Subordinate Legislation
Education (Lower Primary Class Sizes) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2010 (SSI 2010/326)
The fifth item on our agenda is to take evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning on the Scottish Government’s class size policy and the Education (Lower Primary Class Sizes) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2010. The cabinet secretary will again be supported by Michael Kellet. I assume that the cabinet secretary wishes to make an opening statement.
I would never want to disappoint you, convener.
I see the regulations as a significant interim milestone on the way to achieving the ambitious longer-term class size objectives. When I spoke to the committee on 10 March, I went over some of the research evidence that supports our class size reduction policies. I will not go over that again, but I confirm that we are committed to class size reduction as whole-heartedly now as we have ever been. As has been mentioned on a number of occasions this morning, financial circumstances are not in our favour, but there is no reason to abandon the policy, even if we must accept that progress will inevitably be slower than it might otherwise have been.
On their own, smaller class sizes are not a panacea. We need to ensure that curriculum and teacher quality are right. Since March, we have made huge progress with the curriculum for excellence and are getting ever closer to the end of the year, when, as the committee knows, we will receive Graham Donaldson’s review of teacher education. I look forward to hearing his findings and considering how best to move forward on his recommendations.
I remind members that the regulations have been introduced by popular demand. Since 2007, local authorities have been attempting to implement a primary 1 class size limit of 25 to comply with the previous Administration’s policy, which it saw fit not to back up with legislation. The absence of regulations has caused frustration across the country in recent years, as sheriffs have upheld appeals against placing requests that councils had rejected in an effort to keep class sizes down.
I will give the committee a couple of facts and figures to reinforce that sense of frustration. In 2008, only 2,898 primary 1 pupils were in classes of more than 25. That is too many, but it is a relatively small percentage of the 52,000-plus P1 pupils in Scotland. By 2009, the figure had risen from 2,898 to 4,525—an increase of 56 per cent in one year. If the figure were to continue to rise by 56 per cent each year, half of our primary 1 pupils would be in classes of more than 25 in just four years. On that basis, the committee will agree that the need for regulation is self-evident.
I mentioned that I introduced the regulations by popular demand. I was alluding to the overwhelming support from local authorities. The responses to the consultation exercise included 23 from local authorities, which were unanimously supportive of the regulations. I was pleased by that but not surprised, given the numerous requests that I have received for such measures to be introduced.
I know that some have concerns about the financial implications of the regulations. The Executive note that accompanies them explains that the financial consequences are small, given the history of ring-fenced funding that is associated with the issue. If that is not persuasive, the local authority responses to our consultation exercise confirm the point. The references to costs in those responses were almost exclusively related to the possibility of rolling out the limit of 25 to P2 and P3, rather than to the new statutory limit for P1.
Agreeing to the motion to annul the regulations would be a retrograde step. The regulations will be well received across Scotland and will afford local authorities a higher degree of certainty as they determine budgets and, I emphasise, staffing levels for the coming year. I will be happy to respond to specific points later.
10:45
Finally, I will say a word or two about the longer-term objectives. When I was here in March, I spoke about the deal that I was on the point of securing with COSLA to have 20 per cent of P1 pupils in classes of 18 or fewer by August this year. The deal was struck, and the framework agreement has been put in place. We will not know the outcome for certain until the census data are published at the beginning of December, but from what officials have been able to gather, things are looking promising. It looks as though local authorities are collectively likely to meet the 20 per cent target. We should not pretend that it has been easy, but that demonstrates a significant commitment to a P1 target of 18 by local authorities, particularly given the difficult financial circumstances in which they find themselves.
Of course, the raw class size data that the census will give us will not tell the whole story about what local authorities and schools are doing to enhance the quality and quantity of pupil-teacher interaction. When we struck the deal with COSLA in the spring, a number of authorities made strong representations about the merits of alternative approaches—such as team teaching and nurture groups—to supporting the education of children in the early years. I am happy to acknowledge that class size reduction is not the only way to measure success in this area. For that reason, we are currently conducting a survey to better understand the full range of approaches that are being adopted to support pupils in the early years, and I will publish the results in parallel with the publication of the schools census on 1 December.
