Parental Involvement in Headteacher Appointments

Read our response to the Scottish Executive's consultation on the involvement of parents in the appointment of Headteachers and senior staff.

Before responding to the specific questions, we felt it was important to consider whether parents should have any involvement in the appointment of Headteachers and Deputes. These are very responsible, professional posts and the successful candidate can be in post for ten or more years, whilst parents’ attachment to a school is inevitably limited. However, after due discussion, we felt that parents can contribute positively to the appointment process.

a) It is our understanding that no-one from the school, other than the parent representatives, can be/is involved in the appointment process. There is clearly benefit in having school-specific knowledge available during the appointment process and parents do bring this vital information.
b) The involvement of parents in the appointment process means that process itself is inevitably a very open system. In some ways, “parents” represent “the public” and this offers assurance that the process has operated completely fairly.

However, the role of parents should never be confused with the role of professionals. Parents’ unique contribution should be recognised and valued for what it is; not turned into something which it is not. Moreover, the limitations of their perspective should also be recognised. Parents’ experience is limited to the school that their children attend; they are not aware that schools can and do operate differently. Parents tend to like “their” school and want it to continue as it is, when the professional perspective is that some change of direction is needed. The parents’ view should never be confused with that of a professional.

Q1. Do you agree that the Parent Council should be consulted about the job specifications for the post of Headteachers or Depute, and the strategy for advertising the vacancy?
We note that this question asks whether parents “should be consulted”. We would like to emphasise that we are talking about “consultation” not “decision-making”.
a) On that basis we agree that parents should be consulted about the job specifications for the posts of Headteacher or Depute. They clearly have very useful specific information about the school and the type of person that they see the school needs.
b) We also think that parental input into the information sent to candidates could be helpful. They would be able to ensure that those aspects of the school that were important to the parents were included in that information.
c) It is not so clear that it is particularly relevant for parents to be involved in the advertising strategy: many parents would not be aware of the potential number of places for advertising such posts nor which would be most efficient. However, the advertising strategy should be open and the authority should be willing to explain it to parents.

Q2. Do you agree that Regulations should entitle the Parent Council to be involved in any sift process?
In considering this question we reflected that “sift” applied differently in different situations.
a) We assumed that there was always an initial sift of applicants to check that they were properly qualified for the post and to rule out anyone who was not so qualified. We see this as a purely administrative procedure and felt it should be dealt with as such.
b) We further understand that it is currently often the case that there are so few candidates that they can all be interviewed and so there is no “sift” process.
c) However, “sift” becomes critical when there are more potential candidates than can be efficiently interviewed and “sift” is the process of cutting a long leet to a short leet. We felt that parents would be unlikely to be able to judge candidates fairly on the basis of paper applications, even if these included references. If they knew one of the candidates personally, this could bias them for or against that person. Indeed, we felt that it was critical that this stage was a professional stage as professionals are best able to judge whether a candidate’s qualifications and experience were really adequate for the job in hand. We would like to see a peer professional always involved in the “sifting” process. If there is to be parental involvement, parents should always be in a minority.

Q3. Do you agree that parental representation on the appointments panel should be obligatory? Should that take the form of a minimum proportion of the membership?
Parental involvement should be seen as “usual” and “good practice”, but it should not be obligatory. We can envisage circumstances where parents might not want to be part of the appointment panel (it might generate some awkwardness in very small communities, for example) and we think that there should be scope for appointment panels to be formed without any parent representative.
We do not think there should be a minimum proportion. The maths of appointment panels make it difficult to set this sensibly. However, we do think that parents should always be less than half. More critically, we think that any “space” created in the appointment process by reducing the parental contribution below 50%, should be taken up by professionals, not by elected members. As with the “sift” process, we think that a peer professional should always be involved.

