The compromise solution: informal representation

Although they were not formally represented in the original membership of the NPG or its sub-groups, it appears that a compromise solution was reached. At the third meeting of the NPG in September 2011, there was official recognition that the membership of the NPG and its sub-groups should contain practitioner members⁴⁹. Already by this point, a small number of additional practitioners had become members, and were also in attendance at this meeting.

One of these practitioner members was a former president of the EIS, although formally representing secondary teachers. Despite her/his strong ties to the EIS, some members of the NPG, including herself, insisted that she was brought in to the group to represent classroom practitioners⁵⁰. However, an alternative way to look at this is as an informal mechanism, engineered by the Scottish Government, to allow the inclusion of teacher unions, albeit in an informal way. If we examine this through an ANT lens, it can be seen as an opportunity for the EIS to position their interests onto the agenda, or at least feel as if they had the power to do this.

[S/he] was brought on fairly late into the process, as a teacher… despite the fact that [S/he] was president of the EIS. [S/he] would have been far better nominated in [her/his] post as President of the EIS. (Respondent N)

49 Taken from minutes from NPG meeting 9 September 2011 (not publicly available)

50 It is interesting to note that following the publication of the NPG Report, this actor, along with Graham Donaldson (author of TSF) and representatives from GTCS and STEC, addressed the Scottish Parliament and discussed the implications of their Report. Although this actor was formally representing the teaching profession in the NPG, this actor was reflecting on the work of the NPG in her/his capacity as EIS President in Scottish Parliament.

160

As I mentioned earlier, the EIS were involved at different stages in the formation of the policy, which is where the distinction between different levels of involvement and different stages at which institutional interests can be translated becomes clear. The following quotation comes from an EIS actor and helps to provides their perspective about their involvement:

We had our say at the initial stage… Professor Donaldson interviewed us in terms of the groundwork for the report. Not all our thoughts were conveyed within the recommendations but lots of them were, probably because they mirrored what other people were saying as well. And when it came out we had reservations about several aspects of it, which we expressed. We didn’t get n to the NPG, so we couldn’t put that formally across. But we did, when the paper from there came out, make sure that we were heard again in terms of which recommendations, how those recommendations went forward to the NIB. So we’ve been involved at different stages in different ways. (Respondent X)

This actor appears to be implying that that because the EIS were not in the ‘formal’ policy network they could not formally speak for their members during the NPG process.

However, there were opportunities for them to shape the policy agenda to align with their institutional interests informally – either through their position in the strategic reference group, the ‘consultation’ process in the Review stage, informal and personal networks – or through an actor with links to a teacher union:

Respondent F: We actually did have a significant union person on the NPG. They weren’t on there because they were a union person; they were on there as an experienced teacher. But we were conscious in suggesting that co-option that they had a significant national role, in relation to the EIS.

I: So that was a way of representing the unions?

R: It wasn’t formally a way of representing the unions. It was a way of… getting a voice from the unions into the NPG

There was, I think it’s fair to say, a compromise solution that that… The unions were never formally brought onto the group, but someone who was a senior

member of the union came onto the group in another capacity as a class teacher. So in a sense, that suited a number of people because it meant that the union was indirectly sitting at the table. (Respondent E)

161

It is clear that these actors were brought into the network to play a dual role: to formally represent the teaching profession, while informally representing teacher unions. This actor appears to imply that his/her position allowed for the inclusion of a ‘voice for the unions’

in the NPG. This can also be seen to be a functional mechanism for increased participation, in keeping with the mythical image of Scottish policy-making. However, it is important to remember that there is more than one teacher union in Scottish education. To what extent can the EIS speak for all of them, particularly if there is a lack of formal mechanisms around their involvement?

There are, of course, implications around the informal representation. Although the actor who was performing a dual role (formally as a teacher and informally as a representative for a teacher union) provides an entrance point for institutional interests and views, it is possible that they lack credibility within the network; there is no guarantee that they are the official voice of those that the teacher union is meant to represent:

One union was sitting at the table, but on the other hand, it wasn’t a formal stamp of the unions. So I would say that is probably an issue. (Respondent E)

Other members of the NPG shared similar concerns around the effectiveness of this decision:

Respondent T: They kind of got round that [exclusion of teacher unions] because they had on Kay Barnett as a teacher. Kay’s a former president of the EIS. But that was lip service, it really was.

Respondent J: Yeah, it was a token.

These actors appear to be implying that this was a tactical and political move by the government. Such a move serves multiple purposes, but these actors are suggesting that it was nothing more than a tokenistic gesture, perhaps to encourage teacher unions to feel like they were included, or to mask the full effects of their exclusion. Bearing in mind that this quotation comes from GTCS actors, their reaction may be shaped by their pre-exiting connections with the EIS or the way that they are trying to position themselves within this policy space. Nevertheless, such perceptions are important in a highly politicised process, as they contribute to the behaviour of the network.

162