Official Report 269KB pdf
Schools (Class Sizes) (PE1046)
The fifth item on the agenda is continuation of the committee's consideration of petition PE1046, on class sizes. I welcome to the meeting representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I am delighted that Councillor Isabel Hutton, COSLA's education, children and young people spokesperson, has been able to join us. She is accompanied by Robert Nicol, leader of COSLA's children and young people team, and Barbara Lindsay.
Thank you very much for your written submission, which I have read very carefully. What interested me most in it—if I have read it correctly—is that you are perfectly happy to accept the general principle of reducing class sizes, but that, instead of a one-size-fits-all policy, you would have preferred a more targeted approach, because it would have benefited children in the very early years of their education and children from more deprived areas. Will you expand on the basic logic behind that position?
Evidence suggests that smaller class sizes improve outcomes in, for example, the primary school years and deprived areas; however, the evidence on whether smaller class sizes lead to widespread long-term improvements in educational achievement is far less conclusive.
Am I correct in thinking, then, that your slight disagreement with the Educational Institute for Scotland has arisen partly because local authorities have been asked to implement a one-size-fits-all policy of having no more than 18 pupils in primary 1 to 3 classes for the entire region? Are you criticising the policy in general or are you simply saying that you would have preferred a more targeted approach?
In the concordat, COSLA has signed up to reducing class sizes in P1 to P3 to 18, so obviously we are not criticising the policy. Moreover, it is up to each local authority to decide its own priorities in making those reductions.
Are you confident in the ability of local authorities throughout Scotland to identify either the deprived areas or the particular schools in which they believe that there is the greatest need for this policy? If so, where is the evidence for that?
I am confident that people in local areas can decide on local priorities and, for example, on whether to target areas of deprivation or look at falling school rolls in order to achieve class size reductions.
Is the evidence for that coming from headteachers in specific schools or has it been decided at local authority level?
Local authorities know their own areas and which of them, for example, suffer from deprivation and might benefit from class size reductions. The committee has heard a lot of evidence on these reductions, which, as last year's working group report highlighted, seem to benefit those in the very early years of primary education and those in areas of deprivation. Local authorities know where those areas are and where best to target the policy.
If that is true, instead of a one-size-fits-all approach that is dictated by central Government and forced on local authorities, would it not have been better to have a national policy that provides local authorities with more flexibility to make decisions at a local level? Would you have preferred a policy that could have been targeted on specific areas?
Given the concordat and statements that the Government has made, we are content that we have the flexibility to deliver on reducing class sizes to 18. We feel that we are able to make appropriate progress on the matter and that councils have the flexibility to consider the areas, including areas of deprivation, where they want to make the most progress.
At the same time, however, directors of education are complaining that, given their financial resources, it is almost impossible to implement the national policy. You suggest that the local level of decision making would have been preferable for targeting the issues and might have gone some way towards solving the problem of the extraordinarily high level of resources that is required to implement the policy overall.
I am sure that we will discuss resources in more detail. The Association of Directors of Education in Scotland has provided figures from a survey that was based on the intention of moving to class sizes of 18 almost immediately. What we are saying—and what ADES has also said—is that flexibility is the key to making the policy work. ADES understands that we are making progress on the policy, and that we are doing so pragmatically and practically at a local level. We know that councils are affected by different circumstances and that it is natural that progress will vary throughout the country.
The directors of education have said that a substantial sum is required to implement the policy throughout all Scottish local authorities. Would COSLA argue that it might have been better to target the money at schools in deprived areas or at schools where there is known to be a specific problem?
We have to move away from the top-down approach. Local and national government signed up to the policy. ADES said in its submission that it would cost in the region of £360 million to reduce class sizes, over a longer period than the period of the spending review. We are looking at a joint agreement to reduce class sizes but with local authorities deciding how they will do so.
You are quite happy with the policy to reduce class sizes but you are not entirely happy with how it is being implemented.
It is not a question of whether we are happy or unhappy; it is a question of being practical. What we have signed up to in the concordat is that it will be up to each local authority to determine its priorities and to decide how it will bring about class size reduction. It will be up to each local authority to decide whether that is done by targeting areas of deprivation, by school rolls or through the school estate.
By happy I mean that you believe that the policy of having a reduction in class sizes is a sensible policy educationally.
Let us move away from the emotive words "happy" and "unhappy"; it is about considering the practicalities. As we said, the evidence suggests that it is good to reduce class sizes in the early years in deprived areas.
In other words, it is educationally sound to reduce class sizes.
The concordat addresses the early years—P1 to P3—in particular. There is evidence to suggest that moving towards class size reduction in areas of deprivation would be beneficial for educational attainment.
My point is that you are not entirely satisfied with the process of making that happen.
