Scottish Education - Essay Example

Scottish Education Introduction The existence of distinctive education systems within the UK offers researchers the opportunity to study the impact of legislative developments on a comparative basis, yet relatively few researchers have taken this opportunity (Stoker, 1999). In Scotland, the schooling system and its governance had a distinct institutional arrangement within the UK framework. Separate educational legislation for Scotland was passed in the UK Parliament in Westminster, and it was the Scottish Office, not the Department for Education and Employment, which had responsibility for Scottish education (Bottery, 1992). Traditionally, there have been a number of administrative institutions which are unique to Scotland, for example the Scottish Office Education and Industry Department, the Scottish Qualifications Authority, the Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum and the General Teaching Council. At various times, new bodies were created, others have passed out of existence, and names have changed. Thus, even within a unitary political framework, the administration of education policy was conducted in a distinctly Scottish network of institutions. Recent developments in education policy, especially policies on devolved management of schools, reveal that contextual differences between the UK education systems affect the formation of policies (Cole, 1996). Those differences which had the most direct bearing on the way devolved management has been implemented in each system include the diversity of school types; the structure of local government; the extent of religious segregation and church involvement; and traditions of parental involvement in schools. Scottish education authorities have more flexibility than their English or Welsh counterparts in applying their own funding formulae and devising schemes of delegation to schools. For instance, the formula could give schools actual salary costs, rather than average salary costs calculated across the authority as a whole. In Northern Ireland, Education and Library Boards, which are appointed by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, are responsible for the schooling system. During the 1980s and 1990s, managing the system of state schooling became an increasingly politicized issue in the United Kingdom (UK). The government was, at least in terms of its rhetoric, attempting to shatter what it regarded as the cozy relationships which had developed within the education community since 1945. As the public sector had expanded, so had the role and influence of professionals within the welfare bureaucracies (Prowle, (2000). Prevailing assumptions about the organization and the management of the schooling system were to be challenged. The Conservative governments promised that local government and educational professionals would no longer be left to determine the management of the schooling system. Central government would take a more direct role in shaping the management of schools at local level than had been the case in the forty years or so following the Education Acts of 1944 (England) and 1945 (Scotland). In both Scotland and England, these Acts had established a national system, locally administered. Responsibility for the administration of the system was devolved to the educational professionals. Within the public sector, the term 'administration' was used, whereas the term 'management' was judged to be more applicable to the private sector. That central government from the late 1970s increasingly referred to the 'management' of the education system rather than to its 'administration' was not just a symbolic change. It signaled a shift in attitude by central government towards the post-war 'partnership' which had existed between central government, local government and the teaching profession. Broadly speaking, the roles adopted by these three partners had been as follows: that central government in consultation with the educational professionals would enact legislation and provide resourcing; local authorities would be responsible for implementing legislation whilst ensuring local needs were met; and the teaching profession would be responsible for the curriculum and assessment. Strain was evident among the partners in England from the mid-1970s onwards. Debates about educational reform in England took place against a background of concern about the perceived failure of comprehensive schools. There was no equivalent to the 'Great Debate' in Scotland. However, by the late 1980s, relations between the post-war partners in the governance of the education systems in both countries were becoming uneasy. These relations became increasingly tense through the 1990s as successive Conservative governments attempted to redefine the role of the educational professionals in the governance of education. In Scotland especially, teachers were central to the opposition of Thatcherite education reforms. The government's intention was that educational professionals would be permitted less influence over how the education system would be administered; while central government, parents and business would all gain influence and power. Parents, through school boards and governing bodies, were to be given a direct role in school decision-making. This, then, was the backdrop to moves in the 1980s and the 1990s towards a more consumerist and managerial system of schooling in both Scotland and England. There are important similarities in the changes to the environment in which schools in both countries found themselves operating. The emphasis on competition, the promotion of lay, especially parental, participation in school decision-making, and the delegation of decisions to school level from (local) education authorities, were shared themes of educational reform. The most significant difference between the two countries arguably lay with reforms to curriculum and assessment policy. In England, the National Curriculum gave teachers a limited control over curricular issues. In Scotland, in contrast, curricular reforms such as the development of the National Certificate and the 5-14 Program were more consensual and a greater level of professional autonomy was retained. The distinct political and cultural environment of the Scottish education system meant that differences were not confined to curricular issues. The absence of any equivalent to the 'Great Debate' has already been mentioned, but questions about the legitimacy of the Conservative government to introduce policies perceived to be Thatcherite were raised by both educational professionals and the wider public. This is