Good morning. The first item of business is a statement by Michael Russell on the review of teacher employment. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.
09:15
It is often said that the quality of a nation’s education system is matched by the quality of its teachers. Scotland has a good education system that is supported by a high-quality teaching profession. At the outset, I commend the hard work of the tens of thousands of professional and dedicated teachers across Scotland.
Last month, the Parliament discussed improving learning outcomes. We recognised that a high-performing early years and school system is the single biggest tool to improve the employability and life chances of our young people. It is therefore right that we recognise the achievements of our teachers and pupils. At the same time, we need to be constantly ambitious for our education system. There is always scope for improvement, and we face the continuing challenge of working to reduce inequalities in our society, especially given the current economic climate, and of ensuring that our children and young people gain the skills and knowledge to enable them to thrive in a rapidly changing world.
The case for driving up the quality of teaching is compelling. A study that the American National Bureau of Economic Research recently published highlighted the fact that there is a clear relationship between the quality of teaching that a child receives and how much they earn and how well they get on socially in later life. The study, which was undertaken by leading educationists from Harvard and Columbia universities, concluded that every parent should
“place great value on having their child in the classroom of a high value-added teacher”.
In his report, “Teaching Scotland’s Future”, which was published in January 2011, Graham Donaldson said that
“the foundations of successful education lie in the quality of teachers and their leadership. High quality people achieve high quality outcomes”.
I share his belief in the fundamental role of teachers in shaping and delivering the learning outcomes that we all want to see. That is why I commissioned his groundbreaking report, which has challenged us to examine the way in which we train, develop and support our teachers.
“Teaching Scotland’s Future” offers us the opportunity to reinvigorate the concept of teacher professionalism. That opportunity was welcomed across the Parliament. In response, I established the national partnership group, which brings together the Government, universities, local authorities, the General Teaching Council for Scotland, teachers and other stakeholders to deliver the positive changes that we all want to see.
However, driving up the quality of teaching through improved training and development is only one part of the equation. Highly trained, highly skilled professionals require modern, flexible terms and conditions that will allow them to deliver the best possible education for our children. That is why I commissioned the independent review of teacher employment, which Professor Gerry McCormac led. I thank him and the six members of his review team for the work that they undertook in completing the important and unanimously agreed report “Advancing Professionalism in Teaching: The Report of the Review of Teacher Employment in Scotland”, which was published in September last year.
Since the report’s publication, I have been considering its messages and I have taken time to discuss the recommendations with education partners. Teachers, employers, trade unions and parents hold strong views about the issues that the review raised. It is right that, like Graham Donaldson’s review, Professor McCormac’s review acknowledges the strengths of Scotland’s education system but also highlights the challenges that we face. They are not challenges that we can ignore—that would not deliver the Parliament’s aspirations for improved outcomes.
The review builds on our current system’s strengths, including the arrangements that we have in place for negotiating changes to teachers’ terms and conditions. The review endorsed the Scottish negotiating committee for teachers and the local negotiating committees for teachers. The recommendations that relate to teachers’ terms and conditions are therefore rightly the responsibility of the Scottish negotiating committee for teachers. I am happy that the SNCT has agreed a work plan, which includes a clear timetable, and has established working groups to consider those recommendations.
Those issues are for the SNCT to discuss. I know that some of the discussions will be challenging, but at all times we must focus on how we support our teachers to maintain and build expertise, so that our education system can continue to deliver excellent outcomes for our children and young people. I assure members that the Scottish Government will play a full part in SNCT discussions to help realise positive change.
However, there are a number of recommendations that fall outwith the SNCT’s remit and, following engagement with key education stakeholders, I want to set out how those will be taken forward. Perhaps the most challenging of them is McCormac’s clear recommendation that the chartered teacher scheme should be discontinued. This is not a debate about the importance of continuing professional development or professionalism in our teaching profession. Through the national partnership group, we are already committed to delivering an enhanced model of professionalism for all teachers. Specifically, I have tasked the partnership group with considering how to deliver opportunities for teachers to work towards masters-level qualifications.
There are many excellent chartered teachers in schools across Scotland, but I am not convinced that the chartered teacher scheme remains the best model to provide the teaching profession with opportunities to improve and develop. We must do more, not least because the aspirations that prompted the creation of the chartered teacher scheme remain and, indeed, have been reinvigorated by Graham Donaldson’s report. This is an opportunity for us to design and develop frameworks that help us to move towards highly successful models of teaching that are seen elsewhere in the world, thereby encouraging a thirst for knowledge and intellectual ambition in the profession that will deliver improved outcomes for our children and young people.
