Petition
Schools (Class Sizes) (PE1046)
Agenda item 2 is the committee's continued consideration of petition PE1046, from the Educational Institute of Scotland, on class sizes.
I am delighted to welcome Fiona Hyslop, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning. She has been joined today by Michael Kellet, who is the deputy director of the teachers division in the Scottish Government. I understand that the minister has a short opening statement.
Since I last appeared before you to discuss the EIS petition on 19 December last year, you have taken evidence on the petition from a number of organisations, and I have read the Official Reports of your meetings with interest.
The EIS naturally put up a strong defence of its policy of across-the-board class size reduction, but support for the principle of class size reduction also came from the headteachers associations and the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, so it appears that there is a degree of consensus on class size reduction among education professionals. Let us not forget that around 80,000 people signed the EIS petition, which calls for
"significant reductions in class sizes".
However, that is not to say that the support from education professionals or from the signatories to the petition extends to the EIS's ultimate goal—which David Drever of the EIS set out to you in his evidence on 21 May—of reducing the size of all classes from primary 1 to secondary 6 to a maximum of 20.
That general support is hardly surprising. We know that smaller class sizes can lead to more sustained interaction between teachers and pupils, more higher-order questioning and more feedback on work, and to teachers spending less time on routine supervision, classroom control and housekeeping. Other developments, such as formative assessment, assessment is for learning and more group work in classes, will also benefit from smaller class sizes.
As we all appreciate, poverty and deprivation can have an impact on life chances and educational achievement from the earliest years, and there is a convincing body of research evidence that supports smaller class sizes in the early years, especially for children from deprived backgrounds. The student teacher achievement ratio—STAR—project and, more recently, the class size and pupil ratio project in England provide evidence in support of that policy.
I understand the EIS's long-term goals and the reasons behind them, but a start needs to be made somewhere. The EIS recognised that in its evidence to the committee. The evidence points to a start in the early years, which is why our focus is on class size reduction in those years and why we think that deprived areas should be targeted first.
Our manifesto commitment was to reduce the size of P1 to P3 classes to a maximum of 18, and we are honouring that by embedding it in the concordat that we signed with local government on 14 November last year. Our reasons for doing so are simple: we want to work with local government to drive down class sizes in the early years, when literacy and numeracy are embedded most effectively in young people. There is also evidence that early intervention to deal with problems prevents later problems such as violence, ill health or children not achieving their full potential. Local government has agreed to deliver year-on-year progress on that objective, and I will do all I can to help local authorities contribute towards it.
Thank you very much for that statement. I am sure that committee members have a number of questions that they would like to pursue with you this morning.
You said that there is a "convincing body" of evidence on the policy of class size reduction. Will you tell the committee a little bit more about the academic research that the Government has used to inform its decision on reducing class sizes, particularly in P1 to P3?
The STAR project is the definitive research. It is considered the gold standard for research into class size policy and certainly indicates that the best results from class size reductions are found among pupils from deprived areas. The more recent research in England on class size and pupil ratios also has an impact. There are also issues around sustainability.
The committee has heard from Valerie Wilson. Hers was desk research—an academic review of other people's work—but her assessment also considers current developments in school and curriculum reform in Scotland. The committee has spent a great deal of time considering the petition and the Government's proposals but, as much as class sizes are important, there is a range of other issues that have an important impact on young people's educational achievement and attainment.
In her evidence to you, Valerie Wilson made a point that is central to our proposals. In answer to a question from, I think, Rob Gibson, she said:
"We are now asking teachers to implement a new curriculum, which starts from a completely different philosophy. It would be easier to do that with smaller numbers in the class. We are also asking teachers to cope with a wide range of abilities and needs. It does not seem to make that much difference whether you put in a classroom assistant or classroom aid to help the teacher; the quality time is the time that is spent with the teacher. Anything that you can do to allow pupils to have more dedicated teacher-pupil engagement will be an improvement and will ultimately lead to improved attainment. The evidence of research is that that will probably be necessary. However, it will not be sufficient in itself, because other things will also need to happen."—[Official Report, Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, 21 May 2008; c 1075.]
Although class sizes are important, we should view them in the context of other matters that Valerie Wilson covered in her desk research and analysis and on which she gave evidence. It is important to bear that point in mind.
However, the primary evidence for the original proposals comes from the STAR project, which showed that class size reduction has the biggest impact in the early years and in deprived areas.
As you know, the EIS's petition is about class sizes not only in P1 to P3 but throughout a pupil's school life. Will you tell us a little bit more about the Government's policy on class sizes throughout school?
We have some sympathy with the EIS's proposals but, as I said in my opening remarks, the biggest impact will come from tackling class sizes in the early years, which is where the initial focus must be. Everybody recognises that it would be desirable to have smaller classes, but we have to deal with the resources that we have and our current circumstances.
The previous Government's proposal, which was supported by guidance, was to reduce class sizes in S1 and S2 to 20 in mathematics and English. However, the latest figures show that, after four years of that policy, only 67 per cent of pupils were in classes of 20 for maths in S1 and S2. There is still a challenge to realise that aim, even though it was four years in development. Numbers in classes for technical subjects are limited, but, obviously, we want to move forward.
I want to make a point that might explain our approach to reductions in class sizes. Projections by the General Register Office for Scotland on 5 February this year show a 6.3 per cent reduction in pupil numbers in secondary schools, so there will automatically be a reduction in class sizes. In its settlement with local government, the Government has ensured that there will be sufficient resources to maintain teacher numbers at 53,000. Had we not done so, I suspect that local authorities would have reduced teacher numbers in secondary schools because of falling pupil rolls.
In certain areas, pupil rolls have reduced substantially. For example, Dundee is down 6.4 per cent, Glasgow is down 8.9 per cent and Inverclyde is down 11 per cent. North Lanarkshire has one of the lowest reductions, at 3.4 per cent. In Renfrewshire, the figure is 7.9 per cent. If the Government had maintained the status quo, local authorities would have been able to reduce the number of teachers in secondary schools. However, we have provided resources to allow teacher numbers to be maintained at 53,000.
Local government might decide to maintain teacher numbers in secondary schools, or to put resources into primary schools to reduce class sizes, which is our preference. Because of falling rolls in secondary schools, there will be scope over the coming years for class sizes in secondary schools to reduce anyway. However, there will be challenges, and committee members may have heard colleagues pointing out in the chamber that class sizes tend to be smallest in S5 and S6 for pupils doing the most advanced qualifications. Educationists might argue that pupils in the earlier years of secondary have more need of time and attention.
It is an attractive idea to allow headteachers flexibility in determining what they do in secondary schools. However, the EIS made a good point to the committee when it asked how localised our standards could be and whether people could expect class sizes to be standardised across the country. Like previous Governments, this Government has had to wrestle with such questions. I am sure that the committee will have views to offer.
I am sure that we will discuss teacher numbers later, but I am keen to continue discussing the Government's policy on class sizes.
Does the Government remain committed to having class sizes of no more than 20 for S1 and S2 in maths and English, with some flexibility for headteachers?
Originally, the previous Government intended a reduction to an absolute class size of 20. The target was then changed to an average class size of 20. I know of some schools where the headteachers want to have 30 pupils in one maths class but 10 in another, in order to concentrate resources on those 10 pupils. The previous Government made that change, saying that the figure was not an absolute figure but an average figure.
The guidance on the reduction to 20 still stands. The 2007 circular to local authorities on class sizes for S1 and S2 in maths and English indicated that there should be an average of 20 in each subject and in each year group. The guidance and proposals in that circular are being maintained by this Government.
Is it this Government's hope that S1 and S2 English and maths classes throughout Scotland will have an average of 20 pupils?
We continue to support the guidance that was issued by the previous Government. However, I emphasise that it is guidance, not regulation by statute.
Why, then, do I read in the Official Report of chamber business on 19 June that Maureen Watt said that it was a matter for local authorities? Is it a matter for local authorities or a matter for guidance?
It is a matter for local authorities, informed by Government guidance. However, guidance is not regulation.
Okay. Your manifesto commitment was to reduce class sizes to 18 in P1 to P3. How will you define progress and monitor whether it has been made in reducing class sizes?