I point out that, as the framework agreement makes clear, and in recognition of the physical constraints in some schools that necessitate team teaching, we will this year treat pupils in two-teacher classes of fewer than 36 pupils as being in classes of fewer than 18.
I thank David Cameron for his work on the review of class size control mechanisms that he conducted for the Government earlier this year. Top of the list of recommendations was that all class size maxima should be specified in statute. I am considering that carefully, and we are moving today in an interesting direction on that.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of David Cameron’s report is the discussion about the nature of learning. The report draws attention to the changing nature of learning as technology, pedagogy, the curriculum and the design of school buildings continue to evolve. We must all reflect on that as we move forward.
I hope that that has been helpful and I look forward to debating the issue with the committee.
Thank you for those comments, cabinet secretary.
As a procedural reminder to the committee, I note that although the cabinet secretary referred to the motion to annul, I would be grateful if committee members restricted their questions to the substance and policy intent of the regulations. There will be an opportunity to discuss and debate the merits or otherwise of the motion to annul when we move to agenda item 6.
Would members like to ask the cabinet secretary any questions?
Cabinet secretary, you touched on the fact that local authorities are very much in favour of the measure, and that a number of councils have had to defend decisions in the courts. Do you have any indication of the costs for councils in taking such action?
I do not, but it must be substantial in terms of legal costs and charges. I think that individual local authorities would be able to give you that information.
I am aware of local authorities’ real reluctance to continue with such situations; a fact that was borne in upon me very strongly—you will not be surprised that I use that word—by the education convener of the City of Edinburgh Council, who is a party colleague of yours and has made the point forcibly to me.
And to me.
Indeed. I am sure that we both bear the scars.
I was recently contacted by some parents and a number of teachers in South Lanarkshire about the situation there. There have been a number of challenges in court for places, and as a result some class sizes of 30 have gone up to 33, yet the additional places that sheriffs grant do not count in the numbers. How will the regulations sort out some of the challenges that South Lanarkshire has been facing with regard to placing requests and their impact on larger class sizes? I am interested in how the regulations will remedy that and stop South Lanarkshire from spending a huge amount of money on defending such cases, so that the money can be spent on teachers, jotters and pencils instead.
Michael Kellet might want to say a word or two about how such placing requests will affect the issue of the 30:1 ratio and the reduction to a 25:1 ratio, because the matter was consulted on. I will then say a word or two about the effect.
I know from discussions with South Lanarkshire Council that such cases have been a particular problem for it. As you say, it has contested a number of cases before the courts.
The position is that the regulation imposing a statutory maximum of 25 should help councils to defend cases that they were not previously able to defend, because although the previous Administration had a policy of 25, the statutory maximum was 30.
The issue of excepted places is complex. The regulations preserve excepted places. In the scenario where a child is allowed in through the decision of a sheriff, for one year they will not be counted for the purposes of the regulations, but in future years that excepted nature will fall away. We propose the continuation of that arrangement because it allows councils to cope with the fact of children moving into catchments halfway through the year. Councils said that that flexibility is important, and we agree. It also allows for children with additional support needs by ensuring that, if it is appropriate for their education, they can become a member of a class, even temporarily, and not fall foul of class size regulations.
It is important to consider the views of local authorities, which have the experience of dealing with these matters daily. We consulted on the issue of excepted pupils and local authorities were clear that the mechanism was necessary for them to retain some flexibility. The situation has not caused major problems, but if a local authority were forced to make a significant change during the year, the effects on it, and perhaps on pupils, could have been profound. We therefore accepted that the excepted pupils regulation should remain in place.
The excepted pupils mechanism can currently lead to there being 33 pupils in a class, so by extension under the new statutory maximum you are not likely to have much more than 28 pupils in a class, even in the most exceptional and highly unusual circumstances. The view on the excepted pupils issue is that it is very unusual, but it arises from time to time as part of the necessary flexibility.
How many additional teachers do you expect local authorities will have to recruit to be able to implement the policy?
Michael, do we have an expectation of that?
Authorities will need to devote extra teachers to cope with the new statutory maximum of 25. The cabinet secretary gave the figure that last year, just over 4,500 pupils in P1 were in classes of more than 25. The schools concerned will need to recruit a number of teachers to remedy the situation, but we do not have a figure, because it depends upon the boundaries of individual schools and intakes in particular years.