We should aspire to a vision of teaching as a masters-level profession, and we should do so, first, by building on the chartered teacher scheme. It provides us with the opportunity to make a masters profession a reality. Moreover, chartered teachers and those who are in the process of becoming chartered teachers should be, and now will be, among the first to access these opportunities. In developing a masters-level profession, we will ensure that existing chartered teachers and those who are in the process of becoming chartered teachers are given credit for relevant professional development that they have already completed or are currently undertaking, and are encouraged to be the pathfinders in that process.
Although terms and conditions are rightly the responsibility of the SNCT, I want to assure chartered teachers and those who are working towards that standard that the Scottish Government, through our role with the SNCT, will work to recognise their position and their commitment in moving towards a masters qualification.
Raising standards across the board is ambitious, and rightly so—we should be ambitious. There will be many issues to consider in developing the proposals. I am sure that they can and will be understood by moving forward in the way that I suggest. I have therefore asked Education Scotland to work closely with key education stakeholders, including the Association of Chartered Teachers Scotland, the national partnership group and the GTCS, to take the issue forward, first with existing chartered teachers and those who are working towards that status.
Teacher training and development are not just about the acquisition of qualifications. We need to embed such developments in our induction-year activities and continuing professional development. Professor McCormac recommends that a new system of professional review and personal development—PRPD—should be introduced. I welcome that approach. Although there is an existing system of professional review and development, we know from Graham Donaldson’s review of teacher education that that system is applied inconsistently across the country. I believe that all teachers should be entitled to a structured opportunity to review their work and plan their development.
The ideas behind the recommendations are not new. McCormac’s recommendations on personal development echo those that McCrone made more than 10 years ago. The McCrone inquiry recommended the creation of an effective annual review process. It is time that Scottish education took that forward.
All professionals require the opportunity to reflect on how they go about their work. Teaching is no different, and if we are to achieve a strong, confident and reflective workforce, concepts such as professional review and personal development should be embraced, not rejected. Such ideas provide an opportunity to strengthen teaching as a whole.
The national partnership group is already looking at related issues as it considers the recommendations of “Teaching Scotland’s Future”. Equally, the GTCS is developing a system of professional update to help ensure that Scotland’s teachers maintain and develop their skills. I have therefore asked the national partnership group to work with the GTCS in considering the recommendations of McCormac that relate to professional development.
Finally, I want to address the issue, as Professor McCormac did, of how we use external experts in our schools. In keeping with the principles of curriculum for excellence, I am committed to helping to ensure that our children receive a broad education that suits their needs. We know that many schools have already created partnerships with universities, colleges, local employers or third sector and community groups. Such partnerships are to be welcomed. I am convinced that if we are to build a varied, pupil-centred education for all children and young people, it will be necessary for our schools and teachers to draw on a wide range of resources, including resources that might currently not be available.
Although there is broad agreement about those positive opportunities, there are also concerns. I have listened to stakeholder opinion on the issue, and I want to move forward with a measured approach. To start the process, I have asked Education Scotland to consider the current arrangements, to identify best practice and to recommend whether further safeguards or guidance are required.
To be clear, this work is not about replacing teachers or diluting their position at the centre of learning. Teaching should be done by teachers. Nor is it about finding ways in which savings could be made from local authority budgets. Indeed, I am explicitly ruling out the model that is proposed by Renfrewshire Council, or variants of it. Instead, I want to build on existing good practice.
In taking forward the McCormac recommendations, there is a great deal of hard and detailed work to be done. I do not want to rush what will be sensitive discussions, but equally I want progress to be made by all the working groups, including the SNCT, by the autumn of this year. Ultimately, I expect a new teachers agreement by April 2013, which will allow any new arrangements to be in place for the new school session that starts in August 2013.
As ever, the stakes are high. Scotland’s young people deserve to receive the best possible education. They deserve a flexible curriculum that is responsive to their needs as learners, and curriculum for excellence is delivering that. They also deserve to be taught by skilled and motivated teachers who are supported by the right terms and conditions. Our work in taking forward the recommendations of “Teaching Scotland’s Future” and “Advancing Professionalism in Teaching” will help to deliver that aspiration.
If we are to offer the best possible educational experience, these are challenges that we must face together, and I invite all parties to play their part in this agenda for positive change.