not to argue that in certain parts of England, especially in the North, there was not wide-ranging opposition to the Conservative governments' plans to reform education and other areas of the welfare state, but in Scotland, where the Conservatives had only a small minority of seats in the UK Parliament and controlled few, if any, local authorities, the opposition had a 'nationalist' dimension. The education system was and remains an important component of Scottish national identity. Policy-makers and educational professionals have long believed that there are certain distinctive features to the education system. Policies which impact on these distinctive features therefore run the risk of facing opposition which strikes 'nationalist' chords. In Scotland in the 1980s and 1990s, this was the situation in which Conservative governments found themselves concerning reforms to school governance. Looking comparatively at recent developments in school governance in Scotland and England, it is helpful to draw a distinction between those steps which were taken by government to promote market-based accountability and control and those designed to develop managerial controls. Attempts to promote market-based accountability and managerialism were closely related. Both, for instance, attempted to challenge the position of the professional in the education system. The use of performance indicators, a central feature of management theories, would serve the dual purpose of providing another means of monitoring the performance of professionals, while also providing the information which parents could use to inform their choices in the educational market. However, while the links between managerialism and market-based reforms were close, they were not synonymous. It was managerialism rather than the 'quasi-market' which arguably had a more direct bearing on professionals in schools, from classroom teachers through to head teachers (Fairley, & Paterson, 1995). If there is one theme, one concept, even one single word that characterizes Scottish education today, it is "inclusiveness." While the implementation and realization of this concept take a number of forms, its importance has been formally recognized by nearly all the participants in the world of Scottish education; the body least committed to the principle is probably the current government. However, this commitment to inclusiveness has not come about by chance and marks a substantial change in many of the long-standing traditions and practices of Scottish schooling. It would be a simplistic response to this recognition of the right of all pupils to a curriculum built on common principles to provide identical learning experiences for all children. Within Scotland, it is agreed that an inclusive system must recognize the individuality of each child and, therefore, each child's particular needs must be addressed. In this context the core concept is that of differentiation: the practice of ensuring that each child's experiences in school recognize his or her prior knowledge, interests, personal characteristics, strengths and weaknesses, and the variety of supports he or she will require to learn successfully within and outside the school. This commitment to the individuality of each child could be interpreted as an acceptance of inequality. However, it is a fundamental principle accepted by almost all stakeholders in Scottish education that all children are of equal worth and importance and that consequently their individual needs must be given equal priority. This commitment to equality in education implies recognition of the structural inequalities that exist within our society. Schools and education authorities are therefore, in general, strongly committed to action to counter racism and sexism. Because gender and (to a lesser extent) ethnicity are clearly identifiable categories, these commitments have been relatively easy to begin to carry out in practice, though of course much work remains to be done. It is proving more difficult to address the structural inequalities that are related to class or socioeconomic status; these are, however, being addressed in a number of areas through early intervention schemes, a variety of mentoring schemes, and the establishment of links with higher education (Caldwell, & Spinks, 1992). A major constituency that was largely ignored in the past is parents. At the school level, the right of parents to consult with their children's teachers is written into the nationally negotiated Teachers' Conditions of Service. Within the 5-14 Program, the National Guidelines on Assessment and Reporting ensure that parents have the opportunity to respond to schools' and teachers' assessments of their children and to indicate their views on their children's learning needs. Equally important has been the establishment of a climate in which parents are recognized as partners in the education of their children. This principle has been developed through practice in schools and through the work of bodies such as the Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum. The government also sought to introduce a system of compulsory national testing into the primary school and into the first two years of secondary school, on the ground that parents would wish to see how their children were faring compared to national standards of literacy and mathematics. However, this attempt met with very strong parental and professional resistance, which made clear the preference of participants in the education system for formative assessment, in which teachers and parents share information on learning and plan the next stages of the process. Some local education authorities have sought to ensure that parents' voices are heard at that level. Although only the first steps have been taken in this process (e.g., the appointment of consultative committees, the appointment of parents to education committees of local authorities), this formal recognition is significant. At a national level, the Education and Industry Department of the Scottish Office has recognized the existence of national bodies representing parents, has provided financial support for them, and has ensured that leading members of these parent groups are appointed to national educational bodies. While it is always possible that this is a form of patronage intended by the government to buy support for itself, parents on such bodies have in fact expressed themselves independently. Teachers are also included at all levels in the decision-making structures of the system. Teachers are represented on national bodies, but the mechanisms for doing so vary from body to body, depending