Shaping the Future: Strengthening Scotland's education system through empowered schools

7. Governance

The rationale for the governance recommendations within derives from considerations around all three themes in this report. This is because the need for governance reform stems from enhancements to school improvement approaches and funding arrangements. The governance recommendations should therefore be understood not as ends in themselves but as the outcome of holistic considerations.

Delegated statutory responsibility for the delivery of school education lies with local authorities, each of which is tied in a ratio of 1:1 to councils of locally elected members. In Scotland there are 32 such authorities, each broadly replicating the functions of the other 31, albeit with important variations linked to physical size, socio-economic context, location and culture.

Experienced school leaders would be first in line to defend this structure - if it were empowering them to deliver the high standards of provision and the excellent outcomes to which they aspire. The disconnect between school leaders and their governing authorities in this regard is not helped by the legislative framework within which schools operate.

"The governance sections of the 1980 Act consist almost entirely of provisions relating to the powers and responsibilities of local authorities. It has very little to say either about governance at school level or the powers and responsibilities of central government. Thus the Act, although not technically obsolete, describes a system of governance far removed from present day reality." – Dr Bloomer, Individual Submission to the IPA, 15th February 2026

Although it would be a great disservice to local authority colleagues for me to claim a full understanding of their many and varied roles, the writing of this report has enabled a deeper appreciation for the work of local government and its relationship with Scottish Government. Essentially, local government is led by professionals committed to delivering the best for local citizens. There is no shortfall in intention, nor in the level of effort nor are there any weaknesses in the values that underpin them. The potential improvements highlighted below are linked to systems and approaches that have evolved over time and which now merit review.

The pressures under which local authorities work are enormous. With regard to the statutory provision of education through early learning and childcare settings and schools, there are examples across Scotland of very high-quality leadership and admirable outcomes. But given the uncertainties over what is defined as education spend in each local authority, and uncertainties about the quality of processes at key levels of our education system, we cannot be sure how much value is being added by the money being spent on it.

While policy primarily sits with Scottish Government and service delivery with local councils, tensions have emerged not only in terms of resources debates but also in relation to policy implementation – the crucial necessity to maintain teacher numbers would be one such example. A review of the relationship between the two levels of government would be beneficial, as would a review of the relationship between local councils and schools.

2018 saw the landmark Joint Agreement on education reform signed by National and Local government with the fundamental aim to turn intention and policy into practice^[69].

Despite calls that are relatively fresh in minds and a Joint Agreement to enhance empowerment to school leaders, the extent of subsidiarity and local empowerment has changed little in the intervening years. Evidence supporting a re-balancing of influence and decision-making powers, generated via professional and public consultation, political engagement and well-respected academic research, is substantial. In essence, school empowerment is regarded by academics and school leaders as the missing link that would result in delivering improvement in schools and at the chalkface. A sample of powerful endorsements for school empowerment can be found in Appendix G.

One example from Professor Ken Muir, proposes, “A redistribution of power, influence, and resource within Scottish education to one that reflects the principles of subsidiarity, genuinely empowers teachers and practitioners and where learners’ voices, experiences, perspectives and rights are central to decision making” – Putting Learners At The Centre, March 2022

It has been suggested that the slow progress in implementing important elements of the Joint Agreement may be due to a lack of commitment from one or both parties. It may simply indicate that the Agreement has slipped off the priority table due to a crowded policy landscape. Whatever the cause, stalling of progress indicates the need to consider integrating key provisions of the agreement into statutory arrangements. Contextually, it is reasonable to question whether the current statutory arrangements – agreed almost 20 years before the introduction of the Scottish Parliament – are still fit for purpose.

In order to improve education outcomes at pace we must be prepared to be bold and understand that the greatest risk may lie in remaining with the status quo, as Professor Louise Hayward has rightly stated^[70]. In tandem with reform of our national education bodies (and recent reform of other national public service bodies) “school governance, funding and improvement systems and structures” should be reviewed and adapted to meet current societal demands. These three components are interdependent, and therefore to optimise progress all three should be addressed simultaneously.

Legal framework

Under the current legislation legal responsibilities for the delivery of education sits with local authorities not with individual schools. This leads to differences across local authorities about the decisions which can be taken at a school level. While there are some requirements for local authorities to consult with Headteachers when making strategic decisions, how this is done is at the discretion of the local authority. This can lead to a dependency or compliance culture in schools rather than one of empowerment. There also remains a lack of consistency in relation to school devolution across local authorities. This can have a significant impact on achieving excellence and equity for school communities. For example, by taking a mandated approach to the number of subjects young people study at S4 across an entire local authority. This can close off curriculum flexibility and decisions which should be taken for individual young people at school level.

The mechanism by which local authorities devolve decision making and funding to schools is the Devolved School Management Scheme. Each local authority is obliged to have such a Scheme and this is supported by national guidelines. However, local authorities can determine which schools within their area are covered by the Scheme and the detailed provisions setting out accountability arrangements, the decisions schools and Headteachers are able to take, and the level and flexibility of control over funding at a school level. Again, this can lead to limitations on the ability of Headteachers to make decisions.