What Councillor Hutton is trying to say is that although that may be an issue for the committee, it is not an issue for us. In the concordat, we have reached an agreement on having an outcomes approach to the local government settlement as a whole and on implementing a set of specific commitments. We have agreed and signed up to that jointly with the Government, and we are ready to take it forward. It is not a question of saying now whether we are happy or unhappy; we are implementing the agreement that we have reached.
Parents would like to think that you are happy with the remit of the policy.
On outcomes, will you give the committee COSLA's perspective on how the single outcome agreements as they relate specifically to class sizes are being developed?
Evidence is already being taken on the outcome agreements.
As Councillor Hutton says, the outcome agreements approach is being considered in more detail elsewhere. It is probably helpful here to rehearse the point that there are two routes through the concordat. First, for the generality of the local government settlement, we have signed up to an approach of outcome agreements and have agreed a set of outcomes with the Government. Educational attainment, in the broadest sense, will be an important part of those outcome agreements. Secondly, and quite separately, there is a set of specific commitments in the concordat to which we have signed up. The single outcome agreements will be reported on by each local authority to their local community, and back to the Scottish Government; COSLA will provide a single report on the progress of local government as a whole towards meeting the specific set of commitments. That is how the two things fit together. Educational attainment, as a broad outcome, is covered through the outcome approach; the specific commitment is covered in a report on inputs, which COSLA will make on local government's behalf at the end of the year.
Is it sufficient to record the reduction in class sizes in the concordat, without having any specifics around class size reductions for P1, P2 and P3 in the single outcome agreements? The committee heard evidence from the EIS that, without a specific reference to class sizes in the single outcome agreements, it will be difficult to see and measure whether the requirements of what has been agreed in the concordat are being met.
We are satisfied with the approach that we have arrived at. To follow up Councillor Hutton's comments, the broad intent of the policy to reduce class sizes will be picked up in an outcome about improved attainment. The specific commitments are inputs, and they do not tell us much about outcomes for children, which are being reported separately. We are satisfied with the rigour of both reporting arrangements. These are joint agreements between local government and central Government and we are satisfied with how we are going forward and with our ability to provide measurable evidence.
How can that "measurable evidence" be monitored or accessed by the committee or members of the public? My understanding is that under the concordat there must be
To some extent, year-on-year progress means what it says. Each council will consider the progress that it deems it can make within existing resources and under its circumstances. There is no top-down expectation—certainly on the part of COSLA—of what each council should do. Authorities must consider their own circumstances and situation, addressing class sizes where most appropriate. For instance, they might wish to focus on certain deprived areas.
So Government ministers can say that they are committed to the reduction of class sizes for P1 to P3 to 18, yet there is no requirement on COSLA to reduce class sizes any more than "year on year" and as individual local authorities see fit and appropriate.
COSLA will not deliver reduced class sizes; councils will consider where they can make progress. It might be that classes move towards a size of 18; it might be that some classes achieve 18, while some classes of 25 get less. Progress will be made in the way in which each local authority deems appropriate. However, over the piece, local government will show year-on-year progress, which will be demonstrated in a report that COSLA will produce, as Barbara Lindsay said.
However, the Government has expressed no expectation of the changes that will be required to allow progress to be made, and how progress on class size reductions is defined will be entirely up to the 32 local authorities. Is that correct?
That is correct. That is why the concordat provides flexibility for each local authority to decide its priorities but the commitment is that year-on-year progress will be made in local government overall.
Okay. The committee heard evidence from the Association of Head Teachers and Deputes in Scotland, which expressed concern that it had not been involved in the discussions on the single outcome agreements. The association believes that if class sizes are to be reduced effectively, it should be involved in the discussions. Does COSLA have a view on that?
I would think that every local authority will consult its staff and headteachers on how educational attainment under the four capacities in the curriculum for excellence is to be delivered through the outcome agreements. As Barbara Lindsay said, the inputs on class sizes are somewhat separate from the outcome agreements, but local authorities will work collectively on what they want to put into the agreements and how to implement them.
I accept that all local authorities will engage with their staff, but I am asking a specific question about engaging with staff representative bodies and trade unions. Do you think that the trade unions that are responsible for the delivery of the services should be involved in the negotiations on the single outcome agreements?
All we can say is that our negotiations are between the two spheres of government in Scotland: local government and central Government. As part of our responsibilities as local authorities, employers and providers of the education service, we will, of course, want to speak to headteachers. COSLA has good relationships with them, but the negotiations are between the two spheres of government in Scotland.
You have been clear today that the expectation is that local government as a whole, rather than individual authorities, will demonstrate year-on-year progress. Is that COSLA's position?
That is correct.
Therefore, if any local authority was not making year-on-year progress, it would be unacceptable for COSLA or the Government to say that that local authority was at fault.
If there were difficulties in certain areas, we would consider any barriers that might be preventing those local authorities from reducing class sizes. We would look for constructive dialogue.
It is now many months since the concordat was agreed and the budget settled. How many local authorities have you identified as having problems?