I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of his statement.
The McCrone review was about improving morale in Scottish education, supporting professionalism among teachers and fairly rewarding experience and expertise. The McCormac review, on the other hand, will, I fear, help to destabilise and demoralise the teaching profession. It is a charter for cost cutting by managers and is an academic fig leaf to allow the Scottish National Party Government to facilitate budget cuts across Scotland, building on previous education betrayals by the SNP, including the pledge to cut class sizes and the pledge to maintain teacher numbers.
I disagree profoundly with the cabinet secretary’s decision to abandon the chartered teacher scheme. I believe that it can be amended and improved, but the concept—that we should find a way of supporting and rewarding excellent teachers who want to remain in the classroom—remains the right one. The cabinet secretary has said nothing about supporting teachers who see that as a preferred career option.
I welcome the cabinet secretary’s rejection of the Renfrewshire Council model of replacing teachers with unqualified staff, and I hope that any suggestion of bringing others into our schools will be based on teacher professionalism, with proper safeguards and checks built in.
I do not oppose the idea of supporting teachers to improve and develop their skills, but does the cabinet secretary recognise that there are fears that there could be an attempt to introduce reaccreditation, and will he rule that out?
The cabinet secretary has said nothing about probationary teachers. Will he rule out any attempts to move away from the current structure on class contact time, and will he guarantee that hours will not be blocked to allow schools to use probationers to cover for absence?
I regret that the cabinet secretary has glossed over the key issues around conditions. Teachers should not have to do continuing professional development during school holidays. We should not casualise promoted posts by having temporary promotions based on the lowest salary point. Will he guarantee that he will not ignore the overwhelming response to McCormac from those who want the retention of annex B, the list of teacher duties, and annex E, the list of teacher tasks?
The idea that a unanimous report from a group as distinguished as the McCormac review group was designed to destabilise and demoralise Scottish education is so ridiculous that it devalues most of the rest of Mr Henry’s contribution. However, let me be positive about what we have announced today.
The move from the chartered teacher scheme to a masters profession fits well with the McCormac report, the Donaldson recommendations and education worldwide. If Mr Henry thinks back to when he was briefly in my job, he will realise that, worldwide, the desire to ensure a masters profession is something that has driven continuous improvement in teaching. The existing chartered teachers and those who are working towards that position are being given an opportunity to enter a masters profession as pathfinders. I think that many will welcome that and that it will, in time, be seen to drive the whole profession forward.
I am happy to give a commitment to the probationary teacher scheme. The fact that I did not mention changes to the scheme means that there will not be significant changes to it. Of course, from time to time there are always changes to any scheme as education moves forward and develops, but the probationary teacher scheme, which is a very important part of our teaching profession—indeed, it is world renowned—will remain in place.
I have been very clear since McCormac reported that we should try to discuss this in a calm and constructive way with all stakeholders. It was important that we did that, and that is why it has taken me several months to get to the stage of bringing my statement to the chamber. I repeat the closing words of that statement and commend them to Mr Henry, even having heard his contribution:
“I invite all parties to play their part in this agenda for positive change.”
If there are positive suggestions about how we could improve our approach, I am happy to listen to them; if, however, suggestions are merely reactionary and backward looking, I am afraid that they will do nothing to help Scotland’s education and Scotland’s young people.
I thank the cabinet secretary for prior sight of statement and wish him a speedy recovery in restoring his voice to its normal tone.
I want to ask the cabinet secretary about three things. First, he is well aware that some areas of the teaching profession are concerned—whether they are chartered teachers or not—about the fact that chartered teachers do not always have enough time to read up on their subject material given all the other curriculum for excellence and CPD material that they have to get through. How does he envisage the situation improving in the context of the McCormac recommendations?
Secondly, Gerry McCormac is on record as saying that he wants Scotland to look at best practice in other countries, at home and abroad. Apart from looking at the American examples that the cabinet secretary listed, what specific plans are there to make a comprehensive analysis of best practice in other countries?
Thirdly, recommendations 17 and 34 in the McCormac review encourage greater devolution of planning and staffing decisions to headteachers instead of leaving more responsibility with local government. Does the cabinet secretary agree with those recommendations, and if so, why does he feel it appropriate to say, in the context of the section about external experts,
“I am explicitly ruling out the model that is proposed by Renfrewshire Council, or variants of it”?
