Devolved School Management Review

Transcription

1 Devolved School Management Review David Cameron ABSTRACT This report sets out proposals for changes to devolved school management procedures in Scotland s schools. 1

2 Introduction Background The devolved school management (DSM) scheme was introduced in 1993 in order to give schools and communities more flexibility in expenditure, based on local needs and priorities. The scheme required authorities to devolve 80%, of budgets to schools, to give headteachers more autonomy over finances and decision-making. The Scottish Government issued statutory guidance, and each authority established its own DSM scheme based on this. Following devolution, authorities were encouraged to increase the amount devolved towards 90% and revised guidelines were issued in 2006 to enable this. The overriding principle of the guidance was that everything which could be meaningfully devolved should be, excluding certain areas of expenditure not considered suitable for devolution. In the main this is funding attracted by individual pupils (e.g. for school meals, milk etc.) and expenditure that is centrally funded (e.g. capital expenditure including all PPP costs) for which a headteacher would have no overall control. Previous statistical returns showed that implementation of DSM varied across Scotland, but the national average in 2007 was 90%. The guidance has not been revisited since 2006, and in the context of substantial policy developments, including A Curriculum for Excellence, stakeholders have expressed the view that it is no longer fit for purpose. In December 2010 the Scottish Government commissioned David Cameron to undertake an initial review of devolved school management in Scotland, and identify where possible improvements could be made. This report is the result of that review. The report sets out a series of recommendations for a substantial review of DSM guidance, and the key principles on which this review should be based. There is clearly further detailed work to be done on specific issues and individual situations as part of the guidance review. Any changes to DSM in Scotland will have to take into account current and recent policy developments as well as relevant legislation, particularly the Standards in Scotland s Schools Act More detail on the context and background can be found in the supporting information later in this report. Rationale for the Review There were a number of compelling reasons for commissioning and conducting this review. Devolved school management has operated in Scotland for a number of years. All partners in education have generally welcomed this, but there has been variety in practice. Headteachers organisations have argued strongly that the level of variation is too great. Whether that contention is accepted or not, there is a strong case for review. Good practice has been developed in Local Authorities and there is a strong base on which to build greater consistency. 2

3 Curriculum for Excellence is now well advanced in its implementation. There are many strands within it, but one of the strongest is the commitment to allowing schools, and teachers, greater control over the provision that they make for their students and how they deliver that provision. Schools cannot do this unless they have the capacity to make the relevant decisions. This clearly has implications for devolved school management. While some headteachers feel that they already have considerable autonomy under existing arrangements, others feel more restricted. This creates another strong argument for the review of arrangements to ensure greater consistency. Some of the restrictions that schools experience are not linked to the DSM arrangements, but simply to the amount of funding that is available to schools. There are situations where larger schools are working to the same arrangements as smaller schools in the same council areas, but have far greater capacity to make decisions because of the scale of their budgets. This challenge will become more severe in the difficult financial circumstances that we currently face. Local Authorities and national government have both made considerable efforts to protect funding to schools by absorbing savings elsewhere. These efforts need to continue if schools are to retain any autonomy in this climate. There has also been remarkable political consensus in Scotland about the need for enhanced devolution of responsibility to schools. This has recently been reflected in the report from the Education and Lifelong Learning Committee. That political consensus has reflected considerable consensus in research. Notably, the highly influential OECD report Quality and Equity of Schooling in Scotland argued for greater diversity and autonomy within our education system. In general, there has been widespread recognition that improvement is more likely to come where those delivering change can make the strongest possible contribution to determining the nature of that change. Context This review has been affected by aspects of the context in which it has taken place. The first factor is that it has been conducted during a period when other reviews have been in train, commissioned or recently completed. These reviews have all been of potential relevance to the consideration of devolved school management arrangements. There is a very clear recognition that piecemeal change in the education system is unlikely to guarantee the kind of transformation that we require to meet the significant challenges that we face. These have been well rehearsed in other contexts, but it may be worth noting again the impact of rapid technological and economic change, globalisation and significant social and cultural change. While we have much to be proud of in Scottish education, we have already recognised the need for improvement through the implementation of Curriculum for Excellence. The approach of Curriculum for Excellence is the correct basis for responding to the changes and challenges alluded to above. It automatically increases school autonomy by offering schools greater power to tailor the curriculum to the needs of their learners. There would be little point in giving them that opportunity if they could not exercise it. Curriculum for Excellence demands that schools have the ability to make decisions about curriculum content, resources and teaching approaches. In many instances this will require an increase in school autonomy. 3