This is the baseline year, so we will measure progress from this year. If you are asking about what practical difficulties councils might face, school rolls must be taken into account. Clear projections show which councils have falling school rolls and which have rising ones but, as I am sure you are aware from your constituency, school rolls vary even within local authorities. We know that there are challenges and what they are, but this is the baseline year and we will show progress from this academic year onwards.
Explain for me how the mechanics of that operate, because I do not understand. Local government as a whole is required to demonstrate year-on-year progress and local authorities will sign up to single outcome agreements. What is the mechanism for bringing the two together? If local authorities do not make year-on-year progress, how will local government as a whole make year-on-year progress?
We know that year-on-year progress will vary across local government. In certain circumstances, if the numbers on school rolls are rising for example, progress may be limited. However, if the majority of councils make progress, that will add up to year-on-year progress.
Using this year as a baseline, as Robert Nicol said, we expect by the end of the year to produce a report that shows that local government has made progress. Clearly, there is quite an active, internal debate for us to have with our membership about issues of education and young people and about what this means for individual councils. We expect to be able to deliver what we have said that we will deliver, and we will produce a report by the end of the year. I expect that Councillor Hutton's executive group will have a debate among its membership of education conveners about how individual councils are going about their work and what barriers they face. The picture is by no means one of nothing happening until we produce our report at the end of the year; there will be an on-going discussion with our membership.
I am interested in the procedures by which local authorities can bring that progress about. If a local authority states that it will deliver the outcomes on educational attainment but wants to use a different method from that of reducing class sizes in P1 to P3 to 18, will that be acceptable to COSLA?
In their outcome agreements, councils may say that they want to raise levels of educational attainment—that would be entirely reasonable. One way in which they could do that would be to reduce class sizes, not just in P1 to P3, but more widely. However, as you say, there are other ways in which they could raise levels of attainment. The detail of that will be in the outcome agreements.
If a local authority states that it does not believe in focusing its efforts on reducing class sizes for P1 to P3 only to a maximum of 18 and believes that its resources could be used to deliver better outcomes for the attainment of primary school children by doing different things, will that be acceptable to COSLA?
What is acceptable is that we raise levels of attainment and deliver on the national outcomes. COSLA is supportive of different ways of achieving that.
It was a straightforward question, was it not?
I think that Robert Nicol is saying that we are confident that we will be able to deliver what we have signed up to, which is that progress will be made across local government. That is what we have signed up to in the concordat. I think that we have answered the question.
I am aware that we are here to speak about the EIS petition. The concordat states that local government will make year-on-year progress across the board—that is quite clear. It will be up to each local authority to decide how it wants to do that, and some local authorities may decide to use their resources in a different way. The numbers on their schools rolls might be falling anyway, depending on which part of the country they are in. It is not up to COSLA to dictate to local authorities how they spend their resources. What COSLA signed up to in the concordat is that overall local government will reduce class sizes, and that will be measured from the baseline of this year. It will be up to each local authority to decide its priorities and how it will address them.
Is your answer to the question that I put that if a local authority decided that its priority in bringing about the outcome of better attainment by primary school children was not to focus on reducing class sizes in P1 to P3 to 18, it would be wrong for that local authority to be criticised?
What we have said is that local government, over the piece, will reduce class sizes—
You are not letting councils make local decisions, Councillor Hutton.
What I have said is that COSLA and national Government agreed in the concordat that they will reduce class sizes over the piece and that it will be up to each local authority to decide how to implement the resources to raise pupil attainment. It is not up to COSLA to criticise. We are here to support and represent local government.
I was not asking you to criticise. I was asking you whether it would be wrong to attack a local authority that decided, in a local and accountable way, that reducing class sizes was not the best way of bringing about the outcomes.
With the greatest respect, we have answered the question. I think that we are involved in the broken record technique.
Does that mean that you are refusing to answer any more questions?
I have answered that question.
I will leave it at that, convener, but we might have to come back to the point. There is a serious concern. The evidence that was provided, and indeed provided to research assistants last week, before a debate, says that local authorities should be able to make locally accountable, democratic decisions, but COSLA—as the representative body of local authorities—is not even prepared to say that it would be inappropriate to attack a local authority that said that it wished to bring about the outcomes in a different way.
As I said, we have answered that question. I propose that we move on. I am sure that there are many other things that people would like to ask.
Councillor Hutton, I remind you that I chair the meeting.
Good morning. We are all trying to get our heads around the single outcome agreements and what they will look like. I accept that some local authorities are still constructing them, but am I right to think that they will contain a commitment to raise the attainment of pupils at whatever stage rather than simply a commitment to reduce class sizes?
Robert Nicol is probably more familiar than I am with the exact wording of the national outcomes, but I think that there is such an outcome. The general idea is to focus the efforts of all public sector agencies on a small number of outcomes. That will be led by local government through community planning partnerships.
