Children with Special Needs
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-3490, in the name of Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, on children with special needs.
A debate such as today's should be approached with considerable humility, because we are dealing with some of the most disadvantaged children in Scotland. The matter should be considered sympathetically.
Special schools have made an invaluable contribution to the social and academic development of many children with the most complex additional support needs. It follows that the Executive should continue to resource adequately schools such as the Craighalbert Centre in Cumbernauld for children with motor impairments, which combines conductive education with the Scottish curriculum; Daldorch House School in Ayrshire, which caters for children with autistic spectrum disorder; and the Royal Blind School in Edinburgh, which has a purpose-built educational and residential facility for children and young adults up to the age of 19 with multiple disabilities in addition to their visual impairments. All those schools perform an invaluable role and bring benefit, happiness and fulfilment to their pupils.
In a recent written answer to me, the Minister for Education and Young People said that 33 special schools have closed since 1997. Others have opened, but a net loss of 15 has occurred. Many of those closures were extremely controversial. There are many other outstanding special schools throughout Scotland, including Carronhill School in Stonehaven. Consultation continues on proposals to close that school and reallocate provision to a unit that is attached to a mainstream school.
Camphill community at Newton Dee on the outskirts of Aberdeen is a unique community that caters for all forms of learning disability. The school at Camphill is under threat from the proposed construction of the western peripheral route. My colleague David Davidson held a members' business debate last year in which he argued for flexibility in the route of the proposed bypass.
St Andrew's School in Inverurie is yet another excellent special school. Parents reacted strongly against proposals to close that school and move additional support needs provision to support bases that are attached to mainstream schools. My colleagues have actively supported the campaign that parents have successfully fought for new-build, stand-alone accommodation for the special school.
No less a person than Jack Barnett, who is the Educational Institute of Scotland's president, said:
"To suppose that all children should be included within a system that is not designed to meet their needs is inviting failure. And we are of the view that alternative provision in a special school or special unit setting on either a full time or part time basis may be more appropriate than mainstream education for some pupils."
A real danger is that the Executive's policy of a presumption towards mainstream education, as set out in section 15 of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000, will mean that some children with more complex additional support needs will not have the same level of resources allocated to them to allow their developmental and learning needs to be met. Simply put, not all children will receive as good a deal in a mainstream setting. That is why a large element of parental choice is highly desirable and, in some cases, essential.
As Lorraine Dilworth of Independent Special Education Advice Scotland said:
"there must be choice in provision for all children if they are to reach their full potential, whether this be in a mainstream school, a base attached to a mainstream school or a stand alone special school. This choice is a statutory right which should be enjoyed by parents under the 1980 Education Act. Each child must be treated as an individual and must be supported according to his or her needs, not according to the resources available."
I am concerned that the argument that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton advances may allow the Government to move away from the commitment that it gave to Parliament during the passage of what became the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 that whatever resources an individual child required had to be delivered under that act's system. His argument suggests that the Government could get away from the most appropriate situation for young people in a mainstream school by suggesting that alternative provision was better. The Government could therefore wriggle away from the commitments that it gave to Parliament during the passage of the act.
I agree with John Swinney that sufficient resources must be available. I will give just one example. If a child with hearing impairment is sent to mainstream education but no teacher can sign and the child cannot hear, social inclusion will not mean the same as it does for the other children. Each case must be considered sensitively on its merits.
One of the best speeches that I have heard in the Parliament was made by Karen Gillon, who argued that a range of provision is required to meet each child's needs appropriately. She stressed that children with autistic spectrum disorder could be taught in a range of settings, which could be a specialist unit, a mainstream school with appropriate support or a residential establishment. She said:
"The move to mainstream has faced many challenges … We need to do more to ensure that resources are available at the front line."—[Official Report, 6 September 2005; c 18866.]
That echoes what John Swinney said.
That is why I believe that no presumption should be made in favour of or against mainstreaming. Parents should be able to make a genuine informed choice between mainstream schools and special school provision, so that they can decide on the educational provision that best suits the child's needs. To achieve that, a moratorium on the closure of special schools should be put in place until the assumptions behind the mainstreaming policy are reviewed.
We lodged the motion on behalf of some of the most disadvantaged children in Scotland and we hope that the minister will approach the matter sympathetically, because it deserves nothing less.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises that many children with additional support needs draw educational and social benefit from being educated in a mainstream setting; acknowledges, however, that in order for such children to flourish, appropriate resources and support must be available; further believes that the educational and social development of some children with multiple and complex needs can best be promoted through the concentrated support provided in special schools; notes with concern that 33 special schools have been closed since 1997; believes that there should be no presumption, statutory or otherwise, in favour of or against mainstreaming and that parents should be able to make a genuine informed choice between mainstream schools and special school provision, so that they can decide on the educational provision that is best suited to the needs of their child, and calls on the Scottish Executive to put in place a moratorium on the closure of special schools until the series of assumptions behind the mainstreaming policy is reviewed.
I thank Lord James Douglas-Hamilton for lodging the motion. Next Monday, I will cut the ribbon at the opening of the new Braidburn special school building on the Firrhill High School campus in Edinburgh, which replaces two special schools that are merging. That might equally well have been one of the 57 other new publicly funded special schools and stand-alone units that have opened since 1997. Some are on their own sites and some are self-contained units that are attached to mainstream schools.
As we said in answer to a parliamentary question in June, since 1997, 29 special schools have closed. That makes a net addition of 28 new special schools or stand-alone units. I have difficulty with Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's proposition that special schools and provision in mainstream schools are in opposition. Both aspects are needed in our system and both are being provided.
I promised to mention the super teachers and children in Milton School in Glasgow, which I visited earlier this week. That is one of many special schools that do a splendid job for their young people.
About 7,500 young people are educated in special schools. From 1998 to 2004, the proportion of children who are educated in special schools dropped by 0.07 per cent, which is hardly an overwhelming figure. The greater part of the change took place before the mainstreaming duty in the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 came into force on 1 August 2003. The Executive will review that mainstreaming duty in due course, in line with the undertaking that it gave.
The figures are not, in themselves, all that important. Like special schools, mainstream schools are opening and closing all over the place in response to declining school rolls, renewal of the school estate, the changing geographical distribution of the population and other matters. To put it politely to the Conservatives, it is a little simplistic—or, to put it more accurately, it is a total distortion of logic, common sense and educational philosophy—to suggest that some trend in special school provision justifies the moratorium on closures for which the Conservative motion calls.
I will make the Scottish Executive's philosophy very clear. First, the fundamental duty under the 2000 act is that on local authorities
"to secure that the education is directed to the development of the personality, talents and mental and physical abilities of the child or young person to their fullest potential."
I hope that all members share that aspiration, which, rather than the mainstreaming presumption, it is our fundamental duty to achieve in respect of the education of all our children and young people. The aspiration is contained at the beginning of that act—in section 2—and there is an associated duty in section 3 to improve the quality of, and raise the standard of, education.
