Scottish Government

7 KEY PRINCIPLES

7.1 This chapter explores some of the key principles around which a national body might be structured. The findings come from workshops with parents and discussions with key stakeholders. They address the inter-related issues of membership, independence and funding before moving on to discuss breadth of remit, structure, governance and capacity.

Membership

7.2 The majority of parents and other key stakeholders believe that a national body should be a membership organisation.

7.3 There is less agreement on how that membership should be achieved. Many are of the view that if you are a Parent Council then membership of the national body for Parent Councils should be automatic. There was a view expressed by many that there should be no or negligible fee attached to membership. Parents in particular supported no fees.

7.4 A number of advantages of membership were identified. Having a high proportion of Parent Councils within a membership was seen as giving the organisation strength. Actively choosing membership and participation in a national body would give strength to its collective voice. Its power would be proportional to the number of Parent Councils that chose to join.

7.5 One view is that paying a fee and actively joining an organisation lends it greater credibility, value, sense of ownership and is likely to result in greater participation. It gives choice as to whether to be a member or not. Membership also improves the organisation's independence and validates the fact that the organisation speaks for its membership, thus making it more of a force to be reckoned with. Actively becoming a member also allows members an exit strategy if they are dissatisfied.

7.6 There were however significant disadvantages to paying fees. One view was that the responsibility for paying fees should not be placed upon the local authorities as this tends to produce variation across the country. It was important that all Parent Councils have access to the same services provided by a national body.

7.7 Some tried to reconcile the conflict between wanting membership fees yet being accessible to all. One proposal is for services to be provided to non-members in the hope that they would join after seeing the benefits. This however seemed at odds with the argument that fees enhance perceived value.

7.8 Another view is that membership fees should be so low that the added value by being a member would be sufficient to make it nonsense not to join.

7.9 In the past some local authorities have paid for membership for the Scottish School Board Association and some local authorities are currently paying for membership of SPTC for their Parent Council members in order to access their insurance services. The logic set out above concerning freedom of choice and the value associated with making an active decision are undermined by this.

7.10 There is a cost and administration attached to the collection of fees and one view is that collecting fees would be neither cost-effective nor would it contribute to increased participation or involvement.

7.11 Some will struggle to actively join anything due to cost. Additionally the wealthier Parent Councils generally in better areas can afford to pay thus disadvantaging those in poorer areas. Differential pricing is not deemed practicable. There is a deep concern that the very active, middle class parents predominate thus making the organisation unrepresentative and easily hijacked. It can focus on the interests of active members rather than focussing on the wider interests of all parents.

7.12 For these reasons there is a strong view that there should be an automatic right of access to a National Parents Body. It may be feasible to require formal registration in order to belong to it. A widely held view was that if a Parent Council exists then it should have a right of access to information, support and advice from a national parent body. By having a membership fee the organisation would risk excluding some, most likely those who were in more disadvantaged areas.

7.13 Another view was that the National body should not exist solely to service its members but rather to represent the wider interest of all parents.

7.14 There were a number of suggestions aimed at finding a middle ground. One suggestion was that if it were government funded then one option to exercise freedom of choice would be to allow Parent Councils to actively opt out if they wished. Others felt that this was not necessary and all Parent Councils needed to do if they did not wish to be part of the national body would be not to engage with it. Either would ensure that the choice resided with each Parent Council.

7.15 Some tried to find a compromise position between paying membership fees and ensuring services of a national body were available to all. A few felt that there was a need for a fee but that it should be very low and that the services provided should provide demonstrably greater value than the cost. Having some fee even if token was important to some.

7.16 There was also some discussion primarily with the organisations interviewed about whether membership would be confined to Parent Councils. There are a number of other organisations who have a mixed membership, often in the form of associate membership. There is a view that it may be possible for other organisations to be members of the national body but the general view is that they would have no voting rights nor attend the AGM. There was a clear view that Parent Council members should remain in control.

7.17 Teacher representation on the national body was also discussed especially with regard to the benefit of having a parent who is also a teacher. Parents who were also teachers should not be excluded from participation in a national body and indeed may bring some benefits.

7.18 The option to co-opt associate members ( e.g. groups, organisations or experts) as and when needed would provide a route for accessing support and advice but without any voting rights which might otherwise dilute the control of parents. It was felt that this reflected the way that Parent Councils themselves operate where the head teacher has a right to attend as an adviser.

7.19 There was also some discussion as to whether individual parents could be members of a national body. Whilst it would be feasible to have an individual membership for parents, individual parents within a national body would ideally be members via their Parent Council.

Funding

7.20 The majority view of both parents and other key stakeholders is that funding should be provided from central government.

