presentation

media type="custom" key="7492691" media type="youtube" key="fW8amMCVAJQ?fs=1" height="385" width="640"

media type="youtube" key="TZjRJeWfVtY?fs=1" height="385" width="480" ** Professional Obligations of a Head Teacher **
 * GENERAL SEMINAR NOTES **

The Professional obligations are outlines in the Professional Actions section of the Standard for Headship (2005). These are the actions a Head Teacher must make in leading and managing five key aspects of school functioning: __ ● 3.4.2 Lead and develop people __ __ ● 3.4.3 Lead change and improvement __ __ ● 3.4.4 Use Resources effectively __ __ ● 3.4.5 Build community __
 * ● ** __ 3.4.1 Lead and manage learning and teaching __

** Notes on 3.4.3 - Lead Change and Improvement **

** Lead change and Improvement ** Head teachers support and maintain existing good practice and encourage and promote constant improvement in the development of young people. They demonstrate personal commitment to continuous improvement through self evaluation, together with skills in problem solving, creative thinking, strategic planning, in implementing change, in the use of quality assurance strategies to judge the need for and effectiveness of change, and in providing support for staff, children and young people and parents.

When discussing prescriptive approaches to the roles of Headship, Barnett (1994) notes, “Professional practice is regarded as too varied and context specific to make sure a detailed approach to specifying behaviour as either useful or desirable.”

The Standard for Headship (2005) seems to acknowledge this fact in its structure and content and is not overly prescriptive in specifying the actions required of a Head teacher. In reading 3.4.3 one finds a general description of __what__ should be accomplished by a school leader with some reference to personal attitudes and skills, the __how__ aspect – namely a commitment to self evaluation and the demonstration of the skills of problem solving, creative thinking, strategic planning, change management, quality assurance strategies and the ability to be supportive of staff, students and parents. According to the nature of the standard and its construct it is also imperative that we see the three essential elements of the standard underpinning the work of the leader. Namely: strategic vision and aims, knowledge and understanding and personal qualities and interpersonal skills also impinge on the question of how.

In Fullan (1993) he points out that the change process can be chaotic and that leaders should not expect always to be systematic in their efforts. While planned change - including organized assessment and problem solving - can be useful, leaders often need to be able to cope with more informal, turbulent, and spontaneous change. But in considering the nature of 3.4.3 as a professional action it is best to start with the question of ‘why’ and consequently ‘what’. The matter of how will be dealt with in the last section of these notes.

In exploring the nature and meaning of school improvement, MacGilchrist, Myers and Reed (2004), note that by the end of the 1990’s the coming together of research around school effectiveness and school improvement resulted in a shift in definitions of school improvement. Hopkins (1996, p32) defines it as: ‘A strategy for educational change that enhances student outcomes as well as strengthening the school’s capacity to managing change’. As MacGilchrist //et al// note this definition demands that the leaders of a school look at how the outcomes of improvement impact on student educational outcomes therefore linking school-wide improvements to classroom improvements. It should also build capacity in the school for further change. Further they state, while such definitions were a step in the right direction they still remained more about prescription of action, and therefore process rather than outcomes.

However by the beginning of the twentieth century the academic performance of students has become much more of a focus and is regarded by educational agencies as a key criterion for an improving school. If one looks at HMIe’s Quality Indicators for Scottish Schools in the ‘How Good is Our School’ documents you find key performance indicator 1.1 is about improvement in student performance – standards of attainment over time, overall quality of learners’ achievements and impact of the school improvement plan. Thus HMIe expects to see the school improvement plan leading directly to better student outcomes. Indicator 5.9 in the same document also makes clear the need for improvement through self evaluation and further links this to the school improvement plan.

Another aspect of improvement that is important is whether it is sustainable or not. Change and improvement are complex and as Stoll and Fink (1996 p.61) note: ‘"A superficial quick fix approach to change may end up being no more than moving the deckchairs around on the //Titanic//”. Change takes time and is further complicated by emerging evidence from longitudinal data sets that improvement in student performance comes in bursts over a short period of time rather than year-on-year. Gray, Goldstein and Jesson 1996 (as cited in McGilchrist 2004) carried out a study using a sophisticated value added measurement tool in 34 Secondary schools, in one LEA, covering 5 successive cohorts of students. Their aim was to see rates of improvement over time. Their results showed schools differed in their effectiveness over time and that the question of continuous improvement against short bursts of improvement in performance of students was unclear.

