Equal Opportunities Committee, 16 Nov 1999

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 16, 1999

Official Report 150KB pdf

---

Improving our Schools

This morning, I welcome Morag Alexander and Sheila McWhirter from the Equal Opportunities Commission, who will give evidence on the "Improving our Schools" consultation document. At the previous meeting, members suggested a number of groups from which we could take evidence. Other organisations will be invited to future meetings. This morning, however, it is the turn of the EOC.

First, I want to thank the committee for inviting us along. I am Morag Alexander, director of the EOC in Scotland. My colleague Sheila McWhirter has been with us since 1 November and comes from a very strong background of education and training with an equality perspective. We will answer the committee's questions and say some positive things about how equality can be mainstreamed into legislation. Convener, can I call you Kate?

Yes.

Have committee members seen our input to the bill?

It has been circulated to them.

Then you will all have had an opportunity to read our submission. The EOC's responsibilities relate only to equality of opportunity between women and men. Other statutory bodies deal with other areas.

Our responsibility is to enforce the legislation, principally the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Equal Pay Act 1970, but also a number of other pieces of legislation. In addition to our law-enforcement role, we have responsibility for promoting equality of opportunity for women and men. Broadly speaking, that is what we will talk about in relation to the draft bill.

We think that the most effective way to achieve our aims is through mainstreaming equality of opportunity. I am aware that that is what the Parliament intends to do and it is quite a new idea for many people, including us. Although the concept is easy enough to grasp in principle, the practice of it causes some difficulty from time to time.

Let me say briefly what the Equal Opportunities Commission thinks mainstreaming is. The process of mainstreaming equality is concerned with the integration of equal opportunities principles, strategies and practices into the everyday work of Government and other public bodies. That must happen right from the start, rather than adding it on at the end and ticking a box saying, "Have we considered the equality implications?" when there is no way of demonstrating that we have. The process must be integrated into the work that we do.

Mainstreaming equality is a long-term strategy to frame policies in terms of the real ways in which men's and women's daily lives operate and to change organisation cultures and structures accordingly. In essence, the process puts people and their diverse needs and experiences at the heart of policy making. One can see why a process that helps to achieve that can lead to better government through better-informed policy making and greater transparency and openness in the policy process.

The process of mainstreaming equality also tackles the structures in society that contribute to or sustain gender segregation and discrimination. It can avoid the adoption of policies and programmes that replicate discrimination and exacerbate existing inequalities. However, it does not stand alone, and must complement all the other methods that have been used in the past and will continue to be used in the future to promote equality of opportunity. I am talking about the law, obviously, but also about positive action, monitoring, auditing, setting targets and having an equal opportunities programme. Mainstreaming equality is complementary to all those things.

When we say that mainstreaming equal opportunities is everybody's responsibility, that does not mean that it is somebody else's responsibility. It is your responsibility as members of this committee and members of the Scottish Parliament. We would like MSPs to go through the process whenever they consider a policy or a piece of legislation.

On 1 December, the Equal Opportunities Commission, in partnership with the Commission for Racial Equality, will launch a checklist for MSPs. It will be a handy, laminated card, the size of a credit card, and we are trying to keep the number of words on it to a helpful limit. The cards will be backed up by background information to explain the process and give some examples. We think that members will find it helpful. The First Minister will launch the checklist on 1 December, although we are not sure what the venue will be. We understand that there have been problems finding suitable accommodation with all the right technology.

I hope that you will find the checklist helpful. I will run through some of the questions it will ask, which we used when we put together our response to the bill. The checklist would ask, what is this bill or policy for? Who is the policy for? What are the desired and anticipated outcomes? You need to be seeking the answers to those questions in terms that recognise equality of opportunity and the different equality groups.