Secondly, we are committed to a better deal for children with additional support needs. We are totally committed to doing whatever is necessary to ensure that all children with additional support needs receive the help that they need when and where they need it. The Executive is not, as has been suggested, obsessed with pushing every child into mainstream education. On the contrary, the first concern in considering the best placement for a child should be the environment that is best suited to meeting that child's individual needs. The goal is to fit the provision to the child and not to fit the child to the provision.
On the commitment to additional support provision for children with special needs, particularly in a mainstream setting, is the minister absolutely confident that the Government will be able to deliver effectively the provisions of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 and that every local authority in Scotland will be able to deliver its part of the bargain?
I was about to say that the provision that is made must be properly resourced and supported, which is why we are investing £95 million this year alone in initiatives that are aimed at addressing additional support needs.
It has always been made clear in legislation, guidance, debates and discussions that the mainstreaming presumption is simply a presumption—it is not an inflexible rule. The right balance must be struck between children's rights to be educated in a mainstream environment, which can bring the educational and social benefits that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton acknowledged, and the need to respond sensitively in the cases of children who require a form of specialist provision. I am sure that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton will acknowledge that the provisions of paragraph 2(1) of schedule 2 to the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004—he and I helped the bill to pass through the Parliament last year—also provide for parental choice of school for children with additional support needs.
I am sorry; I cannot take an intervention because I have only a short time to speak.
Paragraph 2(1) of schedule 2 to the 2004 act states:
"Where the parent of a child having additional support needs makes a request to an education authority to place the child in the school specified in the request, being a school under their management, it is the duty of the authority, subject to paragraph 3, to place the child accordingly."
Indeed, it is even the authority's duty to place the child in a private special school and to pay the fees, subject to qualifications.
I finish by giving flavour to what I have said and considering the situation of children with learning difficulties, children who are wheelchair bound or children with autistic spectrum disorder. Such children could be members' children or my children. It is certainly true that the severity of the condition of some of those children, their previous experiences in school or other considerations may make it appropriate for them to have the support of specialist provision at a special school or unit, but surely it is better, other things being equal, if they can go to their local school at the centre of their local community with their friends in the street.
I move amendment S2M-3490.3, to leave out from "acknowledges" to end and insert:
"and that, prior to the enactment of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc. Act 2000, many children were denied access to such benefits; acknowledges that meeting the needs of the individual child is of paramount importance and that a range of mainstream, specialist and mixed provision will always be necessary; notes that there has been a net increase of 28 special schools and units since 1997, which demonstrates the continuing commitment of local authorities and the Scottish Executive to specialist provision where appropriate, and believes that, following the Parliament's recent approval, the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 will, when it comes into force on 14 November 2005, strengthen the rights of children and their parents to ensure that their additional support needs are met fully, whatever the school setting."
Members of the Scottish National Party have sympathy with many criticisms about how inclusion has been pursued in the Scottish education system since the introduction of the presumption of mainstreaming, but we emphatically do not accept that the statutory presumption of mainstreaming should be abolished. As Children in Scotland pointed out in its briefing for the debate, that would be a retrograde step that would be at odds with an international consensus that inclusive mainstream schools are
"the most effective means of combating discriminatory attitudes, creating welcoming communities, building an inclusive society and achieving education for all."
Those words are part of the Salamanca statement.
It is important to recognise that a presumption of mainstreaming does not mean, and should never mean, that specialist provision in special schools should not be available to meet the needs of children for whom mainstream schools cannot provide. Without such a presumption, there is always a danger of our going back to the bad old days in which disabled pupils were often deliberately segregated into so-called special schools. Such schools might have been special in name, but they were not necessarily special in nature.
Figures that have been provided by the Disability Rights Commission indicate that disabled people have not been well served in our education system. Even nowadays, 24 per cent of disabled people between the ages of 16 and 24 have no educational qualifications. That percentage is nearly double the percentage for non-disabled people in the same age range. We know that a lifetime of exclusion and few—if any—opportunities beckon for people without such qualifications.
That said, a lot of evidence suggests that placement in mainstream classrooms is not meeting the learning needs of every child with additional support needs—far from it. The Audit Scotland report on the subject indicated as much. There is no doubt that disabled children can be effectively excluded and ill served in mainstream settings when adequate support and resources are not made available. A child is included only when they learn in an environment that they feel they belong in and which is geared to their needs.
In her most recent contribution to the debate, Baroness Warnock highlighted the fact that, given the great differences in the range and severity of disabilities, a one-size-fits-all approach will not work. I do not agree with all her conclusions, but she made a reasonable point when she suggested that most children with special educational needs require skilled specialist teachers. Dyslexic children, for example, can make remarkable progress with a few hours of specialist teaching. Depending on classroom assistants alone to keep children up to pace with the work of a mainstream class is not good enough.
In an amendment that was not selected for debate, Rosemary Byrne highlighted the need to cut class sizes and to employ additional trained and qualified staff to meet additional support needs. I agree with her. More use should also be made of specialist units in mainstream schools to give children with additional support needs the extra time that they require to understand things in order to cope better in their mainstream class in the long run.
Does Adam Ingram agree that that is exactly what the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 tries to do? Resources and extra teachers are being made available. What exactly does the SNP suggest should be done over and above what the Executive is doing to progress matters at the moment?
I am sorry to say that what the minister says is happening is not coming across on the ground. A great deal of feedback from parents suggests that local authorities are not applying the resources that Robert Brown says are there, and the local authorities say that resources are not available. That is the nub of the problem.
Inclusion should mean that every child receives the required attention that they need to access the curriculum. Joint placements are another mechanism to achieve the same objective. Currently, in too many schools, far too much onus is being placed on ordinary classroom teachers to fulfil the inclusion agenda. The worst of all worlds is being created, with teacher morale and pupil motivation being reduced.
Those who support the motion are right to highlight the deficiencies in how the Executive's inclusion policy is operating, but their prescription is to throw the baby out with the bath water. We should concentrate on implementing the policy properly by applying appropriate resources, but the Administration has failed to do that.
I move amendment S2M-3490.2, to leave out from "recognises" to end and insert:
"supports the fundamental principle of inclusion that was introduced into our education system with the presumption of mainstreaming; recognises the widespread concerns that the resources made available to implement the policy have been inadequate, and calls, therefore, for a review of the operation of the policy to establish what additional means are required to ensure that every pupil with additional support needs has the opportunity to fulfil his or her potential, either within the mainstream setting or in a special school depending on their individual circumstances."
I call Dr Elaine Murray.
How long do I have, Presiding Officer? Do I have four minutes?
Yes. I am sorry, but the time for the debate is tight.
Okay.
I agree whole-heartedly with what the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People said. Nobody denies that some children with special needs will thrive better in a special school, while others will benefit from inclusive education, provided that adequate and suitable resources are in place to offer the necessary support.