Q4. Do you agree that parental representation for school mergers or cluster arrangements should be drawn from a combined Parent Council?
We would like to differentiate between mergers and cluster arrangements.
With a school merger we agree that any parental representation should be drawn from the combined Parent Council. However, we are aware that the education authority’s responsibility as an employer might mean that there could be strong pressures on the authority to appoint one of the existing heads. This should be fully explained to the parents involved in the appointment process.
It is our understanding that the heads of cluster arrangements are more straight management jobs akin to area officers. We do not think that parents should be involved in making such appointments; rather these appointments should be made in the same way as those to other area officer posts within the authority.

Q5. Do you agree that where a school does not have a Parent Council that representation should be drawn from the wider parent forum?
If the school has an alternative, properly constituted parent body then, in the absence of a parent council, parents should be drawn from this properly constituted parent body to participate in the appointment process. However, where there is no such properly constituted group, then we do not think that parents should be involved. We do not think it would be acceptable to select parents randomly from the whole parent forum to participate in the appointment process.

Q6. Proposals for a Local Authority Panel
Note: we would like to point out that this “question” does not have an “answer” space on the e-response form. Some respondees might not know to add it.
In considering this, the starting point should be what do parents bring to the appointment process and how this differs from what professionals contribute. Parents have an active awareness of the school, of what it’s like, the strong points, weaknesses and the type of person that would fit in well. In contrast professionals bring knowledge of educational requirements, professional competencies and the qualifications needed for a Headteacher or Depute post. It is important that these two roles are not muddled/confused. Parents do not have professional expertise and this should not be expected/required of them. Their value is that they know and understand their own school; they know why the retiring head/depute was good and what his/her weak points were. It is this local and parentally relevant information that parents’ involvement in the appointment process is meant to bring. The professional dimension is more properly provided by professional members on the appointment panel.
The panels of “highly trained” parents would deliver neither the local knowledge nor the full professional understanding of the true professionals. They would cease to be “true” parents and would become a hybrid.
Moreover, they would almost certainly be drawn from middle class, probably secondary schools, and the local parents could well resent the intrusion onto their “patch”. It’s a truism, not often admitted, that parents resent the intrusion of “outside” parents coming in to tell them how to do things. Parents would not have the same problem with “experts” i.e. professionals coming in to the school to make the appointment. But the idea that parents from a school up the road were better than the parents at this school, would not go down well.
There is a clear inference here that parents in disadvantaged areas might not be up to the job. We would argue that as the role of parents in the appointment process is to contribute local knowledge and a valuable insight into the type of relationship that will be needed, not to pass professional judgement on the candidate’s suitability, then the parents at any/all school/s can make the desired and appropriate contribution. On the other hand, outsiders can provide neither local knowledge nor an insight into the type of relationship that will be needed at that particular school, no matter how well trained they are.
This process might look attractive from the education authority’s viewpoint, but it will be resented by parents on the ground. If it is thought that parents can add something valuable to the appointment process, then this is what should be sought. If that contribution is limited by lack of professionalism, then this should be recognised. There is no place for flying in “expert” parents. We strongly oppose the concept of local authority panels.

Q7. Uniform process
In discussing this consultation we became aware that authorities operate a range of different procedures in making Headteacher and Depute appointments. We would like to see a more standard process. Moreover, given the variety of schools – urban, rural, large, small, affluent, deprived – it is important that the process developed has universal application and works equally well in all circumstances.
We would like to see higher participation by professionals, including both education department officials and school-based peers. We remain convinced that the most important aspect of this process is that it is properly professional and as rigorous as the appointment of comparable professionals in other work areas. In discussing this consultation we found it helpful to consider what we, as patients, would have wanted to be involved in the appointment of a consultant surgeon. We feel the same level of rigour should be applied to the appointment of a headteacher who, in a different way, is also responsible for a lot of lives.
Finally, where parents are involved, it is important that they have training in relevant employment regulations like equal opportunities, data protection etc. It is also important that parents understand about confidentiality. Parents charged with representing the wider parent body have to maintain a very difficult balance between reporting back to those on whose behalf they act and respecting the candidate’s right to confidentiality.

Scottish Parent Teacher Council
February 2006

To read the consultation in full, go to the Parentzone website:
www.parentzonescotland.gov.uk