Does the policy properly consider the needs of diverse groups? We should not forget that different groups are not homogeneous. Often they overlap, but a woman from a black and ethnic minority community has different needs from a woman in a rural area. Those issues must be considered. Has the equality dimension been explicitly addressed? That is a general question that would be asked. You would want to keep in mind the goals and outcomes of policies that either perpetuate or overcome existing inequalities.

A second main question would be, do you have full information on, and a full analysis of, the impact of the bill or the policy on all of the equality groups? If you do not, why not? Have the data that you have been given been broken down by gender, race and disability? While a lot of the statistics relating to education are available disaggregated by gender, not all of them are.

Not that long ago, we sent the committee our leaflet "Supporting Gender Equality in Lifelong Learning". In it, we tried to produce gender-disaggregated information on a range of issues. I thought that information on children at primary and secondary schools would be available in a gender-disaggregated form, but it is not. At some level, someone must know that information. If you are making decisions about what is going on in schools you would want that data.

Information on children with a record of needs is not available in a gender-disaggregated form; neither is information on pre-school or primary-age children, young adults and adults who are in community education. I am sure that someone has the statistics. It would be important to ask the questions and to explore what the difficulties are in letting you have such information.

You would want to ask, who has been consulted? There is a need for expert voices and ordinary voices to be heard. The latter voices are largely those of the consumers of the services that you are providing. Have you considered the fact that it is harder for some groups to speak out than others?

The third main question you would ask is, has the full range of options, and the differential impacts on equality groups, been presented? You should ask what the impact is of values assumptions and stereotypes on the options that have been presented and have been favoured. How have your own values, opinions and experiences influenced your understanding of the issues?

A fourth main question is, what are the outcomes and consequences of the proposals? Have the indirect, as well as the direct, effects of proposals been taken into account? When we produce the checklist with back-up material on 1 December, we will provide examples from either this country or abroad where the difference between the direct and the indirect effects has been tremendous.

Our fifth question is a clear question—how have the policy makers in the Executive demonstrated that they have mainstreamed equality? How will such a policy be monitored and evaluated and how will improved awareness of equality implications be demonstrated? The mechanisms that will be put in place to examine progress on that policy will need to be examined to see whether the policy achieves the objectives that were set out for it. There will be a need to examine how that policy has impacted on different groups and whether targets have been met.

Those are the kinds of processes that we believe should be taken into account when legislation is being formulated—and it is why we have approached the examination of this bill as we have. If the committee has questions for us to answer or wishes us to participate in discussion of any of those issues, we will be happy to try to do so.

Thank you, Morag. Sheila, do you want to come in at this point or are you going to answer questions?

I will answer questions, although I had hoped to keep a low profile until at least my fourth week in my job.

Sheila has recently taken up her post with the EOC.

I hope that I will be able to answer any questions pertaining to the recommendations.

Do members have any questions?

I would like to start with a general question. Towards the end of your contribution Morag, you said that one of the questions that must be asked of the Executive is how it has demonstrated that it has mainstreamed equality. Would you say that any attempt has been made to mainstream equality in the bill, or would you give the Executive only one out of 10 for that?

I will give the Executive one out of 10 for that. In "Targeting Excellence—Modernising Scotland's Schools" the previous Government did a very thorough job of mainstreaming equality. Although this bill is different, some of the processes that we went through and some of the recommendations that we made for that document could have been taken into account for it. I am disappointed that that did not happen, but it is not too late, of course.

On page 21, point 5.9—which is on special educational needs—of the EOC's response to "Targeting Excellence—Modernising Scotland's Schools" you mention that traditionally a gender-blind approach has informed work on special educational needs. Would you expand on that?

I could, perhaps, refer you to the point that I made earlier regarding pre-school education and compulsory schooling. There are children who have a record of needs in those circumstances and gender disaggregation is not available. There are different requirements for children with special needs, as there are for boys and girls generally. The gender-blind approach simply will not throw that up. If boys and girls are treated as identical units, the best answers will not be found and it will not be possible to target policies and services effectively.

