Official Report 259KB pdf
We will now move on to discuss the matter in front of us, which we all feel is important. Minister, I will give you some time to introduce the paper and to bring us up to date on the situation. I will then open the discussion to enable committee members to ask questions.
I shall not take up much of your time, because I am here so that we can have a discussion and I can answer questions.
Yes.
I echo what Sam said about the pleasure with which people are greeting us as we participate in meetings across Scotland. I have been to a couple of public meetings, I have met seven councils, the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland and a range of other bodies; generally, the provisions of the bill and the improvement framework that it sets out have been welcomed. Questions about the details have been raised, but comparatively few questions have arisen on the principles. The consultation process has had a good start, although it has a long way to run. Like Sam, I am happy to address any detailed points that you wish to raise.
Sam knows that I have asked him questions in Parliament about the consultation in which he and Peter have taken part; I hope that in this setting he can give a more considered reply.
I share your concern, Fiona. As you know, I have young kids myself, who have views on these matters. It is right that each and every kid should be involved. Senior pupils from St Roch's and Shawlands Academy were present at a consultation meeting I held in Glasgow this week. It was clear to me that that was a totally inappropriate forum for them, because the meeting was full of adults and the pupils were intimidated. The meeting was not intended to be specifically for the pupils, but I was pleased that they were there.
It is wonderful to go out and speak to young people, but have you or your department taken into account any of the research on speaking to young people? No matter how friendly you want to be, Sam, you are the Minister for Children and Education and they are young children and pupils. It is not always simple when speaking to young folk really to understand what they want, but there is a mass of research on how we should speak to them. Neal Hazel at the University of Stirling is doing wonderful work on how we should talk to young people—using lots of different techniques, including play and pictures—to get their opinions. It does not sound to me as though that will be achieved in the next six weeks.
I cannot guarantee that I will use all the techniques that you mentioned, some of which—you are correct—I am not aware of. However, I am aware of the difficulties in speaking to youngsters, having children of my own. I can assure you that we will go out and examine the views of young people.
Like Sam Galbraith, I have tried, when I have gone to meetings, to take some time afterwards to speak to the young people who are there. What is interesting is that, on some subjects, their views, which they often do not express at the meetings, are diametrically opposed to those of the adults. It is important to draw attention to that fact.
Are there any further points on that issue?
I have two points—one will be easy to answer, the other might not be. Would Sam or Peter acknowledge that it would be worthwhile for every local authority to address this issue in every school, whether at a pupil forum level or at a management meeting? I had better watch what I am saying, as John Smith has arrived.
I do not think that the committee's consultation process will be coloured by what you describe as an impasse. Everyone agrees with our agenda for improvement and we will deliver on it and on all the other parts of our agenda for schools.
And the answer to my first question?
I was in Glasgow and I saw that all the schools were involved in addressing the issue. Local authorities have a duty to consult as widely as possible and to bring to us a role for their schools, parents, teachers, managers or whoever. My impression is that local authorities are doing that. Peter has probably spoken to more local authorities than I have.
I would be happy to write to the leader of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities education committee to ask him to make sure that your point is addressed. Bear in mind, though, that every school has been sent a copy of the consultation document with an invitation to comment. I hope that, through school boards, parent-teacher associations and school councils, that dialogue will take place.
I am a former teacher and I know that schools are about not just teachers, but parents, community groups and so on. Some authorities are better than others at ensuring the widest possible consultation. A letter encouraging a wide consultation would be helpful.
I wanted to deal with consultation with young people. Nicola, Fiona and Cathy want to speak on that subject.
I think that this is a good document. I was pleased to read—and I am moving slightly away from the subject of young people—that it dealt with enabling local communities and parents to become involved in schools.
Absolutely. I have the same view as Peter does on this. Whenever I go on consultation, I like the formal part of the meeting to break up quickly and I spend double the time chatting to people because that is when those who are less able to convey their views can do so. Before a meeting with some pupils this week, I spent some time just talking to them without their teachers—I immediately separated the kids from the one teacher who came into the room—and I spent time with them afterwards as well. Informal discussion, in a formal setting, is a very useful tool.
Nicola?
My question does not relate specifically to consultation with young people.
Does anyone have a question that is specifically on young people?
The papers that we received for this meeting mention consultation with young people who are being looked after and young people who are excluded. I would like to know more about how that consultation will take place, and how consultation with young people from socially excluded communities can take place through community education or by using youth-work resources outside schools.
Peter, if you start to answer that, I shall come in later.
I take the point that Karen Gillon makes about those who are on the fringes of the system, if I can put it that way. Their views on how the school system has or has not served them are particularly important. That is an area that we have been talking about in the office. Much more systematic research is needed to provide evidence of how young people have been excluded from the system for a variety of reasons. We need to know how the situation has come about, what their experience was and how we can combat the problem.
