Keir Bloomer: Education's past should be history

In the third of four extracts from a new book looking beyond devolution, Keir Bloomer examines schools' accountability

THE governance of Scottish state schools has remained largely unaltered for almost 90 years. The split between local and central government dates back to 1929 when the ad hoc parish school boards handed over their responsibilities to councils. Now, however, both educational and broader democratic considerations seem to call for change.

There are, no doubt, many reasons for the resilient conservatism of school systems. The task of passing on the heritage of the past is intrinsically a backward-looking one. Teachers are sometimes characterised as a conservative profession, although one that has always contained at least its fair share of radicals. However, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that an important part of the problem lies in the way that school systems are governed. In seeking alternative models, a useful starting point might be to question whether all of the activities that are traditionally lumped together under the heading of "governance" might not be better dealt with separately. Funding is one of the few areas in which local authority control of schools continues to have genuine significance. There can be quite substantial variation in funding between two schools in similar circumstances but in different parts of the country. Thus, among secondary schools regarded as serving similar catchments and being of comparable size, the difference can be as great as 2,000 per pupil per year, at a time when the average expenditure per head is 6,665.

This kind of variation is not, however, generally seen by teachers or by parents as the legitimate expression of local political priorities but rather as a "postcode lottery" with no underpinning rationale. There is thus a strong case for trying to achieve equitable funding arrangements across Scotland. Equitable does not, however, mean identical. Account needs to be taken of factors such as deprivation, rurality and additional needs as well as simple learner headcount. However, the way in which these factors are quantified should not vary according to local authority whims and preferences.

This does not necessarily imply that schools should be funded directly by the Scottish Government (although one school, Jordanhill College School in Glasgow, does receive direct funding for historical reasons). Indeed there are good reasons for wanting to place funding issues at arm's length from direct political involvement.Furthermore, the task of creating equitable funding mechanisms, especially in a country with the varied geography of Scotland, is enormously complex.

The best remedy, therefore, might be an ad hoc body with a specific remit for funding school education. This body might be called the Schools Funding Council. It would operate in a way not dissimilar from the Scottish Funding Council that funds FE colleges and universities but would not have the policy role that SFC exercises. It would deal with both revenue and capital funding and would have powers to intervene and/or assist when exceptional circumstances required. Such special powers would be more necessary in relation to schools, many of which are small and have little capacity to cope with unusual financial demands.

A significant advantage of such an approach is that it would make it possible to fund schools other than those currently administered by local authorities. Scottish school education is remarkable for its homogeneity. All are comprehensive in concept although differences in catchment area create major differences in practice. The only variation relates to religious denomination. Many areas offer Roman Catholic schooling as an alternative to the non-denominational norm. Although religion is important to some parents, it hardly seems appropriate that it is the only basis of choice that the state sector offers.

For this reason, governments have occasionally flirted with the idea of offering funding to, for example, the small group of Steiner schools. There certainly seems to be a logic in offering the possibility of choice based on educational philosophy. Furthermore, at a time when there is an urgent need to increase the pace of change in education, encouragement of innovators seeking to put new ideas into practice seems sensible, perhaps even essential.

The recent approach initiative in England, inspired by the Swedish "free school" model is, of course, also intended to make public funding available beyond the local authority sector. However, what is being suggested here is not specifically directed towards giving parents the opportunity to set up schools (although it does not exclude this possibility). It is more likely that individual schools or small groups of schools would be established by charities or trusts aiming to offer a distinctive form of schooling based on a particular pedagogy or philosophy. Currently, accountability to local authorities, although in some respects supportive, does comparatively little to develop strong links between schools and the key groups such as learners, their families and local communities to whom they feel most immediately responsible. Traditional lines of accountability have, indeed, often operated in ways that have reduced the responsiveness of schools to their immediate stakeholders in order to promote a uniformity of approach across the council area.The argument that local authorities provide democratic accountability is often found unpersuasive. Education is seldom a key area of debate in local elections and the validity of councillors' mandates in relation to schools is open to serious question. This is, of course, to open up bigger questions about the nature of local democracy in the 21st century.

When considering changes in the governance of schools, the primary consideration must be educational. Will the new arrangements promote greater attention to the needs of the individual learner? Will they make schools more responsive to changing circumstances? However, ideally new forms of governance would also help to promote a healthier democracy at community level. As Scotland gradually adjusts to the implications of a Scottish Parliament and Government, discussion of governance below national level becomes more important.

There is a strong case, therefore, for schools becoming accountable to bodies with stronger local roots and a clearer focus on education than councils achieve with their numerous areas of responsibility. Charitable trusts could be established and could draw members from a wide range of groups with both legitimate interests and relevant expertise. These could include parents, local business, community representatives, co-opted members and, perhaps, local councillors.

A real possibility exists for building grassroots democratic structures. While this would obviously be easier in some areas than others, mechanisms such as co-option would offer the prospect of bringing in public-spirited expertise from outside. Schools are of genuine interest to many. They offer an important, perhaps a unique, possibility of enabling communities to shape local institutions that they value.

Trusts would have the powers and responsibilities that currently lie with local authorities. They would receive funding direct from the funding council and would be the employer of all teaching and other staff. As well as guiding educational strategy, they would be required to approve budgets, scrutinise accounts and satisfy themselves in relation to a host of other obligations such as equal opportunities, risk management and disabled access. Management, however, would be the responsibility of the headteacher, who would be a member of the trust board in the same way as college and university principals act as both chief executive and board member. Such an approach would bring the formal arrangements into alignment with schools' existing strong feelings of responsibility to their immediate communities.

Schools could make the transition from the local authority to trust status on a staged basis. It would not be essential that all schools moved at the same pace.Although former local authority schools would obviously constitute the overwhelming majority of publicly funded schools, the financial arrangements outlined above would make it possible for other schools, probably mostly newly established, to have access to state funding. The public education service would thus contain not only trust schools but others run by charities, educational interest groups and possibly parents or not-for-profit companies.

While many people acknowledge the case for greater school autonomy, reservations are often expressed about the ability of the individual school to take on the responsibilities involved. A critical issue, therefore, is whether the unit of organisation should be the school or some larger grouping. Given the opportunity, schools would almost certainly join together to achieve economies of scale and provide for themselves a variety of support services. This is the approach that has been taken by the independent sector in Scotland through the Scottish Council for Independent Schools and by the academies in England through the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust. In effect, both of these represent successful attempts to construct something like the local education authority but with the difference that it is the "authority" that is accountable to the schools and not the other way around.

These federations might take any of several forms. The most obvious would be geographical but other possibilities could include educational philosophy, sector or faith. In many areas clusters consisting of a single secondary school, a number of associated primary schools and any other educational centres, such as free-standing nurseries or special schools, already act in close partnership. The concept of the cluster also reinforces the continuity of education through from pre-five to upper secondary and into lifelong learning.

Current governance arrangements for schools have ceased to serve Scotland well. It is clear that educational innovation is not being sufficiently encouraged and that the pace of change is falling behind what is required. At the same time, schools' real stakeholders are being held at arm's length. Both practical and democratic considerations now combine to mean that this is the time for a rethink.

• Keir Bloomer is an independent education consultant, a former director of education and a former local authority chief executive.

Radical Scotland: Arguments for Self-Determination, edited by Gerry Hassan and Rosie Ilett, is published this week by Luath Press, priced 12.99