6. The Standard for Headship and the Pilot
In view of the fact that the FRH is a new and potentially alternative option for prospective head teachers to satisfy the SfH, a few words are in order about it. This standard is one of four in Scottish schooling. Only three of these, however, are controlled by the GTC: the Standard for Initial Teacher Education, the Standard for Full Registration and the Standard for Chartered Teacher:
The standard for headship is not owned by the GTC. It is a government function. Now in some ways that's just historical, I think, because the standard for headship was the first of the standards to be developed back in the, almost 10 years ago now. And the government has hung onto the standard for headship ever since and when it was reviewed, which is what three or four years ago now, there clearly was a desire to continue with government ownership of that standard. Now that, I think, is because they see leadership and headship as being different from being a teacher.
While it is not within the evaluation remit to consider control of the SfH (see Appendix 1), our recommendation concerned with the management of the FRH in the next section of this report has implications for the current oversight of the SfH. Likewise, while we were not asked to comment on the SQH in relation to the FRH although, as we indicated in the previous section, the Executive did so frequently in its seven-page circular there is little point in thinking of the FRH as a self-contained entity. Some candidates, for example, were prepared to be part of the FRH although not the SQH and, if the flexible provision is to be made available nationally, then LAs will have to provide for one or both routes.
Scottish education cannot afford to institutionalize and commit resources to two rival pathways to meeting a standard. If, however, it is accepted that the SQH and FRH should be viewed as equal in status, although different in emphasis, then in our view it makes sense to have both pathways controlled by the one authority. Advantages include consistency of managerial oversight, commonality of quality control and assurance, a surer guarantee of equivalence of assessment demands on participants, a stronger likelihood that those involved in each pathway will learn from the experiences of the other, reduction of duplication in marketing and promotion, and so on. The linchpin of the argument is assessment. It is now well acknowledged internationally that standards-based approaches to evaluating professional performance stand or fall according to the quality of their assessment systems (Ingvarson & Hattie, 2008, pp. 15-16). Because the credibility of assessment systems is strengthened by the independent status of both the process of assessing evidence and the robustness of assessment outcomes, the case is strong for aligning the location the SfH and the two pathways to its attainment with the GTC (and see section 7.2 on this point).
Recommendation 2: That, in regard to formalising the FRH as an alternative pathway to satisfying the SfH, with parity to the SQH, consideration be given to bringing the SfH and both pathways within the purview of the GTC.