4 This alone will not generate improvements unless that autonomy can be effectively exercised. That capacity is heavily dependent on the funding that is available to schools. This review makes no recommendations with regard to school governance while highlighting important connections between the issues. If implemented correctly, changes to DSM should operate within current, or any future, governance arrangements. In a similar sense, the success of devolved school management will be affected by the quality of leadership in schools and the quality of teachers available. These issues are affected by the Donaldson Report, which has been published, and has been welcomed by Scottish Government. There is a strong agreement in Scotland about the importance of leadership. This review welcomes the commitments made in response to the Donaldson Review and the ongoing commitment at local and national level to develop high quality leadership in all aspects of education. Finally, there can be no doubt that the largest ongoing investment in education is in the costs of staff, particularly teaching staff. Teachers terms and conditions have a huge bearing on the decisions that might be taken by schools. For example, it is hard to envisage how the curriculum in a secondary school could be reshaped without there being implications for the profile of the teaching staff. The McCormac Review has considered terms and conditions for teachers. There are limits on staff deployment because of employment law which, rightly and properly, give due protection to employees, but they have a major impact on a school s capacity to make key decisions on curriculum. The second factor affecting the review has been one of timescale and capacity. The commitment that was made was to consider the possibility of recommendations that might be implemented with effect from the next academic session, This was a welcome commitment. As outlined in the rationale, there has been evident willingness to look at change among all the key partners and considerable frustration among headteacher groups about perceived inequalities in the current arrangements. There is also a strong case for making changes in line with the schedule set for the implementation of Curriculum for Excellence. The first cohort of students who will sit the new National examinations will be in S2 next year and approaching the traditional transition into more specific subject choices. Schools should have as much autonomy as possible to meet their needs and aspirations. However a consequence of this has been that the review has had a very tight timescale and has been carried out by a very small group with support from a Reference Group. A third factor has been the uncertainty that exists due to the establishment of Education Scotland, which involves HMIE, Learning and Teaching Scotland and some of the functions of SG Learning Directorate. Accountability is a key issue in any situation where there is devolution of responsibility. We need to achieve ambitions that we set nationally and meet agreed entitlements for our young people. There is a legal obligation on Education Authorities under the Standards in Scottish Schools Act 2000 to ensure that every young person achieves their full potential. There is also a requirement to ensure that all pupils have experienced a broad general education as defined by the Experiences and Outcomes set out within Curriculum for Excellence. It is not possible to be absolutely specific about the detail of accountability while one of the agencies, most likely to have that responsibility, is still being shaped. It is within this context and within these constraints that the recommendations of this review are made. 4

5 Recommendations This review makes 12 recommendations. The rationale for these is set out below. The 2006 Guidance 1. The 2006 guidance should be revised and reissued. 2. The revised version should set out the roles of those involved in the delivery of education. These are based on the principle of subsidiarity. All decisions should be taken at the level of the school unless there are compelling reasons for them being taken at any other level. 3. Schools should have control over those budgets that enable these decisions to be taken and, ultimately, allow them to plan for and deliver Curriculum for Excellence. 4. The guidance should recognise that there is no benefit in devolving budgets to schools if they cannot make decisions about these budgets. The percentage of funding devolved to the school is far less important than establishing its capacity to make effective decisions. The focus of the guidance should be on identifying the roles and responsibilities that are appropriate at all levels within the system. If schools have a clear responsibility for the design and delivery of the curriculum within an agreed framework, we should think more in terms of their entitlement to lead and deliver, rather than in terms of devolved responsibilities. With responsibilities clearly stated there is no need to be concerned about percentages of budgets devolved. What is important is that there is autonomy at local level to deploy those budgets that support these areas of responsibility. To achieve this the tone and content of the guidance needs to be changed. With the advent of Curriculum for Excellence, it is essential that schools are able to make decisions about the provision that they make for the young people in their care. The parameters for these decisions are set by the Experiences and Outcomes, which make clear the entitlement of all learners within the 3-18 curriculum. The Building the Curriculum series is equally clear about the purposes of the curriculum and the principles on which it must be based. These principles also draw on Scottish legislative and policy requirements in relation to a range of issues which affect children, young people and their families. The Parental Involvement, the Additional Support for Learning Acts and Getting it right for every child are examples of the context within which schools are expected to plan and deliver entitlements to learners. This national framework allows considerable flexibility for schools to decide, along with their wider school community, the specific nature of the curriculum for their learners and, most certainly, for how that curriculum should be delivered. The budgets that should be controlled at school level are the budgets for staffing, staff development, resources and repairs and maintenance where decisions can be exercised about these. 5

