Official Report 201KB pdf
Schools (Class Sizes) (PE1046)
I welcome members to the 14th meeting in 2008 of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee. The first agenda item is consideration of petition PE1046, from the Educational Institute of Scotland, on class sizes. I am delighted to welcome Murdo Maciver, the convener of the resources committee of the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland; Brian Cooklin, the president of the Headteachers Association of Scotland; and Greg Dempster, the general secretary of the Association of Headteachers and Deputes in Scotland. I thank them for agreeing to attend and for the written evidence that they submitted in advance of the meeting, which is helpful.
Good morning all, and many thanks for your welcome, convener.
I thank the committee for the invitation to give evidence and answer your questions.
I endorse absolutely everything that my colleagues have said. Our submission includes the quote—I am not sure where it was first said or who said it—that
In evidence last week, researchers from the University of Glasgow who have examined all the academic research on the subject suggested that, as people move through the school system, the benefits of smaller class sizes for educational attainment are diluted and may even be lost. The EIS is committed to class sizes of 20 in all levels in primary and secondary schools, eventually. Is that the right direction of travel, or do headteachers and those who manage the service need more flexibility?
As a headteacher, I naturally want more flexibility, because there are local situations and local needs. We must bear it in mind that we are talking about individual children. I am always wary of generalisations about what can apply and what will work across the board, because we need to know about the children and their needs, which can vary from one year to another.
Historically, the setting of class-size limits has been driven by the teachers' contract and workload, and only more recently by educational arguments. The limits nowadays lack consistency and rationale, and there are various contradictions and anomalies. As Brian Cooklin indicated, there are variations in the number of pupils, the stages and the definitions of subjects. In practical subjects such as English and maths, the limit is 20 in the early stages of secondary, and 30 and 33 elsewhere. Physical education and music have historically been considered not as practical subjects but as full classroom subjects, with the potential for a limit of 33. The regulatory basis of class size limits varies in guidelines and in policy aspirations. As Brian Cooklin said, in the context of individual needs, in the curriculum for excellence, in research and so on, there is a need for an overarching rationale and for class size limits to be reconsidered, bearing in mind issues such as resource implications.
I agree. There are big resource implications in considering a blanket reduction in class sizes. I agree with Brian Cooklin about the need for flexibility, so that teachers are faced by the most appropriate class size at a given time.
We will come back to resources, so I will not stray into that line of questioning yet.
It comes down to the quality of the relationship between the teacher and the pupil. Plenty of my teaching colleagues would say, "If I had 20, 30, 40 or 50 well-motivated and enthusiastic pupils, I could get results." In reality, that is not what we are faced with. In a mixed ability class in a school that draws from a catchment area that is fully comprehensive in its entitlement, there will be every range of interest, ability, concentration or whatever you want to call it. As a result, the teacher has the problem—or the challenge, depending on how you view it—of how to maintain interest and motivation, and of ensuring that children succeed and achieve their potential. Those things do not happen because of one policy objective or one decision; they happen because we create a framework or set of circumstances that allow children to thrive and to learn.
It is clear from reports from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education and from research that certain factors make for an effective school. I know from experience that some of the most crowded schools, which have classes that are full to the brim and cannot meet placing requests, are among the most successful at providing a learning experience and developing well-rounded youngsters.
I have nothing to add. I will have to answer more quickly next time.
We will not force you to speak if someone else has said what you wanted to say.
I will give Mr Dempster an opportunity to speak. You mentioned the importance of literacy. Is class size reduction the only way of improving standards of literacy?
No. Class size reduction is only one way of improving the quality of interaction between pupils and teachers. We might also do that by increasing the pupil to teacher ratio or by spreading effective practice around the country.
You mentioned pupil interaction with teachers, but do smaller class sizes help pupils to interact with one another? Is being in a small class advantageous in that regard?
That depends on the size and the composition of the class. The dynamics of a class are important and how the teacher establishes and varies groups and settings affects interaction between pupils. I have to say that the interaction can be just as successful in a larger class, provided that the groups have been carefully constructed, which depends on the amount of information and knowledge the teacher has.
