Education
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-4755, in the name of Peter Peacock, on education first.
It is a great pleasure to have a schools debate as the first subject debate of this new parliamentary term. It is absolutely right that that should be so because, since the outset of devolution, the Executive has given education the highest priority among all the different things that we do.
Is it not the case that the Executive constantly tells us that the top priority is growing the economy? If that is the case, how can the highest priority be education?
That is an astonishing comment, which demonstrates how far adrift of the pace the Tories are these days. If we do not have a good education system as the foundation of what we do in our society, we cannot grow the economy. That is why education is so fundamental. Unlike the Tories in the past, we give education the top priority. It is the foundation for future economic growth and for the success of our society, as the First Minister said yesterday.
As we enter the final year of the parliamentary session, it is only right that we reflect on the seven years of devolution, on all that has happened in that time and on how far we have come since the dark, awful days of the Tories. We should not forget how awful they were. The Tories left office with schools crumbling and falling down around the ears of children, with patchy pre-school provision, with policy neglected or entirely misdirected and with teachers demotivated and in despair.
The job of my Labour colleagues in 1997 and of the partnership Executive since 1999 has been to put education back at the top of the political agenda, to reinvest in our schools, to build strength into the foundations of Scottish education, to see performance improve and to set the conditions for long-term success.
We have made truly remarkable progress during that seven-year period. We now have universal free access to early years education. That in itself is one of the biggest changes in a century of Scottish education. We now have under way the biggest building programme of new and refurbished schools ever seen in modern times in Scotland, and because of our approach to financing them they will be the first generation of schools that are guaranteed to be maintained properly throughout their life. Contracts have been signed in 13 council areas for refurbishing and building new schools, and we have agreed plans with councils in another 16 areas to build or refurbish almost 100 further schools. Those are the building projects that the Scottish National Party pledged only last week to cancel—an act, if I may say so, of unpardonable folly.
First, I must apologise for arriving late for this morning's debate. My children and child care had to come first.
The SNP would have matched, and will match, the Executive's building programme brick for brick and will have money left over for teachers and books, while the current Administration is lining the pockets of private bankers with excessive profits.
I will come to SNP economic policy in a little while, when I will demonstrate what lunacy that is.
We are investing in teachers. We have signed an historic teachers agreement, bringing better recognition and reward for teachers and new terms and conditions of service. We have legislated to create national priorities in education, inspection of local authorities and a culture of continuous improvement. Those actions, many though they are, were just the start; our plans have been, and remain, ambitious—that is why we have gone on to do much more.
Teaching and teachers remain at the heart of our strategy. We are training more teachers than ever before. Since 2002-03, we have increased the numbers of teachers in training by 92 per cent in secondary schools and by 150 per cent in primary schools. Since 2002-03, we have increased the number of maths and English teachers in training by 116 per cent and 145 per cent respectively. Nearly 9,000 teachers will have entered postgraduate training in the past three years, compared with 5,000 in the previous three years. There are 3,600 probationer teachers in schools this term, with comparable numbers coming through next year. We are recruiting teachers from other parts of the United Kingdom and from abroad—an increase of 112 per cent in two years.
The minister will be aware that there is a serious concern among probationer teachers that, although they are guaranteed a probationary place, when they complete that placement many of them have great difficulty in finding teaching vacancies for the year that they are after. Is the minister doing anything to address that problem?
We know that historically, by this time of year, 70-odd per cent of new probationers have found permanent contracts. The vast majority of the remainder provide absence or maternity leave cover. The pattern is the same this year. We have put in an extra £32 million this year specifically to create permanent posts for those teachers, and that sum will rise to £44 million next year. We are preparing the ground for all those teachers to get permanent jobs, because we want to cut class sizes.
The key point is that we are increasing teacher numbers at a time when pupil numbers are falling significantly, and that has created an unprecedented historic opportunity to further cut class sizes and improve pupil teacher ratios. However, simply recruiting and employing more teachers is not enough, and that is why we have been revamping initial teacher education and why we have introduced the most advanced induction scheme in the world for new teachers. Head teachers across Scotland are telling me that the new generation of probationer teachers is the best that they have ever seen, and those new teachers will benefit throughout their careers from continuing professional development—another area in which Scotland leads the world.
We said that we would deliver stronger education and that is exactly what we have been doing. Progressively we are working through and delivering on our agenda for ambitious, excellent schools. In addition to the issues that I have mentioned, we have delivered, among many other things, a new excellence standard for school inspections, and a revised standard for headship, to ensure that new head teachers are better prepared than ever for their jobs. We have removed barriers to primary teachers teaching in secondary schools, and new courses in skills for work are helping pupils to develop better employability skills. We have a radical schools of ambition programme, which is helping to drive change throughout our education system, and we have liberated the power of parents to contribute more to children's learning through our reform of parental involvement.
New teachers are welcome, but the minister must be aware that head teachers are doing much more classroom teaching, which is putting enormous pressures on them and inhibiting their ability to develop leadership skills. What is he doing to help head teachers to become the principals of schools and to fulfil their leadership role?
I will address the specific point about leadership later. I do not agree with Mr Welsh's claim that head teachers are teaching more. In fact, we are putting in more support staff, to allow head teachers not to teach so much and to provide more support in and around the school.
We gave a commitment to review the curriculum and design a new one, and that is now firmly under way. We debated that fully before the recess. The changes will ensure that our education system gives young people the key capacities that they will need.
Across the globe, others are looking with admiration at Scotland's approach to many issues. We have put strength and focus back into education and we are seeing the benefits. Our chief inspector of schools said in his recent report card on Scottish education that Scotland
"does many things well and some things particularly well."
We know from statistical evidence that we are in the top third of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, with our 15-year-olds among the best performing in the world. Attainment is improving, with most pupils performing at or above the literacy and numeracy levels expected for their age. Since our Conservative colleagues left office, performance in five-to-14 tests has improved by 9 per cent on average. In secondary 2 reading, young people have shown a 20 per cent improvement in performance since the Tories left office.
We have produced stable industrial relations and a well-rewarded and respected teaching profession. More than half our school leavers now enter higher education. However, celebrating our strengths must never distract us from doing what we know we need to do to improve. Other nations are investing too, and we need to be among the very best if we are to serve our young people properly. As the First Minister said yesterday, our ambition is that we should be the very best in the world, and we know that there are a number of challenges that we must tackle if we are to do that. I am clear about those challenges to the system as a whole and I am always explicit about them.
We need our young people to be ever more creative if they are to compete in the global marketplace, and many of our curriculum changes are directed to ensuring that that happens. We must ensure that the employability skills of our young people are improved, and that is why we are running skills for work courses and why enterprise education is such a major feature of our system.
Will the minister give way?
I must make some progress with my speech, as I have given way several times.
We know that low attainment is still a factor that is too often associated with those who live in deprived areas, but we also know from our best-performing schools that we can change that. We know that the outcomes for looked-after children are woefully inadequate and still far too low.
Andrew Welsh asked about leadership. We know that weak leadership in a minority of our schools adversely affects the performance of those schools and of pupils in those schools. We also know that differences in performance between classes within schools can be as big, if not bigger, than the differences between schools. That is where leadership has a particularly important role to play.
Will the minister give way?
I must make more progress. Fiona Hyslop might want to come back on something that I say later.
We know that a significant minority—particularly boys—lack motivation, have low self-esteem and behave badly. These pupils are headed for the NEET category—those who are not in education, employment or training. An unacceptable number of young Scots are in that category, which is why we have a detailed strategy in place to deal with the issue.
Whatever else we do, we will keep at the centre of all that we do in the future an emphasis on the three Rs. We are examining the implications of the new curriculum for the qualifications system.
Ambition cannot be raised or realised without effective leadership. Where leadership is weak, I will support strongly the local authorities in taking difficult decisions to deal with the issue. In turn, a mark of an effective leader in their school is their ability to tackle underperformance among their staff. I plan to do more to support head teachers in that challenging task in the period to come.
We have used the last seven years wisely. We have given education top priority and repaired the damage of the Tory years. We have made unprecedented investments in our system, but there is much more that we want to do and will go on to do. The remainder of this parliamentary session will be spent on delivering more of what we have promised. Our commitment to extra teachers and new schools will be at the forefront of that. For me and my colleagues, education comes first. For me and my colleagues, education is the foundation for national success and, for me and my colleagues, education is a national purpose.
As we reach the end of this parliamentary session, the people of Scotland will have a choice. As I have set out briefly today, our record is there for all to see and to judge and our commitment to education in the future is manifest. People could turn back to the dark days of the Tories. There they are, sitting in their seats in the chamber—only three of them are left. They are forlorn, dispirited and even the three of them are divided. They have not had a single new idea in education since the day they left office almost a decade ago and they are still searching for the magical new packaging around their ancient ideas—the ideas that the Scottish people have rejected over all time and will reject again in the future.
Alternatively, people could turn to the SNP. Some might mistakenly be contemplating that possibility, but they should beware because it would be as big a mistake to support the SNP as it would be to support the Tories. The SNP has had not only a period in opposition, but a lifetime in opposition, yet it has still to have any substantial idea about schools in Scotland. If members scan the horizon for a significant innovation in SNP policy on schools, they will not see one. The SNP is the vacuum in thinking on Scottish education.
As we heard yesterday, the only thing that the SNP really believes in is independence. That is the only purpose that unites the disparate forces in the SNP: the right wingers and left wingers, the fundamentalists and the gradualists. The only thing that they are focused on is separating us from our friends and relatives in the rest of the United Kingdom. As we all know—SNP members may not like it, but they are going to hear it—separation and divorce is a very expensive business.
I turn to Fiona Hyslop's point about the SNP's economics. The world of fantasy economics and fuzzy maths dominates the SNP, which has still to tell the Scottish people how Utopia will be financed. How is it possible to finance the modern and competitive schools that we envisage and need in the future with a fiscal deficit running into billions of pounds? If the SNP had its way, more and more Scots over time would be paying taxes that would go to fund the interest on borrowing to cover that deficit—[Laughter.] SNP members laugh, but this is real for the people of Scotland. In those circumstances, how would it be possible to fund extra teachers and the new curriculum?
Given the SNP's declaration on student debt, which commits billions of pounds and buys not a single extra university place for a student in Scotland, where will it find the billions of pounds to keep investing in our schools?
The nationalists need to answer many and detailed questions over the coming months. They might smirk, but they will have to answer those questions because we will keep putting them. Nothing in what they have said so far indicates that education is a priority for them.
Consider Alex Salmond's pledges for the SNP's first 100 days in government—a period in which any Government sets the tone for what it plans to do for the whole of its administration. Members will find not a single word on schools. In fact, the SNP's only clear policy on schools is a negative: the cancellation of school building programmes.
So, if someone lives in Dumfries or Dundee, Edinburgh or Inverclyde, West Lothian or the Western Isles, Aberdeen or Ayrshire South, or in many other areas of Scotland—
Will the member give way?
I cannot give way as I am over time.
People in those areas should beware of the SNP, because the schools for which they have campaigned for years—schools that are on the brink of being delivered by their local authorities—will be cancelled by the SNP.
A big choice is coming. It is the choice between buying books or breaking up Britain. It is the choice between a focus on the three Rs or the only R that the SNP is interested in: a referendum. It is the choice between a focus on skills for work or separation and the choice between investing in schools or the uncertainty of independence.
To the SNP, schools are not a priority. For me and my colleagues, education comes first: schools not separation; investment not independence; curriculum not constitutional turmoil. As the First Minister again made clear yesterday,
"Learning is Scotland's strategy for the future."—[Official Report, 6 September 2006; c 27151.]
The choice could not be clearer.
I move,
That the Parliament welcomes the priority given to improving education standards by the Scottish Executive and the achievements delivered by schools, local authorities and other partners in taking forward the comprehensive modernisation of our schools and ensuring that Scotland's education system is amongst the best in the world; recognises that the Executive's investment in new and refurbished schools, increased teacher numbers, reducing class sizes, strong parental involvement, stable industrial relations and more targeted support for children with additional support needs is providing the right environment for real and lasting change for Scotland's children; believes that the education of all Scotland's children and young people is fundamental to securing a more productive, integrated and successful Scotland in which all our young people can compete in a global economy and all our 16 to 19-year-olds are in education, employment or training, and calls on all those in the Parliament to focus on Scotland's future and put the education of our children before divisive arguments about separating Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom.