That is an area in which I am particularly interested. Committee members will remember some of the recommendations of the Kent report. We consulted the looked-after children and the organisations, and we significantly altered our response as a result of the strong views that were expressed. I intend to utilise those methods again to try to deal with such issues. I spent a lot of time on that, in my position in the previous Administration, and I shall continue to do so.
Fiona, do you want to bring this part of the meeting to an end?
Yes, I would like to tie it up. The committee is concerned that the consultation should be as wide as possible. That idea came initially from the Government. In the draft bill, and in your statement, Mr Galbraith, you say that you will consult widely. In the chamber, you said that you would consult young people. I understand that. I also understand that you are making such statements to satisfy article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, under which the child's opinions—which must be sought—must be given equal weight to all the others that are sought.
I accept your concerns, Fiona. We will look into that suggestion, as I want consultation to be as full as possible. I ask you to judge us at the end of the period, as we are really just at the start of our main consultation process.
It would be unfair to say that we are thinking about that issue only as of today. A copy of the consultation document has been sent to every school and pupil forum, with the intention that it will encourage debate. The youth parliament has been asked to have such a debate. The structure of that parliament, as members are probably aware, means that its decisions are supported in a range of forums throughout Scotland. We have spoken to Young Scot, and young people are being invited to every meeting. We are making an effort at such meetings to engage with young people in particular. It would not be fair to characterise our approach as unstructured, but I would be more than happy to add things to it. Our intention is to engage with young people on this issue.
It is in the remit of the committee to take this matter further, if we so decide. Following the minister's visit this morning, we might want to discuss at the end of the meeting what further steps we would like to be taken.
Can that be put formally on the agenda?
Yes.
Halfway through the consultation process, we clearly have no strategy for consultation with young people.
I think that there has been as much consultation on this bill as I have experienced anywhere else. The minister and Peter Peacock are to be congratulated on that.
I am keen to move the discussion on. Do you want to comment on this specific issue, Ian?
Yes, I do. I agree with Ian Welsh about consultation; I made a similar point in the culture debate last week. The way in which we consult is important and the principle that people could contribute was one of the ideas we used to sell the Parliament.
That is a matter that the committee could discuss later. We need to decide whether we want further consultation and, if so, how we want it to be carried out.
I know that we are anxious to get on to the details of the bill, but while we are on the issue of wider consultation—
Let us widen the discussion to allow members to say something about consultation in general.
I welcome the comments in the bill about partnership and I think that that approach is to be commended. As the bill progresses through the legislative process, I hope—I dare say that the view is shared by some of my colleagues—that we have an opportunity to build in mechanisms to foster a partnership approach in practice and not simply in rhetoric.
I am delighted to see that you are so on board with the Government's agenda in relation to the commitment to partnership.
Make the most of it, Sam.
I have always said—you have heard me and it has been reported—that we are trying build an education system based on consensus and partnership. That is the only way forward. However, I remind everyone that consensus and partnership require all sides to participate.
Is that likely to happen before the end of the consultation period for this bill or will it be separate from that? I have raised the matter with you before, but I am simply trying to get an idea of the time scale and whether the committee will be able to consider the proposals at the same time as the rest of the bill.
I shall introduce those proposals as soon as possible, Nicola. I am not attempting to delay them, but I have to give the issue careful consideration.
I have said that the document recognises the value of the community and parents and that community-parent partnerships play an important part in ensuring that children receive good education and support. As local schools also need to have communities and parents as partners, it is important for the community to be involved in the consultation.
Parents, teachers, pupils, the Government, education authorities and communities are all involved in realising a child's potential, and external influences such as what goes on at school, at home, in the Government and in education authorities are also important. Nothing can be taken in isolation. We should all realise and value the fact that each of us has a contribution to make, instead of trying to oppose or to exclude others' contributions. We are trying to build the best possible partnership.
That is true, Sam, but it scares the hell out of many parents and members of the community to go into a school. Such a partnership will never happen unless we can break down some of those barriers.
The best way to involve parents has been raised again and again in our consultation. For example, we have asked whether too much prominence has been given to the views of school boards and how other people's views can be heard.
For me, that is one of the most important points to come out of the consultation. It has arisen from consideration of the issue of school boards, which tends to cause debates about general parental involvement. The consultation has uncovered a school of thought that believes that too many of our efforts to involve parents have focused on the provision of school boards instead of, as Cathy has pointed out, breaking down barriers and providing time for parents and teachers to have a real dialogue about their children's learning needs.