The important point to bear in mind is that authorities unanimously supported the regulations, and I know from speaking to them that they are planning on the basis of being able to deliver on the new statutory maximum and do not see it as a significant financial burden.
I believe that I am entitled to say, Mr Gibson, that COSLA wholly supports the change. Given that complex discussions are always taking place about the financing of individual elements of the deal, the fact that COSLA recognises that this is not a major new financial burden but will improve the ability of councils to operate means that it is not a major issue for councils.
Yes, but my point is that we have just had a long discussion about teacher numbers and this change will ensure that there are more teachers in our schools than would otherwise be the case.
There will certainly be a few more teachers, which is greatly to be welcomed.
Why did the Government choose to limit the regulations to cover only children in P1 and not class sizes in P2 and P3, especially since you highlighted in your opening comments the work of the review group that you appointed, which said that there was considerable merit in having statutory limits for class sizes throughout primary school? How did you weigh up those policy intentions with the financial implications of the statutory limits that were to be introduced?
There would be additional costs for primaries 2 and 3, but I remain in favour of it. Most of the responses that we received saw it as a positive step as part of a rolling programme.
I have to look carefully at the reality of what local authorities can deliver as well as all the things that I regard as desirable. I see this as part of a rolling programme and I hope to return to the issue, but to impose a class size limit of 25 on primaries 2 and 3 at this stage would add significant financial burdens to councils, which I would find difficult to do. Local authorities agreed with me on that—they thought that it was the right time to move to classes of 25. They wanted to move to classes of 25 in primary 1 but thought that we should consider a rolling programme for primaries 2 and 3. As you know, I regard primaries 1, 2 and 3 as the key areas for the policy—the early primary years, which are the key ones for interaction. Therefore, I want to roll out the programme over a period of time.
Why are you introducing legislation to confirm the class size limit in primary 1 as 25 rather than 18, which was your election promise?
Because you did not do it, frankly. When you were in government, you set the target at 25, but you did not achieve it. It is the next step to take it down, and that is what we are going to do. It is the right place to be on it. We do not yet have 100 per cent of classes in primary 1 at 18 or below, and to have imposed a limit of 18 at this stage would have conferred a considerable burden. I am a natural negotiator, Mr Macintosh, and I try to move things forward by agreement and consensus. In the circumstances, I believe that the work that I have done in moving the policy forward this year—which I hope will bear fruit when the figures are published—is the next step. We are taking it a step at a time, and this is a useful next step. I hope that all of us—with perhaps one exception, as there is to be a motion to annul the regulations—agree that it is a good thing to do.
I agree that it is Labour’s policy to which you are now giving legal backing. However, your promise was not for a class size of 25; it was for a class size of 18. The Executive note on the regulations states that the commitment to class sizes of 25 was fully funded by the previous Administration. Why exactly have you not agreed to introduce legislation to fulfil your own promise of class sizes of 18?
Mr Macintosh, the glass is either half full or half empty. You and I can argue for as long as we like about whether the target should be 18 or 25. I want a class size of 18 in primaries 1, 2 and 3. I believe that the difficulties in achieving that have been legion, but I keep trying and I hope that, later this year, I will be able to show what progress we have made. I will continue to make progress for as long as I am Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, and I look forward to a long tenure. I will keep moving on that.
Today, I am moving the issue of class sizes a step forward with the agreement of Scotland’s local authorities. We are putting in place a commitment that, I acknowledge, Labour made but that Labour somehow forgot, in the excitement of the moment, to legislate on, which is what we are now doing. I hoped to have your backing. I am asking for that backing now so that we can take that forward together as a positive step for Scottish education. Can I have that backing?
This is Labour’s policy, so I am absolutely delighted that, finally, after three years, the SNP Government—
It is difficult to associate you with the concept of delight, Mr Macintosh, but I will do my best.
I suppose the point is that under the previous Administration, as you said, cabinet secretary, only just over 800 children were not in classes of 25. Perhaps that was because the previous Administration funded the policy. The current Government has chosen not to fund it, so far, which is why we have so many children in classes of 25 or more.
