Class Sizes
The next item of business is a statement by Fiona Hyslop on class sizes. Again, the cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions.
I welcome the opportunity to make a statement on the Government's position on class sizes.
To improve Scottish education, we need to achieve several things in relation to teacher professional development, school leadership, parental involvement, the school environment, discipline, the early years, and reducing class sizes. Leadership and continuing professional development for teachers are particularly important, which is why we are committed to publishing a leadership document in the new year to set out a Scottish perspective and direction on educational leadership. Teaching style and teacher quality are also important and, in part, come down to the quality of the teachers who are emerging from our training institutions, but are also influenced by the lead and direction that teachers receive in their schools. It is also why CPD for teachers will be a key foundation policy in driving up achievement and attainment.
This is an appropriate time to make a statement on class sizes because a number of related key events have taken place in the past month or so.
First, our concordat with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities sets out the terms of a new relationship between the Scottish Government and local government, based on mutual respect and partnership. That is a significant development and, as part of that historic deal, local government will deliver year-on-year progress in reducing class sizes in primary 1 to primary 3 to a maximum of 18 pupils; I will say more about that shortly.
Secondly, the 2007 school census statistics, published on 20 November, show that 37 per cent of maths pupils and 21 per cent of English pupils at S1 and S2 were in classes of more than 20. We now know that the target that was set out in the previous Administration's partnership agreement was not met by some margin.
Thirdly, on 23 October, the General Register Office for Scotland published positive but challenging population projections that show increasing birth rates. We are addressing the issue, and I will talk about those numbers and what they mean shortly.
Fourthly, I received the final report of the class size and resources working group on 12 November and it was subsequently published on 20 November. Its reference point was the previous Government's policies.
Fifthly, we are still in the midst of this year's annual teacher workforce planning exercise, which will provide a clearer picture of future teacher supply.
Sixthly, we have now seen the local government finance settlement, which contains an additional £1.3 billion for services and manifesto commitments, including a 15 per cent increase in capital for infrastructure, which can be used for school improvements.
Seventhly, the progress in international reading literacy study—PIRLS—report was published on 28 November. It raises concerns that, in international comparisons, the literacy levels of our nine and 10-year-olds are slipping.
Finally, only yesterday, the programme for international student assessment—PISA—report was published. It showed that Scotland's reading and maths scores have experienced one of the highest drops of all the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. Scotland also has one of the biggest gaps in performance, which can be identified as related to poverty and deprivation.
That is the situation that this Government has inherited from the previous Administration.
There is evidence to show that early intervention prevents later problems, such as violence, ill health or children not achieving their full potential. Early intervention will be the hallmark of our Government. Poverty and deprivation can impact on life chances and educational achievement from the earliest years and there is a convincing body of research evidence that supports smaller class sizes in early years, particularly for those who come from deprived backgrounds. The student teacher achievement ratio project—the STAR project—and the more recent class size and pupil ratio project in England also provide evidence that supports such a policy.
Closer to home, we have no better example of successful early intervention than the initiative by West Dunbartonshire Council. The recently published final research report on the council's literacy initiative shows that impressive results were achieved in tackling illiteracy among pupils. The project identified the importance of early intervention in tackling the problems that children face. We want councils throughout Scotland to assess what lessons they can learn from the initiative.
Smaller classes can lead to more sustained interaction between teachers and pupils, more high-order questioning, more feedback on work, less time spent on routine supervision, less time spent exercising classroom control and less time given to housekeeping by teachers.
The PIRLS report that was published last week shows that, in 2006, 19 countries had a mean score significantly higher than Scotland's, as compared with 12 in 2001. That means that our relative position in the international rankings fell under the previous Government. The report also shows that there are continuing links between deprivation and low educational achievement. In addition, the report shows that the gap between low and high achievers in Scotland is the third widest of countries within the OECD. According to the report, the literacy achievement of nine and 10-year-olds in Scotland is worse now than it was in 2001.