6 The review recognises that these budgets are problematic. There are massive issues around staffing. Having flexibility for schools to decide on the delivery of the curriculum implies that they should be able to recruit staff and also to move staff on when they are no longer required to deliver what the school wishes to offer. Under current arrangements staff can be declared as surplus and be redeployed through the Local Authority. Ultimately the costs of surplus staff can be borne by the Local Authority. It would place considerable responsibilities on schools to change the situation to one where they are the employers. In keeping with this argument that schools are in the best position to determine how the needs of their pupils should be met, they should have the bulk of the allocation for young people with Additional Support Needs. Determining a formula for this is complex and will require further work, but the commitment to inclusion should mean that pupils with additional needs should remain part of the school. If the school feels that it cannot meet the needs of an individual child, they should have the capacity to purchase additional support or even to consider a placement outwith the school for a period of time. This will pose significant challenges in determining levels of funding, because of the high costs often associated with external placements. These challenges would be made easier if funding was allocated to a cluster of schools rather than to individual establishments. It would also be necessary to take account of young people with identified needs as well as indicators of likely level of need. There would be merit in investigating the concept of the individual pupil premium. Any change in arrangements for supporting young people with additional support needs are likely to have significant implications for special schools within Local Authorities. The review would suggest that the issues arising from this require further and more detailed consideration. Any changes in funding to support young people with additional needs must take account of parental choice. The Education Authority would have to retain an element of the budget to support this. Schools should have complete control over any budget for resources, within legislative constraints, and should be able to decide whether to invest in human resources, material resources or equipment. There is no doubt that schools should have control of any funding for repairs and maintenance where such arrangements are not already part of a PFI contract. There is more advantage to schools where they have scope to commission work for themselves. There are benefits for schools in being able to have economies of scale where they are part of council services, but they need to be guaranteed that these services are competitive. It is important that the advantages of using Council services are made clear to them and that they are consulted about arrangements. They should not be treated as captive consumers. Budget Management 5. Schools should receive their budget expressed as a cash sum. It will be for them to decide how to allocate the budget to aspects of their work through their Improvement Plan. 6. While recognising the difficulties caused by a tight financial climate, schools should have stable three-year budgets aligned with their improvement plans. The first year of the budget should be firm with strong indicative budgets for the remainder of the planning period. 7. Any change to this should be exceptional. Schools should be mindful that the budget that they receive should be deployed in the best interests of 6