I will provide a bit more detail. One outcome is the four capacities of the curriculum for excellence. With that outcome, we are saying that it is not just education that delivers the four capacities but the whole council working together. Children's services could be used in a particular way to ensure that young people and children are prepared to learn in schools. That is the approach, and local authorities will work with their local partners to ensure that outcomes are delivered in the round.
Councillor Hutton said that she accepts that smaller class sizes could be a contributory factor, but only a contributory factor. In my area, school rolls are increasing. If schools are unable to reduce class sizes to 18 but there is an increase in attainment, would that be acceptable to COSLA under the concordat that has been agreed?
As the constituency MSP for Linlithgow, you will know that in West Lothian, where we have a rapidly rising population, we are achieving class size reductions in P1 to P3. Additional building is taking place. West Lothian Council has decided that class size reductions are its priority and is investing to achieve them, as it views them as being part of its strategy for improving overall attainment. There may be other measures that we can take in relation to health, social policy and looked-after children to raise everyone's attainment levels.
Will it be acceptable if a local authority chooses to invest in health support or the other areas to which you have just referred?
You described a situation of rising school rolls, which we know is one circumstance that makes achieving class size reductions extremely difficult. However, there are other ways in which attainment can be improved. Local authorities know the areas on which they can focus to get improved outcomes, if achieving class size reductions proves particularly challenging.
Members referred to the ADES survey, which estimated the cost of achieving the Government's class size target at £360 million in capital costs and £62 million in recurring revenue costs. When ADES representatives gave evidence to the committee, we asked them whether there were sufficient resources to implement the policy; they said no. Is ADES right or wrong?
My understanding of what ADES said was that there are definitely challenges but that councils are seeking to identify areas in which they can make progress. ADES also make it clear that £360 million was the amount needed to reduce class sizes to 18 across the country by tomorrow, which is completely different from what we have agreed to do.
I will put the same question to Councillor Hutton. Regardless of your understanding of ADES's position, the committee asked it whether there were sufficient resources to meet the class size commitment. ADES said that there were not. Is it right or wrong?
I will let Councillor Hutton respond in a minute. I wonder whether there is confusion in ADES's mind on the issue. As part of our new relationship with the Government, we have negotiated for each council a pot of non-ring-fenced money that is to be used to achieve a set of outcomes. It is difficult to say whether ADES is right or wrong, as it may have misunderstood the arrangement that is in play. There is no separate line for class sizes—a pot of money has been negotiated for each local authority.
I do not think that ADES was confused. We asked a straightforward question: are there sufficient resources to meet the Government's class size target? ADES said no. Do you believe that there are sufficient resources to meet the target? Is ADES right or wrong?
I echo what Barbara Lindsay said. I have spoken to ADES, which agrees that it had assumed, when it came up with the figure of £360 million for reducing class sizes to 18, that that would happen overnight. ADES now agrees that that is not the case. As Barbara Lindsay indicated, money has been allocated to local authorities, which have the right to decide how to spend it to achieve class size reductions.
I see that I am not going to get an answer to the question. ADES also made a constructive suggestion. It said that in certain areas it would be overly expensive to meet the capital costs, as well as the revenue costs, of the class size commitment. It suggested that one option would be to have two class teachers, instead of building a new classroom. That seems to be in keeping with the flexibility that you advocate in your submission. Do you agree with ADES's suggestion as a way forward?
Local authorities may wish to consider that when they decide how they will reduce class sizes.
Do you think that it is acceptable to have two teachers per classroom as a method of meeting the Government's class size target?
It is for local authorities to decide what their priorities are and how they intend to improve pupil attainment and meet the commitment to reduce class sizes.
Glasgow City Council has said that there are not sufficient resources for it to meet the class size target, so it will not try to do so. Is that COSLA's position?
It is too early to comment on all local authorities. It is up to local authorities to decide what their priorities are and how to spend their resources to maintain pupil attainment.
I am sorry, but I do not understand that reply. Do you agree with Glasgow City Council or is it wrong? It has said that there are not sufficient resources and that it will not attempt to meet the class size target. Does COSLA agree with that position?
Again, I say that it is up to each local authority to decide how it spends its resources.
Does COSLA speak on behalf of any of the councils?
We speak on overall matters, but we do not comment on individual local authorities. If Glasgow City Council approaches COSLA, we can engage with it. We spoke earlier about what the barriers might be. Perhaps we can discuss those with the council. However, it is up to each local authority to decide how to prioritise its resources.
I have questions on the whole package and the way in which we are progressing on class sizes. I understand that Glasgow City Council failed to meet the targets for class size reductions under the previous Administration. Indeed, there are areas of deprivation in Glasgow where there are classes of about 30 pupils. However, authorities such as South Lanarkshire Council have targeted areas of deprivation and put in more teachers to deal with the issue. Do you agree that there are a range of council examples—in areas where there are rising and falling populations and where there is deprivation—and that those councils are applying a variety of means to achieve the aims?
