Education Governance - What it means for CLD

Section 4:

Regional Improvement Collaboratives

• Comment - ˜their relentless focus is on supporting teachers school staff -  misses opportunity and disrespects the value other staff provide.

• Risk of groups of people just talking amongst themselves, need to ensure the groups are outward looking.

• There is a need to have parallel collaboratives for young people.

• Need to embrace learning culture and ensure broader groups are include/involved such as home educators.

• |CLD should be at the table as an equal partner.

Aberdeen Group 1

Section 4 -  Regional Improvement Collaboratives

What does this above mean?

How will these be planned out  locations, similarities

Current North Alliance  - what will happen with this?

Not much mention of CLD within this whole section

Involvement of the unions representing all 4 or 5

Aberdeen Group 2

A visual of the whole process would be useful. Diagram of the flow. What plan feeds into where.  CLD Plan NIF Plan, locality plan, etc

Q14 2 year cycle Clarity around the plans.  Need to integrate to LOIP or cross reference. 

q 13 Why are we being consulted on something that has already been established

Section 4 Regional Improvement Collaboratives

Focus seems to be entirely on statutory provision and does not look at the pupils holistic needs. Seems to suggest that the teaching profession is the main focus and although it mentions "other school staff" this seems to be a token mention.

The range of expertise is entirely focussed on treatment for the young person or pupil and there looks to be very little forward thinking in terms of identifying social issue within the community. There should joined up approach to tackle the social issues within the wider community rather than just this suggestion that we can treat the pupil. 

There is no mention of lifelong learning partnerships. It looks like there is a departure from the lifelong and life wide ethos that has been embedded in past policy. 

The creation of large collaboratives removes the governance from a local level which will lose the connection with local communities. By centralising the control it removes a degree of flexibility and also takes a away the control from the local community. 

It seems that with this approach there is little mention of CLD values and also reduces the ability for communities to engage meaningfully with their education provision. 

Where is the evidence that this proposal has come from the communities and has been created with a degree of participation with local communities? 

The scope for the "improvement" is limited as stated within the second paragraph of the forth section of the document.

Within section 4 it only mentions supporting teachers and school staff and not CLD

Again within section 4 expertise is mentioned but does not specify working collaboratively with CLD. Also they have only focused on best practice between schools and education systems which means inclusion of the wider community has not been addressed.

This means that people outwith the education system are loosing the support and information needed to empowerment and self determination.