It is a little hypocritical to make the comments that have been made about the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004, which is not yet fully in force. The whole principle of the act and the associated investment to underpin its measures is to ensure that adequate and suitable resources are in place to support young people and children with special needs who go to mainstream schools. There is a fundamental difference between a child being thrown into a mainstream classroom for the entire school day and not being able to cope and a child being placed in a mainstream school that has suitable support bases and caters for the needs of children with significant difficulties. Many fears that parents have arise from situations in which children have not been adequately supported. Councils that are considering mainstreaming need to reassure parents of their determination to provide proper facilities, and the key to doing that is genuine and participative consultation with parents.
Exclusion is not necessary or beneficial for the majority of children and young people with additional support needs. They live in their community when they are not at school and after having left school, and they are entitled to be educated in their community.
When I was on South Ayrshire Council, I was involved in the provision of mainstream facilities for children who were previously boxed into three different categories of special needs and on whom the door was closed. At first, the parents of those children were concerned about mainstreaming; they were worried about what would happen to their children. However, we undertook a long and detailed consultation in which we listened to the children about their fears and, over the piece, the parents came on board with the council and saw the situation as better. In fact, one parent said, "I'm really pleased because my son will have the same uniform as the rest of the kids and he won't be marked out as attending the daft school." Later, I had the honour of being asked to give out prizes at an awards ceremony, and I was proud to see children with special needs wearing the same school uniform as the other children in their community, receiving their awards on the same basis as everybody else.
I am proud of mainstreaming and proud of the fact that we have an inclusive policy. That does not mean that other children who cannot benefit under those circumstances should be forced into it; however, the principle of mainstreaming should be established. As Children in Scotland pointed out, the removal of the presumption of mainstreaming that the Conservative party proposes would contravene article 2 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. We must not confuse the presumption of mainstreaming with not providing alternatives when mainstreaming is not suitable for certain children.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I have only a minute left.
I was a bit surprised by Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's figures. Children in Scotland says that, although 33 special needs schools have closed since 1997, many others have opened. The Conservatives' proposal for a moratorium on closures would mean that unsuitable special schools would have to remain open and we would not be able to develop more suitable special schools, such as that which the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People will open in the near future. There are now 34 special schools in Scotland, compared with 33 in 1997, according to the figures from Children in Scotland.
Sorry, but I have only 10 seconds left.
We must recognise that additional support needs are often related to disadvantage and deprivation, although they may also have a genetic component. Therefore, tackling the needs of young people with special support needs often means tackling the needs of those communities, and we will not do that by removing those young people from their communities.
I welcome the debate, which is a time to scrutinise how inclusion is working in mainstream schools. I would oppose vehemently the removal of the statutory presumption of mainstreaming, in spite of the fact that many children are being let down by the system and the fact that, in many areas, parents feel that they are left without choice. I acknowledge, however, that the minister has made it clear—as does the legislation—that parental choice is a key part of this.
Section 15 of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 introduced a presumption of mainstreaming for children and young people with special educational needs. That means that, where possible, they should be educated in mainstream schools. The act also states:
"it shall be the duty of the authority to secure that the education is directed to the development of the personality, talents and mental and physical abilities of the child or young person to their fullest potential."
Removal of the statutory presumption of mainstreaming would contravene article 2 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which gives children the right not to be discriminated against. It would also be at odds with the conclusions of the influential conference on special educational needs education that took place in Salamanca in 1994, to which Adam Ingram referred. The conference agreed that inclusive mainstream education in schools is the most effective means of combating discriminatory attitudes.
However, if we do not resource our schools adequately and if it takes far too long to make adaptations—in some cases, a child can leave school before the home economics department has managed to get the adaptations made—we will have a real problem. That happens—there is a reality here about children not accessing the whole school building and not accessing the curriculum because of the length of time that it takes for adaptations to be made. We should be looking at the good practice that exists, and that is why I agree that a review is very much required. All pupils must be able to access the curriculum; if they cannot, we are failing.
If all school staff are not adequately trained, again we have failed. It is not good enough for a local authority to withdraw classroom assistants at the end of a term because it does not want to give them a full-time contract and would rather put strangers into a class of children who have got to know their SEN assistants. That needs to be looked at. It is all very well for the minister to say that that is a local authority issue; it is an issue about the inclusion of young people in education, and that is why we require a review.
It is vital that the review of how mainstreaming is working is undertaken. We know that teachers are struggling. A recent National Autistic Society survey showed problems with diagnosis and insufficient resources. The survey also showed that 33 per cent of schools felt that inclusion was not working and that 10 per cent felt that it worked only where adequate support and resources were available. Only 30 per cent of classroom assistants who are working in schools with pupils with autistic spectrum disorder have received training in autism.
If we are to make inclusion work for all, we require choice and smaller class sizes. Classes should contain no more than 20 children, and composite classes should contain no more than 15 children. We need well-trained specialist teachers and classroom assistants, as well as specialist training for classroom practitioners and senior managers. It is all very well to open up units in mainstream schools, but if the head teachers and senior management teams do not understand the special needs that are being dealt with, things go wrong. I have seen that and I am prepared to talk to the minister about those issues.
We need an integrated community school setting that is well resourced and adapted to meet the needs of all. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's example of a hearing-impaired pupil rang a bell with me. I am sympathetic to such situations. My casework is loaded with young people who are being taught at home because they are on the autistic spectrum and the education provision in their area is inadequate. Let us have the review and let us look into this, but let us make it work.
It is a privilege to take part in a debate about children and young people with additional support needs. However, I am disappointed by the spin that the Conservatives have put on the subject by highlighting school closures. Their motion and approach seem to undermine the principle of inclusion. I have an interest in the subject as someone who believes strongly in an inclusive education system and as the aunt of a young boy who has significant physical and communication difficulties.
When the principles of inclusion were introduced in Scotland, some parents were concerned. Some people chose to engage in scaremongering, telling us that it was the end of the special schools and that all children would be required to be educated in mainstream schools. We knew then that that would not be the case and we know that, in the future, there will always be a need for schools that specialise in dealing with children with complex support needs. In my constituency, there are special schools such as the Craighalbert Centre, Glencryan School and Redburn School, as well as special units attached to high schools and primary schools, all of which deal with children with special support needs. We also have many children who are now integrated into the mainstream education system with help and support.
The helpful briefing that was provided by Children in Scotland points out that there were 34 special schools in 2004, compared with 33 in 1997. However, the debate should not be about numbers; it should be about giving children and young people the opportunity to reach their full potential regardless of their needs. It should be about allowing children to reach as far as they possibly can along the academic spectrum. For all children, being at school is about more than education; it is about being involved and accepted as part of a community. Inclusion and socialisation play an important part in someone's decision to have their child educated in their local mainstream school. An inclusive approach to education allows the child with support needs to be with their peers, to make friends and to socialise with other children out of school. Every child has different needs, but the benefits of educating children together are there to be seen.