In this chamber we share a collective responsibility to shoulder the desire of this and previous generations to uphold the fundamental importance that Scots place on education. We share that responsibility to open up the horizons, life chances and opportunities for fulfilment for our children so that they can fulfil themselves as individuals and collectively drive our economy in an increasingly knowledge-based arena. No political party has a monopoly on that.
Scotland has long held the value and importance of education in high esteem. We could say that, as a nation, we were the first country to put education first—from the first days of comprehensive schooling, when there was a school in each parish that provided literacy skills to enable people to read the Bible, to the modern recognition that learning is lifelong. In that spirit I commend those who are taking part in the activities of learning month this September.
The understanding of the democratic intellect as the foundation for our nation must not be lost on politicians. Neither the Labour leader Tony Blair, nine years ago, nor the current First Minister, can claim a Scottish national education heritage and badge it as a party advantage; nor should they imply that education is somehow removed from our constitutional state. Surely even the minister, with his limited historical analysis—this is the man who threatened to compromise the future of history teaching—would understand that Scotland has a distinct and independent education system precisely because that system was founded in, fought for and nurtured from the days when Scotland was last independent.
Thankfully, the historically challenged minister has now been thrown a lifebelt—I hope that he will accept it—by the Scottish Association of Teachers of History, in relation to how our children can learn about their place in the world and the world's history in a structured, ordered and meaningful way. I urge him to take the association's proposals seriously.
Education should be used neither as a crutch for a Government that sees little progress being made elsewhere nor as a punch-bag for political posturing. The Deputy First Minister and Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning's use yesterday of the academic work of a world-renowned scientist as a political punch-bag was an appalling attack on the world of science in Scotland. We will ensure that every scientist in Scotland knows how little the Liberal Democrats value science. Education ministers now—as we will do in Government—must act as stewards and leaders to drive forward an already strong system, to remove the barriers that reinforce weakness in the system, to lead strategically and to set out our vision.
I will talk about our amendment, but first I will focus on the Government's motion. More teachers are being recruited, but it is a bit late and there will not be enough of them in the classrooms to cut class sizes. How do we know that? The Educational Institute of Scotland has voted to ballot on industrial action because of this Government's failure to cut class sizes. Does that count as the "stable industrial relations" that are mentioned in the motion? After seven years of Labour-Liberal Democrat rule and nine years of Labour rule, so confident is the Government of its achievement in this area that it cannot tell us how many pupils are still in classes that are too big. The report that came out in February of this year said that four out of 10 primary 1 children were being taught in classes that were too big. For the parents of primary schoolchildren who are sitting in classes of more than 30, that is just not good enough. I invite the minister to come back and boast when he has delivered on cuts in class sizes and not before.
Targeted support for children with additional support needs is not being delivered properly; the minister can ask any MSP in the chamber for their constituency casework. Head teachers tell us that they need more power over budgets in this area so that they can staff and resource to children's special needs rather than to budgets.
The one mark of the Government's ambition is for all our 16 to 19-year-olds to be in education, employment or training, but that leap is from the current position whereby we are one of the worst in the world. That is hardly a glowing tribute after seven years of being in Government. I hope that we will have a debate on that specific challenge.
The Government's figures, which were published in March 2006, told the reality of static education performance in pupils achieving foundation levels 3, 4, and 5, general and credit at standard grade and intermediate 1 and 2, which are all the qualifications below the higher grade. We have a strong education system and that fact is reflected in international studies, but improvement is measured by trend analysis of absolute performance. Are Labour and Liberal Democrat ministers seriously gloating over the fact that consistently in the past three consecutive years only 34 per cent of Scotland's pupils in S4, S5 and S6 have achieved a credit standard grade? That is no improvement whatsoever. Further, there has been no movement in level 3 and 4 performance.
Many pupils leave school with the lack of skills that CBI Scotland has complained about. Jack McConnell may think that pupils sitting another exam the day before they leave school will fix literacy and numeracy problems, but what we need are lifetime skills, generated over the course of a pupil's time at school. Overassessment is a barrier to lifetime literacy and numeracy. Up to the age of eight, a child learns to read but from eight on they read to learn. We say that we should tackle literacy and numeracy with firm foundations in the early years, with class sizes of 18 from primary 1 to primary 3.
The SNP policy proposals for education, which we will lay out in the coming months and in our 100 days document, are based on five fundamental principles for opportunity and achievement: an early start is the best start; an international outlook; aspirational ambition; egalitarian values; and a community approach. However, the SNP amendment includes practical proposals for effective governance. They are SNP education policy, but perhaps what is more important is that they are the self-same requests made by the head teachers and deputy head teachers in the Headteachers Association of Scotland, who are Scotland's education leaders in the field.
We propose that more school funding should be devolved; the 80 per cent target is not being met and the figure is down at 50 per cent in some local authorities. We propose real cuts in class sizes. The Government knows that teachers are being recruited but are not being employed in the classes, which is why, as Murdo Fraser mentioned, we have post-probationers who cannot get jobs. The Government has mishandled the funding for teacher recruitment between councils with growing school rolls and those with falling school rolls. Let us open the books to track the spend and ascertain where the money is going. It is the number of teachers in the classroom that matters and not the number who are registered with the General Teaching Council for Scotland. The situation is a classic dependence by the Government on inputs and not outputs when it comes to education policy.
I seek a bit of clarification from Fiona Hyslop. I think that she accepts that substantial numbers of new teachers are being recruited, which is obviously the key issue in this regard, but she says that the teachers are not in the classroom. Where does she think they are? In addition, can she give us a costing for the policy of having class sizes of 18 and indicate where the money will come from for that in the SNP programme?
There were a number of questions there; perhaps I will take the human one first, which referred particularly to post-probationer teachers who cannot get employment because local councils are not employing them. Some councils with rising school rolls say that they have not been given sufficient funding to deal with that, but other councils with falling school rolls are getting too much. The human element in that is that if a post-probationer teacher has not got a teaching job, they can be stacking shelves. That is exactly the point that was made to me by people who cannot get a teaching job in schools just now. It is a serious problem; 2007 should have been the end date for cutting class sizes, not the start date.
The SNP wants nursery teachers to remain in nursery classes, but Labour wants to take the nursery teachers out. The introduction of free school meals in the early years was another request from the leaders in the education field. If we are serious about tackling obesity and bad behaviour, let us adopt the SNP policy. If the Government is not able to adopt the SNP policy, it should move over so that Scotland can move on with the SNP.
Scotland was promised education, education, education nine years ago when Labour came to power, but Jack McConnell's little-me version is a bit late and, I might say, a bit overanxious. The child who started school in 1997 as a bright-eyed five-year-old is now 14 and will be 15 next year. They will have gone through their education without benefiting from cuts in class sizes, the revised national curriculum, the promise of more physical education teachers or a range of other promises that have still not been delivered.
Many of those children will be taught in new or refurbished schools over the coming period, which overcomes 18 years of underinvestment by the Conservatives, but the SNP will match the building of new schools brick for brick with our not-for-profit funding and, unlike the Liberal Democrats and Labour, we will have money left over for books and teachers in the future, rather than lining the pockets of bankers with excessive private profit.
Will the member give way?
No, I need to finish.
Scottish education needs strong leaders politically and it needs to respect leaders in education. That is why the SNP amendment reflects the concerns of head teachers in Scotland. What is most important however is that Scottish education needs leadership that is more passionate about what education can do permanently for Scotland's children and the country than about what it can do temporarily for party-political advantage.
Labour's latest focus in education—nine years on from a promise of education, education, education—is sad and stale, and will produce static results. Scotland had the best education system in the world and it can be the best again, but not just by wishing for it. The Government has to move over and the Parliament has to move on. It is time for energy, delivery, dynamic vision and passionate leadership of education in Scotland.
I move amendment S2M-4755.3, to leave out from "the priority" to end and insert:
"continuing excellence within Scotland's distinct and independent education system, appreciated internationally for its pioneering work in quality improvement; recognises the challenges faced by schools, education authorities and other partners to modernise the school estate, to drive up standards and to tackle deep-seated problems such as persistent under-performance among disadvantaged pupils; notes that the Scottish Executive's promises to cut class sizes and adequately resource additional support needs remain unfulfilled; supports requests from school leaders for more funding for schools to be devolved, real cuts in class sizes, nursery teachers to remain in nursery classes and for the introduction of free school meals in the early years; calls for the replacement of PPP funding for school modernisation by not-for-profit trust funding; believes that the education of all Scotland's children and young people is fundamental to securing a more productive, integrated and successful Scotland in which all our young people can participate fully, and looks forward to further strengthening of our distinctive education system using the enhanced powers and resources at the command of an independent parliament."
I very much welcome the fact that in this, the first week of the new Parliamentary term, we are discussing what is arguably the most important issue that the Parliament has responsibility over, namely the education of our children and young people. While the Scottish Conservatives very much share the Executive's ambition of making economic growth the top priority of the Parliament, we believe that investing in education is the most significant tool that we have in seeking to create a prosperous economic future for our nation.
In the short time that I have, I will touch briefly on three important aspects of the debate that I believe must be central to our approach in the coming year. The first is the role of further education colleges, to echo the calls of those who want a heightened status for our excellent further education sector. The business-led vocational training offered by further education colleges shall become ever more important and relevant in the years ahead, particularly as businesses seem increasingly to voice concerns about the lack of suitable skills emerging in the workforce. I note that discontent about that issue has been expressed by the CBI in today's press.
Although every pupil who has the ability and desire to go to university must be encouraged to do so, I fear that the obsession with getting ever more young people to take degrees has been counterproductive. Pupils must be presented with all the options available to them when they leave, be they vocational or otherwise, and must not be made to feel that further education colleges are a lesser option than universities. It is also essential that all pupils aged 14 or above be given the opportunity to access vocational training at colleges as part of their school education, if they wish to do so. Sadly, we understand that that is not happening everywhere, in spite of the Executive's intentions.
A second issue of concern is special educational needs and additional support needs. We believe that our education system must enable every child to find fulfilment according to his or her ability, aptitude and inclination. Special schools are crucial to that vision. I am therefore greatly concerned, as I know many others are, by the Executive's presumption of mainstreaming, which may in the long run threaten the very existence of special schools. I can do no better than quote Sandy Fowler of the EIS, who said recently:
"the Scottish Executive's policies of inclusion and the presumption of ‘mainstreaming' have presented new and difficult challenges for teachers."
Will the member give way?
In a moment. The minister told me that only just over 2,000 teachers in Scotland have any sort of special needs qualification, which is a tiny fraction of the 50,000 teachers in Scotland today. By the minister's own admission, the information with which he has provided me is "not considered robust." If that is so, how can we know that anything like enough properly qualified teachers are available to cope with the Executive's mainstreaming policy? We believe that a pragmatic approach must be taken, whereby each child's circumstances are considered on a case-by-case basis and the interests of the child are always paramount.
I am grateful to Lord James Douglas-Hamilton for giving way. Indeed, it was beneficial that he did not give way until now, because I agree entirely with his last two sentences. There is not necessarily a direct correlation between a presumption to mainstream when that is suitable for the child and a discontinuation of special schools. I believe that there should be a wide spectrum of provision, and the special schools will always have a place in Scottish education. I ask Lord James Douglas-Hamilton to accept my assurance that pragmatic decisions that are taken on the basis of the individual circumstances of the child will be at the forefront.
In that case, certain changes should be made to the policy. My understanding is that funding for special schools is planned for only about seven years. Such schools should be put on a permanent basis, like all other schools in Scotland. I look forward to the minister taking further action to follow up what he has just said. A great deal more needs to be done in this area to reassure those with special educational needs and their families.
The final issue that I will highlight, which is of particular relevance to the minister, is violent and disruptive behaviour in the classroom, which is probably the greatest problem that Scotland's schools face. It is therefore regrettable that, despite the fact that staff have been vocal in expressing their concerns, the minister has failed to get a grip on the problem. The most recent statistics that we have from the Executive reveal that a verbal or physical assault on a member of staff takes place every 12 minutes of the school day—a truly shameful statistic.
