Curriculum for Excellence
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S4M-02242, in the name of Hugh Henry, on curriculum for excellence.
09:15
I put on record Scottish Labour’s support for curriculum for excellence. We want it to work, and to work well. We think that, once it is embedded, it will make a significant contribution to putting 21st century Scottish education right up there with the best in the world. It is because we want it to be a success that we are speaking up for the thousands of teachers and parents across Scotland who are expressing fears and concerns.
I know that this is an unusual thing for a politician to say, but I hope that I am wrong. I hope that I am wrong about the state of readiness for curriculum for excellence, and I hope that Mike Russell is right when he says that the state of preparedness is good. For the sake of all Scotland’s pupils, I genuinely hope that the cabinet secretary will be able to demonstrate that my fears and concerns are misplaced.
I support the cabinet secretary when he says that more support will be made available to the teachers and schools that need it, and I would welcome details of exactly what additional support has been given to specific schools. An audit is long overdue, and I welcome the cabinet secretary’s decision this week to conduct one, but I cannot understand why it has taken until now. I took from his comments to the Education and Culture Committee that a delay might be considered if all other efforts had failed at the end of a process of support, but the problem is that we are nearing the end of that process. At the end of April, teachers will be expected to absorb the new details and, in many schools, to start teaching the new courses at the beginning of June.
Now is the time, therefore, to listen to the professionals who will have to deliver the new exam courses and, if we truly believe that parents have a role to play in educating their children, we should listen also to the concerns of anxious parents. We need to listen to parents who cannot get answers to reasonable questions put to teachers. We cannot afford to gamble with our children’s future. Teachers across Scotland are saying that they and the materials are not ready so, today, why do we not let the voices of teachers and parents tell the story? Politicians should be listening to them.
When teachers say that they are nowhere near ready for implementation, are they wrong? What about the teacher who says,
“In my school, at least half of the teachers have had their concerns rejected out of hand by the local authority, who insist that there is no alternative”,
or the one who says,
“At a meeting of our school, several staff asked to be allowed to continue to offer intermediate courses in the best interests of our pupils. We were told that we must deliver the National 4 and National 5 courses. If only our authority had the courage of East Renfrewshire”?
What about the teacher who says
“I am a history teacher and I can say with confidence that none of my colleagues have any confidence in the new system”,
or the one who says,
“I work in a high school. We are nowhere near ready for implementation. We have had no guidelines on how we are going to assess. It will be a complete disaster”?
Other teachers say,
“I am just concerned that there is not a proper course in place. Mr Russell talks about this additional support. I’ve looked online. I don’t know where it is”,
and,
“Ask Mike Russell this: can departments be expected to deliver three courses ... for August (or even May if the timetable is changed earlier) if the final versions are only being published in April? Is it good planning to have a four-week window to write these three, two-year courses?”
Another has said:
“As a teacher, I find the workload of Curriculum for Excellence overwhelming. Unfortunately no one will speak out because, as a teacher, you are in a no win situation. If the Curriculum succeeds then it will be the Government and Education Scotland who get the credit, not the teachers who have made themselves ill to try to make it work. On the other hand, if it fails then it will be the fault of teachers for not implementing it properly. So teachers cannot speak out.”
It is not just secondary teachers who are expressing concerns. A relatively new primary teacher said:
“I was very excited to start teaching Curriculum for Excellence. After all, it is hard not to like ideas such as collaborative group work, formative assessment and making our kids responsible citizens.
We have no new materials and mostly use exactly the same 5-14 material that was in place or resources scavenged from the internet.
The National Assessment Resource is a joke—materials have been scanned from old 5-14 resources or look as though they have come from student teachers. No use to man or beast.
I am fundamentally committed to Curriculum for Excellence but I now feel that its implementation has been a disaster which really does have the possibility of wrecking the education of our kids.”
Those are her words, not mine. Another said:
“It is like the Emperor’s new clothes. There is no detail, but everyone is afraid to say so.”
It is not just teachers. Why do we not listen to parents such as the one who said:
“I have been hitting brick wall after brick wall despite writing several letters to his school. I have now attended Parents’ evening at my son’s school, and am more concerned than ever about my son’s educational future. At parents’ evening, teachers were unable to answer specific questions about the syllabus or assessments. Several teachers told me off the record that Curriculum for Excellence is in shambles, but that they are not allowed to speak out about it.
I am afraid that children like my son will be the losers if it is allowed to go ahead this year”?
What about the couple who were worried that their son and his classmates were—to use their words, not mine—“guinea pigs” for a change that was unclear to them and, indeed, to teachers? They said:
“We are worried that teachers themselves are unsure”.
One parent said:
“Right now, I have no idea when my son will make his subject choices or if he will be offered the breadth of qualifications needed to enter University. Teachers were unable to tell me much about the qualifications.”
I do not underestimate the gravity of the situation or the dilemma that the cabinet secretary faces. The motion was lodged not to try to divide support for curriculum for excellence; rather, it was lodged for a very practical reason. Too many teachers and parents remain unpersuaded that everything is on track, as the cabinet secretary has suggested, and all the teaching unions are reporting concerns from members that delivery cannot be achieved in a consistent manner across Scotland within the current timetable. Indeed, the Educational Institute of Scotland today published a survey of its members in secondary schools that showed that fewer than 5 per cent of the respondents were very confident that their department will be able to deliver the exams on time, and 82 per cent said that the quality and the level of support from the Scottish Government is unsatisfactory. Teachers are saying that they need more time as well as more resources.
Why is it acceptable to grant a delay to an authority with an outstanding record of delivery in education, but wrong to do the same for other teachers who say that they are not ready? We cannot afford to have even a small minority of pupils disadvantaged. That could live with them for a long time.
Now is the time to examine why there are complaints. Today, we must show that the Parliament is ready to do what is best for our children. We should say that we support the cabinet secretary’s offer of more support where that is required but, equally, we should listen when teachers say that they are not ready and that they need more time. Even at this late stage, I appeal to the cabinet secretary to develop a political consensus to work with teachers and parents to do the right thing. A managed delay is better than disorganised chaos.
This is not about politicians; it is not even about parents and teachers. This is about Scotland’s pupils. We should not gamble with their future.
I move,
That the Parliament reaffirms its support for the Curriculum for Excellence, which it believes can make a significant contribution to Scottish education; notes however the widespread and persistent concerns being expressed by teachers and parents across Scotland about the readiness of preparation for the new examinations associated with the Curriculum for Excellence; further notes that, despite the reassurances offered by the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, these concerns have not been allayed; believes that no pupils in Scotland should be disadvantaged if teachers in any school feel ill-equipped to prepare pupils for the new exams; further believes that the current timetable does not give teachers sufficient time to familiarise themselves with the details, and believes that calls for a delay should be heeded and urgent action taken to secure consistent implementation across Scotland of all aspects of the Curriculum for Excellence.