For local authorities, the school spend is often one of the largest—if not the largest—spends in a community. Given that the document has many laudable proposals for community schools, which I fully support, and that schools have had more involvement in adult education, surely the issue involves the wider community.
This is an interesting area that we have to explore. Another issue that has arisen from the consultation and from the community schools initiative concerns the way in which current arrangements for school boards reflect the wider interest that is also part of the school's activity. I will need to give more thought to that issue. Schools are increasingly perceived to provide wider resources in a community and many services are attached to them.
In a number of authorities, home-school community partnership officers have been appointed. Has consideration been given to how they can help to involve parents, particularly those from excluded communities, in the consultation process? Their role is to involve parents in their children's education and to encourage the involvement of schools in the community.
Home-school links are an important new development and are supported by the excellence fund as part of the whole improvement agenda. Members know that a number of models are involved. The money is handed down through the excellence fund so that local authorities and schools can do their own thing, often involving and supporting parents, bringing them into schools and giving them information.
I have a point about school boards, then I want to go on to discuss the main body of the bill.
The change in the legislation was proposed as a result of consultation with parents. Many of them found the elections, particularly by-elections, intimidating, and they asked for that stipulation to be removed. We are responding to the wishes of parents.
A huge consultation about school boards was undertaken some 18 months or two years ago. I assume that the results of that consultation are being taken into consideration.
The provision has been included as a response to the consultation process. That was the area that people wanted to be cleared up. It is correct to point out that there is much debate and discussion about issues affecting school boards, and we all want to contribute to that debate. We must give further consideration to other things that people may want to include in the bill. School boards will feature prominently at future meetings of this committee and elsewhere.
The system of school boards is a useful vehicle for parents who want to get involved and it would be wrong to send out signals that suggest that it is fatally flawed or is under threat. The wider question is about how we can facilitate real parental involvement and remove barriers to involvement.
That is very important, and that is where the document falls down. A technicality that you have in here is sending out the wrong message. What we should be looking at, and what should be in the improvement in Scottish education bill, is a much more positive approach. How do we go out and get parents involved in school boards? I do not think that doing away with elections is the answer. That lies in whether we can make the elections real.
We will look at the point that you raise. In the situation that you describe I do not think that there is an impediment to re-running an election. In the past, I have seen councillors who wanted school boards where there were not any encouraging their establishment outwith the normal sequence. The provision ought to be sufficiently flexible to allow that to happen.
I do not think that it is at the moment.
We will look at that.
Can we move on to wider issues in the paper?
The introduction to the consultation paper says:
You will have heard me say that I value greatly the contribution of teachers. The vast majority of them do an outstanding job and are highly committed to their pupils' achieving their full potential. My job is to ensure that we have in place the mechanisms that allow teachers to deliver.
My question was whether you think the morale of the teaching profession is as it should be; if not, why not; and what steps you, as a minister, can take to improve the situation.
You are very clever—
Thank you.
—at introducing red herrings to this issue. I outlined our position. There is no educational reason why a composite class should be different from any other class. Primary classes are all composite classes in which ages vary by up to a year. There is no great educational debate on that, although I realise that it is held up as a shibboleth.
You and I both know, Sam, that if the limit is raised, the chances are that class sizes will be raised as well.
We are saying no such thing.
Parents disagree.
Just a minute, Nicola. We are acting on the basis that there is no educational justification for any difference.
Composite class sizes—
Very quickly, as there is a list of people who want to speak on this.
Mr Galbraith has not answered the first part of my question, which was whether he thinks the morale of the teaching profession is as it should be, and if not, why not.
Morale can always be improved—the teachers are no different from any other profession. We are delivering significant things on our side to enhance morale: the introduction of classroom assistants; an increase in the number of teachers; an 8 per cent increase in the budget; additional capital for schools; information technology in schools; continuing professional development. We are putting teachers and pupils at the centre. I hope that the contribution we are making will be recognised.
I would now like to bring some other members in.
I want to extend the discussion about professional development. There is a section in the introduction about supporting teachers. I realise that, in terms of the approach to continuing professional development, a lot hinges on the consultation with the General Teaching Council, but there could be more emphasis on that area in the document. Is the reason for that the GTC review?
The reason is that within weeks we will produce a document on continuing professional development for teachers. One of my aims is to enhance the professional status of teachers to where it used to be. That will require teachers to adopt the responsibilities of professionals in how they behave and what they do. Teachers are professionals and I want to enhance that quality.
I am sure Mr Galbraith is aware that there is a considerable amount of research that shows that although courses are very useful there is a great deal that can be done within the school to improve teaching and learning. Research shows the importance of giving teachers time to reflect on their practice. One of the reasons teachers give for not taking courses and reading journals is their work load. That issue has been of concern for some time. Will that be taken on board in the planned document?