7 pupils attending the school and budgets should be balanced over the three-year period. Carry forwards between budget cycles should be planned and agreed with the education authority and the parent council. Decisions taken on this are of real, and symbolic, importance. If schools are required to spend their budgets under a series of headings there is a built-in rigidity that is incompatible with the concept of autonomy. Budgets need to be built, and it is impossible to see how this could be done without thinking in detail about the areas of spend. This means the establishment of formulae for funding. These must be transparent, open and accessible. However, the school or federation should receive its funding expressed in cash terms and allocate that as it sees fit. Once that budget has been approved there should be no concept of virement and they should not require further permissions as to how they deploy their budgets. This review is strongly of the view that schools should have stable budgets over a three-year period in line with the current planning cycle that most schools operate. They should have autonomy to manage that budget as they see fit over that three-year period, provided that they have approval from their parent council and budget group. There should be no question of carry forwards either of surpluses or deficits within that period. Equally, there should be no carry forward between three-year cycles beyond a minimal level less than 1% unless a strong case has been made to the Education Authority. The rationale for this is that the school receives funding to support the education of those attending the school at that time. It is not acceptable to sacrifice the interests of whole cohorts of pupils in order to invest in the future of others. Accountability to the school community 8. Schools should present their plans for improvement and their associated budget planning to a representative group from their school community. This group should be heavily based on their parent council but should take account of the views of pupils and other community representatives, including local employers and representatives of the local authority. This should be clearly stated within the revised guidance. This issue is considered in the section of this report on accountability and there is little to add here. The only issue, which it may be important to address, is what would happen if the school group rejected the budget plans brought forward by the headteacher. Such situations are likely to be very rare because there are high levels of trust between schools and their communities. In general, headteachers would always seek to gain consensus in the best interests of the school community. However, if there were to be a breakdown in this, the Education Authority as the provider of the budget and the employer of the headteacher would take responsibility for resolving the issues. Learning Communities 9. Schools should work in partnership in Learning Communities to manage the 3-18 curriculum effectively and to ensure the most effective and efficient delivery of learning choices for pupils. 7

8 10. Learning Communities should include all schools serving the same catchment area, but they could also include, for example, secondary schools working together to deliver the best possible range of provision in the senior phase of Curriculum for Excellence. The need to manage the 3-18 curriculum and deliver associated educational and children s services priorities should lead to the development of shared budgets. 11. Learning Communities will require professional support in order to manage their finances effectively. This should come primarily from a business manager assigned to the cluster of schools. They should also have ready access to advice on a range of professional issues such as legal and Human Resources issues. This issue is adequately explored in the relevant section of this report. It is recognised that schools have established some outstanding practice in terms of transition and joint working and planning. However this is not consistently the case and we have some way to go before we see best practice as common practice. That is why the recommendation is that we work towards the establishment of stronger cluster arrangements. Any such moves will be supported by a number of other changes that are already affecting us. There is far greater recognition that learning goes on well beyond the confines of schools. There are also significant moves to share placements for pupils in the senior phase of Curriculum for Excellence. All of the Building the Curriculum documents, which support Curriculum for Excellence, make clear that there is a need for planning across stages and across disciplines. Such changes emphasise our collective responsibility to support the learner s journey through lifelong learning and should support the concept of school clusters. Establishing a National Formula 12. Work should be undertaken through a working group representing the interest groups involved, including ADES, the National Parents Forum Scotland, teachers Professional Associations, head teachers groups, to establish a consistent national standard for the devolution of funding to schools. There is much good practice in Scotland in relation to devolved school management. Much of the critical comment received has been about variation between schemes. Some schemes are perceived to work well. It would be sensible to capture the best practice in this and establish a uniform formula to be used by all Local Authorities. Such consistency would be widely welcome and would increase transparency about funding without significantly undermining the decision-making power of Local Authorities who would still retain the right to set the overall budget for education alongside their other commitments and priorities. 8

9 Supporting Information Remit The remit was to review the arrangements for devolved school management (DSM), specifically: To review the devolved school management guidelines and offer draft revised guidelines for greater devolution of powers to school and particularly cluster level. The further requirements were: to identify actions to support implementing any new guidelines; to identify other related actions to be set in train for the longer term; and to ensure developments such as Curriculum for Excellence and GLOW, and current thinking around e.g. governance, the structure of the education system, leadership and capacity, etc are fully reflected in the outcomes. Review Process The review involved a range of activities including: Literature Search This involved a review of international information and research. Consultation with, and through, the Reference Group The Reference Group involved representatives from ADES(1), Cosla(3), Association of Headteachers and Deputes, AHDS(1), School Leaders Scotland(1), HMIE(1), Educational Institute of Scotland(1), National Parents Forum Scotland(1), Scottish Government(1). All members were asked to canvass their organisations and bring back views and information to the group. Some made written submissions. The group met on four occasions to discuss the review and the emerging report. Interviews, events and meetings The review involved a series of interviews in Scotland and England. These involved Directors of Education, headteachers of Academies, specialist schools and mainstream schools, senior politicians, private sector suppliers and partners, academics. It also involved attendance at conferences and meetings with key interest groups. Principles and Commitments At the initial stages of the review the Reference Group agreed the principles on which it should be based. These are: Entitlement of learners to a set of experiences that are locally determined, and delivered, within a national framework; Innovation locally encouraged through local determination of priorities; 9