Absolutely not. Convener, I am familiar with your role as Mr Macintosh’s helper, but on this occasion I am afraid that you have got it wrong. We have funded education better than our predecessors. However, such arguments are churlish in the context of what we are trying to do together today. Let me keep trying to establish the spirit of our doing something together for the benefit of Scottish education. That is what I am keen to do and I am sure that it is what people want us to do, so let us try to do it.
For the record, can you remind me of how many children are currently in classes of more than 18?
I do not have that information, as the school census will not be published until December. The moment that the school census is published, I will hot foot it to you with the figures.
The figure might be slightly more than 800. Margaret Smith has a question.
Oh dear. [Laughter.]
People usually wait until I have opened my mouth before expressing their disappointment.
My punctuation and timing were slightly awry—my remark was a comment on what had just passed rather than the pleasure that lies ahead.
11:00
I think that I should swerve that comment.
I have completely forgotten what I was going to say. Oh yes—as you said, the previous Administration had a policy of a maximum class size of 25. That was a Liberal Democrat policy, so I am happy to support the way forward that the regulations present today.
One of the issues that you mentioned was team teaching. In my constituency, where there has been a fairly tentative approach to the use of team teaching, a number of parents have concerns about it. I am interested in the fact that you said that the presence of two teachers in a class with fewer than 36 pupils would be seen as being equivalent to two classes of fewer than 18 pupils. It might cause some parents—certainly some of those whom I represent—concern that that is to be the position. Do we have figures for the number of children across Scotland who are being taught in that way? I appreciate that the issue is quite complicated, given that there is now a much more mixed approach to teaching in schools, but as team teaching is something that more and more local authorities, not just in Edinburgh but elsewhere, will be using, can you give assurances to parents about its effectiveness?
Yes. I think that team teaching tends to come about as a result of a physical constraint rather than as a result of a decision by authorities to do things differently. There is no reason why team teaching should not be fully effective if one believes that the success of the policy of delivering smaller class sizes is in the largest part dependent on the provision of greater interaction between teacher and pupil at that early stage. After all, that is what the belief that the policy works is founded on. In those circumstances, when there are two teachers for a class of 36, the interaction should be the same as in a class of 18.
I thought long and hard about the issue and was persuaded that the local authorities that are using team teaching are doing so largely because of physical constraints. In such circumstances, its use is acceptable. I accept that team teaching should not be the norm, because there is probably a small benefit in having an individual teacher-pupil relationship and an individual space—although some classrooms are divided into separate spaces for team teaching. I would not worry too much about it, and I certainly reassure parents that I do not think that it is in any way educationally detrimental.
What work will your department be doing with regard to the census? You say that team teaching should not become the norm. If there were evidence to suggest that it was becoming the norm, what could you do about it?
The physical spaces are such that I do not think that it could ever become the norm. Michael Kellet might have some figures.
The pupils in Scotland census for 2009 contains some figures on that. Table 2.13 is the relevant one. It shows that in 2008, around 1,100 children in P1 were in classes of more than 25 that had two teachers. That number was around 900 in 2009. That gives you a measure of the scale of the issue. As we said, that is out of a total cohort of around 52,000 pupils, so it is a relatively small component.
It is about 2 per cent of P1 pupils. I suspect that if we drilled down into that, we would find that in the member’s constituency, for example, team teaching was being used in large-ish schools that were popular and where there was a demand on space. I suspect that that is the issue.
I am sorry to come back to this, following our interesting conversation earlier, but I would like to clarify the Government’s class size policy. There is a need for legislation in that area, because the circular that used to carry quite a lot of weight has been challenged in the courts. There are other circulars that provide guidance on class sizes, one of which recommends class sizes of 20 in secondary 1 for English and maths. Is that still Scottish Government policy? The minister suggested that he is looking towards giving legislative backing for class size maxima.
I have to say that I remain more convinced of the argument for smaller class sizes in the early years of primary. I am not against smaller class sizes in other areas, but I remain more convinced of the argument for the early years. At a time when resources are under pressure, we have to prioritise, and my priority at present is the continuing progress, step by step, bit by bit, towards reducing class sizes in primaries 1 to 3.