I agree that there is a lot to be done in school. In-service training is also part of continuing professional development. I am a bit surprised that teachers rarely go and see what goes on in other schools.
Will the minister give way?
I would like to finish first. On the question of reading journals, I read five or six journals a month.
Everybody wants in on that point, Sam. You have obviously caused a stir.
Peter, I read in The Times Educational Supplement this week that you had been in Shetland and had experienced traditional Shetland hospitality. I assume that the people were so welcoming because you did not denigrate the professionalism of teachers, as Sam has done.
You suggested that Mr Galbraith is denigrating the teaching profession. The fact is that he is going out of his way to rush around Scotland trying to lift the morale of teachers.
I hope that he does so in a way that is different from how he does it in this committee.
If you had listened, you would have heard him talk about the measures that have been put in place to underpin the teaching structure and to raise the professional status of teachers. This is not hollow rhetoric: we have talked about morale quite a lot when visiting schools and we have never left a school without being enormously impressed by the commitment of the teachers.
Why is it not working so far? Why are we in the state that we are in today as regards the event about which I am not allowed to talk?
We have come through a period in which teachers have felt beleaguered by an overload of initiatives. We are moving into a period where we hope there will be a period of relative stability. We are putting resources into supporting current structures. It would be impossible to turn around in two or three months the mood that has built up in the teaching profession during 20 years.
None of us expects a relative period of stability in the next few months. Could stability be secured by allocating resources to secure a settlement that will please teachers?
I will not comment on the teachers' pay negotiations as they are not a matter, directly, for Government. Also, it would be improper for me to do so because, as Mr Galbraith said earlier, there is a role for ministers to arbitrate in the dispute. However, my impression is that it is not a question of resources; other questions are much more of an impediment. We need to ensure flexibility in the profession to increase the financial and professional rewards for teachers. We are working to raise the professional status of teachers.
It is not working, though, is it?
I have indications from many members in the committee and am trying to give people an opportunity to ask supplementaries—I think that that is only fair. I ask members to try to refrain from jumping in. Everybody is waiting to speak. We will come back to you, Mike, if you still have further supplementary questions, after we have been round the table.
I spoke in the chamber, in June I think, about the mood music not being right in education. I have been impressed by the wishes of Mr Peacock and Mr Galbraith to speak a good game about the teachers. I am sure that they will come away impressed from the visits to schools they have said they will make. I hope that they will move from that to say that we must listen to teachers, who have impressed us so much, when they express real professional concerns—not selfish ones—about their conditions, pay, status and ability to do their job.
Thank you for those comments, Ian. I am glad that you noticed the mood music, to use your phrase. Changes in that regard have been made consciously—and very easily, because we believe in it. My beliefs, views and feelings about, on and towards teachers have been much reinforced by school visits.
There are two issues that I wish to raise: composite classes and continuing professional development, which I will turn to first.
I will deal with the question on continuing professional development first. Of course continuing professional development has resource implications. We understand and will give consideration to that. However, the individual also has a responsibility for continuing professional development, and I would like to see teachers accept that. I am clear that continuing professional development has resource implications, and that is part of the debate about teachers' conditions. It is about freeing up time, about utilising time differently, about getting cover, about developing and about being flexible. That is why the discussions about the package and about teachers' terms and conditions are so important. If we are to implement all these proposals, we need more flexibility.
My point about the national grid for learning was that it is a good illustration of how, ultimately, we can help to relieve the burden on teachers in the classroom in a variety of ways. The national grid for learning is often seen simply in terms of the pupil advantages, but there are potentially huge advantages for teachers who will be able to share information across the network of schools in Scotland. I am struck by how isolated teachers can become in their own classroom and in their own subject over time. Teachers write lesson plans, conducting research for their future teaching tasks, but that means that they are repeating the work that two teachers did two nights before somewhere else in Scotland. We need to get teachers connected to one another, and to create a means by which they are able to do that to a far greater extent, exchanging not only materials but ideas.
Peter and I could debate the national grid for learning for the rest of the week. Access to information needs time—both to get the information and to use it—and that is the point that I was trying to make.
We are not proposing any increase in composite class sizes. That is part of the negotiation of the teachers' package. It is important to get that clear first. Second, there is no educational reason why composite class sizes should be any different from non-composite class sizes. Any primary class is a composite one in which a good teacher will teach a range of abilities. A properly constituted composite class will probably have less of that range of abilities within it, with the pupils at different ends getting help. Those are the educational arguments and that is the fact of the matter.