10 Flexibility in the use of resources and finance and their associated deployment to be encouraged; Efficiency in the use of resources to be encouraged at all levels to ensure value for public investment; and Accountability of decision makers in meeting national standards, for delivering agreed policies and ensuring appropriate use of public funds. Issues and Concerns The Reference Group also agreed a set of issues and concerns on which the review should be based. These are set out below. All schools should benefit from any arrangements that are proposed. Where schools are too small to benefit from financial flexibility, thought should be given to being part of a consortia arrangement where there is shared responsibility for larger budgets. Any funding formulas must offer stability for planning. There has been a tendency for schools to lose control of budgets on which they were able to generate surpluses. This practice undermines the whole concept of devolved responsibility. Devolved financial arrangements should ensure that schools can predict funding over the period of their improvement plan. There are concerns about capacity in the education system to provide high quality leadership in every setting and context. There is also concern about the level and extent of administrative support for schools. The central role of the headteacher in the school is to lead learning in the school. There is a danger that this could be compromised unless there is adequate support to deal with any increase in responsibility and workload. There has been an increasing commitment to joint working driven by Getting it right for every child. Such approaches have brought considerable benefits to young people and families; any arrangements that are proposed need to be mindful of this and ensure that schools have a clear sense of shared responsibility for young people and their families. Schools are affected in major areas of their spending by national agreements. There will need to be a balance between allowing the freedom for schools and centres to be innovative and creative and to protect the rights of employees and ensure consistency of treatment. Ambitions and Aspirations The Reference Group also agreed a statement of initial ambitions and aspirations for the review. These are as follows: The education system will be adaptable and responsive to economic, social and technological change, as well as to changes in thinking about learning and pedagogy. While schools will offer provision that may be specialised and tailored in particular ways to their catchment area, there will be equivalence of opportunity for all learners. 10

11 While increased local responsibility and the targeting of provision are likely to lead to more choice for learners and for parents, there will be consistency in the quality of the experience across schools. Whatever arrangements are in place, all schools will ensure that learners will have the opportunity to cover all of the Experiences and Outcomes set out in Curriculum for Excellence up to Level 3 and progress to the senior phase. All schools should have arrangements in place to ensure appropriate provision for learners during this phase. They will also apply the principles of curriculum design and take account of the advice set out in the Building the Curriculum series. The International Perspective In Europe there is a range of approaches to school autonomy in relation to use of public funds. A 2007 European Commission study, School Autonomy in Europe Policies and Measures looked at different levels of autonomy in schools in relation to three categories: use of public funds, raising and using private funds, and human resources. It found that a number of countries give schools full autonomy, within a legal framework, for use of public funds, including Belgium, Latvia, and Sweden. Denmark and the Netherlands have provision for this type of devolved management, though it is not universally implemented. Finland has a degree of delegation but not for buildings expenditure. Conversely, there are a number of countries in Europe that give schools no autonomy in use of public funds: Bulgaria, Ireland (primary schools), France (primary schools), Cyprus and Romania. In these countries the education authorities reserved decision-making power for the use of public funds. The report also highlights a number of countries where the degree of autonomy varies according to the category of expenditure often schools had more autonomy for operating expenditure than for capital expenditure. Overall, the report found that there is autonomy (though limited) to decide on operating expenditure in the majority of countries, though computer equipment was often an exception. The report does not include data on Scotland. There has been some degree of implementation of school-based management in the USA since the 1970s. The 2011 publication Making Schools Work: New Evidence on Accountability Reforms, published by the World Bank, states that evidence from US programs implemented in various cities and states since the 1970s and 1980s, ranging from intermediate to strong types of reforms, suggest that it takes time to see results in terms of increasing student test scores. In fact, it is shown that school-based management needs about five years to bring about fundamental changes at the school level and about eight years to yield changes in difficult-to-modify indicators such as test scores. It cites a 2003 meta-analytical study on the effectiveness of school-based management models, which looked at 232 studies representing 29 Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) programmes in the US, and concluded that the number of years of CSR implementation was a statistically significant predictor of student achievement effect size. A number of academic evaluations of devolved school management and school-based management have commented that many of the best examples of impact on learning may be found in developing nations. A pilot project in Indonesia described in School-Based Management by Brian J Caldwell saw dramatic improvements in rates 11

