Teachers are growing increasingly concerned that the controversial Named Person scheme will add to their workload and detract from pupils’ learning.
MSPs have also heard that extra administrative staff would be needed to make the scheme work and that teachers may ignore a new code of practice, as it looks dauntingly complex.
These views emerged as the Scottish government attempts to get Named Person back on track following last year’s ruling by the Supreme Court in London that, while the aims of the scheme were “benign”, it could “give rise to disproportionate interferences” in family life.
Named Person would provide a single point of contact - often a teacher or headteacher - to oversee the wellbeing of every under-18 in Scotland.
The EIS teaching union, however, has told the Scottish Parliament’s Education and Skills Committee that there are “growing concerns among EIS members in schools about the viability of Named Person and that of the Girfec (Getting It Right for Every Child) agenda more widely in practice” and that “it is the firm view of the EIS that schools will need additional administrative staff”.
Union concerns
The EIS has also called for clarification that local authorities, not individual teachers, will be legally liable for Named Person - otherwise, ongoing consultation is “likely to re-stir anxiety within the profession”.
The NASUWT Scotland teaching union has expressed concerns about the workload that the Named Person service could create for teachers, which it fears will be “a distraction for teachers from their core role”.
In an evidence session at the committee last week, to consider a new bill on sharing information about children and young people, Jenni Brown, a Dumfries and Galloway principal pupil support teacher, said: “Teachers are extremely busy at the moment - there’s a constant changing environment in terms of exams etc, and this is additional workload.”
She argued that accomplished pupil-support teachers already provided “a good [single] point of contact” for pupils without the extra demands that expected Named Person would place on teachers.
In June, Tes Scotland revealed that the Scottish Guidance Association had, in a letter to education secretary John Swinney, warned that the role of named person was “effectively a full-time post in itself”.
Since the Supreme Court verdict last year, the Scottish government has introduced a code of practice to advise named persons on sharing of information about children, but concerns have been raised it will make teachers and other professionals less likely to pass on information about vulnerable children.
Ms Brown told MSPs that the code of practice “has to be something that’s sensible, that’s easy, that’s quick…otherwise staff will not use it - they’ll not have the time”.
In written evidence, the Scottish Council of Independent Schools said: “There is a danger that the draft code of practice, rather than facilitating the sharing of information, may have an adverse effect and discourage or intimidate those with the authority to share information and dissuade them from doing so.”
Similarly, Andrew Keir, Girfec manager for North Ayrshire Health and Social Care Partnership, told the committee there was a danger of “practitioners retreating back to not sharing anything” because they were not sure where they stand legally. He added that if they do not understand the code of practice it “will have no impact whatsoever”.
There was a sense of regret in evidence from some experts, who felt that Named Person was laudable in theory, but fell short in practice.
No improvements
Mr Keir said that the concept of a single point of contact for a child’s wellbeing is “actually fantastic and something we need”, but he could not see how the new legislation would improve anything already place under, for example, human rights legislation.
A written submission from North Lanarkshire council stated “with sadness” that “the principles behind Getting it Right for Every Child, providing the right help at the right time, proportionate and timely early intervention, could be compromised…as practitioners may find the information-sharing processes too complex to navigate.”
Jackie Niccolls, team leader for social work at Glasgow City Health and Social Care Partnership, said Named Person faced a stumbling block with the public: while the concept might attract some support, few liked the idea of their own child being involved. She said: “And I think that’s the bottom line: people will say, ‘Oh yes, I can see it being very useful - but not [for] my child, not my grandchild.’”
A Scottish government spokeswoman said that ministers were “confident that the bill fully addresses the issues raised by the UK Supreme Court”.
She added: “The Named Person Service will ensure that the needs of children and young people are placed at the centre by ensuring services work together in the best interests of children and young people, by supporting families in nurturing their children and by offering them the right help at the right time from the right people.”