To our astonishment, the minister is no longer publishing such figures. Happily, the provisions of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 enable us to assess the up-to-date position. Having obtained and examined a selection of statistics, I can make the following significant revelations. In 2004-05, in Aberdeen alone there were 638 incidents of abuse of staff plus four cases of damage to property. In the same year in Fife, incidents of physical violence against staff totalled 378, alongside 204 verbal attacks and a further 224 combined verbal and physical attacks. In Moray, the number of physical assaults on staff rocketed from a still-dreadful 34 in 2004-05 to a staggering 188 last year. Even in leafy East Renfrewshire, in the most recent academic year there were 333 incidents of assault, the vast majority of which involved physical violence. Surely head teachers should have greater powers to exclude permanently the very small number of persistently disruptive pupils who are driving valued staff away from the profession and disrupting schools. I rest my case.
I move amendment S2M-4755.2, to leave out from "welcomes" to end and insert:
"believes that the Scottish Executive is failing too many valued members of school staff in that incidences of physical and verbal assault remain commonplace in Scottish classrooms to the extent that, according to the Educational Institute of Scotland, "Teachers continue to regard the matter of indiscipline and how to solve it as their number one priority"; believes that special schools should have an important and secure place in Scotland's educational system and should not be under threat; believes that the Executive is failing parents by abolishing tried and tested school boards against the overwhelming weight of public opinion, and therefore calls on the Executive to reconsider its decision to abolish school boards, give stronger support to special schools and ensure that head teachers have the authority to permanently exclude persistently disruptive pupils".
I am pleased to be able to contribute to this important debate on an area that it appears all parties recognise is the top priority for this Parliament.
Another priority?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton recognised that, but David McLetchie does not. The Liberal Democrats have always seen education as a key priority.
My honourable friend David McLetchie is perfectly entitled to probe the Administration on its intentions so that it can clarify exactly what it means.
I look forward to hearing David McLetchie's speech later, which I am sure will hark back to the halcyon days of the 1980s, as the Conservative amendment does.
The Liberal Democrats want education to move forward, not backward. In Scotland, unlike at Westminster, we will work to improve the experience for all pupils in our schools, rather than push reform for the few.
Our education system is distinctive and excellent and has continued to build on its successes since devolution. Attainment levels are higher, class sizes are smaller and more of our young people leave school to go on to further or higher education. The next challenge for Scotland will be to release the hidden talent of young people— particularly those not in education, employment or training—by taking preventive measures, starting at the earliest possible age, as soon as they come into education. We also want to find ways to reach out to those who have already left school but who are not in education, employment or training. Politicians must stop demonising young people and start prioritising them.
We have made significant progress in seven years in Scotland. Primary class sizes have fallen every year since devolution. Rather than cut the number of teachers as rolls have fallen, we have increased the number—3,000 more teachers have entered our schools. At least 75,000 pupils have benefited from investment in improving school accommodation and facilities. The number of pupils with high attainment levels on leaving school has increased since 2001.
Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education found that 93 to 95 per cent of primary schools and 94 per cent of secondary schools have either a good or very good standard of teaching.
We acknowledge the importance of having a healthy diet at a young age: free fresh fruit is available to all children in primary 1 and primary 2. Free fresh water has been made available to almost all publicly funded schools. New nutritional standards for school meals are in place and all Scottish schools are to become health-promoting schools.
Bearing in mind the points that the Conservatives made about behaviour issues, does Iain Smith acknowledge that the availability of free school meals in the primary years can help to tackle some behavioural issues? There are concerns that low levels of nutrition for children have a negative impact on behaviour.
The arguments for free school meals have been greatly exaggerated. For example, the take-up of free school meals in secondary schools by those who are entitled to them is not great. There is no guarantee that the provision of free school meals would result in healthy eating. We also have to bear in mind the fact that school meals are only one of the meals that children eat each day and that they represent only about a fifth of the meals that they eat in the entire year. It is difficult to argue that providing free school meals would, in itself, result in improved nutritional standards. We have to do more than that to ensure that children eat healthily throughout their lives, not just concentrate on the one meal that they might have at school.
We have provided a free nursery place to all three and four-year-olds and have a strong record on access to pre-school education, with 94 per cent of under-fives enrolled in education in Scotland, which is ahead of both the United Kingdom and international averages.
In 2005-06 we invested £4 million to guarantee the opportunity for primary 6 and 7 pupils to learn a modern European language, and there has been an uptake of 96 per cent in primary 6 and 98 per cent in primary 7.
Internationally, only three countries are significantly ahead of Scotland in terms of maths, reading and science literacy. The CBI failed to recognise that in its report, which no doubt will come up later in the debate. From 1999 to 2005 the level of attainment in reading, writing and mathematics at both primary and secondary levels increased significantly, which, again, the CBI failed to recognise.
Primary school class sizes are at an average of just 23 pupils. In 2005-06 an all-time-low pupil teacher ratio of 17:1 was achieved in Scotland. In 2004-05—the latest year for which UK comparisons are available—the Scottish ratio of 17.6 pupils per teacher was lower than the UK average of 21.8 pupils per teacher. We are making significant progress in cutting class sizes and improving pupil teacher ratios.
We need more new teachers to cut class sizes further. We have provided for that by increasing the intake for the professional graduate diploma in education by 110 per cent between 2003 and 2005. The PGDE intake for maths—an area where we have a significant shortage of teachers—increased by 75 per cent and the intake for English increased by 100 per cent between 2003 and 2005.
A greater proportion of pupils are entering higher education—52 per cent of our pupils enter higher education, compared with 43 per cent in England. There has been real, positive progress in education in Scotland under this Liberal Democrat-Labour partnership Government.
Liberal Democrats want to see further improvements. We cannot be complacent. We want to improve the quality and relevance of the range of education with curriculum reforms. That is particularly important in dealing with those who are not in education, employment or training—or NEETs, as they have become fashionably known.
We need to ensure that the three-to-18 curriculum reforms are progressed with speed and that they come into effect. We can see from the performance charts of achievements in reading and writing that there are points in children's educational career where they do not progress as quickly as they should, and in some cases go backward. The three-to-18 curriculum reform is crucial in that regard.
We also recognise that we need to invest in the pre-school group. By the time those children get to the age of 14 or 16, it is too late to try to address their problems. We have to start making progress now with those who are entering the education system at the age of three or even younger. Fiona Hyslop recognised that in her speech.
We want to raise pupil attainment levels by having smaller classes, more teachers and more support staff. We want to improve the health and, therefore, the performance of pupils by being leaders in the provision of healthy school meals and by encouraging physical activities. The Liberal Democrats would create a responsive pupil-centred education system with improved additional support for learning where required. We will give parents a greater role in their children's schooling, unlike the Conservatives, who want to hark back to the school boards, which were inappropriate when they were introduced in the 1980s and are even more inappropriate now. Those have been replaced and we will see improved parental involvement in our schools as a result.
Finally, we have improved learning by investing £2 billion in new and better schools and, through our enterprise in education programme, we have recaptured Scotland's entrepreneurial spirit by giving children a sense of where creative ideas can take them.
The Liberal Democrats want there to be further improvements in our education system. I welcome the motion.
I return to the concern that I have expressed in the chamber on many occasions during the past seven years, which is about whether doing things better is enough. In the past seven years, regardless of the party that has been speaking, the education debate has been about doing things better. I have no doubt about the commitment of all parties in the chamber to doing things better in Scottish education. I am convinced of the commitment of the Minister for Education and Young People and his team to improving schools and lowering class sizes, and I sympathise with the SNP amendment, as there are still concerns about all the areas that Fiona Hyslop talked about. However, there is a concern that we are becoming obsessed with the idea that our education system should be globally competitive, and that that is leading the entire education debate. We should be doing better things as well as doing things better. I ask whether our education system and the curriculum have got out of shape and whether the Executive should be addressing that.
I understand that Robin Harper is trying to make a genuine and serious point, but I would like to make an equally genuine and serious point. When we talk about global competitiveness, we are trying to recognise that the world that our young people will enter is dramatically different from the world that he and I entered. They will have to compete for jobs with people from across the globe in a way that we did not. However, those jobs will be to do with the environment as well as traditional manufacturing and so on. It is not just about economic competitiveness, although that is a major dimension; it is also about ensuring that our young people can compete and make a positive global contribution in any sphere of human activity.
I accept what the minister says absolutely. I am not questioning the idea that we should be globally competitive; I am questioning our obsession with the idea that that is the only aspect of education that we should debate in this chamber. There are other, vital things that we should be debating in relation to education. I am going to talk about something that will equip our young people to be competitive across the board in an ever-changing world. Simply being literate and numerate and knowing their science will not be enough to equip them in that way.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton talked about violence in schools. There is plenty of research that shows that those schools that have good music and drama education and give young people plenty of opportunities to develop their creative abilities are the schools that have the lowest levels of violence and disturbance. That is the way forward. What has been suggested so far today is a patch to cope with things that would not be happening if we addressed the shape of the curriculum in our schools and saw education not only as a process but as an experience.
Are we simply preparing children to compete in the world or do we want to have a child-centred education system that prepares children to enjoy life and their time in school? The experience of school of a high proportion of our children is positive. However, Frank Pignatelli gave me a survey that showed that although for 50 per cent of our children the experience was reasonable, for 25 per cent of our children the experience was not a good one, and for another 10 per cent of our children the experience was negative. Some children simply could not be traced in the survey.
Today, I call on the Executive to place greater emphasis on the need to provide children and young people with opportunities in school to develop all seven of the intelligences that have been identified by Howard Gardner, the educational philosopher who is visiting Parliament today. What I am saying is occasioned not only by his visit but by the fact that I think we should work to create a truly liberal, child-centred education system in Scotland as well as an internationally competitive system.
The more I look at the curriculum for excellence, the more I think that, while it is a good start, it is a framework. The minister mentioned that there are problems with leadership in some schools. However, the curriculum for excellence is a buy-in system; it is not being pushed by the Executive for every school. The Executive has decided to take a more gentle approach and suggest that people should buy into it. I wonder at what point the Executive will move towards saying that everybody has to buy into it tomorrow.
I want to contrast what I describe as the functional view of what education should be doing with a view that was expressed by Sheena Wellington in the magazine View in spring last year. She would like to see
"our children, our hope for the future, go to well equipped schools where the basic skills are thoroughly taught and where participation in the widest variety of arts and sports is taken for granted. A school where artists of all kinds are welcome and part of the natural order of things, where Scotland's music, song, poetry, history and literature are at the core of a wide, healthy and informed view of the world and where confidence and creativity are encouraged."
That is the kind of view of education that I would like the Executive to stress increasingly, now that we are on the road towards making certain basic improvements.
In schools at the moment, the pressures of the new curriculum and the introduction of new subjects such as media studies and entrepreneurship are such that cuts must be made and, in certain schools that I know of, the first departments that are going to receive cuts are art and music. Primary schools are still desperately short of visiting teachers in drama, music and art.
I must finish by asking the Executive whether it is monitoring carefully the provision of art, drama, music and dance in secondary schools and the number of visiting teachers of art, music and drama in primary schools. The last time I asked a question on this subject I found that, in the whole of Scotland, only a couple more music teachers had been employed. That is not the kind of progress that I would like to see in those vital subjects for the full development of our young children's capabilities and possibilities.
Three weeks ago, my daughter Catriona, along with thousands of other five-year-olds around the country, put on a new school uniform, shouldered a new schoolbag and slipped out the door for an eventful day in her life—her first day at school. She was accompanied by her mum and dad, older brother, younger siblings and, of course, there was a proliferation of digital cameras flashing at the school steps. I suspect that it was her mum who was the most emotional about her young child going off to school.
Two years at the attached nursery had helped Catriona to prepare and to climb the steps without a tear or a sigh, but it was a day of mixed emotions for us and for all the parents. It was a day of pride and happiness, but also a day of anxiety. For the first time in the child's life, the parents are letting go; they are not in control any more. As the child steps through the door, the parents are locked out, because they are handing the child over for someone else to look after them. However, my worries and my anxiety about how she would get on were tempered by my knowledge of the school and of what she would face.