As you know, the class size commitment has now been embedded in the Government's concordat with local government. It might be useful to repeat on the record that agreement with local government.
One of the commitments in the concordat is to improve
"the learning experience for children and young people by improving the fabric of schools and nurseries; developing and delivering A Curriculum for Excellence; and, as quickly as is possible, reducing class sizes in P1 to P3 to a maximum of 18 and improving early years provision with access to a teacher for every pre-school child. The provision of additional capital allocation and specific arrangements for local authorities to maintain teacher numbers in the face of falling school rolls will allow significant progress on this policy over the Spending Review period. Taking into account retirals, the capacity of the universities to train new teachers, changing demographic trends, and the different circumstances across authorities including accommodation pressures, it is recognised that the pace of implementation of class size reduction will vary across authorities depending on local circumstances and needs. Local government will be expected to show year on year progress toward delivery of the class size reduction policy."
Your question was about evidence of progress, as agreed in the concordat with local government. We have arrangements and agreements with local government as a whole to deliver the class size reduction policy, and part of our on-going discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities is about how we will monitor that progress.
I do not want simply to echo the points that I made on 19 December, but in previous years the Parliament could monitor progress in class size reduction only after the publication of the school census material. The census tends to take place in September, but it is not reported on until February the following year. Therefore, for example, the Parliament could hold the previous Government to account on its commitment to class size reduction in P1 to 25 and in S1 and S2 to 20 only in February this year—almost a year after it had demitted office.
That system is not acceptable, and we want to find a better way of reporting progress. Progress will be reported by COSLA to national Government, and we have agreed that COSLA will provide information to us in September following the development of local government plans. As members will know, we are in the middle of class size preparation and class constructions for next year. COSLA will collate the information and report to national Government on progress.
The agreement in the concordat is for significant progess to be made. I am pleased to see that progress is being made, and we think that the resources are available to enable significant progress to be made, but at this stage I cannot report what progress will be made. However, we will try to put in place mechanisms that mean that, instead of having to wait until the February after the September census, we will know the situation several months earlier.
The difference in approach is that, whereas class size reductions in S1 and S2 English and maths were governed by guidance to which local authorities referred, the policy on P1, P2 and P3 class sizes is determined by the concordat.
Yes—that is part of our new relationship with local government. Much of what we do, not just in education, is done in agreement with local government rather than by micromanaging or dictating. That is the change to the relationship.
So no guidance will be governed by the single outcome agreements or the concordat.
Not at this stage.
Does the Government have a clear picture of how many P1, P2 and P3 classes are currently at 18 and therefore meeting the target?
Currently, the figure is 12 per cent—that figure was released in February and comes from last September's census. I think that the figure was 11 per cent the year before.
You are keen for local authorities to make progress on increasing that figure as soon as practicable. How will you determine whether a local authority has made progress? Will an increase of 1 or 2 per cent be progress, or will it have to be more than that?
As per the concordat, we will judge whether there has been significant progress by local government as a whole. It will be for COSLA to determine whether each individual authority is making significant progress to enable local government as a whole to meet its side of the agreement under the concordat.
So local government will decide whether progress is being made. The Government has a policy, but it is not able to ensure that local authorities meet that policy.
We have an agreement with local government. Under that agreement, COSLA will monitor the progress that is made by individual local authorities. As a national Government, we will determine whether we think that significant progress is being made across Scotland as a whole in order to meet the agreement that is set out in the concordat.
Without guidance and without any determination to make the commitment a reality, the Government might be accused, if one is being kind, of paying lip service to the policy or, if one is being unkind, of an unforgivable breach of a promise.
It is interesting that, for three years, the previous Government pursued a policy of class size reduction in P1 and in S1 and S2 without guidance. The circular was produced only in 2007, so for three years the process of reducing class sizes took place based on policy intent, which was supported by guidance at a later stage.
However, you are right to identify the changed relationship that we have with local government. Yes, it is a big test and challenge for local authorities to ensure that, within the resources that they are given, they deliver on that part of the commitment, which is contained in the concordat. That is very much part and parcel of that changed relationship.
We expect local government to deliver on a range of issues and we are now in the process of signing single outcome agreements. The challenge to local government is to deliver on the Government's national indicators and to ensure that they produce change and improvement in the local area. We are in a very different landscape of relationships between national Government and local government in which class sizes is only one issue.
Over a range of issues, local government has been given far greater freedom—which you might criticise—and, clearly, that freedom to deliver is being picked up with relish by many local authorities. The ending of ring fencing provides local authorities with great opportunities to pursue different policies on children's issues including, certainly in South Lanarkshire, class size reductions.
The change in the relationship has been welcomed with open arms by local government. Trust and mutual respect are part of the concordat, so we need to deliver policies in partnership. The arena that we are in is quite different from the one that the previous Government was in. Some people might not agree with it or like it, but that is the new position that we are in. Most people of good will believe that that change will be progressive for Scotland as a whole.
I do not disagree that we have a new landscape and that there are major differences between the current Government and the previous Government, especially on the issue of reducing class sizes.
Councillor Isabel Hutton, who is COSLA’s education spokesperson, told the committee:
"We have not agreed in the concordat to reduce … P1 to P3 class sizes".—[Official Report, Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, 5 December 2007; c 413.]
The previous Government put in place the resources and guidance to reduce class sizes in S1 and S2 in English and maths. At that point—on 17 August 2005—you said:
"Cutting class sizes was a laudable pledge but making it knowing that you would fail is unforgivable."
What is different between August 2005 and now? You have a policy pledge that commits the Government to reducing class sizes but you have neither the means nor the mechanism to make it happen.
We certainly have the means and the mechanism. We are giving local government an increasing share of the £34.9 billion national budget. We are investing £3 billion in capital for local government—£115 million extra in this year alone—which can be used for education.
The budget for education and young people constitutes just under 50 per cent of local government's total spend, and the local government settlement recognises the importance of a whole range of issues that are contained in the concordat, of which class sizes is one.
I, too, will quote Councillor Isabel Hutton’s evidence:
"What we have said is that local government, over the piece, will reduce class sizes".—[Official Report, Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, 18 June 2008; c 1236.]
A number of leading councillors have agreed, as part of the concordat, that local government will deliver smaller class sizes over the period of the settlement and will make year-on-year progress on that. For the record, Councillor Pat Watters, Councillor Neil Fletcher, Councillor Alex MacDonald, Councillor Corrie McChord and Councillor Rob Murray were the signatories to the concordat.
But there is no definition in the concordat of what will constitute progress, no definition of how much progress will be made and no definition of how much the policy will cost. COSLA told us last week that it has no idea how much it will cost. It also said that the evidence of ADES to the committee was not relevant because the policy was not going to be implemented. So, my final question to you, for the moment, is this: will the Government fulfil its manifesto pledge to ensure that all P1 to P3 class sizes are reduced to 18 in the lifetime of the Parliament, as Alex Salmond, the First Minister, stated in September?
We will deliver the proposals that have been put forward and agreed with local government in the concordat, which will take forward our manifesto commitment to reduce class sizes in P1 to P3 to 18. I am pleased that, throughout the country, local government is taking forward that policy and will, as of this summer, deliver smaller class sizes. At the end of the day, this is not about a political spat between different parties; it is about the education of young people. Most people in this country think that the Scottish National Party Government is doing the right thing in reducing class sizes. They also agree that we are right to focus on the early years—indeed, most educationists think that that is the right thing to do.
I am pleased that North Lanarkshire Council, which is in your constituency, has chosen, as of this summer, to reduce the size of all P1 classes to a maximum of 23 in 2008-09. The council has a strong education budget, which has been increased by 5.5 per cent. We are seeing progress in North Lanarkshire on the reduction in class sizes, which I think is to be welcomed.
Resources are also being made available to maintain teacher numbers at 53,000, which will involve the training of 20,000 new teachers by 2011. Bearing in mind the fact that our current cohort is 53,000 and the fact that we need to train 20,000 new teachers to replace those who are retiring, a considerable investment is required from the Government to ensure that we maintain teacher numbers and, with falling school rolls, deliver smaller class sizes. That is happening throughout the country.