The PISA results, which were published only yesterday, show a similar picture. In 2003, only three countries had significantly higher mean scores than Scotland for maths, reading and science. By 2006, Scotland was outscored by four countries in science, five in reading and eight in maths. We are determined to reverse that trend.
If we are to tackle Scotland's challenges as identified in the international PISA survey and to climb back up the international tables, we must deal with poverty at its roots and tackle the impact that it can have on families. Our early years strategy can do that. We need to give more time, more attention and more access to a nursery teacher to our poorest children. We will also drive down class sizes in the early years, when literacy and numeracy are embedded. Scotland needs firm foundations for learning and the Government will provide them.
We believe that the greatest impact can be made by improving early years education rather than by trying to take remedial action later in a child's schooling when, in many cases, it is too late. Our class size policy needs to be seen in the context of our whole early years strategy.
We know that the standard of pre-school education in Scotland is generally good and that the highest standard of pre-school education tends to be found in settings that employ teachers. Overall, the presence of a nursery teacher in a nursery class tends to bring quality of provision. That is why the Government wants all children in pre-school education to have access to a qualified teacher. A recent report from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education, which was published on 12 November, provides evidence to support the policy. The HMIE report found that, overall, the quality of children's experiences was of a higher standard in nursery schools and classes where, traditionally, teachers were employed. The early years strategy will look at the broad range of service provision for young children and how that works to support families.
We have already made the most significant enhancement to pre-school education since 2002. The entitlement to pre-school education was increased to 475 hours a year from the start of this academic year. In the budget, we announced that the entitlement will increase further, to 570 hours a year, from August 2010. We have made a commitment to deliver a 50 per cent increase in the level of entitlement in 2011. Members will also be pleased to note that the concordat that we agreed with COSLA makes specific reference to ensuring that there is access to a teacher for every pre-school child as soon as possible. Those are important steps forward for early years provision. Together, they provide a welcome boost for our constituents with young families.
What does the concordat mean for class sizes? The concordat states:
"the Scottish Government and local government will each do what is required to ensure delivery of key government policies … including … as quickly as is possible, reducing class sizes in P1 to P3 to a maximum of 18".
We need to examine three key areas: pupils, teachers and classrooms.
Total pupil numbers are expected to drop from 703,000 in 2006 to 666,000 in 2011 and then to rise again to 680,000 in 2020. Those projections are higher than those used in last year's workforce planning exercise and show some 10,000 more pupils by 2011 and 60,000 more by 2020. Most of that change is due to revised population projections, following the GROS publication of 23 October, to allow for increased birth rates and inward migration. As a result of the revised population projections, an additional 450 primary teachers by 2011 and 2,100 primary teachers by 2020 will be required simply to meet those demographic demands.
We do not underestimate the scale of the challenge—only 11 per cent of pupils in P1 to P3 are in classes of 18 or fewer—but we believe firmly that having smaller class sizes for all in the critical early years is the right policy and the best approach. That is why we are planning to train thousands more teachers than the previous Administration trained. We expect more than 20,000 people to have entered training by 2011. That is a huge investment, if we consider that the total number of teachers is currently around 53,000.
For the period 2008-09 to 2010-11, the level of efficiency savings that all parts of the public sector will be expected to make has been set at 2 per cent per annum. Despite the tightest UK spending settlement since devolution, we will provide sufficient resources to allow Government broadly to maintain teacher numbers as pupil numbers fall, as part of a package that has delivered an extra £1.3 billion for local government by 2010-11. There will be a reduction in ring-fenced funding streams from £2.7 billion in 2007-08 to less than £0.9 billion by 2010-11. On 2007-08 figures, the ability to retain all efficiency savings is worth £213 million each year—£639 million in total. Those measures will provide local government with the resources and flexibility to make real progress on bringing down class sizes in P1 to P3.
The Government will fund training for thousands more teachers, but we will not compromise on teacher quality. We also need to take account of the pressures on the system—the capacity of higher education institutions and, just as important, the capacity of the school system to provide quality student placements. There must be a degree of consistency. I am aware that constantly chopping and changing class configurations can compromise the benefits of class size reductions, so a degree of common sense needs to be used in class formations.
