bill, the overwhelming majority were in favour of the retention of school boards, saying that there was no need to change the present system substantially.
Councils throughout Scotland expressed such sentiments. Glasgow City Council said that the bill would not strengthen current parental interest or representation in schools. Scottish Borders Council said that the proposals were likely to result in chaos and to prove a logistical nightmare. The City of Edinburgh Council said that the Executive's proposals were vague and unnecessary. East Renfrewshire Council emphasised the important role of school boards in dealing with sensitive and difficult issues. I can certainly speak from my experience in my own constituency of the responsible and mature leadership that has been given by school boards on difficult issues in relation to staff, performance standards and proposals for school mergers.
As Fiona Hyslop said, there are many challenges facing Scottish education today. She was right to question the priorities of the Executive. The report that was published this week by Graham Donaldson, the senior chief inspector of education, found that pupils at one in four primary schools struggled to read and write and that expected levels of attainment in maths were poor at one in five primaries. He also made the obvious, but often overlooked, point that it is unacceptable for any youngster to go through 11 years of compulsory education and come out at the end of the process without an adequate level of literacy or numeracy.
Last week, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood said that comprehensive education funding in Scotland should be taken out of local authority hands and distributed through a new independent body to ensure that more money gets to the classroom, rather than being wasted and lost in the bureaucracies of 32 different local authorities. That proposal bears an uncanny resemblance to what we have been advocating in the Parliament for years: more directly funded, independently governed, non-fee-paying schools. We welcome Lord Sutherland's contribution to the debate. As with personal care for the elderly, we hope that his eminent advocacy will help to build support for our proposals among other political parties.
The continuing decline in the school population provides us with an unprecedented opportunity to promote an agenda based on choice and diversity in Scotland's schools. However, the Scottish Executive has obdurately set its face against anything but the most token reform of a system that has failed far too many of our children and young people. Instead, councils such as Edinburgh are forcing through school mergers against the wishes of parents, even when there is over 80 per cent occupancy and, for the second year in a row, are imposing limitations on primary 1 intakes, which is unashamedly designed to eliminate choice and to exclude children who live outwith a catchment area, even where there is ample room in the school to accommodate them.
I am in no doubt that the Scottish Executive's proposals in relation to school boards are designed to weaken parental resistance to school closures, mergers and limitations on intake, to deprive parents of choice and to curtail their involvement in the running of our schools—crucially, in important areas such as the appointment of head teachers.
The bill will do nothing to improve standards in Scotland's schools. It demonstrates—if further demonstration were required—the perverse priorities and appalling complacency of the Executive when it comes to the education of our children and young people. I invite members to reject the bill.
As the SNP amendment suggests, we, like other members, are unconvinced of the benefits to be gained from the bill. Our primary concern, as Fiona Hyslop and other members have said, is that the proposed changes to parental involvement in the management of schools will do little to encourage more significant levels of participation by parents in the Scottish education system.
In his speech, the minister outlined three aspects of the bill: encouraging greater parental participation in children's learning, involving the wider community, and parental representation. However, the bill contains precious little on the first two of those aspects. It seems to be all about the replacement of school boards and no more than that. By participation, we mean building a partnership between parents and teachers and ensuring that the support for learning that is provided for our children is the best that it can be to let them reach their full potential.
As the Headteachers Association of Scotland pointed out in its evidence to the Education Committee, the changes that are proposed in the bill will in themselves do little or nothing to bring about the desired participation of the section of the parent body who have been disengaged or disaffected or have felt disfranchised under the current scheme.
Children in Scotland suggests in its excellent briefing for the debate that the form of parental involvement that we seek requires a culture change and that parents are more likely to remain involved in a child's school life if they are encouraged to do so at an early stage in their child's education.
On an Education Committee visit to Sweden last October, my colleague Frank McAveety and I were extremely impressed by how close the relationship was between parents and early years staff, both in monitoring the child's progress and meeting their development needs. Often it is easier for parents to become involved in their child's education during the early years, so it is mystifying that early years provision—along with a number of other matters—does not get so much as a mention in the bill. If Jamie Stone were still here, I would say to him that education authorities, too, get very little mention.