That is correct. Again, it is up to each local authority to decide what its priorities are. Rather than take a prescriptive and top-down approach, local authorities have been given flexibility to spend their resources and decide on their priorities, whether that is tackling areas of deprivation or building additional classrooms. It is up to local authorities. The concordat commits to overall year-on-year progress, but it does not constrain local authorities in how they do that. They can investigate different mechanisms to reduce class sizes or maintain or increase pupil attainment, which is what we all want, after all.
So, we are using this year as a baseline and, at the end of it, we expect to have a more detailed picture of measures such as team teaching, phasing or targeting—perhaps for areas of deprivation—and new schools and classrooms. Can you add to that list so that we can have comfort that COSLA will consider and report back on a wide range of applications?
I think we can, but I will let Barbara Lindsay comment.
We are committed to producing a report with the Government. As I said, Councillor Hutton's executive group meets regularly—that is an active debate. I am sure that the group will consider the different methods and good practice that Rob Gibson is talking about and that the group will be happy to share the results of those discussions with the committee.
That would be helpful, because the either/or approach is not getting us anywhere.
The figure of £360 million is a bit theoretical.
Indeed.
We are not necessarily measuring the money that is spent but the progress that is made. As has been said, authorities have a pot of money and can work within constraints that they know well. At the end of the year, we will report on their progress.
So, we will have a clearer picture by the end of the year. Are you saying that, whatever ADES said to us, its theoretical statement about the cost is unlikely to be anything like what happens in reality?
Yes.
I also want to ask about the number of teachers who are required. We have heard conflicting views about the difficulties that probationer teachers are having in getting permanent posts, and we have also seen that there are a lot of unfilled posts. In COSLA's view, is there a problem with having enough teachers to teach classes of 18? Will we be able to meet the staffing requirements?
We are aware of the figures that are in the press today. As employers, the councils are well aware of the issues around teacher employment. The picture is not too bad at the moment—the General Teaching Council for Scotland says that 93 per cent of teachers are in employment, I think. However, we know that there are pressures and that often—particularly in rural areas—vacancies do not always match availability of teachers.
Do you agree that that review should consider the idea of pooling teachers between authorities in order to meet needs? In the past—for example, when Glasgow needed more maths teachers—inducements have been offered to teachers to get them to go to certain places. Will such means be necessary to deploy the workforce to meet the aims of the class size reduction policy?
That is something that we will be considering, as Robert Nicol said. There might be situations in which teachers have to travel outwith their area. I am aware that COSLA has agreed to give evidence to you next year on teacher deployment. At that point, we will be able to give you more detailed information and tell you more about the work of the committee that COSLA is chairing to consider the situation.
In summary, you are approaching the issues of the cash for classroom development, the cash for teacher employment, the targets that are being aimed at and so on as part of one overall package.
We are considering how to deliver the overall package. As I said, we recognise that there are pressures. However, as Robert Nicol pointed out, 93 per cent of qualified teachers are in employment. That said, we need to think about how we can better manage the difficulties around areas such as provision of maths teachers and so on.
COSLA appeared to agree with Rob Gibson that the figures that ADES provided to the committee are to be disputed. I would like to be clear about the basis on which you dispute the figures. Do you disagree that the figures are appropriate because the implementation of class sizes of 18 in the first three years of all primary schools is what the figure was based on for 22 local authorities, or do you dispute that, if that policy were to be implemented in its entirety, it would cost that amount of money?
As I have said, ADES provided a theoretical figure, which does not relate to what we are attempting to do. On that basis, we think that the figure is almost not worth talking about.
So, it is inappropriate for the 22 directors of education who participated in the ADES survey to work out how much it will cost to implement the policy.
As I have said, the figure is based on moving to class sizes of 18 instantly throughout the country. We have not agreed to do that, so the figure is irrelevant.
Arriving at such class sizes overnight may not have been agreed to in the concordat, but the suggestion is that COSLA and the Government intend that year-on-year progress will be made which will ultimately result in such class sizes, whether in five, 10, 15 or 20 years, so the cost of implementing the policy is surely relevant. Do you agree?
We have said that we will make year-on-year progress through natural changes in school rolls. We have not agreed that we will necessarily have to build new schools. It is about delivering with falling school rolls.
So COSLA's position is that the delivery of class size reductions will be based on populations declining, and that a very blunt measure will be used.
I would not necessarily agree that a blunt measure will be used; rather, a practical measure will be used.
The Headteachers Association of Scotland made it abundantly clear to the committee that a blunt instrument was being used, and that reductions being dictated by natural population decline would not improve matters for all Scotland's children.
That is HAS's view. We have spoken to HAS and have a good relationship with it. It has its views and we have ours. We have a practical view on how class sizes can be reduced over the piece.
I do not think that only HAS, which used the term "a blunt instrument", takes that view. The EIS, which submitted the petition, would also like class sizes throughout Scotland to be reduced.
I want to make exactly the same point. I do not understand what has been said. It has been suggested that the ADES figure is theoretical. Do you have any evidence that the figure is wrong?