In a further study, Gray //et al// 1999 (as cited in MacGilchrist 2004) then identified 12 out of the 34 schools to investigate changes that had taken place over the five year period. This time they were looking for naturally occurring improvement, not that due to external interventions.

The authors used qualitative and quantitative methodology and knowledge of factors drawn from school effectiveness and school improvement research paradigms. They looked at specific factors that might have contributed to the changes and improvement practices in the 12 schools, finding that up to three years continuous improvement at the same level appeared to be normal and that after this improvement tended to plateau. Further, they found that 5 years of constant improvement was quite exceptional and thus concluded there was little evidence of sustained improvement over time.

Gray //et al// also characterised three different approaches to improvement in the schools: ● tactics – quick fixes ● strategic activities ● capacity building Schools all used the quick fix, especially in the face of the threat of inspection- but it offered little in the way of sustainable improvement. Various schools studied were trying to plan strategically, looking at specific areas – but they too only showed slight improvement. They also found that only two of the twelve schools had gone beyond incremental change and were attempting to build capacity around improved learning and teaching.

The researchers felt only one school had sufficiently embedded practice to sustain change and really improve learning. The authors also investigated contextual factors affecting outcomes – looking closely for issues in disadvantaged socio-economic communities that are additional constraints to improvement. They identified a range of contextual factors including: the mix of personality types and attitudes of staff, the age profile of staff, staff turn-over and competition in the local marketplace affecting the social mix of the intake.

In their conclusion the authors argue that the next wave – what they called the ‘third wave’ of school improvement, must centre on the classroom and improving teaching and learning and what was needed was: … a ‘way of unlocking teachers’ interest in changing their performance’ (Gray //et al// 1999 p 151). Thus clearly a large part of the question – ‘why’ and ‘what’ with regard to change and improvement in schools is about the need to improve the key focus of a school, its core business – the teaching and the consequent student learning.

But of course with the development and launch of the new curriculum comes a newer set of imperatives around change and improvement. So beyond the improvement of learning of pupils i.e. developing ‘successful learners’, is the need to build a number of other skills and attitudes in students that will fit them to the changing world. Schools must also be able to offer experiences and measure outcomes around; developing – effective contributors, confident individuals and responsible citizens. Thus, the demand that schools educate the whole person is now given shape and substance through the vehicle of learning both inside and outside the classroom. The ‘why’ in the context of 21st Century schools then is about creating a better developed student with all round capability. As the Standard (2005) prescribes, the Head must support and maintain good practice in their school but also encourage the constant improvement in student development. This in Scotland is obviously about improving the areas outlined above. While agencies of influence such as HMIe do assess other areas of school action and corporate life, most if not all other areas are primarily about enabling better learning outcomes for students.

So let us now consider the ‘how’ aspect of this part of the professional actions. It is not hard to see how the essential elements must underpin the actions around creating and sustaining change that leads to improvement. The Head must create an educational vision in keeping with their own values and be able to articulate those values so they become important to those in the organisation.

As Quong //et al// (1998:107 as cited in Bush and Bell 2002) state ‘Planning for school improvement, we argue must be based on the premise that schools have different values and that these values must be mapped before strategic intent can be determined. Thus the vision must give rise to clear aims and in turn some strategic plan to reach those goals. Cheng (2002) gives a clear indication of the importance he sees of vision in transforming schools as he states; ‘a transformational leader is pro-active about the organisations vision and mission. Shaping members’ beliefs, values and attitudes and developing options for the future’. This will involve using knowledge and understanding in a number of areas – strategic change management, pedagogical knowledge, measuring the outcomes and effectiveness of change and strong inter-personal skills to build relationships with the whole community in relation to the school.

To achieve sustained improvement which earlier in my notes, I recognised as difficult, he or she must start from promoting shared values and vision, leading to plans – either about maintaining the current practice or moving toward new structures and strategies that promote better outcomes. These must be measured, evaluated and further refined to produce a continuous cycle of improvement. This is about building leadership and school capacity for improvement (Harris and Lambert 2003).