The school has just received a brand new extension and new facilities, such as an information technology suite. It has a dynamic, new, young head teacher—the youngest in Scotland, I believe—and far more staff than ever before. It is still a small single-stream primary school, but it now has more teachers, more classroom assistants, more probationers and more support staff—people who were not there six or seven years ago. It is a school with active parental involvement and a family learning co-ordinator. It reaches out to the wider community and revels in its pupils' performances. It celebrates their achievements in the classroom, in sport, in drama and in music.
I felt confident and proud not only of my daughter but of what we have contributed to the school and what we have achieved here, in the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, to improve schools throughout the country.
A recent publication gave the teacher numbers throughout Scotland during the past decade. The figures could not be starker. In 1997 there were 877 teachers in East Renfrewshire. In 2005 there were 1,141. That means that there have been more than 260 new teachers in the space of eight years, on top of the 877 who were already there. That does not even take into account the hundreds of classroom assistant posts that did not exist before the Labour Government came into power in 1997 or the Scottish Executive came into power in 1999.
Does the member have a breakdown of those figures? How many of those teachers are music, dance or drama teachers?
I do not have that breakdown, although I am sure that the local authority could provide it. However, as a parent as well as the MSP for the area, I have been into the schools and seen for myself, in each of the classes, where the increased staffing is making a difference. That includes extra music and drama teaching. I will come on to one of those subjects later.
In the relatively short time since we were elected, I have seen huge new school extensions and rebuilding programmes at St Ninian's high school, Eastwood high school, Netherlee primary school and the new Mearns primary school. In the past three weeks I have seen the pupils of Carlibar primary school in Barrhead go into their brand new school and 1,500 or so pupils at Williamwood high school—one of the best-performing secondary schools in Scotland—finally enjoy brand new, state-of-the-art buildings and facilities that match their level of achievement.
Good school.
I know that it is Mr Lochhead's old school. I am delighted to hear that it has gone from strength to strength since he left.
We now have better schools, more teachers, better-paid teachers and happier teachers. That is our legacy to the next generation of Scottish families, but there is so much more to do. We need to continue the school building programme and renew and renovate the buildings that are still not up to scratch. We need to work hard to improve the vocational options that are on offer to our young people and ensure that they are not second best to the academic route. We need to commit to reducing class sizes still further. We particularly need to reach out to the group of young people who are still missing out on everything that our schools have to offer and are therefore missing out on fulfilling their potential. They are a loss to our economy and our country.
I thank the member for giving us a tour of East Renfrewshire. I think that East Renfrewshire is similar to other areas, such as West Lothian, where I am from, in that there has been an increase in population and in demand on schools and they have had to respond. Perhaps in East Renfrewshire there has been a better way of dealing with class sizes, but in West Lothian there are still primary school children sitting in classes of 33. Does the member agree that one of the challenges that we face is looking at the council areas within Scotland and ensuring that there is equity between them, so that every child benefits from class-size reductions, particularly in areas such as East Renfrewshire and West Lothian?
I whole-heartedly agree with Ms Hyslop on that point. I mentioned class sizes, which should be our priority as we go into the new session of Parliament. In areas that have expanding populations and good schools, we have to work hard to ensure that classes do not fill up to their maximum size all the time.
We have a clear choice before us. Indeed, today's debate could not be clearer. We have a choice between a party that has—and would—put education first and an Opposition that, frankly, has little to say and certainly a lot to prove in terms of how it would deliver on its promises. I say to Lord James that I am intrigued by the Tory amendment, because it does not mention passports to schools. Is that because the Tories have finally dropped that flagship policy? That policy, more than any other, symbolises their commitment to privilege for the few at the expense of education for the many.
Of course, if the Tories would give us passports to schools, the nationalists would give us passports to England. Their priority is not education or schools but border controls. Independence would not deliver one extra teacher, one extra classroom assistant or one extra school, but maybe there is something more in the SNP amendment. There is the replacement of public-private partnership funding, but what on earth does this dogmatic obsession with PPP have to do with improving our schools? In East Renfrewshire we have £50 million-worth of new facilities for young people, but the SNP would rather put its ideological fixation and its dogma first than put education first.
What else is there in the nationalists' amendment? Well, there is a half-hearted commitment to free school meals in the early years, but that commitment would do nothing to improve nutrition or tackle obesity. It is a commitment to use the taxes that are paid by the school cleaners or the school janitor in my school to give my kids a free lunch. Pardon me if that is not my priority. I contrast that with what is already happening in East Renfrewshire, where our Labour-led coalition with the Lib Dems has found the resources to provide lunches throughout the school holidays for those who qualify for free school meals. That is a help and a real benefit for them when they will most benefit.
The SNP amendment is a mishmash. It is an attempt at populism that is underpinned—and undermined—by the central theme of turning our back on Britain and cutting Scotland adrift. What does this debate mean for our young people? Ten years ago, pupils at Barrhead high school were denied the opportunity to sit five highers in their fifth year. Young people were denied the opportunity to fulfil their potential and their ambitions were capped. Not only are they now given the highest targets, but the schools of ambition programme has supplied the school with a drama department that enables young people to build self-confidence and self-esteem through creativity and expression. A young child with dyslexia now has the chance to have that condition picked up and their needs addressed.
I am not saying that everything is perfect. The parliamentary question that I will ask later today on the shortage of speech and language therapists reveals my concern about just one area that needs to be addressed. However, the choice is clear—education for the few at the expense of the many, independence first, or education first. I know where my choice lies.
Ken Macintosh started his speech by describing taking his daughter for her first day at school; every parent will identify absolutely with that. I did it, and it nearly broke me up. Irrespective of politics, the fact that all parents can feel confident about sending their children to primary schools in Scotland is a tribute to our national primary school system, which is renowned for its trained and qualified staff and the work that they do.
However, there is a need for Government policy to fit into a wider strategic framework that takes into account the interlocking nature of overall Government action. The lack of strategic vision by the Executive is not limited to justice, the economy and rural Scotland, but can also be seen in its education policies. For example, what is the relationship between ill-discipline in our schools and the Executive's community and justice strategies? Is it a coincidence that ill-discipline in schools is at an all-time high while communities are eroding and crime is a major fear within the wider society that is served by our school system?
I was shocked to be told that, sadly, some of the worst cases of classroom violence are in primary schools and involve some very young pupils, so the other side of the coin is that we must protect our teachers. In many ways, we ask Scotland's teachers to uphold standards that have now been abandoned by society as a whole. The answer to violence in general rests with the Government: ultimately, the problem will be solved only within the context of that wider society but, in the meantime, teachers in the front line have to be given more protection from violence and intimidation whenever they occur during their work, on behalf of wider society.
The traditional Scots values of politeness and consideration for others, as nurtured by our education system, are worth protecting and preserving. If our schools are to be in the front line of raising standards, they have to be given the necessary tools, resources and support. Change for the better can take place only within the context of Government policies that are designed to protect, defend and encourage the best of conduct—not the worst. Schools and education cannot be isolated from their wider communities. Rather than deny the existence of problems, the minister should state what specific measures he intends to introduce to protect and assist teachers when those problems arise. What is he doing to eradicate or minimise the blight of indiscipline within our education system?
Disruptive behaviour is the enemy of education. It damages the learning experience of many pupils and has to be tackled by a wide range of measures, including cutting class sizes, providing adequate specialist support and examining sensible measures to isolate the problems. More positively, we also have to create other educational options for pupils who have behavioural difficulties.
I accept that the issues are multifaceted, but does Andrew Welsh accept that the most significant contribution to motivation and tackling indiscipline in schools will lie in the quality of leadership and in the values that individual schools exhibit at the top and then down through the teaching staff to the classroom?
Absolutely—I draw attention to the intervention that I made earlier. The problems of leadership are really in secondary schools; in primary schools the new system that was introduced under McCrone works, and has—I think—been accepted. The minister is right to say that we must allow our head teachers to exercise a leadership role. However, a school means the whole school—the head teachers and all the staff working together.
The SNP amendment calls specifically for improvement in some of the basics of our education system. All children should have the opportunity to be taught by a nursery teacher in a nursery school environment. Also, more powers should be given to head teachers to determine educational spend. Mainstreaming needs should be identified and supported properly, and smaller class sizes should actually be delivered.
Our objective is to make the Scottish school system an example to the rest of the world, and to set international standards in education. Our ancestors did so and it is an essential and fundamental modern-day challenge for us. As it was in the past, so it is now: education and the thirst for knowledge and understanding are the keys to Scotland's future, in a system that is egalitarian—available to all irrespective of their background—and designed to bring each young person on to the best of his or her ability.
It is essential that we encourage schools to have specialisms within a broad curriculum, rather than encourage specialist schools. There should be an end to any talk of abolishing the teaching of history and modern studies, in which I will declare an interest in that I taught both in secondary school. Only by helping our young people to understand the past can we equip them to face the future. We must give them a sound understanding of how our society and democratic government function. A fundamental role of any education system is to give children the tools that they need to be fully functioning members of society, so that they can make their way in the world and take part in knowledgeable debate about the future of our nation. Only by knowing and understanding Scotland's past will our young people be equipped to take part in a rational and well-balanced discussion on Scotland's future.
Scotland's teachers must be given the best environment for their skills. I congratulate Angus Council on its steady and consistent programme of new, upgraded and modernised schools and on its investment in technology. Again, I declare an interest: I have declared many of those schools open.
I encourage the minister to harness modern technology and to unleash imprisoned ability through positive investment in such technology to meet specialist needs. I have seen at first hand how one young person with cerebral palsy—unable to speak and apparently unintelligent—had her whole life turned around through the use of modern computer and voice-box technology, which allowed her to move from a limited existence to the achievement of a university degree. Her innate but hidden intelligence was freed by technology. Resources have to be found to give that small but important minority of youngsters the ability to live their lives to the full.
The motion contains a fundamental complacency. It talks about securing a place in education, employment or training for every 16 to 19-year-old, but Scotland has one of the highest rates of 16 to 19-year-olds who are not in education, employment or training. After seven years of power, the Government is failing to reach targets in class-size reduction and to reduce the number of unfilled teaching posts. It hides its failures in delays and promises that are based on so-called delivery after the next election.
The Government has thrown £2 billion at the McCrone settlement, but cracks are now appearing in the benefits that might be gained from the spending of that massive amount of money. Overstretched head teachers are being diverted from efficient leadership to class teaching and local authorities can foresee future funding problems. Scotland deserves better than that: after the next election and a change of Government, we will have the opportunity to do something positive about it.
I congratulate Andrew Welsh on a generally well-informed and thought-provoking speech, although when he came out against schools developing specialisms, I wondered whether he was up to date with SNP policy.
I would like to address two specific points. The first is on the question of what makes a good school. At the end of last term, I had the privilege of being asked to be the guest speaker at the prizegiving at Webster's high school in Kirriemuir, in Angus Council's area. It was a real pleasure to join the happy, bright and well-turned-out youngsters who were receiving prizes in front of an audience full of proud parents and the wider school community—members of the school board, the school chaplains and others. If anyone went round the area and asked people whether they think the high school is a good school, the chances are that they would say, "Yes it is," because people have a favourable impression of the school. Webster's high school is not one of the largest schools in Scotland; it has a roll of 793 and it draws its pupils from a wide and diverse catchment area—a small town with a mixed society and a large rural hinterland. Pupils at the school have achieved good exam results. In higher results for 2004-05—the most recent year for which figures are available—the school came 33rd equal in Scotland and came top of all secondary schools in Angus.
However, there is more to a good school than academic results. An interesting thing about Webster's high school is that nearly 10 per cent of its total roll are pupils who live outwith the catchment area—pupils whose parents have exercised choice through placing requests in order to get their youngsters into the school. Why do parents choose to do that? Why do they choose to have their children travel that little bit further? It is not just about academic results—although they are important—but about the whole package that the school offers; its ethos, the standards that apply and the levels of discipline. At the core of that is leadership: the stamp that the head teacher puts on the school, which sets the tone for standards and discipline and sets out what is expected of pupils and members of staff.
