Response to the Consultation on the Schools Scotland Code

As a general principle, we feel the existence of a school code is helpful. The fact that this code has been allowed to get so badly out of date does not detract from the general principle that a code of regulations is useful if, as should be the case, it is comprehensive and kept up to date. Such a code would be a good source for anyone who has questions about school education. The code would be particularly useful if it collated all relevant regulations within a single document rather than people being required to look to this Act for this regulation or to this formal agreement/policy statement for some other regulation.

We therefore argue that there should be an up-to-date code of regulation governing school education which should be:-

• comprehensive
• regularly updated
• held on the internet
• with the regulations sourced back to their point of origin i.e. the piece of legislation or particular agreement.

A further advantage of such a code is that it offers parents and others a guarantee that certain standards of provision will be maintained in all schools or, that where there is a decision to change the existing standards, such changes will not be done randomly but will be the result of due deliberation and will lead to an amendment of the code. There is nothing to stop flexibility being part of the code, but the code would state the parameters of any such flexibility.

Q1. What role, if any, should there be for detailed central regulation or guidance in determining staffing standards in schools?

Staffing standards as they currently exist should be a piece of information contained within the code. There is no reason why the code cannot be written in terms of class size rather than as a ratio of pupil numbers. It is not a matter of writing or maintaining some antiquated code and requiring schools to comply with it; rather it is a matter of writing into the code staffing standards as they are currently agreed. Any flexibility can be part of the code. The advantage of such a system is that where an authority or school wishes to go outside these regulations, they cannot do so without careful consideration and a change to the code.

Q2. Do the regulations in the Code unduly hamper the ability of local authorities to provide adequate and efficient education or to make innovative and flexible arrangements to suit local needs and circumstances?

There is no reason at all why the code itself should hamper flexibility where flexibility is desirable. What the code could/should include is the range of flexibility that is acceptable. It means that changes cannot be random and eccentric.

Headteacher Support

Q3. Is it appropriate or necessary for regulations to lay down requirements regarding clerical or other support staff for headteachers?

The code should contain requirements regarding clerical support so that it is clearly understood that clerical officers are a required part of a school's staffing allocation. It is not sufficient to depend on the duty of the authority to "secure adequate and efficient provision". Moreover, against the background of DSM and increased headteacher autonomy, it is important to lay down minimum standards in this area. However, once again, flexibility should be written into the regulation.

Class sizes Primary Education

Q4. Should the maximum for all primary stages be set in regulations?

The fact that the code is out of date and does not include current standards is not an argument for abolishing the code; it is an argument for updating it so that it has details of current class size maxima and where and when these maxima were established.

Secondary Education

Q5. What regulations, if any, should govern class sizes in secondary schools?

A realistic assessment of appropriate class size maxima in secondary schools should be undertaken and, once agreed, included in the code. For example, we would argue that it is no longer feasible to run Higher Still English Classes with 30 pupils. This is an area which should be kept under review and updated as necessary, but the current position should always be part of the code so that no school and authority can arbitrarily disregard the maxima. The code offers vital protection to parents and pupils about the standards which operate in all schools.

Q6. Is there any advantage in retaining the distinction between "practical" and other subjects?

The reduced class maxima for practical classes has offered important protection for parents and pupils. It would also seem to generate more pupil interest in subjects taught in smaller classes. For example, the sciences - chemistry, physics and biology - remain in the top five subjects taken at Higher level whereas, in England, where there is no reduced maxima for practical subjects, there is no such widespread uptake of science subjects.

The definition of "practical" subject is clearly open to review and many would argue that increased use of ICT equipment turns every class into a practical class. However, taking account of our suggestion in the answer to Question 5 that there should be a general review of class size maxima, we would suggest that considerations of risk should be the criteria used for reduced class size. For example, if youngsters were using potentially dangerous equipment or chemicals, then a higher level of supervision would be required than if they were using a computer in an ordinary class. Using risk as a criteria, it should be possible to draw up an agreed list of subjects which qualify for reduced class size.

Pupils with Special Educational Needs

Q7. Should class sizes for pupils with Special Educational Needs continue to be set in regulations?

Once again, regulations offer guarantees of standards to parents and pupils and the fact that the current regulations are out of date is not an argument for abandoning regulation, it is an argument for updating it. The area of special needs raises some complex questions. Class size issues should be reviewed and the regulations then written in terms of agreed good practice.

Q8. Should regulations differentiate between different types and degrees of need - if so how?

If there is agreement that it makes more sense to write regulations in broad categories focusing on the implications for teaching and learning, then they should be written in these terms, rather in terms of specific disabilities.

Q9. How should the issue of integration in mainstream classes be approached?

