Diana Daly considers a blatant attempt to force Scots down the

opting-out route by default.

DELIVERING the Charter 88 Lecture on democracy in Edinburgh recently,

the distinguished political journalist Neal Ascherson concluded by

declaring, ''It's time for a mutiny!'' It was a sentiment echoed by the

applause from his audience both to his statement and to an early

question, ''How do we start?''

In response he identified Scotland as potentially the ''escape hatch''

for Britain's democratic aspirations.

Certainly on educational issues Scotland's success in holding the line

against the ideological experiments of the rabid right in the Tory Party

is viewed with some envy by our southern neighbours. But sneaking up on

us, like a wolf in canine clothing, is our biggest challenge yet.

Uh-huh! The inoffensively entitled Local Government Reform Bill,

currently charging through Parliament and priming several timebombs at

the heart of our democratic traditions, particularly in our schools for

our children.

It is a blatant attempt to force the recalcitrant and feisty Scots

down the opting-out route by default -- having failed to present a

single convincing argument to persuade us to do so willingly in the past

seven years (Dornoch Academy, notwithstanding) -- and thus put in place

the elements essential to a privatised, market-driven, means-tested

education system.

Much of the furore over gerrymandering of new council boundaries has

focused on the intention to carve out blue islands in the red, gold, and

yellow sea of the Scottish political map. That part of the exercise may

yet prove to be futile.

More sinister is the effect on schools' confidence in the ability of

small education authorities to deliver the services and the resources

they need. In such areas it is an open secret that head teachers and

school boards are thinking the unthinkable; that to safeguard the best

interests of local children, the ultimate option may be to opt out,

especially if it can be accomplished en masse in the same authority.

Their fears are further compounded by a clause in the Bill which

relieves new councils from the need to appoint education directors or

committees, and by the studied unwillingness of existing councils up to

now to do anything -- officially -- to address the implications of the

proposed changes until the legislation is on the Statute Book later this

year.

Indeed, some councillors appear almost demob-happy, seeing this year's

regional elections as either irrelevant, an excuse to get out now to

avoid being embroiled in the 1995/6 handover, a winding-down period to

retirement or, for younger councillors, a stepping stone in their

political career or to a burgeoning quangocracy.

The Government's proposal to remove the present statutory status of

education directors and committees on the grounds of ''flexibility,'' is

a particularly shabby move, justified by an equivocal response to a

cynical consultation exercise. The idea was floated surreptitiously in a

document entitled Internal Management of Local Authorities in Scotland,

which was distributed to a list of 655 names which ''emerged from those

mainly national organisations who commented on the consultation paper,

Shaping the New Councils,'' according to Scottish Education Minister,

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton. These 655 were selected from the 3317

responses to that earlier consultation, but it ''was not thought

appropriate'' to release the list publicly. In other words, it is an

official secret!

However, what we do know, from the 157 responses which are on public

file in the Scottish Office and analysed by the Scottish Parent Teacher

Council, is that most were unconnected with education. Only 24 could

claim an educational perspective, including education authorities,

teaching unions, parents' and church representatives. Most of the

balance was made up by district councils, political groups, other

special interest groups, individuals and business interests.

Despite this inherent bias, 58 supported retaining the statutory

status of education directors as against 65 who argued for flexibility.

It came out at 62 for and 66 against education committees. The director

of a building firm, in advocating joint boards, offered the sobering

view that the legislation should ensure ''that the new authorities

cannot endeavour to frustrate the policy that has been determined either

centrally or by the joint planning boards.''

Nothing could be more calculated to undermine schools' confidence than

if, as a cost-saving measure, a small council's strategic planning for

education were in the hands of its chief executive, wearing a

multiplicity of hats. But should those schools decide on the ultimate

solution and be rewarded by a grateful Government for their pioneering

initiative, schools elsewhere will certainly follow suit in opting out

for their survival.

This fragmenting of Scottish education will lead to a local version of

the Schools' Funding Agency, the new English education quango. Education

Secretary John Patten, according to a report in The Times, ''wants the

agency to 'mix it' with local authorities (which) will be frozen out of

building new schools,'' and -- sooner rather than later -- out of all

educational responsibility.

Assuming the legislation is not derailed, the final two years of

regional councils will be crucial to building the foundations for

continued confidence and stability; after all, the fledgling councils

are unlikely -- initially at least -- to tamper with any service that is

running smoothly. But the May 5 batch of elected councillors must come

to grips quickly with the implications, if their legacy is to be other

than a shambles.

These regional elections, according to Ian Lang, are about his party's

local government proposals, thus providing the Scottish electorate with

a referendum on the issue.

* Diana Daly is an Executive Member of the Scottish Parent Teacher

Council.