We are now teaching inclusion from an early age: we are showing children and young people that, although all of us are made in a similar mould, there are differences that must be accepted as part of normal life. Through educating our children together, we are changing people's views about disability. We should all take a lesson from the way in which our children have accepted and embraced that change. All across the country there are children who are disadvantaged, but the fact that a child has a disability does not mean that they are disadvantaged or that they should be treated as if that was the case. A child with a disability has an equal right to be educated along with their peers.
I am sure that the minister knows that everything is not perfect; he knows that we have a long way to go if we are to meet all the challenges.
In many ways, children with additional support needs who are now being educated in mainstream schools are at the forefront of the changes that the Executive is making. We need to look carefully at the progress that is being made and, where necessary, to adapt our practices to meet the challenges. From the outset, we need to look at teacher training to see how much time is allocated in the coursework to teaching children with support needs. We also need to ask whether we are putting enough skilled additional support into schools to provide real inclusion.
I welcome the minister's review. Rome was not built in a day. As I said, the young people who are presently being educated in an inclusive way are at the forefront of the changes that the Executive is making. We have to support them and learn from their experience. Elaine Murray mentioned that just to have the same uniform as everybody else made a difference to a child with special needs. The day that my nephew Connor Meecham started school, he was the happiest boy in the school, because he was wearing the same uniform as his friends. Please, minister, resource the special needs facilities in mainstream schools.
I apologise for missing the opening speech. I did not appraise myself of the security arrangements that were put in place this morning.
I speak not only as a member of the Conservative group but as a member who served on the then Education, Culture and Sport Committee, which scrutinised the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill. I note that Mary Mulligan, who was convener of the committee at the time, is also in the chamber.
As a member of that committee, I have some important admissions to make. They stem from my recollection that the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill was the first bill that came before the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. I admit that we could have handled it better—not so much because we did not treat it with seriousness but because it was the first bill that we scrutinised.
To a degree, we were open to persuasion by lobbying from outside groups, which meant that we were willing to accept in good faith some of the evidence without questioning it hard enough. It was not that the evidence was necessarily wrong, but that we did not explore the issues sufficiently, or press our questioning further with witnesses. [Interruption.] Mary Mulligan may have a different view, but that is fair enough.
Will the member take an intervention?
Certainly, but first let me make my point.
When I look back at the papers, I can see that committee members, across the parties, had a number of doubts and concerns. I do not want to make a party-political point, but to explain that because the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill was the first bill that we approached, we did not press questions and get right down to the detail.
For example, Kenneth Macintosh had concerns. His record in taking up the case of special educational needs is honourable. At committee, he asked whether
"the parents could keep the child in mainstream education despite the fact that that might not be in the child's best interests".
Shona Robison too voiced her concern that
"unless the child is properly resourced—and that might mean their having someone with them at all times—the child might fail in mainstream education."— [Official Report, Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 1 March 2000; c 678.]
Many members were concerned, as, indeed, was I. I raised the issue of the costs that would be required to make the policy work only to get a very woolly answer, which has been commented on since that time by Audit Scotland.
The committee took it in good faith that the costs would be met and that some of the concerns that we had raised would be addressed. The evidence now suggests that we should have pressed harder and got firm commitments from the Executive at the time.
I wonder whether Mr Monteith has departed from the statement that he made during the stage 3 debate on the bill that
"the opt-outs in the bill are too wide-ranging"
and that
"We should be moving away from the idea that considerable cost should have a bearing on decisions about mainstream placement."—[Official Report, 7 June 2000; c 42.]
Those are interesting comments.
The minister confuses two arguments—[Interruption.] Labour and Liberal party members may laugh, but their laughter is as empty as the policies that they promote.
The point that I am making is clear: the criterion for the decision to place a child should not be cost. Nowhere have I argued that a school placement should be determined by a council saying, "We cannot afford to send the child to that school because we don't have the money." The minister knows that at that point in the stage 3 debate the context of my remarks was that of sending children to the independent schools that were maintained by Executive funding. I raised the issue because, outside of the bill provisions, the Executive was seeking to make those schools fully independent of grant support. That would have forced more parents to pay more to send their children to those schools, thereby making those schools more exclusive. It would have meant that many children would have ended up in state schools on the presumption of mainstreaming and that would have been entirely inappropriate for them. The understanding that schools such as Craighalbert ensure that children can be included in mainstream education is a proper one—we need a variety of choice.
The SNP as a party has also expressed concerns. I am aware of the motion that Fiona Hyslop lodged with the support of Adam Ingram at the SNP conference in September this year. It was a pity that that motion was not supported. The issue is of concern to all parties; it must be addressed.
I welcome the opportunity that the Conservative party has provided for members to discuss this important issue.
When Sam Galbraith introduced the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill, he made the remarkable statement that the bill was the first piece of legislation on education that was child-centred and which put the child at the centre of educational provision.
At the time, the remark struck as me as somewhat bizarre, but what it now says to me is that the important starting point for the debate is that the child should be at the absolute core of the provision of education in our society. The statement that I am about to make may sound like a terribly expensive one, but I suggest that every child must be able to access the educational support that is appropriate for that child. In establishing that principle, we must look to how we can apply it to the circumstances of every single child in our society.
That principle places a responsibility on the Government, the Parliament and our local authorities in particular to ensure that educational provision is sufficiently wide, varied and appropriate to meet the individual needs of every child in our society. That is not to say that every school has to tailor its provision to the needs of every child, but that every child, on entering whichever school they are to go to, is properly supported and assisted.
There is a fantastic school for children with special needs in my constituency. I am referring to the New School in Butterstone, which has been the subject of debate in the Parliament. I welcome the work that the school does and the support that it provides in terms of opening horizons for young people. Having looked closely at the issue, however, I remain absolutely committed to the important principle of the presumption of mainstreaming in the education system. Mainstream education offers the best opportunity of ensuring that the maximum number of children in our society who have special needs can be supported, encouraged and motivated in their schooling.
None of that means that children who require to go to special needs schools should not go there, or that that provision should not be put in place. It simply means that when we as a society say that it is appropriate for a child to go into a mainstream educational setting, we must be absolutely certain that the educational opportunities that the child needs will be delivered in that situation.
The reason why I intervened on the minister and was so pleased by the comments that my colleague Adam Ingram made about the implementation of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004, to which Elaine Murray seemed to take exception, is that I am getting increasingly alarmed by what I hear when I talk to parents about what is in place on the ground in mainstream schools to support young people. That is not a partisan remark; it is simply a reflection of what my constituency case load is telling me.
The minister cannot just say that £95 million-worth of resources are being put in to address the issue. Of course I welcome that, but there are questions about training and attitude. I know that some head teachers are almost ignorant of the particular techniques that are required to support children who have special needs in a mainstream situation. I will put a tremendous amount of energy into holding the Government to account on the commitments that it made in the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 to ensure that there would be appropriate provision to meet the needs of every child and that the necessary support would be provided because those commitments are vital to young people with special needs. The Government must be able to deliver on that on the ground. I am deeply concerned that such provision is not in place for the implementation of the act.
