London-based PR consultants have been paid £65,000 to help Argyll and Bute Council push through its ‘collectives’ plan for schools.
The council says its controversial proposal, which would see executive headteachers appointed to clusters of schools in a non-teaching capacity, will be ‘cost neutral’ and the number of teachers will not be reduced.
But the EIS union has launched a petition against the plans, while 30 parent councils across the area have written a joint letter saying the current consultation process is flawed and should be paused.
Now the council has confirmed that the Stand agency was engaged last year to help with the project – a move which has been attacked by Dumbarton constituency MSP Jackie Baillie.
“It is concerning to learn that £65,000 has already been spent on an external contractor for a proposal which would see headteacher numbers slashed significantly in what appears to be a bid to cut costs,” she said
“I am worried that this proposal will have a detrimental impact on teachers and pupils if it goes ahead, and seek reassurance from Argyll and Bute Council that they will listen to those affected and make this less about a cost cutting exercise and more about improving educational standards in our schools.”
The change to ‘clusters’ was first proposed last June, but councillors refused to endorse it.
Since then the clusters have been redesignated as collectives, with a consultation due to end on March 4.
Read more: ‘Our children will become numbers’
A council spokesperson this week defended the agency spending: “Schools in Argyll and Bute face a unique set of challenges, including rural settings, declining populations, and competition for resources. To provide the best for our young people we must take action to deliver a sustainable education service,” she said.
“This engagement programme is one of the most ambitious, comprehensive engagement exercises we have ever undertaken. We want to involve everyone who has an interest in our education service, from our teachers, parents, and councillors to local communities, trade unions, and policy makers.
“We have developed and added to the programme as need has arisen, and made funding available to meet this need – we want to hear from as many people as possible.
“Through best value procurement, we have commissioned dedicated, external resources – Stand – to develop and deliver engagement at a cost of approximately £65k. The long-term future of our education service is worth investing in.
“We would like to thank the many people who are getting involved already in different ways. Our priority is always to secure the best possible outcomes for all children and young people. For more information or give views please see www.empoweringoureducators.co.uk “
At an online press briefing last week – attended by four staff from Stand – council education officials said the changes were partly driven by Argyll and Bute’s falling population, as well as the fact that some rural schools had as few as ten pupils.
Asked whether a ‘one size fits all’ approach was being taken, since the Helensburgh area has some schools which are far larger than that and is seen by the council as a ‘fleixible growth corridor’, they said the restructure would benefit all schools.
They added that the composition of the actual clusters or collectives would not be agreed until after this initial consultation, while no update was available on the implications for faith schools.
Louise Connor, the council’s education manager for transformation, said: “The parameters we are working with are cost-neutral to the council’s budget and the education service’s budget.
“But if the proposals are approved by the committee in the late autumn, we go out to consultation on the collectives. Cost neutral is what we are working towards.”
Councillors would make a final decision later this year.
In relation to the proposed remit for the ‘heads of school’ roles, and how that compares to current head teacher posts, Ms Connor said: “We follow the SNCT handbook in terms of the conditions for promoted members of staff and discuss them at a local level.
“We are in the process of undertaking these conversations and are using the SMCT guidance as a guideline for them.
“Once the collectives have been consulted on and agreed, the model would require to address each post according to job sizing.
“This would use the national job sizing tool kit, which we use currently. It is under review, so we would work with any updates to it.”
The officials said that someone in a permanent headteacher role would not be forced to change to become a head of school – the nature of their job would change, but not their job title, meaning that in a single collective there could be an executive headteacher, headteachers and heads of school.
Jennifer Crocket, the council’s head of education for lifelong learning and support, added: “It is very important to note that the head of school would have a very similar remit in that they are the person meeting the children, their families and our communities.
“A good way to sum it up would be that the head of school will still be the person at the front gate, having an operational understanding with the management team on a day-to-day basis.”
I am a local Community Councillor in Cove & Kilcreggan and have been actively involved across Lomond North with parents, head teachers, the teachers union, and the wider community in discussing these proposals.
I am also a prospective Independent candidate for the upcoming council elections in May. I look forward to challenging these proposals in council chambers in due course!
Like many I am concerned about the details within these changes and the impact they will have. There are a myriad of concerns being raised throughout Argyll & Bute as part of the consultation process.
But my bigger concern is the assertions the proposal makes that the primary drivers for these changes are: –
1. Declining population
2. Falling pupil numbers
3. Be ready for education reforms that are coming from Scot Gov
These are symptoms of a much bigger ‘illness’ and making wholesale changes to the way in which our schools are operated does not address the first two key problems in our rural communities.
1. Declining population is linked to many factors but primarily lack of employment and lack of affordable housing.
2. Falling pupil numbers (also impacted by the housing issue) is a combination of factors – not least of all lack of employment prospects for students and parents alike. They are being forced to leave the area they grew up in.
3. Education reforms are on their way – but no one knows what they will be and the proposal suggests that as a driver for change we must make major changes to our Head Teachers roles. Why don’t we wait and see what those reforms are before proposing any changes?
We have a housing crisis in Argyll & Bute. Parents cannot afford to live in the areas they grew up in. Holiday homes, second homes, and the explosion in tourism have fuelled a boom in AirBnB letting. There is a lack of social housing across the wards. House prices have skyrocketed. Families are being forced to live elsewhere – they don’t choose to, they have to!
I have attended Community Council meetings across Lomond North and in particular villages like Luss and Arrochar. They have no available housing stock and every house that comes up for sale is being bought at an exorbitant price by people wanting to get in on the holiday let boom.
There are fewer employment prospects for parents and their children. They are being forced to ‘centralise’ in order to have a better future. Let’s create more local employment, encourage small businesses, create Incubator hubs, and improve employment prospects for our school leavers. But let’s not diminish the roles of our Head Teachers – that does not cure the problems it only creates more problems.
I would sooner see the £65,000 being spent on finding a cure for the real problems we are facing in our rural communities instead of taking apart something that isn’t broken.
Mark Irvine
http://www.people-not-politics.com