By David Cole-Hamilton, Member, Royal Society of Edinburgh education committee

THE Scottish Government plans to introduce a new Headteachers’ Charter which will dramatically increase their powers and responsibilities. Some heads will be ready and enthusiastic, some will be apprehensive and others will not be prepared. Current headteachers have been selected for the ability over a range of relevant skills, but these may not include some of those that will be required under the new charter. Although the changes could lead to increased dynamism and improved local accountability, a rushed implementation in schools which are not prepared could be disastrous. This is why the Government should pilot the charter in a diverse set of schools before it is fully implemented.

Any major change can lead to unintentional consequences, from which it can take substantial time and effort to recover. By piloting the changes in a selection of schools with headteachers chosen to represent all levels of awareness and readiness, the chances of smooth and successful change will be greatly enhanced.

In a pilot study, all the proposed changes would be implemented with suitable mentoring of the headteachers involved. Evaluation would ensure that there is an understanding of what worked well and where the difficulties lie. Proper further consultation would take place on how to alleviate any problems identified. A revised Headteachers’ Charter could then be rolled out to all schools. While the pilot was taking place, headteachers in all schools could be given appropriate training in the new skills required.

We are going through a period of dramatic change in schools already and the precedent set by the introduction of the new Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) shows how important piloting is. It would have reduced or even avoided many of the problems that have arisen.

CfE was introduced in a hurry across almost all schools in Scotland. It soon became apparent that there were numerous serious problems. The curriculum in S4 was narrowed in contrast to the breadth that had previously been a strength. Teachers and learners were burdened with excessive assessment – of units, assignments and courses – leading to increased levels of stress. Teaching learners studying for different qualifications in the same classroom at the same time became common. Interdisciplinary learning – looking at a topic from the perspective of different disciplines – was largely ignored although it was supposed to be a key feature of CfE. The Cabinet Secretary for Education, to his credit, recognised that there were problems and quickly introduced measures to tackle some of them. The speed with which these additional changes were introduced sometimes led to new unintended consequences, which have required further remediation. In short, the implementation of CfE has been seriously flawed. It serves as an example of how not to bring about major change in a complex system.

Let us hope a lesson has been learned.

A better way to have introduced CfE would have been to have piloted it in a representative selection of schools, with evaluation built-in from the outset, enabling changes to be made on the basis of a proper understanding of the issues. This would have led to a much smoother implementation, wider acceptance and much less stress on teachers and learners. It might well have reduced the number of teachers who are leaving the profession. Learners and their parents would have been reassured that change had been properly tested and was well managed.

The five-year timescale of politics is short, but the education of our children is long term and absolutely vital. We must get it right, and piloting change is the best way to ensure this.