09:24
I am always pleased to have the opportunity in the Parliament to reinforce our long-standing vision for curriculum for excellence, and to congratulate our teachers and everyone who is committed to Scotland’s education system on the successful implementation of the curriculum for excellence.
I would be happy to receive from Mr Henry the details of every single individual whom he quoted, and I would be happy to offer additional help and support for every single individual whom he quoted and any others whom he wishes to quote, because my job is to ensure that we support every single teacher and inform every single parent. That is what we will do. If Mr Henry provides those details to me after the debate, we will take supportive action.
However, our shared purpose in the Parliament goes further: we have to ensure that our education system is the best that it can be, and we have to prepare our young people for an uncertain and challenging world.
As I said to the Education and Culture Committee on Tuesday, the timing of this Labour Party debate is not constructive. There can be only one interpretation of a decision to hold a debate during a period in which it is known that we are in the middle of negotiations with the EIS. That interpretation is that some people may wish to prevent an agreement from being reached between the Government and the EIS on all the support and help that must be made available to teachers at every stage of the programme. Providing that support is precisely what we will do. I am pleased to tell the Parliament that discussions and negotiations are going well. I am optimistic that we will be able to announce more details over the next week or so, which will address the concerns of teachers that have been expressed in the EIS survey and elsewhere.
I am also grateful to the EIS general secretary-elect for another thing: Larry Flanagan has offered to support and facilitate a restoration of the cross-party consensus on curriculum for excellence—a consensus that we need. Larry’s strong record in building and developing curriculum for excellence makes him ideally placed to do that. I said to him yesterday that I would want him to take that forward and I told him that he would have my full support. I hope that he will also get the full support of the other education spokespeople in the chamber, so that we can get back to the cross-party consensus that was essential in this process of major change.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
No, I would like to make some progress before I take an intervention.
I am grateful to members of the Education and Culture Committee, whose motives have been in contrast to the motives behind today’s debate. Members of the committee have taken the time to question and inquire into the issues that face the programme. Let me put the current criticisms in context. From 2004, the building blocks for curriculum for excellence were laid down in documents establishing the key principles. As Peter Peacock said in 2004, curriculum for excellence would be
“the key liberator ... opening up choice and flexibility in learning for the first time”.
Since 2007, we have focused on key implementation issues, and detailed guidance for the curriculum from three to 18 was issued in 2009.
The cabinet secretary should not misinterpret expressions of concern over the state of readiness as a lack of support for curriculum for excellence. There is still cross-party consensus; we do not need Larry Flanagan or anyone else to try to re-establish it. The consensus is still there; the concerns are over the state of readiness.
I regret that Mr Henry appears unwilling to take part in the discussions with Mr Flanagan. I hope that other spokespeople will not be as unwilling to re-establish the consensus.
The programme that has been rolled out in secondary school since 2010 includes a raft of measures to support schools and teachers. It has included Education Scotland inspectors working in partnership with the Scottish Qualifications Authority and local authorities to provide direct support for capacity building in schools. More than 360 support activities took place during the 2010-11 school year alone. I set up 18 excellence groups to stimulate debate and discussion about the place of subjects. Those groups reported in May 2011. I have given particular priority to information engagement with parents and the production of written fact files, web-based information, and DVDs for parent nights.
I estimate that more than 1,500 professionals from schools, colleges and universities—plus parents, employers, stakeholders and other partners—have engaged with the SQA in the development of the new qualifications. Since I became cabinet secretary in December 2009, I have delivered on all our commitments—including new investment of £3.76 million a year to support teachers’ development of assessment. Furthermore, not one target date for the introduction of the new qualifications has been missed on my watch. In the past year alone, the full suite of draft documents for the new national qualifications—from national 1 through to higher—has been published online, to allow all teachers to feed into their development. In addition, a series of SQA and Education Scotland curriculum events, attended by more than 1,000 practitioners, was held over November and December. The final documents will be published, on schedule, in April. That will allow—and I think that I should stress this point, Presiding Officer—16 months for teachers to plan for implementation in secondary 4 in 2013-14.
Calls have been made for delay, and I treat those calls seriously. I treat seriously EIS’s survey today. It had a response rate of under 10 per cent of secondary school teachers, but I treat it seriously. However, we have to put some other things into the balance. First, the chamber should fit into the balance the 54,000 young people in the current S2 cohort. Those young people have been in the vanguard for curriculum for excellence since they were in primary school. They are the pupils we should be thinking of. To let them down, and to desert their aspirations and their education, would be wrong.
Let us also put into the balance the 31 directors of education who confirmed with their headteachers that our 360 secondary schools are on track. Let us also turn to the National Parent Forum of Scotland, which represents every parent council in Scotland, whose chair, Iain Ellis, wrote to me and all our parliamentary spokespersons on 2 March to say:
“Our view is that delay is actually unworkable”.
Last week, the head of the SQA, Janet Brown, warned the Education and Culture Committee that continuing to offer standard grades—so-called triple running—is not tenable. She said:
“the additional risk to our ability to deliver a successful diet would be over the top. The option of triple running is simply not viable.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 28 February 2012; c 811.]
We need to listen to those compelling voices.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
No. I want to make progress and I do not have much time.
Although those voices are indeed compelling, I am listening to every single voice. Education Scotland continues to work with local authorities and a new support package will be put in place. We will do everything we can, but we should do it within the context of ensuring that the people who need additional help and support get it. I do not believe that any teacher in Scotland who has the right support, the right help and the right leadership—which will come from the Government, from Education Scotland, from their local authority and from within their school—cannot rise to the challenge and deliver the conclusion of a programme that has been eight years in the making.
Curriculum for excellence is the most important educational reform programme in our generation. It is not a revolution but a wide-ranging process of transformational change that will make our education system fit for the 21st century and improve our children’s achievements, attainment and life chances. We are preparing young people to take on jobs and start up new businesses using technologies that have yet to be invented and brought to market; we are preparing children for an unknown world and we need to have the courage to go ahead with this long-lasting programme.
In conclusion, I quote Rod Grant, the head of Clifton Hall school in Edinburgh, who in today’s Scotsman has said:
“the time has come to stop prevaricating and instead to be getting on with the business in hand. A further delay in CfE’s introduction serves no useful purpose but simply cements current uncertainties and worries and does nothing to improve secondary education in Scotland.”
Let us finish the job that we are doing.
I move amendment S4M-02242.3, to leave out from “however” to end and insert:
“the widespread support for Curriculum for Excellence from teachers, parents and learners, including the hundreds of teachers and other professionals involved in the development of these qualifications; recognises the risks to learners that could result from a wholesale delay in implementation; further welcomes the unprecedented levels of support that are already provided by national agencies and local authorities to ensure that teachers are confident in delivering Curriculum for Excellence; recognises that additional support has been and will continue to be offered on a school by school basis as required, and remains true to the vision of empowering teachers and working with parents and learners to deliver the right education for every child in Scotland.”