The current move to integrate youngsters with special needs into mainstream education will have an enormous impact on class teaching. There should be a careful review of the situation and regulations drawn up which protect the interests of both the SEN and the non SEN pupils. For example, a mainstream class with several SEN pupils will offer quite different challenges to a class with one or no SEN pupils. Regulations should be written in terms of the implications for teaching and learning but it would offer important safeguards to all parents involved to know that such regulations did exist and that schools and authorities were obliged to observe them.

Composite Classes

Q10. Should the maxima for composite classes be set in regulations?

Once again, regulations offer important guarantees to parents and pupils and the regulations which apply should be included. With regards to composite classes, current pupil-teacher ratios mean that staffing levels in rural schools are generally such that composite classes are below 30. The maximum for a composite class therefore is particularly relevant in a school where most of the classes are not composite. In this situation, the reduced maximum of 25 pupils offers important reassurances to parents that their children will not be disadvantaged by being in a composite class. Even though this reassurance has more psychological than real value, its importance should not be underestimated.

Changing the code should not be used as an excuse for quietly removing the 25 maximum on composite class size without due consultation.

Q11. Should regulations limit the number of stages that may be included in a particular composite class?

Once again the current regulations should be part of a revised code.

Management Structures

Q12. Should the type and level of promoted posts in schools continue to be the subject to regulation, or should local authorities and schools themselves be able to determine appropriate structures for their circumstances?

Quite clearly the agreements on promoted posts which come out of the deliberations on the McCrone report should form the foundation of revised regulations. The McCrone report has supported the idea of national agreements with local flexibility, and the finally agreed scope of the balance between national agreement and local flexibility should be recorded in an up-to-date code.

Headteachers

Q13. What regulation governing the requirement for head teachers is necessary, if any?

The regulation that every school should have a head teacher offers an important safeguard in guaranteeing that schools have professional leadership. However, this does not preclude different arrangements for small rural schools being part of the regulations where these different arrangements are generally agreed. However, any exceptions should be detailed in the regulations so that it is quite clear to everyone in what circumstances it might be possible for one headteacher to be responsible for more than one school. It is important to offer safeguards against an individual authority making eccentric arrangements.

Teacher registration

Q14. What arrangements would allow for flexibility in delivery of courses and staff deployment, while ensuring that standards are maintained?

Once again, the agreed standards should be part of this code and where there is a need for flexibility, this should be discussed, agreed and form part of the code. For example, if there are certain circumstances where it is most appropriate for an FE lecturer to deliver a course in school and this is agreed, then the limits of those circumstances should form part of the regulations.

Teacher qualifications

Q15. Should regulations, as well as requiring teachers to be registered with the GTC, specify which teaching qualifications are required for working in different sectors?

This section is an appalling attempt to quietly repeal important regulations governing the professional qualification of teachers. It would seem to be an attempt to undermine the role of the General Teaching Council in setting standards and maintaining the professionalism of teachers. Parents would be outraged to discover that people were teaching subjects in which they had no proper expertise or who were teaching in the secondary sector whilst essentially being primary school teachers. Moreover, this is clearly a left-hand/right hand situation. The regulations for entry into secondary teaching have just been changed to require candidates to have studied a specific subject for three years at university level before they can train to teach it, rather than for two years as before.

Q16. Should the definition of "appropriate teaching qualification (secondary education)" be relaxed to make it easier for teachers to teach outside the subjects in which they are formally qualified?

There are areas where some flexibility is required, for example teaching general science courses or teaching non-traditional subjects such as philosophy. However, the regulations can be written to cover such circumstances.

Specialist SEN Qualifications

Q17. How would the interests of children with special needs be best served.

The interests of children with special needs will be best served by:

• Maintaining and modernising the existing regulations,
• Extending the scope of the modernised regulations to all staff working with children with special needs whether in special or mainstream settings.

This proposal makes question 18 redundant.

Pre-School Education

We accept that the current regulations for pre-school provision may be out of date, but this does not obviate the need for such regulations. Once the Scottish Executive has agreed its proposals in response to the consultation "Regulation of Early Years Education and Childcare" these standards should be incorporated in the Code.

Reports on Unsatisfactory teachers

Whilst the current regulations on unsatisfactory teachers have been superseded, the ones which currently apply should be included in the Code.

Designation of stages and classes

Q19. Is there a continuing need for these regulations?

Once again the regulations which currently apply should be incorporated in the Code to provide people with an easy fixed reference point for such information

Conclusion

Q20. If new regulations are required, should they be embodied in a new single Code or as a series of separate, unrelated regulations?

All regulations should be embodied in a single code which is made readily available and constantly updated. It should be posted on a website with links to it from the proposed parents-on-line website. This will provide everyone who is interested with a an important source document for all current regulations. The origins of the regulations - whether in statute or by agreement - should also be included.

Q21. Are there any areas of school/pre-school education not touched on in this paper where new regulation is required?

The Code should either contain any regulations governing space, and the provision of sport and library provision or direct people to where such regulations are held.