The Government has already—in its first 100 days—invested £40 million in capital infrastructure for schools to support the demands of class size reductions in future years. I contrast that with the performance of the previous Government, which provided £60 million for P1, S1 and S2 class size reductions that took three years. In the Scottish budget there is almost £3 billion over the three-year period from next April to secure investment in schools and other local government infrastructure, including an extra £115 million next year—in 2008-09—that can be invested in schools. The local government capital budget represents an average increase of 15 per cent, compared with 2007-08 figures, over the three years of the settlement, to help to meet the classroom requirements of our policy.
There is widespread support for a policy of smaller class sizes in the early years of primary education. Most of the Opposition parties also planned to cut class sizes. In its manifesto, the Labour Party in Scotland said that it would reduce class sizes to below the OECD average, which is 21.4. Given the commitments that they made during the election campaign, I say to Liberal Democrat members that we could and should work together on smaller class sizes. Their manifesto said that they would deliver 1,000 more teachers to cut class sizes and that they would cut class sizes in P1 to P3 to a maximum of 25.
We know that parents and teachers, too, want cuts in class sizes. Recently 80,000 Scots signed one of the largest petitions that has ever been submitted to the Parliament, urging that class sizes be cut. We want real, year-on-year progress in reducing class sizes in P1 to P3. With local government, which is committed through the concordat to working with us on the issue, we will seek to deliver that.
We are right to be ambitious for our young people, their parents and Scottish teachers—we are ambitious for Scotland. The Parliament should not divide to make party-political points about our agenda for the future educational improvement of our children. The international research that was published this week and last month shows the state that Scottish education is in following the previous Administration's guardianship of our education system.
Many of us—indeed, a majority of MSPs—were elected on a platform of class size reductions. Uniting in support of efforts to reduce class sizes would give the children of Scotland the chance that they deserve. As we know, too many children in Scotland need a better chance to succeed in the early years. This Government will do everything that it can to help them.
I am stunned to hear that the Parliament should not divide to make party-political points. In the past eight years, I have never heard such a political diatribe masquerading as a ministerial statement. This is a serious issue, and to deliver such a ministerial statement does a disservice to the Parliament. Perhaps the cabinet secretary is a little defensive about her already broken promise to deliver class sizes of 18 in P1 to P3.
I remind Fiona Hyslop what she said when she was in opposition on 17 March 2005:
"In the current context, the Executive should reflect on its commitments: either it has a target or it does not have one."—[Official Report, 17 March 2005; c 15453.]
What is the cabinet secretary's target, and when will it be delivered?
The Scottish National Party's manifesto costings for reducing class sizes were £210 million—I have a copy of them here. There is no specific costing in the Government's agreement with COSLA. What specific funding has the cabinet secretary given councils to deliver the manifesto promise? She referred to the local government finance settlement. After inflation and the council tax freeze, how much is left for services? What is the figure?
Finally, the SNP manifesto said that it would deliver £30 million for an additional support fund. That manifesto pledge has also been broken. Is that due to the class size pledge? What do parents think about that?
It is important to remember that we have reached a different era in relations between local and national Government with the signing of the concordat between COSLA and the Government. Rhona Brankin asked what targets we have—I will quote them exactly from the concordat:
"the Scottish Government and local government will each do what is required to ensure delivery of key government policies and programmes including … reducing class sizes in P1 to P3 to a maximum of 18".
That wording expects year-on-year progress from local government over the spending review period and our period in office. There will be a marked improvement for many of our young people.
The difference with our proposal is that we expect year-on-year progress. I acknowledge the class size reduction policies of the previous Administration, but its target was actually for after the date by which it had left office. The improvements for class size reduction in P1, S1 and S2 were actually after it had left office—our target is year-on-year progress.