My mail bag contains letters from a number of constituents who are not happy about the council's policy of setting a maximum class size of 23 pupils for P1 classes, resulting in a number of primary schools in my constituency—never mind throughout North Lanarkshire—having composite classes for the first time. Some parents are particularly unhappy about that and about the fact that the resources are not being made available to have dedicated teachers and smaller class sizes, as was promised by the SNP Government. However, that is a matter to which, I am sure, we will return.
Let us return to the issue of demographics. When we asked the EIS about that, we were told that the concordat says that demographics will be a key driver for the reduction in class sizes. You, too, cabinet secretary, have indicated that that will be a key area. How will that operate in practice? The Government has said that it will maintain teacher numbers at 53,000. Historically, local authorities have made an adjustment every year to the figures for their areas on the basis of school rolls. For example, an area such as the Borders, which has increasing school rolls, will receive additional resource to cover that, whereas an area in which the school rolls are falling will receive less resource through grant-aided expenditure. Will that situation change?
When we put £34.9 billion into the overall local government settlement, we ensured that sufficient resources were available to maintain teacher numbers. We also ensured that there was recognition, through resources, for areas with increasing populations—although we should perhaps call them areas with populations that are not decreasing.
The General Register Office for Scotland produces census information, and the February data on the Government's website show that a fall of 1.9 per cent in primary school rolls and of 5.4 per cent in secondary school rolls is expected in the Scottish Borders up to 2010.
We have to ensure that places such as the Borders can maintain teacher numbers. Every year, 6,000 teachers retire, and that number will grow over the next few years. We need local authorities to use their existing budgets to replace those teachers. However, they might not replace the teachers at secondary level, because in some areas secondary rolls are falling faster than primary rolls—the Scottish Borders is a good example of that. There has to be provision for secondary subjects, but local authorities will have headroom and leeway to employ primary teachers in order to take account of the different rates at which the rolls are falling.
Capacity is also an issue. In the Borders and other rural areas, there are some very small schools with tiny rolls. In the Borders, five schools have a roll that is under 50 per cent of the school's capacity, and 31 schools have a roll that is under 75 per cent of the school's capacity. Not being at capacity allows leeway and allows schools to start to make progress.
It is up to local authorities to deliver their local policies. Local authorities are accountable to their electorate and they will want to demonstrate improvements in the attainment of their electorate's children. It will be up to local authorities to work with COSLA to deliver their part of the agreement in the concordat.
An issue arises to do with the number of teachers in primary and secondary schools, which committee members might come on to.
The local government settlement covers the spending review period, but there can be year-on-year adjustments to take account of the different demographics of each local authority. If there are fewer pupils, fewer teachers will be required, and budget adjustments can be made accordingly. However, no mechanism exists to allow correlation between the number of teachers required and the type of teachers available. For example, to reduce primary class sizes, X teachers might be needed. The local authority might have X teachers available overall, but they might be higher maths teachers rather than P1, P2 or P3 teachers.
In areas where the rolls are decreasing faster than elsewhere, the demographics will influence the level of the local government settlement. We can see differences between the east and the west. In the west, the general population is falling, but the pattern in the east is different. In the west, falling school rolls have meant increased capacity, which can allow local authorities to make certain decisions. If a secondary school teacher retires, the local authority might replace that teacher directly, or it might decide that it had headroom to do something else. Some secondary school rolls will reduce by 10 per cent over the next few years, so we do not necessarily expect the number of secondary school teachers to be maintained. Directors of education might decide to deploy teachers in the early years. Many local authorities will be doing that from this summer.
You have already said that you are not satisfied with the fact that only 67 per cent of S1 and S2 pupils are in classes of 20, and that there is a lot of progress to be made. You want secondary schools to retain the lower class sizes, which they do by retaining staffing levels while rolls are falling. That is how it works. If teachers are retiring, local authorities cannot free up resource from the secondary schools and put it into the primary schools. The Government has not set up any mechanism, either through guidance or through legislation, to enforce its approach. The Government is saying that it would like something to happen, but it is not putting in place any specific measures to ensure that it happens. There is no formal mechanism for delivering the P1 to P3 class size reduction, even in areas where school rolls are falling. You said that the 67 per cent level in secondary schools is not good enough.
You are putting words into my mouth. I reported that the experience, as of February this year, is that 67 per cent of S1 and S2 maths classes contain 20 pupils.
You said that there is still a lot of progress to be made.
Yes, if the target that was set is to be achieved. Local government can determine whether it wants to put the resources into achieving that. Despite the circular that was issued in 2007, local councils have not delivered on the S1 and S2 class size reduction to 20.
Of course there are judgments to be made and balances to be struck. The subject of this evidence session is the EIS petition, and we have to judge whether we should be putting teacher resources into reducing class sizes in the early years or in the later years. The Blatchford study in England shows that it is questionable whether simply reducing P1 class sizes makes an impact. That research shows that a sustained impact is important, so reducing class sizes in P1 to P3 is more likely to have a sustained effect.
The previous Government's target of reducing P1 class sizes to 25 has, by and large, been met, although it is not 100 per cent. Will that have sufficient impact, or should the resources have been put into achieving the target for S1 and S2 English and maths class sizes? If you look at our proposals for the number of teachers who are coming through, you will see that English and maths are still the two biggest subject areas that need to be resourced and that continue to see a number of teachers coming through. Local authorities—they are the education authorities—will have to decide whether to continue that.
I have two final questions on demographics, which is important and pertinent to how to bring about the reduction in class sizes. If I heard you right, you just said that the S1 and S2 maths class target was, by and large, met, although not quite 100 per cent.
No, it was the P1 target. The S1 and S2 maths class figure is 67 per cent. I cannot recall it, but the figure for English is better—I think that it is around 80 per cent.
Is it the Government's policy that the S1 class size target for maths and English will be met 100 per cent?
We expect the guidance to be adhered to.
Okay, so it is 100 per cent.
In your statement to Parliament, you were quite specific about population projections and the teachers required. You stated that the population projections are such that
"an additional 450 primary teachers by 2011 and 2,100 primary teachers by 2020 will be required simply to meet those demographic demands."—[Official Report, 5 December 2007; c 4070.]
The Government is being specific about the level of teaching—either primary or secondary—and about what it will fund to meet those changes, but it is also saying that it is up to local authorities to determine what jobs will be available. There will be serious consequences if that is out of kilter. If the Government's policy is to shift the emphasis from secondary to primary in order to bring down primary class sizes, but still to retain, recruit, train and fund places for both primary and secondary teachers, as it has stated to Parliament that it is doing, that is a significant problem waiting to happen.
Not necessarily. I am glad that you appreciate that we have specific proposals for what we are resourcing.
It is important that I set the record straight: 63 per cent of S1 and S2 pupils are in maths classes of 20 or fewer pupils, and the comparable figure for English classes is 79 per cent.
Workforce planning is a critical area. Mr Purvis will know that I announced in Parliament, in answer to a question, that I have set up a teacher workforce planning review group—a short-life task force, chaired by COSLA—to look at the issue. Mr Purvis is right that there are issues around the huge number of permutations, which is why it is acknowledged in the concordat that the situation is not simple.
Mr Purvis referred to the inputs into teacher recruitment and teacher training institutions. It is essential that we maintain the quality of teachers. We have taken advice on headroom figures from colleges and higher education institutions, and specifically on what they think is an acceptable number that would allow teacher quality to be maintained.
Mr Purvis is right that we must look at how all that pans out in the round, because there is a variety of different influences. We must recognise that, out of a total number of 53,000 teachers, 6,000 will retire this year and more than 6,000 will retire in each of the next two years, with a replacement level of 20,000 teachers coming in. Mr Purvis is right that there is scope for considering what the balance should be to ensure that secondaries have the provision that they need. However, we should bear it in mind that the projection for Scotland as a whole is for a 6.3 per cent reduction in the secondary school population over the next few years. We must marry that permutation with ensuring that we have enough primary teachers coming through to meet the class size reduction policy.