Do you mean the figure of £360 million?
Yes.
The figure relates to something that we have not agreed to do, so it is theoretical.
The directors of education are in charge of education budgets throughout the country, and they have estimated how much the policy will cost. Are you suggesting that their figure is irrelevant for the committee and COSLA?
Local authority leaders are in charge of council budgets throughout the country. COSLA has agreed with the Government what we think is a reasonable and fair settlement, which gives one pot of cash to each council. Things are not broken up into lines or inputs for each agreement that has been made or for each outcome that we have decided that we will deliver. We are satisfied that, at the end of this year, we will be delivering on a small number of outcomes and on the specific commitments that we agreed to in signing the concordat.
Is it unfair of the committee to ask about the basis on which you are satisfied that you have sufficient resources? ADES said that it is not satisfied with the resources that are available, but you are saying that you are satisfied with them, although you have provided no evidence on the matter. What figures do you have?
We have negotiated a pot of money, and councils can make progress with that.
How much will it cost to implement the policy?
It will be implemented through demographic changes. It is not expected that councils will invest in the school estate unless they choose to do so.
Are there any costs associated with implementing the policy?
We seem to be going round and round in circles. My understanding is that ADES gave the figure of £360 million thinking that we would build extensions to schools and new schools to reduce class sizes immediately. However, it later agreed that that had not been agreed to in the concordat.
Nobody is suggesting that local authorities cannot use their allocation as they see fit; I am asking how much the policy will cost. The Government and the Parliament must scrutinise expenditure on education, and ADES has given us a figure for that. If you are saying that that figure is wrong, there is an absolute duty on COSLA to provide us with alternative figures to back up your assumptions.
I think we have already answered the question.
With respect, you have not answered the question.
ADES has said that the figure that it has come up with is what it would cost to reduce class sizes overnight. That is not what has been agreed within the concordat. I really do not think that I can answer the question in further detail.
Can you produce a figure for the delivery of class sizes being reduced, but not overnight? Can you produce any figure for the reduction of class sizes over any period at all?
I think we have already answered the question.
Do you have any figure for it at all?
As we have said, those negotiations were part of an overall negotiation for the local government settlement as a whole. We have explained the basis on which we arrived at that settlement and on which we will report back. I do not think that Councillor Hutton can comment on individual inputs, as the agreement with the Scottish Government was not arrived at on the basis of inputs. That is our position. You may not agree with it, but we have stated our position.
Can you confirm that local authorities overall received an increase in their budgets of around 12.9 per cent this year—the biggest increase for a number of years—and that, if local authorities have decided not to direct money towards the reduction of class sizes, that has been their choice?
Yes.
Yes. That relates to what I have just said. Local authorities themselves will decide how to use their allocation of funding.
So, local authorities got an increase in their budgets of around 13 per cent and certain local authorities have chosen not to direct that money towards the reduction of class sizes.
Yes.
Yes.
As we heard before from COSLA, those local authorities should not be criticised for not having done so.
We have agreed that we will make progress within the period of the concordat—that is all we have agreed to.
So, there is no estimate of when the policy will be delivered in all schools in Scotland.
I think that we have answered the same question in different guises. COSLA has agreed, in the concordat, that local government across the piece will move towards class size reduction. Each local authority will decide how it will use its resources to do that.
My question pertains to COSLA's ability to negotiate with the Scottish Government on the basis of how much local government will invest in its own area. It is also pertinent to Ken Macintosh's previous question. Let us take West Lothian as an example. Has West Lothian Council calculated what is required to deliver the policy of class size reductions in all schools in its area?
I do not have any figures in front of me. If I had known that the committee wanted such specific information, I could have brought it. It is up to each local authority to decide how it will use its resources to reduce class sizes.
It is just that, when £40 million was delivered by the Government to contribute to the reduction of class sizes, of which West Lothian Council received £2.329 million, the information that was provided under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 identified certain schools that the council said were to have an additional class base or extensions to accommodation to assist with CSR. I wonder whether West Lothian Council has calculated what is required to implement the policy in all its schools. Has COSLA asked for or received information about that, and is COSLA monitoring whether local authorities have estimated budgets for what will be required?
We have said that we have agreed with the Government to meet 15 national outcomes and a set of specific manifesto commitments. There are two separate lines of reporting for those and we are confident that, at the end of the year, we will be able to show that we are contributing towards those outcomes and the commitments that we have negotiated and agreed on behalf of local government within the package of available resources. I have already explained that, as part of that approach, we are not focusing or reporting back on inputs. We will report to the Government on outcomes. I am not sure what more we can say.
The question was this: is COSLA monitoring the situation overall and is COSLA monitoring the budgets that are being set by local authorities for class size reduction? On 5 December, Jon Harris from COSLA told the committee that
We have explained that we will have to produce a single report at the end of the year to evidence whether we have achieved the commitments in our agreement with the Government or what progress we have made towards achieving them. As I have explained, part of the process will involve a debate with our members, through Councillor Hutton's executive group, on what information we will need in order to provide that report.