The member also asked about finance. I quoted the figure of the cash increase for local government of £1.3 billion. She asked for the figure after inflation. That is £500 million, but there are also the efficiency savings, which local government can now keep. As I said, that is the equivalent of £213 million every year for local authorities if they agree to the concordat. Resources are available to local government—the additional resources that are coming in, the figures that I just quoted, and the efficiency savings that local authorities will be able to keep for the first time. Of course, that does not take into account the efficiency that can be gained from not having ring-fenced funding. We are reducing ring-fenced funding from £2.7 billion to £900 million, and much of that is the police grant. That flexibility and extra resource for local government will be very welcome.
The member referred to additional support for learning for children with additional support needs. Not only have we agreed in the concordat to specified manifesto commitments, including the class size reduction, we have agreed to outcomes and indicators. Part of the central provision of those outcomes relates to the learning experiences of all children in Scotland, including those with additional support needs. We want improvements for all children in Scotland.
I thank the cabinet secretary for an advance copy of her statement, but I cannot see for the life of me why she bothered to make it. Apart from the call for political unity, there is nothing new in the statement. There is no costing for this policy pledge or any timescale for implementation. Indeed, when asked at this morning's meeting of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee about costings for the concordat, COSLA representatives responded only by saying that they had no figures to hand for specific education priorities, including the class size policy commitment.
In its manifesto, the SNP stated clearly:
"We will reduce class sizes in Primary 1, 2 and 3 to eighteen pupils or less".
That was the pledge. It contains no ifs, buts or maybes, and there is no reference to its being dependent on local government or down to a concordat. When exactly will the pledge be delivered? Will it be delivered by 2011 or by some other date, or does it simply follow the pledges to write off student debt and to make available 1,000 extra police officers as another SNP broken promise?
This Government will deliver on our manifesto pledge on a year-on-year basis, and we will work with local government to make year-on-year progress on its delivery. This Administration faces major challenges with regard to teacher provision such as, for example, our plans for 20,000 new teachers for the cohort of 53,000. Not only will we meet that challenge, we will also deliver on our manifesto commitments.
It is important to reflect on costs. I know that the member is very keen on business rates reduction and certain other aspects of our agreement with local government. However, none of the specified manifesto commitments comes with an individual price tag precisely because the package as a whole is being presented to local government for agreement. That includes the reductions in ring fencing, the additional £1.3 billion over the spending period to help finance policies such as class size reductions, and the efficiency savings that I am sure the member's party also supports. Those are all part of the package that will help to fund and support not only class size reductions but the policy on kinship carers that we introduced yesterday and which will make a big difference to so many people's lives. There is no individual price tag on each policy because the concordat that we have agreed with COSLA is about the package, which is about more than the 12 manifesto commitments listed in that document. It is about the national outcomes that we want to work with local government on achieving, central to many of which are opportunities for young people to succeed.
We are funding this matter, and the resources in that respect have been identified not only by the COSLA presidential team that signed the concordat, but by the leadership of councils throughout Scotland, which have agreed to put forward this package as the best deal for local government.
I, too, thank the cabinet secretary for providing an advance copy of her statement. On page 6, it says that the plan is
"to broadly maintain teacher numbers".
Will she confirm whether the 20,000 teachers that she mentioned are in addition to the current 53,000 teachers or are they teachers who, like our police officers, will be redeployed, rebadged and moved around?
This is an SNP flagship policy. As such, will the cabinet secretary confirm that, on 5 September, when asked in this chamber whether he could
"confirm that his promise will be delivered in the lifetime of this parliamentary session",
the First Minister said,
"Yes, I can and that is why we have made early announcements to that effect."—[Official Report, 5 September 2007; c 1378.]
Does that statement still hold?
Given that we should see quicker year-on-year progress, why is there no baseline data for expectations of annual progress? How much of the £40 million capital for 2007-08 that the cabinet secretary referred to is being directed at reducing class sizes? Finally, the cabinet secretary said in her statement that efficiency savings could be moved into education and used to reduce class sizes. Where precisely does it say that in the concordat?