If we are trying to improve our schools so that we have more good schools, we should seek to empower head teachers and extend their remit. It is not local authority officials sitting in council headquarters who make good schools or not-so-good schools; it is what happens within the schools and the leadership that is provided in them. If there is a lesson to be learned, it is that extending devolved school management further is the right thing to do.
I know of some schools in Linlithgow that are having difficulty in recruiting head teachers, and there has been a sharp reduction in the number of applications for head-teacher posts. Does Murdo Fraser agree that the Audit Committee and the Education Committee must take seriously the Audit Scotland report that highlighted some of the concerns about head teachers?
Fiona Hyslop makes a very fair point. In every sphere of activity in the public sector, people are ever more burdened by bureaucracy and paperwork. I suspect that that might be a factor in discouraging some talented people from applying for management roles. We should do anything we can to make such positions more attractive, given their great importance to school leadership and to the quality of schools.
It is not just about head teachers. Good schools are partnerships, and the best schools are those in which the head teacher is supported by an active school board, with parents engaging with the school. For that reason, I believe that it is wrong for the Executive to scrap school boards: it is wrong for it to be replacing them with weaker parent councils, which will simply not have the same range of powers.
Will Murdo Fraser accept that Parliament has spoken on that issue? The Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Act 2006 was passed. Would it not be far better for the Conservatives to involve themselves in trying to make the new system a success? Everyone would accept that that is in the interests of parents. There are opportunities under the new system—let us take advantage of them.
Parliament might have spoken on the issue, but it said the wrong thing. When the Executive consulted on the matter, out of 1,023 responses only 13 per cent were in favour of abolishing school boards. The Executive simply did not listen. It got it wrong, so we will continue to make our case.
Will Murdo Fraser take an intervention?
No, I will not take another intervention because time is getting short. I want to move on to talk about another subject in the time that is available to me: the question of city academies. In the past eight years or so, city academies have been developed throughout England. They provide a different style of education and a new start for those who are often challenged by traditional methods of education. We currently have 27 such academies in England.
Performance in city academies is lower than the national average. That is perhaps not surprising, however, because the youngsters who tend to be attracted to city academies are those who are not achieving particularly well in traditional schools. The important point is that the rate of improvement among pupils in city academies is higher than the national average for England. The reaction from parents and pupils in England to the academies has been extremely positive. Moreover, academies bring the opportunity for pupils to develop one or more specialisms, for example in science, arts, computing or engineering. They are attractive to pupils and to parents, and they are working to raise standards.
Scotland is, of course, a different country from England, with a different education system, but that does not mean to say that we should close our eyes to examples of good practice that work elsewhere. I urge the Scottish Executive to consider—even just as a pilot—establishing such an academy in Scotland. A city academy in Glasgow, for example, would provide a different style of state education, perhaps for pupils who struggle to perform under the current system. It would allow them to develop specialities, and would help to deal with the problems of NEETs—youngsters not in employment, education or training—to whom Andrew Welsh referred. We in Scotland have the worst record among Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries for people aged between 16 and 19. Too many of those youngsters are being left behind at the moment. Surely we should be prepared to put dogma aside, to find out what works elsewhere and to consider going down that road.
I am very happy to support the ministers in what they are trying to do in Scottish education. I would give the Scottish Executive a reasonably good mark—a beta plus or something like that. Education is a very difficult subject, and the Executive has made real progress, although there is a lot still to do, as the Executive recognises.
A lot of members' speeches have contained good points, which I will try not to recapitulate. I will focus on three other issues, all of which are issues in which education can help young people and communities, and in which young people and communities can help education. There should be two-way working, although that is often difficult to achieve in Government circles.
I will start with sport, in which some good things are happening. The active schools programme is good, but it works better in some areas than in others and it could be developed more. It is going in the right direction, however. The First Minister recently announced a very interesting proposal to provide much more football for secondary 1 and S2 pupils, which is very welcome.
There are specific things that the Minister for Education and Young People and the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People could do to help more. I am advised by those who know about such things that, in the new drive towards a United Kingdom sports coaching arrangement, the school education people in England are paying for people to get through the important bottom or basic level. That costs £300 or £400, which is a lot more than under the existing system. In Scotland, we are not doing that. I invite the ministers to talk to their colleagues and to ask them to ensure that we encourage people to become coaches, which would help schools and clubs. We are falling far behind European and other countries in that regard.
Another suggestion is to try to ensure that every primary school has a dedicated physical activity space—not necessarily a physical education space—that could be shared with the dining facilities or the school hall. If we are really to push physical activity of all sorts in primary schools, we need to ensure that proper space is provided. There is also a continuing issue around losing playing fields. I hope that ministers will play a strong part in ensuring that we do not lose playing fields unless a very much better substitute is to be provided nearby.
One area that we could develop is the provision of multisport centres in every community, by using existing facilities and adding to them. In many cases, that would be at the local high school. In a smallish town, the high school is the best provider of facilities, so multisport centres for both young and old people could be developed by using the existing schools better and adding to them. All the sports would benefit from rubbing up against one another. The centres could double as cultural hubs, which would operate in the same way by bringing in all the local cultural organisations.
I know that there is the problem of ministers having to work with and through local councils, but it would be good if we could set up systems to make it easier for councils to do that work and for them to keep school facilities open without charging too much. At the moment, a lot of sports facilities, in schools and elsewhere, are closed when they should be open and they sometimes charge so much that individuals and clubs cannot afford to use them. I hope that the ministers can negotiate on that.
Moving on to the second issue, youth work has suffered from not being a statutory provision. I sometimes make speeches about our having too many laws, but if a council has to cut its budget, it cuts the non-statutory things first, so there is an argument for providing statutory youth work. We have to develop ways to involve young people more in making decisions and managing things. There are some very good projects around and we are making progress, but we need much more push and we need to recognise that young people are genuine citizens who should be partners in the provision of the sort of facilities they want.
It is a problem that, historically, teachers and youth workers have had a bit of suspicion of one other. We should try to break that down. There is also the problem that—whoever is to blame—many young people and adults who work with them feel that young people are demonised in the media. We have to get away from that—we have to publicise more and praise the good things that young people do, which are numerous, but which are ignored by the media. We need to push that far more.
We need sustained funding for youth work, whether we call it core funding or skeleton funding or something else—we can choose whatever part of the body we like—so that it can continue to be done successfully.
My third point is on outdoor education. Like youth work, it can make a huge contribution to educating individuals in becoming better people and in learning to get on with others, to judge whether or not to take risks and so on. There are Scottish centres that do that very well. Some councils could do more of it, but they are inhibited by ridiculous insurance rules. We could do much more to promote outdoor education. It is good in its own right, and it is beneficial to young people as human beings.
In those three ways, we could create better adults, which is what we should be doing. They would not only know about Scottish history and how to count and speak a foreign language, but be able to interact better with other people, make a contribution to the Scotland of the future and live a much happier life.
I hope that the ministers will take some of those points on board.
Yesterday, the First Minister said:
"high-quality learning and education have to be Scotland's strategy for the future."—[Official Report, 6 September 2006; c 27149.]
He is absolutely right, because without a first-class state education system, our youngsters will not be able to compete at the highest levels in an increasingly competitive global market.
There is no doubt that for the majority of Scottish school students, our state education system is currently providing a high standard of learning and is equipping them for life, work and continuing education beyond their school years. However, a minority continue to be failed by the current system. It is those youngsters on whom I wish to concentrate this morning.
We have heard several members identify leadership as being crucial in driving up standards in our schools. All of us who read the reports from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education on our local schools will see that good leadership and poor educational attainment never coincide, but poor leadership and poor educational attainment quite often do. If we are serious about ensuring that our schools are equipping the youngsters in education, it is crucial that we identify the issue of leadership.
It is not enough to give more power and responsibility to head teachers because, in a minority of our schools, it is the problem of head teachers that we need to address. It would be wrong to brush under the carpet the question whether all our head teachers have been well equipped and promoted adequately or are doing a good job. I hope that the Executive will take that difficult question on board.
I want to mention youngsters with social, educational and behavioural difficulties. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton identified the problem of indiscipline in our schools, and he seemed to have one solution: he called for head teachers to be given the power to exclude permanently the youngsters in question. Well, head teachers have that power and can exclude permanently youngsters. The issue is not exclusion, but what we do with those youngsters when they are excluded.
Is Scott Barrie aware that under the law as it stands head teachers do not have the power to exclude people from schools permanently? That power resides with the local authority, which is the burning source of grievance for many people who have to deal with persistently offending pupils.
That is not "the burning source". My point is not about excluding youngsters—it is about what we do with those youngsters if they cannot be accommodated within a mainstream school. Anyone who knows about human growth, development and behaviour recognises that the solution is not to isolate youngsters indefinitely, to take them away from the community in which they live and to expect them somehow then to be transformed into good members of society who can cope with the demands of living in communities. For too many of our youngsters, that has been their experience. They were excluded from school, taken away from mainstream education and given a poor education outcome. Then, somehow or other, they were expected to be well-adjusted members of society at 16. It did not, and will not, work.
I very much agree with Scott Barrie's comments. Is he aware of the example of Bathgate academy, which has kept such youngsters in school and has provided a dedicated teacher to help to build stability and responsibility within a healthy living environment using physical activity and diet? Projects such as that, which have been piloted and proved to work, are exactly what we need to look for across Scotland.
I must confess that I do not know what happens in Bathgate academy—I am sure that Fiona Hyslop understands why. However, her points are salient to the debate. She is right that if we do not take an holistic approach, but instead just see troublesome, difficult and undisciplined pupils as a problem to be removed and ignored, we will not resolve the problem.
If Lord James will forgive me, I will move on.
We also know that youngsters who have social, educational and behavioural difficulties have often experienced other misfortunes in their lives and might be in the looked-after children system. We know that young people who are accommodated in residential schools have possibly the worst experience of anyone in our education system. The educational achievements of looked-after children are poor, and for those who are looked after and accommodated away from home in a residential school, they are almost non-existent. It is not enough to identify a problem and then to remove it in order to deal with it. We have to be very careful about what we suggest and do.
So, what should we do? I agree with the principle of mainstreaming. It is important to accommodate youngsters in our schools if we can, and not to exclude them permanently. Fiona Hyslop identified what was happening in schools in her area and throughout Scotland. We should give additional support to ensure that those youngsters can be kept in school. Rosemary Byrne may speak later, and I know her from her previous experience in the education system. I am sure that she will want to talk about that, although from previous debates I know that I will agree with a lot of what she has to say.
We must be clear about providing dedicated teachers to give extra support to youngsters to ensure that they stay in the education system. If we can do that, not only will the standards that have been driven up for the vast majority of youngsters in our education system continue to improve, but standards will improve for the very small minority whom the education system is failing. We will all be better off for that.
I welcome the debate. I think that we have had diverse input from many members, hitting on salient points that are important for the future of our children and young people.
I agree that education is the key to Scotland's future and the future of our children and young people. We need well-rounded children coming out of our education system with strong self-esteem and confidence. We need young people who have had the chance of an education that is the same for all of them. Therein lies part of the problem: there is no equality of provision across Scotland.
Let us take as an example the first day at school, which Ken Macintosh described so well when talking about his young daughter. The first day for many young children will be in a primary 1 class of 18, 19 or 20 children. For others, however, it will be in a primary 1 class of 28 or 29 children. That is happening in towns throughout Scotland. Parents have come into my office weeping at the fact that their child is going to a school that has a big roll and having to sit in a huge class. Where is the equality of start for those young people? Where is the opportunity for those young people to have the same start in education? It does not exist.
We need a national standard for class sizes. It is not good enough for the Minister for Education and Young People to tell us continually that the averages are falling. I believe him, and I also believe that the retention and recruitment of teachers have improved. I do not have an axe to grind on that. The problem is that the standards are not equal across local authorities. We need to set a standard and ensure that there are no more than 20 in any class and no more than 15 in practical classes and composite classes. Then we could start to build the vision that many members have talked about today.