I call Liz Smith to speak to and move amendment S4M-02242.1. Ms Smith, you have five minutes. [Interruption.] It would be helpful if members did not speak across the chamber.
Ms Smith, you now have silence.
09:32
I thank Hugh Henry for bringing this timely debate to Parliament and for his suggestion that there are practical reasons for lodging the motion.
No matter whether we are talking about pupils, parents, teachers, education officers or politicians, there can be no doubt in anyone’s mind about the huge significance of the changes that are happening in our schools and the essential need for everyone who is involved to feel comfortable with them. Much is at stake, but I hope that none of us will forget that the ultimate criteria by which we should judge this issue are what is in the best educational interests of individual pupils and how we support their teachers and parents in meeting that objective.
We must also remember that this is not a debate about the merits or otherwise of curriculum for excellence or about building consensus—I believe that we have that already. We have had those debates and time has moved on. Nor is this a debate about whether it was wise to have such a long gap between publishing many of the course development materials and setting out the details of the exams—we have had that debate as well. We are not here to make out that our classrooms are in crisis, because they are not.
However, we need to deal with the reality in those classrooms, whether it is that as exposed in the EIS survey or by the many other teachers who are in different unions or none. Curriculum for excellence is happening and we must now ensure that schools can provide as smooth a passage as possible between the new courses and the new exams in an appropriate timescale.
As I understand it, the main message from the majority of schools—and indeed parents and pupils—is that there is no fundamental objection to the main principles of curriculum for excellence or the new exams that will accompany them. Debates are quite properly going on about whether there is enough academic rigour in curriculum for excellence, whether the articulation between schools and colleges or universities is right and about the wisdom of renaming some subjects, but the basic philosophy is not in dispute.
Let us remember why we are making these changes: we are seeking to make learning more meaningful for every pupil, to instil in them an understanding of not just what they are learning but why they are learning and to develop in them skills that are cross-curricular and more relevant to the very fast-changing world in which we live.
Cut away all the unhelpful jargon and the unwelcome political correctness, and curriculum for excellence asks all schools to think more deeply about what makes a rounded, well-educated human being who is both adaptable and responsible in modern society. Crucially, it allows schools to be more flexible, and it is on that point that I believe the Scottish Government has shown its greatest weakness.
Last week, the Education and Culture Committee was emphatically told by the director of education in East Renfrewshire that its headteachers unanimously wanted to delay implementation on account of the reports that they had received that teachers—and therefore their pupils—wanted additional security. He was not trying to score points off anybody or trying to score media points. He was merely acting in the best interests of his schools. We heard from the EIS—and it produced more evidence yesterday—that it, too, believes that many schools are not ready and that it would be better in such instances to leave things for another year.
Alternatively, we heard from the SQA and Education Scotland that many schools are ready to proceed, and they told us about the dangers of any widespread delay—aspects on which I think we can all agree. I hope that we also all agree that it is right for those schools to proceed, for reasons that I note are given in the letter from the headmaster of Clifton Hall school, which the cabinet secretary quoted. It would be ridiculous to argue otherwise. However, it is also ridiculous to argue that all schools must adhere to the same timescale, especially when the cabinet secretary has told some of them that they have special circumstances.
Frankly, I do not understand why we should be surprised about the different signals that are coming out from our schools. Curriculum for excellence is a major change. Different schools and departments are starting from different points. They have different pupil numbers and they offer different subject choices across different curriculum structures. Some are ready and some are not. It is by no means the first time that that has been the case in Scottish education. We have coped before and we will cope again without doing any damage to pupils’ education.
On top of that, parents and teachers are confused by the cabinet secretary’s public utterances. He offered the view that East Renfrewshire could be treated as a special case because it is not doing standard grades, but it turns out that that is not the whole picture.
The member knows this and I suspect that she was expecting me to say it, but I want to repeat it. The letter from the East Renfrewshire headteachers in the Times Educational Supplement Scotland of 24 February contains the phrase, at the end of the comments on the request for the delay:
“This is only possible because of our unique position.”
If the headteachers recognise that, the member should recognise it, too. They are asking for this because of their unique position. It is not possible for others.
The cabinet secretary told me that at committee as well, but the director of education said that there are two specific reasons. The second is that he feels that his schools are not ready.
I return to where I started. We must ensure that what we are doing is in the best interests of all pupils. I do not believe that any of us knows exactly what is happening on the ground in our schools. However, I believe that the schools themselves know that and, for that reason alone, they should be the ones who decide.
I move amendment S4M-02242.1, to leave out from “that, despite” to end and insert:
“the substantial concerns expressed by some teachers and professional bodies that specific schools or departments in some schools are not yet fully ready to introduce the new exams; regrets the confused messages issued by the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning about this whole issue, and calls on the Cabinet Secretary to make clear that a decision about whether or not the one year delay is in the best interests of pupils is entirely a matter for an individual school rather than for the Scottish Government.”
We move to the open debate. I remind members that the time for speeches is four minutes.
09:38
I begin by thanking Liz Smith. I did not necessarily agree with everything that she said, but her speech was a reasonable and reasoned argument of her point of view. I have to disagree with her opening remarks, though, about the timing of the debate. I share the cabinet secretary’s concern that the likely outcome is to stoke more anxiety among parents, pupils and teachers rather than to provide more information and reassurance. The proper place for the debate was the Education and Culture Committee. That is why I invited the various stakeholders to the committee, and I believe that that was the right thing to do.
Like Hugh Henry, let me give some quotes—I feel that it is going to be a morning of quotes, Presiding Officer. Let me start with:
“School staff at all levels are being demoralised by continual pressure for enormous change, unrealistic change, and change which is not being resourced ... There is no longer any belief among headteachers that what is demanded of schools can be achieved at any level of personal effort”.
I could go on, as I have much more in the same vein. That is not about the curriculum for excellence, though. It is about the introduction of the five-to-14 curriculum.
As we have seen over many years, every time there is change, particularly in education, there are genuine anxieties and fears at the point of change, so it is not unusual to see that this time. In fact, it would be unusual not to see anxiety and hear such comments at this time. However, let us not believe that those comments are different from what we would have heard during previous changes in the education system.
I am concerned that the motion mentions “widespread and persistent concerns”. I am not sure whether Hugh Henry has paid attention to what has happened in the Education and Culture Committee during the past two weeks, but the motion in no way reflects the reality of the oral and written evidence that the committee received. For Hugh Henry’s information, I will quote some of those who appeared.
I am sure that Stewart Maxwell recalls that the general secretary of the EIS, who gave evidence to the committee, reflected such concerns.
Let me quote what was said by the National Parent Forum, the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, the EIS and the SQA, which also gave evidence to the committee. Mr Lanagan from ADES said:
“There is no doubt that such decisions have led the media and some political commentators to make criticisms of the system that I do not think are justified or reflect views that are as widely held as people seem to believe that they are.”