To add to that, my members have told me that classes can be too small as well as too large for effective relationships. I do not know well enough the research that was used for the digest to say whether any of it considered what the minimum effective class size is, but it would be useful to investigate that.
As a codicil to that, the evidence from research in the secondary sector is that when class sizes drop much below 18, the benefit is cancelled out. The benefit comes only with a sizeable reduction. For example, if a class of 33 drops to 20, there will be a big benefit from an improvement in teaching and learning. However, if a class drops from 33 to 25, there is no substantial benefit. There is a sliding scale, according to research in the secondary sector.
Grouping is probably important at a number of levels. My colleagues have dealt with classroom level. Perhaps there are similar issues at whole-school level. One worries occasionally about not only the economic viability of very small schools but their educational viability in terms of opportunities, interaction, social dynamics, role models, the competitive element and so on. Larger schools can offer that, but smaller schools perhaps find it difficult to do so.
I want to turn to the Scottish Government policy of committing to reduce class sizes to 18 pupils or fewer in primary 1 to 3. We know that the concordat has given local government an expectation that there would be a progressive reduction year on year, and that the single outcome agreements would, in some ways, govern that. Of course, the EIS said in its evidence that it does not think that single outcome agreements are necessarily the best way forward. I want to consider that further. From the panel's perspective, what progress is being made in development of single outcome agreements?
My understanding is that single outcome agreements should be available some time in the summer. However, as an association, we have not been asked for input into them.
Would you have expected to have had an input?
There is a difference between our association offering input to the outcome agreements and members at local level having input into what is happening in their own authorities—those are two different things. I hope that headteachers are being asked by local authorities about the implications of the class size reduction policy and how best to implement it. However, we have not been involved in that at national level.
The ADES supports the concordat commitment to reduce class sizes, particularly in the early stages. We will also support the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in monitoring progress on that. It is reasonable to benchmark progress not just on class sizes but on dedicated teacher input to the early stages. However, given the wide-ranging implications of the trend, it is vital that we go forward in a spirit of partnership. We must take due cognisance of the resource implications, of authorities' individual circumstances, of the direction in which they wish to go and of the educational issues that we have just talked about.
I hear what you say about the wider educational implications—I took that in from your answers to the convener. I am particularly concerned about the outcome agreements, which are a part of the process. To what degree will councils be able to achieve year-on-year progress towards smaller classes? How acceptable to councils is making that a priority, as the Government has suggested?
Evidence already shows that councils are considering the way forward. Authorities are moving in different directions. A very small number of authorities have made returns that show that they are now or will soon be in a position to implement fully the aspiration for classes of 18. Some authorities are considering their strategies and others are developing a phased approach to go from classes of perhaps 25 towards 18 over time. Other authorities are giving priority to areas of deprivation, which reflects their circumstances. There is evidence of mobilisation. Having benchmarked against the situation in 2007, one looks forward to changes this coming August and particularly in August next year.
It is a bit early to judge the single outcome agreements. We must go through a period of adjustment, because the system is completely new. Local authorities have had to do much work in reaching single outcome agreements. They have talked with civil servants and with the Government. I understand that, as Greg Dempster said, the agreements should be agreed, finalised and issued in June.
Questions will shortly be asked about resources.
In that case, I will hold off.
Yes, please.
It might have to come up with more money. That depends on why agreement is not reached. I am sorry, but we cannot avoid discussing the resource implications because in some authority areas new schools were built prior to the announcement of the policy objective on class sizes, which means that the planned purpose of those buildings has changed. That has major ramifications.
Do you agree that as we are talking about a national policy and a national education system, it is the Government's duty to ensure that resources are provided where they are needed most?
The Government obviously has a duty to provide resources. Clearly, the more resources it provides, the better and the more effective the service will be. However, the concordat involves a partnership. If the perception existed at Government level that inadequate progress was being made towards reducing class sizes to 18, the approach should not simply be to insist that that target be met. As I said earlier, account would have to be taken of the individual circumstances of authorities. Given that we are talking about a policy aspiration, it is reasonable to expect some progress.