I have spoken about the bill to several head teachers, none of whom suggested that it would make any difference to the management of their school. In so far as the head teacher and staff of a school already have a responsibility to ascertain parental views and perceptions on a range of matters as part of their professional obligation to engage in self-evaluation and the preparation of improvement plans, it might be argued that the bill includes unnecessary duplication of effort and bureaucracy. I do not necessarily agree with that viewpoint, but I agree with Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and others that important decisions such as the appointment of head teachers and deputy head teachers should have strong input from parents. It is unsatisfactory that the Executive's intentions on that matter are not available for us today.
Iain Smith made good points in the debate regarding the committee's concerns about the bill. Those concerns are detailed in the committee's stage 1 report, but the minister singularly failed to address that report in his opening speech; I would be grateful if he would do so in summing up. Issues such as charitable status for parent councils, the transfer of head teachers between schools and the co-option of community representatives and other teaching staff on to parent forums and councils merit his response.
The minister announced to Parliament—rather airily, I thought—that this is the type of bill that sets out the policy bones; he told us to expect the meat in the guidance. That is not good enough and I join Lord James Douglas-Hamilton in his cautioning against the signing of blank cheques to the Executive. I encourage Lord James and others to support the SNP amendment.
This has been a worthwhile debate, although it has been more marred than I anticipated at the beginning by rather obvious political point scoring. I refer particularly to the front benchers. There was the unwelcome return of the abusive alliterations from David McLetchie, among others, and the number of red herrings regarding fears about school closures as a consequence of the bill defied description.
The reality is that this is a framework bill, which is designed deliberately to be flexible and to leave it to local parent groups to lead the way. There has been a perverse failure on the part of some Opposition members to read the bill and understand the terms of the debate.
I suppose that, inevitably, the world divides into the optimists and the pessimists—and we cannot forget about the girners—in relation to the extent to which parents can be more involved in the education of children and in the general life of the school. I am in the optimistic but realistic camp.
Will the member give way?
No, sorry. I was very easy about taking interventions in my opening speech, but I want to make some progress in closing.
In my opening speech, I highlighted the critical role that parents play in their child's learning. That is absolutely central. There is a close link between a child's underattainment and disaffection and the alienation and lack of involvement of the parents. Central to the bill is the desire to move forward on that agenda. I believe strongly that the bill is potentially a dynamic and empowering bill that provides a framework and a number of drivers for much greater parental engagement, which I had thought was the intention of the whole Parliament.
I want to deal with some of the issues that were raised by members, but also to focus on the opportunities that are open to schools and local authorities to engage effectively and innovatively with parents as a whole and with hard-to-reach parents in particular—Rosemary Byrne's point is important in that regard.
During the debate, there was a suggestion that there is a divergence between supporting individual parents' engagement and supporting stronger representational structures. However, there is not. A strong parent council is well placed, in partnership with the school, to lead and support or nurture good home-school links. Conversely, involved, engaged and knowledgeable parents are better empowered to value and engage in the representational role. It is, indeed, a virtuous circle. Schools and authorities need to be able to engage with parents individually and strategically. That is what the bill is about. For example, there might be a need for a concerted effort by the school, the parents, the local community and wider council services if the school is to engage with all families. We believe that the new duty on education authorities to develop a strategy for parental involvement in its widest sense will indeed act as a driver for involving parents in supporting the attainment and life chances of their children and, in doing so, supporting a culture of aspiration and achievement in the school more generally. That is the broader vision, in part.
Since December, 29 parent partnership projects, supported by £103,000 of Scottish Executive money, have been running. Those projects include: strategies for engaging parents in homework; a project involving parents-and-children outdoor activities in the garden and play area of the school; a council-wide strategy for improved parent consultation; parent-friendly materials; and a parent conference. The University of Aberdeen is producing for us a CD-ROM with 54 case studies on it, which will be published in April along with a revamp of parentzone. Examples of good practice on that will include: a bacon roll enrolment breakfast in an Edinburgh school at the point of transition from nursery to primary 1; living room consultations at a Glasgow school with school board members, which involve inviting half a dozen parents into a home to discuss aspects of the school; a parent-led library in Paisley; and a reading bus project in Aberdeen.
How on earth did all those things happen without the legislation that we are discussing? Why does the minister need statutory powers to ensure parental involvement if all those great things—which I applaud—can happen without the bill?
As Fiona Hyslop is well aware, those things happen in bits and in patches across the country, where there is appropriate stimulation. The bill will put in place a general framework that will empower local authorities and parents to lead on those matters and ensure that such examples are replicated with suitable adjustments to local circumstances across Scotland.