We should acknowledge that people can come into primary teaching through different routes. I do not know whether the committee will want to look at that area at some point. One route is the one-year postgraduate course, but we also have the four-year BEd course. One of the things that we have done is change the balance. Because of the previous Government's emphasis on having more people go into the one-year postgraduate course, we think that the balance is out of kilter. We are investing more in the four-year BEd, but the results of that will take some time to come through. However, we think that it is important to do that. We are also considering expanding the two-plus-two provision whereby primary teachers training under the four-year BEd can do two years of education but also have a parallel subject area. That provision is increasingly important for science and other subjects.
We also acknowledge that there are demographic pressures. Aberdeen is a good example of demographic pressures creating challenges, in particular for Aberdeenshire, in retaining and recruiting probationers. I am pleased that Aberdeenshire is taking 150. We have increased the number of teaching training places in Aberdeen to ensure that there are no pressures on vacancies in the north-east.
There is a load of different permutations, and I concur with the view that it is difficult to navigate through them. I am not completely satisfied with the workforce planning system that I inherited, which is why I have asked COSLA to convene the short-life working group, which will also involve the General Teaching Council for Scotland and the unions, to ensure that we have a robust system in place as we go forward. With 6,000 teachers retiring each year, and 20,000 new teachers in training, we must have a fine-tuned machine for deploying people to subject areas and to secondary and primary schools, while taking into account our pledges on class size reduction. I am not convinced that what I have inherited is as robust as I would like, which is why I have set up the working group.
Does the Government know how many teachers would be required if every primary school in Scotland had a maximum class size of 18 in P1 to P3?
It would not make sense to give an absolute number because we are not doing what Mr Purvis described immediately; we are doing it over the piece.
Does the Government know how much—
We know that, if we maintain teacher numbers at 53,000, that will be sufficient to ensure that those coming through teacher training institutions are of the quality that we require; to allow us to deploy them in areas that have the capacity to move more quickly on class size reduction; and to enable us to do that in a manageable way, bearing in mind the number of retirals that are coming through. However, much of that comes down to the will of local authorities to do it. Even an area such as West Lothian, with population pressures that are similar to those in the Borders, is making significant progress this year.
I would like to ask another question on teacher numbers, but I know that other members want to come in.
I was going to offer a helpful reminder to committee members and to the cabinet secretary. I know that members have lots of questions, and I appreciate that the cabinet secretary wants to impart as much information as possible. It would be helpful if both the questions and the answers remain focused, as we will cover some of the information that the cabinet secretary wants to give us as a result of our questioning. That will allow for the session to be more focused and for us to cover all the issues that we want to.
We have been talking about inheriting a system, and you mentioned your concerns about the robustness of the measurements that could be made in the past. We were talking last week about how certain councils are failing to meet targets and, as in the case of Glasgow City Council, not stepping up to the plate to try to achieve the Government's aims. Do you agree that the concordat's single outcome agreements will be a more accurate measure of progress than we have had in the past?
They will, because the concordat puts emphasis and responsibility on local government as a whole, so that councils are accountable to each other as opposed to the Government accounting for each individual local authority. That will create internal pressures within local government to show that it can deliver on the concordat.
It would be difficult for local government to make significant progress without a contribution to the agenda from Glasgow City Council. I know that there are policy differences, in that Glasgow City Council is perhaps not as convinced as other councils are that class size reductions are the way forward. Having said that, I have had useful discussions with Gordon Matheson, the council's executive member for education, and Steven Purcell, the council leader, about some of the common agenda items, such as how we can provide more resources in the early years and whether there is compatibility between what the council wants to do and what we want to do. Those discussions are on-going.
Glasgow is a good example of an area in which there is a significant fall in rolls. An 8.9 per cent fall is projected in its secondary school rolls, although the projected fall in primary school rolls is only 1 per cent. Gordon Matheson has recognised and publicly stated that the council's education and children's budget is increasing, but there are concerns that the schools budget as a whole might not be. That is where some of the issues lie—I do not want to dwell too much on any individual local authority, but the EIS is taking forward the concerns in relation to Glasgow City Council.
The council is free to make those decisions, but it is important that we acknowledge that early intervention is one of the key things that we have to work on. We think that class size reduction is one of the best ways of doing that and that Glasgow, of all places, needs major improvements in its young people's educational experience. The council can take forward its own provisions to do that, but we think that it will want to play its part in delivering the local government policy. COSLA will have discussions with Glasgow City Council as to how the council will do that.
Is there a recruitment and retention issue in Glasgow, for example, or in particular parts of the workforce across Scotland? You spoke about the ability of Aberdeenshire to take on more probationers. Is that a factor that can skew the ability of local authorities to meet the kind of targets that you are talking about?
That may well be. However, although probationers will make a significant impact on the ability of local authorities to deliver over the next few years, for sustainability over the longer term class size reductions should not rely on probationers. For example, I know that a number of local authorities have taken on a considerable number of probationers—a significant number of whom are funded by the Government, which will assist in doing that over the next few years. By that time, at least 18,000 teachers will have retired and we will have 20,000 training. The combination of those factors will allow for sustainable employment over the longer term.
Those local authorities that are not recruiting probationers are of concern, because that limits their ability to make class size reductions.
Has there been difficulty in recruiting and retaining teachers in general in some parts of the country?
There has been difficulty in rural parts of the country. The committee will be aware of my decision to help to support the development of teacher training at the Crichton campus. Dumfries and Galloway had difficulty in recruiting probationers in the first place, but a significant percentage of them—I think that it was 30 per cent, but I would need to check that figure—did not then turn up to carry out their teaching, so there was a real challenge in that area. One solution to help to maintain the University of Glasgow's presence at the Crichton campus was to introduce teacher training to that part of the country. That will also help with recruitment and retention.
By volume, most teachers are trained in the central belt, and many people's first choice is to go to Glasgow or to East Renfrewshire, as Ken Macintosh will know—they are keen to go to that area. There is an issue with local authorities' ability to recruit probationers in the first place but also with their ability to retain them, and that has an impact on local authorities' ability to move forward. The local authorities that not only take on probationers but employ them after the first year are more likely to be able to deliver class size reductions than those that do not do that.
Do you have any figures on that? I know that, in Highland, 89 to 90 per cent of probationers are kept on. Is that figure the average for the country?
No. There is quite a disparity between authorities.
I know that the committee is focusing on class sizes, convener, but I am asking the working group to consider the matter. There is often a mismatch between teachers' individual choices of where they want to go and where they are needed. There is also a mismatch between the number of teachers who are recruited and the number who are retained. I think that East Renfrewshire has one of the lowest continuing employment rates for probationers, but that is something that we will have to consider.
The point that I was leading to is that ADES suggested that X number of teachers will be required for the policy on class sizes to be fulfilled, so recruitment and retention are essential to that.
Absolutely. Recruitment and retention are essential. That is why we have to consider the matter in the round. It is not just a simple question of accounting for which local authority does what and when. That is why the concordat recognises all the various factors that have an influence. I know that you took evidence from ADES, but it admitted that some of the figures that have been quoted and reported in the media are figures for the capital cost and the number of teachers for the big-bang solution, as if we were reducing class sizes in P1 to P3 tomorrow. That is a simplistic way in which to consider the matter, and ADES recognises that it is not realistic. I think that COSLA, too, gave evidence to that effect last week.
Yes. The sophisticated analysis suggests that progress can be made, but we will have to monitor that in the future. Thank you.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. You put forward reasonable arguments on demographics, teacher training, teacher retirals and local authorities' priorities. However, does that mean that the SNP Government is wrong to promise, as in the convener's quote earlier, that class sizes will be reduced by the end of the spending review period?
The manifesto commitment is embedded in the concordat with local government. We are using the concordat to take forward delivery of our policies. In a sense, there is a parallel with what happened in the previous Government with the coalition. There were manifestos from the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats and there was a partnership agreement that took things forward. We have considered the practicalities of how we deliver the policy. The previous questioners were clear that it is a complex area, but we have put in enough resources to enable the policy to be delivered within the constraints that we have, and we expect the reduction to take place. In many local authorities, that is happening, and progress will start from this summer.
Will it happen by the end of the spending review period?