We have taken evidence from other groups who work with people with profound learning difficulties. We debated the subject last week, but what is your opinion of attempts to stream people with special educational needs into mainstream schools?

That question would be more appropriately put to those with special disability expertise. Our focus is on gender equality, although I appreciate that this is an equal opportunities committee. We try to recognise that the world in general does not break the equalities issue down to the responsibilities of statutory bodies. We try to produce evidence, guidelines and helpful back-up material that take account of the way ordinary people will need to use them. It is not necessary for people to be experts to use what we produce.

However, there are areas in which the committee will need the expertise of those who are expert in disability equality issues.

One of the key elements about which people with disabilities express concern is having choice, so that if they wish to take part in mainstream education, support mechanisms are there for them, their needs are taken into account, and they are treated as part of the whole school system.

You talked earlier about the monitoring and evaluation of policy implementation, and your submission refers to the need for national performance indicators for equality issues. Also, you say that at a local level there should be consideration for each school. Do you envisage HM inspectors being responsible for evaluating policy implementation within schools?

Later in the submission you refer to the need for criteria for inspectors monitoring issues. Do you think that HM inspectorate should be the main body to monitor the process?

One of our recommendations is that the draft code of practice for the inspection of schools be amended to include a commitment to equality of opportunity. It is important that that commitment is built into the performance indicators framework. It is also important that schools are encouraged to have their own monitoring and evaluation procedures that take account of equality issues.

If the local authority sets indicators for its schools and the local authority is responsible for evaluation and monitoring, there is potential for a conflict of interest. Although the local authority should have a role, should the inspectors be explicitly responsible for identifying issues and flagging them up to local authorities? If there is a national trend of problems, should HM inspectors be responsible for flagging up to ministers issues about the effectiveness of policy?

The improvement framework states that ministers can set national priorities but that there should be local consultation and that local authorities have the responsibility to meet the standards that are expected of them. The school development plans are a mechanism for ensuring that the schools have monitoring and evaluation of equality issues built in. The whole process is about national priorities informing local practice, and vice versa—both are essential. There should be a seamless joined-up thinking process.

One of the central things is persuading people that there are good performance indicators. What kind of indicators should we highlight?

The HMI "A Route to Equality and Fairness" document gives a useful framework for measuring equality with performance indicators.

It is important that the process should not just be number crunching; there should be qualitative mechanisms for assessing progress and the student should be considered. Personal learning plans can be a useful tool in setting targets for improvement with the individual student. Performance indicators—this point is not about equality—could relate to working more effectively in groups and having greater awareness of issues around them. We must set soft as well as qualitative indicators.

Is not that the problem? Did not you say at the beginning that you regard the HMI indicators as satisfactory?

HM inspectors put together a pack on how to assess schools' equality policies.

I see. I thought that one of the reasons a problem had not been flagged up was that it was thought that the indicators were not available. You say, however, that they are, so it should not be a problem to build assessments into the bill.

We are all in the fairly early stages of developing performance indicators on a range of issues. The Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality have worked with the former Scottish Office and the Accounts Commission in the past couple of years to develop equality indicators for the overall process. We are making progress, but it is important to recognise that we are not seeking only numerical or quantitative indicators, although they can help at times by setting a benchmark.

We must work with members and education specialists to agree what the appropriate equality indicators in particular circumstances might be. We would be happy to work in partnership to produce effective guidelines and performance indictors that would be recognised as being useful. That is the touchstone; they must be useful and go with the grain, so that they do not overload hard-pressed officials and teachers with additional work and systems. We want to find performance indicators that can be derived from work that is already being done, rather than indicators that place additional responsibilities on people.

Can you give a concrete example of what you mean by performance indicators for pre-school education?

I would be happy to come back to you on that, Malcolm. We will write to you.