Mr Maxwell, from the EIS, said:
“a delay would mean a huge loss of momentum for the programme and, as Janet Brown has outlined, it would have a great opportunity cost in terms of not getting the benefits of curriculum for excellence for young people in Scotland.”
Dr Janet Brown, from the SQA, said:
“It is important for our young people that we implement it as soon as possible, because it will make them and Scotland successful. Any delay will also delay that success, which is a crucial point for us to remember.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 28 February 2012; c 786, 809.]
It is vital that we hear from the experts and from all sources, but it is particularly important that we hear from parents. The National Parent Forum has said:
“In the light of recent suggestions from some quarters that delivery of National qualifications should be delayed, we are writing to express our concern. Our view is that delay in actually unworkable ... It makes no sense to us.”
It is clear that there is a huge amount of support for curriculum for excellence among members, which is why I regret that the Labour Party has tried to cause fog and confusion in the area.
I will conclude my short four minutes by talking about the timeline. Labour members have suggested that some sort of big bang will occur with curriculum for excellence in April and May this year, and that teachers will have but a few short weeks to go from nothing to everything and provide examinations. That is not the case. It is a false premise and it is rather disgraceful of Labour to perpetuate such a myth. There will be no big bang. I could quote extensively from the SQA. Many draft documents are already online and we should commend the work that has been done to ensure, as far as possible, a smooth transition to the new qualifications. A delay would result in a patchwork education system across the country and that would be in no one’s interests.
09:43
Labour did not bring forward the debate today because we disagree with curriculum for excellence. The opposite is true; it is because we support curriculum for excellence and the important part that it can play in improving education for all our pupils that we raise concerns on behalf of teachers and parents today. It is vital that teachers and parents are confident in the planned changes and that they feel that they are fully prepared to securely implement the new national qualifications.
Teachers are caring professionals who want to provide the best possible education for our children and we must give them the required support and time so that they can do their job to the best of their ability. We must therefore listen to what teachers and parents are saying. They are undoubtedly concerned about the lack of support that they have received to date to securely implement the new qualifications. According to one of the biggest surveys of its members that the EIS has ever conducted, 82 per cent of teachers feel that the support that has been received to date from the Scottish Government is unsatisfactory.
I acknowledge that a full Education Scotland audit of schools’ preparedness for the introduction of the new qualifications is important, but it is worrying that members of Parliament do not know right now how many schools are prepared and how many are not. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s commitment to giving schools and teachers whatever support is necessary, but the truth is that many feel that they might need more time and breathing space to securely implement the new qualifications 4 and 5.
Teachers tell us that it is all very well saying that draft materials have been published, but there is a lack of sufficient knowledge about the exams to deliver courses. Although the exams will not be until 2014, schools that have the two-plus-two structure are giving second-year pupils their choices now and will begin to deliver courses in June this year. That is what teachers tell us. Many teachers feel that four weeks is not long enough for them to read the materials, consider the implications for practice and learning, discuss with colleagues and develop teaching courses, content and materials.
We should know what evaluation has been done to identify the emerging norms across the country, given that the schools and education authorities have been deciding their own structures for curriculum for excellence. That information should be known by now—in fact, it should have been known before now.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I do not have enough time. I hope that the cabinet secretary will listen to what we have to say.
With the summer fast approaching, we worry that time is running out. I sincerely hope that the audit and subsequent support will not be too little, too late. The cabinet secretary quoted the SQA’s comment that it is not viable to run the new national qualifications, intermediates and standard grades at the same time because the body does not have enough resources. To ensure that all children in Scotland have the same safeguards for their education and life chances, what solution will the cabinet secretary consider if a delay is necessary?
As we have heard, East Renfrewshire Council is delaying implementation. It is the best-performing education authority in Scotland, so it would be careless not to take into account what it says. Although East Renfrewshire is unique in delaying, it reached its decision because teachers and headteachers unanimously agreed that, if the new qualifications could not be securely implemented, implementation would not be in the best interests of young people in the area. East Renfrewshire is in a unique position, but if other schools or authorities cannot securely implement the new national qualifications, the cabinet secretary needs to come up with a solution to that problem.
We need to listen to what teachers and parents say. As I said, Labour brought the debate to Parliament to raise with the cabinet secretary the serious concerns of teachers and parents. We welcome his commitment to listening to those concerns, but he must now provide the necessary solutions to deal with the problems as soon as possible.
09:47
We have talked a lot about the reasons for introducing curriculum for excellence, which is underpinned by the four principles of producing successful learners, confident individuals, responsible citizens and effective contributors. However, have we forgotten why the curriculum for excellence was necessary? We have not talked about the problems with the existing system. Too much of the teaching material skates over the surface of issues; children are passive in their lessons; lessons are fragmented; and pupils are not rewarded for practical achievements such as the Duke of Edinburgh awards.
I should declare an interest in that I am a councillor in North Lanarkshire and I am married to a National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers representative.
The Opposition has offered anecdotal evidence, which is not the basis for good policy, but I point out that my son is just going through his standard grade English, and he is sitting it in third year, not fifth year. I mention that lest we forget that there are a variety of ways of implementing standard grade across Scotland. In fourth, fifth and sixth year, which is when pupils normally present for standard grade, there are problems with people spending too much time doing unit tests, preliminaries, coursework and exams and too little time learning new things. I have seen that in my child’s case in relation to folios. I know from living with an English teacher for many years, and from other anecdotal evidence, about the pressures in schools at folio time. The standard grade system is not ideal, so it is necessary to change it.
I am not an educationist, although I know that many of the members taking part in the debate are, but I am a mathematics and statistics graduate. Although 70 per cent of teachers saying that they are not ready for curriculum for excellence is a good headline, actually 73 per cent of EIS members did not respond to the survey asking whether they had problems with their workload or with readiness for curriculum for excellence. So 73 per cent of teachers did not feel it necessary to respond.
I am not at all complacent about those who have raised concerns, but—[Interruption.]
Mr Findlay and Mr Russell, please let the member speak.
The cabinet secretary could not have been clearer in his commitment to provide support for any individual teacher, department or school that experiences problems. In fact, Hanzala Malik raised the issue—he drilled down into it—during this week’s Education and Culture Committee meeting and received an assurance from Education Scotland and the cabinet secretary that individual teachers could self-refer if they had a problem.
Although I am not an educationist, I have considerable experience of project management, so I know that delay means cost. There will be cost attached to the capacity issues in those organisations that have to cope with the delay. Where will we find markers if we end up with a triple-running nightmare scenario? How will schools’ timetabling arrangements be affected if three different projects are run at once? How will that help us advance educationally? East Renfrewshire is unique. There is no impact on capacity, the SQA or timetabling arrangements, because the council does not do standard grade. To delay, even in part, and end up with a triple-running nightmare scenario in Scotland would be the worst possible outcome for our young people.