Robin Harper talked about the seven intelligences. We need teachers to be well equipped and able to deal with the situation in classes. We have heard about one-to-one contact and meeting children's individual needs. How do teachers meet a child's individual needs if the child is sitting in a class of 30? That is not possible in today's society. Children come into school with different baggage and backgrounds. Each one comes as an individual and with a different starting point. We must consider that and start a debate on it. Fiona Hyslop talked about the problem and I am unhappy that more members did not talk about it. It is extremely important and is also the key to inclusion.
Many interesting comments have been made about inclusion. I think that we all agree that we are looking for an inclusive education—that is the major aim. However, I agree with Lord James Douglas-Hamilton that we cannot close special schools and give parents no choice. Some children will not fit; one size does not fit all. However, if we reduce class sizes, we will move close to being able to include most of our children in a good and equal education throughout the country.
Having smaller classes would also improve the situation for children with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties. It would not remove such difficulties, but it would mean that teachers could give those children one-to-one attention with the back-up of a strong team of additional support teachers who are well trained and well qualified. Provision should be equal throughout the country. At present, for example, the systems for assessing dyslexia in some areas are diabolical but in other areas represent first-class good practice.
I attended the cross-party group on dyslexia's annual general meeting the other day. The group hears from parents and professionals and is putting together a database of the different practices among local authorities, which makes extremely interesting reading. I have seen assessments that were given to parents that can barely be read; they are computer printouts that were produced by someone who was not trained. On the other hand, some local authorities produce first-class assessments. We need a national standard. Why are children with dyspraxia identified and given appropriate education in some areas whereas, in other areas, a mother may still be trying to obtain an assessment when her child is entering secondary 1? Such situations occur; they show that the system is unequal and unfair.
Some parents of children with autistic spectrum disorder are educating their children at home because they feel that no local authority place is appropriate for their children. In some circumstances, it is appropriate for young people to attend independent special schools, but local authorities will not pay for that, which means inequality again.
Huge inequality is involved when league tables are published. We know that such tables were ended, but schools and local authorities are releasing such information to the press. That is being done in Edinburgh and elsewhere. Placing requests for schools are being made, but the children of parents who do not have the wherewithal to pay fares or the ability or knowledge to work through the system are being left in schools in deprived areas that do not have a mixed catchment. That is unequal and people are voting with their feet.
I spoke to a group of 11-year-olds who just moved into primary 7 last week. Those children are starting to worry about the secondary school that they should go to, because they know that the secondary school for which they are zoned received a bad HMIE report. Eleven-year-olds are aware of that and are worrying about where they want to go when they should be focusing on enjoying their education.
I agree totally with what Donald Gorrie said about youth workers, opening up our schools and providing access to sport, drama and music, to which Robin Harper also referred. That is about the rounded pupil and equality of opportunity, but such equality does not exist. At some schools, no drama is taught, whereas other schools have vibrant drama departments. We should examine and audit all that. We should move on and take on board the good points that have been made in the debate. The significant point is that we should examine class sizes and set a national standard.
One of the most enjoyable parts of being an MSP is getting out and about in our constituencies and visiting local primary schools and high schools. I certainly feel that in Moray. I will talk about the rural dimension, because I often visit rural schools in Moray. It is fantastic to speak to children, who always take a great interest in our jobs and particularly in matters such as how much we are paid; to meet teachers and see them in their workplaces; and to learn about schools and visit the school estate. That is humbling, because we see fantastic dedication and professionalism and we see children taking a great interest in their education.
The First Minister has said in today's press that he wants Scotland to have the best education system in the world by 2020. One of my concerns is to ensure that many of our rural schools are still alive and kicking in 2020. In the Moray Council area, we have had a major campaign in the past few years to save 21 local primary schools, most of which are in my constituency. I am thankful that the campaign appears to have succeeded in the main. The most recent outcome of the council's review was that the closure of rural schools should be a last resort, but the council will still start a two-stage process when a school roll falls below 60 per cent of capacity. That is a controversial issue, to which I will return.
It is important to consider rural schools not in isolation but as part of the local community and in the context of rural development. First and foremost, we must ensure that rural schools deliver a first-class education. Rural schools—particularly in Moray, but also elsewhere in rural Scotland, I am sure—tend to deliver a first-class education. We must ensure that we have the benefits of educating children in their own communities, which is another reason why rural schools are important. Rural schools also tend to fulfil an important social and economic role in our communities.
Rural schools are at the heart of communities. If I go to Portgordon, Portknockie, Alves or Glenlivet primary school or any other smaller school in my constituency, I cannot imagine the community that it serves without its local school. We must bear it in mind that many such communities have lost their post offices, local shops and banks, for example. If they lose their schools, they will no longer view themselves as communities. It is essential for the Parliament to prevent our rural communities from simply turning into retirement communities, by ensuring that we have vibrant local schools.
It is important to consider the future of rural schools in the context of rural development because we should gear our rural policy towards sustaining communities through sustaining local community schools. If young families want to move into an area, their first interest is whether the area has a local school. The demographic trends in rural Scotland and particularly in Moray are towards an aging population, with young people tending to leave and live elsewhere. Given that, we must use every measure to attract and retain young families, which means that we must retain local schools.
Rural Scotland has an affordable housing crisis. As part of housing policy, why do we not consider building some of the desperately required houses in communities with schools that have spare capacity? That would help to maintain rural schools' viability. It is a pity that Ross Finnie, the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, is not present. It is important for Peter Peacock to work closely with him on maintaining the viability of rural communities.
Another way of ensuring that our schools are viable is to find other roles for them, which was a theme that emerged from the recent campaign to save primary schools in Moray. Grampian police are considering whether to open police offices in rural schools. That is an excellent idea that represents one way of generating extra income and using spare capacity in the school estate. The Minister for Education and Young People should encourage other public authorities to base themselves in rural schools with spare capacity when appropriate. We should also hand a greater role to communities that want to use spare capacity for their own purposes. If a village hall does not exist, a community can of course use a rural school. Our rural schools can have a wider social remit.
I will touch on the controversial threshold of 60 per cent of capacity that Moray Council has set as the trigger for reviewing a rural school's future. The 60 per cent threshold simply does not make sense and has no credibility. If we applied it in other walks of life, our local buses would not run, because they might not operate at more than 60 per cent of capacity at a particular time, and ministerial cars would not be used, because ministers probably do not use them for 60 per cent of the time.
Moray Council's threshold is not credible and should be scrapped. Just about every submission to the council's recent consultation argued against using the 60 per cent threshold to trigger a review of a school's future. In a recent parliamentary answer to me, the minister suggested that he thinks that the 60 per cent threshold has no value whatever. I urge him to write to Moray Council to make that clear again, because it is keeping the 60 per cent trigger in its current policy. That threshold must be scrapped to maintain the security and long-term future of many of our rural schools.
The final point that I will make before I sit down concerns the reference in the motion to the importance of delivering education for our 16 to 19-year-olds. That is a particularly important point for rural areas, where more than two thirds of young people have to leave home to find work or education in urban Scotland. If we want to retain young families in rural Scotland, we need to deliver those education opportunities in our rural communities. I hope that the minister will address that point.
I hope that all party manifestos will include a commitment to protect our rural schools.
Like many members, I welcome the fact that the first substantial parliamentary debate, after yesterday's state of the nation address by the First Minister, should be on education first. Several members have touched on their experiences of taking their youngsters back to school for the new school term. The wistful reminiscences of my colleague Ken Macintosh are in marked contrast to my own experience. I got a monosyllabic grunt from my 14-year-old son as I dropped him off. My daughter, who clearly has me sussed, asked me to drop her off 50yd from the school in case I embarrassed her in front of her friends. That is exactly what the rest of the family tell me any time that I transport them anywhere else.
One good thing about today's debate is that, as a first principle, all members in the chamber share the commitment and belief that education is the most critical investment that we as political representatives at different levels of government—both here in the Parliament and in local government—can make. We need to have a partnership with individuals and communities if we are to ensure that education is, to recall a phrase from the 19th century, a way in which people can achieve self-improvement. That ethos of self-improvement has been touched on both in the Conservatives' analysis, which might be termed as coming from the political right, and in the position put forward by SNP members, who referred to the foundation of the democratic intellect. What underpins both positions is the belief that school and education can, if they are well delivered, make a genuine difference to an individual's opportunities in life. I hope that the young people in the public gallery who are watching the debate will recognise that education is a route for self-improvement and that they, too, must contribute to that.
Although we can all unite round that first principle, we obviously have different views on how we should organise, deliver and sustain education provision. Much of that difference is determined by the values that we each bring with us, both as individuals and as representatives of different political parties or of none. The values that have inspired me over the years are a combination of my Labour and socialist values, my sense of Scottishness and my understanding and experience, which was sometimes positive and sometimes negative—depending on who was in charge of discipline in a given week—of faith-based learning and of a values-driven school ethos. Those values have certainly had an impact on how I believe education can best be delivered. Those values and experiences that I start from, as well as several years' experience as a secondary school teacher in the east end of Glasgow, have influenced and infuse what I will say.
I recognise that the turbulent times of the 1980s, which I experienced as a teacher but which many went through as students, were a period of unrest in which there was not only uncertainty in staffrooms about the role of education in modern Scotland—which still features as a theme in newspaper columns today—but a feeling that the very ethos of Scottish education was under threat from the Conservative Administration. Many Conservatives will privately concede that one reason why their vote diminished in Scotland was that they did not buy into the broad ethos of, and commitment to, Scottish education. Perhaps some Tories have learned that lesson, but I am not convinced that the Conservative party as a whole has done so. However, I hope that the Conservatives will listen carefully and accept that we have a set of values that are about community and individual aspiration. If the Conservatives could pull those two aspirations together, they might be more in tune with what the people of Scotland want.
The Conservatives' position was exemplified by the school boards legislation, to which some Conservatives have wistfully referred this morning. Although school boards were introduced for the purpose of enabling schools to opt out of the state sector, the people who were involved in boards eventually rejected that central tenet. When asked, parents said that they did not necessarily want to go down that route of school improvement. That was the real test, and all of us should learn from that.
Murdo Fraser touched on the importance of leadership, which is a theme that I want to amplify in the remainder of my remarks. This may not be the best time for a Labour member to talk about the influence and importance of leadership but—to repeat an old phrase that my father used to say to me—out of adversity often comes strength. I hope that, out of the present adversity, strength will emerge. Leadership is of central importance in schools. I refer to leadership in the broadest sense, rather than just to the individual leadership that is provided in nursery, primary, and secondary schools by head teachers and in the further education sector. I want to talk about the contribution that leaders can make and the role that leadership plays. [Interruption.] The interference is not from my mobile phone.
I come back to my own experience—I said earlier that our experiences matter—by way of a response to what Murdo Fraser said about leadership and city academies and in response to the concerns about public-private partnerships that members of other Opposition parties have raised. Nearly 10 years ago, I sat in a room with Bruce Malone, who had recently been appointed as head teacher of St Andrew's secondary school. As people who knew that part of Glasgow's east end very well, we had a discussion on the future of denominational school provision in the east end. Few would have said then that, within 10 years, the catchment areas of three of the toughest secondary schools in the whole of Scotland could be merged and that we could end up with a school leadership that improved achievement levels, demonstrated a commitment to working with the wider communities and received an HMIE report beyond anyone's wildest imagination. All of that has happened in a school estate that is as good today as it was when it was developed four or five years ago.
That experience demonstrates how those three themes can be pulled together. Without the public-private partnership commitment to investment in a secondary school, people would not have felt that there was a sense of commitment to the area. Clearly, there had been no such commitment for a long time. Without the leadership of that head teacher and without the commitment of the staff and wider community, that school would not have had those achievements. The HMIE report has given the east end of Glasgow a remarkable sense of confidence. All of that is because the Executive has created the context in which those things could flourish. I recognise that members have different views about the direction of education, but we should not jeopardise that commitment.
I conclude by referring to the CBI report. Prior to debates on education, the CBI has always commented on how education standards are falling. When I was tidying out a school cupboard in Holyrood secondary school in Glasgow about 12 years ago, a grammar primer came tumbling down on my head. The opening sentence in the book stated that the command of the English language and a basic grasp of the principles of English grammar are not what they should be in our schools. That book was published in 1951. My point is that generations often take that view about how the quality of contemporary education compares with that of the past. My belief is that many youngsters today are achieving well. However, as the First Minister mentioned, a section of pupils are not achieving anywhere near the level that they should attain. I believe that we should make those pupils our priority. If we did that, we would certainly improve the quality of educational experience of pupils in the constituency that I represent.