I see that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton wishes to intervene; unfortunately I will not be able to give way.
I close with a simple remark. One of the reasons why I am such a strong supporter of the presumption in favour of mainstreaming is that I have seen the tremendous benefits that can accrue to young people with special educational needs—especially young people with autism—when they go into mainstream schools, in spite of the many challenges that they face. The principal challenge is not their academic ability, but their ability to interact socially. Mainstream schooling has an extremely beneficial effect on expanding the horizons of those young people and leads to the blossoming of their character. We must defend the important principle of mainstreaming.
I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate. Like many members, I somewhat regret the terms of the Conservative motion, much of which is misplaced and ill judged.
When I was the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People, I lost count of the number of times that Peter Peacock and I made plain that education policy in Scotland is child centred, which is precisely the point that John Swinney made. Indeed, Robert Brown read out the appropriate part of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 that makes that manifest. What is in the best interests of the individual child must prevail—incidentally, that is very much the culture in Scotland's courts, too. Section 15 of the 2000 act is applied in that context. There is a presumption in favour of mainstreaming, when that is in the child's best interests and when the interests of all the other children in the mainstream setting into which that child goes are not compromised.
I believe that a measured and welcome change has been taking place in that some children are now in mainstream settings permanently or for part of their school day—that is important—who might otherwise not have had that opportunity and everything that it brings with it. The figures show that and confirm that, contrary to the impression that has been created in some quarters, there has been no mass closure of special schools. In my view, special schools will remain for many years to come, as it is clear that the best interests of a significant number of children are served by the dedication of the staff in those schools.
Just for the record, does the member agree that the information that there has been a net loss of 15 special schools since 1997 is contained in a parliamentary answer that was given by Mr Peter Peacock, which was dated 13 September 2005? The information is not our information; it is the information of the senior minister for education and it is there on the record.
The figure depends on the period that is chosen. For example, in 1996 there were 158 special schools, but as of 2000 there were 190 special schools.
The point that I am trying to get across is that it is necessary for a child to be in a special school setting when that is in the best interests of the child. As Robert Brown mentioned, to ensure that the policies are being properly implemented, the Scottish centre for research in education will conduct a review of mainstreaming at the end of this year. That is welcome because there is no doubt that there are lessons to be learned and that the work to ensure that mainstreaming takes place will be at different stages of development in different places—obstacles will exist in some places that do not exist in others. I hope that the review will bring out where we need to do more.
I have a brief point to make on the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004, to which the same argument applies. It will take time for that act to become well understood. An immense amount of preparatory work has been undertaken and I pay tribute to the Education Department for the scale of the consultation that it conducted and the amount of effort that it has put into the implementation phase. Local authorities have been provided with significant resources to ensure that the transition to the new regime that takes place in a few days' time, on 14 November, will be smooth and successful.
Will the review to which the member has referred place an emphasis on the diagnosis of special needs? One of the difficulties that many teachers face is the lack of accurate diagnosis. We cannot simply tie labels saying "autism" or "epilepsy" round young people's necks; we need to ensure that there is delivery of specific packages for individual pupils. The diagnosis of special needs takes time and resources, and requires a lot of hard work.
I am sure that the Executive will do as Mrs Ewing says and consider the analysis of needs. Autism, for example, is a spectrum disorder. One individual who has autism will be on a different part of the spectrum from another such individual. The point that Mrs Ewing makes is important and I have every confidence that the Scottish centre for research in education will take it on board; the minister has heard it.
In conclusion, I regret the terms of the motion. I suggest to the Conservative party—which, as I recall, voted against the 2004 act—that, in future, it should base its policies on analysis rather than on anecdote, which I fear that it is doing at the moment.
I am amazed at some of the comments that have been made in this morning's debate. Any parent who has a special needs child must be worried sick.
The coalition partners throw out statistics, but only eventually do they get round to the fact that children are different. Each child has a different set of needs. Margaret Ewing was right to say that those needs must be assessed. That is a continuing process. A single diagnosis at a particular stage of a child's life is not sufficient ground for deciding to slot the child into a mainstream situation in which they will get a wee bit of support.
I invite the minister to do what I invited his predecessor to do—to come up to Aberdeenshire to listen to the desperate parents who are told one thing by the education authority, but who hear different things from the ministers. Those parents do not want a special needs school on every street corner; they know that that is impossible. St Andrew's School in Inverurie runs a fantastic operation. Parents in south Aberdeenshire—with the help of the local authority—make the effort to send their children there because it is the right place for them.
Carronhill School in Stonehaven teaches teachers and trains them to work in the bases, so it is a key resource. There are bases in many schools for those children who can cope with an element of mainstreaming. I spent a day in Laurencekirk School, which has such a base. A young chap came and went at different times of the day and was constantly escorted by an assistant who knew what his needs were. The whole process was centred on him. That is what parents are looking for. In time, he will, we hope, get into mainstream education.
We have got to stop the nonsense of, "We've got a piece of legislation, we've allocated a sum of money and that's it. Tick. What are we going to do now? Let's move on to farming." The minister is saying that mainstreaming must be the norm "unless". I can tell him about a number of cases in which mainstreaming has not worked. At Camphill it is not just children who are affected by the forthcoming western peripheral route. I have worked with the engineers to see whether there can be mitigation to save the Rudolf Steiner school at Camphill, and it cannot be done. Those are major issues, and people are becoming angry that the needs of this whole range of young people—and older people—are not being dealt with.
I am getting quite angry with Mr Davidson's comments, some of which make exactly the same point about mainstreaming that others have made. Beyond that, however, I wonder whether he has actually read the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004, and whether he knows about the information strategy, the training arrangements, the money that is being put in, the organisation, the implementation offices at local level and the preparations to make a success of an act that has, after all, not yet come into force.
Aberdeenshire Council says that it does not have the resources to rebuild the schools and that it is doing its best to get people into mainstreaming. That education authority is saying, "We haven't got the money." Parent consultation? We did all that at Carronhill and we are back where we started, with a school success story in which the local academy brings in teaching staff so that children get the chance for education in appropriate surroundings. It all comes down to the individual; putting the child at the centre is right, but we must also consider the needs of parents and be pragmatic about resources. Quite frankly, what I have heard today is not guidance but business as usual. "There will be no change but we will have another consultation." That is not good enough.
I was puzzled about why the Tories are so hung up about the issue so I listened to the debate, but I am not sure whether David Davidson has been listening to the same debate. The education of children with special needs is important for us all, but I wonder whether the Tories are hiding behind the issue because they have nothing else to say on education.
