Empowering Schools consultation: analysis of responses

Headteachers' Charter

Introduction

16. The consultation document explained that the Education Bill will include provisions to establish a Headteachers' Charter. The purpose of the Charter is to set out the rights and responsibilities of headteachers that will empower them to be the leaders of learning and teaching in their schools. The consultation document explained that the Charter will set out the support headteachers can expect to receive to meet the needs of their school communities by clarifying the responsibilities that local authorities will fulfil in order to enable headteachers to lead.

Summary

In general, there was support for the principles behind the Headteachers' Charter, although there was less support for legislation to enshrine these. This is at least in part because respondents felt that across a number of areas, headteachers' are already empowered as the leaders of learning and teaching and as the lead decision-maker in their school. Respondents perceived a need for consistency and inclusivity across Scotland, for example, in curriculum delivery or improvement planning.

Across all elements of the Headteachers' Charter, respondents acknowledged the importance of collaboration across all relevant audiences. That said, while respondents perceived a need to ensure that a wide range of individuals are involved in school planning, there were some concerns of the difficulties in persuading local communities and parents to become involved.

There were some concerns over the loss of local identities, priorities and accountability in improvement planning because of the introdution of Regional Improvement Collaboratives ( RICs), although there were also comments that RICs can offer access to a wider range of collaboration and sharing of good practice.

While respondents noted some advantages to headteachers having increased freedom in relation to staffing decisions and school funding, there were some concerns that headteachers do not have the necessary skills or expertise to undertake these roles, with some requests for additional staff and funding to support headteachers in these roles. Allied to this, some respondents noted a preference for headteachers to focus on their core role of leading learning and teaching in schools.

There were also requests for transparency in decision-making and the need for proper checks and oversight within the system.

17. The consultation paper posed 7 questions in relation to the Headteachers' Charter and respondents raised some issues and themes that were common across these questions. These are outlined below, and then followed by commentary relevant to each specific question.

Overall Themes relating to the Headteachers' Charter

18. In general, there was support for the principles behind the Headteachers' Charter, although there was less support for legislation to enshrine these principles.

19. Throughout this section of the consultation paper, a small proportion of respondents commented on the need to retain responsibility within local authorities. These comments were in relation to the statutory duties currently held by local authorities; and the need to retain input from local authorities in the curriculum and the provision of advice and support to headteachers.

20. A small proportion of respondents also felt the introduction of the Headteachers' Charter could lead to higher levels of bureaucracy within schools, higher workloads and additional administrative burden for headteachers.

21. There was a perception from a small proportion of respondents that the consultation paper focuses on primary and secondary schools and does not explain how the proposals would operate in Early Learning and Childcare provision.

22. There were requests from a small proportion of respondents to the need for any changes introduced by the Headteachers' Charter to be based on best practice and evidence of what has worked effectively to date.

23. Very small proportions referred to current agreements with the Scottish Negotiating Committee for Teachers ( SNCT) and Local Negotiating Committee for Teachers ( LNCT). Some of these respondents queried whether these agreements would still be applicable under the proposals being put forward under the Headteachers' Charter, with others having a perception that these agreements would no longer apply.

24. There were references to the need for guidance, good practice, advice and support to be provided to headteachers to help them undertake any new roles introduced by the Headteachers' Charter.

Curriculum for Excellence

25. The first question in the consultation asked respondents:

Q1: The Headteachers' Charter will empower headteachers as the leaders of learning and teaching and as the lead decision maker in how the curriculum is designed and provided in their schools. What further improvements would you suggest to enable headteachers to fulfil this empowered role?

26. Overall, 558 respondents replied to this question, and a number of themes emerged.

27. A key theme relating to this question, and cited by around a quarter of respondents, was the need for collaboration to share practice and ideas; and respondents cited a wide range of different types of individuals and organisations that should be involved in collaboration. These included teachers, school staff, nursery staff, local authority staff, staff from Regional Improvement Collaboratives, providers of Community Learning and Development ( CLD), further education and higher education organisations, staff from other stakeholder organisations and parents. The need for collaboration was cited by respondents across all sub-groups of respondents, although a higher proportion of organisations referred to this than individuals. The organisation sub-groups mentioning this most frequently were local authorities and professional associations / groups. This issue was least frequently cited by parent councils / fora.

28. A small proportion of respondents also cited the need for a collegiate approach or a whole school approach, with responsibilities sitting with the whole school, rather than simply the headteacher.