There is a real danger in your argument, Fiona. The public will assume that every composite class will grow to 30 and that 100,000 pupils in Scotland will be disadvantaged because they are in composite classes. A huge number of children will always be in composite classes because they attend schools where the numbers mean that there cannot be anything other. The educational outcomes are not significantly different in small rural schools, which may have pupils across a seven-year age range, let alone a one or two-year range. Some would argue that the outcomes are significantly better. It would be a mistake to undermine people's confidence in the ability to teach in composite classes, because for many Scots there will be no alternative.
I am not saying, and I do not want parents to think, that being in a composite class is a disadvantage. I just want the evidence about the size of the class.
I am glad that you reinforce that, because that is not the view of your party.
Peter, it is a completely different situation having seven pupils across a seven-year age range in a rural school from having 24 or 30 pupils across a two-year age range. The numbers make a big difference. If you are so convinced that larger composite classes are not a problem, why has Aberdeenshire Council said that it will revisit the settlement because it is not happy about the increase in composite class sizes?
I am afraid that you are not right about that. What Aberdeenshire Council was questioning, as I understand it, was the mistaken belief that composite classes would not be allowed in a rural setting. That is simply not the case. There is no alternative for a vast number of kids. That was a misunderstanding, and the council was seeking a guarantee that those classes would be able to continue, not that they would be abolished.
I have just one or two observations, and a question. I would like to re-emphasise my credentials in this area. I worked in education for 20 years, for much of that time in a deprived area in Auchinleck in Ayrshire. Ian, too, was a teacher until very recently. We have talked here about the structures of education, but to know what it takes to be a successful teacher one needs to have been in the classroom and to understand its culture. Teachers have to be a cross between Mother Teresa and the Terminator to succeed. They have to cover the whole range.
I agree with Mr Welsh and share his concern about stability. We require time to let the situation settle down and consider what we should do. We must start the process of building up professionalism and morale to deliver our agenda.
I have one more supplementary question.
Briefly, please.
I reserve a right to come back to this as we consider the bill. I was pleased that the mission statement said that we wanted to be inclusive and offer opportunity for all. Not enough mention is made in this document about children with special educational needs. We need a more significant push on that. I have two children, of whom one is very bright and one has special educational needs. I would rather that resources were applied to the child with special educational needs than the child who is going to get three or four As at higher. The document has a motherhood statement about being inclusive, but we must follow that with practical action for the most vulnerable children in the school community.
I agree with that. We are giving close attention to special educational needs and we will make progress on that issue. I recently visited a school in Fife to examine that issue.
Are you saying that there will be something further in the bill?
We will produce the Riddell report soon. We have already put in additional resources: £5 million for speech and language therapy; additional funding for in-service training; and another £1 million for training. We will continue to progress.
Resources are important, but there are other fundamental issues. I am proud of Scottish schools, but we must improve social inclusion for children with special educational needs—not only disabled children, but the 20 per cent of children at that end of the spectrum. We must ensure that schools and teachers are open, inclusive and responsive. We must have a practical discussion about this.
I will pick up two of the points that Ian has made and link them. I have visited two special educational needs schools recently. Those do fabulous work and we need to talk more about the good work that is being done in those schools. However, those schools did not know what was happening in other special educational needs schools in Scotland. We must share good practice. I take Ian's point about practical impediments. We must find ways of removing those so that the best practice is carried out.
That makes an assumption that we are happy with those kinds of settings. Making integration part of the process is a big issue.
Those schools were integrating fully with the normal school sector. That is why those are excellent schools and we must share their practice. We have had a report from Professor Riddell on special educational needs and we will consult on that within the next few weeks. A separate document will be produced.
I am sure that the committee will want to follow up on that, because there are concerns about how it is included in the bill.
I will move on to the document. I have a lot of questions, so I will try to keep them brief. On page 18 it states:
It is always open to parents to take action through the civil law, and judicial review is open to them. Appropriately, that duty is placed on us. It is important that when everyone else has a duty placed on them, we have duties placed on us in order to focus us on the responsibilities of the agenda. Ministers are answerable to Parliament and to this committee and are held accountable to the electorate at the end of the day, even although we are not personally involved in the day-to-day management of the schools. In the final analysis, it is always open to individuals to have recourse to the civil courts in order to deal with these matters.
I take it from that that parents could seek compensation through the courts.
As I said, redress is available through the civil procedures of the law.
On the same page, in a paragraph relating to local authorities, it states:
Brian, that would be no change on the current position. It has always been the case that if parents thought that an education authority or a school was failing to fulfil its statutory duty, they had recourse to the law. As you know, that is why those duties are written into statutes and legislation.