I am not against the regulations—far from it. I am just trying to clarify the position. The Government has made a specific decision, and a necessary one, because it is class sizes of 25 in P1 that have been challenged. There is no legal challenge against class sizes in S1—that is an internal secondary school issue. However, I am trying to work out the status of or the weight that is carried by various pieces of Government policy or advice. We have legislation, we have terms and conditions and so on, and we have Government circulars. Having class sizes of 20 for English and Maths in S1 is promoted through a Government circular. I just want to check that that is still the SNP Government’s position.
The circular continues in existence. My political priority in delivering education, in terms of class sizes, lies in primaries 1 to 3.
I am sorry, but I just want to see it in black and white. Is a class size of 20 for English and Maths in S1 SNP Government policy?
The circular continues in existence and therefore there continues to be advice on that matter.
Sorry, minister. I do not understand—
I am not here to discuss class sizes in the secondary sector in the abstract or even in the specific. I am here to look at primary 1, in particular, and the regulations. If you would like to engage in a debate about the virtue of class size maxima in S1 and S2, I would be happy to come back and do that at some stage, but there are very different issues, which is illustrated by the fact that the only advice on class sizes in secondary exists in two particular subjects. We are happy to debate the issues, but the circular continues in existence, so the advice remains in place.
Minister, the reason it matters is this. I agree that there are policy issues, and we can have an interesting discussion about the relative importance of class sizes of 20 for English and Maths in secondary school versus reducing class sizes in the early years, but that is not what I am asking. What I am trying to get at is this: what is the Scottish Government’s policy? If the Government is going to produce legislation to back up its policy in S1—
I have no intention to legislate on class sizes in the secondary sector.
Therefore there is a bit of a vacuum, and I think that local authorities will want to know what the SNP’s policy is.
I have to say that I have been education secretary for 11 months now and no local authority has asked me that question. Now, maybe they have just forgotten, but no local authority has asked me that question. However, I have been engaged in intensive discussions about primary class sizes, and that is the issue that we are discussing today.
If I may say so, the minister is being deliberately obtuse. Of course local authorities are not going to ask questions about a policy that they do not necessarily wish to observe at a difficult time of financial restraint. Local authorities have always wanted some flexibility on the matter. We know that in certain areas some local authorities have abandoned the policy of class sizes of 20 for English and maths in S1. I do not think that it is a difficult question. Either the SNP has a position on the matter or it does not. It seems that it does not. It is important to know—
No, the circular continues in existence, and I am happy to debate the separate issue of class size maxima in specific secondary subjects at a time and place of your choosing, Mr Macintosh, but that is not the issue today. The issue today is the very different one of class sizes in the early primary years.
Fine.
That concludes our questions to the minister under agenda item 5. We move on to item 6, which is consideration of Elizabeth Smith’s motion S3M-7177. I invite her to speak to and move her motion.
I have lodged the motion because the Scottish Conservatives wish the legislation that sets the cap on class sizes at 30 to remain in place. Our view is based on strong educational and social grounds. First of all, we firmly believe that increasing parental choice in the selection of school is one of the key planks in raising standards. In recent years, more parents have exercised their right to choose the school that their children will attend, which says quite a lot about many parents’ desire to become more involved in their children’s education. Reduction of the cap from 30 to 25 is likely to fly in the face of the principle of extending parental choice and will, as Eileen Prior of the Scottish Parent Teacher Council pointed out, in some cases hinder parents’ ability to find primary 1 places in the best schools.
With current demographic trends, there has already been a reduction in primary 1 class sizes—which, incidentally, raises the question why new legislation is needed at all. Given that the numbers in the lower years of primary school pupils are projected to rise quite considerably by 2020, the logical deduction is that capping class sizes at 25 will create the need for more P1 classes, which will have a cost implication. I want to push the cabinet secretary a little further and ask him to provide evidence to the committee on predictions for the required number of teachers to be employed and to tell us whether there are any predictions for the number of classrooms that would have to be built. I believe that I am correct in saying that my Labour and Liberal colleagues have asked the same question in recent months; in fact, one of them actually asked the question this morning.
I need hardly remind the cabinet secretary of the warnings of a potential £630 million funding gap that local authorities might face in 2011-12, and I wonder how the policy will be afforded in the future, given that primary school rolls are set to rise by 7.5 per cent. I also point out that 180 primary schools across Scotland have been unable to operate P1 classes of 25, so I have to wonder about the cost implications of forcing such schools to change their P1 structures.