12 of attendance and test results within 12 months, following increased budgetary autonomy and allowing new approaches to curriculum and teaching in 79 schools. A larger scale study is described in a report for the Latin American Laboratory for Assessment of the Quality of Education, which looked at schools with outstanding results in seven Latin American countries and concluded that success was linked to high quality school-level management as well as effective teaching. The picture in England is also interesting. There have been concerns that when schools have had significant autonomy, they have used that to restrict their entrance criteria and changed the nature of their intake. This has caused concern about the impact that this has had on inequality between schools and communities. There are also other interesting examples in England of arrangements where schools have linked and there has been a positive impact in areas of disadvantage. There has been a significant impact on the approach to leadership in England and this has been reflected in the efforts to widen the role and increase the capacity of the most successful headteachers. It is important to note that the system in England is the subject of further reform proposals, which, if implemented, will lead to a very diverse landscape of governance models and various different degrees of autonomy within schools. Discussions held during this review indicated that, while there were attractions within these proposals, there was little appetite for reform on this scale in Scotland. Experience in Scotland outwith the immediate context of devolved school management is also informative. The Schools of Ambition programme provided individual schools with relatively small amounts of additional funding which they could use to offer more innovative approaches to meeting the needs of their students. In general the evaluations suggest that the funding was used to address disadvantage and in many instances showed an appetite for innovation and change. The evidence would appear to encourage the implementation of devolved responsibility while recognising that it alone would be unlikely to generate short-term improvements in performance. Caveats In discussing devolved school management it is important to recognise that we are operating with a finite overall budget for education and that any moves to distribute resources differently will not generate any additional money. For example, if funding for additional support needs is distributed to schools then there will not be any central resource to meet exceptional need or to deal with emergency situations. Schools would need to make provision for the possibility of external placements. If schools were to take on the resource to deal with repairs and maintenance, there would be no insurance policy from the local authority. There is a risk involved in this as Local Authorities have provided stability in the system as well as providing examples of strong leadership. However, in recognition of the changes outlined in the Rationale, a move towards greater autonomy and a more flexible and responsive system is the correct way forward. There is evidence cited above which suggests that there will be greater ownership and commitment to improvement where changes are being made from the inside out. There is also a strong argument that we need to be consistent and that in creating a curriculum, which will, ultimately, be shaped at local level in the interest of 12

13 pupils, we need to establish management and governance arrangements which reflect that. Accountability All decision makers are accountable for their delivery of entitlements and their effective management of resources both locally and nationally. Within the framework of these wider principles, the review was also based on the following considerations. We need a system which allows decision-making to be made at the most appropriate level. This reflects the evidence that the autonomy to make decisions about curriculum and pedagogy at local level is likely to lead to improved performance. Any form of devolved financial management has to allow significant decisions to be made at school level. We need to protect the entitlements of learners regardless of where they are educated. We must ensure the provision of education that services both individual and national interests. All schools need to meet national standards especially in terms of positive and sustained destinations for leavers and in relation to the experiences and outcomes set out within a Curriculum for Excellence. Any funding arrangements, and related governance arrangements, need to recognise the commitment to community engagement and the widespread evidence that such engagement benefits services. The focus of funding must be in the best interests of the learner rather than the institution. In order to honour Scotland s commitment to address inequality and drive up standards in all areas, any arrangements must promote collaboration rather than competition between schools. The education system will be adaptable and responsive to economic, social and technological change, as well as to changes in thinking about learning and pedagogy. While increased local responsibility and the targeting of provision are likely to lead to more choice for learners and for parents, there will be consistency in the quality of the experience across schools. Whatever arrangements are in place, all schools will ensure that learners have the opportunity to cover all of the Experiences and Outcomes set out in Curriculum for Excellence up to Level 3. They will also apply the principles of curriculum design and take account of the advice set out in the Building the Curriculum series. Schools are also accountable in financial terms and will be subject to appropriate audit arrangements There is a strong basis within current accountability arrangements to address these considerations. 13

