It is no coincidence that the word consultation begins with “con”, says academic Walter Humes. Today, the government’s consultation on the way Scottish education should be run in the future ends - and the general consensus across the education world is that it has been too short and rather badly executed.

According to Professor Humes, the governance review - like many official documents - suffers from a “poor quality of writing”, the “clumsy repetitions of words and phrases”, and fails to make a coherent case for change.

The questions it poses, meanwhile, “limit rather than open up discussion”, adds the expert in Scottish education and honorary professor at the University of Stirling. There is, he claims, “little supportive evidence” provided for making the proposed changes.

Education secretary John Swinney says that the government’s goal is simple: it wants more decisions about “children’s learning and school life” to be taken by schools, supported by parents, and not by local authorities.

However, parents’ organisations have complained about being unable to take part in the consultation because they found it “impenetrable”. While being au fait with education jargon, local government association Cosla also said that it felt constrained by the “leading questions” in the document.

Scotland’s largest teaching union, the EIS, called the consultation “very open”, but on the other hand lamented the absence of firm proposals on which to comment.

It is hardly surprising that the world of education has complained about the speed and content of the process: Scotland’s new education secretary is in a hurry. Mr Swinney took up his new role in May and is a man keen to make his mark.

Structural change is sometimes necessary, says Professor Humes, but more often than not, it is favoured by government because it gives “visibility to government action”.

It is unclear how the governance review and changing the way in which schools are run would further the Scottish government’s aim of closing the attainment gap, he says, as do other experts.

The Royal Society of Edinburgh’s (RSE) education committee held a roundtable discussion about the review, which included academics, teachers, parents’ organisations and councils. A report on the event stated that the “overarching rationale is unclear”. It added: “Concern was raised that a lot of energy and effort could be expended on reforming governance structures without it being clear what impact this will have on learners.”

Contradictory message

Mr Swinney has said that he wants decisions about education to be taken at school level, and he wants to empower teachers and parents. He also hopes to move some responsibilities that currently sit with councils over to schools, and he wants to establish new educational regions to ensure collaboration and sharing of best practice between schools and councils.

However, he has also said that councils would continue to “exercise democratic control” over education at a local level.

This apparent contradiction prompted secondary headteachers’ organisation School Leaders Scotland (SLS) to call for clarity on the proposals.

Many worry, meanwhile, that the introduction of educational regions would increase complexity and add to bureaucracy, not reduce it. The speed with which the government is trying to move is also a concern.

Glasgow’s director of education, Maureen McKenna, recently told TESS that the government was pushing a pace of change that was “unwelcome” and “unsustainable”, and leading to “basic errors”.

EIS assistant secretary Andrea Bradley criticised recent “government hyperactivity” and called for a period of consolidation. The union warns in its submission to the review that schools might not be able to cope with the “reach of change” being considered.

Primary headteachers organisation AHDS, meanwhile, commented that “change takes time at the front line, it sometimes seems that policies at the strategic level change before the ink on the last policy is dry.”

The organisation added that any changes to governance would be no substitute for “the necessary increase in resources, including staffing, that Scottish education requires”.

These concerns are shared by Daniel Murphy, a retired headteacher and co-editor of Everyone’s Future: lessons from fifty years of Scottish comprehensive schooling.

The education secretary had talked about the need for a “swift turnaround” with the governance review - but changing governance was not “swift”, it was “massive”, said Mr Murphy, who is an honorary fellow at the University of Edinburgh.

Now was not the time, amid budget stringency and teacher shortages, to embark on far-reaching structural change, he added.

Mr Murphy said that any good ideas to emerge from the review should be trialled before being implemented across the board.

‘Cultural problem’

However, Professor Humes and Mr Murphy believe that there is scope for improvement in the way Scottish education is run.

There is a case for some restructuring at local government level, says Professor Humes. For example, budget restrictions have led to recent educational reform not being properly resourced by councils. He also argues that local authorities have suffered from “a cultural problem”.

He adds: “Local government has been very conformist and compliant, and has had an authoritarian attitude to headteachers.”

SLS used its response to the review to hit out at the “traditional top-down, one-size-fits-all approach” taken by local authorities. Passing more control to headteachers could be a good thing, the organisation suggests.

Keir Bloomer, chair of the RSE education committee, further argues that it is “surely right” that “decisions taken at school level are more likely to be well judged and appropriate than those taken remotely” (see box, below).

One thing that appears to have widespread agreement is that - as Professor Humes put it - “something needs to be done about Education Scotland”.

Professor Humes says: “That is the most obvious point to emerge from this review: Education Scotland has not been able to combine its advisory, development and inspection work, which is essentially its remit.”

In its submission, the EIS describes Education Scotland as “politically compliant” and criticises its failure to challenge the government on education policy. SLS, meanwhile, calls for Education Scotland to be split back into its development and inspection arms, describing it as “less than fit for purpose”.

How much heed will now be taken of these - and the dozens of other - carefully crafted responses submitted to the governance review is unknown, says Professor Humes. But it would seem that if Education Scotland escapes the review unchanged, the government could reasonably be accused of putting the “con” into consultation.