All stakeholders who contributed to this report are firmly of the opinion, backed by clear evidence, that those who currently lead and manage local authorities strive for the same thing that teachers and school leaders want: the very best for learners. However, many stakeholders observe that there is a growing gap between the aspirations of education authorities and their ability to deliver them.

There are credible explanations for this shortfall. These include: operational capacity limited by budget pressures; the increasing complexity of ASN and raised parental expectations; the gap between national educational aspirations and the capacity of the workforce to deliver; and the myriad policy-driven expectations stemming from multiple sources including but not limited to the national education bodies. During evidence gathering for this report senior representatives have also questioned whether the roles and responsibilities of the key components of our system are clearly defined, adequately resourced, and held accountable for delivering their part of that system.

Furthermore, it has been observed that local authority managers operate in an environment within which a Venn diagram would show national and local education priorities overlapping with diverse local corporate demands. This does not lend itself to clarity of purpose that is conducive to focused attention on school improvement.

Capacity building

Within schools, the quality of teaching and leadership are the most important factors in improving a child’s educational outcomes. Headteachers should feel empowered to take decisions as leaders of learning and supported in developing the skills and knowledge to secure improvement in their schools and classrooms. However, there is considerable variation in the level and quality of support provided to schools from both local authorities and our national agencies. There is no clear and consistent framework of support for teachers to be able to build their professional skills or to facilitate collaboration. Further, the paucity of subject-specific professional learning on offer within local authorities remains a significant gap in the system.

The role of a Headteacher is complex. They have multifaceted responsibilities encompassing the overall direction and management of their school, which includes but is not limited to:

• Leadership: Headteachers lead the school community, fostering a positive and supportive environment.
• Improvement: They deploy evidenced approaches to ensure continuous improvement in processes and outcomes
• Curriculum Management: They oversee the curriculum and ensure it aligns with educational standards and the school's goals.
• Staff Management: Headteachers manage the staff, including appointing, training, and professional development.
• Funding: Headteachers have accountability for utilising core and additionality funding in line with the National Improvement Framework, in compliance with regulatory requirements
• Student Support: They ensure provision of support to students, including academic, emotional, and social support.
• Community Engagement: They engage with the community to promote the school's mission and values.
• Policy and Compliance: Headteachers ensure compliance with educational policies and regulations as far as is practicable.
• Innovation and Change: They drive innovation and change within the school to improve student outcomes and school culture.

Complexity is further compounded by the need to balance these demands with their responsibility to contribute to the wider school community, all the while attending to endless administrative tasks. If they are to optimise the impact of their role, school leaders will require more autonomy over funding, staffing models and the curricular model than they are currently afforded, and be provided with the administrative supports envisaged and indeed promised in the Governance Review.

With empowerment comes greater accountability. This is illustrated by the GTCS’ professional standards^[71]. “Headteachers are accountable for developing and supporting an ethos and culture which enables and empowers others to lead effectively with a clear and agreed focus on self-evaluation and improvement.”

Further, in its response to the Call for Views, GTCS has commented:

“This role is a bedrock of Scottish education. School leaders are assigned a level of responsibility and have public accountabilities equivalent to corporate chief executives yet often do not have the resources nor autonomy to make key decisions on behalf of their community. High aspirations for children and young people can lead to high levels of frustration as policy aims are not matched by resource provision.”

One view of empowerment is that it is not given: it is taken. If so, school leaders should simply make autonomous decisions without seeking authorisation. In theory this would be possible if empowerment were simply an attitude or mindset. But in the context of Scotland’s schools, more than a change in mindset is required. Due to the statutory arrangements currently in place, schools do not control the levers and resources that are the necessary conditions for empowerment. Institutional reform is necessary in order to enable cultural reform.

ADES itself has recommended a devolution of responsibilities around improvement to schools: “The delivery approach must be flexible and responsive, taking account of local circumstances and drawing on a range of major stakeholders who are supportive of Scottish education. It should be an uncomplicated model but one that has sufficient sophistication to be able to flex to meet differing needs. . . At the heart of this endeavour is our desire to have a confident, reflective, self-improving school system where the responsibility for improvement is increasingly set at school rather than local authority level” – The Association of Directors of Education in Scotland (ADES), Towards a Learning System, 2024^[72]

Resource provision is vital for true empowerment. During a roundtable discussion with teaching unions Greg Dempster, General Secretary of AHDS captured the tensions caused by shortfalls in resource succinctly, remarking, “Accountability without resource is not empowerment: it is culpability.”

National and local government have identified the basic key levers and linked indicators of empowerment as subsidiarity over^[73]:

1. Curriculum;
2. Improvement;
3. Staffing;
4. Funding;
5. Parental and Community Engagement; and
6. Pupil Participation

School leaders seek greater flexibility in the first four dimensions, which would in turn lead to flexibility in the final two.