What information will that be?
That discussion is on-going between us and the Government. We will provide evidence that satisfies ourselves and the Cabinet, with which we reached the agreement.
COSLA told the committee on 5 December:
Our report will be made to the Government at the end of the year. We will discuss with the Government what it requires from that report and what we think it is fair to include, and we will submit the report at the end of the year. I do not feel, at this stage, that I need to go into the details of a report that we will make to the Government at the end of the year.
I was not asking about what will be in the report; I was asking about the information that you will ask of councils. We know, for example, that COSLA is collating evidence from all councils on the education budget because the briefing that you sent to research assistants and communications officers of the parties before the debate in the Parliament last week said, on education budgets, that
I am not disagreeing that we will have to produce the report at the end of the year and that, as part of that work, there is a dialogue to be had with our members about what evidence is appropriate and with ministers about the evidence that they need. That dialogue is on-going, and that is really all that we have to say at this point.
So you will be able to tell the committee what information you are asking of local authorities on the class size reduction policy.
I have answered the question and have no more to say about that.
I am asking whether, when you reach agreement with councils about the information that you will ask of them, you will tell the committee what that is.
Barbara Lindsay has answered the question. It has been asked in several guises, and she has answered it. That information will be forthcoming when we have had discussions both with the Scottish Government and within COSLA and its education committee. That committee is made up of members of all political hues, and everyone can say what they think is appropriate to include in the report.
What impact will smaller class sizes have on, for example, placing requests and school design?
ADES raised the issue of placing requests, which are another factor that councils must take into account. When Murdo Maciver gave evidence to the committee, he provided members with information on the issue. We are in regular contact with ADES. If reducing class sizes is having an impact on placing requests, we can try to address the issue, of which we are aware.
It goes back to the point that I made earlier. When local authorities make decisions about class size reductions in their areas, they must take into account the school estate, pupil placement requests and so on.
You have indicated that you have a positive relationship with each council and that, when councils face barriers, they bring their problems to you and you work through them proactively, in agreement.
We try to have a constructive dialogue. Although we aspire to reduce class sizes, local authorities must also manage their other statutory priorities. The arrangement allows local authorities to operate flexibly.
We have heard about placing requests and school design. Have any other issues of note that might restrict local authorities' ability to reduce class sizes or to make year-on-year progress towards that goal come to your attention?
There are issues that vary at local level, but the main factor that will govern progress towards meeting the target is school rolls.
On which areas apart from class sizes would you like to focus to improve educational attainment?
I am not an educational expert, so I leave it to our advisers in ADES to recommend such measures. It is entirely appropriate for councils, which know what is best for their areas, to identify measures that might or might not improve educational attainment at local level and, more broadly, develop the four capacities that are specified in the curriculum for excellence.
Have lessons been learned from the previous Administration's attempts to reduce class sizes in secondary 1 and 2 maths and English?
We have learned that there is a need for flexibility and that any policy on class size reduction must be implemented flexibly, to give schools and local authorities the ability to adapt to local circumstances.
Have councils responded well to having such flexibility?
I would say so.
I return to the issue of placing requests. Is COSLA offering councillors who are members of appeals panels advice on how they should respond to such requests?
Because pupil placement requests are covered by legislation, guidance on the issue is issued by the Government. COSLA does not issue guidance on pupil placement requests.
How would you expect the appeals panel to deal with the case of a parent who tried to secure a place in a school and was told that they could not have one because the school wished to keep class sizes at 18?
Pupil placement is covered by legislation, which supersedes the commitment to reduce class sizes to 18.
We are working on the issue with ADES. There are cases that have gone either way, so we need to monitor the situation to see whether any issues that we need to be aware of arise, and to include them in our discussions with the Government. That is all that we can say on the matter at the moment.
There is no legislation that states that a class should have no more than 18 pupils—that is a policy decision by local authorities or someone from above. Do you expect parents to have to pursue their situation through the courts before they get a satisfactory decision?
Again, my understanding is that the situation has been variable and that, in their interpretations, sheriffs have gone both ways. They have cited council policy as a legitimate reason for turning down a placement request, but they have also gone the other way. A definite issue is involved, and we need to keep an eye on it.
Do you have a view on whether schools should use that mechanism to reduce class sizes?
Those are local decisions that local authorities have to take.
I turn to the slightly different issue of composite classes. Clearly, the aim is to reduce class sizes to 18. Does COSLA have a view on what size composite classes should be?
Again, those are local issues. We do not prescribe to councils how they should do things. It is entirely right for councils to look at what works locally, including whether a composite class works in certain circumstances, and to pursue it.
The EIS, for example, has suggested in its petition that a maximum of 15 pupils should be set for composite classes. Does that suggestion seem reasonable?
