Chief Justice Ian Kawaley’s decision last week to block the transfer of two school principals was a remarkable victory for parents.Care has to be taken not to overstate its importance, but it seems likely that it means that the Ministry of Education will now have to consult more widely with parents on how their children’s schools are administered .On the whole, that is a good thing. Indeed, the Ministry was to some extent hung by its own petard, because of “an express and unambiguous ministerial promise made on September 16, 2011 that the statutory role envisaged for school governing boards in the running of maintained schools would be played by PTAs instead”.Since the appointment (and dismissal) of a principal is about the most important decision for any school, there was no way that the Ministry could transfer the principals without involving the PTAs. The Chief Justice also distinguished between consultation and approval. The Ministry could have proceeded with the transfer over the objections of the PTAs, but only if it had consulted them first. The failure to do so meant the transfers could be blocked.The Ministry argued that consultation will make transfers more onerous and time consuming, along with other decisions. The quick answer to that is “too bad”. Schools exist to serve the children they teach, and by extension the parents of the children should have some say in how their schools are run. It’s worth noting that these schools should by now have had boards of governors which would have had more autonomy. But the Ministry and the Board of Education dropped the idea — wrongly in this newspaper’s view — so it must instead consult with the PTAs.The biggest concern now is that the quality and size of PTAs varies widely from school to school and even from year to year, especially in middle schools, where the student body fully turns over every three years. If a PTA has an energetic and resourceful president and executive, it can be a tremendous boon and the Ministry and the school’s administration will benefit from the input of informed and committed parents. But PTAs can often wither on the vine when they are poorly led or are uninspired.This matters because the PTAs have now been handed greater responsibilities by the court. They must be accountable now as well. If a PTA is all but moribund, consultation will be meaningless. Just how far Mr Justice Kawaley’s decision extends is not clear. Obviously, PTAs must be consulted about principal appointments. But there will be other decisions, including but not limited to availability of resources, appointments of specialist teachers, maintenance of facilities and so on that PTAs should arguably be consulted on as well. As the lawyer for the PTAs of Victor Scott and TN Tatem said, this mechanism will have to be worked out.Mr Justice Kawaley has said that he was satisfied that no confusion will be caused by his decision. Presumably the principals of East End Primary and Purvis Primary, who were due to be switched with the principals of TN Tatem and Victor Scott, will now remain where they were.It is important that the ability of the Ministry of Education to move principals, both for their own good and for the good of the system’s schools, remains in place. PTAs cannot have a veto over this. But the Ministry should not have the power to act by fiat. Governments often pay lip service to consultation and transparency. The Supreme Court is now requiring that they match words with deeds.