Brian Monteith and others have referred to the early days of the Parliament. One of the first pieces of legislation that the Parliament passed was the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000. During the evidence sessions for the bill, we heard many views of how unsatisfactory the education system was for children and young people with special needs. To suggest that the committee did not press sufficiently for change at that time does not correlate with my memory of what happened. I would challenge anyone here to imagine the likes of Karen Gillon, Nicola Sturgeon and even Brian Monteith not pursuing an issue to its nth degree. However, there was a great deal of pressure to follow the example of other countries—such as Italy—and close all special schools. Many committee members visited special schools throughout Scotland and we saw for ourselves the excellent education that they provide. I managed to visit all seven national schools.
I hear what the former convener of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee says, but she is confusing the committee dealing with the legislation with the subsequent committee report on special schools, which was produced separately. The committee's mood changed after that investigation.
It did not change; we always recognised the need for the comprehensive system that has allowed for special schools and mainstreaming.
As I said, I visited the seven national schools. I am pleased that Donaldson's College will soon be moving to Linlithgow in my constituency. The committee resisted the pressure to close all special schools, but we introduced the presumption of mainstreaming, which was further fleshed out in last year's Education (Additional support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004. The Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 was a way forward that provided choice for children and their families. It put the child at the centre of provision, and allowed the appropriate choice for each individual child. Progress has been made in medical care and in adaptations for those with physical disabilities and there is no reason why the majority of children with special needs should not be educated in our local schools. It would be a retrograde step to remove the presumption of mainstreaming.
I wonder why the motion is before us, when it starts out by acknowledging the educational and social benefits of mainstreaming. The motion seeks appropriate resources and support for mainstreaming and I support that. Maybe the Tories thought that we would follow their example, when they introduced care in the community and tried to do it on the cheap. However, that is not the case. The Executive has set aside additional moneys. The motion suggests—as many have said—that 33 special schools have closed. If those schools were not fit for purpose, that was the right thing to do. Rather than dwelling in the past we must provide schools that respond to the needs of the children in our communities now. The Conservatives are grasping at straws. What the Parliament is doing is the correct way to move forward. The fact that the Conservatives are whipping up concern among families of children with special needs is particularly despicable.
I welcome the debate. It is important that the issue of special needs is always before the Parliament. We must not lose track of it and think that because we have passed legislation everything will be fine. We all know from constituency casework and from the information that we have received from many of the voluntary organisations that work hard on behalf of the families of children with special needs that that is not the situation. Mainstreaming is a desirable objective.
We all wish to avoid segregation, but what has not really been touched upon here is that the children in mainstream schools who do not have special needs learn a great deal about their colleagues. I hope that that will help to build a more tolerant society and bring back community spirit. I also hope that that will avoid what sometimes happens, which is the bullying of children with special needs, who feel excluded from what is happening in the school. It is important that we recognise that all children benefit from having children with special needs in the mainstream schools of Scotland. It is important to bring back the concept of family and community support that Elaine Murray touched on. We must always remember that many people are less fortunate than ourselves and that we should be doing everything possible for them. However, that is not always resolved by legislation.
In my intervention on Euan Robson I spoke about diagnosis, and the preparation and delivery of individual learning packages for children with special needs. To that I wish to add parental involvement, about which parents are greatly concerned. We probably all heard the interviews this morning on "Good Morning Scotland" with parents who are deeply involved in building up support for children with special needs. We must ensure that parents are involved in every decision that is taken. Professional guidance and support must be given to everyone. That brings me back to training and resourcing, which was mentioned by Rosemary Byrne. Like me, she has a background in special needs education. Training is vital. Forty per cent of schools with pupils with ASD have no teachers with autism-specific training. The situation improves slightly in special schools, but even there only 50 per cent of teachers have specific training in autism. That is one example of the problems. There are others that I could go into, many of which I have learned about in my years in politics, such as the training of teachers and the time that is needed to enable teachers to sit with a child, their parents and the professionals to try to ensure direction in what happens to that youngster in our schools.
We have concentrated on special schools today. I have never doubted that there is a need for them, and I hope that they will be supported. However, the presumption should be in favour of mainstreaming.
We should think more about the transition from school to work for youngsters with special needs. We had the pleasure of having a young autistic gentleman work with us in our parliamentary office in Moray for three months. It was interesting to see that young man's confidence grow through working in a busy office and having to talk to people. At the moment he comes in every so often, which is excellent. We can do a lot to help with that transition. However, let us not just leave it to the local authorities; let us as parliamentarians look at our role and at how we can ensure that the transition happens.
I am disappointed with the Conservative motion, which completely misses the point about children's special educational and additional support needs. The Conservatives think that the presumption of mainstreaming is the key principle underlining Executive policy and policy in Scotland, when clearly it is not. The fundamental principle is the needs of the individual child. That is made clear in the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004, which requires education authorities to make adequate and efficient provision for each child or young person with additional support needs for whose education they are responsible. That—not mainstreaming—is the underlying principle of Scotland's education system and of the policies that are being pursued by the Liberal Democrat-Labour Executive.
However, I support the presumption in favour of mainstreaming, because it means that people should be treated as equals and that they should, wherever possible, play a full part in the society in which they live. It also puts a requirement on education authorities to do everything that they can to try to meet the needs of individual children within a mainstream setting. However, in some cases, that will not be possible. Nobody believes that it is possible to make adequate provision to meet the needs of every single child in a mainstream setting. Therefore, there will be a continuing need for special schools and special units attached to schools. That is a fundamental point.
The Conservatives have completely missed the key point in this tawdry debate that there are now more special schools and stand-alone special units than when they were in government. Since 1997, 57 special schools and special units have opened and only 33 have closed. I do not agree with the definition of some of those establishments as special schools—Scott Barrie may pick up on that point later.
Does the member accept that Peter Peacock's written parliamentary answer on 13 September 2005 is clear and unequivocal, in that there has been a net loss of 15 schools? In that answer he lists year by year the number of special schools opened and the number closed, and there has been a net loss of 15 of those schools.
The Conservatives miss the point that stand-alone special units, which are not defined as special schools, have been opened. Most closures actually happened in 1995, when 11 schools were closed. I do not think that the Liberal Democrat-Labour Executive was in control in 1995. Many of the schools that were closed were not fit for purpose and did not serve the children whom they were meant to serve.
I had the privilege last year, as a member of committee D of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body, to take part in an examination of autism. The committee examined different types of provision throughout the British isles—in Ireland, Northern Ireland and England—and found that there is a continuing need for special schools. However, there is also a need to examine training. In its briefing for today's debate, the National Autistic Society makes it clear that only 50 per cent of teachers in special schools—never mind teachers in mainstream schools—have training on autism. We need to examine training facilities. The problem exists throughout the British isles, not just in Scotland. There is also a shortage of speech and language therapists throughout the British isles, which must be addressed.
I was particularly disappointed by David Davidson's tawdry little speech, which did not merit a place in this important debate on the requirements of children with special needs. I make no further comment.
I commend the Executive amendment to the chamber.
I am glad to be closing the debate for the Labour Party, not only because it gives me an opportunity to talk about special schools in my constituency, but because it allows me to take on some of the points that have been made.