The issue of the hard-to-reach groups is important. We know that, while all parents need information and support, some of them need more than others if they are to play the appropriate role in supporting their child's learning. There is a lot of good practice. We want to build on the strong links between schools, parents and the school boards, but schools have to consider how they work with parents who, for a variety of reasons, are not usually involved with the school. That is why there is specific emphasis in the bill on the needs of looked-after children, which is an important matter. In that regard, I make the point that, last year, the Executive provided local authorities with £35 million for extra support staff in the school. Among other things, that money has been used to fund more home-school link workers and to work on better behaviour and better learning through the inclusion programmes. Those are important, crucial and vital aspects of what we are trying to do. They give meat to the bill.
Many members have made the point that the school board structure was established against a different background, within a tightly prescribed regime that was laid down from above. There has been no appetite for that in Scotland and it is appropriate that we move forward to a more flexible, modern and dynamic structure that is built from the bottom up and reflects what local parents and local schools across Scotland find fits their particular and varied circumstances.
Against that background, the Conservatives' opposition is predictable, although I sense that they are largely going through the motions. I do not know whether that is because another Tory script has been torn up by David Cameron in his desire to appear as a liberal, but various Tories sounded as if that is indeed the case.
The SNP's position is more puzzling. It castigated the Forsyth legislation, but—[Interruption.]
Order.
I have some difficulty in identifying the rationale behind Fiona Hyslop's amendment, which seems to rank pretty highly on the long list of pettifogging and irrelevant amendments that have been lodged in the Parliament. It makes two points, the first of which is the difference between a parent's involvement with their own child and parents' representational structures. I have already dealt with that. In any event, it is patently obvious from the terms of the bill.
The second point concerns the appointment of head teachers and senior staff, about which there are indeed concerns. Let me be absolutely clear. As part of the broad consultation on the bill, we consulted on the overarching principles of replacing and modernising the appointments process for senior staff and retaining parental involvement in that process. If members do not believe me, I advise them to read section 14 of the bill. Respondents to the consultation voted by four to one in favour of our proposals and the bill was introduced on that basis in September 2005. We then undertook further consultation on the detail of the new process, including an extended role for parents. From the beginning, our intention was that the Executive would be in a position to consider and report on the results of the further consultation on appointments before the bill reached stage 2. We recognise the Education Committee's request that the Executive's response be published before the start of stage 2 and we are discussing the timings with the parliamentary authorities in order to achieve that.
The Conservatives made a number of points about powers. The Scottish Executive has produced a document that details—in a simple way that even those on the Conservative benches can read and understand—where changes have been made to the powers. There are some minor discontinuations of powers—[Interruption.]
Order. There is too much noise.
However, the powers of school councils will be increased and extended. It is not a question of our taking powers away from school boards—quite the contrary.
Contributions to the debate from members on the back benches were largely constructive and in the time that remains I will comment on some of the points that they made. We will revert to the Education Committee on the important points that Iain Smith made, on behalf of the committee, on guidance. The committee's well-crafted report also contains the points that he made in his speech.
Robin Harper mentioned the importance of community involvement, teacher involvement and pupil involvement, all of which are central to what we want to do. The question is not whether we do them but whether they are parent led, whether they are in the bill or in guidance and what their format is. There is no doubt about the principle that such involvement should take place and I would make a similar point with regard to the HMIE matter.
There was slight disagreement about prescription. In a good speech, John Swinney said that we must caution against overregulation. That is very much the view of the Executive, but unfortunately it was not upheld by colleagues in other Opposition parties. Elaine Murray rightly talked about the need for parents to be in ownership—I think that that is the word she used—of the arrangements. Frank McAveety talked about the need for the legislation to be flexible. Parents will not be alienated. The bill is about involving parents, widening the net and getting more people involved. The structures in the bill provide for that, as Ken Macintosh rightly said.
The debate has been largely constructive. I welcome the fact that members of the committee made clear their support for the principles of the bill. Of course, more detailed scrutiny of the bill will take place at stage 2 and we are willing to consider constructive amendments to its detail.
We believe that the bill's inclusive approach will make a difference for those parents who found earlier systems obtuse or difficult to engage with. We believe that, by taking parents and their needs and interests seriously and by encouraging authorities, parents and schools to work together, we will benefit all Scotland's children. The ultimate prize—not today, tomorrow or even next year, but in the long term—will be improved educational outcomes for all our children. I hope that members support that and I ask the Parliament to support the Executive's motion.