THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND
CHURCH AND SOCIETY
EAGLAIS NA H-ALBA


121 George Street, Edinburgh, EH2 4YN.  Tel: 0131 225 5722  Fax: 0131 240 2239
Email: churchandsociety@cofscotland.org.uk   Web: www.churchofscotland.org.uk


Official Response
SUBJECT	ACHIEVING THE STANDARD FOR HEADSHIP - PROVIDING CHOICE AND ALTERNATIVES
REQUESTED BY	SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT
AUTHOR	GEORGE ROSS AND JANE REID FOR THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
REFERENCE	OR 002/2006
DATE	20 APRIL 2006



The Church of Scotland, through its Church and Society Council, welcomes the opportunity to respond to the consultation document Achieving the Standard for Headship - Providing Choice and Alternatives.  The Church supports the provision of choice and alternatives of an equally demanding standard.


Q1.    Are the entry principles correct?
    Yes

Q2.     Are there aspects of the proposal which would benefit from more clarity or guidance?
School leaders need to be able to relate well to young people. We welcome the fact that a requirement is that they are effective teachers. Some definition of an effective teacher would be beneficial.

Q3.     Should there be a common application process regardless of approach?
Yes. It is important that all approaches are regarded as being of equal value and a common application process would contribute to this. The application process should be such that all candidates experience an equity of treatment.

Q4.     Are the development principles correct?
    Yes. It is essential that the SFH is seen as the basis.

Q5.     Are there aspects of the proposal which would benefit from more clarity or guidance?
    No

Q6.     Are there aspects of the proposal which would benefit from more clarity or guidance?
    No

Q7.     Is the assessment process sufficiently challenging and rigorous?
The assessment process must have the same rigour and be as challenging as the SQH. It is important that there is a consistency in the application of the assessment procedures across the country to ensure that all successful candidates have reached the same high standard of leadership. This will also ensure that candidates feel there is an equity of treatment.

Q8.    Should there be a maximum and minimum timescale for candidates undertaking a flexible approach.  If so what should these be? 
Judgements should be based on the quality of the candidate’s work and experience. This might make it difficult to prescribe timescales. However it would be important to ensure that early work and experience was still relevant and therefore able to make an appropriate contribution to the candidate’s portfolio.

Q9.    Are there aspects of the proposal which would benefit from more clarity or guidance?
    No

Q10.    In which areas do you feel there is sufficient flexibility at present, and where do you feel that additional capacity, innovation or fresh approaches might be needed?

Q11.    Which aspects of the development for headship would you regard as core or strongly recommended for candidates undertaking a Professional Development Plan?  
    Leadership skills and communication.

Q12.  To what extent would it be feasible to dovetail the delivery and assessment structures established by existing SQH providers and those envisaged in this paper for the proposed flexible approaches?

Q13.    Do you find the proposal is described adequately?
    Yes

Q14.    Is the proposal likely to be seen as attractive to aspirant headteachers?    
Yes. It will allow aspirant headteachers to achieve the SFH at a pace that takes account of the workload and responsibilities relating to their current post and other areas such as family responsibilities. This proposal will also allow candidates to draw on previous relevant work and experience.