I recently visited the Scottish Poetry Library and the Scottish Book Trust, which are working incredibly hard to deliver excellent online programmes for curriculum for excellence. The whole of civic Scotland is behind curriculum for excellence and today we in this Parliament should get behind it, too.
09:51
As Stewart Maxwell has said, this debate follows on from two detailed Education and Culture Committee meetings in the past fortnight with the cabinet secretary and a wide range of expert witnesses. That illustrates the importance that everyone in the chamber attaches to the issue.
At Tuesday’s committee meeting, Michael Russell set the scene by highlighting, quite properly, the long-standing cross-party support for curriculum for excellence, which was initiated by the previous Executive and developed—for the reasons ably outlined by Clare Adamson—by the current Administration.
I have a quibble with Michael Russell’s selective memory of the political architects of curriculum for excellence, notably his omission of my colleague Nicol Stephen’s central role in the early days. I recognise, however, that, by quoting Messrs Peacock and Macintosh, Mr Russell was more interested in making a point to Labour members.
I agreed with a great deal of the cabinet secretary’s remarks on Tuesday and this morning, not least his views on the contribution that curriculum for excellence can make to enhancing the education of all our children and young people, and on the phenomenal amount of work put in by teachers in schools throughout Scotland, supported by Education Scotland, the SQA, councils and others.
However, one of the cabinet secretary’s comments stood out. It was not his remarkable assertion that, since becoming cabinet secretary,
“I have delivered on every commitment that I have made”,
which I am fairly certain would have prompted quite a bit of coffee to hit the walls of staff rooms throughout the country, not to mention walls in the homes of newly qualified teachers who would dearly love to be sitting in staff rooms somewhere in Scotland. Neither was it the education secretary’s commendable self-effacement in declaring that
“this is not about me”.—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 6 March 2012; c 823.]
Rather, it was his statement—and he was absolutely right about this—that this is about the young people in our schools. That is what motivated the Education and Culture Committee to take evidence on the issue, just as it is the absolute priority of everyone in the chamber for this debate. Whatever our view on whether a particular school or department should be allowed to delay proceeding with the new exams, it is entirely wrong for any of us to claim a monopoly on concern for the welfare of our young people.
In the limited time available, I want to signpost elements of what I have found to be informative evidence sessions in committee over the past two weeks. The evidence has reinforced my belief that a general wholesale delay in implementing the new exams is neither necessary nor desirable—a point which, as other members have noted, the National Parent Forum has also made. The evidence has also confirmed my sense that problems remain that cannot be ignored.
I am not suggesting that Mr Russell is ignoring the problems. I welcome the audit that was announced earlier this week and the additional support being made available through Education Scotland to teachers and schools that feel that they are struggling, which mirrors a similar exercise earlier in the process. However, the fact remains that with each passing week we are getting closer to the point when individual schools will need to decide whether they are sufficiently confident in their ability to deliver the new exams to proceed.
There are risks in delay, as the SQA and the cabinet secretary have emphasised, but I do not believe that any school or department would go down that route without extensive discussions with pupils, parents, local authorities and Education Scotland. Such a decision must be based only on sound and demonstrable reasons.
I am not suggesting anything that Mr Russell himself has not already accepted. On Tuesday, despite earlier pronouncements about the need for all schools to press ahead regardless, he finally conceded that, if there is any need to delay,
“the decision will ultimately be one that schools will want to make in the best interests of their pupils and their entire school community.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 6 March 2012; c 825.]
Precisely.
Although I welcome that belated acknowledgement—as I welcome the extra support that is being provided for those who need it—I am concerned about Mr Russell’s view that any final decision on a school’s preparedness to present pupils for the new exams can be taken only in the summer. That may be appropriate for some schools, but it could be too late for others that feel that they need to start making alternative arrangements sooner, not least to allow course choices to be made.
When Scotland’s best-performing education authority makes it plain that every one of its secondary headteachers lacks confidence in proceeding with the new exams and that a decision to delay must be made in good time to allow alternatives to be put in place, it is unsurprising that teachers with concerns elsewhere in the country have taken note. The circumstances are different in East Renfrewshire, but it is not credible to argue that the concerns that are being expressed by headteachers there are unique, nor that a decision to delay needs to be taken early in East Renfrewshire but can be postponed until the summer in every other part of the country.
The Scottish Liberal Democrats remain entirely committed to curriculum for excellence. We believe that its roll-out in our secondary schools can have and is having a hugely positive impact in enriching the education that we provide to our young people. However, different schools and departments are at different stages of preparedness for the new exams. It would be a mistake to force teachers to proceed this year against their better judgment, as it would be to prevent people from taking sufficient time to make alternative plans.
09:56
Members will gather that I am not speaking in my normal voice today because of a cold—I hope that I will be able to last for four minutes.
It is gratifying to hear that there is consensus in the chamber on curriculum for excellence, that all members are supportive of it and that it is right for our pupils and young people of the future. However, it is disconcerting that we have heard only negative comments from Hugh Henry and Neil Bibby about the concerns and anxieties that exist among parents and teachers. It is not all parents and teachers, but some parents and teachers who share those anxieties and concerns, which I believe are being fuelled by Hugh Henry and the Labour Party. He said that he hopes that he is wrong; I believe that he is wrong. The majority of teachers and parents are comfortable with the programme that has been set out. The draft guidance was available in the autumn, and we are told that we will have the final guidance in April. In the interim, teachers have been able to sign up to any changes through the guidance procedure.
I understand that it is great to get up at party conferences and grandstand in front of one’s own supporters and party members, but I do not think that it was helpful of Mr Henry to accuse the cabinet secretary of being “arrogant and bull-headed”. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will be able to defend himself against those accusations; I am more concerned about Mr Henry’s subsequent comment that the cabinet secretary does not listen. The cabinet secretary has often said in the chamber that he is listening. He is willing to listen, he does listen and he takes things on board. He wants to work in co-operation with not just the teachers and parents of children in Scotland, but the parties in the chamber to proceed with a positive agenda on the important issue of our children’s future.
I agree with virtually everything that was said by Liz Smith, who made some valid comments. My friend and colleague Stewart Maxwell put the issues into context. Neil Bibby’s concerns were addressed by Bill Maxwell at the Education and Culture Committee on 6 March, when his questions were answered in detail. I hope that Labour takes cognisance of what was said at that meeting. I hope that Labour will also take some guidance from Labour member Hanzala Malik, whose approach is consensual. He seems to be more comfortable with what the cabinet secretary has said and with the answers that were given at the committee meeting.
My plea to Hugh Henry and the Labour Party is that they listen to Hanzala Malik, who has a good point. If we can move forward, that will benefit our young people, Scotland and curriculum for excellence in the future.