In reality Headteachers’ subsidiarity over decision-making is not the norm. During engagements with school leaders the following indicative comments were shared:

“We, as Headteachers, are not empowered to appoint the teachers who will be working in our schools.” – Headteacher panel member

“My LA dictates the number of staff I can have, as well as the nature of the posts themselves. I have no flexibility.” – Headteacher panel member

“We are not permitted to carry forward funding from one year to the next to support longer-term improvement strategies.” – Headteacher panel member

In contrast one school leader shared:

“My LA allows me to have complete freedom, for example virement between one budget heading to another.” – Headteacher panel member

It is highly likely that the pressure under which local authorities are working is constraining their ability to devolve key decisions to their school leaders. There is a way forward.

School collaboration and networking

“Put simply, more teacher and leadership expertise, knowledge and ideas exist within the system than are currently being utilised.” ICEA Third Formal Report, 2023.

Governance of Scotland’s schools has been continuously modified to reflect the changing societal landscape. Structures and systems that have seemed immutable have been updated to reflect wider societal and political realities. This is welcome, healthy and altogether inevitable in a system that is obligated to reflect the people it serves.

Following the publication of the Headteachers’ Charter and associated policies a number of substantial reforms were co-created by the key partners. The strands of that reform proceeded at uneven pace, backed by varying levels of commitment across the country. By example, the proposal to create professional career pathways was an exciting prospect for teachers seeking to extend their contribution to pedagogical improvement beyond their own school while retaining their classroom role. This pathway never materialised. Regional Improvement Collaboratives (RICs) were formed across the nation with the purpose of formalising the channels for sharing effective strategy and practice, thus optimising resources for the benefit of learners. The aspiration to establish such joined-up approaches at national, local, school and practitioner level has not yet been overtaken. Although there were stakeholders in the system who questioned the need for another layer of oversight, some RICs did make tangible progress. Indeed in some cases local authorities have continued to collaborate as participants in context-informed Quads and through partnerships based on geographical proximity. Evidence of real benefits for leaders and practitioners is beginning to emerge.

The Northern Alliance cite the benefits of collaborative working, particularly the development of a learning, teaching and assessment framework that provides a shared understanding of the standard, supporting effective practice, which is being adopted across all eight local authorities.

Tayside Alliance partners indicate that their learners are benefiting through the expansion of senior phase pathways. Through collaboration across the region, and by using the virtual campus, they have been able to significantly increase the range of courses and programmes available to young people.

School leaders and practitioners within these partnerships feel passionate about the benefits that are arising, and real commitment is being demonstrated by senior leaders in those local authorities. Their vision and work should be recognised, commended, and harnessed for future collaborative improvement where it results in improvements for learners.

However, aspirations and commitments around school subsidiarity and empowerment in tandem with the move to transparent financial models - enabling true devolution of funding - have stuttered. The inertia is due to some extent by the Covid-19 pandemic. Momentum has been lost and the perspective of school leaders is that the limited progress that was made in 2018/19 following the Governance Review has since weakened.

The rich evidence and the robust arguments for change that emerged during the Governance Review have not gone anywhere. It is necessary now to re-address those well-founded recommendations – but this time to move at greater pace and determination to implement profound change for profound improvement.

The International Council of Education Advisors recognises that system-wide empowered collaboration that informs and drives improvement is the grail. The ICEA also recognises that this is hard to achieve and challenging to sustain. Culture change, high-quality strategic leadership, and coherent policy-making are necessary conditions for success.

Significantly, according to the ICEA, system improvement should be driven by schools and led by their practitioners.

“… there is still work to be done to build a wide-spread culture of systemic networked learning. International evidence suggests that it is very difficult to mandate or drive this change from the centre through hierarchies (Payne, 2008). Rather, for this approach to be successful it requires nurture, facilitation and brokerage through networks across the system and to be led by credible practitioners who can demonstrate impact in their own classrooms and schools.” – ICEA, Third Report 2021-23, November 2023^[74]

For leaders of the Scottish system, the key questions prompted by this recommendation are:

• What conditions need to be in place to facilitate system-wide collaborative networking that enables professionals to develop and share expertise, with the aim of driving continuous improvement?
• If those conditions are not yet in place, what needs to be done to create them?

Driven by their determination to bring about the best experiences and the best outcomes for our learners, school leaders and senior representatives of education organisations have told me that we must grasp the thistle, think radically and act courageously. Our leaders are ready to rise to that challenge.

Options to reform

According to some observers, structural reform is a roundabout and risky way to accelerate improvement. They propose that other changes would bring about the improvements we seek without the headwinds caused by structural change.

1. More money?

It is argued that our 32 local authorities simply need adequate funding for education - in other words a bigger share of bigger local government grants - in order to provide excellent schools delivering excellent outcomes. Given the global funding pressures on public services, hoping for more money across public services is not a plan, and at present it is not realistic. Funding for local councils rightly recognises their pivotal role in long-term economic success but schools need to operate within a bespoke framework that provides tailored support, challenge and opportunities to improve.

2. Clearer curriculum guidance?

Other commentators suggest that the most significant gains will come from revising our curriculum and hope that the Curriculum Improvement Cycle will provide the necessary direction. If CfE could only be defined more clearly, teachers would feel more confident about it as a vehicle for improved outcomes. They recall that CfE was initially a great concept unfortunately severely hampered by a sub-optimal implementation strategy.