You are trying to define more clearly what the current position is on local authorities, and you are placing a new duty on the Scottish ministers. Following your previous answer, if St Mary's Episcopal Primary School in Dunblane were to witness a fall in standards after it came under local authority management, would you have funds put aside to deal with the compensation claims?
I can only reiterate what I said at the start. It is open to any parent to take any authority to court if they feel that it is not fulfilling its statutory duties. Whether they wish to do so may depend on the legal advice that they receive. I cannot offer them any more advice. I am not clear what the position is of local authorities, and what reserve and contingency funds they have for actions raised in court.
As a direct consequence of these proposals becoming law, then, not only would you more clearly be defining the educational standards that local authorities are meant to provide, but you would be taking upon yourself a duty, and you would be allowing parents at St Mary's to sue the Scottish Executive if there were a fall in standards as a result of your actions.
As I said, the legal position has not changed. If they feel that a local authority has not fulfilled its statutory duties, parents can take the authority to court. That has always been the case, and it applies to any function that a local authority must provide under statute.
With regard to self-governing schools, paragraph 3 on page 45 states:
As you know, I have declared my personal interest in this matter and I am not involved in any of the discussions or decisions related to it, so Peter will answer that question.
On the way to answering the question, I want to pick up a couple of points about St Mary's. It would be better to offer the children of St Mary's an excellent education, rather than compensation after the event. That is what we are trying to achieve.
They already have it.
We should extend the rights of parents at St Mary's. Given that the school is opted out, I do not know whom parents would currently sue if standards have fallen since it opted out. I do not know whether that is the case, but our measure will enhance the rights of parents.
I draw your attention to the heading on page 45, entitled "Self-Governing Schools", and to paragraph 2, where it states:
As I indicated, this provision tidies up the law in relation to self-governing schools. The reference at the top of page 45 is to the legislative background. "Self-Governing Schools" is not a generic term: that was the law at the time.
I repeat that the document says that
The motivation of this part of the bill was to get rid of a rather nasty and divisive piece of legislation relating to self-governing schools. That is our commitment and that is what we are doing. Jordanhill has never figured in that framework. On the other hand, the school is subject to the same inspection regime and support mechanisms as others. It can also have access to a range of local authority support mechanisms if it so wishes.
So you do not consider Jordanhill a self-governing school?
Under the terms of the legislation with which we are dealing, it is not a self-governing school.
I cannot resist commenting on what Mr Monteith has said. As all members of this committee are aware, Dornoch Academy lies within my constituency. Like many other people on this committee, I have had a number of letters from parents whose children attend St Mary's Dunblane. The answer that I give them is this: whatever the history of Dornoch—and I do not think that Dornoch rose to Michael Forsyth's fly, but rather that its decision to opt out was the result of a Highland Regional Council problem of the day—the school has now returned to local authority control, and has done so happily. That is a tribute to Highland Council and to the parents and staff at Dornoch Academy.
Absolutely. When I visit schools I see that some are in a bad state of repair. While the quality of education depends on the quality of teachers, the state of the buildings is also important. The statute gives powers to deliver in many areas. The improvements are about relationships with parents, achievement, attainment, safety and professional development. They are also about the school environment, which is why we have allocated additional resources to the capital sum: £115.7 million over five years was announced in 1997, on top of a baseline of about £120 million each year, and an additional £185 million during the period of the comprehensive spending review. We are also examining the innovative public-private partnerships that can be utilised to the value of about £400 million.
To what extent might section 94 of the Local Government (Scotland) Finance Act 1973 help projects that could not be dealt with by public-private partnerships? To what extent will it be possible to use section 94 across authority boundaries? It might be possible for a school in an urban area to go heavily into public-private partnerships and for the Government money then to go to another school. It is a very thorny subject and the authorities would kick up hell about it, but I am thinking about how to get cash into rural schools that badly need it, such as those in my area.
I have no immediate answer for you. We have no ideological view on public-private partnerships; we adopt a value-for-money approach. You made the contentious suggestion that if one area found funding from one source, money would be given to another area. I expect that that would produce an uproar.
I will pursue the matter with considerable vigour now that the minister has given me the green light.
Coming from West Lothian, where expansion is rapid, I share your concerns about how the formula operates, Jamie.
I have three questions about the role of HM inspectors of schools. First, there seems to be an inconsistency in the body of the consultation document. Page 16 deals with the proposal to allow HMI to inspect local authorities and states that
I think that you have slightly misunderstood, Nicola. Page 16 says that the nature of the inspection will not be imposed because, as you know, the type of inspection is being discussed with local authorities so that there is agreement about what will happen during the inspection. A code of practice has also been established. The situation has been discussed fully and that is what the words try to capture.