14 The Scottish system of accountability and school improvement is based on self-evaluation. This is based on widespread agreement that those who are responsible for making improvements must be central to determining what improvements require to be made. As well as being expected to evaluate their own performance, and being well supported in that through the How good is our school series and other aids to self-evaluation, schools can be subject to evaluation from the local authority through Quality Improvement Officers and attainment reviews conducted by senior officers. They may also be involved in corporate audit procedures through their local authority and are subject to inspection by Her Majesty s Inspectors of Education. There have been changes in terms of the procedures of the Inspectorate to recognise the developments in school self-evaluation and to make these more proportionate. It may well be that there will be further evolution of this model with the establishment of Education Scotland. This move has generally been reflected at local level. This is a welcome development. This review would argue that schools are accountable, first and foremost, to those whom they serve. This includes pupils, parents, carers, local employers and community representatives. Schools on an individual or cluster basis should establish such a group based around their parent councils to approve their improvement plan and the budget decisions that they intend to take to put that plan into practice. There needs to be a greater recognition that schools are using whatever funding they have available to them to invest in the futures of children and young people and that spending plans and action plans should be viewed together. This was a requirement of School Board legislation and was lost with the advent of the Parental Involvement Act. That legislation has been successful in promoting more widespread parental involvement with Scottish schools and that success has been due, in large part, to the less formal arrangements it has brought. While having no wish to see that trend reversed, it would be good practice for schools to seek agreement with their communities on their plans and how these plans are to be achieved. This should be made clear in the revised guidance. This process needs to be well supported by data about school performance. This should not only be concerned with attainment, although that has an important place, it should include wider assessment information and information from the school s self-evaluation and information on attendance as well as agreed indicators of well-being. The Local Authority should have a key role in this level of accountability through the participation of elected members and/or delegated officers. In making this recommendation, I am mindful that we have increasing data on schools and that this needs to be monitored carefully so that Education Scotland can respond quickly to any indication that the needs of young people are not being met. I am also mindful that we have now been working towards improved self-evaluation and there is a need to reflect this in greater trust for schools. It is also worth noting that two of the organisations involved in the establishment of Education Scotland have already evolved locally based structures through HMIE District Inspectors and the Area Advisers who were an important part of the Learning Teaching Scotland structures. 14

15 There is another important aspect to this view of evaluation and quality improvement. That is the need to ascertain how well Scotland is performing as an economy and as a society. We need to be assured that education is serving the national economic strategy, meeting national targets and delivering on national priorities. While it is important to recognise the importance of local accountability, we cannot forget that we are part of a global society. Self-evaluation must not only look inwards, it must look outwards and forwards and be supported by international comparisons. Finally, evaluation does need to have a greater focus on how far budget holders are delivering value for money and using significant public funding in the best interests of young people, their families and the wider society. Schools will also need to be subject to audit procedures conducted on behalf of the education authority. The headteacher or leader of the local learning community will be the budget holder for the school and will be ultimately accountable for the management of that budget. Governance It is not the task of this review to make recommendations on the wider governance of schools, although it is important that we recognise that there is an interface between school management and governance arrangements. The aim in providing services should be that resources are prioritised towards the front line. This review has concluded that an approach based on the principle of subsidiarity should be taken in regard to devolved school management, such that schools have control over those resources and services best delivered by them. However, there is an important function at a level above schools, and it remains the case that some resources can be more efficiently managed at this level, for a variety of reasons, including economies of scale and contingency funding. Under the current system, this function is carried out by Education Authorities. This report does not comment on or recommend individual governance models. The key issue is that Education Authorities or their equivalents should be as efficient and effective as possible in deploying resources that they control, to the benefit of learners. Clusters of Schools Given the commitment made in this review to trying to ensure that all schools can benefit to some extent from a commitment to review devolved school management, it is inevitable that we should consider operating on the basis of clusters of schools. If we do not make this commitment then some schools will be unable to make any significant decisions as they will not have enough funding to underwrite them. We also need to take cognisance of the fact that we are committed, through Curriculum for Excellence, to establishing a coherent and progressive curriculum from It may be worth mentioning at this stage that Curriculum for Excellence has developed beyond that initial concept and is likely to have a very significant impact on lifelong learning. However, the need to establish that first ambition for 3-18 creates a strong argument for schools operating on a more collective basis. This review recommends that we should be operating on the basis of learning communities involving early years establishments, primary schools and secondary schools and, where appropriate, specialist provisions. There are few successful 15