Thank you for that helpful information.
If the targets were not achieved, the Government would have to consider rationally why that was the case. It would have to take account of the progress that had been made, as well as the impact of what had happened. We want the policy to be based on evidence. We want politicians to examine the evidence as it emerges and, if the impact is not what was expected, to change their priorities and the outcomes that they sought, and to reassess whether it would be appropriate to press on towards class sizes of 18. However, the realities of politics probably would not allow that to happen.
I will be less diplomatic than my colleagues. There is local democracy, so it is not just a question of having a national education policy objective. That said, there is no opposition to the objective in question. People support the principle, but they are concerned about the practicalities. It would be foolish if the view were taken nationally that because the objective was not being achieved everywhere, someone should get clobbered. That would not produce the result that everyone desires. It is supposed to be a partnership agreement and there is meant to be autonomy. For that matter, there is also meant to be autonomy for headteachers—to some extent, at least—to deal flexibly with the situation. That is meant to be the spirit in which we are conducting things, and it is important to bear local democracy and accountability in mind because hard decisions will have to be made to achieve the objective at the expense of something else.
You make the point that it is a partnership and a positive thing. I was not thinking at all about people being clobbered; I was thinking about informing the debate about resources of all sorts.
I apologise, then. I did not want to ascribe motives to you.
I hope not, because I think we all agree that we are talking about something that teachers, parents and authorities want.
With regard to local implementation of the outcome agreements, are you aware of previous local reductions in class sizes where the drivers have been areas of deprivation or demographic change?
Those issues have featured. In my experience, the flexibility offered by the situation that, as long as the staffing input provides a 1:20 ratio at least, some classes in English and maths in secondary schools can be larger and others smaller—
Forgive me for interrupting. We will come on to flexibility, but my question is more to do with the driver of the policy. The minister has stated that the reductions will be brought about by demographic change and will be focused on areas of deprivation. I was wondering not whether flexibility is allowed at school level but whether deprivation and demographic change have been drivers of previous policies to reduce class sizes.
If rolls continue to fall, the policy could be more easily achieved, assuming the same input of staffing resource. However, there is evidence that the decline in rolls may not continue but may level off or even reverse. Certainly, at local level in some geographical areas, large and small, there is already major pressure on school provision. Achieving smaller class sizes in those situations will be very difficult without substantial investment in the school estate.
Do the other witnesses think that previous class size reductions have been driven by demographics?
No, that has not been the driver; a more universal benefit was being sought. However, on various occasions, local authorities have imaginatively organised their resources to try to tackle deprivation. As the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report highlighted, we do well at the top end in international comparisons and results, but the gap between that and the group at the bottom is the major concern.
I want to pursue Mr Maciver's comments on placing requests. An outcome agreement might state that a local authority will reduce class sizes, with a maximum of 18 pupils in P1 to P3. However, am I correct in thinking that, if the situation were to be similar, say, to that in my Borders constituency, where the school roll is increasing, with all the pressures that that entails, it is unlikely that a placing request will be refused because the actual maximum is 25? If the policy were to be implemented and fully funded, would parents still be able to place children in certain classes, even if the limit in the outcome agreement was 18, as long as the class size did not go over 25?
We are facing the unknown. I would not put any money on the outcome either through the local authority's appeal mechanism or in the sheriff court. I do not know—and am in no hurry to test—what a sheriff might think about the refusal of a placing request on the back of the class size policy.
But I believe that you said that the policy had been tested with regard to a reduction in class sizes to 20.
The local authority in which I work has moved towards a proposed limit of 23 for P1 in the coming year, reflecting progress towards the 18 limit. Placing requests were refused on that basis, but an appeal made through the council's appeal mechanism was upheld.
Only two schools in my constituency have fewer than 18 pupils in P1. Parents in many areas will be making exactly those kinds of requests to the popular schools.
I guess that, in the absence of legislation and regulation, case law will simply build up and eventually give us a more definitive position.
Has the Government issued directors of education with guidance on class sizes of 18?
We are aware of the policy aspiration, but there has been no formal guidance.
None?
No.
