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 Parental Involvement - Headteacher and Depute Headteacher Appointment Procedures REQUESTED BY SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE AUTHOR GEORGE ROSS AND JANE REID REFERENCE OR/G/001 - 2006 DATE 28 FEBRUARY 2006 The Church of Scotland, through its Church and Society Council welcomes the opportunity to respond to the consultation document, Parental Involvement - Headteacher and Depute Headteacher appointment procedures and would make the following comments. 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? Yes. From its knowledge of the school, pupils and local community the Parent Council may have views on the needs of the school and of the particular direction in which the school should move. It is important that parents are able to express these views and have them considered. This would also allow the school to benefit from parents who had skills and experience in this area in other careers. Q2 Do you agree that Regulations should entitle the Parent Council to be involved in any sift process? Yes. It is important that representatives of the Parent Council should be given the opportunity to be involved in the sift process but we fully support that this should not be compulsory. The process of matching the qualifications and experience of applicants against the job and person specifications can be a complicated process. It could be quite lengthy depending on the number of candidates and would be best carried out by a very small group containing a majority of professionals. We recognise that this could be a lengthy process and take up a considerable time commitment that some parents might find difficult to make. We would be anxious that no steps were included in the process that would result in unnecessary delay. 2/... - 2 - 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? Yes. We would support the idea of a 40% representation. While recognising the need for flexibility to take account of the nature of the post and size of the school we are concerned that this might lead to unnecessarily large appointment panels. Q4 Do you agree that parental representation for school mergers or cluster arrangements should be drawn from a combined Parent Council? Yes. There could be an issue here as to how far in advance of the merger and appointment of the Headteacher that the combined Parent Council had been formed. Q5 Do you agree that where a school does not have a Parent Council that representation should be drawn from the wider parent forum? No. We perceive difficulties in how suitably trained parents would be identified to take part in the appointments process. We would also question how representative such parents would be given that no Parent Council had been established. Other comments There is a considerable obligation on local authorities to ensure that parents and indeed others taking part at any stage in this process should be adequately trained. In order to prevent unnecessary delay, such training should take place well in advance of any vacancies being identified. There should be an ongoing programme of training so that when a vacancy occurs there is an available pool of suitably trained people from which to draw. It the case of Depute Headteacher appointments the Headteacher of the school must participate at all stages in the process. Dr David Sinclair Secretary to the Church & Society Council