Report on SPTC Survey on Parent Forums

In April 2005 we sent a survey on the Scottish Executive proposals to all our member schools, as well as making it more widely available on our website. Read the results!

We asked our members to discuss the proposals for parent forums either within the PTA committee or more widely. As usual, it was encouraging that several schools did send the survey out to all parents, although many reported that they only received a small number back. Several people supplemented their response with comments and it is clear from these that the survey stimulated some very thoughtful discussion.

Response
We asked respondents to give us the actual numbers of those voting in the survey. Unfortunately, some schools returned their forms with just “unanimous” or a tick. We counted “unanimous” as 10 votes (This applied to six schools. One of these returned a “unanimous” response from the PTA in support of the proposals and a “unanimous” response from the school board opposing the proposals. Both were entered as 10 votes). Ticks on their own were counted as 1 vote. Using these conventions, we received 1,207 votes from 141 schools (118 primaries; 20 secondaries; 1 primary/secondary; 1 special and 1 not identified) across 31 local authorities (the exception was Clackmannanshire).

Respondents were asked to vote for the proposals, to reject the proposals or to indicate that they could not decide.

Option 1 - for the proposal, attracted 42.1% of the votes.
Option 2 – rejecting the proposals, 32.8 % of the votes.
Option 3 – the undecided, accounted for 25.1% of the votes.

Comments
As always, the comments put some flesh on the numbers. These covered a range of areas starting with the lack of information that parents had received and the general lack of interest amongst parents as a whole. The biggest group of comments concerned the perceived vagueness of the proposals. Both supporters and opponents of the forums based their decisions on their existing experience of how well boards and PTAs worked in their schools. However, many of these comments, whether for or against the forums, were qualified. For example, many who opposed the proposals went on to argue that some changes to the existing school board legislation was necessary. Some respondents proposed some quite specific amendments, for example that headteachers should have a clear role.

1) There were quite a few comments about the lack of information that had been received – this was usually accompanied by a high don’t know vote.
• Because we have had so little info to date on this subject, the committee agreed to respond with a “don’t know” vote at present. (The only info we have received is the info detailed in the March 2005 Backchat newsletter. No leaflets have been issued to parents)

2) Several reported on the lack of interest amongst the parents as a whole (a number of schools reported sending the survey out to all members and only getting a small number returned.)
• Newsletter with info and survey question was sent out to the whole school (240 children); only 11 responses came back

3) Many expressed general concerns about the perceived vagueness of the proposals.
• It’s a great idea in theory but how are you going to avoid the problem of having one or two bossy parents telling everyone else what to do and just running it themselves how they want it done?
• Who’s going to head parent forums? Is this not another strain on our already stretched teachers?
• Too big a forum could be more difficult to manage, being less constructive
• To ask parents to come up with a constitution seems onerous and lacking in continuity
• One school suggested that a trial period is needed before benefits can be known

4) For some, their decision was based on their present experience.
Glenurquhart High opposed change because their current experience was very positive. • Our current school board is very active and played a huge role in securing a new school for Glenurquhart, opened almost 3 years ago. The PTA are actively involved in fundraising and helping with many activities for the youngsters. The new proposals seem chaotic, with each school being able to “do its own thing” and I’m sure this would be a major headache for Education Authorities
Several others came up with the theme If it’s not broke, why fix it?
However, in Aberdeen, we heard of a negative experience leading to a desire for change.
• Anything rather than the lethargy that exists at present – as always left to the few. Sad to say nothing happens between the school and parents unless money is required
And another parent reported on the current lack of enthusiasm for boards at her school.
• I have had my name down for the school board for 2 years but we haven’t been able to drum up enough parental interest to convene the board
One PTA phoned to report that they were not being “allowed” to discuss the proposals as the their Headteacher said that they were just a fundraising body.
However, one school, whilst enjoying a good experience with the current system, also recognised that not all schools were so fortunate. • we realise that not all schools have both a PA and school board and so for them this could be a positive step. A move away from the perceived “formality” of a school board may encourage new members to come forward

5) Many of the comments both in support and opposition to the proposals were qualified.
On the plus side there was:
• I think it’s a good idea but if it becomes too formal like SBs then nobody will join and you’ve lost both groups. At this moment they have clear rules; professionals tend to join SBs and are interested in budgets etc – it’s more formal – whereas PTAs are less formal and are more into the social side. I’m not sure how it will come together
Whilst on the negative side there was:
• We as a board are very happy with the way things are run at present and have major concerns that we will lose control of what we have at present; there are, we agree, some areas that need looking at i.e. how long members are on the committee for (a maximum of four years is sufficient) and would suggest a member, after 2 years, may opt for another 2 years but must vacate their position after 4 years – this will allow fresh blood into the Board. The number of members per school should also be allowed to be increased if desired.
Comments in support of the proposals
• The school board and PTA met and there was unanimous agreement that the School Boards Act needs amending but absolutely not replacing

6) Some respondents made some quite specific suggestions.
• the headteacher should attend the meeting; it should be part of their duties

7) Finally, one school reported that the very process of the consultation had had a positive effect.
• In our school the School Board and PTA committees operate completely separately - the Chairs of each came together to discuss this issue, but otherwise there is little input from the wider parent body to the School Board. As a result of the PTA discussions it was decided that a PTA member would attend all future School Board meetings, and this has already produced benefits, both for the School Board, who were seeking views on the School Development Plan, and for the PTA, whose views are now being fed into the Development Plan process. So this debate came at a very good time. The PTA and the Board have now decided to have 2 joint meetings in the year, which will hopefully continue this useful cross-fertilisation.
The PTA, as a whole, felt that School Boards and PTAs attracted different kinds of people, with different agendas. Needless to say we felt more attracted to the informal, pragmatic way that the PTA worked, but were pleased that we might have greater input to strategic and policy issues.
There was no feeling that the changes in legislation would lead to a radically different way of working, though everyone felt that the election process was pointless. In particular PTA members all had experience of potential Board members avoiding elections e.g. by making sure that the number of candidates matched the number of vacancies exactly. This, and the various ways that Boards were known to have recruited and co-opted in their own image, were not necessarily seen as a bad thing by PTA members. But it did mean that the PTA didn't view the School Board as any more democratic or representative than it was itself. There was no desire for the PTA to take on the tasks of the School Board, such as interviewing or monitoring the school budget, though we were very happy to be involved in the School Development Plan process.

Conclusion The result of this survey shows majority support for the proposed parent forums whilst the comments make it clear that even those who want the current school boards to continue recognise that changes need to be made. What these respondents are not recognising is that the proposed legislation offers them the opportunity simply to make the changes that they see as desirable.

The substantial “don’t know” vote and accompanying comments indicate that there has been a shocking lack of consultation with the wider parent community. Whilst it may give us a certain satisfaction to learn that we are the sole source of information, in general terms this is not acceptable. This failure to communicate beyond school boards highlights how disenfranchised many parents and PTAs have become.

Once again, there is evidence that parents are nervous of change and inherently conservative when it comes to educational structures. The majority base their experience on what happens in their school and cannot imagine either that things work differently in different schools or that they cold work differently in the future. The calls for a “uniform system” do not allow for the fact that there is already wide variation in school boards and more particularly in PTA formats. In some respects, the proposals in this legislation merely catch up with reality rather than impose something new and strange.

Scottish Parent Teacher Council
June 2005