Single-sex Schools
The discussion of single-sex schools was deferred from last week's meeting to allow Johann Lamont to take part; Tommy Sheridan had requested that the gender group consider this item. Members have received a report, and I will ask Johann whether she wants to comment. Before I do so, I should inform members that I have received an e-mail from Pauline McNeill, the MSP in whose constituency Notre Dame High School lies. Pauline cannot be here so I will read the e-mail:
"Dear Kate
I discovered on Friday that your committee are discussing the issue of Notre Dame Secondary school. Unfortunately, I cannot make it to the committee today or else I would have made these points in person. I would be grateful if you put my main points on the record.
As the constituency MSP my office have been dealing with complaints from parents for several months. We are in the middle of a dialogue with the local council via the local councillor Ruth Simpson and also the Glasgow Archdiocese.
It is my view that if the committee are going to enquire into the various issues involved that it should not look at Notre Dame in isolation but rather at the whole of single sex education in Scotland. The complaints raised by parents at Notre Dame should be dealt with locally.
If the committee intend to take the matter further I would appreciate notice so that I can take part in the discussion.
Thanks
Pauline McNeill"
The women's group met last week, and when we discussed our work programme for the coming year—which I will report on later—we felt that our small group would not be able to undertake an inquiry of this magnitude. We also did not feel that our group was the best place in which the issue should be considered.
Subsidiarity is an issue here. In the Local Government Committee, the importance of decisions being taken at the appropriate level comes up all the time. Notre Dame High School and the ways in which it impacts on provision in its locality are matters for the local authority. We should tread on that ground very warily.
From what Pauline McNeill has said, it seems that she and the local authority are conversant with the issues around Notre Dame, which are particular to its location rather than to the fact that it is a single-sex school. I am not saying that there are no issues to be discussed, but that the issues should be discussed locally.
On the question of a broader investigation into single-sex schools, I feel strongly that, when considering equality and gender issues, it is important to consider them in the round, and not to focus on one particular aspect of gender inequality in education. We see the latter happening in the discussion of boys' performance in schools, which people have been exercised by recently. For generation after generation, evidence has shown that girls have not had equality in education because attention has not been focused on them. Now we have a situation in which boys—despite attention having been focused on them—are not achieving, and a lot of resources are going into addressing that situation. I think that that is happening because we do not consider equality in the round or in a sustained way. It is an obvious observation to make, but despite the fact that girls are doing better at school, they do not necessarily get their hands on the levers of power once they get older. How well a person does in exams is not the only important thing.
If we are to consider equality issues in education, the most appropriate place for that may be the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, with the support of the Equal Opportunities Committee. Inevitably, we would consider issues such as provision in individual areas, single-sex schools and streaming. I would be unhappy if we were to pluck out for consideration one issue on single-sex schools in response to what is clearly great concern at a local level. The issue should be addressed locally.
I agree with that. I do not like the idea of setting dangerous precedents, and we might be in danger of doing that. It is not that I do not believe that there is an issue to be addressed, but I am concerned about the means through which the committee has come to be discussing that issue this morning. A number of local issues have been raised with the Local Government Committee. They have come to that committee via the Public Petitions Committee, after having first been raised by organisations that have had problems with local authorities. Those organisations have sent a petition to the Parliament, and the petition has been passed to the Local Government Committee. On each occasion, the Local Government Committee has said that the matter was for the local authority, not the committee, to deal with.
The issue that is under discussion today has not been raised in the same way. If the Equal Opportunities Committee were to become some sort of super-surgery—where a local MSP, having heard of a local issue, brought it straight to the committee—we would be setting a dangerous precedent. All the investigations that we have conducted have been instigated by organisations. They have communicated with the clerks, who have put the issue on the committee's agenda. If MSPs were able to decide that something that had happened locally should be raised in committee, that would lead to problems. We should not go down that road.
If the local community wants the issue to be raised in Parliament, it can petition the Parliament. I do not think that allowing MSPs to turn up at the committee and say, "I want these issues addressed," would be the best way of resolving those issues.
I agree with Johann Lamont's points. I am also a member of the gender group, and Johann summarised our discussions well. If we are to consider inequalities in the education system—and I agree that the best place for such consideration would be the Education, Culture and Sport Committee—we must consider the issues in the round. We cannot pluck out one local issue and try to create a debate around it; we have to do it the other way round. In the education system—in schools or in further and higher education—many issues arise concerning the treatment of women. I would be unhappy about isolating one issue and debating it in committee.
The case of Notre Dame raises wider issues. The best way of dealing with it would be to refer it to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, and to offer our input where appropriate. I, too, agree with Johann Lamont's comments.
I do not think that the Equal Opportunities Committee should examine the matter, but I would not give exactly the same reasons that other members have given. If a serious equal opportunities matter were involved, I would not say that we should not deal with it because it was a local authority responsibility. The Parliament has a responsibility for equal opportunities issues wherever they are to be found. Equally, I do not think that we should not deal with it because it is an education matter, as we cover the spectrum of policy issues.
However, I do not think that this matter is an equal opportunities priority for us, certainly not in terms of the issues that the gender group discussed, which Johann Lamont will describe shortly. Single-sex schools are a complex issue. I do not particularly like such schools, but some women argue for them, and even do so on equal opportunities principles. I am happy to leave Glasgow City Council to make its own judgment on the case.
I welcome Brian Monteith to the committee.
Thank you for letting me speak without notice on this item—I rushed over here to hear the committee's deliberations.
I take on board what Malcolm Chisholm said about single-sex schools. I understand that the prime reason for Notre Dame becoming such a bone of contention is the closure of other schools in the area around it. That has led some people to believe that they are disadvantaged because the school that they would like their children to attend—for reasons such as its league table position—is not available and their children have to travel to other schools. If I am wrong, please correct me; I have not heard all the evidence.
Equal opportunities issues are undoubtedly involved, but they seem to revolve around catchment areas and the provision of schooling. Johann Lamont is right to say that the issue is far broader. Johann has joined the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, on which I serve, and that committee may consider the matter in the longer term, perhaps taking gender issues into account. Perhaps a reporter from the Equal Opportunities Committee could be involved so that you are fully aware of those discussions. I am certainly willing—perhaps with Johann Lamont—to suggest that to the convener of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee.
The Education, Culture and Sport Committee does not have much on its agenda just now. [Laughter.]
I suspect that, as Johann Lamont suggests, the Education, Culture and Sport Committee will find that its time is taken up with other issues.
The issue has arisen as a result of local decisions by Glasgow City Council. In reply to my letter, the minister said that the council was not in breach of its statutory duty and that its decision on single-sex schools was not in contravention of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
We should agree to the recommendation in the paper on single-sex schools to note that the issue of Notre Dame High School is for the local authority to address, but we should not accept the second recommendation. I will write to the convener of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, enclosing a copy of the Official Report of the meetings at which we have discussed the matter, and suggest that if that committee wishes to examine gender in education, it might wish to take this case into account. I agree with Johann Lamont that single-sex schools are not the most important issue in terms of gender and the effect that education has on either boys or girls.
We should also note that we are aware that the local authority and the constituency MSP have been actively involved in the case. We do not think that nobody is doing anything about it; we know that people are seeking solutions to the problem.
When I reply to the people who have written to me, I will enclose copies of the Official Report of the relevant meetings and I will make that point clear. Do members agree?
Members indicated agreement.