‘Teachers reported that they did not seek additional layers of guidance, but for new guidance to replace and combine existing guidance. Presently, as well as the five Building the Curriculum Guidance documents, there are 1,850 statements of learning within the Es&Os, 1000 benchmarks, a series of cross-curricular themes and initiatives, four capacities, four contexts for learning, sixteen principles and practice papers and eight curricular areas.’^[75] – Curriculum Improvement Cycle, 2024

To add to this confusion these national guidelines were (and continue to be) re-interpreted by local authorities, with attendant policies being produced by hard-working education officers. Some local interpretations have stood the test of time, but many have been eroded by subsequent updates from national policy makers. Teachers, tasked with delivery, are running to stand still.

So in terms of what schools should teach, curriculum advice has been an unnecessarily complex maze for practitioners to navigate. We should remember that a commendable core aim of CfE was to de-clutter the curriculum: henceforth we must also de-clutter curriculum guidance.

Should this be one of the outcomes of the curriculum improvement cycle it would most certainly help practitioners. Embedding improvements in curriculum design and offer in schools will take a number of years. Critically, to make the most of policy changes, schools require the autonomy to adapt and adopt according to the needs and aspirations of their community. As well as this autonomy, schools will need the teachers to teach the revised curriculum.

3. Teaching standards and teacher workforce?

A valuable reminder of the primacy of upholding teaching standards comes from the GTC Scotland in their response to the Call for Views:

“Embedding teaching standards is fundamental to improvement. We have high standards for teachers in Scotland. Teachers are the leaders of education. Key to improving the quality of education is for our high teaching standards to be deeply embedded. Teaching standards need to be enacted in practice in all contexts and at all levels in cultures where leadership supports and challenges professional growth. Support structures within education must ensure that teachers have what they need to fully understand, engage with and enact teaching standards as core to what it means to be a teacher in Scotland.” – GTC Scotland response, Call For Views, February 2026

This supports the proposition that embedding high standards of pedagogy in our classrooms would be the most effective and quickest way to enhance provision and outcomes. It would lead to improved conditions that better serve the needs of learners including disadvantaged young people. This is an alluring argument. Yet schools and local authorities are already in a constant process of improving learning, teaching and assessment. They have never stopped trying to bridge the attainment gap that remains so closely linked to socio-economic disparity through improved pedagogy. Nor have they ceased in their efforts to create the culture, ethos and wider conditions to enable learners to maximise their success. Something else has to change for these commendable efforts to fully bear fruit.

Notwithstanding real advancements in some local authority partnerships, improvements in the global professional development offer to teachers will be necessary moving forward. Giving teachers more autonomous time or more structured time for professional development within their working week would also greatly help. Unfortunately, one of the implications of current teacher workforce shortages is that around Scotland teachers’ workload is being substantially increased because many are having to cover long-term vacancies in their own schools. Additional lesson preparation and marking of pupils’ work in classes other than their own has become endemic in some areas. Reducing this, and in turn reducing the operational pressures on teachers would free them up to develop their professional capability.

What is clear is that if we just keep doing what we have always done within the structures that we have always had, and just try a bit harder, we will continue to move too slowly towards our goal.

Addressing gaps in teacher staffing is essential for accelerated system improvement. Attracting sufficient high-quality applicants into primary and secondary Initial Teacher Education particularly in shortage areas and subjects, would be a major breakthrough. Getting teacher workforce right - in terms of both quantum and quality - is considered crucial by all school leadership groups involved in this report. Unfortunately, rather than being an enabler, teacher staffing is currently an obstacle to progress. Capable people are looking for solutions to this, starting with establishing where shortages exist and the specifics of long-term vacancies. It seems clear that a system that provides intelligent and co-ordinated data gathering required for accurate workforce planning is not in place within current governance arrangements. The joint statutory responsibility for ensuring that the teacher workforce meets pupil demand is not being met.

By way of illustration in 2024/25 out of 20 secondary subjects in which professional graduate teaching diplomas were available, in only three subjects did intake match availability. Those subjects were Drama, History and PE. A sample of other subject areas shows the following proportion of uptake:

• Computing = 31%;
• Technology Education = 31%
• Biology = 54%;
• Chemistry = 34%;
• Physics = 22%^[76]

Notwithstanding the additional capacity built into ITE providers’ programmes, the gap between the number of teachers required and the number of teachers in training has considerable repercussions now and will continue to affect schools for a number of years.

Despite the presumed benefits of teaching as a profession there are critical reasons why it is not as attractive as it needs to be.

Young aspiring graduates seek stable employment, work-life balance, a career pathway, a sense of purpose, financial security, the potential for hybrid working and professional development and progression. They also seek to work for employers whose values resonate with their own. Importantly, young professionals who consider teaching as a career will do so because they want to make a difference to children and young people. They strive for a sense of personal and professional agency through “giving back”. In contrast, what do they hear about?

