Official Report 268KB pdf
Item 5 is the curriculum inquiry, which we have had a thrash at before. Members have a paper before them, which takes on board the points made by the committee previously. The central issue is whether the committee is satisfied with the paper as a statement of where we are going. Is there any aspect of it that we want to tweak, either in general or in response to what we have heard today?
I am very content with the paper overall, but I have two minor suggestions. One is about
We do not want to wander too far off course from the issues of motivation and aspiration.
The matter could have a bearing on those issues because modern technology means that students can do subjects that they could not otherwise do.
The matter probably comes under the heading of examples of best practice. It is a second-level issue from the point of view of our inquiry.
I would like more information on how we will achieve an equal system. I heard what the minister said on that, but we must pursue the issue further.
Is that an issue for the inquiry, which will deal with aspiration and motivation issues?
The many proposed changes could make it difficult to make the system equal.
That is true about the curriculum review generally, but does it relate to the part of the curriculum review that we want to consider? We will consider the issue of people being turned off in secondary school. Equity issues may arise as part of that—
Yes—those issues are relevant. I am concerned that we still have a group of pupils who switch off early, in the main in S1 and S2. Although the minister talked about how he will try to motivate those young people, many of them do not have the ability to deal with the curriculum when they get to secondary level—hence the number of people with dyslexia who are in prison. I do not know how we will provide an equal system and an appropriate curriculum for those young people if we are to have the range of choices and provision by teachers that we are talking about.
To return to the point that I made earlier, we are not conducting a general inquiry into the curriculum as a whole; we are trying to add value on a particular issue by focusing on what turns kids on, particularly in secondary school.
What I said is relevant to that because if we have not sorted out appropriate provision for individual needs, we cannot make progress. In speaking to the minister, we did not touch on the development of the curriculum in sport, music, dance and drama. That is another issue that we perhaps missed out. Where are the teachers for some of the developments in those subjects? There are many questions, all of which are linked to the motivation of young people, because they are about the curriculum that we will provide for that disillusioned group.
I stick by my point, but we will see what other members think.
I have one comment on the process of the inquiry. I find it difficult to reconcile what we heard today with what we heard from the vice-chair of the curriculum review group at the start of the process about what the review would produce. Perhaps SPICe could probe the issue a little. The evidence from Keir Bloomer and Mike Baughan was about a step change. Although what we heard this morning was incredibly worthy, it was about a progression. I wonder whether SPICe could work up a brief note on this issue to help us to shape what we are trying to do. I simply find it extraordinary that there was unanimity on everything to do with what we should teach kids in the future.
That does not happen.
Exactly. That does not help to tease out the issues on which we should take a view. I was under the false impression that the group was more independent than it now appears to be; I had not realised that the minister's lead official was chairing it. There is nothing wrong with the Executive trying to find out what can be done, but that is very different from blue-sky thinking. Although I have no problem with the inquiry's remit, I would like SPICe to draw up a note on how far the evidence that we heard today has moved from the evidence that we heard at the first session and what implications that might have for the issues that we should tease out.
Let me deal with that before we move on.
Let me just say that I am not objecting to the terms of reference. However, if we had such a note before we called for evidence, it would inform the people from whom we are seeking evidence about the issues that we are trying to address. I just want to build a week into the process to allow us to tease out the areas of difference on this matter and use that information as the basis for our call for evidence to ensure that we receive slightly more focused submissions.
We could have a big tent or we could have a nicely laid table and know exactly what we are going to eat—that is what I would prefer.
The difficulty is that we cannot review the whole matter ourselves. We are simply trying to add value to a particular aspect where we think we can make some mileage. As I said when Rosemary Byrne raised certain other issues, I think that we are moving a little bit away from the main theme that the committee had already identified. I know that we cannot separate out the issues in that way, but—
But could we not ask one or two leading members of the curriculum review group—perhaps the two people who gave evidence to us—about the report's implications for these areas? I am not suggesting that we change the inquiry's remit; I am just trying to focus on the points of difference. Frankly, the report is so anodyne that it makes it difficult to find out the issues that we should debate.
I accept that general point, but it goes much wider than what we are trying to do in the inquiry. It struck me that the ministerial response was much more focused than the report that preceded it, although perhaps that is only to be expected. The report itself did not seem to raise enough of the issues.
One of our major concerns was that disillusioned group of S1 and S2 pupils. I raised those issues earlier because they are integral to the question of how we will move forward with those young people.
I thought that people such as David Eaglesham are mentioned in it.
No. George McBride is on the list, but it says only that he is the principal teacher of Govan High School. We should correct that misconception.
That is a broader point about the group's report. We are dealing with the call for evidence for our inquiry, which will cover teachers' representatives and so on.
It is only right that we focus on what we want to do. After all, in our earlier discussions on this matter, we reached a consensus that, instead of trying to cover everything, we could add value by concentrating on issues of motivation and demotivation. Rosemary Byrne has highlighted some issues that relate to motivation; for example, the issue of identifying early signs of particular pupils' disaffection with the school experience could bring in issues such as dyslexia and the sort of strategies that help pupils to learn. As a result, the remit is fairly sensible, but there might well be some merit in trying to find out how our original experts feel about it and the way in which the review group developed. We must be careful, because it would be very easy for us to get distracted.
The question is whether the remit is preventing people from pursuing some lines of inquiry. Elaine Murray is right: if Rosemary Byrne wants to pursue certain lines, she can do so under the existing remit. However, the conclusions that we reach might well differ according to our individual perspectives on the matter. Do you accept that, Rosemary?
Yes. We will see how the matter progresses.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton made a couple of points. I repulsed the second one, but I cannot remember what the first one was.
I believe that it was the extent to which innovative teaching approaches would be integrated into individual school diets.
I think that if Lord James wants to pursue such angles, the remit will cover that.
That is our only change to the remit. We have taken on board certain issues and roughly know where we are going. Bearing in mind the addition that we have discussed, do members agree to the paper?
With that, I close this late meeting of the Education Committee and thank everyone for their attendance.
Meeting closed at 13:21.
Previous
Budget Process 2005-06