But whilst the Head is seen as the key leader it is also widely recognised that the capacity for distributed leadership needs to be developed in a school. Ogawa and Bossert (as cited in Fidler 1997) argue that leadership should be associated with roles throughout an organisation, although the needs of leadership will change depending on the position in the organisation.

In discussing wider leadership, MacGilchrist //et al// (2004) write about the intelligent school recognising the ownership of any development plan and that the rationale for managing it will depend on the extent to which teachers and others are actively involved in the work. Thus they consider it is important when looking at roles and responsibilities throughout a school to distribute leadership responsibility and avoid a top-down culture.

Also writing convincingly about how capacity building for change and improvement links with distributed leadership, Harris and Lambert (2003), move to a much wider definition of leadership beyond the role of the Head and senior management. They argue that when leadership capacity is only about the behaviour of one person then you are limiting the achievement of broad based participation on the part of a community. Harris and Lambert state that: ‘The key notion in this definition of leadership is that leadership is about learning together and constructing meaning and knowledge collectively and collaboratively’. So a good school leader it may be further defined is one who actively promotes the leadership of others – recognising the interests, strengths and talents of those around him. Leading and managing change must involve creating an environment of collaboration where staff share the tasks designed to improve the outcomes for students.

Finally when considering change and improvement over the longer term one must decide what shape education and school as institutions might look like later in the 21st century. In a think piece for the NCSL and EMLC Futures Project – Rosalyn Rhyme CEO of Gold Recruitment had this to say on the key features of a new proactive, future oriented schooling system in the UK.

** The off-loading of the overload —managing information. ** The universal access to information will necessitate the sifting, authenticating and linking of information to construct meaning and embed knowledge. The conversion of knowledge into wisdom is a further challenge for education. In a world in which everything will be possible, deciding what is important and desirable will be the hallmark of the good citizen or productive employee.

== • __**T **____he death of subject__s - solving problems and seeking solutions. Making sense of and managing a world that is media-rich and multi-sensory will be vital. Thinking in a strictly linear way, ‘let’s plan this one step at a time’ or ‘we’ll finish this first and then do that’ will not cut the mustard. Multiple lines of enquiry and multi-tasking will be the norm. The notion of subject specific study will decline. This is partly because fully understanding a subject has become impossible due to the breadth of knowledge now available and the globalisation of learning; and partlyquired will be to solve problems by selecting appropriate knowledge, skills and information drawn from whichever specialisms are to hand. Blocks of subject lessons serve only to fragment learning and reduce the opportunity for application. Those able to work in teams, research possibilities, find pathways and create solutions will be the rainmakers of the future and will be highly prized. == ==• __An end to the tyranny of the timetable__ —managing time and space. Future society will require people who can work outside conventional views of time and how it has been traditionally used. Consider the shift from Monday being washing day and Sunday being a day of rest. The notion that pupils, particularly adolescents, should remain locked into a timetable of 70 minute learning blocks cannot deliver what will be required in the future or prepare young people effectively for future work. The combining of learning experiences as part of an agreed learning pathway is the future. Nor will pupils need to be in a classroom to learn. Virtual teaching; distance learning and online assessment has the potential to allow far more young people the chance to learn when they learn best and the straight-jacket of the 9-4 school day will be a thing of the past. ==
 * ** Space for feeding the inner self — managing self and relationships. ** Schools will retain a key role in personal development as they will be one of the few places where young people congregate, though not necessarily at the same time. They will be places to learn about other people and oneself. This will not be in a timetabled sense but in a community sense with opportunities to undertake learning experiences that explore relationships and issues of self esteem. The 21 st century will demand emotionally intelligent people. This is because the pace and nature of change, the 24/7 information stream and the need to make progress will not allow time for people to take the huff or go off in a mood. People in the workforce will be expected to be able to get along together to achieve results. The practice ground for this will be our sch

** 3.4.4 Notes on Using Resources Effectively ** ||

** Using Resources Effectively ** Head teachers make best strategic and operational use of resources to create, maintain and monitor an appropriate learning environment for effective learning and teaching, and to support continuous improvement. This should include appropriate delegation of tasks to members of the senior management team and other staff. In taking these actions, head teachers take due account of audit, child safety, health and safety requirements, human resource management and other legislative and policy requirements in relation to public service and public spending.