By the end of the spending review period, we expect improvements and significant progress by local government, as per the concordat. We must recognise that the concordat delivers a great deal of what was in the manifesto. The concordat commitments cover a range of areas—not just class size reductions but provisions on nursery hours, free school meals and some of the other attractive policies that people want to be put in place. I refer everybody to the concordat as the means by which the Government will take forward its commitments.
The intention is to reduce class sizes to 18 in P1 to P3. The suggestion has been made by the EIS and in evidence to the committee from Valerie Wilson, who referred to the Blatchford report, that a rollercoaster effect will have an impact on children, because they will be in classes of 18, move to larger classes later in primary school, and then have English and maths classes in S1 and S2 that might be reduced in size—although I am not sure about that yet—but other classes in the secondary system whose size will not change. Does such an experience benefit children or would the EIS's proposal of smaller classes across the board be more beneficial?
I recognise the logic of the EIS's argument, but the issue is how to deliver such provision in practice. The EIS argues for central control and direction from the Government, whether in guidance or through a negotiated settlement with teachers to limit the size of class with which a teacher can work. However, achieving that over the piece for all primary and secondary classes is a big ask and is ambitious. We are dealing with the early years of primary school.
You are right about the disruption. The Blatchford study considered whether reducing class sizes to 25 in P1 would have an impact on its own. A sustained impact from the early years is desirable, which is why we have decided to reduce class sizes in P1 to P3.
Future Governments will have to decide whether to reduce class sizes steadily for new pupils and for those who were in classes of 25 last year, for example, as they go through primary school. That would mean that, by the time a P1 class reached P7, the class size would be 25 in P7. The committee might want to take the view that continuity of class configurations is useful, as proposed by the Blatchford study. We think that reducing class sizes in P1 to P3 is a useful and progressive way of achieving that.
On 21 May, Valerie Wilson referred to research studies and said:
"If I was a parent whose child had been assigned to a larger class, I would petition the school to move the child to a smaller class."—[Official Report, Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, 21 May 2008; c 1068.]
The problems of moving from one class size to another do not stop parents and teachers wanting to make a start on reducing class sizes. In trying to take a view over the piece—perhaps the committee can usefully comment on that—we consider how the country as a whole wants to deal with progression. That will not happen overnight or even in one parliamentary session. We should consider how to go forward. We as a Government will consider that, particularly given the pressures of managing the number of teachers who are retiring. It would be useful to hear whether the committee thinks that it is desirable for all of us to work towards continuity of class sizes and whether to extend smaller class sizes from the P1 to P3 cohort in the next few years to P4 to P7 in future years.
We have heard evidence, which the convener mentioned, that one outcome of class size reduction could be an increase in the number of children in composite classes. Do you have a view on that?
The experiences of composite classes are different in different parts of the country. In many rural areas, composite classes are the norm. There is no evidence that composite classes are advantageous or disadvantageous. The challenge is continuity of classes for any one child. If a child progresses through composite classes, the experience seems to be better. We both come from West Lothian, so we both know that composite classes have been the norm there for some time and are generally accepted. There can be issues when composite classes are introduced in areas that have not been used to them.
I return to what I said about how the curriculum is changing, to provide for more individualised learning. Individualised learning and formative assessment are easier to achieve in smaller classes. That is the direction of education policy in general. There are issues with continuity and ensuring that teachers know how to teach in such an environment.
Currently, a child whose birthday is in December or January and who started school at four and a half years old might easily be in a class with a child who is a year older. In a composite class, there might be a year to 18 months between the oldest and youngest pupils, so the age range is not necessarily different from that in other classes. However, some parents are not familiar with composite classes and are concerned about them.
I am interested in research into the issue. I expressed such an interest in the past—I think that it was when Nicol Stephen was Deputy Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs, during the first session of the Parliament, when composite classes were used in some areas of the country to reduce maximum class sizes from 33 to 30. Many areas have had to introduce composite classes to achieve class sizes of 25 in P1—that is currently happening, regardless of what we are doing. I would not want to suggest that there is anything detrimental about being in a composite class; I do not think that that is the case.
I accept that a composite class can be just as effective as a single-stage class and I do not want to generate unnecessary fear. However, parents in particular are concerned about children who enter P1 and are immediately placed in a class that contains children who are more than a year older—it depends on the child's level of development. There is also concern about children who are moved out of and then back into composite classes, which can cause difficulties with socialising—you alluded to the problem.
You are right that in my constituency and elsewhere in West Lothian composite classes work well—I have seen examples of that. However, I think that the classes that work well are fairly small. Will you suggest a limit to the size of composite classes, even in the context of class sizes of 18 in P1 to P3?
It is desirable to achieve a class size of 18 regardless of whether the class is composite. Currently the limit is 25 for a P4-P5 composite class, as opposed to 30 in a non-composite class.
A number of people who gave evidence acknowledged that a move to class sizes of 18 would enable teachers to provide the individual support that is needed. We must consider the policy in the context of the new curriculum, which puts greater emphasis on individualised learning and formative assessment. There has been interesting work on cross-year working, peer reading and other different approaches. Not just primary but secondary schools are increasingly encouraging children who are at different stages to work together. We should pay attention to such activity if the focus in the curriculum is increasingly to be on the individual learner as opposed to class configuration. It is obvious that the smaller the class is and the lower the teacher pupil ratio, the more we can take forward the wider education agenda, which includes quality of teachers and many other factors.
Will you not take up the EIS recommendation of a maximum class size of 15 in composite classes in P1 to P3?
I think that the EIS recommends a class size of 15 for composite classes in general and suggests further reductions in class size when X number of children have additional support needs. We are not taking those recommendations forward at this stage.
What size should a composite P3-P4 class be?
Under the current arrangements, the maximum size is 25.
Does that mean that a child who could be in a single-stage P3 class of 18 pupils could be put in a P3-P4 composite class of 25 pupils?
Sorry, I thought that you were asking about class sizes for pupils who had progressed up the school. We would expect a P3-P4 composite class to have no more than 18 pupils.
When ADES gave evidence on the petition some weeks ago, the committee asked it whether sufficient resources were in place to deliver the class size commitment, and it said no. Was it right or wrong?
I think that the ADES figures were for the big-bang solution for everybody in P1 to P3 across the board from day one, and that they related to all the classrooms to provide for reductions being built within a day. ADES acknowledged in its evidence that that is not how things will be delivered. We must consider the practicalities that are involved.
There are sufficient resources to provide the significant progress that was agreed to in the concordat, and the directors of education are providing support to make progress. There is a difference between expecting commitments to be delivered within one month or even one year of a Government coming into power. As I said, it took five years for the previous Administration to get 67 per cent of pupils in classes of 20 for maths in S1 and S2; indeed, it took five years to get to the commitment on P1. I think that ADES recognises that such things take time and that there are sufficient resources in the settlement to deliver the commitment.
Murdo Maciver of ADES said:
"On the policy, the understanding is that it will be implemented over time, depending on prioritisation by authorities and the resources available. It is not a policy in relation to which the intention or advice is to have immediate implementation. Some funding, both capital and for more teachers, was made available towards the end of the previous financial year to start the move towards smaller class sizes."—[Official Report, Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, 28 May 2008; c 1104.]
We started progress last year, but it is clear that the concordat, maintaining teacher numbers at 53,000, the £34.9 billion of funding that will be available, the 13 per cent funding increase for local government and the £3 billion capital investment will provide resources to reduce class sizes.
Mr Maciver of ADES explained the figures, but the question was about whether sufficient resources are available, and the answer to that question was no. Whatever criteria ADES wrapped around things, the answer was no, but you are saying that sufficient resources are available. In order to say whether sufficient resources are available, you must have a figure for the resources required. What resources are required?
Whether class sizes are to be reduced immediately will have a significant influence on whether the answer to the question is yes or no.
I asked ADES a question, which it answered, and it told me the context in which it was thinking. You can answer the question in any way you want. You can say that the promise will be delivered over one year, two years or whatever timeframe you want. However, if the answer to the question is, as you have said repeatedly, that sufficient resources are available, you must surely be able to say what those resources are. You cannot say that sufficient resources are available without knowing what the required resources are.