10:00
We have made it clear today that Scottish Labour supports the curriculum for excellence and wants it to work for our schools, teachers and children. We want it to be implemented in the smoothest manner possible. If it is implemented correctly, it will have the opportunity to deliver benefits for pupils and to offer them a more comprehensive and more broadly based education. Contrary to what the cabinet secretary seems to think, we have nothing against change.
The curriculum for excellence is our children’s future, which is why it needs to be done right—not railroaded through when schools and parents have genuine concerns about its implementation. When unions, teachers, headteachers, parents and councils are asking the Scottish National Party Government to stop and listen, the Government needs to do that. If parents and teachers do not feel confident in the new system, it will not work. If the SNP continues to refuse to listen to their growing concerns, we cannot blame them for losing trust in the SNP on the education portfolio.
The Government needs to look at the evidence across Scotland, because we can ill afford to gamble with our young people’s future. A previous EIS survey found that more than half of classroom practitioners
“do not feel confident in their own personal state of readiness”.
The results of the latest EIS survey are even more worrying—70 per cent of respondents were “barely confident” or “not confident at all” about their department’s readiness to deliver the new qualifications on the current timescale, while less than 5 per cent of respondents were confident that their department could deliver the exams on time. Those figures are hugely significant and the Government needs to listen to the concerns that our teachers have expressed.
Ann Ballinger, the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association’s general secretary, said that teachers were “in some distress” about the changes and that they were
“hugely concerned that things are not going to be ready in time”.
She repeated that concern on Tuesday night’s “Newsnight Scotland”. I am afraid that, rather than reassuring me and watching parents, the response to her from Terry Lanagan of the Association of Directors of Education served only to make me even more concerned.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry—I am very short of time.
Parents are making the same comments and are—rightly—concerned for their children’s future. On BBC Radio Scotland’s “Call Kaye” programme, they branded the situation farcical, a shambles, a mess and a disaster. One parent who is also a teacher said:
“My child is in S1 and I’m terrified about it. Colleagues there don’t even have the exam content yet. Farcical”.
Another person said:
“I don’t think that the teachers would be complaining like that if they didn’t have reason. There’s no smoke without fire.”
These are real fears and concerns from real people, who need assurances that the system will be implemented properly and not rushed.
We have spoken about East Renfrewshire, so I will not comment on that.
The Scottish Secondary Teachers Association found that 45 per cent of respondents to a survey said that pupils in their schools were still making their subject choices at the end of second year, while 46 per cent were making their choices at the end of third year. There is no consistency, which is creating confusion. If a pupil moved from a local authority area that had delayed implementation to an area that had not delayed it, how would that affect that child’s education?
We welcome the announcement of an Education Scotland audit and the extra support that will be offered to schools that need it. I urge the Government to act on the audit’s findings, to consider the evidence that is at hand, to listen to the concerns of parents and teachers and not to gamble with our young people’s future by railroading through the policy when schools are not ready for it.
10:05
“Mr Mainwaring, we’re doomed.” Yet again, that is the subtext—well, that is what my notes say, but, come to think of it, it is more like the text itself.
I have often remarked that Labour Party front-bench members seem to live in a different world when it comes to their analyses. Today, I am glad that that is the case, because that world is a very bleak place indeed. Across Scotland, there are young people in second year and their parents who are hearing nothing but messages of fear and exaggeration, which are being spread—to be blunt—for the purpose of scoring political points. However, we must remember the aim: curriculum for excellence is a reform of education that is to bring about generational change—
Will the member give way?
I am 45 seconds in; I cannot have said anything that Mr Findlay particularly dislikes yet. He should sit down.
Curriculum for excellence is a wholesale change of direction and methodology. Ronnie Summers, the headteacher of Musselburgh grammar school, said:
“We are in the middle of a seven-year development programme and while any change programme is demanding, a delay is not in the interest of the current S2 group. We are not hearing a clamour for delay from school staff or parents.”
We could trade quotes for the four minutes of my speech—or the two minutes and 40 seconds that I have left—and Mr Henry certainly quoted a number of teachers. He also left 50,000 more unquoted. As the cabinet secretary said, where cases of the sort that Mr Henry mentioned arise, Education Scotland and local authorities should engage them in support. As far as we can tell, that is what is happening. No department or teacher should be afraid of asking for help. Just as support was offered before, it will be offered again. As a member of the Education and Culture Committee, I look forward to finding out more details of the support that is on offer, as I am sure that that is an issue that we will continue to examine. I also welcome the deep audit that is being run by Education Scotland, which will help to identify the support needs.
What matters are the 54,000 pupils in secondary 2. They and all the cohorts that follow them deserve the chance to be assessed using the same methodologies and philosophies of curriculum for excellence through which they have been taught. What matters now is getting it right. We cannot get it right by putting it off. We are past the point when standard grades could have been extended for one last gasp, and there was never a point when it would have been reasonable to make the entire country’s schools decant to intermediates for only one year before decanting again to nationals. If we had done that, I am sure that the EIS would be getting more than a 10 per cent response rate to their survey on the issue. Doing that would have let down pupils and created even more of an administrative obstacle for teachers. Of course, that is assuming that, if there were to be such a wholesale delay, moving to nationals would still be the aim—I hope that it is the aim of everyone in this chamber who supports curriculum for excellence.
One of the core changes in curriculum for excellence is the move away from the frenetic focus on repeated assessment. The pressure that Scotland puts on its young people is intense and unnecessarily duplicating. That is why nationals are one-year courses rather than the two-year standard grade courses and why we are introducing the three plus three model.
We should not underestimate the concerns that have been expressed. They are real, but they are best responded to by support, which is in place and is moving further into place with every passing week. We should also not underestimate the prize that is on offer. Secure implementation is important, but wholesale delay is impossible. Rather than unproductive speeches, such as the one that Hugh Henry gave at the Labour conference, we should hear about the ways in which we can continue to support schools so that, together, we can provide confidence to pupils and parents and ensure the successful delivery of curriculum for excellence.
10:09
This has been a very good debate in which the different points have reflected the differences in our schools, which is quite natural. I am grateful to Dennis Robertson for putting his finger on one of the crucial points, which is that the cabinet secretary is a bully and arrogant. Where could Mr Robertson ever have got that impression from?
I do not believe that schools should ever have been put in this predicament in the first place. I have no doubt whatever that the professionals who have been involved for the past eight years, whether SQA, Education Scotland or directors of education in our local authorities, have been working extremely hard, along with our teachers, to ensure that curriculum for excellence goes as smoothly as possible. However, with hindsight I think that the Scottish Government was ill advised to allow quite such a long time to elapse between course development and the publication of the exam details.
I understand Janet Brown’s important point that exams should not dictate everything—she is absolutely right in that—and her point that exams should reflect the course work rather than the other way round. However, I also understand the natural anxiety of parents, pupils and, of course, teachers, because pupils want to ensure that they have the widest possible knowledge available as they make their subject choices, which, whether we like it or not, are the defining element in a child’s school career and what they decide to go on to in later life.