29. The need for a collaborative approach with local authorities, particularly to ensure local authorities are able to deliver their existing statutory duties, for example in relation to Additional Support for Learning ( ASL) and GIRFEC (cited most frequently by local authorities) was cited by a smaller proportion of respondents. Allied to this, a similar proportion noted that the perceived disaggregation of provision and delivery of education from local authorities and the redistribution of functions under the proposals would not take account of other statutory duties held by local authorities.

30. Around a fifth of respondents noted the need for consistency so that all schools are teaching to the same level, offering consistency in curricular design, are fully inclusive and offering the necessary support to all pupils. Once again, this issue was cited by respondents across all sub-groups, although a higher proportion of organisations referred to this than individuals. The organisation sub-groups mentioning this most frequently were local authorities, professional associations / groups and those in independent / third sector organisations. This issue was of least concern to parent councils / fora. Conversely, a small proportion of respondents noted their concern that the Headteachers' Charter could create inconsistencies across Scotland, with a small proportion of respondents being concerned that some headteachers might focus on specific elements of the curriculum at the expense of others.

31. Around a fifth of respondents noted that headteachers are already empowered as the leaders of learning and teaching and as the lead decision maker in how the curriculum is designed and provided in their schools. Some of these respondents also felt there is no need to enshrine this in legislation (most frequently cited by local authority respondents).

32. A small proportion of respondents also noted concerns that the introduction of a Headteachers' Charter could increase headteacher workloads because of higher levels of administrative duties. Allied to this, there was a degree of concern that this could detract from the headteacher's core role of leading learning and teaching. This issue was cited most frequently by respondents in parent councils, local authorities, professional associations / groups and schools.

33. The issue of quality assurance was raised by a small proportion of respondents and a number of facets were mentioned. These included the need to assess headteacher decisions, the need for transparency in decision-making, how to measure the performance of headteachers, the need for proper checks and oversight within the system and how headteachers would be held accountable for their decisions.

34. Reference was also made by small proportions of respondents to issues impacting on education in Scotland at present. These included concerns over the current teacher and headteacher shortage in Scotland, with some noting that until this is resolved, the Charter is likely to have a limited impact. This also included a small proportion of respondents who referred to current levels of attainment and the need for these to be improved.

35. Small proportions of respondents also raised issues relevant to other questions about the Headteachers' Charter and these will be covered at the relevant questions. These included reference to:

• The allocation of funding to headteachers.
• The types of support and professional learning that would be valuable to headteachers.
• Staffing within schools.

36. The campaign response expressed opposition to the Headteachers' Charter, particularly in respect to the potential increase in administrative and bureaucratic tasks for headteachers and the need for headteachers to focus on leading learning and teaching in their schools.

Improvement

Question 2: The Headteachers' Charter will empower headteachers to develop their school improvement plans collaboratively with their school community. What improvements could be made to this approach?

37. While there was support for headteachers to be empowered to develop their school improvement plans collaboratively with their school community, of the 505 respondents who provided commentary to this question, a significant minority noted that headteachers already develop their school improvement plans collaboratively with the school community or that headteachers already have the scope to work collaboratively. While this issue was referenced by respondents across all sub-groups, highest levels came from parent councils / fora, local authorities and schools. A small proportion of respondents also referred to processes already in place to ensure that pupils, parents, staff and partner organisations inform the planning process through self-evaluation linked to How Good is our School ( HGIOS4).

38. A small proportion of respondents, primarily headteachers, parent councils / fora and local authorities, commented that it can be difficult to engage with local communities and parents; and focused on the need to find pathways and incentives to persuade local communities and parents to engage with schools. That said, there were also some comments that parents and others within a school community might not wish to become involved, that they may focus on issues relevant to their child rather than the whole school or that they might not have the necessary skills and experience for decision-making.

39. There were some requests for the provision of guidelines or a framework on how to engage school communities; as well as for guidance to be provided to school communities in relation to improvement planning specifically.

40. A small proportion of respondents noted concerns over the potential for loss of local identities and priorities in improvement planning because of the introduction of Regional Improvement Collaboratives ( RICs); this was most frequently cited by local authorities and schools. There were some comments on the loss of local accountability and the need for local initiatives to be given priority. A few respondents noted the need for RICs to enhance local authority input rather than replace it.

41. The campaign response argued that collaboration already takes place with the school community in the development of school improvement plans.