Mr Purvis has asked a number of questions. First, I should say that although the Government is ambitious for Scotland, we are not suggesting by any means that the 20,000 teachers will somehow be on top of the current 53,000. I think that moving towards 73,000 teachers is perhaps beyond the ability even of this very ambitious Government.
However, those 20,000 teachers will help to maintain numbers in view of the level of retirements. Indeed, it is clear that, because of those retirements, we will have to recruit a large number of teachers even to maintain the current number. That said, because we recognise that we will have to recruit even more to deliver class size reductions we can say that we will have in training thousands more teachers than would have been the case under the previous Administration.
The First Minister was asked whether he was committed to the SNP's manifesto, which clearly stated that we want to reduce to 18 class sizes in P1 to P3. We are moving on that. In order to deliver that manifesto commitment, we are working in partnership with COSLA and Scotland's local authorities. Because the Government is responsive and recognises the challenges, the concordat reflects the fact that some local authorities have the flexibility and opportunity to move faster than others.
Jeremy Purvis may be interested to know that the share of the £40 million for the Scottish Borders is £1.237 million, which is one of the largest shares, because of the challenges that that area faces. I said that the £40 million will help. If he reads the guidance, he will see that it will contribute to the policy of reducing class sizes. We know that to deliver that policy, the capital that will be available—£115 million extra in the first year, and 15 per cent across the piece—will have to be directed appropriately. In order to ensure that capital investment to reduce class sizes can be made in future years, we agreed with local government that it might want to bring forward other capital investment projects so that investment in the spending review period can be dedicated to reducing class sizes. That guidance was given.
I think that Jeremy Purvis also asked about efficiency savings. The concordat allows local government to decide where to put resources. It is clear that far more resources will need to be put into reducing class sizes in some local authorities, while the fall in school rolls in others means that, as long as teacher numbers are maintained, they can move quickly towards reducing class sizes to 18. I have heard that from several local authorities.
The local government package as a whole—some £1.3 billion extra funding, the ending of ring fencing and being allowed to keep, for the first time, any efficiency savings—means that hundreds of millions of pounds extra will go to local authorities. The concordat specifies the commitments that they must adhere to and pages 46 and 47 of the spending review document set out the outcomes and indicators on which they have agreed to deliver. That means ensuring that we deliver on the education budgets.
Many of the spending review outcomes are dedicated to young people, because, as I said, early intervention, whether in education, health or justice, is at the heart of this Government.
In September this year, Wendy Alexander said:
"Class sizes are not a good measure of what matters",
but in August 2003, Peter Peacock said that
"smaller classes is good news for Scotland's pupils."
In the light of the massive Educational Institute of Scotland petition that has been lodged, will the cabinet secretary be so kind as to remind the Labour Party why small class sizes are good for Scotland's children?
Class sizes are very important, although they are not the only aspect to consider if we want to improve educational attainment, as I said at the start of my statement. People are concerned by what they sense is the hostility of some members to the class size reduction policy. The interpretation of people outside Parliament is that some members have moved or shifted against class size reductions. I hope that members support reducing class sizes, because people outside Parliament want them to do so. The petition that was mentioned is evidence of that.
Why is it important to reduce class sizes? We need to remind other parties why. Aspects of literacy and numeracy are embedded in the early years—indeed, there are clear recommendations on that in the research. Until the age of eight, a child learns to read; from eight onwards, children read to learn. We should pay attention to international surveys from recent weeks. The literacy survey was a sharp reminder that the attainment levels of our nine and 10-year-olds have reduced in recent years. In order to regain the position that they had and to improve the literacy levels of Scottish children in comparison with those of other countries, we will have to work to improve their literacy before they reach age nine to 10. That means that we must consider primary 1 to P3 classes and the nursery level, which is important and is where we should ensure that there is professional teacher involvement so that we get the basics right. If we get the basics and the foundation of literacy correct, we will ensure that there are improved opportunities for young children and, as important, ensure that we do not live in a country in which adult literacy and numeracy rates are shameful. It is not only about improving the life chances of individuals; it is about raising the skills of the nation.
