The fact that there is no requirement to have such a post is an anomaly that was created by Michael Forsyth in the run-up to local government reorganisation. The Education (Scotland) Act 1980 required authorities to have such a post, and that whole act is predicated on having an experienced and qualified person who can advise the education authority. That is the important point—that councils act as education authorities. The fact that they do not have a person who is appropriately qualified and experienced to advise them in that capacity seems strange.
At that time, the political context was different. Schools were being encouraged to opt out of local authority control and to self-govern. COSLA strongly opposed that, and it used the same argument at that stage—that that was political interference. The only thing that has changed since then is the political context.
In 1996, new councils were set out. They continued as if there were a requirement to have the post; they ignored the fact that there was not a requirement. For 10 years that held unilaterally in the 32 authorities across Scotland. In 2006, one council tried to operate without such a post, but that was a disastrous failure that required external intervention from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education, the Accounts Commission and a task force including COSLA and the Government. Two years later, the council reverted to having the post.
10:45
It is worrying that, over the past three years, four councils have begun not to have the post—coincidentally, two of them have submitted evidence to the committee. Two councils are in favour of having the post although, strangely, one of them thinks that no qualifications or experience should be attached to it. A couple of councils are equivocal, and the councils that are negative say that they already do this anyway.
Over the years, the committee has considered a huge range of significant and complex issues for Scotland. It has asked for advice and guidance, which has often been provided by ADES—we always provide someone who is appropriately qualified and experienced. I could spend all morning listing those issues, which include things such as the teacher workforce, curriculum for excellence qualifications, education and finance, additional support needs and rural schools—I remember giving evidence to the committee, together with my colleagues, on those issues. I cannot imagine a Parliament or education authority operating without such advice from a qualified and experienced person.
The parallels with the chief social work officer are relevant and germane, and with one exception, all specifications for that post would also relate to the post of chief education officer. We are talking about establishing standards and values, ensuring that staff meet the standards set by regulatory bodies, supporting and advising managers, and using registered workers—obviously, teachers and other staff have various requirements. There are governance arrangements, the balance of risks, workforce planning, professional development and leadership for managers in the organisation.
Those things all apply to the post of chief education officer. The only specification that does not apply is a specific measure on adoption and guardianship but, as I indicated, a plethora of legal requirements in an education authority would be equivalent to, and greater than, that legal responsibility—those on attendance, exclusion, zoning issues, education at home, additional support needs, placing requests, school closures and so on. The list is long.
COSLA has stated that the measure will interfere with structures, but this is not about telling councils what structures they must have; it is simply a requirement to incorporate a post at a specific level in the structure. For example, in some cases a social work director runs children’s services, and they do not have access to an education officer to advise them. In some councils an education person runs children’s services, and they have access to a chief social work officer to ensure that anything that they do complies with relevant legislation.
We think that there will be significant benefits to councils and the Scottish Government in having appropriately qualified and experienced people in the chief education officer post to ensure that political, policy and strategic decisions are fit for purpose. Given the evidence that the committee has heard about the bill, I am sure that it will recognise the need for qualified and experienced advice.