The witnesses have already mentioned past instances of class size reduction. Are there any lessons that you would wish to share on previous attempts to reduce class sizes? Are there any challenges still to address?
I appreciate that the committee might have questions on this issue, but one thing that springs immediately to mind is the need for flexibility. If the class sizes in a school are very close to the 18 limit—or to a multiple of 18—groups might have to be broken up in a way that might not be particularly helpful either to pupils or to teachers.
The major issue in secondary school is unfairness. English and mathematics classes in S1 and S2 might have been reduced to 20 pupils, but the same does not apply to languages, social subjects and religious and moral education. It is difficult for a child to adjust to such a situation. That relates partly to the earlier question about groups within the class. Having children work in one setting for one period and move into a bigger, different setting for the following period is not necessarily the best way for them to learn. I have to declare an interest as an English teacher. The case was made that class sizes for English needed to be reduced, because it was beneficial for addressing the literacy issue, which is important. Equally, if you want to encourage children to learn modern languages, it makes no sense to say that although class sizes for English should be 20, class sizes for languages should be 30 or 33. The unfairness element is the biggest problem.
On the interface issue—whether secondary school youngsters have to go from a small English class to a large geography class—there are parallels between primary and secondary schools. The issue is particularly significant where the P1 to P3 limit is set at 18, space is at a premium and there is a large number of placing requests. There are educational issues in having children go from a class of 18 in P3 to a class of 33 in P4. The primary review that is taking place south of the border refers to the influence of smaller class sizes in the early years. There is nothing new in that. It is interesting that the review seems to define 25, rather than 18, as a small class size. It also refers to the importance of continuity, which backs up the point that I made earlier about the need for an overarching rationale and a general policy on class sizes.
I will return to the issue of composite classes, but I am interested in the practical issues, because they will have a huge impact. In my area, some schools will not get a hut in the playground, because there is not enough room. That issue needs to be addressed.
The answer has to be yes, we would expect to see more composite classes in primary. I wonder whether there will be more as the years go on, when the smaller numbers in P1 to P3 come out into the system, given that 18 and 18 does not make 30.
I do not think that we should jump to the conclusion that composite classes are necessarily a bad thing. Given that youngsters have individual strengths and weaknesses, classes of youngsters at similar stages and of similar ages could also be considered to be composite. We could find the same thing in the upper stages of secondary school, given changes in the curriculum. The emphasis should be on the needs of the individual and on building on strengths and addressing weaknesses rather than having pupils of the one stage in the same teaching group.
Please do not misunderstand me: I have been reassured by teachers' responses to composite classes and how they are managed. However, you would accept that it is one issue that parents often query and need reassurance on.
Absolutely.
I notice that in the ADES submission you suggest that composite class sizes would be limited to 18, just as single stage class sizes would be 18. Is that the guidance that the Government is giving? Composite classes, because of their nature, have always tended to be smaller.
In the absence of more definitive guidance it is my interpretation, on behalf of ADES, that any class with P1, P2 or P3 youngsters in it, including composite classes, would be limited to 18.
I just wanted to clear that up—thank you.
There are two givens this morning. The first is the general agreement that class size reduction is a good thing. The second is that, in the best educational interests of the child, we want individual needs to be looked after. In that context, who is best able to decide what is best for class sizes in a particular school: headteacher, local authority or national Government?
I do not think that the answer is any of those. Decisions should be made by the whole school rather than the headteacher on their own, in conjunction with staff and in the context of the resources available, so the local authority is in the frame as well.
I would back that up. Various interests are at play, including the individual teacher, support staff, perhaps psychologist colleagues, the headteacher, the local authority and the Government. Such decisions are a shared responsibility and a consensual outcome would be useful.
That would be ideal, of course. It is natural to say that those decisions involve everyone and that there is a partnership, but we have to ask who knows the child best. The person who knows the child best is often the parent, but they do not necessarily know best how the child is coping in a classroom situation, so clearly the class teacher has an input.
That said, Mr Cooklin, are you as a headteacher constrained in deciding what best suits your school because the national Government, through the local authority, is asking for a specific class size?