My question is also on performance indicators. I seek guidance from you on supporting best performance in schools, which you deal with in section 8 of your submission. Point 8.4 says:

"EOC Scotland recommends that the criteria used by authorities in identifying schools that are falling behind or failing to achieve the standards of which they are capable must be inclusive of equality monitoring and evaluation procedures."

I am worried generally that performance indicators are often used in the wrong way, particularly when they take no cognisance of the different levels of inequality from which some schools start. The teaching unions also are wary of performance indicators being imposed. When you discuss suggestions and proposals, is there a mechanism for discussing with the teaching unions their concerns to ensure that a broad level of indicator is not set against the schools, which takes no note of the different inequalities that exist in different areas?

A group called the education and training strategy implementation advisory group, which includes representatives from all levels from a range of key organisations across the education and training sector ensures that any recommendations that come out of our work are informed more deeply by their expertise. The teaching unions are represented on the group by the Educational Institute of Scotland and the Scottish Trades Unions Congress.

Morag, I was interested that in the section "Hearing Parent Views", you put considerable emphasis on training for parent-teacher organisations and for other bodies that are involved in the management of schools. What policies or action plans for equal opportunities are in place at the moment, and how much emphasis do you put on those? When training is discussed in the context of education, that is not often taken to refer to parents' organisations.

If someone is involved in taking decisions, either about employing people or about policies, they have a responsibility to be aware of the equality implications of those decisions. We recommend strongly that such people receive training, not just in the law, but in best practice. I hope that that is happening in our schools and on our school boards.

We take the issue seriously and are about to produce a useful booklet for parents to help them to help schoolchildren from an equality perspective. The booklet sets out the legislation, but also offers practical ways in which parents can assist their children. It helps them to work with schools to ensure that the abilities of every child are developed to the full without being limited by the gender segregation that still bedevils our schools and which means that very few girls do computer studies and very few boys do languages to certificate level.

What is the current situation? Are there school boards or PTAs with equal opportunities policies and action plans, or is that generally not the case at the moment?

I am afraid that I do not know. We hope to distribute this publication to schools throughout the country. It is a partnership document that is being produced with the Scottish Parent-Teacher Council and the Scottish School Boards Association, with funding from the former Scottish Office. We are bringing people with us. We are saying that, whatever has happened in the past—and I am sorry that I cannot answer your question about the situation at present—this is what should be happening in the future. The booklet gives good, clear, well-presented advice.

You mentioned the importance of teacher training. Have you examined the teacher training course to see what sort of equality training is included? Do you have any recommendations on that? You also mentioned that more than 90 per cent of primary teachers are women. Do you have any ideas for changing that and for promoting primary teaching as a career for men?

To encourage men to apply for jobs in primary teaching, we must emphasise the importance of the job and ensure that people are aware of the key role that primary head teachers play. We need to beef up the job so that anyone would find it desirable. That is what Veronica Rankin of the Educational Institute of Scotland suggested.

We have not yet explored in depth the issue of teacher training. Teachers are a great source of expertise and they could share best practice for dealing with equality issues in the classroom. They could be used to inform our approach to training in the future.

I want to pick up Elaine's point that the huge majority of primary teachers are women. Given that so many single-parent households are headed by women, we are concerned that boys, in particular, are finding no strong, kind male role models at school. We should be concerned about that. We recommend that the Scottish Executive encourages men to enter into primary teaching, and ensures that advertisements for teaching posts encourage men to apply for jobs in an area where they have been under-represented in the past. That is entirely lawful under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and has not been done in Scotland before; it should be done.

Similarly, most teaching assistants are expected to be women and the opportunity to encourage men into those jobs has not yet been taken. Obviously, as recruitment continues, there is still time. I strongly recommend that lawful positive discrimination be applied.

That principle should be taken all the way back to primary teacher training. Advertisements can encourage men all they like, but if men are not applying for such training in the first place, they cannot apply for the jobs.

It is entirely lawful to encourage men to enter teacher training for primary school and I am surprised that that weapon in the arsenal has not yet been used.