I worry that there is a cohort of teachers out there, even if we do not know its true size or the quotes that they might give us in private, who for one reason or another feel that they do not quite have enough information on which to build their course development. I may be wrong, but I do not think that many of those teachers are scaremongering; rather, they are anxious about what will happen to them if they cannot deliver on time and if they speak out.
We have all had their e-mails, which are articulate, coherent, informed and which plead with us to help them. I have one here from a teacher in a school that the cabinet secretary visited recently—I will not embarrass him by reading it out—who said that he was utterly astonished to hear that his school was supposedly on track to deliver the new exams, when that is clearly not the case. Moreover, I understand from my good colleague Jamie McGrigor that the cabinet secretary was confronted yesterday on that very point by a teacher from Campbeltown, who said that his school was not yet ready.
May I clarify that point? Perhaps Mr McGrigor will want to reflect on whether he should have recounted a private conversation that took place during a school visit but, that aside, I hope that Mr McGrigor will also relate to the member the conversation that I had with the teacher, in which I indicated the ways in which additional support and help could, I hoped, be provided to him. Mr McGrigor’s quoting of that conversation is extremely unhelpful, given that the individual concerned might now be identified. However, I am happy to say that help will be provided to the entire school. We look for a mechanism to encourage teachers to come forward and get the help that they need, which is not helped by the type of action that the member has just taken by reporting a private conversation.
Mr McGrigor is also on record as saying that the cabinet secretary did deal with the question, but it was in a report of a public meeting of Parliament.
It was a private conversation.
No, it was not. The cabinet secretary will forgive me for saying so, but many other teachers have said exactly the same thing as the teacher concerned and there is nothing wrong in doing that, nor is there anything wrong in our reporting that.
A very serious concern is raised if when someone raises an issue, the cabinet secretary has to try to allay their fears and say that there will be some sort of protection if they approach someone in authority—their boss or whoever.
That is entirely a matter for the cabinet secretary to address.
As I said in my opening speech, the scale of the change and the fact that schools do not and should not all offer the same examination diet is why we need to accept that the pace will be different in different schools. Of course, such differences are entirely in line with the basic principles of curriculum for excellence. We have had staged changes before and no doubt we will have them again. I do not see anything wrong in that, providing that there are sound educational reasons for doing it.
We must judge the whole debate on sound educational reasons. Those are the crucial factor. Nothing else matters.
10:14
I am pleased to close for the Government in this debate on curriculum for excellence. I certainly welcome the curriculum’s successful implementation across Scotland. We must not underestimate how important it is for our young people and for Scotland’s future, which is what we should all be concerned about today. I am sure that we are, despite—I regret to say—the occasional evidence of my ears to the contrary from some quarters this morning.
I welcome the reaffirmed support for curriculum for excellence that has been expressed today. Local authorities, nurseries, schools, colleges and their dedicated staff throughout Scotland have all made good progress in implementing curriculum for excellence, particularly in the past two years. Every time that I visit schools—a regular part of my job—I see that the new curriculum is already making a real improvement to learning and teaching.
As Ken Macintosh rightly stated in Parliament in March 2008,
“there has been broad political agreement on the aims and agenda of the curriculum for excellence—a move away from the dominance of exams and teaching to the test; a decluttering of the overcrowded curriculum; more room for teachers to teach”.—[Official Report, 19 March 2008; c 7063.]
We must not forget those aims.
Although formal assessment for the qualifications is not intended to begin prior to fourth year, learning during the broad general education—up to the end of S3—will contribute to learning for the qualifications in S4 and beyond. Therefore, the implementation of the new qualifications for pupils who will be in S4 in 2013-14 is a key milestone in the implementation process.
Let me be clear: we cannot countenance wholesale delay of these qualifications. To do so would undermine the learning that our young people who are currently in S2 have followed since they were in primary school—a point that Marco Biagi made.
Hugh Henry said that we should not gamble with the future of our young people and nor should we. Delay would represent such a gamble. We should not underestimate the risks to learners that are associated with asking them to change a course that they have been on since 2009. The intermediates will not build on the curriculum for excellence-based learning that pupils should have experienced in S1 to S3, and those who call for a delay must remember that.
I feel the need to reiterate the point that we cannot run three examination systems simultaneously in Scotland, which, as the SQA has pointed out, is the implication of wholesale delay. Liz Smith and Liam McArthur made reasoned and measured contributions on the whole but, in their comments about East Renfrewshire Council, they overlooked the fact that it, uniquely, would not find itself in that position and, therefore, does not have much to teach us about the national situation.
The Government is committed to providing additional support to teachers or schools over and above the unprecedented levels of support that are already being provided where it is felt that that is needed to ensure that they are prepared for the new qualifications. To respond to Neil Bibby on that point, 300 such events are planned around Scotland to help to achieve that, together with a deep audit that will involve speaking to all Scotland’s schools.
As Stewart Maxwell and Clare Adamson pointed out, we have heard, and continue to hear, many calls against any delay from parents, teachers, headteachers, directors of education and others.
Is it not also the case that the former Labour Minister for Education and Young People, Peter Peacock, believes that there should be no delay in implementing curriculum for excellence? Is it not also the case that, in 2006, when Mr Peacock unfortunately had to give up being minister because of illness, there was a delay of six months and the incoming SNP Government had to go hell for leather to get curriculum for excellence back on track? During those six months, the education minister was none other than Hugh Henry. He may have fine words now about jeopardising curriculum for excellence, but his actions speak louder than those words.
I am always happy to hear support from wherever it may come.
I have phoned parent council chairs in Scottish schools over recent weeks and have yet to speak to one who wants the Government to take the advice that Mr Henry offers us on delay.
I must also say that, when Margaret McDougall wondered in her speech what would happen if a child moved from an authority that had delayed to one that had not, she rather undermined the case for allowing local authorities to delay.
Hanzala Malik offered a much more measured opinion in committee this week—other members have alluded to it—when he said:
“There are still grey areas on the mechanism for support”,
but
“once those become clear … many of the concerns will evaporate quickly.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 6 March 2012; c 840.]
When dealing with the future of our young people, all members have a duty not to feel compelled to fuel headlines that have a less-than-simple relationship with the facts.
Will the minister give way?
I am afraid that I must close shortly.
We have the opportunity today to send another powerful signal to teachers, parents, employers and learners that the Scottish Parliament appreciates and continues to back all their excellent efforts to make curriculum for excellence the success that we want and need it to be. We have a chance to give young Scots an even better education and to improve their life chances.
We have a chance to make it clear that the package of support that we have developed means that schools throughout Scotland should be in a position to do what we need them to do—that is, to get on with the introduction of the new qualifications that our young people expect us to deliver.