My second question also relates to HMI's role in inspecting local authorities. I have no difficulty—nor do I think anyone else would—with the concept of inspecting local authority education functions. However, is HMI the appropriate body to carry out the inspections? HM inspectors are largely ex-teachers; local authorities' education functions are not purely educational—they are affected by matters of finance and management. I wonder whether HMI has the resources, expertise and person power to carry through the proposals in the document. Would not it be more appropriate—as COSLA believes—to establish a new evaluation body for local authorities that is separate from HMI and the inspection of schools?
I was not aware that that was COSLA's view. Peter may want to comment on that. The Accounts Commission is also involved, so HMI will not be the only body carrying out inspections. I believe that HMI is the appropriate body. It will inspect the educational functions of local authorities, which it has skills in doing. HMI has already been invited to carry out inspections by several local authorities, which value the inspectorate's opinion. After all, inspections are designed to enhance roles, to identify areas where provision can be improved and to suggest ways in which improvements can be achieved.
Thankfully, I am no longer responsible for COSLA's view. I am not fully up to speed with Nicola's point—it would be best to approach COSLA about that—and I may have misunderstood, but I thought that what COSLA had discussed was an improvement agency and the mechanisms for supporting improvement and change once those needs had been identified. It did not talk about identifying the necessary improvements and changes.
I am keen to hear your views on what expansion of HMI will be necessary to enable it to carry out those additional functions.
I will deal with the issue of HMI inspecting its own policies, which, I agree, has been raised on a number of occasions and is causing some concern in some areas. I make it clear to the committee that although we take advice from inspectors—they have a wealth of knowledge and a very useful contribution to make to the debate and much advice to give—it is ministers, not HMI, who make policy. That is an important distinction.
You have not answered my question about why it is right to separate functions in childcare, but not in school education. Could you explain that distinction?
Education functions in child care are looked after by HMI. Regulation of child care covers a wide area. You will have seen the current consultation document on child care that considers the regulation of childcare. Child care involves much besides nursery education.
I understand that, but you make a fairly blunt statement in that consultation paper about separating the registration and inspection of childcare from development work. It strikes me that that goes to the heart of the argument about the roles of the inspectorate in school education. I do not understand the distinction.
It does not strike me that that statement goes to the heart of the argument about the roles of inspectors. The distinction is obvious.
I warn the committee that we have less than 15 minutes left. As several members still wish to raise issues, members should keep questions short and sweet.
I wish to pick up on the matter of resources for the inspectorate. The inspectorate has given us an indication of the additional costs if the provision is enacted. They will have to be considered if the provision is enacted. If additional resources are given, it is entirely possible that the inspectorate will recruit people from other disciplines such as you described earlier—for example by secondment from other spheres of education. Such arrangements are increasingly common and are to be encouraged.
I have a couple of questions on pre-school education. I welcome the provision that would place a statutory duty on local authorities to provide pre-school education, but given the fact that money will not be ring-fenced, I am concerned about how we will ensure that any money that is allocated in the general education expenditure for pre-school education is used for that purpose. I welcome the Government's commitment to increasing pre-school education to three-year-olds and four-year-olds and the fact that that commitment will be matched with resources.
The normal procedure is that guidance notes are circulated for wide consultation. I do not see a problem with the point that you raised, Karen.
The way to guarantee that resources flow through is through the statutory duty to provide pre-school education. Such are the resource allocations available to local authorities that, with that statutory duty, I cannot see how they could divert the money to any other purpose and continue to fulfil their statutory duty. The resources would flow from enacting the proposal in the bill.
I wish to ask two questions—one that follows up Nicola's question on the inspection of local authorities, the other on school management.
The plan is to have a rolling programme of inspections. I do not think that we are in any way barred from or unable to inspect immediately if there is a particular problem. Indeed, I think that that option is important. Under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, ministers, should they be worried, have reserved powers to act on problems in local authorities. One way in which to consider the matter further before taking that action would be to send in HM inspectors to examine the problem, so I do not think that one option precludes the other.
I believe that, Sam, but I think that care is needed at the drafting stage so that it does not look as if local authorities can take comfort from a notice period of eight weeks before something is done.
I will certainly consider that, as we would not want that to be the case.
My second question is on devolved school management, which is a system that many people consider can work. There was a commitment in the SNP's election manifesto—and a commitment from the Labour party in the partnership agreement—to consider the administrative burden on teachers. Somewhere between those two positions one has to make progress on the devolution of power, in terms of running a school, to the management team, as well as ensuring that yet another crushing administrative burden is not created. Ian's speech—it was not a question; it was a speech—was a very acute, and, from my own experience and from what my wife tells me, completely accurate view of the culture in the classroom and how teachers feel about these issues. Although it works, devolved school management will be an additional burden unless there is help with resources.