The Conservative motion refers to the closure of 33 special schools. We now hear that other schools have been opened, which the motion does not mention. I am pleased that some of those schools—particularly Ovenstone School, Linwood Hall School and Melville House School in my local authority area of Fife—have been closed. My only regret is that it took until the late 1990s before they were closed. They were not fit for purpose and they did not do what they should have done. More important, they did not even qualify for the term "special school" as understood by most members who use the term in this debate, because they were former list D and list G schools and schools for children with educational, social and behavioural difficulties. They were not the schools that most of us have been talking about—schools for supporting children with additional learning needs. When we have such debates, we must be careful about what we are talking about.
The Tories have either misunderstood or deliberately misrepresented the inclusion agenda. Apart from the Conservatives, there is unanimous support in the chamber for the inclusion agenda, but not for inclusion exclusively. We accept that some young people require to be educated in special schools and we should celebrate and support those schools. If someone can attend a mainstream school with additional support, they should be in that mainstream school. However, if they cannot attend a mainstream school because that is best for the young person, they should be at the appropriate special school, which should be adequately resourced.
Only this month, Robert Henryson School in my constituency received an outstanding report from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education. Every single category was listed as very good, except accommodation and facilities, which was judged to be good. The one category that is probably outwith the remit of the staff in the school is the only category that did not get a rating of very good. I am pleased to be visiting that school tomorrow morning to congratulate the head teacher and her staff on the invaluable work that they have done. Such work goes on throughout Scotland in lots of different settings, because our special schools are delivering for young people. If the motion before us recognised that fact, we would have been a lot happier and would have had a much better debate.
Apart from the Conservative members who have spoken, all the speakers have talked about the needs of young people and some of the difficulties that we have yet to overcome. That is where we should be going; we should not reinvent an argument from the past about whether every single young person will have to go to a mainstream school. That never was the policy and is not the policy now, and it is untrue to represent the position otherwise.
I am deeply disappointed that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton allowed a factually incorrect motion to go forward in his name. I would not have expected that of him, knowing what he is usually like. He admitted in his opening speech that the debate is not about 33 school closures. Tying up special educational needs with a debate on school closures does no credit to those who brought forward the debate or to those who try to justify the motion.
I offer my apologies to Lord James for missing his speech, but I had transport problems coming into Edinburgh this morning.
It is important that we debate special needs education. I thank the Tories for bringing the motion to the chamber. Unfortunately, like many members across the chamber, I regret the terms of the motion. We see that the Tories want to look backwards, whereas the rest of the chamber recognises the progress that has been made. We accept that great progress has been made and we want to take stock, consider the reality and the experience and then consider where we go from here.
An element of debate has arisen about whether there is a mismatch between experience and intention. The intentions behind the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 and the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 are correct. I do not dispute the deputy minister's motivation, but he should reflect on the fact that a whole section was added to the 2004 act at the request of the Education Committee to ensure the child-centred approach that John Swinney and others have talked about. The committee recognised that a child does not need to have a co-ordinated support plan to be justifiably in receipt of additional support for learning and that that should be in statute.
We must consider the reality. Time and again, I have come across desperately anxious parents and teachers who support mainstreaming and want it to work but who do not have support on the ground. They worry that they are letting down children. Margaret Ewing and Rosemary Byrne, among others, mentioned teacher training, which lasts for only a short period. The recent report on initial teacher training shows that one anxiety of young teachers is about their lack of experience of, or training on, additional support needs. Those perceptions are carried into schools, where we hear unfortunate comments such as, "I didn't realise I would have to deal with children like these." That is by no means the situation throughout Scotland, but it happens. Unless we face up to the challenges, we will not make progress.
We must reflect on the May 2003 HMIE report "Moving to mainstream: The inclusion of pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools", in which senior educational managers in each of the local authorities state that they expect a 39 per cent reduction in special school rolls. That does not fit with what we have been told about the provision so far. We must recognise that the issue is not necessarily about special schools that have closed; some special schools are under threat. For example, Richard Lochhead has lodged a motion about the Raeden centre. I agree with Scott Barrie that we should not confuse school closures with the special needs mainstreaming agenda, but I ask the minister to reflect on the fact that some areas, particularly Aberdeenshire, have carried out a whole-authority analysis of the school estate with the special schools thrown in. We must ensure that the future of special schools is treated in an analysis that is separate from the school estate management process.
The Netherlands introduced mainstreaming legislation in the 1990s—the policy was called going to school together. However, a programme called going to school together: the next phase was also introduced, which dealt with a variety of issues that we must consider, such as personal budgeting. At the end of the day, the issue is about resources. The deputy minister says that £95 million will be provided but, only last week, when we asked Peter Peacock in the Education Committee about the resources that are going to front-line services for the 2004 act, he could not tell us but said that he would come back to us. We know that the additional support for learning budget of £14 million is for administrative purposes.
There is a consensus among the parties, except the Conservatives, that we need to make progress. The presumption of mainstreaming should be supported, but we need to consider the next phase. The reality and the bottom line are that we must ensure that sufficient resources are put in on the ground. For all the wonderful words about children being at the centre of the process, they will not be at the centre unless sufficient resources are supplied. That is the agenda that we should focus on next.
I have listened with considerable interest to the points that have been made. I thank the Conservatives for initiating the debate, but I have a sense that the motion that we are debating does not stand up to the slightest examination: it poses a dilemma that does not exist and which is based on an untrue assertion about a declining number of special schools; and it raises an option that is unnecessary and which suggests a crisis that does not exist.
I pay tribute to John Swinney, who gave a classic definition of what we, with the exception of the Conservatives, all believe in the debate on the inclusion programme and mainstreaming. That was echoed by Euan Robson, who talked about the importance of the child-centred nature of the policies that we are putting in place. However, as Cathie Craigie commented, that is not to say that there are no situations in which the provision for an individual child with additional support needs falls short of what it should be or that children do not fall through the net and fail to have their problems identified. I point out to Margaret Ewing that considerable attention is given to the issues of assessment and identification in the Education (Additional Support for Learning) Scotland Act 2004, which comes into force this month.
The Scottish education system, as reformed by the 2000 and 2004 acts, provides a framework for improvement that is increasingly offering children better opportunities. It provides real and effective choices for parents and children, supports those choices better and empowers, and best meets the needs of, the most important people in the debate: the children and young people who need additional support to learn. The framework also benefits their peers with whom they learn, who gain considerable benefit from the experience, which is another point on which Margaret Ewing and others touched.
In the correspondence that has come across my desk since I became minister, I have not seen a great flood of letters on the matter. Perhaps the letters are going to local authorities or elsewhere, but I have had only one on the subject. Issues are not being raised with ministers.
On that point, the minister makes a fair comment about the framework that is in place—I have no issue with it. However, we are writing to local authorities and encountering parents who are frustrated because they have many stresses in their domestic life through supporting their children but, when they deal with the local authority, the stress is 50 times worse. The challenge is how we break that obstacle in the system. I hope that he will give us some comfort that work on that is under way.