It is our job as headteachers and employees of the local authority to implement the policy. We are practical people. If the policy is laid down, we have to make it work for the benefit of the children in the school. That is our job.
You said that you would like more flexibility for headteachers and that flexibility underpins the whole outcome. I appreciate that your experience is in the secondary sector. Is there a hint that current Government policy puts too much constraint on headteachers, whether they are in the primary or secondary sector, and that headteachers have to adhere to policy rather than do what they consider to be in the best interests of the children in their school, which might be different from what would be in the best interests of children in a neighbouring school?
As I said, there is universal support for the principle of reducing class sizes. We are not in the kind of situation that has happened before, in which Government or local authorities introduced policies that generated a great deal of opposition or simmering resentment. Class size reduction is a positive policy and people want it to work.
I am sure that my colleagues will talk about the financial constraints. Does your answer imply that there is a fundamental difficulty in matching the policy to current resources? In general we agree with the principle of reducing class sizes, but an ambitious and prescriptive target has been set, which we will not be able to meet, given the current resources. That puts pressure on local authorities and headteachers who want to be flexible and address pupils' needs.
No policy is an island that can be considered in isolation. We should consider policies in the context of a range of sometimes conflicting policies and priorities, whether they are set at class, school, local authority or national level.
In your submission your blunt assessment is that current resources will not allow the flexibility that you describe.
I am happy to talk about that now if you want, convener.
We will come on to resources, so I ask you to hold off until then. We might have to have a drum roll when we get to the subject.
What guidance has been provided on class size in composite classes of P3 and P4 pupils?
As far as I know, none. My assumption is the same as Murdo Maciver's, which is that if a composite class has P3 pupils in it, the class should not have more than 18 pupils. I think that that would be applied.
You are just guessing. Many of the schools in my area are small rural schools that—
I would not say that it was a guess. I would say that there is a commitment to have class sizes that are no larger than 18 for pupils in P1 to P3. The pupils that we are talking about are still in P3, even if they are in a composite class with pupils from P4.
Right. Guidance from the Government has stated that.
No, not as far as I am aware.
What is the ADES view on that?
My position on that is the same as Greg Dempster's.
So, no guidance has been issued.
Is the next question about funding, convener?
Oh, yes.
I apologise for my earlier absence. 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?
For as long as I can remember, 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. In the current context, there are, as always, competing claims on resources. For example, authorities are under pressure to improve the school estate. In my paper, I raised the point that, in many instances, the policy of class size reduction requires changes to the school estate in the form of improvements, extensions or temporary classrooms. Which is more important: extending or adapting schools to meet the target of class sizes of 18—on a strict interpretation of the policy; or spending the money on addressing condition and suitability issues in schools? Are there enough resources? No.
Ken Macintosh's question is similar to Elizabeth Smith's earlier question. Our members across most authorities have reported to me that they are faced with reduced budgets in their schools. Given that, my answer on resources has to be no as well.
I have not known a policy in 30-odd years of teaching that has been universally matched by resources throughout the country. As an exercise for myself, I was just trying to think of one. Most policies have been implemented for most people in most parts of the country. However, we must bear it in mind that, when it is decided politically that a particular objective is important, that cannot be isolated from everything else, as Murdo Maciver pointed out. For example, it is not just about improving the quality of a school building's fabric, which is still a major issue in many parts of the country, because there are legislative priorities as well. For example, the requirements of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 and the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 must be met.
I thank the members of the panel for their answers. Mr Maciver has provided a useful estimate of some authorities' costs. I want to explore how much progress we are making on the targets, especially those that relate to teachers. Is it your experience that local authorities are taking on more teachers? Are all the probationers who are coming out from teacher training colleges being employed? Is the teaching workforce increasing?
The teaching workforce is increasing—the commitment to provide 53,000 teachers has almost been met. One occasionally hears complaints about the difficulty that probationers experience in winning permanent jobs. However, the prospects of obtaining a teaching job are bright, even if some appointments will not be made immediately. We are approaching the targets. Probationers will be employed on a permanent basis sooner or later.