Unlike the other professional actions espoused in the Standard for Headship (2005) this action is not prefixed with the word lead nor does it include any imperative about change or improve in its title. Yet is an important action, as through its construct a number of important areas for infra-structural management are outlined.

In Cheng (2002) he discusses a five dimension leadership model which includes structural leadership. Cheng defines this as leadership that develops clear goals and policies, establishes appropriate organisational structure for different roles, holds staff accountable for results, and provides suitable technical support to plan, organise, coordinate and implement policies in the institution.

Further, in his discussion, Cheng (p58) references his five dimensions against three strategic domains: affective, behavioural and cognitive. The affective domain in relation to structural leadership discusses the need, strategically to encourage members to express and communicate their feelings through channels and accept the need for structures. In other words, the Head, as the professional leader allows the staff to have dialogue around policy and action, thus giving them some sense of professional autonomy and ownership on site. This is particularly important when you consider that many structures are policy related, formed and handed down out with the school and also re-interpreted via local authorities. Cheng also adds the technological aspect e.g. ICT. Members of staff need to overcome any psychological resistance to implementing technological change. With a big focus on the use of ICT and the fact that, student management systems (SEEMIS- Click and Go) and learning platforms (GLOW) demand all staff have knowledge and basic competence in the use of ICT, It is important the Head develops a culture of innovation in his organisation, including technological change. Amongst some older staff there is still some obvious resistance to using computers as a tool both in relation to management and student learning.

In the behavioural domain the HT provides the appropriate resources and facilities. They also establish structures and procedures to facilitate effective work and make technological changes. Much of this behaviour is about providing the infra-structure to meet compliance demands, which relates to accountability. In the Standard’s prescription for this action it states that the HT should make best use of operational resources to create, maintain and monitor an appropriate learning environment for effective learning and teaching, and to support continuous improvement. This it says should include delegation to members of the senior management team and other staff i.e. distributed leadership /management not just hierarchical but across all levels of staff.

In all schools senior members of staff the SLT have specific remits with portfolios of responsibility and reporting to the HT. The structure of these remits is often based on human resources, CPD and HR type functions, teaching and learning, student behaviour, support and pastoral care, ICT management. Through such management structures senior staff gain experience and expertise but they also free up the Head to lead with vision across many areas. It could be said a large part of the day for any HT is to listen and provide advice, support or direct guidance a sort of networking function. But the communication goes up and down and creates a strong culture of communication.

In terms of finances and budgets it could be suggested that in Scotland the Head is often a line manager responsible to the Head of Education in the authority who in turn has budgetary responsibility to the Chief executive of the council who in turn reports to the elected council. All of course are also responsible to the financial audit controls of central Government. In my experience here and in New Zealand budgetary lines are fairly tightly controlled, even more so now that we are in the grip of large cuts due to recessionary forces generated by the banking crisis. In this environment budgets are budgets and PT in middle management are dealing with having to make crucial decisions about what goes where and to whom. But the Head does have some say about how money is distributed in their school and directs and controls how budget holders account for and spend allocated funds. And they are invariably the person a stressed PT goes to when faced with overspending or an inability to fund important resources.

Delegation of tasks to senior management and middle managers however involves not only budgeted finances but includes delegated responsibility for Health and Safety, issues of child protection and safety, human resource management relating to such areas as CPD, leave and staff welfare and personal development plans and areas of public policy e.g. acceptable ICT usage.

It is important here to also mention the cognitive strategic function of Cheng’s five dimension model. This is really about the Principal’s organisational intelligence in valuing the use of clear policy instruments and how they are implemented and coordinated to achieve their visionary goals for the school. The Head Teacher must also help members understand the functions and importance of structure within the school as manifestations of ideologies and policy generated outside the institutions e.g. curriculum for excellence.

In MacGilchrist //et al// (2004) they discuss operational intelligence as one of the nine intelligences a school should have if it is to be successful. As they state,” it is one thing to have a clear vision based on explicit sets of values and beliefs. It is quite another to put that vision into practice. Operational intelligence plays a key role.”This operational framework is a framework that enables implementation and involves:

● thinking strategically ● having a planned approach to development ● putting into place an enabling set of management structures ● ensuring leadership is distributed throughout the school

But they also state that this operational intelligence goes well beyond the day to day management issues. Arising from an understanding of the systemic flow of information and knowledge an intelligent school uses a range of implementation strategies to operationalise their vision for the school.