Question 3: The Charter will set out the primacy of the school improvement plan. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this approach?

42. Overall, 466 respondents opted to provide commentary in response to this question. While there was general support for the primacy of the school improvement plan, some respondents noted that this approach is already adopted (most frequently cited by respondents within schools, local authorities and parent councils).

Advantages

43. The key advantages cited by around one in five respondents across all groups were that this will allow schools to meet the needs and priorities of children, and reflect the needs of the school and community as well as develop stronger links with the community. Smaller proportions of respondents commented that it would allow for:

• Increased input and involvement from teachers, parents, pupils and the wider school community.
• A shared vision that is supported at all levels because of the inclusion of stakeholders.
• The consistency across Scotland, and collegiate planning on a national basis which would lead to a strong national focus.
• Flexibility to respond to local needs.
• RICs to offer access to a wider range of collaboration or sharing of good practice.

Disadvantages

44. The key disadvantage cited by around one in ten respondents was that the proposed Headteachers' Charter could bring about a lack of consistency and disparity in relation to improvement planning across Scotland, and a potential disconnect between local and regional improvement priorities (cited most frequently by local authorities).

45. A potential lack of expertise and capability of headteachers was also raised as a possible disadvantage, with concerns that this could lead to limited thinking or poor plans on the part of an inexperienced headteacher, as well as the potential for loss of strategic focus. There was also a suggestion from a small proportion of respondents that some other individuals involved in development of the school improvement plan might not have the necessary level of understanding or necessary experience.

46. As at the previous question, respondents argued that regional priorities would not cater for local needs as well as current plans do, and that Regional Improvement Plans would be unable to reflect all school improvement plans within their area (cited most frequently by schools and local authorities).

Other issues

47. Other issues raised by respondents included the need for plans to be flexible, able to respond to change and for implementation of a school improvement plan to be ongoing. While there were comments that plans need to reflect national and local priorities, and to be focused on evidence-based improvements and research, there were also some comments of the need to ensure that the school improvement plan should drive the improvement agenda rather than have a 'top-down' approach.

48. There were a small proportion of requests for clarification on how the school improvement plan will link to National Improvement Framework ( NIF), the role of local authorities and other stakeholders.

49. The issue of conflict or confusion within the proposals was raised by a small proportion of respondents; for example, the issue of local autonomy and the primacy of the Regional Improvement Collaboratives; or comments that the legal responsibility for schools continues to rest with the local authority but the proposals give the authority little or no scope in influencing priorities, which could give rise to tensions.

50. There were a small number of comments that the school improvement plan needs to be written in user-friendly language that is accessible to all.

51. There were also a small proportion of references to the need for a multi-agency approach that is aligned to other locality planning.

52. Once again, some issues raised echoed those seen at earlier questions and included the need for guidance, support and good practice models, the need for involvement of local authorities in planning and carrying out statutory duties and ensuring support across all areas so as to maintain a consistent and inclusive approach.

53. The campaign response noted that the school improvement plan is available to all parents.

Staffing

Question 4: The Headteachers' Charter will set out the freedoms which headteachers should have in relation to staffing decisions.

a. What are the advantages and disadvantages of headteachers being able to have greater input into recruitment exercises and processes adopted by their local authority?

b. What are the advantages and disadvantages of headteachers' ability to choose their teams and decide on the promoted post structure within their schools?

a. Headteacher input into recruitment exercises and processes

54. In terms of the advantages and disadvantages of headteachers being able to have greater input into recruitment exercises and processes adopted by their local authority, 523 respondents opted to provide commentary.

55. While a small proportion of respondents noted their support for headteachers to be able to recruit the staff they need when they need them, a higher proportion (around one in five) noted that this will make no difference as headteachers currently have a good level of input into recruitment exercises and processes. This comment was noted by respondents in all sub-groups although higher proportions of parent councils / fora, local authorities, schools and headteachers referred to this. A small proportion, predominantly individuals, also felt that recruitment should continue as it currently does and that any change would not improve upon the current situation.

Advantages

56. A key advantage cited by a significant minority of respondents was that the proposal would offer headteachers the capacity to refine their needs and recruit staff who will fit with the school ethos. Other advantages cited by very small proportions of respondents included that this would:

• Offer flexibility to respond to changing requirements.
• Allow headteachers to reflect local needs.
• Overcome local authority bureaucracy within recruitment processes, help to speed up recruitment processes or be more streamlined.
• Mean that the current procedures for the redeployment of surplus staff would no longer be applicable.