We do not necessarily support what the EIS said in its petition on maximum class sizes of 20 or 15. As I said earlier, flexibility is the key factor in delivering what is appropriate locally. Schools and local authorities are best placed to take those decisions.
In your submission, you seem to say that COSLA does not support the EIS petition. However, given your evidence this morning, you seem to be more supportive of the EIS position—which is one of flexibility—than you are of class sizes being reduced to 18. That is interesting to note. At some stage, we might need to decide which policy we support.
I return to the issue of delivery and how demographic change can bring about the policy of reducing class sizes.
There is no guidance; it is entirely down to councils to make the decisions that seem appropriate. The councils are the employers; they know how to deploy their staff and how best to allocate resources to deliver better outcomes. Class size reduction is a matter for councils.
The concordat talks of specific measures
I am sorry, but I did not catch what you said.
The concordat says that there are specific measures
What are you quoting from? I missed the first sentence.
Where does it say that in the concordat?
If you have it in front of you, you will be able to help me out.
I am not entirely sure what the cabinet secretary was referring to in that instance. Councils have the pot of money that can be invested in class size reduction as per the concordat. Teacher numbers will be broadly maintained. As we have told the committee, we will look at how teacher numbers are monitored. I can only assume that that is what the cabinet secretary was referring to.
It is difficult when we do not have the quotation in front of us. My apologies.
No—that is fair, councillor.
The opportunities are falling school rolls.
Yes, that is how I read it, from what you have said, although not having the text in front of us makes it difficult.
Reductions can be brought about only if teacher levels are retained. Traditionally, falling school rolls allow headteachers to free up resource, which the local authority will put into parts of its area where there are increasing school rolls. What if no mechanisms are in place—in my constituency, for example, or in any region where there are schools with falling rolls but other places where, because of the demographics, there is increasing pressure on school rolls—to ensure that the number of teachers in the schools with falling rolls is preserved, thereby bringing about the reduction in class sizes?
As Robert Nicol pointed out, it is up to each local authority to decide whether to retain teachers to help—to act as another mechanism—to reduce class sizes.
COSLA's position was to negotiate on the basis of demographic change, but there has been no difference in this year's approach compared with that of last year or the year before regarding how local authorities operate if there are demographic changes in their areas. No guidance has been issued. There is no policy position from COSLA. Local authorities are operating in exactly the same way as before.
As we have said, we will make progress from this year onwards. Authorities know best how to deploy staff. They know what the policy is. I do not think that more guidance would be particularly helpful.
If there are demographic changes within a local authority area, there is an expectation upon the director of education and headteachers that lower class sizes will be brought about. However, there is no mechanism—either guidance or policy—to retain teachers where the demographics are falling in order to bring down class sizes. Just keeping your fingers crossed is not a policy position.
The mechanism is that local authorities are the employer, and they know how to manage their staff.
But COSLA negotiated that driver for achieving the policy in the concordat.
I think that we have been clear that we negotiated, across local government, a move to class sizes of 18 as quickly as possible. Robert Nicol has made it clear that individual local authorities will use a range of options at their disposal to try to get there. I endorse Robert's point; I am not sure what else you are looking for from us.
A lot of things, actually. One of them would be COSLA's definition of "as quickly as possible".
I think that we have already—
We have never had that.
We have answered that—it will be across the piece. The concordat says:
I add that that is far from being a fingers-crossed approach, as I think we have made clear. We are in active dialogue with our own membership and with the Scottish Government, and we are confident that, at the end of the year, we will be able to produce a report that shows progress towards the commitments.
So you are not in a position to say what you will regard as progress. Would an overall reduction by 1 percentage point satisfy the requirement?
We have already said—
Would you tell the Government that such a reduction satisfied delivery of COSLA's side of the commitment? Have you discussed that with the Government?
We have clearly explained what we are—
Have you discussed with the Government what would satisfy delivery of your side of the concordat after the first year?
As Barbara Lindsay said, we are currently discussing with the Government the basis and detail of the report.
Is COSLA favourable to publishing the criteria against which it will judge whether progress is being made before a statement is made with the Government that it is publishing the report that demonstrates progress? The genuine question is how progress can be monitored objectively. For objective monitoring, the criteria against which we can judge whether the requirements in the concordat are being met must be published.
I accept absolutely your point. All that I can say is that we have agreed to report to the Government. We can discuss with the Government how widely that report should be circulated. It is clear that MSPs have a legitimate interest in that, but I cannot say today what agreement we will reach with the Government. I am happy to take your points on board.
I hope that we will return to the committee to share information when we have the finer details. It is difficult to give answers on specifics now, because they are still being negotiated. When we have the details, we will be happy to give evidence on them to the committee.
That concludes the committee's questions. The committee welcomes Councillor Hutton's assurance that you are happy to return to the committee when you have completed your negotiations with the Scottish Government. Thank you for your attendance.
Meeting continued in private until 12:18.
Previous
Subordinate Legislation