on a body's legal status. An earlier attempt by the government to exclude representatives of teacher organizations insofar as possible proved unworkable. At the level of the local authority, teachers are represented on education committees. Negotiations are conducted at both national and local levels with teacher unions. Teachers in Scotland have recently been accorded a central role in educational research. Apart from a comparatively young tradition of research in which teachers investigate practice in their own classrooms or schools and seek to develop it, officially sponsored research into major curricular programs or issues has almost always ensured that teachers' views are solicited, whether through questionnaire or interview. The governance of education was notable for the power of the Scottish Education Department and its Inspectorate; until 1920 elementary schools were run by boards, many of which were poorly funded, while secondary education was run by a variety of elected bodies and foundations (Holliday, 1992). The role of the teacher was limited throughout the earlier half of this century by a number of guidelines, prescriptions, and examination syllabuses that left teachers little room to maneuver. Pressures arising from large classes and lack of resources made it all the more difficult for most teachers to play any significant part in determining what children were taught or the methodologies to be used in the classroom. The poor were often excluded from secondary education and almost always from higher education. While later in the century there were sporadic moves to reduce inequality, particularly through opening up secondary education to all, for much of this period secondary schools in urban areas continued to be segregated by ability, on occasion by sex, and in many areas by religion. Within these segregated secondary schools, pupils were tracked by psychometric testing. Entry to higher education remained restricted to the better-off and was extremely gender-biased. Today policy making in Scottish education is complex, both formally and informally. Ultimately the United Kingdom's Parliament legislates on Scottish education; much recent legislation has been so framed as to ensure that the secretary of state for Scotland has considerable powers to enact secondary legislation through the use of statutory instruments. Provision of education is the responsibility of the 32 elected all-purpose local authorities, which vary greatly in both the area and the population they serve. Curricular advice is provided through the Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum, while examinations and syllabuses for certificate courses are the responsibility of the Scottish Examinations Board and the Scottish Council on Vocational Education Qualifications. Teachers' Conditions of Service are determined by national negotiation between the teacher unions and the local authorities who are the employers. The General Teaching Council has responsibility for professional standards, both through its disciplinary procedures and through its validation of teacher education. The Scottish Council for Research in Education has a responsibility for the conduct of educational research. All these bodies whose responsibilities are defined by legislation include representatives of the various groups that have an interest in education and schooling, giving formal recognition to inclusion and partnership. Within this complex structure, it is not easy to identify any single source for recent major developments. Rather, it is possible to attribute them to a momentum, driven by the mythology of equality, accelerated by political opposition throughout Scotland to the consumerist and extreme free-market ethos of the present government, and transmitted through the parties involved in policy formation. Empowerment leads to ever greater demands for inclusion and participation at all levels of the system. Conclusions The ideological nature of school governance reforms meant that there would be common themes and objectives to the policies pursued in Scotland and England. Shared themes included the emphasis placed upon the culture of performance management, restructuring the external regulation of the teaching profession and encouraging lay participation in school decision-making. However, whilst these aspects of managerialism are evident both north and south of the border, there are important differences of emphasis. The culture of performance management has been advanced in both systems, but arguably in Scotland, because of the nature of curriculum and assessment reform, it has taken a milder form. Also, attempts to restructure the external regulation of the teaching profession have not gone as far in Scotland as England. It is here arguably that we see the greatest difference between managerialism in the two systems. In Scotland, the educational professionals have been able to retain considerable influence over the external regulation of their profession. An initial reading of policy developments concerning lay involvement in school decision-making might imply that the professionals in Scottish schools have retained much more power over the day-to-day running of schools than their English counterparts. However, school boards and governing bodies appeared to be using their new role to enhance the position of the head. It is in the changing role of the head that we have witnessed perhaps the clearest signs of a new managerial framework. As a consequence of LMS and DSM, heads have increasing responsibility for financial and staffing matters. Though the government's intention was to replace bureaucratic and professional modes of co-ordination in the education system with managerial and market-based modes, in reality what has happened is that the post-war forms of co-ordination exist alongside the new modes of governance. The style of headship plays a crucial role in shaping the way that these changes to governance impact at school level. Reference: Cole, G.A (1996) Management: Theory and Practice (5th Edition). London: DP Publications Caldwell, B. and Spinks, J. (1992) Leading the Self-Managing School, London: Falmer. Fairley, J. and Paterson, L. (1995) 'Scottish Education and New Managerialism', Scottish Educational Review, 27: 13-36. Holliday, I. (1992) 'Scottish Limits to Thatcherism', Parliamentary Affairs 63: 448-59. Bottery, M. (1992) The Ethics of Educational Management, London: Cassell. Stoker, G. (ed.) (1999) The New Management of British Local Governance, Basingstoke: Macmillan. Prowle, M., (2000). The Changing Public sector: a practical guide, Gower Publishing Ltd, London. Read More