7.21 Disadvantages of Government funding were:

• Potential to limit the body's independence or their perceived independence
• Potential to make an organisation lazy if it gets funding automatically

7.22 Advantages of membership fees were:

• Power of exit
• Value for money
• High level of 'ownership'

7.23 Whilst membership fees were one answer, it was recognised by many that fees alone would never provide sufficient funding. Some of the parent discussion groups indicated that subscription levels would likely be too high, uptake would then likely be very low and time spent collecting funds would limit effectiveness. Further, constantly trying to raise funds diverts focus from the role that the national body is set up to have and makes it difficult to plan ahead.

7.24 Other possible sources of income could come from:

• Government grants,
• Grants in relation to community development,
• Selling training and conferences (to local authorities)
• Differential charges to organisations/professionals to attend conferences etc.

7.25 The SPTC, who currently receive funding by offering insurance to members, feels that this mechanism allows independence. They value this highly. They believe that there may be other services that a national body could provide for a fee to members e.g. training.

7.26 Currently there appear to be significant variations in the way that individual Parent Councils are funded via their local authorities and in turn this will affect the ability of some Parent Councils to pay membership fees.

7.27 There are also significant variations in the amount of fund raising undertaken locally. Some Parent Councils find this very difficult. Some involve pupils in this activity to a greater extent than others. Sharing good practice on fund raising activities was seen as a further advantage of having a national body.

7.28 An initial reaction to funding by central government is often that it would be difficult to maintain independence. The question was raised as to whether the body could be critical of government if this was seen as 'biting the hand that feeds' and therefore possibly jeopardising the relationship. However, the alternatives to government funding were seen to have huge drawbacks.

7.29 Parent workshops concluded that funding the national body by central government was the only viable option and as vital. It was also seen as logical since Parent Councils are in fact already funded by local authorities. However if central government was to fund, there would need to be cast-iron agreements in place to ensure autonomy, including independence of local government.

7.30 In the view of some parents central funding would also put pressure on local authorities and bring to an end what some see as ambivalence toward local authority forums.

7.31 There was some discussion about the scale of funding required. This would depend on the capacity of the body and what its roles might be. There was acknowledgement that costs could be considerable if paid staff, running costs etc were all taken into account. Nevertheless, the view was expressed that substantial financial backing would be appropriate to enable a national body to function effectively and if the role of Parent Councils, with the support of a national body, was to bring about real change.

7.32 There were further comments by parents that within the current political climate, with the aim of cutting back quangos, there may be real concerns about costs and the willingness and ability of government to meet these costs.

7.33 Unfavourable comparisons are often made between the funding for Parent Councils and similar bodies within health. One suggested reason for this is that parents are not the direct consumers of the education being provided.

Independence

7.34 All believed that independence was crucial to the success of any national body. Parents felt that without independence, the national body could not be the voice of the Parent Councils and would effectively be no more than a government subgroup or quango and be driven by the government's own agenda.

7.35 Independence from local government was also seen as being very important.

7.36 Most believe that independence can be achieved whilst being funded from central government.

7.37 Independence does not come solely from the source of funds but also from:

• ensuring at the outset that the constitution is written to ensure independence
• appropriate governance to ensure agenda determination by parents not government
• longer term assurances of funding
• speaking out when required and having integrity to do so
• representing parent views accurately

7.38 Parents gave examples of bodies funded by government but functioning independently. This included tribunals. Despite the wish for a national body to be independent they felt that both central government and local government could work together to make the work of a national body more effective.

7.39 However others argue that the source of funding will significantly affect independence or at least perceived independence. A view held by some of the organisations was that, to ensure independence, funding should come from more than one source.

7.40 As noted above parent workshops debated how different funding mechanisms might affect independence. Overall, the alternatives to government funding were seen to have huge drawbacks and funding by central government seen to be the least of all evils which should sensibly be balanced by various steps to ensure independence.

Breadth of remit

7.41 There is some debate as to the breadth of remit that a national body might have. Parent Councils were asked to indicate how wide they felt it should be. Nearly half felt tha t it should relate to the overall well being of each child. Only 23% felt it should relate to issues concerning the school alone. Still fewer (10%) felt it should relate only to issues relating to the wider learning of each child. Workshop discussions with parents tended to reinforce these views.

7.42 Interestingly the views of the other stakeholders tended to disagree. The majority of stakeholders take the view that the national body should have a remit covering all aspects of a child's learning both within and outwith of school but should not consider all aspects of the child's well being. They argue that while there is an increasing tendency to view a child's development holistically, too broad remit might dilute the focus on school and learning. This view held that there are already many other organisations representing issues relating to the wider aspects of children's well-being and development.