I assure the cabinet secretary that no Labour member is against a reduction in class sizes. What we are opposed to is a Government that makes manifesto pledges then breaks them. Does the cabinet secretary agree with Councillor Isabel Hutton, the education spokesperson of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and an SNP councillor in West Lothian, who today told the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee that the class size commitment would not be met in this session of Parliament? Will she clarify how the Government defines the phrase "as quickly as possible"—with respect to its use in the concordat that was signed with COSLA—in relation to the delivery of class sizes of 18 for primaries 1 to 3? How will the Government determine whether progress has been made on reducing class sizes in each of the next three academic years?
I acknowledge that in the west of Scotland there are increasingly smaller class sizes, although not in all cases, and that the population is reducing at a faster rate than it is elsewhere. However, in West Lothian—where I live—and in East Lothian and other parts of the east of Scotland, although school rolls in general are falling, the rolls in the earliest years are rising, because some areas are experiencing an increase in population as a result of young families moving into new-build houses.
That is one of the reasons why a statement on class sizes is timely. Murdo Fraser asked why we are having a statement on class sizes now. He might want to ask some of his colleagues on the Parliamentary Bureau that question—I think that Labour members in particular wanted such a statement. I tried to make its relevance clear to him by explaining that in the context of the past few weeks there are several reasons why it is appropriate to make a statement on class sizes. The population projections that were published on 23 October mean that we would, even if we did nothing, have to find an extra 450 teachers because of the increase in the birth rate in the past year.
Karen Whitefield asked when we will achieve our manifesto commitment. We will be able to do so when there is year-on-year progress that delivers it. As I said, we must recognise that flexibility will be required for different parts of the country. We want to see year-on-year progress. I will outline how we will monitor that. We will ask for annual reports from each and every local authority. They will be making progress not only on the specified manifesto commitments but on the national outcomes in the spending review document. We will also have bi-monthly meetings with each and every local authority to assess their progress in achieving those goals. I expect each and every local authority to make significant progress in reducing class sizes over the four-year period, although the pace and scale of progress will vary. There are big challenges, but they do not mean that we will not make progress or that we will not recruit teachers. We will recruit 20,000 more teachers in order to deliver on our manifesto commitment. We could recruit tens of thousands more teachers on top of that, but the teacher training institutions have told us that that would compromise the quality of teaching. I am not prepared to compromise the quality of teaching just to deliver progress on class sizes. We will be able to have the year-on-year progress evidenced by local authorities, and it will continue and be monitored over the period of the spending review.
The cabinet secretary is on record today as having said that the concordat between the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities is a historic new partnership that will allow for much greater flexibility in delivery of front-line services. Does she agree that when it comes to class sizes and the common sense that she mentioned, the best way to ensure that those two principles are taken forward would be to allow headteachers, rather than Government, to decide on the best class sizes for their schools?
I agree that that is the right way forward. We must ensure that year-on-year progress is made by local government, and I want that to be evidenced. I expect every council to have made significant progress over the period.
However, common sense and flexibility will be required. I have cited the research evidence because disruption caused by changes to class configurations can undermine any benefits from reductions in class sizes. Common sense and flexibility must prevail—each headteacher will know the circumstances of his or her school.
The recent class census showed that the previous partnership agreement had failed to deliver on its target to have a maximum class size of 20 in maths and English. The previous Administration then realised that we should listen to headteachers and that averaging the targets might be better. Ministers at the time acknowledged that that was reasonable. We acknowledge it, too. Members might want to reflect on that before they criticise us for introducing a bit of common sense and flexibility to our policy on class sizes.
The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning will know that the Scottish Executive that existed before May missed all its targets on class sizes, despite amending them regularly. Does she, like me, welcome the finding of a recent YouGov opinion poll that showed that 78 per cent—yes, 78 per cent—of the people of Scotland support the agreement between the SNP Scottish Government and Scotland's councils to work together to cut class sizes in the first three years of primary school? Does she agree that the Opposition parties should have the good grace—something that is foreign to them—to join Scotland's people in welcoming the work of the SNP Government?