Irrespective of whether we agree with Renfrewshire Council’s decision, is it the cabinet secretary’s job to make that explicit statement?
I thank Liz Smith for her kind words. I recall that only last Thursday morning she was criticising my tone, so I am glad that absence has made the heart grow fonder.
On CPD, I welcome the constructive tone that Liz Smith has taken, and I hope that she will continue to contribute in that way, because we regard CPD as a very important element. That is demonstrated in many ways in the McCormac report and in what I have said today. We should be moving towards structured CPD that is challenging and leads to a masters-level profession. In other words, we should gather up CPD in a way that leads forward in terms of capability. Of course, Graham Donaldson was a member of the McCormac review, and those ideas are carried through into it. The proposals on professional review and personal development show how seriously we take the issue.
On best practice, the masters is based on a Finnish model that has been applied very successfully. I always look to examples from elsewhere, as does everybody in education. Some we reject. For example, we rejected the Swedish free schools model—which Liz Smith came close to supporting, but which she steered away from—on the grounds that we think that it is incompatible with the Scottish model of education and would not work here. We saw free schools in operation—indeed, we saw the same school as Michael Gove—but drew different conclusions as to how they might work here. I have talked to education ministers and educational practitioners in many different countries, and I will continue to do so. Part of the work that our researchers do in education is to look at examples worldwide to make sure that we understand what is happening elsewhere.
I think that Liz Smith referred to two different things in relation to the Renfrewshire model. As regards responsibility for staffing, before Christmas the Cameron report took forward, with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the idea of devolved school management. Implementation is still being worked on, and I am sure that we will see continued progress.
I say frankly that I think that the Renfrewshire model was wrong and would not work, and that to introduce it now would be a distraction. We need to consider existing good practice. That is what I have encouraged Education Scotland to do, and that will lead us forward in the right way. I think that even in Renfrewshire some people accept that the model was perhaps not the way in which they should have been going forward. To continue to talk about the model would be a distraction.
The McCormac recommendations have been welcomed by a number of organisations, including the Association of Headteachers and Deputes in Scotland, which also said that time for discussion is needed, to ensure that any changes are successful. Will the cabinet secretary elaborate on the rationale behind the timeline that he briefly outlined in his statement?
Yes. The timeline declares itself, to some extent. The current teaching salary agreement concludes in April 2013. The establishment of the McCormac review was agreed while that agreement was being negotiated and the intention was that the new agreement would be able to be in place around April 2013 or, at the latest, as the school session commences in August 2013.
The timescale is challenging, because there needs to be full discussion, as the member was right to say. Discussion is taking place. There will also be local authority elections on 3 May, and COSLA will perhaps not be fully functioning for a period. I am not putting pressure on people but I think that we should have a target date that all stakeholders recognise and agree to.
I welcome the cabinet secretary’s explicit ruling out of the model that was proposed by Renfrewshire Council, whereby teachers would be replaced with unqualified staff for 10 per cent of the school week. That is a slap in the face for Renfrewshire Council and the council leader who tried to introduce the model. Will the cabinet secretary give a guarantee to parents and teachers that there will be no dilution whatever in the teaching week in Scottish schools?
It is not a slap in the face at all. No progress is made in life unless people come up with ideas and discuss them. The ideas either go forward or are rejected. Mr Bibby’s approach flies in the face of evolution; there would be no progress for the human race at all—I think that perhaps that turns out to be true, as I look at the Labour benches.
Of course we will carefully discuss with all stakeholders any changes that are in the McCormac report and we will reach a negotiated agreement and settlement. I have made that point again and again and I could not be clearer about it. The moment when Mr Bibby asks me to hamstring the process is the moment when I say no. We must trust the negotiating skills of the unions, the local authorities and ourselves to try to get the best not just for teachers but for Scotland’s young people.
What measures are being taken to ensure that support is available for supply teachers, so that they have an opportunity to continue their professional development?
I have been keen to ensure that supply teachers are in the loop on CPD. Indeed, I have visited and addressed the organisation that is involved in that. I have made it clear on every occasion that supply teachers should be part of the CPD process, and I want that to continue to be the case.
It is important that every part of the teaching profession regards itself as involved in continuing professional development and a process of learning. Leaders of learning must themselves learn all the time. That is essential, and I am sure that no one in the teaching profession doubts it. We are trying to lay down an opportunity for that to happen in a structured fashion that produces real progress. Like all other teachers, including teachers who are temporarily out of the profession, supply teachers should have the opportunity to continue to update their skills.