16 examples of this model in action although Glasgow is relaunching its Learning Communities and there are grounds for optimism about how they might function. There are also increasing examples of secondary schools working together and with Colleges and other providers to offer the best possible options for young people in the Senior Phase. This is also likely to involve joint planning and some shared budget arrangements. Such joint arrangements would ease the concern that we do not have the consistent quality of leadership in all of our schools to make the changes that we need to make to meet the increasingly complex needs of all of our young people, to ensure that we are competitive as an economy and that we achieve all of the ambitions that we have set for ourselves as a nation. There is an oft-expressed concern that in any such federated arrangement the head of the secondary school would be dominant. Colleagues may feel that such concerns are based on experience and evidence; that does not mean that they are justified. We need to have assertive and confident leadership at all levels within our education system and it is simply defeatist to create self-fulfilling prophecies about joint working. Federations of schools with shared plans and budgets would be more economic in terms of accountability where a single board could be responsible for dealing with a coordinated plan. Other issues Leadership Governance arrangements and changes in roles will not in themselves affect improvement although they can be important in enabling it. As indicated in this review, there have been clear instances where leadership at Local Authority level has been critical to making improvements and has driven change at local level. There have been other instances where schools and communities have felt constrained in driving improvement by the restrictions imposed upon them. Alongside any changes that might be made in response to this review or others, there needs to be continuing emphasis on the development of leadership at all levels within the education system. Much good work has already been done on this and there is wide consensus on the qualities of leadership that we require. It requires vision, values and directions. It needs commitment and courage and must be open and collegiate. The Donaldson Report makes an excellent contribution on this and that will be built upon. As well as continuing the commitment to leadership development, we should also seek to ensure that as many communities as possible can benefit from the contribution that our most effective leaders can make and this is another strong argument for more collective management arrangements across clusters. Innovation, change and development A recurrent element in the discussions that took place within the review was about the need for an insurance policy for schools. There was a genuine concern that schools had to be protected against the possibility of exceptional circumstances at all times. One of the strongest elements within this was a concern about staffing issues where a 16

17 school could be affected by illnesses or maternity leaves or other vagaries. There were similar concerns about additional support needs where the costs involved in meeting needs can be very high indeed. Local Authorities currently take on the bulk of this role in providing back-up and insurance. To do anything other would involve significant actuarial challenges, but the impact of acting in this way is to tie up funding that might otherwise be invested in the system. It would therefore be worth exploring whether or not a different approach to insuring against the unexpected or exceptional could be possible. There is a mixed economy evolving in employment. Agencies have offered their services as employers of supply staff for example, while a small number of Local Authorities are in discussion with a private company that would take on responsibility for the recruitment and employment of support staff. At the same time there will be a need to review employment arrangements where Local Authorities establish shared services. It is an opportune time to review this whole area in the light of these changes. Links to Associated Priorities The reforms being recommended under this review will have an impact on other priorities for Scottish education. Devolved school management is vital to the successful implementation of Curriculum for Excellence. It will also have an important link to the leadership agenda. The recommendations made within this report have links to the review of teachers terms and conditions. Recommended Implementation Timing The 2006 Guidance should be amended, ideally so that that any changes can take effect from April The direction that the review recommends is clear and schools and authorities should begin to amend their practice in line with this. In particular schools should seek to engage their parent council in consideration of budget and improvement plans and to work towards community involvement. Local Authorities should consider early implementation of their role in this during The review of formula should be completed in order to allow the implementation of best practice from April The new national agency for inspection and support should bring forward proposals as to how they would consider and comment on schools budget management in the course of with a view to implementing these from session The review recognises the challenges that we will face in establishing shared budgets between schools, but would seek significant progress in this by This process could be encouraged by devolving an element of the budget to Learning Communities where there is a commitment to improved joint planning. 17