The Executive has made substantial progress. There is still a lot more to do, but I would give the minister a pass rate.
The Executive's motion starts with the words:
"That the Parliament welcomes the priority given to improving education standards".
Really?
Members will understand the position that the SNP is coming from if they care to dip into the Scottish neighbourhood statistics and compare my constituency of Banff and Buchan with that of Motherwell and Wishaw. It is interesting that the average tariff score for all pupils on the S4 roll is 10 per cent worse in Motherwell and Wishaw. The percentage of the S4 cohort that attained level 3 or better in the Scottish credit and qualifications framework is worse in Motherwell and Wishaw. Similarly, if we move on to other matters, we can see that reported admissions for drug misuse in Motherwell and Wishaw are 18 per cent higher than in Banff and Buchan. Finally, the estimated percentage of the population in the First Minister's constituency who have been prescribed drugs for anxiety, depression or psychosis is 46 per cent higher than in my constituency. Perhaps we can understand why the First Minister is worried.
If the member wants to draw those kinds of parallels, would it not be appropriate to do as most teachers would do and judge one constituency with a comparable constituency? The idea that Banff and Buchan can be compared to Motherwell and Wishaw is a misjudgment. It is not appropriate for making an assessment.
It is interesting to compare urban areas that the SNP represents with urban areas that the Labour Party represents. If the member goes through those constituency by constituency, he will find that the Labour Party faces the bigger challenge on the ground. If the First Minister is putting education at the centre of his future commitments and is being driven by the experience of his constituency to do so, I welcome that—it is good news. However, my central question is, is the Labour Party sincere?
In his opening speech, the minister said:
"We have given education top priority … For me and my colleagues, education comes first".
Colleagues know that the internet is home from home for me. Naturally, I thought that I would look up what Labour parliamentarians had to say on the subject of education. I started in the north-east, driven from the Labour Party's website via some interesting byroads. For example, the party's home page states:
"Bloggers4Labour brings hundreds of Labour-related blogs under one roof, offering a wide range of intelligent and incisive views on a wide range of topics."
That sounds encouraging.
We then move to the core of Bloggers4Labour. I confess that I cannot cite the concluding remarks in the first article, as standing orders do not permit me to provide the four-letter word, starting with F, that refers intelligently and incisively to an opponent of Labour. However, I was directed to Marlyn Glen's website. I printed out her blog, in which nothing about education was to be found. However, let us put that to one side.
Marlyn Glen's website gave me the opportunity to click on a button to see what there might be elsewhere. There may be some technical deficiencies in the site, because I received the response "nothing found". I then decided to look at the websites of the members for the Highlands and Islands, Maureen Macmillan and Peter Peacock, the Minister for Education and Young People. I do not know how recently the minister has looked at his website. I looked thoroughly at every page of it and found a single reference to education. That reference is in the Highlands and Islands survey, in which he asks the question:
"What change would do most to improve education in your area?"
In other words, the only reference to education on the minister's website is a question to his constituents, which asks them what he should do about it. I hope that when they tell him, he will listen to whatever they choose to say. The proposition that education is central to the Labour Party's future programme does not stand up to scrutiny.
I wonder whether the member has looked at my website, where he would find references to all the speeches that I have made on education, the questions that I have asked about it and the press releases that I have issued on it.
I very much look forward to the member's return to office and hope that Peter Peacock has a worthy successor in the brief period during which the Labour Party fills that post.
I am largely an autodidact. In the several dozen speeches that I have made on the subject of education, I draw on my own investigation, rather than the education that I received from my teachers. The fault for that lies in my domain, rather than someone else's. My responsibilities for the SNP include prisons policy. One issue that is fundamental to this debate is the fact that 85 per cent of people in prison are functionally illiterate. That shows us once again the absolutely clear connection between the failure to learn and achieve and ending up at the bottom of the social pile. The words "Arbeit macht frei"—"Work will make you free"—appeared above the entrances to the camps in Nazi Germany. Education will make our generation free, but the Executive has yet to prove its commitment in the real world.
As other members have said, in his speech yesterday the First Minister stated his desire to ensure that by 2020 Scotland has the best education system in the world. I am sure that we all share that aspiration. In Scotland we have a good basis that will help us to attain that goal.
At the beginning of last week, the Minister for Education and Young People accompanied me to a small rural school in Lochmaben in my constituency. In its recent HMIE report, the school achieved either very good or excellent ratings in every category. Members have referred to sport and culture. In Lochmaben, we saw not only a fine school but an interesting sports programme. I confess that I am a Queen of the South supporter, but we must give credit to Gretna Football Club for the great work that it has done in that area. One of its outreach workers is teaching young girls and boys to play football and is working with their primary school teacher to develop curricular materials to build on that experience by using the children's interest in football to develop their numeracy and literacy skills. It is right that we should celebrate good practice in our schools and that we should do as much as we can to ensure that others know about it.
It is also right that we should celebrate what the Scottish Executive has achieved since 1999. All three of my children were born when Mrs Thatcher was Prime Minister. At the time, we lived in Ayrshire, where only one child in four had the opportunity to receive a year's pre-school education. Now every child from the age of three is entitled to pre-school education. That policy was introduced by the Labour Government in 1997 and has been continued by the Labour-led Executive in the Parliament since 1999. We should be proud of that achievement.
During my days as a councillor, I was involved in Convention of Scottish Local Authorities negotiations on teachers' salaries. I remember the frustration that we all felt in the mid-1990s, when we were unable to offer teachers the sort of recompense that they deserved for the vitally important job that they did. Although there may still be issues arising from the McCrone settlement, we have solved the important problem of the remuneration of teachers and the value that we place on their skills.
Iain Smith made the point that we are improving eating habits, which is very important, by introducing free fresh fruit for primary 1 and 2 pupils. We are also introducing legislation to ensure good standards of nutrition in schools, which is more important than whether school meals are free for everyone or free for those who need that.
We are reforming the curriculum to ensure that it is interesting and relevant to all pupils. Andrew Welsh suggested that we are going to abolish history and modern studies. That is not and never has been the case. Curriculum reform is concerned with the way in which subjects are presented. We need to make the presentation of all subjects relevant to pupils, to allow them to access those subjects properly.
We are improving the teaching and learning environment for pupils and staff by investing in modern school buildings. The Scottish Executive has committed £103 million to Dumfries and Galloway, and 11 schools will be rebuilt under the PPP project. Investment is not limited to schools. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton referred to the importance of college education. Twenty-seven million pounds has been pledged for the rebuilding of Dumfries and Galloway College, which will be relocated next to the Crichton university campus, creating a unique campus for tertiary education in Dumfries and Galloway. That is an interesting experiment. Money is being invested to improve education in our country.
I agreed with much of what Richard Lochhead said about rural schools. It is important that we maintain primary schools in rural locations. If we do not, there will be a further drift of young people away from those areas.
Although there is a lot to be proud of in Scotland's education system, issues remain that require serious attention. As Scott Barrie and Peter Peacock said, outcomes for looked-after children need to be radically improved, and too many young people are still not in education, employment or training.
We have not made the progress in the past eight years that we wanted to make. The performance of the lowest-attaining 20 per cent of pupils has not improved and, in particular, there is a problem with young males underachieving. That might seem a strange thing for a middle-aged feminist to worry about, but we have a problem with how we educate young boys. Boys account for 90 per cent of exclusions from primary schools and over 75 per cent of exclusions from secondary schools. There is a definite issue about how those young people relate to education. I can remember a time when it was not considered worth while to educate females, particularly in science subjects; I do not want us to reach the stage when a group of young males appears not to be worth educating. I was pleased by what the minister said about the Executive's determination to address those problems and look forward to hearing more about it.
I was going to speak about the need to improve science education, which is a great enthusiasm of mine, but I do not have time.
Yesterday, as a number of members reminded us, the First Minister declared his intention for Scotland to have
"the best education system in the world by 2020."—[Official Report, 6 September 2006; c 27149.]
Fortunately for Scotland, the First Minister's target date is well beyond his likely term of office and, accordingly, it might be achieved if we have a change of Government, and more important, a change of policy.
Today's motion from the Scottish Executive reeks of complacency. It is being debated in a week in which CBI Scotland said that Scottish businesses, as employers, have to invest an unacceptably high proportion of the £2 billion that they commit to training annually in what is effectively remedial education, because far too many school leavers are not ready for work.
I accept Frank McAveety's rejoinder that the older generation habitually says that things are not as good as they were in their day. However, let us not forget that the persistent complaints about the readiness for work of our young people come after they have undergone 11 years of compulsory school education and—I say to the minister—nine years in which the Labour Party and a Labour Government have been in charge of Scotland's schools and education system. Frankly, it does not avail the Labour Party one whit to keep harping back to the past and trying to blame the halcyon days of the Conservative Government for its own miserable failures.
The motion is complacent because it says nothing about indiscipline and violence in our schools, about which my friend James Douglas-Hamilton produced some truly chilling and appalling statistics in his opening speech. The motion says nothing about the forced closures and mergers of popular schools. It says nothing about the imposition of artificial limits on primary school intakes, which is designed to eliminate choice. It says nothing about the rising number of composite classes in Scottish schools. It says nothing about promoting diversity in our schools. In short, it is a complacent celebration of a one-size-fits-all, monolithic system of state education that betrays a shocking poverty of imagination and ambition.
I firmly believe that we have to move towards greater direct funding of our schools by the Scottish Executive. Interestingly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his budget speech this year that he would be making direct payments of £44,000 to a typical primary school and between £190,000 and £500,000 a year to secondary schools. The recipients of such largesse were not schools in Scotland, but schools in England. It is interesting that when it comes to managing budgets and determining priorities, Gordon Brown seems to have greater faith in the head teachers and school governors of King's Lynn than Peter Peacock has in the head teachers and school board members of Kirkcaldy. Mr Peacock and Mr Brown might care to discuss that curious contradiction later this evening, if they have time left over after stabbing the Prime Minister in the back.
I have great difficulty understanding the Conservatives' position. They talk about greater devolution to schools, but at the same time they want to centralise control of the budget to the Scottish Executive. They want the decisions about how much money is spent in local schools to be taken at Victoria Quay rather than by local councils. Is that really devolution?
Yes, it is, because it would devolve the management and determination of priorities to the head teacher and the school board who run the local school and cut out the appalling black hole of bureaucracy into which hundreds of millions of pounds are poured and wasted.
In fairness, there is one small ray of light. For 27 secondary schools in the Executive's schools of ambition programme, there is an additional direct budget allocation of £100,000 a year. That begs the question, if it is good enough for 27 secondary schools, then why not for the rest of them? What is so magical about the figure of £100,000? If one has in place the mechanisms to manage a budget of that size, one certainly has in place the mechanisms to manage larger budgets. I say to the minister, do not be such a feartie. Stop pandering to the vested interests in Scotland's councils that have held education back: direct funding and devolved school management are the way ahead.
It is interesting that, earlier this year, Lord Sutherland called for direct funding of schools, cutting out the councils and bureaucracy and the waste to which I referred in my answer to Mr Smith, to ensure that more resources go to the classroom. It comes as no surprise to me that a great mind such as Lord Sutherland's can see the wisdom of a Conservative policy. Equally, it is no surprise to me that the small minds of Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP cannot, because they are all fully paid-up members of the "aye been" tendency in Scottish education.
We need to encourage the establishment of new schools funded by the taxpayer but independently managed, like the city academies to which Murdo Fraser referred. It is a scandal that in Scotland today, although it might be the choice of only a small minority of parents, a Steiner education is available only to those who can afford to pay for it. I know that that concern is shared by members throughout the chamber. The problem is a mental block that affects far too many in this Parliament who fail to see that diversity and choice are but two sides of the same coin.
I finish with a quotation:
"Where we can, we must devolve power and responsibility because we know that real change, radical improvement and high quality is driven and sustained by the empowerment of those who deliver services and critically, by those who use them."