I was not polled by YouGov, but had I been, I would have supported the concordat—and the COSLA presidential team that was present when I signed the concordat would have been pleased. Of course I welcome such popular support for our policy. However, the YouGov poll is not the only show of fantastic support for the SNP's progressive policies in education; there has been a petition of 80,000 signatures lodged in Parliament.
It will be important for all of us to move this debate on. The people of Scotland must see that we are working together to reduce class sizes. I hope that we can work together here in Parliament, but we are also working with local government in a new relationship that will bring significant changes, not only to the life chances of young people, but to the face of governance. That will be very important.
I assure the cabinet secretary that I and my Labour colleagues support the reduction of class sizes, as begun by the previous Labour-led Scottish Executive.
The concordat with local government says that local government will be expected to show year-on-year progress towards delivery of the class size reduction policy. However, today at the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, the COSLA representative said that local authorities would reduce class sizes "where demographics allow".
Pupil numbers in Linlithgow and many other places are increasing. Those increases are known; the children have already been born and half of them are already in nursery. Will the cabinet secretary guarantee my constituents and those in other such areas that they will still see class sizes of 18 in P1, P2 and P3 by the end of this parliamentary session? Is COSLA closer to the truth, and should the SNP manifesto have read, "We will reduce class sizes, but not where pupil numbers are increasing"?
Local government has supported the concordat at COSLA presidential level and council leader level. Mary Mulligan is a resident of West Lothian; I am too, and I understand the situation there very well. I have had constructive discussions about delivering the policy with the convener of education in West Lothian Council.
West Lothian Council is an interesting local authority. One of the commitments in the concordat is to ensure that every child in nursery has access to a nursery teacher. Unlike, for example, Glasgow City Council, West Lothian Council has kept nursery teachers in nurseries. The council will therefore have more flexibility in deployment of teachers; it will not have to move more teachers into nurseries, because they are already there and are able to give of their time and attention. The council will not have to use those resources in order to reduce class sizes. That is an example of flexibility.
The success of new build and the challenges of new population are putting pressures on areas such as West Lothian, and the SNP-led West Lothian Council is willing to work within the concordat to deliver class size reductions. I expect every other local authority that signs up to the concordat to do likewise.
Last week, during the equality and diversity debate, I mentioned educational attainment as being part of the equalities agenda. According to the PISA 2006 report, Scotland has one of the biggest gaps in performance, which can be related to poverty and deprivation. Besides reducing class sizes, what steps will the Scottish Government take to address that appalling situation, which was inherited from the previous Labour-led Administration?
Evidence on class size reductions, particularly from the Tennessee STAR project, shows that the biggest impact is in areas of deprivation. There is also evidence from nursery teachers of improvement among three and four-year-olds in areas of deprivation. We can learn lessons from the PISA study that was published yesterday, which makes it clear that although there are issues in respect of leadership in schools, continual professional development, the school environment and discipline, if we want to make fundamental changes we have to address the barriers that poverty places on educational attainment. Part of the early years strategy that we are developing—and one of the first policy areas to be developed collectively with COSLA and local authorities—is to try to address the fundamental issue of poverty in this country. The gap between rich and poor has extended, which has held back children who should be able to perform better. Tackling of poverty is fundamentally related to education. I will be urging local authorities to make a start in delivering class size reductions in deprived areas because, according to the PISA study, they are the areas in which we can make the biggest difference.
In international comparisons on performance, some of the best-performing pupils in this country do extremely well. We will ensure that we retain our position in international rankings if we close the gap between the top attaining pupils and the poorest attaining pupils. Yesterday's international research shows us the way forward. This is about tackling poverty: we can do that and help to improve life chances if we reduce class sizes, particularly in areas of deprivation.