Disadvantages

57. The key disadvantage cited by around one in six respondents was that this could lead to increased workloads for headteachers (most frequently cited by parent councils and schools). Another key disadvantage, cited by around one in seven respondents, was that the recruitment process could be susceptible to bias as headteachers may recruit individuals they know rather than those most suited to a post (most frequently cited by individuals).

58. Other disadvantages were cited by very small proportions of respondents and included:

• Headteachers do not have the necessary recruitment skills, understand employment law or understand SNCT agreements or staffing formulas. Allied to this, there could be a conflict between headteachers making recruitment decisions and local authorities retaining the employment risk. There could also be a lack of consistency in the treatment of staff. A small proportion of respondents noted the need to adhere to a local authority staffing model.
• This could introduce the potential for difficulties in attracting and retaining high calibre staff or that the best staff could go to the best schools and lead to a wider attainment gap. A very small proportion of respondents also noted this could be a particular challenge in rural areas or areas of high deprivation where there are already shortages of teachers.
• This additional responsibility could detract from a headteacher's focus on leading and managing learning and teaching.
• Concerns that this could lead to a loss of local authority budgetary control and subsequent loss of economies of scale.
• There could be a loss of transparency in the recruitment process.

Other issues

59. Some respondents, rather than citing advantages or disadvantages to this approach provided a number of qualifying statements or conditions that would have to be met to ensure the recruitment process works effectively. The key theme, albeit from a small number of respondents, was that there would be a need for continued local authority involvement, support and oversight so as to ensure that HR processes are followed correctly, albeit headteachers would have the final say on the recruitment of staff (cited most frequently by local authorities and professional associations / groups). There were also a small number of suggestions of the need for a recruitment panel led by a headteacher but involving a range of other individuals so as to avoid any bias and ensure that employment legislation is followed correctly.

60. Allied to this issue, there were also a small number of calls for headteachers to be supported by staff who could offer an HR perspective, or Business Managers who would be able to offer financial and administrative support to headteachers.

61. A small number of respondents noted concerns over the current procedures for the redeployment of surplus staff and how this might change – in particular, whether schools would be able to refuse to take on staff who are in need of redeployment (a situation which can arise due to a variety of circumstances) and have been matched to a vacancy at the school by their employer.

62. Once again, there were calls for adequate funding and resources, training for headteachers, oversight of recruitment processes and accountability; with some reference to the current shortage of teachers and headteachers in Scotland.

b. Headteachers' ability to choose their teams and decide on the promoted post structure within their schools

63. Overall, 490 respondents responded to this question. Only very small proportions noted their support or lack of support for headteachers to be able to choose their teams and decide on the promoted post structure within their schools. A small proportion of respondents commented that headteachers already have involvement in staff recruitment.

Advantages

64. The key advantages cited by respondents were that headteachers know what is needed for their school and this allows them to adopt the approach best suited to the needs of their school, or that they can build on the strengths of their current staff, recognising staff skills and building effective teams.

65. Smaller proportions of respondents noted that schools can use leadership structures to work more efficiently and support progression routes for staff, which in turn can help with staff retention.

66. It was also felt that this would offer flexibility in staffing to meet changing needs, for example, to be able to offer short term contracts for specific one-off projects.

Disadvantages

67. To an extent, the disadvantages cited in response to this question echoed the points made in the previous question, with the key disadvantage being the risk of headteacher bias in the selection of staff. A small proportion of respondents also noted that this could result in inconsistencies in the breadth of curriculum choices available, and argued for the need to ensure a broad range of subject provision as well as ensuring that schools meet the needs of pupils with additional support needs.

68. There were also some concerns that this could result in inconsistencies in school staffing levels; for example, disparity in access to promoted posts or the potential for too much emphasis being placed on the senior management team and too little emphasis on teaching and learning. A very small proportion of respondents suggested that any promotion should be closely linked to recruitment and the mentoring of new staff to counteract the removal of teachers from the teaching pool. There were also some concerns that this would not be feasible in smaller schools or rural schools because of a lack of budgets for promoted posts. Once again, a lack of promoted posts could lead to disadvantages for these types of schools, as well as competition between schools which could see the best teachers going to certain schools and not to others.

69. There were also some comments that it can be difficult to change the promoted post structure which would place limitations on a headteacher new to a school to set up their preferred promoted post structure.