They hear about workload, stress, long hours, disruptive behaviours, dissatisfied parents and a lack of permanent job vacancies. They are unlikely to hear about the joys of teaching and even less likely to hear first or second hand from teachers who do have a real sense of agency in their workplace, of being able to make a real difference to both their school and to their learners. As a profession, educators are rarely the best advocates for the role to which they dedicate themselves so fully. This is often due to the gap between aspirations and realities - the difference between what teachers want to do for learners and their capacity and resources at their disposal to deliver. In short, a sense of reward and agency is not in abundance in our schools and this is what the public – including potential future teachers – hears about. This, despite outstanding levels of commitment from teachers and leaders giving their heart and soul and making many personal sacrifices to bridge that gap between aspiration and reality.

If we wish to attract high-quality graduates into teaching and subsequently retain their services, we must improve their sense of agency. That can only happen when the leaders in their schools are empowered to do so.

Empowerment of school leaders does not only benefit Headteachers: it is a building block to improve the status and quality of the teaching profession.

Improving pedagogy and teacher quality, co-constructing the curriculum and ensuring adequate numbers of appropriately qualified teachers are responsibilities delegated to local authorities, working in partnership with national bodies. This responsibility is enshrined within current statute, as is the commensurate accountability for delivery. Despite the collective strength of will to improve school provision and outcomes, and despite the scores of genuinely high calibre people who lead and manage local authorities, Scotland's educational outcomes are, at best, mixed. If the structures and organisations that have delegated responsibility to deliver excellence and equity are not delivering, it is impossible to avoid advocating change.

Governance and funding

As indicated within the funding section of the report, most of the money local authorities spend on school education is funded from the Scottish Government. This money forms part of the overall local government settlement.

Most of the money provided for education through the local government settlement is not ring fenced. As discussed, one notable exception is the Attainment Scotland Fund. For the most part it is individual local authorities who assess and determine how much funding is allocated for education to support individual schools and their centrally managed education support services. That assessment of funding quantum is set out in local authorities’ Devolved School Management Schemes, and reflects local needs and priorities, statutory obligations and agreed national priorities. At present local interpretation of national DSM guidelines varies considerably.

In the process of composing this report it has been difficult to identify consistency in the factors that are included within local authority funding allocations for education, and how much weighting each factor is given. Greater transparency would be beneficial to education delivery. As a result of current approaches there is considerable variation in how local authorities decide to spend their education budget (see Appendix C) which inevitably leads to inconsistency in how much is spent per pupil. In short, the current approach results in wide variation in both the quantum and the method of assessing allocation of funding to schools across Scotland. Notably, the Accounts Commission^[77] found that it is ‘how’ councils decide to spend their education budget, rather than the aggregate level of spend, which impacts on outcomes such as attainment, indicating that there is potential for greater sharing of effective practice in this regard.

At school level the high proportion of fixed costs within school budgets means that while Headteachers may nominally have budgetary control, in practice they have little or no flexibility to target resources as they might wish. Headteachers seek greater control over their staffing and resource budgets, although express concern about the additional bureaucracy that may be associated with this. Further, the method to calculate allocation of budgets to schools requires greater input from Headteachers as allocations are often based on raw school roll, rather than nuanced variables such as deprivation, additional support needs and other factors that impact on outcomes. Some Headteachers expressed particular concern over the lack of control over the staffing model in their schools. This limits Headteacher empowerment and the extent to which the school can improve. It is important to consider how we give Headteachers more flexibility and control so that they have the right people in the right place to meet the needs of their learners.

Contradictory funding Information: The ritual dance^[78]

By February of each year school leaders (along with practitioners and the parental community) are informed by their local authority managers to expect pressure on funding and resourcing in the coming session. Increased overall costs of providing not just schooling but wider public services are cited, linked to indications that national government funding is not keeping pace with those rising costs. There will be less money available, they are told. Simultaneously school leaders will read national government announcements that core funding for education is in fact being increased, supplemented by additional discretionary funds for specific policy aims such as PEF and boosting teacher numbers.

School leaders throughout Scotland are familiar with this unhelpful scenario. This report cannot go into the granular details of why this happens. However, from the perspective of a Headteacher, the cycle is damaging. It is a ritual dance which debilitates school leaders’ capacity to plan strategically. It certainly places an unnecessary ceiling on their ambition for their learners and school community.

While there has been a welcome increase in the participation of school leaders in local authority boards and working groups including those addressing finance, in reality their decision-making powers usually centre around identifying which aspects of provision can be cut or reduced the following year in order to save money. Deciding the ‘least worst’ efficiencies does not fulfil the intentions of the 2018 Joint Agreement. It certainly does not empower school leaders in the way envisaged in the Governance Review: being partners in co-creating approaches to optimise school quality and continuously improve the delivery of Scottish education.