I entirely accept Mr Swinney's point, which was considered and elaborated on in detail during the passage of the 2004 act. That is why it includes measures on mediation, dealing with issues early, the tribunal failsafe and the ethos that is required. I am well aware, from my legal involvement in such cases before my election, just how much some people in such situations batter their heads against brick walls. I have great sympathy with people who are in the situation that John Swinney mentions. However, we must talk about what we are doing through the parliamentary process, the Executive's influence and the framework that is being put in place under the 2004 act to ensure that the situation continues to improve.
Teachers, parents and children tell me repeatedly that the experience of interrelating with children with disablements helps other children to develop the tolerance, understanding and respect for others that are part of what we desire for young people. We have guaranteed the funding of national special schools and supported local authorities in improving special facilities for young people who need them. It is a big challenge for the teachers and other professionals who make a vital contribution, such as therapists, social workers, carers and psychologists, to put all the measures into practice, which is why investment is going in. That investment is not just the £14 million directly to support the 2004 act that Fiona Hyslop mentioned, but investment in a wider range of initiatives on training and other support, which should, I hope, make a big difference. We now have 400 educational psychologists in Scotland for the first time; a 5 per cent rise in speech and language therapists; an increase in social workers of 35 per cent; and teacher targets. Any suggestion that mainstreaming is cheap or simple is misplaced. We are putting in resources.
I remember the dark days when the Conservatives ran Scotland. That was not a halcyon time when children with special needs were carefully supported, as Scott Barrie made clear in summing up for the Labour Party. On the contrary, it was a time when large numbers of parents battered their heads against brick walls, desperate to get the resources that they needed to support their children's special needs. In the 18 years in which the Conservatives were in power, teacher numbers fell by a staggering 6,000. In the final year of the Conservative Government, £30 million was taken out of education resources in Scotland.
We are nearing the date for implementation of the 2004 act. We have an unparalleled opportunity to ensure that every child in Scotland receives the support that they need to achieve their full potential. The new system will address many of the difficulties that members have mentioned. We must focus on that, not on unproductive arguments about the pros and cons of mainstreaming. The Conservative motion looks not forward, but back and seeks a return to a system that many parents, professionals and children fought to change just a short time ago. We have a great generation of young people whom we need to support to the fullest of our ability—that is what the debate is about.
I will start by disagreeing with Robert Brown: this has been a very productive debate with good contributions from all sides of the chamber.
There is one point that no one has raised. The minister mentioned parents battering their heads against brick walls, but—although I am aware only of the situation in Highland—I can tell him that many children are actually excluded from all schools, be they mainstream or specialist, because of disruptive behaviour. Why are children excluded for being disruptive? Because, as Margaret Ewing said, their parents are trying to get a diagnosis but cannot—
Will the member take an intervention?
One second please; this is an important point that has not been raised. Parents cannot get the diagnosis, so the children are at home. In some cases they not only exhibit violent behaviour but enter into a life of crime after falling in with other children who have excluded themselves from school.
Serious issues arise. We are not just talking about mainstreaming and about specialist schools; we also have to consider children who are excluded. They are promised six hours of specialised teaching a week but they certainly do not get that. I agree with points that have been made on all sides that the Parliament must continue to look into education for children with special needs.
Scott Barrie made points about the motion in the name of my colleague Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, but I want to remind the chamber of the actual wording. The motion acknowledges that
"many children with additional support needs draw educational and social benefit from being educated in a mainstream setting".
It also acknowledges that
"appropriate resources and support must be available"
and that the development of
"some children with multiple and complex needs can best be promoted through the concentrated support provided in special schools".
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I am sorry.
I would argue that the motion is a plea to look ahead rather than back. Children with special needs should be placed in the most appropriate setting for their development, be that in mainstream or special schools.
There is another point in Lord James's motion that others, including John Swinney, have raised—to their credit. Parents must have a say in the process and must be able to make a genuine and informed choice.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I am too short of time and have too many points to respond to.
Fiona Hyslop mentioned a 39 per cent reduction in special school rolls. That reduction is a cause for concern. However, as Lord James said, each child must be treated as an individual and supported according to their needs.
Many members, such as Rosemary Byrne and Margaret Ewing, have spoken about their professional life before coming to the Parliament. Before coming here, I lectured in economics in further and higher education for 20 years. Many students fell through the net throughout their whole educational career; they were diagnosed with dyslexia or other conditions only when they reached higher education. We hope that that will not happen in future and that children will be given support in primary and secondary school.
Today's debate takes place in the month of the implementation of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004. It is a time of change in our education system. Like Brian Monteith, I remember that many Labour back benchers had serious concerns about the bill. We will have to keep the implementation of the act under constant review.
I was pleased to hear the minister say that both special and mainstream schools are required. We would all agree with that. However, will he go a step further? Will he place a moratorium on the closure of special schools until the assumptions behind the mainstreaming policy are reviewed?
As others have said, at present parents have to battle within the system to get accurate diagnoses—whether for dyslexia, dyspraxia, ASD or any other conditions. Once parents have achieved a diagnosis, they have a further battle to get the support that is appropriate to the child's needs. It is one thing to pass legislation in this Parliament but quite another to look into the practical implementation of measures and the support that is offered by education authorities throughout the country.
As Brian Monteith said, a child's needs should not be determined by cost or resources. He also spoke of the need for a variety of choices.
John Swinney and others said that we should not simply establish the principle of support—with which we all agree—but that we should work on the practical delivery too. That is what people constantly come to see us about. We would be failing in our duty as parliamentarians if we did not raise the issue of the support that is required by children with special educational needs.
Will the member take an intervention?
All right, given that Mr Rumbles has not spoken in the debate.
I thank the member.
David Davidson spoke earlier about the closure of Carronhill School in Stonehaven in my constituency. There has been a lot of misinformation. We should be talking about important things such as the local council's plans to rebuild Carronhill School and many other schools like it, and the £200 million refurbishment and renewal programme that is under way.
I thank Mr Rumbles for raising that point, but we should be discussing not the bricks and mortar but the actual support that children are given, whether in mainstream or special schools.
I am in my last minute so I will move quickly on to the point that Adam Ingram made about disabled people not being well served in the current system. Just a few hours of specialised teaching for children with dyslexia can bring enormous benefits. I know of children in primary 7 whose parents have to pay privately to get a diagnosis; however, because it is a private diagnosis, it is not accepted by the education authority and the parents and children have to wait and wait.
I commend Rosemary Byrne for her contribution. Because of her background and her commitment to her profession, she always makes sound contributions to these debates. She and others said that reviews of mainstreaming and of problems with diagnosis and insufficient resources are required. A review is also required into the training of classroom assistants. Such training is lacking.
I ask members throughout the chamber to support the motion in the name of my colleague Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.