Scotland education chief post rejected again – what can be done?

The Herald Scotland

18-05-2025

More important is the fact that on the first occasion the role, along with the post of chief executive of Education Scotland, did not attract enough candidates for interviews to be held. In the latest round - as TES magazine reports - interviews were held but no-one appointed. This should be a matter of deep concern to all those who care about how Scotland's pupils are taught.
Now some might argue the appointment does not matter. There is an interim chief executive, who is getting on with the job. According to a recent freedom of information request, 46 secondary schools were inspected between 1 August 2023, and 11 October 2024, not including 'all through' schools with both primary and secondary provision. The inspectors keep calling.
Others might argue there is no need for a chief inspector, or inspectors. Professionals, in this case heads and teaching staff, should be left to be professional. They know what they are doing, the argument goes. It is not a line of thought most would agree with. In any professional setting, particularly one as important as education, scrutiny is vital for progress and accountability.
So, if there should be a Chief Inspector who leads school inspections, what has gone wrong, and what might be done to fix this problem? There are a number of possible reasons, and some possible solutions.
First, the failed appointments come at a time when the Scottish government has proposed what it claims are major reforms to the education system. After recent controversies, it is planned to create three 'new' organisations, a qualifications body, a national education agency, and an 'independent' inspectorate.
Under the education bill, published in June last year, Qualifications Scotland will replace the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA). Anyone notice the similarities in the name? HM Inspectorate of Education (HMIE) will formally be created by removing the inspection function from the national education agency, Education Scotland.
However, the process has been delayed by the education secretary Jenny Gilruth, and with uncertainty surrounding the reforms - critics draw parallels with those deck chairs and the Titanic - it is understandable why some might be reluctant to throw their mortarboard into the ring.
There could also be an accountability problem. It was a scandal a previous SNP administration made the inspectorate part of Education Scotland, directed by ministers - one part of a public body marking another part's homework. Removing HMIE from Education Scotland is a start, though it will still be accountable to Scottish ministers and the Scottish parliament.
Then there is a climate around inspections. Teachers in Scotland have in the past been critical of the process, saying it puts too much stress on them, and if there is notice of an inspection a false picture of a school is created as they spend weeks getting matters in order before the inspectors arrive.
There is something in this, though it could be contended the process of preparing for the inspection is in itself beneficial to the schools. And after the inspections if there are problems identified, then good education authorities act upon them, or if the report is positive seek to build on achievements.
If there is a criticism of this process, it is that the response to an adverse report is sometimes not robust enough. If a school is failing those it is there to serve - the students - then the people in charge must be held accountable. Ideally supported to improve, but if needs be new bringing new leadership may be the only solution.
South of the Border there has been a lot of concern over a head teacher who took her own life while waiting for a report by Ofsted, the school standard's body. The inspectorate in England is changing from one word judgements of schools, to a more detailed system, which exists in Scotland already. However, there is always a danger obfuscation obscures the findings. Explaining negatives and positives clearly and succinctly in a way non-education experts (most people) can understand is important.
Lastly, there is money. Yes, £117,000 a year is a lot, but you can be paid roughly the same if you are the top level as a secondary head, and much more for being the director of education in a big local authority, like Glasgow, paid more than £170,000 per annum.
So, what might be done to improve the situation?
First the Scottish government could be bold rather than timid, making HMIE accountable not to ministers but to the Scottish parliament, in the same way Audit Scotland is. That would give the Chief Inspector scope to be critical, when necessary, of the government of the day.
Second, while there is a genuine concern over high levels of public sector pay in 'senior' roles, in some cases a high salary is justified by the high level of responsibility. Were HMIE responsible to Holyrood, there would be an added level of scrutiny on the inspector and their staff.
There are many other ideas, but one final suggestion: the Scottish government must stop dithering over what it means by education reform, providing clarity over what it expects, and in particular the role, or otherwise, it sees for traditional exams. With an election ahead, those who aspire to government should do the same.
What might these changes, proper radical reforms, achieve? Hopefully one, or more, of our many talented, dedicated, rigorous, committed educators will take up this enormous but rewarding challenge. And step forward to serve.
Peter MacMahon is a commentator and writer, specialising in politics and public policy. He stood down recently as Political Editor of ITV Border after more than a decade covering Scottish and UK politics.