The resources are sufficient to maintain teacher quality. Teacher retirals and the demographics that are involved have been recognised—
I am sorry, cabinet secretary, but the manifesto commitment, the Government's promise and the concordat agreement are to reduce class sizes to 18 in P1 to P3, and you keep on saying that sufficient resources are available to do that. What resources are available?
Some 6,000 teachers are retiring every year for the next few years.
They are not resources that will be available.
Those teachers will be replaced by at least 20,000 teachers who are in training, which we think is the number of teachers that will be required to maintain teacher numbers at 53,000. That represents a considerable local authority resource. If we had done nothing, some local authorities, with falling school rolls, could easily have removed teacher numbers from their overall cohorts and could have saved money and put it somewhere else. However, we are saying to local authorities that we have ensured in the settlement that there are sufficient resources for the thousands of teachers whom we know will be required to keep the number of teachers at 53,000.
Those 20,000 teachers in training by 2011, which mean that local authorities can maintain their teacher head count and their teacher salary budgets, are a significant resource in revenue terms. On capital resources, even if we took ADES's figure for the capital budget required for immediate investment as of year one, it is clear that there would be sufficient resources, bearing in mind the £3 billion of capital investment and the £115 million extra every year, and the fact that, across Scotland, 870 schools have under 75 per cent capacity and 486 schools have under 50 per cent capacity. That capacity provision, the capital provision, the 20,000 teachers in training by 2011 and the maintenance of teacher salary budgets allow for the class size reductions. It is clear that significant resources are being made available. Your question to ADES will have been whether it can be done next week, and its answer will have been given in that context.
I asked the question, and that was not it. I asked simply: are there sufficient resources in place? ADES said no.
Cabinet secretary, as a former member of the committee, you will know that our job is to hold the Executive to account and, in particular, to scrutinise the Executive budget. It is a difficult job, especially when we are presented with evidence and figures by directors of education that show that there are not sufficient resources—we would not doubt their expertise, as they handle the budgets and are responsible for implementing the class size policy at a local level.
ADES is willing to put both a figure and a timescale to the policy, whereas you have not been willing to put either. It is difficult to conclude anything other than that you are being deliberately evasive and that you are passing responsibility for a Government policy to somebody else without giving them sufficient resources. Making assertions is not enough—you have not given us any hard figures, so it is difficult for the committee to reach any conclusion other than to believe the figures that we have been given.
In its evidence to you last week, COSLA made it clear that it thought that the ADES figures, which were for the big-bang approach, were irrelevant. I can perhaps quote your question and the answer to which you refer. The answer is interesting, because in it Murdo Maciver reflects on funding and resources to reduce class sizes from previous Governments as much as from this Government.
Your question was:
"My question is for all panel members. Do you believe that there are sufficient funds in the system to meet the target that has been imposed on local government?"
Murdo Maciver answered:
"For as long as I can remember"—
we should bear in mind that the concordat has been in place in only recent months—
"the answer to that question has been no. On the question whether we have funding for the most effective education system that meets all aspirations, the answer will always be no."—[Official Report, Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, 28 May 2008; c 1097.]
You are putting a particular interpretation on the context and what was said. I am sure that ADES can answer for itself, but since it gave evidence we have had a response from COSLA and the budget briefing. We have to work out the resources that are required, but I bring you back to the point that the concordat contains not only the commitments and national indicators of performance required of local government but the local government settlement. The settlement is a fair one, despite our receiving one of the tightest settlements from Westminster. To deliver an increased share of national Government resources to local government was a major achievement. Bearing in mind the fact that almost half of that is spent on education and young people, I think that there is plenty of scope for improvements.
If I may say so, cabinet secretary, it is up to the committee to interpret the answers that we heard—and the answer to the question was no.
It is also a little strange to quote COSLA, as it has said so many things. In December it said:
"We have not agreed in the concordat to reduce all P1 to P3 class sizes".—[Official Report, Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, 5 December 2007; c 413.]
Last week it said:
"In the concordat, COSLA has signed up to reducing class sizes".
Then it said that it was not so sure and that
"it is up to each local authority".
It also said:
"we aspire to reduce class sizes".—[Official Report, Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, 18 June 2008; c 1229, 1249.]
To say that it has been all over the place is an understatement.
I want to ask about the enforcement of Government policies. It was interesting that you said that guidance on S1 and S2 classes still stands. What do you say to local authorities such as Renfrewshire Council and Aberdeen City Council, which have said publicly that they will not follow the guidance on reducing class sizes in S1 and S2?
That is an issue that we can discuss with them, but we must remember that guidance is guidance—not regulation.
With only 63 per cent of S1 and S2 pupils in classes of 20, 37 per cent of pupils are not. Your question was on whether I will pursue all local authorities. I suspect that those figures show the situation in a majority of local authorities, and we can certainly discuss that situation with them. If the committee recommends that we do that, I will listen to your request.
We can also discuss with directors of education not only how they will deliver on the concordat but how they will deliver on the previous Government's commitments. I will meet COSLA tomorrow to discuss education matters and am more than happy to raise the issue with it.
That will be constructive. The last paragraph in the 2007 guidance states that ministers do not wish to legislate to introduce statutory class size maxima but that if guidance is not adhered to, they are prepared to consider introducing legislation to that effect. Is that your position, too?
The previous Government did not introduce legislation to enforce the S1 and S2 class size reductions. Ken Macintosh asked about the issue at question time last week. There are three ways of determining class sizes: through the McCrone agreement, through circulars and through guidance. The concordat introduces a fourth element. The strongest measure was the reduction in 1999 of class sizes from 33 to 30, which was enforced by regulation. The EIS might be concerned if we removed some measures from the teachers agreement and included them in guidance. It has given evidence on the issue and has indicated that it might prefer regulations to be used.
In the system that we inherited, there were three different ways of determining class sizes. Given that we inherited a differentiated system, we need to consider how we can ensure continuity and coherence over the piece—Mary Mulligan made that point. However, I do not want to give the impression that I am rushing to change the teachers agreement or to withdraw the guidance to which Karen Whitefield referred. We must bear in mind the fact that there are different ways of influencing class sizes and we must reflect on how we can bring coherence to the process in future.
I agree that any number of mechanisms can be used. Two councils—interestingly, two SNP-controlled councils—have indicated that they will not adhere to the guidance. Will you wait until a whole cohort of students have gone through school without benefiting from smaller class sizes, or will you take action now to bring the councils back on board?
It took five years for the previous Administration to deliver almost, but not quite 100 per cent on the commitment to reduce to 25 class sizes at P1, and 63 per cent and 79 per cent on the commitment to reduce class sizes for English and maths at S1 and S2. Even if the concordat had not been agreed, I would have had to reflect on how to work with local authorities to identify the barriers to further progress in those areas. We should not single out two local authorities—a number of councils are not following the guidance. I emphasise the fact that it is guidance, not regulation.
The Parliament needs to reflect on what relationship it wants to have with local government. Do we want to have an open relationship of mutual respect, in which local government commits itself to meeting certain outcomes with the resources that are provided to it, or do we want to do everything through tight regulation? That is an issue for genuine debate. It has not arisen just because of the Government's actions but has been an issue since devolution in 1999, when the first measure to reduce class sizes—from 33 to 30—was introduced.
You raise an interesting issue that is central to the delivery of Government policies. It is interesting to note that, under the previous Administration, which did not have an historic concordat, no local authorities openly defied Government in the way in which two local authorities are now doing. Those authorities have said openly that they are abandoning Government policy.
My final question relates to teacher induction schemes. The number of teachers matters if we are to meet the class sizes target. I welcome the fact that a working group, chaired by Joe Di Paola, has been set up, but I am surprised that it took so long for the group to be established. I assumed that there would be a Government press release setting out the group's remit and membership and indicating how it will be accountable to Parliament—an issue of particular relevance to the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee.
I would welcome your views on whether you believe that you have done enough to prevent a worsening of the anxiety and stress that probationers coming to the end of their course felt last year. Clearly, that has been a growing problem in the past couple of years.
Do you think that, by itself, the working group is enough? Could you give us some more detail of what the working group will entail?