Empowerment by design

"A particularly regrettable example of the abuse of power in the system has been a tendency to describe headteachers and senior school staff as council officers whose freedom to offer views on education is very restricted. ... Scotland needs teachers and educational leaders with courage and the capacity for independent thought." (Enlighten, February 2026)

An obstacle to progress in our current system is that school leaders are dissuaded from debating education policy and delivery with elected members, even those whose wards encompass their school catchment. Similar constraints affect dialogue with the parental community. In the worst case reported to me, a school leader choosing to involve the parental body to consider the implications of council policy was deemed to be ‘weaponising parents’ against their employer. One has to wonder in whose interest this is, when in-effect those elected to lead are prevented from hearing honest views from the education professionals they are democratically elected to govern. This is a position we have not designed but evolved into. Enabling and encouraging professionals on the frontline to exchange views and information with elected members through appropriate channels should be considered necessary and indeed welcome. This would go some way towards upholding local democracy and tapping into the deep expertise that is currently lying dormant. Otherwise, much of the wisdom of those working most closely with Scotland’s learners will continue to be whispered amongst themselves.

The Inspectorate’s review of bureaucracy and workload published in 2016 indicated that the workload demands placed on schools required improvement. Since then, a number of local authorities have delegated business functions such as finance and human resources to Headteachers, thereby adding additional layers of bureaucracy. Empowering Headteachers to be leaders of learning requires a recalibration between schools and local authorities. Headteachers require and should be able to expect the provision of high-quality administrative support services. Ultimately, too much bureaucracy means that teachers and Headteachers spend too much of their time on paperwork and not enough time leading their schools and focusing on learning and teaching.

Numerous well-founded sources state explicitly that Headteachers have a responsibility to empower their own colleagues. This is an aspiration commonly held by school leaders themselves, acknowledging their own pathway to leadership. Unfortunately, it is simply impossible for the school leader to empower colleagues if they have little or no flexibility over resourcing, staffing models and the curriculum model. Apart from falling short of fulfilling professional leadership standards and government expectations, this situation presents serious challenges in relation to teacher recruitment, retention and productivity. It also indicates that leadership empowerment would be a significant enabler to resolving the gaps.

Unfortunately, despite ongoing commitments the sense of optimal empowerment amongst school leaders is not widespread.^[79] Instead they feel overworked and – sometimes – undervalued. Much of their potential to lead their schools flexibly and to contribute to system effectiveness continues to lie untapped.

It is no surprise that despite the professional rewards of headship many local authorities are finding it increasingly challenging to fill vacancies. This risks a decline in teaching standards and the erosion of bespoke support for learners, ultimately leading to lower pupil outcomes. Unless focused strategic reform is implemented urgently, spiralling demands will intersect with a weakened system that is unable to rectify its own internal problems. It is in our hands to prevent this from happening.

Empowerment does not happen by chance. It needs to be carefully designed, embedded and afforded long-term support by senior system leaders with vision and determination. Scotland has an abundance of such qualities: our task is to tap into those qualities to turn potential into reality.

From fragmentation to coherence

“Even in decentralised systems, the national or state level remains very important in triggering and steering education reform. The central level most often provides the system-wide vision needed to enable effective delivery of reform as well as equitable access and outcomes for students…”^[80] – OECD, Governing Education in a Complex World, Educational Research and Innovation, 2016

The Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc. Act 2000 sets out the role of the Scottish Government as “The Scottish Ministers shall endeavour to secure improvement in the quality of school education provided for Scotland; and they shall exercise their powers in relation to such provision with a view to raising standards of education”. Scottish Ministers set national priorities in education and will continue to be accountable to Parliament for the performance of the education system. The Education, Children and Young People Committee plays a key role in scrutinising the Scottish Government’s policies and spending related to schools. This level of oversight is required and indeed demanded.

It is important to note that the Learning and Education Reform Directorates in the Scottish Government are responsible for managing several major national initiatives including the National Improvement Framework, Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) and the Scottish Attainment Challenge. In terms of governance, they maintain oversight of national agencies including HMIE, Education Scotland and Qualifications Scotland.

“Civil servants bring an important skill set to policy implementation, but it is equally important to recognise that other partners in Scottish Education bring both pedagogical and practical insights to bear in relation to service delivery. A command and control approach to policy implementation from Scottish Government, or its agencies, might seem to sit at odds with a stated intention of empowering practitioners and parents at school level.”^[81] – EIS response, Governance Review, 2016

Further, there are various boards and committees at the national level responsible for the different programmes or tasks closely connected to CfTE. Advisory boards such as the Curriculum and Assessment Board (CAB) act as a central governance body for qualifications and assessment reform.

It may be helpful now to consider how all stakeholders play an active role that is more than purely advisory in the decision-making process^[82]. Current education reform and the appointment of key senior leaders in national agencies provides an opportunity to do just this.

Due to its inherent complexity, our education system would benefit from leadership oversight that ensures a clear strategic spine from national policy-setting through to system co-ordination and school delivery. Linking our national vision and intentions clearly with what happens in classrooms would greatly benefit all contributors, most of all our children and young people.

The role of Scottish Government and national bodies: system metacognition

Lines of accountability between local and national bodies are not clear enough. Respondents to this review told us that the national landscape felt cluttered, with a lack of clarity about responsibilities. They would welcome greater collaboration and joint working between national bodies.

We expect our schools to be learning schools, and our education system to be a learning system. Successful planning and implementation of improvement is impossible otherwise. Leaders require to consider objectively what our core purposes are and whether they are being met. They also need to identify key enablers and blockers to progress, then to maximise the former and overcome the latter. Much of this is in place in Scotland. This is why despite considerable challenges we have much to be proud of, not least of which is our young people.