Supply teachers would like a job first, before they do any CPD.
Given the uncertainty and confusion about the new curriculum, and given the absence of comment on tasks and flexibility of hours in his statement, will the cabinet secretary give teachers some idea of his thinking on those important issues? Maybe it is the man flu, but he is never usually so backward in giving his opinion.
I share Mr Findlay’s concern on the supply teacher issue, which I keep constantly under review. As Mr Findlay knows, local authorities make decisions all the time on how they should take forward those agreements. Indeed, I understand that the budget that Mr Findlay voted for, which was proposed by his council group in West Lothian, included savings on supply teachers. That perhaps indicates that, as the First Minister has pointed out, Mr Findlay has one position for Mr Findlay MSP and one for Mr Findlay as a councillor.
The issue of supply teachers continues to cause concern. We examine closely areas where there are shortages. I am waiting for information on where those shortages are and we will take the necessary action.
However, it is important that we take forward the issues in negotiation. Mr Findlay knows that payments for supply teachers were part of the negotiated settlement last year that was agreed to by the Educational Institute of Scotland and taken through the SNCT process, and therefore finalised by all parties. As it was agreed to, it can be returned to if any of the parties wish to return to it, and then there will be a formal negotiation. However, let us get the evidence first, rather than treating the issue as a campaigning cause with nothing other than political advantage in mind.
I remind members that their questions must be based on the cabinet secretary’s statement.
I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement and empathise with his struggle against the man flu.
I associate myself entirely with the cabinet secretary’s comments about the importance of high-quality teaching to the success of our education system. He seems to accept that the need that gave rise to the creation of the chartered teacher scheme still exists and that such teachers add value. Why, then, is he unwilling to develop and enhance the existing scheme and would rather rip it up and start again?
The cabinet secretary has accepted the valuable contribution that external experts can and do make, but states that
“Teaching should be done by teachers.”
We know that he rejects the Renfrewshire model, but can he be a little more precise on what he presumably sees as the non-teaching role that those external experts can perform?
On the second point, I have asked Education Scotland to look at existing best practice, and that will take us forward.
I stress that my statement was absolutely clear on the chartered teacher scheme. I am not ripping it up and starting again. I went out of my way to say how important the scheme had been for its time but that we needed to move on and do more. I said that we could add to the scheme by moving to a masters-level profession and that the people best able to take us there were existing chartered teachers and those who were training to be chartered teachers. I expressed my support for them and opened that opportunity up to them. The member’s question was based on a false premise, and I hope that he will accept that he got that part wrong.
The cabinet secretary said in his statement that chartered teachers should be among the first to access the new professional development opportunities. What specific assurances can he give teachers who invested a great deal of time and effort in achieving chartered status that they will be able to use any new arrangement to build on the recognition that they currently enjoy through the scheme? In effect, what flesh can we put on the bones of the word “credit”?
I am sure that Mr Campbell wants to rely on my word; others in the chamber apparently have difficulty in so doing.
I made it clear in my statement that those who are chartered teachers and those who are in the process of becoming chartered teachers are encouraged to be the pathfinders in the move towards masters degrees. I indicated that they would be given credit for previous work done; indeed, I have met and made that point to the Association of Chartered Teachers Scotland, and my officials will continue to have those discussions. It is my intention that chartered teachers be given every opportunity to continue their progress and be supported in the work that they have done and will continue to do in their new role.
Will the approach outlined by the cabinet secretary today impact on the education of teachers at university level? If so, will he tell us what arrangements have been made to take that forward?
I indicated in my statement that universities were a key partner in every part of this. Discussions are taking place with the universities as partners—for example, in the partnership group—so that they can participate fully. The masters will have to be supervised and delivered at university level, and discussions are under way on how that might take place. I hope that the Association of Chartered Teachers Scotland will be part of that discussion, too.
Universities are deeply involved in taking forward the Donaldson proposals and they are vital in ensuring the production and supervision of our probationers.
Last Thursday, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice abolished prison visiting committees and said that he would build on them. Today, his colleague has said that he will abolish the chartered teacher scheme and build on it. There seems to be a pattern here. Does Mr Russell not think that it would be wise to keep the chartered teacher scheme until he has developed concrete proposals to provide accessible opportunities and concrete arrangements for the masters profession that he wishes to create?