In paragraph 13, headed "Registration of Independent Schools", you recommend

"a direct reference to compliance with the Sex Discrimination Act"

when Scottish ministers

"issue a formal notice of complaint".

Are you concerned about the issue of equality in independent schools, given that they are outwith the strategic framework?

I do not have any particular schools in mind. This is a general point. Such schools must comply with the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and we want them to promote equality of opportunity.

Do those schools have any internal mechanisms by which to address the issue? You mention entering into a dialogue with the Scottish Council of Independent Schools, as well as with the Scottish ministers. Has anything been done to address such issues and to set standards?

I am not aware of any such moves.

Two of your recommendations require local authorities to supply certain information. What has been your experience of that up to now? Are local authorities ready to supply the information required to allow proper monitoring of equality issues?

The picture is patchy; although many local authorities might be in a strong position to provide such information, some are not. However, some local authorities have done useful, ground-breaking work with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to develop methodologies and practices that allow the mainstreaming of equality. That is fertile ground.

Can you send us a note of those educational statistics that are not disaggregated by gender? Such a list would allow us to follow up some issues.

The Parliament has a good resource in the form of Esther Breitenbach, the women's issues research consultant in the Scottish Executive. I will talk to her and to our research unit for a range of such statistics.

I want to ask one final question about best value, although it probably takes us beyond the scope of this bill. You mentioned that the EOC would like to see greater weight given to equality measures within the best value framework, beyond simple cost measures. I am sure that this committee will be giving its attention to that.

We want to see much more explicit reference to equality; we want equality to be mainstreamed. We want the questions that I outlined earlier detailed in the best value process. We want the questions to be asked and answered with a focus on equality.

Equality of opportunity has a very proper place within the process. We are not suggesting a new system, but we are saying that mainstreaming fits into best value, for example; it goes with the grain. To use another example, we envisage an equality perspective on continuous improvement, which can be achieved with mainstreaming.

Are you aware of what equality training is given to teachers in teacher training colleges? Is there a module or whatever specifically devoted to it, and is it adequate?

My area of expertise is adult and continuing education. I cannot comment on the training that teachers receive, but we can find out how equality is taken into account in teacher training.

If we are going to change attitudes, that is where we will have to start. Teachers should go into the classroom with some awareness.

I know that equality is part of the teacher training process. Whether it is suitable or adequate is another question. Sheila mentioned earlier that we work with the education and training strategy implementation advisory group—the oddly titled ETSIAG—to ensure that we have access to the skills and expertise of the people who can really help us to make the changes in the education and training sector that we want to see with regard to equality. That is the type of question that we can discuss at an ETSIAG meeting, and we will call upon our colleagues there to help us answer it.

I do not think that we should ever be satisfied with what is happening. When teachers come out of the teacher training process, they have, in some cases, insufficient awareness of the impact of inequality and of how insidious it is. The roots of why so few girls do physics and computing at higher level go back, to an extent, to the home. I am conscious of that, as an enthusiastic grandmother. I know how difficult it is to recognise that the wee child I know is cut off, perhaps, from a whole range of future jobs because of the education and guidance received. The roots of it also go to pre-school and primary school education.

Our not producing enough specialist graduates in science and technology is partly because of the fact that we are not helping girls to develop in that direction. We have an opportunity in the education system to make a positive contribution to Scotland's future economy.

If there are no more questions, I thank Morag and Sheila for coming. If anyone on the committee wants to get in touch about any specific issues related to this discussion, they should just contact you directly. As we proceed, we might ask you to come along again, if necessary. I hope you do not mind that.

Once again, thank you for inviting us. We will be happy for members to get in touch by e-mail or by phone and we will try to answer their questions. We will be happy to participate in any further meetings on a range of subjects.

We will leave these documents for you. One document is about gender and differential achievement.

Thank you, Sheila. I will ensure that those are circulated to all members of the committee.