Nothing stands still, even school management structures

THE recent one-day strike by some secondary teachers in West Dunbartonshire is indicative of the undercurrent of discontent existing in many of our schools. There can be little doubt about the strength of feeling.

Around 90 per cent of Educational Institute of Scotland members who voted in the ballot favoured strike action followed by a “work to contract”. Teachers do not go on strike at the drop of a hat. The last one-day strike in response to proposed pension changes was in 2011. The last national strike was as far back as the 1980s.

The root cause of the discontent is the workload issue, real or imagined, arising from the continuing reforms collectively known as Curriculum for Excellence (CFE). In East Dunbartonshire a further layer of discontent has been laid by the employers’ wish to revamp the management structure in secondary schools. Teachers’ objections to the proposed changes fall into two broad categories. Understandably, they are concerned that the proposal to group similar subjects into faculties under the leadership of a single principal teacher undermines the existing career structure, reducing opportunities for promotion.

There is widespread suspicion that financial saving, not educational improvement, is the main impetus. A further increase in workload is feared.

Secondly, teachers are concerned that the flatter structure will impact negatively on the curriculum and on curriculum development. For example, they question whether a home economics specialist has the knowledge to lead a faculty that could, in theory, include the physical education department. They have understandable concerns over issues such as course development, health and pupil safety. Parents may well share those reservations. Yet their support could be tempered by their own experiences at work. Like it or not, cost cutting and changes to conditions are facts of life across all sectors. Here in the north east, many redundant oil workers will look enviously at teachers’ conditions and job security. Employers have unilaterally altered the conditions of offshore workers to “three weeks on, three weeks off” to save money.

Many teachers are professionally conservative and view change, sometimes justifiably, with suspicion. Education, however, does not exist in a timeless bubble. It has been suggested, perhaps cruelly, that, if Rip van Winkle awoke today, he would still recognise the secondary curriculum and management structure.

It can be argued that the existing management structure has been a barrier to real and much-needed reform. Inevitably, if there are 16 or 17 principal teachers they will fight to maintain their subject’s position. The result is a fragmented and disjointed curriculum. Present structures were not handed down on tablets of stone. They are constructs from a bygone age.

Teachers have every right to question proposals for change. But they need to be equally careful to question whether current structures are immutable and best meet the needs of current and future generations. A knee-jerk reaction to any proposal for real change is in no one’s interest, least of all that of our young people.

‘‘ Many teachers are professionally conservative and view change, sometimes justifiably, with suspicion