So as the actions states through the responsible use of resources the key role of the institution should be effectively maintained and continuously improved. The ability to manage the infra-structure is important in building a learning community with a strong ethos around teaching and learning and the primacy of student welfare and development.

** References **

Barnett R. (1994) //The Limits of Competence: Knowledge, Higher Education and Society// As cited in Reeves J, //et al// (2002) Performance Management in Education: Improving Practice. London: Paul Chapman.

C arter K. and Willams C. E d. (2007). A Think Piece from the EMLC and NCSL Futures Project. Nottingham: NCSL.

Cheng Y. //Leadership and Strategy.// In Bush T. and Bell L. (2002//) The Principles & Practice of Education and Management.// (Section II chap. 4 pp. 51-69) London: Sage

Gray J., Goldstein H. and Thomas S. (1996) //Changes and Improvement in Schools Effectiveness: trends over five years.// Research Papers in Education Vol. 11, No. 1, pp 35-51

Gray J., Hopkins D., Reynolds D., Wilson B., Farrell S. and Jesson D. (1999) Improving Schools: Performance and Potential. Buckingham: Open University Press

Harris A. and Lambert L. (2003) //Building Leadership Capacity for School Improvement.// Berkshire: Open University Press.

MacGilchrist B., Myers K. and Reed J. (2004) //The Intelligent School//. 2nd ed. London: Sage

Ogawa R. J. and Bossert S.T. (1995//) Leadership as an Organisational Quality//. As cited in Fidler B. (1997) //School Leadership & Management//. Vol. 17 No. 1 pp 23-27

Quong T., Walker A. and Stott K. (1998) //Values Based Strategic Planning// in Bush T. and Bell L. (2002) //The Principles and Practice of Educational Management// (Section IV Chap. 6 p 87) London: Sage.

Scottish Executive Education Department (SEED). (2005). //Ambitious, Excellent Schools. Standard for Headship.// Edinburgh: Scotti sh Executive.

Stoll L. and Fink D (1996) //Changing Our Schools.// Buckingham: Open University Press

entation

**Lead and Develop People** Headteachers promote ambition; demonstrate a clear commitment to collegiality and to developing, empowering and supporting effective teams and individuals. This includes building school capacity by developing leadership in others. By engaging with those in the school community and beyond, they build a learning community which supports achievement and attainment. In taking these actions, headteachers work within the structure of employment legislation, national and local agreements, and policies governing employment.
 * Notes on 3.4.2 Lead and Develop People **

“Headteachers lead in the creation of a shared strategic vision and aim for the school, which inspire and motivate children and young people, staff and all members of the school community and its partners and sets high standards for every learner.” (SEED 2005c)