The Scottish Conservatives are also concerned about the potential knock-on effects of the changes on later year groups—P2 and P3, in particular. If the cabinet secretary is so convinced of the educational wisdom of his policy with regard to P1, what is the logic behind limiting the legislation to that year alone? I do not really follow that, and I share many parents’ concerns—some of which Margaret Smith flagged up earlier—that the number of composite classes could rise in order to get round the various cost implications, which could have a detrimental effect on some children’s educational experience.
Most important, I do not think that there is any convincing evidence that forcing class sizes to be capped at a lower level necessarily improves attainment levels. There is a wealth of documentation on the subject, but there is also a very wide difference of opinion about the importance of class sizes. As I have said both at committee and in Parliament, I have absolutely no problem with smaller class sizes. However, although the move will benefit many children, it would have absolutely no effect on others. When pupils leave school, they are much more likely to remember an inspirational teacher than they are a class size. Again, as the SPTC made clear, the issue resonates very strongly with parents, who would prefer their child to be taught by a good teacher in a class of 26 or 27.
My final point, which I know my Labour and Liberal colleagues agree with, is that the SNP made an unequivocal manifesto promise to deliver class sizes of 18 or fewer in P1 to P3. In my opinion, that policy was unworkable from day 1 and was unquestionably the wrong priority at a time when there were other much more important education matters to resolve, such as improving literacy and numeracy. Since the heady days of 2007 when the pledge was made, the class size policy has disintegrated. Indeed, it has been watered down to something that bears very little resemblance to its starting point and is, as the Scottish Government legislation shows, full of inconsistencies and devoid of any real or convincing educational arguments. That is why so many parents across the country have challenged the policy.
The real reason for the change—and probably the reason for the unanimous support that it has received from many councils—is that, as those councils have very bluntly told the Scottish Government, they cannot afford to lose the court cases at which parents’ democratic rights to choose a school have been upheld.
The long and the short of it is that the Scottish Government should abandon its failed class size policy, leave the cap at 30 and allow maximum flexibility, within what is a perfectly reasonable legal limit, for parents to have maximum choice and for headteachers to have the maximum say in deciding on what is best for their schools.
The Scottish Conservatives have chosen to side with many parents on this issue, and I urge other committee members to do so, too.
I move,
That the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee recommends that nothing further be done under the Education (Lower Primary Class Sizes) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2010 (SSI 2010/326).
As motions to annul subordinate legislation are relatively unusual, it might be helpful to explain the procedure. There is now an opportunity for any or all members of the committee to engage in a debate. However, you will each be allowed to make only one contribution. At the conclusion of all committee members’ contributions, there will be an opportunity for the cabinet secretary to respond to the points that have been made by Liz Smith and anyone else who has participated, before we move to a vote.
I thank Elizabeth Smith for bringing this important issue before the committee to discuss, although I say from the outset that I do not agree that we should support the motion to annul the SSI.
When he was speaking about the regulations earlier, the cabinet secretary suggested that he is as committed as ever to smaller class sizes. I find the cabinet secretary’s comments and so-called promises in that regard to be so tarnished now as to be almost worthless.
The previous Administration introduced a class size of 25 in P1, and that was an important policy. I agree with the cabinet secretary that smaller class sizes are an important policy, among a number of policies, and that they have educational benefits for our pupils. The policy has been shown to work, and the previous Administration—both the Liberals and Labour—were committed to it.
It is important to have the legislation in place, because the circular and guidance on which the previous commitment was delivered—with full funding, I might add—have now been challenged in the courts. That is unsatisfactory for a number of reasons, apart from the experience that Liz Smith mentioned. We do not wish parents and councils to be set against one other and to have to battle things out in the courts. In all such situations, we need as much clarity and legal certainty as possible. Over the past few years, court cases that have been successfully brought by parents have meant that the class size of 25 is now virtually unenforceable.
I totally disagree with Liz Smith’s suggestion that it would be a good idea to abandon a class size of 25 in authorities such as East Renfrewshire. In all the primary schools in East Renfrewshire that have made significant investment in P1 to the advantage of parents and pupils, that advantage would be entirely lost.