That is always the dilemma. Certain administrative burdens go with responsibilities and you get lost in those burdens rather than your core functions. I appreciate that devolved school management will require resources so that there is no additional burden on the teacher. It is our intention to provide that.
This is not particularly contentious. When you talk about improving schools, Sam, the document mentions things that can be measured. First, not everything in education can be measured. Secondly, when we target and benchmark we need to be careful that everyone involved is confident that the data from which they work are valid. Some of the targets, although they have now been better negotiated, have before seemed to be plucked out of the air. Some of the benchmarks, such as exam results or five to 14 tests, do not always have the confidence of the people administering them. Some schools have no truants at all.
I agree with your last statement. You will have seen the document "How good is your school?", which makes that very point. It looks at what can be measured and at the whole spectrum of what goes on in a school—and at its value and ethos. Those are important things for a school. You have been a teacher, Ian, and you know that you can go into a school and see great things; the feeling, the ethos and the atmosphere are right. There is much that cannot be measured, and that is what "How good is your school?" is about. It is also about how to self-assess a school. We are keen to ensure that these initiatives are owned by schools. Once that happens, the school is committed to them.
We have two minutes left, and four people wanting to speak. Please ask your questions very quickly and if we can we will pick them up. If not, I am sure that the minister can come back to us, perhaps with written answers if that is necessary.
We have talked about external evaluation and about HMI coming in. We have talked about "How good is your school?" and school self-evaluation and the importance of that. What is not so clear is what the local authority's role is in evaluation. My experience is that the local authority comes in and does a trial run before a full inspection. The relationship between external evaluation, local authority evaluation and school self-evaluation needs to be looked at a little more.
We envisage local authorities' objectives for schools, and their duty to enhance and improve schools and determine and deal with underperformance, being agreed with the school. That is not a matter for us. It is for the local authority and the school to agree what they are going to look at and how the internal assessment will be evaluated. I hope that that will be the way forward. We are keen to have those issues owned by the school and by the local authority.
In the section on pre-school education, the report seems to suggest that private schools that receive no funding from Government agencies can still administer corporal punishment to children under the age of five. I think that that needs to be examined more carefully.
Yes, we will take that on board.
There are also no placing requests for nursery schools. Why are we continuing that policy?
Because we have a mixed economy in nursery schools and parents are free to exercise their placing requests. That is what we encourage. We explain to all local authorities that which nursery a child attends should be in the interests of the parents and the child. In effect, placing requests already operate, although without legislation.
I have one question in four parts. Does the minister agree that we should not import the perceived political nature of the Office for Standards in Education into the Scottish inspection system? We do not want a tartan Ofsted; we want our own home-grown version. Does he agree that the inspection of education authorities could be problematic if the inspectorate does not understand the integrated way in which local authority finance operates? Does he accept that having a parent member as opposed to a lay member would enhance the review panel that he proposes for the inspection process? Why does the panel need the requisite member of the business community with an iffy background in quality assurance when we already have a wealth of talent in quality assurance in the Scottish education system?
The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question is no, because they are inspecting the educational function. I will think about the last point.
There is an important issue about local authority budgets being spread across the services. It is not that clear cut.
Thank you.
We all agree that raising standards in numeracy, literacy and exam passes is extremely important, but we must also consider education in the wider context. We have a duty to educate responsible and active citizens who can take informed decisions about the world in which they live. My concern is that the bill misses the opportunity to put education in that wider context.
Much of what we do does not require legislation; legislation gives us powers that we use to develop other areas. We do not want to build everything into legislation, or the system will become inflexible.
Yes, but what are you doing to fulfil the pledge?
That is not something that needs to be handled with legislation.
I am not suggesting that it is; I am asking what the Executive is doing to fulfil that pledge. I am not suggesting that it needs to be part of the legislation.
I am sorry, I misunderstood your point.
That is an important question, Nicola, and I am sure that it is one that the committee will want to pursue. I am sorry Peter, I was going to allow you to comment on that, but we really do not have enough time. Brian has one quick question.
Page 10 of "Improving our Schools" says:
No. It is our intention to ensure that everyone achieves the highest possible standards in our schools. That is the way forward, rather than having a demoralising regime of competition. I want every school to attain the highest possible standards and every child to achieve his or her potential.
I apologise to everybody who still has questions—two hours was obviously not long enough—but Peter and Sam have to leave. I thank everybody who asked questions and thank Peter and Sam for attending. We might have to invite them back at some stage as there are a number of pressing issues.
Thanks very much. We would be happy to come back at any time.
Previous
Scottish Parliament Education, Culture and Sport Committee Wednesday 8 September 1999 (Morning)Next
Work Programme