As well as hearing from members about their budgets, I am hearing about staff losses. Unlike Murdo Maciver, I do not have an overarching picture; I see only little parts of it. However, the reports that I am getting from some members are about staff reductions rather than staff increases.
That is certainly the picture that we have nationwide. We are extremely concerned about the situation for probationers. The programme for probationers, the excellence of which is internationally recognised, was one of the major benefits of the McCrone agreement. The quality and calibre of probationers is often outstanding, so it is a great credit to the Scottish education system that we have a programme that is universally regarded as being highly positive.
I understand that as a result of the budget settlement the protection that was previously afforded to local authority education budgets has been removed. I do not know whether that protection was nominal. How protected from efficiency savings were education budgets in the past and what is the impact of removing that ring fencing or protection?
Authorities need to live within their means. I think that all the witnesses would say that education is by far the most important service that authorities provide, but one must be corporate and acknowledge that councils have other priorities.
The removal of ring fencing is a double-edged sword. On one hand, people are delighted not to have to jump through bureaucratic hoops that involve filling in and tracking forms and making submissions, which was a burden in local authorities and in schools. To some extent, that distorted schools' activity, because headteachers had to follow the resource and ensure that a particular aspect of activity was the priority. Of course, that was the intention of ring fencing. We understood that perfectly. On one level, we are happy to be rid of ring fencing.
I agree that education budgets have been protected in the past, perhaps through ring fencing to a degree. There has been media comment that the removal of ring fencing is to blame for the pain that is currently being felt in school budgets, but I am not convinced that that is the case; the pain is just the result of a tight settlement. As Murdo Maciver said, we will need to watch this space.
Kenneth Macintosh asked about what used to happen in relation to efficiency savings. In a variety of authorities it was necessary to impose what were called management savings. I am headteacher of an average-sized secondary school and my budget is about £4.7 million. About £250,000 of that is available for virement and can be moved from one budget heading to another. The bulk of my budget is taken up by salaries and fixed costs, such as rates and energy costs. In the past 10 years, it has been necessary to identify £36,000 of management savings as part of efficiency savings. Then, of course, there are costs such as those for the development of managed services for information and communication technology, which is about £30,000 a year in a school the size of mine.
My two colleagues are doing a good job of arguing the toss for maximising school budgets, which is absolutely appropriate. There is a similar process among competing services at local authority level.
I turn to the ADES survey of authorities and, in particular, the suggested £360 million of capital for additional classrooms, which was mentioned in the media this morning. What is that £360 million of capital as a percentage of the total education budget?
I am sorry but I cannot answer that question; perhaps I can look into it and feed back to you.
That would be helpful because people see the figure of £360 million and think that it is an awful lot of money, so it would be interesting to see it in the context of what the Government has allocated to the education budget, which is the biggest settlement so far. We are trying to get an idea of how the expenses stack up within the settlement.
In anyone's language, £360 million is a lot of money, particularly given the needs of the school estate in Scotland—£360 million is probably the equivalent of 10 secondary schools.
I listened carefully to what has been said about resources—Mr Dempster described it as being a "tight settlement". I also listened with interest to the cabinet secretary on the radio before I came to the meeting. She said that she and John Swinney had delivered the best ever local government settlement to local authorities and that the money was there to deliver the full implementation of reductions in class sizes to 18 for primaries 1, 2 and 3. Do your organisations agree that the money is there and that you can see it?
The paper from ADES indicates the costs of the policy, both recurring and capital, although paragraph 3.1 shows the health warnings about those figures. It shows what the costs would be across the 22 authorities that responded to the question of immediate implementation of the limit of 18. Are there enough resources—more than 2,000 teachers and a number of additional classrooms, leaving aside the schools where no change would be possible—to implement the policy in August 2008? Even if buildings could be put in place, the answer would be no.
I cannot add to that.
We cannot judge whether the money exists because we do not have full information. The local authorities have the information, so I respect their opinions. However, looking again at the situation historically, I have never known a Government not to tell authorities that they have plenty of money to deliver a particular objective.