Other issues

70. A number of issues were raised by small proportions of respondents, including:

• A need for local authority involvement and support.
• A need for oversight / accountability and transparency in decision-making in the recruitment process.
• A need for training for headteachers (for example, employment legislation / HR processes) as headteachers may lack the required skills to be able to manage recruitment within their schools.

71. Once again, a small proportion of respondents also noted concerns over the impact of surplus staff and redeployment, which is currently managed by the local authority; and whether headteachers will be able to refuse deployed staff if they wish.

72. Other issues raised by very small proportions of staff included:

• A suggestion to redesign the current job sizing toolkit.
• A need to ensure a diversity of staff working with a school.
• A need for effective deployment of business managers.
• Ensuring there are clear and robust procedures in place for addressing performance issues.

73. The campaign response noted that headteachers already have involvement in staff recruitment, as well as referring to the current shortage of teachers in the Highland region.

Funding

Question 5: Should headteachers be able to decide how the funding allocated to their schools for the delivery of school education is spent? If so, what is the best way of doing this?

74. There was a majority of support for headteachers being able to decide how the funding allocated to their schools for the delivery of school education is spent, with 285 respondents supporting this, compared to 68 who did not (see Table 2). That said, there was a significant number who did not respond to this question (234) or who provided a 'don't know' response (87). This pattern was reflected across all respondent sub-groups.

Table 2: Question 5

	Yes	No	Don't Know	Not Answered
Parent Council / Forum (103)	42	6	15	40
Local Authority (42)	8	-	3	31
Professional association / group (35)	14	1	1	19
Independent / 3rd sector (35)	5	2	4	24
School (25)	11	2	9	3
Representative organisation (13)	2	-	-	11
Further Education / Higher Education (11)	3	-	2	6
Professional learning (7)	3	1	-	3
Other education (17)	3	-	4	10
Other organisation (19)	5	1	-	13
Individuals (367)	189	55	49	74
Total (674)	285	68	87	234

75. A proportion of respondents thought that most budgets are already devolved or that headteachers have autonomy in deciding how funding is spent. Many of these respondents referred to Devolved School Management ( DSM) schemes, although a small number also referred to receiving budgets via Pupil Equity Funding ( PEF).

76. A key theme emerging at this question, from around one in five respondents, was the need for consultation and collaboration in making decisions about the use of resources within a school. Respondents cited a wide range of different individuals who should be involved in collaboration; these included staff, representatives within the school community, other organisations, parent councils, community groups and so on.

77. Again, there were references from small proportions of respondents of a lack of relevant experience on the part of headteachers and the need for support, with some comments that headteachers are not accountants or that they do not have the necessary skills or experience to undertake additional roles in relation to funding for schools. Suggestions on how to overcome this lack of experience included working with individuals who have experience of finance such as dedicated Business Managers who will be able to manage school administration and finances. There was also reference to the need for support, advice, training and guidance to be provided by local authorities.

78. While there was support for headteachers to decide how funding is spent, small proportions of respondents noted the need for local authority management of some budgetary areas including estate management, IT infrastructure or ASN resourcing. There were also some references to the need for local authorities to retain areas where economies of scale can be achieved through centralised management. That said, a small proportion of respondents felt that headteachers should have the freedom to choose their own suppliers or felt the procurement frameworks that schools are required to use do not always offer best value for money.

79. There were also references from a small number of respondents of the need for further detail and clarity, with some respondents specifically requesting clarity on the role of headteachers, for example, what their budgetary responsibilities would be. A small proportion of respondents also requested further detail on the role of other organisations including the Scottish Government and local authorities; also with some references to Regional Improvement Collaboratives and their role.

80. Small proportions of respondents made qualifying statements. These included the need for checks and balances to be put in place so that headteachers could be held accountable, with transparent and evidence-based decision-making and proper oversight of decision-making and the processes used. Allied to this, there were also suggestions for strict guidelines and a clear legislative framework that would need to be enforced.

81. Some respondents felt there is a need for more funding and resources to be provided to enable headteachers to deliver school education, with some suggestions for a national funding formula for all schools to allow for a more equitable approach.