The previous Administration invested significantly in the school estate in East Renfrewshire and in teacher numbers, particularly in primary schools. A number of primary schools were expanded. Each time a primary school was expanded to provide more capacity and more room in which the pupils could learn, that capacity was filled up through placing requests, with places going to children from outside the authority area, usually. I do not think that that is a desirable situation. Local authorities should be able to plan and to take what are political decisions to prioritise education and investment in that area, so that they can reassure parents that that is the policy that will be implemented.
In this case, legal backing is required. It should not be a case of abandoning the policy, as it is not true to suggest that parents do not mind whether their children are educated in classes of 25 or 30. Parents do mind. Local authorities mind. It is important for the Government to be supported in getting the regulations through today.
I will pick up on some of the things that Ken Macintosh has just said.
The question of what parents want is complicated. A parent who successfully manages to get their child into the school of their choice—whether they have had to go to court to do that or whatever—is obviously highly delighted as they are trying to make the best choice that they can make for their child. Like many colleagues, I represent an area where there is a great strain on a number of popular and good local schools, and many of my local schools are dealing with the consequences of that success: for example, a school being at capacity and where general space, dining facilities and other things are fit to burst. The parents of the children who get in but who might otherwise not have are clearly delighted, but many of the other parents want smaller class sizes for educational reasons and to improve the general working and living space and the other facilities that are available to the children at the school. Therefore, I do not think that parents can be seen as a block, because their views are very much down to their individual circumstances.
Those comments are not meant to diminish the fact that when parents exercise their choice and put children into a school that is not necessarily the catchment one, it can often be positive, not only for the parent and child but for the school concerned. The picture is complicated.
I agree that the most important aspect is the quality of our teachers, which we touched on earlier. There is nothing to say that a class size of 30 means that we magically get quality teachers. The bottom line is the question whether one would prefer to have the average teacher teaching a class of 30 or a class of 25? At P1, the class of 25 is likely to deliver more pupil-teacher contact and educational benefit than a class of 30.
Clearly, the most exceptional teacher in the school may be able to cope with a class of 30, but we have to look across the board and work on the basis of the generality. Having had to investigate the issue not only as a party spokesperson but in relation to school closures in my constituency, I look very carefully at a lot of the evidence on whether small class sizes are effective. It remains my view that it is beneficial for class sizes to be smaller, particularly in the early years of primary school and in certain sociodemographic areas. That is my opinion, my long-held position and my party policy, which we pursued in government. The cabinet secretary may say that our pursuit was flawed, but I think nevertheless that we were following the same direction of travel, and the convener is right that we were successful in terms of the numbers of children in P1 who ended up in class sizes of fewer than 25.
I have raised some concerns about team teaching. Physical constraints often mean that it will happen, and some of the constraints can be exacerbated by local school closures, which lead to other schools having to deal with an input through team teaching and so on. Relatively small numbers of children are involved, but it seems to me that there may, for a number of reasons, be an increase in the next few years, so it is right for the cabinet secretary to do further work on the issue. I am happy to put on record again the fact that I know that a number of parents are concerned about it.
The fundamental question for me is: do I believe that a smaller P1 class size of 25 or under is preferable to a class size of 30? Everything that I have looked at over the years makes me unequivocal on the matter. I believe that smaller class sizes are more beneficial, and I will be happy to support the cabinet secretary’s regulations today. Unfortunately, on this occasion I cannot support my colleague Liz Smith.
I support most of what Margaret Smith said. This is also one of the rare occasions on which I agree with quite a lot of what Ken Macintosh said. I welcome the regulations. The challenges that South Lanarkshire Council has told me it has faced have made the situation very real for me. Money should be spent on teachers, jotters and pencils and not on court challenges. That is important. South Lanarkshire has spent a substantial amount on court challenges—money that should have gone into front-line teaching.
I declare an interest as the mother of a pupil who has just started his first year in secondary school—he is in the first cohort of curriculum for excellence. He faced the challenge of a bigger class size in primary school, as well as his own challenges. He was lost for a while, until we realised what was happening and addressed it, using the parental choice that is offered by additional support for learning legislation. For the past couple of years he has benefited from being taught in smaller classes. I have seen the challenges that he faced and the benefits that he has had. As a parent, that is the most powerful evidence that I have seen. Like everyone else, we have looked at all the statistics, information and research on the benefits, in terms of early intervention and the challenges that primary 1 pupils face when they start school. In such circumstances, lower class sizes benefit children.