Structure

7.43 Whilst the structure of the national body was not specifically tabled as a topic within the discussion workshops it inevitably arose.

7.44 Clusters of Parent Councils are now emerging on a sub-national basis and these more local groupings reduce the effect of the barriers discussed in Chapter 8. Regional representation was seen as important by parents, with the regions feeding into the national body with a management board made up of regional representatives. For example, a four-tier model was proposed by one of the discussion groups. ²

7.45 There was a strong feeling that representation from all areas should be assured and particular concern to avoid over-representing Edinburgh or Glasgow. It was also important that meetings were not confined to the central belt.

7.46 There is a view that any national body would have to work hard to get the views and involvement of those in more outlying areas and that innovative use of communication was key to this.

7.47 The option to resource outreach workers was discussed by a few. The majority did not see this as necessary suggesting that it would be more appropriate and more effective to provide such support through the local authority.

7.48 One or two meetings yearly that all Parent Councils could attend was proposed.

Governance

7.49 Issues relating to governance were only briefly discussed with stakeholders. They were not intended as part of the agenda for parent discussions but inevitably issues relating to governance did arise and were then discussed. This study can only advance the subject of governance a little. The associated issues will require further discussion.

7.50 There is some debate as to how formal a process is required to appoint Parent Council members to the national board or committee.

7.51 The SPCA would like to see 32 elected board members with geographical representation for each of the 32 local authorities.

7.52 The issue of representativeness across the country is a prerequisite. But the logistics of a board with 32+ members together with the fact that time, travel and cost were cited by Parent Councils as the main impediments to participation present serious challenges to the practical operation of such a body.

7.53 One compromise proposed might be not requiring all 32 local authorities to be represented but to adopt the regions ³ used for Scottish Parliamentary elections and have two representatives from each. This would give a board of around 14, plus an independent chair, which was seen as a better number to work with. Parent workshops suggested that a workable number of 15 would be a maximum to stop it becoming a 'talking shop'.

7.54 Many parents disliked elections for the previous school boards and this is no longer a requirement for the current Parent Councils. Selection of people to serve a national level may not lend itself so well to such informality.

7.55 No agreed solutions were put forward to overcome the question of elections but one proposal was for a representative to be sent and that this might vary from meeting to meeting. There is a view that there can be a representative without having to have an election. This might result, for example, from adopting a regional structure whereby the chair of that regional body would be the representative on a national body. (The question of election/appointment would then be devolved to the regional level.)

7.56 The number of directors required was also mentioned by a few. SPTC have a maximum of 20 directors although typically only around 12 are active. Within this there are some teachers although the majority are always parents.

Capacity and Staffing

7.57 All were in agreement that salaried staff would be required to support the volunteers who would form the board or committee of the national body. They would ensure that the national body could effectively and efficiently carry out its role. At a minimum they would undertake administrative tasks.

7.58 Stakeholders were invited to give their thoughts on staffing. Opinion varied from 3 to 20. Several staff roles were identified -

• Manning helplines
• Research
• Website management
• Office management

The exact number of staff would depend on whether these roles were deemed consistent with the national body remit and whether the resource was in-house or managed service.

7.59 There was also some discussion as to whether the chairmanship of the national body should be a full time elected or appointed post. It was suggested that the role of the chair needed to be both independent and elected, but that clear differentiation between the role of an elected individual and a full time official was necessary.

Key Findings

• A national body should be a membership organisation.
• Opinions vary on how to achieve membership. Options include -

automatic right of access to ensure access by all

membership fee to ensure sense of ownership

nominal fee to maximise incentive to join/stay

• Membership should be confined to Parent Councils.
• Essential that parents retain control. Other organisations or experts can be co-opted or possibly have associate status but should have no voting rights.
• Advisers should be co-opted but restricted to a separate advisory group and not part form part of the core national body.
• The majority view is for funding to be provided from central government.
• Independence is essential
• Most consider independence can be achieved whilst funded by government.
• 50% of parents feel the remit should cover overall well being of each child.
• Stakeholders disagreed, arguing that it should address the wider learning of the child only.
• Regional representation was seen as important by parents, and a desire to see geographic representation from across Scotland on the board.
• There is no agreement on the size of board or council.
• Clusters of Parent Councils are seen as a route to developing parental representation structures.
• Some favour a 3 tier or 4 tier structure so as to interact separately with the local authority and at a national level.
• All were in agreement that salaried staff are required to support the volunteers who would form the board or committee of the national body.
• The balance of in-house resourcing and externally commissioned work would be determined by the detailed remit and the most cost-effective means of dispatching that.