EIS raises opposition to legal changes to role and responsibilities of headteachers

The Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS), the country’s largest teaching union, has today (Wednesday) highlighted the need for the Education Bill to look beyond Headteachers and to enable a collaborative and collegiate approach to empowering schools and school communities. The EIS response argues that an opportunity is being missed by Scottish Government to change the culture of how schools operate, with an over-focus being placed on seeking structural changes which potentially will do more harm than good.

In particular, the EIS argues against the threat of legislation to introduce a Headteachers Charter citing the opposition of its members – including Headteachers and Deputes – to proposals in the Education (Scotland) Bill that would change the legal status of Scotland’s headteachers. An EIS survey of its headteacher members revealed that an overwhelming majority (88%) do not believe that legislation should be introduced to create a Headteachers’ Charter; indeed only a minority of headteacher members (43%) support the creation of a Headteachers’ Charter at all, whilst others were opposed (21%) or undecided (36%).

Commenting, EIS General Secretary Larry Flanagan said, “The EIS has now submitted its response to the Scottish Government’s consultation, making clear the views of our members on the proposals outlined in the Education (Scotland) Bill. In surveying our Headteachers and Depute members on some of the provisions in the Bill, it is clear that they have very serious reservations about the nature and scale of the proposals related to their roles and responsibilities. In particular, headteachers show very little support (12%) for the Scottish Government’s proposals to legislate on changes to the role of the headteacher (Headteachers’ Charter) and an overwhelming percentage (89%) expressed concern at the prospect of Headteachers being required to take on HR functions. These proposals could radically change the job of headteacher, creating additional bureaucratic and managerialist tasks on top of an already severe workload burden. The EIS is supportive of the idea of headteachers being the leader of learning, but they require the time and resources to do this effectively.”

Mr Flanagan added, “Beyond the Headteacher Charter, the EIS response makes clear our opposition to the disbanding of the General Teaching Council for Scotland; iterates our concern that the regional collaboratives could become another layer of bureaucracy for schools to deal with rather than a source of support; and issues a plea for the creation of “democratic schools” where teachers’ professional voice is heard.”

A copy of the EIS response to the Scottish Government Consultation is attached. A copy of the EIS headteacher survey analysis is also attached, together with a sample of comments received from headteachers.

(ENDS)

Further information: Brian Cooper, Head of Communications, Tel 0131 225 6244 or bcooper@eis.org.uk

Headteacher views – a sample of comments from the EIS Headteacher survey

•             “I fear that the concept HTs charter is a simplistic and populist response to complex challenges. It is in danger, in my view, of placing yet further pressures of accountability on HTs - who are already subject to a huge accountability agenda - and undermining the place of local democratic control.”

•             It must be collegiate - this Bill does not acknowledge the importance of collegiality in school improvement. The focus on the role of the HT only is detrimental to the progress made through this in Scottish education.”

•             “Until recently I would have answered (that the local authority is) 'very supportive' and in many ways this is still how I feel but cut backs at the centre are making everyone’s jobs more difficult and I find this is affecting the support I receive. The individual people are very supportive, but the processes are less so.”

•             “Budget cuts mean all resources are stretched and staffing levels above schools which used to exist and were supportive for HTs no longer exist.”

•             “In my own situation I already feel I have a fair bit of autonomy, but the real constraints are around funding and availability of staff. Unless there is more funding and greater staff availability I do not see my school being able to deliver much more autonomy than we already have. I also believe we have already experienced a shift to a greater centralisation of policy and direction through the Scottish Government and Education Scotland.”

•             “I already choose my own staffing, including my SLT structure, I am responsible for budget decisions and we have our own Curriculum Design. All of this is supported through the systems already in place in the local authority. I have the autonomy but with specialist support in terms of employment law etc.”

•             “I am very concerned that bureaucracy and top-down control will increase as Educational Scotland and RIC (Regional Improvement Collaborative) assume the responsibilities of LA (local authority).”

•             “We are a staff team, not just one person”.

•             “The proposals lack detail and I would be concerned about a significant addition of responsibility placed on HT who are already overstretched due to cuts in essential services i.e. EAL, Ed Psych, general staffing and inability to access suitable training.”

•             “It strikes me that Headteachers currently have sufficient autonomy and I am unaware of any grassroots or research driven demands for greater autonomy.”

•             “Legislation will not tackle the current difficulties we see in appointments. These difficulties are rooted in the need to attract more high-quality candidates into the teaching profession by making the profession more attractive. The legislation should outline the need for HT involvement as a crucial element in appointments along with the involvement of fellow colleagues and stakeholders.”

•             “We cannot do more with less. We do not have the expertise in House to safely navigate employment law etc. This is dangerous.”

•             I cannot assume any more of these functions or I will not be able to do any work on learning and teaching at all.”