However, one improvement that commentators repeatedly propose is enhanced co-ordination of the national education bodies. Although the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills retains ultimate accountability for the direction of those bodies it is impractical to assume that such a senior political leader would have the working capacity to adopt a hands-on approach. Furthermore, given the realities of political polemic and of sensational social media clickbait, it is highly improbable that a hands-on approach could avoid accusations of political ‘interference’.

High-level strategic co-ordination of national policy development and implementation would be of immense benefit to those who are tasked with delivery. Coherent, well-timed and mutually complementary workstreams paced and sequenced in line with schools’ capacity to deliver would be a powerful enabler, optimising the considerable potential that exists within our system. Thus the function of Executive Director would be as sense-maker in chief. Its influence would be particularly vital at times of substantial reform of policy and structure, which in Scotland is happening right now and is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

Governance recommendations

The rationale that underpins the governance recommendations derives from the preceding deliberations on how and how well our current governance system leads to the outcomes to which all stakeholders aspire. Recommendations on changes to governance stem also from the changes recommended within the improvement and funding themes. Governance reform would not be for its own sake but would be to facilitate Scotland’s ability to be ‘the best at getting better’ and to make best use of its public purse.

By way of example the final recommendation in this section G6 is premised on recommendation I9, because the co-ordination and coherence of policy and delivery through the system would inevitably contribute to improvements in learning experiences and the outcomes achieved by learners.

Similarly, recommendation G3 is interlinked with funding recommendation F1 as G3 is a logical extension to the call for clearly defining what education spend is and ring-fencing monies from Scottish Government to ensure these are spent accordingly.

These recommendations are unashamedly based on a mix of ideology and pragmatism. The ideological basis is not political, rather it stems from the assumption that the delivery of state education should begin and end with what is best for the learners. All other considerations are subordinate and should be contributory in nature. At the very least they should not detract from the goal. This is not to say that other elements of public services are trivial. Many are essential and contribute indirectly to education outcomes. But if Scotland is serious about getting education right for our children, serious about planting the seeds for the future economic and cultural success of our country, we must demonstrate a collective determination to prioritise education above all else. Our schools, after all, are buildings full of the future.

As evidenced, the Governance Review and many well-informed subsequent deliberations point to the need to rationalise the delivery of state school education. Despite the best efforts of capable people, Scotland is not yet leading the way. Rather than playing the blame game (because in truth we are all part of the problem and of the solution) we should focus on what needs to happen now. We can become the best at getting better; we can choose to define and channel school funding appropriately; and we can amend the oversight of our schools to better meet our children’s aspirations and needs. Whether we do so or not is our choice.

Our education system is complex, but we must be clear about its overall purpose and ensure that all parts contribute to it. That purpose is not to support national government, nor national bodies, nor local councils and education authorities. The purpose is our children, their wellbeing and achievements and their journey to become citizens and leaders in their own right. The single most important interface with those learners is our schools and within them our teachers.

Of course, schools cannot function well without a supportive framework, but they must be recognised again as the most crucial educational influence on our learners: the future of Scotland.

This sounds simple. Just remember the primacy of schools in the delivery of education. What could be more obvious? And yet.

Governance Recommendation G1

Consolidate the bodies that have statutory responsibility for the delivery of school education. Local Schools Authorities (LSAs) should be formed from existing local government structures, and would subsume all current school education functions undertaken by local authorities.

• A change in statute would be envisaged to enable this reform to be implemented.
• To increase capacity to provide support and challenge for school improvement and improved outcomes.
• To facilitate financial efficiencies through economies of scale.
• To improve partnership arrangements with national education bodies.
• Baseline total population, physical size and geographical factors pertinent to the provision of schooling to school-aged population should be taken into account in determining the size of LSAs.
• As a starting point and subject to further refinement, each consolidated LSA would have a baseline population of between eighty and one hundred thousand primary and secondary school-aged learners. This may vary according to population density and physical geography.
• The design of LSAs should be guided by the positive developments within existing inter-authority collaborative partnerships. Leaders at the forefront of existing partnerships should play a key role in designing the LSAs.

Governance Recommendation G2

Assuming the retention of 32 local councils: local democracy as a key feature of Scottish culture should be upheld directly through the influence of elected members from each local council through the formation of new Education Executive Boards (EEBs).

• EEBs would provide strategic oversight of each LSA, to champion local voices and to collaborate to optimise outcomes for local children and young people.
• Elected members to be appointed to the EEB on the basis of proportional representation, reflecting the size of the local government which they represent.
• The EEBs would interact with local government through both political representation and the involvement of senior education officials. The role of education committees in local government would be enhanced by extension through the formation of formal cross-boundary channels, influencing policy and focusing on high-quality provision for children and young people.
• The EEBs would interact with national government and national education bodies through adaptations of existing Association of Directors of Education Scotland (ADES) and Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) networks. Having fewer representatives co-designing education policy would streamline development work and increase the pace of change for the benefit of learners.
• The EEBs should consider a schedule of meeting agendas constructed around the school year which integrates frequent and regular dialogue with representatives from school leaders, education professional associations and trade unions, pupil voice groups and the parental body.