82. Small proportions of respondents noted a number of concerns. These included:

• This could distance headteachers from their leadership role.
• There may be inconsistencies across different schools and local authorities in terms of priorities for expenditure.
• Even under DSM, the majority of money is spent on staffing which leaves little flexibility in any remaining monies.
• A lack of clarity over how this would work in relation to current national ring fencing arrangements, including the pupil teacher ratio. There were also some queries as to whether headteachers will be job sized to reflect their additional responsibilities.

83. Very small proportions of respondents noted they would like to see the analysis from the earlier consultation on Fairer Funding to be able to comment on this question or requested evidence on the effectiveness of Pupil Equity Funding.

84. The campaign response expressed opposition to headteachers being able to decide how the funding allocated to their schools for the delivery of school education is spent, arguing that headteachers should focus on delivering quality teaching and improving outcomes, rather than managing education budgets.

Question 6: How could local authorities increase transparency and best involve headteachers and school communities in education spending decisions?

85. Overall, 459 respondents commented in response to this question. The largest comment across almost all sub groups was that the system is already transparent with council-wide budgeting processes, parental involvement at school level, and spending decisions that are linked to community planning and community empowerment. Higher proportions of respondents from local authorities, schools, representative organisations and individuals commented on this issue.

86. A key suggestion emerging from just under one in five respondents was for consultation and collaboration; again with some suggestions as to who should be involved in consultation; these included the individuals within the school, the wider school community, education committees and community workers. There were some suggestions for parental and headteacher involvement at a local and national level in the development and delivery of plans. There were also calls for individuals to be involved at an early stage and to allow time for consideration of plans.

87. Small proportions of respondents referred to different information channels that could be used to provide information; these included social media, networking events, community events, roadshows and consultation exercises.

88. The transparency of decisions was important with some calls for all local authority decisions to be made public, with clear explanations of the basis for budget allocation and clarity of expenditure, for example, in relation to staffing and the school improvement plan. There was also reference to the need for good governance and a complaints system that is accessible and effective.

89. There were also calls for schools to publish details about their expenditure on a regular basis.

90. A number of previously noted themes were also cited at this question. These included:

• Concerns over a lack of consistency across schools and the potential for a consistent funding formula to counteract this.
• The need for suitable levels of funding and staffing.
• A need for training for headteachers.
• Concerns over headteacher workloads.

91. Additionally, the campaign response noted that local authorities should continue their regular consultations with headteachers.

Supporting Empowered Headteachers

Question 7: What types of support and professional learning would be valuable to headteachers in preparing to take up the new powers and duties to be set out in the Headteachers' Charter?

92. A range of suggestions for support and professional learning were made by the 456 respondents who responded to this question; each suggestion came from a small proportion of respondents. These included:

• A need for training – on budgeting, forward planning, workforce planning, managing budgets, writing funding bids, enhanced interpersonal and communication skills.
• Direct collaboration with the school community.
• Local authority support, engagement and intervention.
• Support in the form of specialist advisers such as lawyers or accountants and Business Managers.
• Coaching, training and guidance for headteachers, with some suggestions for a national mentoring and coaching programme.
• Sufficient staffing levels, suitably qualified staff and staff who will be able to undertake additional work currently carried out by headteachers (most frequently cited by professional associations / groups).
• Business support, HR support, IT support and administration support; or support for headteachers to help fill in their knowledge gaps. There were requests for guidance and support from local authorities, the Scottish Government and Education Scotland on expectations of headteachers in terms of curriculum design.
• Business Managers who will have the necessary skills to be able to carry out a number of administrative roles to complement that of the headteachers so that headteachers can focus on their core role of learning and teaching. Professional networks and peer-to-peer support.
• Additional teacher support or higher staffing levels to help manage headteacher workloads.
• Support from RICs to enhance the local authority role.
• Time for headteachers to be able to carry out any additional duties.
• The need for realistic funding levels and access to budgets to support schools in taking forward the proposals.

93. Small proportions of respondents referred to the need for a clear programme of professional learning and professional development; there were some references to an increased number of courses being available from the Scottish College for Educational Leadership ( SCEL) or continued development of SCEL programmes and the need for professional learning at Masters level. There were also references on the need for training related to General Teaching Council for Scotland's Professional Standards.

94. Relatively small proportions of respondents also noted that some headteachers do not want to be financial or recruitment managers and that they should focus on their core role of learning and teaching.

95. Some organisations – mostly local authorities – also noted that the diagram on page 14 of the consultation document provides a contradiction in the direction of the arrows and does not reflect the full role of local authorities and the partnership working between local authorities, schools and communities.