The other issue is teacher quality. If a teacher has 25 pupils to deal with every day, and not 30—or, as in some cases in South Lanarkshire, 33—as well as lots of bits of paper to fill in and other such challenges, they will have more time to spend with the kids, and those kids will get better input and better quality education. I support that.
Although our aim is to reduce class sizes even further, I welcome the regulations as a necessary first step. I will support the regulations today. I am sorry, but I will not be supporting my colleague Liz Smith on the matter.
No other members have indicated that they wish to contribute. I invite the cabinet secretary to respond to the points that have been made in the debate.
I appreciate the points that have been made in support of the regulations. I will comment on one or two of them in a moment.
The Government has achieved the lowest-ever primary class sizes. They are not low enough for me, but they are moving in the right direction, and I am determined to keep them moving in the right direction. The regulations are one of the tools that we will use to do that.
Liz Smith said that it would be good if more pupils had the chance to spend time with an inspirational teacher. I want pupils not just to glimpse inspirational teachers from afar. I want to intensify the experience of inspirational teachers with individual children. We will do that by reducing the number of children in classes. It is a simple equation. They get a greater share of those inspirational teachers. We do not do that by having class sizes of 30.
Margaret Smith’s point is also correct. There are average teachers. For an average teacher—or any teacher—a smaller number of pupils can improve the quality of the teaching experience. It is interesting that there is virtual unanimity among the parties about the virtue of smaller class sizes. As ever in Scottish politics, we are arguing about the detail. The thrust of the policy is approved throughout Scotland. It is regrettable that the Tories are once again isolated by ideology. Perhaps they will want to consider that as time goes on. Liz Smith shakes her head, so I think that she is determined to continue to be isolated by ideology. It might be slightly unkind of me to point out that the Tories were the last remaining party that wished to send children up chimneys. They are also the last party that wishes children to be taught in large classes—but I suppose that that is better than going down mines.
The cost issue that Liz Smith raises reminds me of the remark by Oscar Wilde about knowing
“the price of everything and the value of nothing.”
There is a simple equation here. Councils have to spend substantial amounts of money on legal costs, and they should spend it in classrooms. The question of increased costs does not come into it. Indeed, every one of the 32 local authorities wanted this to happen.
I hope that Liz Smith, of whom I am fond—
11:30
God help me.
—will accept that point of view. I know that that sounds like a threat, but it is not really. I hope that she will accept that local authorities are not blate—if I may use a good Scots word—about complaining about costs, and if they have not raised the issue of the cost of implementing the regulations, then it means that they do not regard cost as a barrier to success.
I want to see all our schools as the best schools. It was regrettable that when push came to shove Liz Smith’s argument boiled down to a scramble to get into the best schools. I want every school in Scotland to perform well, and I spend a great deal of my time on that. It would not help if we took the counsel of despair and accepted those scrambles as not only inevitable, but desirable, and refused to move to improve class sizes and the quality of education for all children in Scotland.
I am not going to be on the side of ideology, but on the side of education. There is no benefit in larger class sizes in the early years of primary school. We need to continue with the process to reduce those class sizes. I believe that the ultimate goal is around 18 pupils per class, Ken Macintosh does not agree, and Margaret Smith is somewhere between the two in the good Liberal position of being at neither extreme.
In Scotland, we are making progress towards smaller class sizes, and internationally, many countries now realise that that is of great importance. We are doing the right thing, and I commend the regulations to the committee.
The question is, that motion S3M-7177, in the name of Elizabeth Smith, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Motion disagreed to.
The committee is required to publish a report on its consideration of the motion. Are members content to delegate authority to me to agree the text of that report with the clerks, as proposed in paragraph 12 of the paper that the clerks circulated in advance of today’s meeting?
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes the committee’s consideration of subordinate legislation for today. The committee will suspend to allow the cabinet secretary to leave. We thank you for your attendance today. The short suspension will also allow the Minister for Children and Early Years to join us.
11:33
Meeting suspended.
11:39
On resuming—