The professional action of leading and developing people is not only an objective of those organisations within the private sector but instead lies at the core of every organisation across all sectors. Improvements and reacting to external pressure is an ongoing pursuit. As we enter into a process of transformation under a curriculum for excellence there is an even greater requirement for leaders to lead people when so many are uncertain about the future. A ‘Curriculum for Excellence’ is transforming not only the way in which schools deliver the curriculum but what is delivered. It is bringing about change on a level never seen before in Scottish education but it’s important to look at how the process is managed. Yes, we have outcomes and experiences that we must deliver but those who can make this work, the teacher in the classroom, need to be able to take ownership over how and what is delivered. Shared decision making, empowering teachers by giving them the freedom to experiment and work together supported by management will help develop a more inclusive culture in Scottish schools. Well, it will if it’s managed correctly. Change in is the only constant. This has always been and will always be as external forces pressure schools into uncharted territory. A change in improving the curriculum is not just down to the lead learner, the headteacher. If there are going to be changes in the curriculum then SMT, Principal Teachers class teachers and support staff must all be involved. “In these great efforts for education change and effectiveness the role of leadership at both the system and site levels is often found to be crucial to their success.” (Cheng, 2002, p.51) Distributive leadership is definitely got to be the way forward with a change as big as the curriculum. Staff at all levels must be involved if it is going to have the necessary impact in the school. This is not necessarily an easy task. Graham Donaldson, the Senior Chief inspector for HMIe in his foreword to an HMI report on leadership said, “Developing leadership is not just about honing the skills of those in the most senior positions….It is also about releasing the energies of every member of staff and every learner and about giving them a sense that their contributions are valued.” (HMIe 2007, p.V) The HT should establish a very productive working atmosphere within their school and sustain a collective commitment to school improvement. Staff at all levels need to feel empowered and committed to improving the curriculum and teaching, and to encouraging pupils wider achievements. An exercise carried out before the HMIe visited the school was to look at all members of staff and the leadership roles they had taken on in the school over and above classroom or management commitments. Out of over 60 teaching staff there were only a handful who did not come in to this category. Opportunities for pupils to take on more leadership roles in the school need to be encouraged. The development of pupil leadership within schools can include Pupil Councils, Columba 1400 Leadership Programmes, leadership training for all Pupil Council members, School captains and Vice Captains, etc. This leadership and learning at all levels is highlighted by Middlewood et al. (2005) “//If a school is therefore determined to take up the challenge of broadening horizons and developing peoples’ skills to carry on learning in the future, it will have to adopt leadership structures and strategies which promote learning at all levels//.” (p. 41) External pressures are changing the structures of the upper year groups in schools. There are greater numbers staying on into S4-S6 because of the lack of options available to them, university and college places are more competitive, reduction in youth training schemes, fewer employers employing young people. Schools have an obligation to respond to this change by engaging with those young people who would have traditionally moved on from schooling. Providing opportunities for them to develop their leadership roles within the school, developing lifelong skills which will set them above the competition and ensure they have the greatest opportunity of gaining work after school is a responsibility we all have. The provision of leadership opportunities is not something that just happens, but has to be developed and nurtured and become part of the culture of the school. This can be a challenge for many headteachers and SMT as there can be very a much ‘them and us’ culture in a school. “Distributing the leadership may be about enhancing and refining the corporate culture, or embedding it more effectively.” (Harry Tomlinson p 152). The headteacher is not alone at the top of the hierarchical structure delegating powers to colleagues, leading from the top down. As Gronn (2003) argues “in reality many people exercise leadership”. The challenge for the headteacher is to cultivate an environment where people not only feel that they have the opportunities to exercise leadership but that they are supported and encouraged to do so. Cheng’s 5 dimensional model (2002) which he believes “can give a comprehensive framework for developing leadership strategies and actions to lead and manage 5 fundamental aspects of educational organisations including the human, structural, political, cultural and educational.” The political dimension of the framework relates to a leader building alliances and coalitions, encouraging participation and collaboration in decision making. Forming effective working relationships with key members of staff who can take forward your vision and values which in turn creates a ripple effect that spreads across the whole school. Human leadership concerns itself with creating an environment where positive social relationships can develop. It facilitates social interaction and encourages collegiality with an aim of improving the learning and teaching. Collegiality must be allowed to develop itself although there are structures in place that can bring departments together. Learning walls and improvement team meetings etc…Hargreaves (1994, p. 186) supports this claim when he says “if one of the most prominent heresies of educational change is the culture of individualism, then collaboration and collegiality are pivotal to the orthodoxies of change.” Change needs to come from within and bringing staff together through a shared vision, providing opportunities for interdisciplinary learning will provide our young people with a deeper learning experience. ** 3.4.5 Building Community **