I announced the remit to Parliament in answer to a parliamentary question. We also wrote to the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee. I am not sure whether—
Was that an oral or written question?
I responded in the chamber to an oral question, then wrote to the committee. I do not want to raise issues about the internal workings of the committee, but I understood that that letter had been circulated to members. I know that the Government has written a number of letters to the committee in recent weeks, and I am more than happy to re-send that one if necessary.
There have been many pieces of correspondence. Every one of them has been forwarded to committee members. I do not recall seeing the letter that you are talking about, so we will need to check that we received it. If we did, it will have been passed on to members.
We will re-send it immediately if there has been a problem. The letter set out the remit of the working group, which meets for the first time on Monday. Last year, we moved swiftly because we inherited a situation in which there was concern about probationers obtaining positions, and we invested an additional £9 million this year and last year, which resulted in the provision of 300 new jobs.
As Rob Gibson said, recruitment tension is a critical issue, and every local authority has a responsibility for employing probationers. If Glasgow and other councils are not doing that, they must consider their position. I do not want to reflect too much on any one council, however.
We will forward the remit of the working group to you, as it is right that it is shared widely.
The role of the General Teaching Council is important, but the main point is that there must be a balance in providing a choice to probationers. We have a good system, as you have said in the chamber, but we need to ensure that it meets the needs of individuals and of local authorities, in policy terms. That is one of the challenges that we must address in the working group.
Convener, can I ask what time we are finishing? I thought that we were doing an hour from half past eleven.
I anticipate that we will end when the questions conclude. I have asked people to keep their questions succinct and I have asked you to keep your answers short as well. I hope that there will not be too many more questions, as I appreciate that you have been here for a considerable time.
It is just that I have an engagement.
I have two short questions, you will be glad to hear.
Will you confirm, for the record, that local authorities got a 13 per cent rise in their budgets this year?
Yes.
And do you agree that South Lanarkshire Council is to be congratulated on using that flexibility to grab with both hands the opportunity to reduce class sizes from this year?
I am pleased that South Lanarkshire Council used the flexibility that it was given with the end of ring fencing to do that. Clearly, it was able to take advantage of falling school rolls and it had the budget to maintain teacher numbers. I understand that it has indicated that it wants to target areas of deprivation first, which is the right thing to do.
Earlier, Ken Macintosh mentioned the GTC workforce planning group, which you have said is meeting next week.
Yes, the first meeting is on Monday. I would not describe it as the GTC workforce planning group, however; it is a partnership between the GTC, the EIS and government. As councils are the employers, it is appropriate that Joe Di Paola of COSLA has taken up the convenership of the group.
Absolutely; I was just trying to be quick.
How does the new approach differ from previous experience?
A workforce planning group has always met on a continuous basis. The group that I have just described is reviewing whether the mechanism that the standing group has used historically over the piece satisfies current and future demand. The group that I have just described will look at the underlying process but, year in, year out, a standing workforce planning group has taken matters forward. The basis on which it does that has to be reviewed. Rather than review itself, it will be easier if another group does so. Obviously, the players will be influenced by the concerns that have been raised and the GTC will also have a key role.
Michael Kellet (Scottish Government Schools Directorate):
If it would be useful, I can outline the groups that are represented on the working group. It is chaired by COSLA and there are other representatives of COSLA. ADES is represented, the GTC is represented, the four main teacher unions are represented and the teacher training universities are represented.
That is helpful.
My points follow on from Mr Macintosh's questions, which are valid questions for many parents throughout Scotland, because they thought that the situation was clear when they heard the First Minister on 5 September. He was asked whether the commitments on class sizes would be met within this session of Parliament and he gave a clear answer to the question. At that stage, he did not say that the Government was in discussions with COSLA or that it was negotiating with COSLA. He answered unequivocally yes to a question on whether the policy on a reduction in class sizes would be delivered in this session of Parliament. On anticipating how much the policy would cost to deliver in this session of Parliament—as the First Minister said on 5 September that it would be—did you, as part of the budget process, calculate what the total cost would be if it were to be delivered within this session of Parliament?
Clearly, as I have said in response to a number of questions, the resources provided for class size reduction are part of the concordat with local Government. I also refer to the First Minister's reply to Wendy Alexander, in a letter that I understand has been placed in the Scottish Parliament information centre, which refers to the on-going discussions with local government at the time. In November, we agreed the concordat with local government, which is the way in which we are taking forward the commitment.
With respect, that does not answer my question. Within Government, did the education department and education ministers calculate how much it would cost—or put in a bid for how much it would require—to deliver the reduction in full within this session of Parliament?
We knew that we would need to ensure—
It is a simple question, is it not?
Local government would have identified what it thought was a reasonable amount of resource to deliver on the concordat—which contains the commitments and refers to the single outcome agreements—when it agreed to it. Clearly, COSLA determined that there were sufficient resources to allow it to deliver on the concordat when it signed it. Clearly, national Government would also have calculated the resources required over a range of issues. There are 14 commitments in the concordat, there are single outcome agreements and there are national indicators. In determining the figure of £34.9 billion for local government—an increased share of national Government spending—we would have calculated what we thought was sufficient to deliver all of those things.
However, it is not only about the inputs. Remember that a number of other measures will also benefit local government financially. For the first time, local government is getting to retain its efficiency savings. Previous Governments required efficiency savings to be made, but they were taken into the centre. The ability of local authorities to retain their efficiency savings was also part of the concordat.
I understand that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth will write to the committee shortly to outline the progress on scrutiny and regulation. That will have a material impact on local government in respect of time, which will also free up resources.
The concordat is not only about the £34.9 billion investment, which is the biggest share that local government has had since devolution began; there is also the material impact of other factors in the concordat that will bring a financial benefit for local government. Can we identify what the benefit of 2 per cent efficiency savings will be? Can we identify some of the regulation and scrutiny benefits? It is difficult to put a price on those. However, the agreement was £34.9 billion in return for delivery of the commitments and the other provisions in the concordat.
On 13 September, Maureen Watt was able to be much clearer than you have just been. In fact, she was very clear. Robert Brown said to the minister:
"We might need to wait for the comprehensive spending review to find out what resources can be applied to the issue".
He was referring to the Government’s policy on class size reduction in this parliamentary session. He continued:
"I presume that she has made a bid to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth to enable her to meet the commitments that have been made. If she cannot give us those figures, will she explain in some detail why not?"
Maureen Watt responded:
"Of course we have made a bid to meet those commitments. We will wait to find out what resources are available from the comprehensive spending review."—[Official Report, 13 September 2007; c 1757.]
Was that true?
Obviously, in putting together a budget, any Government will look at what resources it has, what it is trying to achieve and work out the resources it needs. That will be done across and within portfolios and we will have a look at the provisions within those.
So it was true that a funding bid was made to meet those commitments. The Government knows how much it would cost to deliver the policy within this parliamentary session.
The negotiations with local government were on the basis of a collective—
No, cabinet secretary, I am sorry to interrupt and I do not mean to be rude, but I am asking about the Government, not about your negotiations with COSLA. I am asking whether the Government has calculated how much it will cost to deliver its policy in this parliamentary session. On 13 September, Maureen Watt said:
"Of course we have made a bid to meet those commitments."
I am asking whether that is true and what the bid is.
The bid that any portfolio makes to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth covers a range of issues. I do not want to labour this point, but the cost of our commitment depends on a number of variables, information about which national Government does not always have at its fingertips at any one time, not least about the number of retirals and the demographics of a local area. We can forecast and make projections and we have done so. One of the central tenets in identifying the resources might be something that you want to unpick—the cost to local government of maintaining teacher numbers at 53,000 when they have pupil projections, particularly in secondary, but also in primary, that show reductions in rolls. Having sufficient resources to be able to do that is a benefit to local government. The cost of providing 20,000 teachers in training is a national cost for us. As we meet the cost of initial teacher training, it is clear that we have identified the amount of money for that proposal. That is the amount of money that has been put into provision to maintain teacher numbers at 53,000.
We know today that the Government and its education department knew how much would be required to meet the commitments in this parliamentary session. You confirmed that that was part of internal budget negotiations in Government—all that predates the signature of the COSLA agreement. I ask you whether you will publish the information that you said that the education department had when setting the Government's budget.