I think that the witnesses can share committee members' frustrations. We hear the cabinet secretary saying that the settlement is the best that local government has ever received, but you have told us this morning that schools are reducing teacher numbers—which is not an efficiency but a staff cut—and that they do not have the funds to implement a new policy.
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.
But we do not know how much of that capital funding went to additional classes. A freedom of information request showed that more was spent on car parks, roofs and toilets than on additional classes.
You have no idea how important toilets are.
That point has been made, but I do not think that Mr Maciver answered my question. The cabinet secretary said that there is enough for local authorities to deliver the policy in full—not gradually or over time—so you will be on the front line. Do you not expect the Government to be able to say how much it has allotted to the policy in order to demonstrate that, as far as the Government is concerned, it has provided the money needed to deliver the policy in full at a local level?
That information may well be useful, but such an approach is not in the nature of the settlement or the concordat. We are not back in ring-fenced funding circumstances. ADES is providing information about the full implementation of the policy, but the information is not yet complete. Individual authorities have to do a lot of work on surveying schools to test feasibility, reconsidering catchment areas and considering other possible strategies for delivering the policy. It is early doors for implementation, and ADES welcomes the fact that things are seen in that way nationally.
I share the committee's frustration and confusion and do not know the answer to the question. However, it is probably not a question to put to us; rather, it is one for COSLA and the Scottish Government. It is not only the Government that is involved; COSLA signed the concordat and it is clear that it had discussions with the Government about how much money was needed to implement what local government was being asked to do. COSLA signed on the dotted line and agreed to take the money and implement what was asked of it. I presume that it discussed matters; therefore, it may be able to help the committee.
It may have helped us if COSLA had accepted our invitation to attend a committee meeting.
We will return to that matter once our witnesses have left the table.
Is it not the case that COSLA has stated publicly that it thought that sufficient funds were available to deliver the policy? Mr Dempster touched on that.
I am not entirely sure about that. I have been a bit confused by the messages on funding the implementation of the class size part of the concordat. COSLA signed up to the concordat and the resource package, so I presume that it will implement the agreement.
It is difficult to be definitive on the matter, because we are operating in a different situation, as Murdo Maciver said. The concordat and the single outcome agreements are new developments, and it is not possible to identify how much in the budget is intended for particular objectives. Neither the Government nor COSLA can easily identify sums of money that were specifically intended for the policy objective in question. I do not know how we can see how much is available for individual local authorities or individual schools. I do not think that such a causal link exists.
The agreement on the local authority, ADES and COSLA side is for year-on-year progress to be shown in reducing class sizes rather than an immediate big bang this year or in the next part of the implementation of the policy.
I do not think that anybody thought that a magic wand would be waved and all classes would contain no more than 18 pupils when people returned to school in August. Instead, people have worked on the aspiration to make progress over a number of years.
I am in no position to comment on the school staffing policy of South Lanarkshire Council. I do not know whether its decision was a reflection of falling rolls, so I would not want to comment.
Aileen Campbell has a final question, which I understand is for Mr Cooklin and is not related to resources.
You say in your submission that using falling school rolls to implement the policy on reducing class sizes would be a "blunt instrument". How should the Government take account of the different demographics throughout the country?
We should not depend on falling rolls. The expectation was that the budget settlement, together with demographic change, would cover the difference. However, that is a blunt instrument. In some parts of the country, rolls have fallen dramatically, but in other parts of the country they have not—for example, in the Borders, the Lothians, parts of the north-east and specific areas that have had a large influx of immigrants for one reason or another.
That concludes our questions. I thank the witnesses very much for their attendance today.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Before we move to the next agenda item, I want to mention COSLA. From papers circulated before the meeting, committee members will know that COSLA kindly gave us a written statement. I will be keen to hear the views of others, but I feel that COSLA's evidence, although helpful, still leaves us with some issues that we should have the opportunity to ask about. From what we heard in evidence last week and again today, it is clear that questions arise for COSLA in relation to the concordat and the financing of the policy.
I, too, think that COSLA's written submission was helpful. However, last week the EIS wanted us to ask COSLA about outcome agreements. I would like an opportunity to do so.
It is agreed that the committee will write to COSLA in those terms.