** Build Community ** Headteachers develop and maintain partnerships with parents, children and young people, other services and agencies and in doing so extend the educational vision to embrace an agenda of lifelong learning. They create a culture of respect and inclusion and a common commitment to the broader community and to the intellectual, spiritual, physical, moral, social and cultural wellbeing of children and young people and their families. Developing and maintaining positive professional relationships with all those associated with the school community will be greatly affected by not only the culture within the school but also its environment. Interactions between staff, support offered and teamwork within the school is sensed by all those who come in contact with it. All stakeholders whether they physically visit the school or not will know how well the school works. Handy (1986//)// identified four cultural types – the Club culture, the Role culture, the Task culture and the Person culture. Identifying one particular culture that would sum up a school is not easy. As Law & Glover said, “organisations – especially larger ones – will embrace a mix of cultures even if one predominates, and the ‘culture mix’ at any given time may be influenced by factors like institutional size, workflow, environment and history.” (2000, p.116) The HT and SMT have an obligation to build community and thus be aware of differing cultures and use their strengths when appropriate. The effect of the school culture is important when dealing with stakeholders. The person culture for example is a warm, friendly and forward looking environment. Surely this is the type of environment that stimulates positive working relationships with stakeholders. The way visiting agencies, parents, carers and pupils are dealt with will have an impact on how effective relationships can be. Closing the Opportunity Gap was a strategy used by the Scottish Executive to tackle poverty and disadvantage in Scotland. Target E of this strategy stated ‘by 2008, ensure that children and young people who need it have an integrated package of appropriate health, care and education support. Words like cooperative, integrated, joint and consult are used to emphasise the importance of multi-agency working and by integrating support and building effective relationships with stakeholders will allow schools to realise the vision for all children to become successful learners, confident individuals, responsible citizens and effective contributors. The HT has an obligation to build partnerships with young people, parents and carers. Open lines of communication between the school and its community are vital to this partnership. The school should have a high profile within the community ensuring they are kept up to date with developments and projects etc… Flows of information through the local press, school websites and active work in and around the community assist with these partnerships. Changes in society are affecting the way schools operate in partnership with parents, other services and agencies. There is a greater need now for schools to act as a hub for both emotional and intellectual support where services are drawn together to support young people. These changes are highlighted by Davies (2001 as cited in MacGilchrist et al 2004), “The change in employment patters, the breakdown of traditional family groupings, the decline in religious practices and the growth of consumerism have all impacted on the social capital supporting the child … The change affects many schools so that they now need to provide the social, as well as the intellectual, capital for children.” Current financial constraints and budget cuts are resulting in a withdrawal of some services so desperately needed to maintain effective partnerships to support the child. Parental partnerships have therefore never been so important in supporting schools to meet the needs of all young people. In May 2006 The Scottish parliament passed the Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Act that aims to help parents to be: · Involved with their child’s education and learning · Welcomed as an active participant in the life of the school · Encouraged to express their views on school education (Learning and Teaching Scotland: Engaging with parents – Why get parents involved?) Each education authority is legally required to prepare a document known as ‘strategy for parental involvement’. There are a number of reference documents produced by the Scottish government that can not only aid local authorities but also schools in shaping such a document. Valuing Young People: Principles and Connections to Support Young People to Achieve their Potential (Scottish Government, 2009) is a framework for all those working with young people. It underpins policy development and acts as a toolkit for all those working with young people to ensure connections across services. The principles include partners working together to: · Deliver services that reflect the reality of young people’s lives · Work with local partners to address barriers and gaps · Recognise and promote young people’s positive contributions · Involve young people at an early stage (Bridging the gap: Improving Outcomes for Scotland’s Young People through School and Youth Work Partnerships) The obligation of a headteacher is to establish productive partnerships with external agencies to ensure the needs of all young people are met. ‘An excellent school actively seeks out partnerships with external agencies with the potential to be most productive in helping to provide imaginative contexts, learning experiences and opportunities for personal development which meet the needs of individual pupils and groups in all areas of the curriculum.’ (The Journey to Excellence, HMIE) **References** Bridging the gap: Improving Outcomes for Scotland’s Young People through School and Youth Work Partnerships. Retrieved from [] Cheng, Y.C., (2002) //Leadership and Strategy// in Bush, T. and Bell, L. (eds.) (2002) //The Principles and Practice of Educational Management.// London: Paul Chapman. Gronn, P. (2003) The New Work of Educational Leaders in O’Brien, J. Murphy, D and Draper, J. (2008) School Leadership 2nd Edition Handy, C. & Aitken, R. (1986) //Understanding Schools as Organisations//. London: Pelican Books HMIe (2007) //Leadership for Learning: the challenges of leading in a time of change.// Law, S & Glover, D. (2000) //Educational Leadership and Learning: Practice, Policy and Research.// Buckingham: Open university press. Chapter 7: ‘Organisational Cultures’ Learning and Teaching Scotland: Engaging with parents – Why get parents involved?. Retrieved from [] Middlewood, D. et alia (2005) //Creating a Learning School//. London: Chapman The Journey to Excellence, HMIE: Retrieved from [] Tomlinson, T (2004) Educational Leadership, London: Sage