Governance Recommendation G3

Provision to schools of the bespoke administrative supports would be the responsibility of the LSA.

Below is a non-exhaustive list of the key supports required by schools within the totality of operational support provisions identified in existing statute.

• Financial management support and advice, together with effective finance controls
• Legal advice and support where required
• Health and safety advice and support
• HR and recruitment systems and advice
• Core IT, including network provision and learner device policy
• Property relating to the school estate

Governance Recommendation G4

In conjunction with the recommendation F1 to ring-fence the education budget from Scottish Government for the provision of school education, to allocate education budgets directly from national government to LSAs, with responsibility and accountability for financial oversight lying with LSAs.

• Quantum of grants from national government to LSAs to be based on existing formulae, to be refined and updated by both partners over time.
• General Revenue Grants and Specific Revenue Grants including those targeting excellence and equity, to be disbursed directly from national government to the LSAs.
• Autonomy over spend and financial controls to be within the remit of senior officers of the LSA, taking account of and adhering to linked expectations within the DSM-related recommendation F8.

Governance Recommendation G5

To formalise school neighbourhood groupings with a notional minimum of five thousand learners across sectors. (This would be adaptable to local contexts, including rurality and city-centre population density.)

• Collaborative networking between and across sectors, utilising robust peer to peer support and challenge approaches. Examples are in operation in Scotland, which encourage the sharing of effective practice and peer to peer professional development.

To formalise cluster (learning community) partnerships in order to enable an ‘all-through 3-18’ approach, co-ordinating curricular design, pedagogical provision and other pertinent matters. The key purpose of this would be to share and co-ordinate effective practice to generate long-term improvement.

• Appointment of a school group leader on a rotating basis, accountable to the Local School Authority Board
• The continuous professional development of Headteachers, LSA officers, aspiring Depute Headteachers and middle leaders would concurrently be enabled through participation in these collaborative networks.

Governance Recommendation G6

To optimise the effectiveness of the national education bodies, introduce the function of Executive Director of Education. The office-bearer would work alongside the heads of the national bodies and with a reference panel of advisors. The office-bearer would be politically informed but not politically affiliated to government.

• The Executive Director would sense-check and ensure the co-ordination of national education strategy.
• To ensure coherence of policy developments across the national bodies, avoiding gaps and overlaps, and to identify synergies to optimise capacities within the system.
• To work with a panel of leadership advisors to ensure that the expectations of national policymakers take account of capacity within LSAs and schools to deliver identified priorities within required timeframes.
• To integrate the voices of representative bodies including learners, parents and carers, teachers and leaders, and LSAs to inform decision making.

This recommendation is directly linked to Improvement recommendation I9.

The adjacent conditions necessary to bring the recommendations to fruition

1. A fully co-ordinated and modernised teacher workforce system.

This would require national co-ordination of Initial Teacher Education provision, based on existing workforce capacity and the projected pupil population at all ages and stages from 3-18.

Consideration should be given to offering enhancements for specific shortage sections of the teacher workforce. The purpose would be to attract applicants of the appropriate calibre in adequate numbers to teach the projected number of school-aged learners in all parts of the country.

• Information to underpin arrangements would include robust annual data gathering across geographical, sector and subject-specific data points. This would capture demographics of learners including re-defined ASN, age and stage, and the projected distribution of subject-specialist uptake compared with learner curriculum demands.
• Account should be taken of natural turnover of staff, parental leave and requests for flexible and part-time working hours
• Agreements should be negotiated to fund ITE providers to provide places for the numbers of teachers identified in the data gathering exercises. Enhanced financial remuneration should be considered for providers who meet the target numbers.
• Co-ordination with GTCS at national and local levels would be required to take account of potential inward and outward staffing moves, based on historical patterns, updated regularly to reflect societal shifts at national and international levels.

2. A fully co-ordinated school estate planning and provision structure.

This would require an agreed formula for minimum and optimum numbers of classrooms and other learning areas (per subject in the secondary sector), size of indoor dining and social spaces, size and number of external social and physical education spaces. This formula would be negotiated between representatives from:

• national government and local authorities
• school leadership
• teacher unions
• parent voice

This approach would require a funding model for the school estate agreed between national and local government, with grant allocations based on projected school-aged learner numbers. Both the projected learner numbers and the funding formula should be reviewed regularly.

3. Defining exactly what Scotland means by school inclusion and providing the supports required to meet the diverse needs of young people across our educational provision.

Representatives of the Headteacher panel demonstrated through a combination of very articulate argument and impassioned plea that the current interpretation of Presumption to Mainstream is doing our children and young people a disservice. Children who deserve bespoke expert support are not receiving it. Teachers and support staff in schools who also require targeted expert support are not receiving it either. The way we are doing inclusion in Scotland no longer works for any party.

The March 2026 review of Additional Support for Learning (ASL) provision^[83] provides a valuable platform for progress in this regard.