What regard has the Government given to efficient use of classroom space by local authorities, for example those with the smallest space-to-pupil ratios? The £40 million that was previously announced, and which has apparently now been reallocated, made no such allowance and effectively penalised authorities for taking a sustainable and greener approach to their school estate. As the minister will know, the most efficient councils have the least capacity and flexibility to respond to the demand for extra classrooms. Is that yet another tricky problem to be left to—and therefore blamed on—local authorities, or does the minister accept that it is an issue for her, too?
We are keen to pump-prime investment in schools. The £40 million that was released this year was delivered promptly in order to address class size issues. More generally, there are issues about how capacity is interpreted—what was understood to be the appropriate capacity for schools in previous years may not be appropriate now. My ministerial colleague Maureen Watt is taking a keen interest in that.
The local government settlement, as has been provided through the concordat, will not specify that funding streams from national Government follow a narrow track of ring fencing to address capacity. Local authorities will have to determine how they use resources; they must also determine their capacity issues. There are major challenges, which we must address: for example, some new-build schools have open-plan arrangements, which will present different challenges to those in the traditional, Victorian-built schools that have different-sized classrooms. That has to be taken into account and is where common sense comes into play. We must also recognise that capital infrastructure will be needed, which is one of the reasons why I have managed to secure from my Cabinet colleagues such a healthy capital infrastructure provision within local government. The major challenges include reducing class sizes and ensuring that we have the classrooms available for those reductions, but they also include improving the fabric of our schools.
The cabinet secretary vehemently referred to the major challenges, but the major challenge that we have is to get the SNP Government to nail some figures to the airy-fairy promises that we get from it, so I will try again quickly. How much funded time will be allowed to free teachers from classroom duties to engage in the continuing professional development programme? When does the cabinet secretary expect to deliver all the promises that have been made on provision of nursery teachers? What does—I quote from her statement—"as quickly as possible" mean when it comes to delivering class sizes of 18 for our most deprived communities?
That will vary from local authority to local authority. The population trends in Falkirk, Stirling, North Lanarkshire and West Lothian are different from those in parts of Glasgow and other parts of the west of Scotland.
I say to Hugh O'Donnell that 78 per cent of the public supports our policy of class size reduction. I would not call that "airy-fairy"—it is solid support for delivery.
It is not about support; it is about delivery. What is the delivery schedule?
The delivery schedule will vary from one local authority to another, as will provision for nursery teachers. As of tomorrow, some local authorities will be able to say that they have fulfilled the concordat because they already have nursery teachers in their schools: they never took them away in the first place. Some local authorities have started taking nursery teachers out of nurseries, so it will take them longer to provide nursery teachers because they have to start from a different position.
Part of the single outcome agreements that we are agreeing with local authorities will include their commitments to delivering on specified manifesto promises. I look forward with enthusiasm to receiving their commitment to deliver them. I have spoken to councillors throughout Scotland who are pleased that the Government is finally giving them a responsible position and trusting them. My understanding is that the Liberal Democrats believe that local authorities should have the decentralised powers to make decisions themselves, which is what we will deliver by working with local government.
The cabinet secretary said that
"Scotland needs firm foundations for learning and the Government will provide them."
Why, in that case, is it not advising local authorities that they should use phonics to teach reading? That would be the single most successful way of improving the reading standards to which she correctly referred.
Also, were more than 450 applicants for teacher training denied places on this year's training courses? I fail to see how, at present, she can maintain the high quality of entrants into teacher training and get the number of students that she wants unless she turns away that number.
There are many local authorities and most of them use phonics already. They tend to use different reading techniques, including phonics. Individual children learn differently, as we know, so phonics has its place. It has been successful and will continue to be, but local authorities can decide how best to use it.
Margo MacDonald's point about the need for high quality applicants was well made. I reassure her that our teacher training institutions are already turning away more than the number that she says is required. There is a great demand for people to be teachers in this country. The idea that they can improve the life chances of our young children is fantastic and it is a great advert. I am sure that many of them will take up the challenge to become teachers in Scotland.
That ends questions to the minister. Four members were not called, but I will take a note of them.