I trust that the Parliament will endorse what has been achieved across Scotland and look forward to the next stage in the journey. I hope that the Parliament will take that chance now and without delay.
10:20
I make it clear that curriculum for excellence was a Labour initiative, which should—and I am sure will—deliver benefits for our young people, as Hugh Henry said. It will give schools and teachers greater professional autonomy to develop exciting and innovative lessons, using a variety of new and traditional teaching methods that are tailored to meet the needs of individual pupils. It will also give pupils greater flexibility and control over their learning, so that they can study the topics that most interest them. All that is welcome and will build on the excellent work that goes on in our schools. I know about that work, because I have worked in primary and secondary schools across the central belt, many of which are grappling with the new curriculum.
I hope that we will get to the desired stage at which we will judge our schools and pupils not on crude measures of the number of highers that are achieved but on how secure and confident young people are in the broad education that they receive. However, the reality is that in secondary schools exams are, and are likely to remain, a major part of the currency. That is what is partly feeding into teachers’ concern.
It is regrettable that Mr Maxwell accused Labour of claiming that there is a big bang approach. If he reads the Official Report of the Education and Culture Committee, which he chairs, he will find that it was the general secretary of the EIS who said that.
Stewart Maxwell rose—
I will allow Mr Maxwell to intervene, so that he can apologise to Labour members.
Much as it might surprise Mr Findlay, I am not about to apologise to Labour members, because it is Labour members who have continually said, in and outwith the committee, that the first information will come in April or May and schools will have only four, six or eight weeks to implement curriculum for excellence. It is Mr Findlay and his colleagues who have been saying that and who should apologise to the teachers, parents and educationists who have been working on curriculum for excellence for many years.
It is teachers who are saying that, not Labour members.
I enjoyed—as I think all members did—Dennis Robertson’s cabaret turn in defence of the cabinet secretary’s obvious and well-known humility.
We should not have needed this debate. We should have been celebrating moving into the final implementation and exam phase of curriculum for excellence, almost a decade after introduction. Instead, there is growing concern, confusion and anxiety among parents, teachers and the wider school community. Those feelings have not been forced on people as a result of some dastardly plan that has been cooked up by the Labour Party, teaching unions or militant parents. There is no conspiracy to undermine the very curriculum that Labour is proud to have kicked off. The motion reiterates our support for the new curriculum.
However, there are many ifs and buts and there is much contradiction. Schools were initially told that they must introduce the new exams in 2014, except for single departments in “exceptional circumstances”. We then had the East Renfrewshire case, to which Liz Smith and Neil Bibby referred. The best-performing education authority in the country decided to defer implementation for a year. The head of the authority’s education department said that he had applied a three-stage test before he made his decision. He consulted parents, who agreed. He consulted teachers and heads, who agreed. He then took the decision, based on the best interests of his pupils. Those seem to me to be sound, education-based reasons for advocating a delay.
I make a quick point, which is that one of the parents—who chairs the Education and Culture Committee—said that he had not been consulted, so there are many question marks. I refer again to the letter from headteachers, which I quoted to Liz Smith. They said that delay was possible in East Renfrewshire only because of the unique circumstances there. I advise the member to read the letter, because that is what it says.
We have demonstrated that Mr Maxwell has a selective memory, so I think that he might have forgotten that he was consulted.
Will the member give way?
No, sorry—I want to move on.
Stewart Maxwell rose—
I have already allowed the member to intervene, so I ask him to please sit down.
Mr Maxwell, Mr Findlay is not taking an intervention.
Mr Bibby referred to the models in schools. We were told that schools had to move to a three plus three model of education and that those that did not would be
“supported out of that position.”
There are schools up and down the country that are not implementing the three plus three model. I have had numerous representations from people across Scotland, with some telling me that pupils will select subjects in S2, while others tell me that pupils will do so in S3. In some schools in my area, subjects are being chosen in S2, while in others a few miles away that is happening in S3, even though the schools are in the same authority area. Such cases are not, as has been claimed, isolated to East Renfrewshire.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I have to make some progress.
The recent SSTA survey estimated that in 45 per cent of schools pupils are still selecting subjects in S2—in other words, those schools are ignoring the advice that has been given. It is not difficult to see why parents are confused and worried. How many examinable subjects will pupils select? Members can pick any number they want between five and nine. Again, the position varies from school to school.
Liam McArthur mentioned the fact that Bill Maxwell, who is the head of Education Scotland, and the cabinet secretary said that there would be a deep audit of schools to gauge their readiness for the new exam. Although that is welcome—if late—I hope that they will also take account of the survey that many members have mentioned that was carried out by the EIS, which represents teachers at the chalkface. They include those whom Mr Henry referred to, who spoke out loudly, and those who were on Radio Scotland last week, who told the cabinet secretary about their concerns.
The survey received 2,700 responses, which is the biggest response that the union has ever had. In it, teachers said loud and clear, “We are not ready.” Seventy per cent of respondents said that they were “barely confident” in their department’s readiness for curriculum for excellence. An astonishing 80 per cent said that the Government’s support was “unsatisfactory”. That is extremely serious.
For the record, I point out that, of the 2,700 respondents, 648 did not fill in an answer to a single question and 58 per cent of them lacked confidence in an organisation that no longer exists. There are many questions that need to be asked about the survey. I am taking seriously the general information and am acting on it, and I ask the member to please acknowledge that.
There are many questions to be asked about a great many things. Unfortunately, we have not had the answers to them this morning.
I will raise the issues that the survey has raised when I meet Larry Flanagan, the general secretary of my union, this afternoon. I look forward to that meeting.
If support is to be given to help those who are not ready, how can Education Scotland provide it, given that such a large number of teachers are “barely confident” in their readiness for curriculum for excellence? In addition, I have real worries about what will be offered and how it will be offered. How will teachers be given the freedom and confidence to say without fear or managerial pressure that they, their department or their school needs help? Can the cabinet secretary—if he will listen for a second—guarantee that any teacher, department or headteacher who does not feel ready will be fully supported; that if they feel pressure from management, a system is in place that will protect them; and that the issues that they raise will be addressed? Can he make sure that any support that is offered goes directly to those who need it and is not filtered through, and potentially diluted by, their local authority?
We should remember that curriculum for excellence is being implemented against the backdrop of education cuts, decreasing opportunities for young teachers and a pensions dispute. It seems to me that teachers, new and old alike, are having to contend with various concerns all at once. Such conditions do not seem to be the best starting point for the new direction in Scottish education.
I hope that the cabinet secretary and everyone who is working in Scotland’s education system can have confidence in the new curriculum. It represents a great opportunity for our young people and we all want it to succeed, but we cannot and must not gamble with our future. If delay is the safety net, so be it. It is better to delay than to rush ahead and risk the future wellbeing of our young people. The cabinet secretary must listen to Scotland’s teachers and parents. It is rather sad that, today, he and his back benchers have repeatedly brought party politics into the debate.