Those are not my words; they are Tom McCabe's in the executive summary of "Transforming Public Services: The Next Phase of Reform". Mr McCabe is absolutely right. If Mr Peacock would simply apply those principles to education in the way that I outlined, we might just have a chance of achieving that 2020 ambition.
If the motion is anything to go by, I expect that the First Minister will take to his feet at question time today to claim credit for Scotland's victory in Lithuania last night.
Let us be clear: the achievements of the Scottish education system are hard earned and not gifted by a passing bunch of ministers, least of all by this lot in the Executive. Recognition for success should go to hard-working pupils and teachers in our schools, supportive parents, the educationists and training staff in our universities and colleges and yes, to the many unsung but dedicated public servants who contribute to the sector up and down the country. Let us remember—Frank McAveety reminded us—the strong foundations on which our modern comprehensive system is built: the centuries-old Scottish tradition of respect for education, not only as the means to fulfil personal aspirations but for the public good, offering equal opportunities for all and benefiting society as a whole. In that context, any Government has to be judged on how well it has used the means at its disposal in providing both the policy framework and resources needed to build on the strengths and tackle the weaknesses of our system.
One of the most obvious weaknesses after decades of neglect and underinvestment is the dire state of our schools estate. It is not exactly an advert for Westminster rule. So how has the Government gone about the rebuilding and refurbishment programme it was duty-bound to deliver on election? Certainly not by finding a Scottish solution to a Scottish problem. No—its answer was to import the Tory concept of the private finance initiative, tweaked here and there and, in typically new Labour fashion, renamed "public-private partnership" to make it sound a wee bit more socially conscious.
The SNP proposal to replace PPP with a not-for-profit trust and with public bond issues provides a much better deal. We estimate that if PPP deals in the pipeline used public bond issues £2 million would be released for extra investment.
Will the member give way?
Will the member give way?
In a moment, perhaps.
Peter Peacock claims that an SNP Government could achieve such an outcome only through independence. I beg to differ, but suggest that his arguments are doing our case no harm.
Renewing the physical infrastructure of our education system is certainly a major challenge, but it pales into insignificance compared with the endemic problem of underperformance by 1 in 5 school pupils. Given that that figure has remained constant, the Government cannot claim any progress at all in its seven years' stewardship of the system, and the CBI was quite right to highlight the scandal of how many of our youngsters can go through the school system without acquiring any literacy and numeracy skills. It is little wonder that we continue to have one of the highest rates in the western world of 16 to 19-year-olds who are not in education, employment or training.
Poverty and deprivation are at the root of the problem, and the Government has failed to break the vicious cycle of poverty leading to low educational attainment and, in turn, to low-paid jobs and unemployment. We believe that early intervention through the provision of high-quality child care and early years education is the key to turning this situation around. For children from deprived backgrounds, such an approach provides the early cognitive and behavioural gains that, if properly supported through the school journey, can help to equalise life chances and educational opportunities.
We emphasise that teachers will raise standards of literacy and numeracy through their work in the classroom. As a result, they must be given the freedom to teach. By advocating a leaving certificate, Jack McConnell misses the point, because getting rid of the current assessment overload is an absolute priority. At the moment, teachers are training pupils to pass exams instead of concentrating on skills acquisition. The situation for classroom teachers is further complicated by the increased burdens of pursuing the mainstreaming agenda and coping with higher levels of pupil indiscipline.
Cutting class sizes must be the priority. After all, the benefits of such an approach are well recognised—and indeed were well articulated this morning by Rosemary Byrne and other members. However, as far as following through on its commitments in this respect, the Government has once again been found wanting. The patience of the teaching profession on this matter is fast running out, threatening the "stable industrial relations" that the Executive vaunts in its motion.
Despite the bluff and bluster that we have heard from members on the Executive parties' benches this morning, the plain truth is that ministers' reforming zeal has been confined to rhetoric, not to action. The Executive's stewardship of the Scottish education system has been a failure and I trust that it will pay the appropriate penalty next May.
This excellent debate very much follows the vision that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister set out in yesterday's debate on the future of Scotland and has been marked by some good and relevant speeches. One of the best features of the Parliament is the way in which debates in the chamber can shape issues, eliminate the trivial and the partisan and produce an overall parliamentary view.
Let me be crystal clear: the life chances of young people are at the core of the Scottish Government's—and the Parliament's—vision for our country's future. As some members have pointed out, the serious purpose of education and the value of the education system form part of our country's psyche. Our country's inventions and intellectual questioning have created much of the modern world. We have a clear vision of the direction of Scottish education, of our ambitions and of the further improvements that we can make to meet the major challenges that we face and that have also formed the subject of this debate.
This debate has provided a timely opportunity to acknowledge our strengths; to consider how far we have come since the regime of our predecessors and the dark days of the teachers' dispute, underinvestment in school infrastructure, declining teacher numbers and poor morale among teachers, parents and children; and to focus on the real successes that have been achieved and of which this Parliament can be proud.
We now have record numbers of new teachers and are well on the way to achieving our target of 53,000 new teachers by next year. Our children and young people will benefit from those vital additional resources. Those of us who travel around the country know that our schools are bursting with dynamic young teachers and able head teachers and leaders who have been brought forward and nurtured by this Scottish Government. They are reinvigorating our schools and taking them to new heights; and are providing our young people with the excitement and motivation that Nicol Stephen mentioned in yesterday's debate.
Peter Peacock has already outlined our programme's wide ranging nature. I do not want to go over all that again, except to point out that, after all the debate, no one has seriously challenged any part of the agenda or its direction. In her opening speech for the Opposition, Fiona Hyslop was desperate to find something to moan about. For example, she claimed that there has been no progress in reducing class sizes, and even made the bizarre suggestion that the new teachers that she accepts have been recruited have somehow vanished from the system.
The reality is very different. As Iain Smith rightly pointed out, class sizes and pupil to teacher ratios have declined steadily since 1999. Moreover, there are 2,700 post-probationer teachers from this year's teacher induction scheme—the high quality of which, I might add, has been internationally recognised—and in 2006-07 local authorities will receive an additional £14.5 million investment to employ them. That funding is aligned with the needs and numbers of the new teachers who are coming through.
I note the minister's concern that some councils might use the money for recruiting new teachers to fund pensions. Will the minister set out the Executive's concerns in that respect? How will we ensure that the Parliament can account for where taxpayers' money is going if it is not being used to recruit teachers?
I accept Fiona Hyslop's point. In this policy area, as in many others, there is a tension between the need to meet high-level Executive objectives—and I stress that we are determined to meet this particular high-level objective—and the discretion of local authorities to dispose of their funding. Communication with local authorities at ministerial and civil service level is continuing, and the release of the last tranche of the money has been linked to undertakings from local authorities to deliver this objective. I am reasonably confident that, across the board, we will achieve the number of new teachers by the target date. However, that is not to say that individual issues will not arise in certain areas; after all, within the overall prospectus, councils need to tackle various local issues such as recruitment difficulties.
On discipline, which Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, Andrew Welsh and other members highlighted, I am sure that no one in the chamber disagrees with the point that violence in—and indeed, out of—schools cannot be tolerated. As a result, we have made it very clear that head teachers have full discretion over exclusions, where they prove to be necessary. However, in his exchange with Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, Scott Barrie hit the nail on the head when he said that we cannot stop at such measures. Instead, we must introduce strategies that not only deal with the immediate issue—after all, we cannot have children who have been excluded running about the streets—but attempt to remotivate these children to ensure that they can have a career and a future and that society does not have to suffer from the problems that they might cause.
Is the minister aware that we have absolutely no objection to second chance learning centres that give those children a full opportunity to find their way back to the causeway? However, head teachers feel very strongly about the fact that they do not have the legal powers to exclude persistent offenders permanently.
We have introduced structures—for example, with regard to additional learning needs—to address the matter across the board and have placed corporate duties on local authorities to deal adequately with such situations. After all, such problems require more than the rather limited response of excluding pupils, no matter how necessary that might be. Instead, we need a more extensive response that leads to long-term change.
I agree entirely with Robin Harper's aspiration for a genuinely liberal, child-centred education. He also highlighted the importance of visiting teachers of art, music and drama. Indeed, in one of our targets, we seek to take advantage of the opportunities provided by declining school rolls and increasing teacher numbers to boost the number of teachers in that regard.
Donald Gorrie made a number of interesting points about holding on to playing fields and about multisport centres. In Perthshire and elsewhere, I have been to see a number of multisport centres that the schools and communities use and that are working successfully. They are not a new idea, but they are well worth while encouraging.
Donald Gorrie also talked about youth work. We have just launched our consultation on the youth work strategy and I invite members who have an interest in that to respond to it by the 1 November closing date. We want the issues of resources throughout the country and outdoor education to emerge in the youth work debate. I recently had the opportunity to visit some of the youth hostels throughout Scotland. Those are part of the panoply of resources that are available and often provide some degree of expertise.
Richard Lochhead made a good speech about rural sustainability. There was much in what he said that members from all parties echoed. He will probably not be aware that, following the Education Committee's inquiry into the matter, the minister is about to write to the committee in response to its concerns about the 60 per cent threshold on which he touched. We do not want that threshold to be a determinant of policy on reviewing a rural school's future. Any local authority that wants to change the configuration of local schools must make a solid case for doing so against the background of some of the issues that Richard Lochhead rightly mentioned.
Stewart Stevenson made a relevant point about 85 per cent of prisoners being functionally illiterate. That, too, underlines some of the issues about which we have talked in the debate.
I have remarked before on the essential consensus in the Parliament on Scottish education. Not for the first time, that is borne out by the Opposition amendments. The Scottish National Party's amendment focuses on investment, while the Tories' amendment focuses on discipline and school boards. Those are certainly important issues, but they are hardly central to the system's direction.
I congratulate the Opposition parties on their support of our vision and the part that they play in committee in helping to refine and improve the Government's legislative programme. They are genuine and serious politicians and, like us, they want the best for our young people. However, let no member and no person who listens to the debate from the public gallery or beyond kid themselves that Scottish education's success or the widening horizons and exciting opportunities that are increasingly available to our young people are accidents or would have happened or would be safe in the Opposition parties' hands. Much work has gone into our current programme. Liberal Democrat and Labour members have contributed political insight and drive to moulding and delivering the partnership programme, while dedicated professionals in the civil service, local authorities and, above all, the schools have demonstrated commitment and care in delivering the programme.
We are a modernising Executive. We are delivering on our commitments to improve learning and teaching and create a dynamic and progressive education system that is fit for the 21st century. The Conservatives' searing electoral experiences since 1997 have not refreshed their vision. They are fighting the old battles on a sterile view of parental involvement and, even after the Parliament has spoken, will not engage with the opportunities for innovation and change that are offered by the Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Act 2006, which is one of the Parliament's most significant education acts.
There are incidents in our schools from time to time, just as there are incidents in wider society, but the vast majority of our young people are well behaved and work hard in school. We take seriously the need to support our teachers, which is why we have invested heavily to support a range of interventions under the better behaviour, better learning banner. However, we all know that there is no magic bullet for indiscipline, no simplistic nostrum of the kind beloved of the Tories. The key, as always, is strong leadership and the promotion of positive behaviour.
The SNP wants to abandon our highly successful school building programme. Its members are world experts in simplistic solutions. They are concerned about investment in education but would put that education at risk with years of constitutional uncertainty and the curious notion that cutting taxes and raising spending at the same time adds up. If the standard of basic arithmetic that our SNP colleagues exhibit is typical, it is just as well that we are investing so much in recruiting so many new maths teachers. I do not know how anybody can say that the odd idea that it is possible to suspend the normal rules of the market and obtain an interest advantage of 3 per cent is justified by reality.
I will finish on the more positive note that underlay many of the speeches. The challenge that underlies what we are trying to do with the remainder of the parliamentary session and beyond, which Peter Peacock describes as a long-term agenda, is to deal with underachievement in the system, in the NEET group and among looked-after children. In modern Scotland, it is not acceptable for any young person to fail to fulfil their potential. The challenge is difficult and complex, and we should devote the rest of this parliamentary session and beyond to addressing it. We must succeed in that.