You can ask the questions that you want to ask, but you cannot put words in my mouth. Part of the negotiations with local government was a recognition of what could be delivered within the resources, and the result is the wording of the concordat. As you identified, the comments that you quoted are from a time prior to the agreement with COSLA. Financial arrangements between different departments are discussed right up until the publication of budget provisions for this Parliament.
Discussions are on-going. When we signed the concordat in November, we agreed with local government that £34.9 billion would provide what was in the concordat. Those negotiations, discussions and submissions go backwards and forwards right up to the production of the budget, as any of you who have been ministers—I think that Mary Mulligan was a minister before going into opposition—will know.
Those negotiations will have included the forecasting, the predictions and the cost requirements for the policy, as Maureen Watt implied on 13 September when she said:
"Of course we have made a bid to meet those commitments."
Given that we are discussing a key Government policy, it is fair for the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee to ask about the Government's ability to deliver it and for the publication of the bid to meet those commitments.
With the greatest respect, I do not think that any other Government would agree to put budget preparation working in the public domain. What goes into the public domain is the budget that is presented to Parliament.
I will leave it there, because there is agreement that such information exists—the question is whether the Government publishes it. People will be able to make up their minds after reading the Official Report of the meeting.
I want to ask a question on the significant issue of placing requests, which is relevant to the EIS petition and the method by which class sizes could be reduced. You said this morning that the method by which class sizes will be reduced is the concordat; there is not going to be a Government circular or regulations. On the legal rights of parents to make placing requests, the Government is not going to provide local authorities with a circular on class size limits and on refusing placing requests. As you might know, the City of Edinburgh Council has said that it receives more than 1,000 placing requests every year. It uses legislation and the Government circular to determine whether to accept placing requests. What would be the Government's position if a parent made a placing request where there is a class of 18? If there was no change to the legislation on placing requests, it would still refer to class sizes of 25 for primary 1 and 30 for primary 2 and primary 3.
The legislation on placing requests still stands. I have concerns about some of the reports on placing requests and class sizes. Currently, 12 per cent of pupils are in class sizes of 18, which is not illegal. On the situation in the City of Edinburgh Council, Mike Pringle asked me last week about placing requests. Currently, 84 per cent of parents who make placing requests have their request acceded to. There are more pressures in some parts of the country than in others. As of now, the City of Edinburgh Council is able to guarantee a place for everyone seeking a primary 1 place in their catchment school at the start of next term. That is the information that the council provided to us.
There are general issues around placing requests. There are pressures in different parts of the country. However, the only regulations on class sizes are for the reduction from 33 to 30 from way back in 1999-2000—that is the only legal compliance that we have—so even if the Government did not do anything, there could be challenges and placing requests in respect of classes of 25 in primary 1. I have been very open about that, and I volunteered information to the committee last June on the one case of a challenge in respect of class sizes of 25 in North Ayrshire. I also know that, regardless of the policy on class size reductions, East Renfrewshire Council has concerns about placing request issues. That is why it is important for local government to make steady progress on reducing class sizes, because if it does not do so, there could be challenges later.
We have no intention of changing the placing request legislation as it stands. Along with demographics, teacher retirals, quality of teachers and capital provision, it presents a challenge in taking the policy forward. Some things that are worth doing are difficult. The evidence that we have had, and which you have had, shows that reducing class sizes is most certainly worth while and provides an educational benefit to children. Just because it is difficult does not mean that we do not do it; it means that we work even harder to ensure that we make provision to tackle all the different factors that I mentioned. It is our intention to reduce class sizes.
The City of Edinburgh Council in its paper of assessment of primary class sizes of 18 on 3 June stated that there is some concern that without legislation Edinburgh could be challenged on holding classes at 18, particularly in many of the schools where there is a large number of non-catchment requests, because legislation and the Government circular currently require that parental choice be honoured up to a maximum class size of 25 at P1 and 30 at P2 and P3. Are you saying that that is wrong?
If the City of Edinburgh Council is looking for an excuse not to reduce class sizes by relying on the fact that regulations are not in place, that is not a very robust excuse, although it is a political view that the convener of the council's education, children and families committee, Marilyne MacLaren, might wish to take. I am reluctant to get drawn into discussions about individual local authorities, but there is room for movement in Edinburgh, particularly taking into account the pupil projections. Other local authorities are able to make reductions without regulations. North Lanarkshire has class sizes down to 23, regardless of whether there is legal back-up for restricting placing requests.
If you are asking me to make legal regulations to limit class sizes to 18, my response is that I am reluctant to do that. We should rely on our relationship with local government. If such a step were taken—that is where I think the question is leading—it would cause more difficultly for placing requests. I am not in the business of causing difficulty for those parents who wish to make placing requests, and an impact on placing requests would be the consequence of having tighter regulation of class size limits. That is not something that we would plan to happen.
I will leave the matter there, apart from making the observation that the SNP group on the City of Edinburgh Council voted for the report that I have cited.
I have less sympathy with placing requests outwith the catchment. You and I both know, minister, that there are examples in my constituency of children who are not getting into their catchment school because the authority is seeking to reduce class sizes. Although we might agree with doing that, there is a problem for authorities, which feel exposed because there is no legal back-up should parents continue the process and approach the sheriff court. What reassurance can you give to schools and local authorities that they will be able to maintain their stance? What reassurance can you give to parents that their needs will be addressed?
It is important that local children can attend their local school. Regardless of the Government's proposal for class size reductions, there are population pressures in certain parts of the country, including West Lothian, where some parents have difficulty in sending their children to the local school. That has applied not just in primary schools but in secondary schools in recent years. You will be familiar with the position at Linlithgow academy. Regardless of any class size reduction policy, there have been pressures even this year when it comes to pupils being able to attend their local school. The local authorities concerned must manage that, and they must do so day in, day out. Necessarily, that is regardless of the class size reduction policy.
It is important to consider developments in certain areas. Because of the housing pressures in Edinburgh, many young families are moving to East Lothian, Midlothian and West Lothian, and they will want their children to move to the local school. One concern in those areas is the provision of schools being one of the determinants of planning decisions. In certain areas, planning applications for housing must be refused because the local schools cannot sustain the increased numbers of pupils arising from new developments. That is not a particularly satisfactory position, but it reflects the complexity of some of the factors. We want to have a buoyant housing market, and we recognise the importance of improving population levels in East Lothian, Midlothian and West Lothian and of the levels of housing provision.
There is already pressure regardless of the class size reductions. Things will not happen overnight. Through forward planning, all local authorities should take a longer-term view and ensure that they have sufficient resources in their schools to meet the needs not just of the existing population but of any new population—perhaps migrant workers in some parts of the country. New build provision and Government policy must also be considered.
The task is not an easy one; it is a challenging one. However, we think that small class sizes in the early years are an important factor in achieving improvements in the educational experience of our young people and in creating more time and space for teachers to deliver high-quality teaching. As I say, it is not an easy task, but it is an important and worthwhile one.
I think that the issue at Linlithgow academy is with non-catchment children. Nevertheless, the reduction of class sizes to 18 clearly adds to the pressures.
I am looking for an indication of what you are going to do to assist local authorities that are in the situation that has been described. In your discussions with COSLA tomorrow, will you suggest that local authorities refuse planning permission for houses in areas where schools are already struggling to take in the children in their catchment areas?
Local authorities are well aware of that pressure without my raising the matter with them.
That is interesting.
I have one final question. Currently, 12 per cent of P1 to P3 children are being taught in classes of 18 pupils. At the end of the Government's four years in office, what percentage of P1 to P3 pupils will need to be being taught in classes of 18 pupils for you to consider that the policy is on its way to having been implemented successfully?
We will want to see significant progress, as agreed in the concordat. We will be better informed of that when we receive the first reports from COSLA on the progress that we expect to have been made this year.
And the definition of "significant" is?
That is what our on-going discussions with COSLA will reveal.
Thank you. That concludes the committee's questions to you today, cabinet secretary. I will suspend the meeting briefly to allow a changeover of witnesses.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—