No. The McCormac committee’s recommendation was entirely clear. It was not a great surprise, because there have been many comments that we need radical change to the chartered teacher scheme.
I believe that we are providing an opportunity for those who have shown their willingness to take forward a higher degree of professionalism to ensure that they keep moving in that way and that they contribute something new. That is a positive thing and it should be welcomed.
Although organisations such as the Association of Headteachers and Deputes in Scotland, the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, the National Parent Forum of Scotland and COSLA have welcomed much of the McCormac report, others such as the EIS and the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers have raised concerns. What work is being done with unions to reassure them that the changes will benefit teachers, particularly those at the end of their training and supply teachers?
I am happy to give the member the reassurance that lies in the full membership and involvement in the negotiating procedures of the unions. They are a critical, key part of the SNCT, which is a tripartite arrangement. The SNCT has now set up its sub-groups to take forward the terms and conditions issue. The unions are centrally involved in that process, which will be one of careful discussion and negotiation from now on. I hope that the member accepts that reassurance. I want the process of negotiation to be detailed, careful and ultimately successful.
How does the cabinet secretary plan to retain probationary teacher numbers while local authority budgets are being slashed? In Renfrewshire, teacher numbers have fallen by 14 per cent under the SNP and Lib Dem coalition. Does he agree that the current scheme to give new teachers a one-year probation is failing, given that very few end up in full-time teaching jobs?
The last point is not true. The figure has improved greatly over the past few years. Off the top of my head, I think that the figure in terms of jobseekers allowance is now four per 1,000, which compares favourably with the figures in the rest of these islands. The figures in Northern Ireland, south of the border and in Wales are substantially worse. We have made considerable progress on the matter and we continue to do so.
The probationary system has not failed. I think that the member, on reflection, would regret her remark. The probationary system is a highly successful system that produces excellent teachers, and the member should support it rather than trying to run it down.
The reality is that Scottish education—I have always said this—is good but could be better. We are trying to make it better through a careful process of discussion and negotiation. I welcome constructive contributions to that. What I do not welcome is the use of language that runs down the system, and to say that the probationary system has failed is such a use of language.
The curriculum for excellence is already transforming education throughout Scotland. How does the McCormac report support the curriculum for excellence agenda?
Everything that we do in education is designed to support the curriculum for excellence, which lies at the heart of the work that we do. Since I became Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning over two years ago, I have kept a close eye on the curriculum for excellence. Where additional support or help has been required, I have put it in place, and I will continue to do so. Indeed, I will meet the EIS later today to take these issues forward.
I want to ensure that education in Scotland is a collaborative and consensual activity. McCormac ensures that the teaching profession has the opportunity to adapt and change to reflect the way in which the curriculum for excellence works—indeed, that was part of its remit. All the McCormac proposals are in keeping with the curriculum for excellence. Now, we need to ensure that, as we negotiate our way through many of these issues, we keep in mind the importance of the curriculum for excellence in our negotiating procedures, and in the things that are undertaken by other bodies. That is definitely what we will do.
Chartered teachers make a positive contribution to our education system; that is what headteachers and the General Teaching Council for Scotland tell us. In fact,
“Chartered Teachers can be a valuable resource to assist and lead other teachers in improving educational outcomes.”—[Official Report, Written Answers, 22 December 2011; S4W-04603.]
Those are not my words; that is what the cabinet secretary said in December. Despite recognising again today chartered teachers’ important contribution to the education system, why has the cabinet secretary decided to accept recommendation 19 of the McCormac review and cast aside the views of 75 per cent of people, who told the Government that it would not be in the best interests of school pupils, the education profession and the whole education system to abolish the chartered teacher scheme?
I feel it necessary to repeat part of my statement.
“There are many excellent chartered teachers in schools across Scotland, but I am not convinced that the chartered teacher scheme remains the best model to provide the teaching profession with opportunities to improve and develop. We must do more, not least because the aspirations that prompted the creation of the chartered teacher scheme remain and, indeed, have been reinvigorated by Graham Donaldson’s report. This is an opportunity for us to design and develop frameworks that help us to move towards highly successful models of teaching that are seen elsewhere in the world, thereby encouraging a thirst for knowledge and intellectual ambition in the profession that will deliver improved outcomes for our children and young people.
We should aspire to a vision of teaching as a masters-level profession, and we should do so, first, by building on the chartered teacher scheme. It provides us with the opportunity to make a masters profession a reality. Moreover, chartered teachers and those who are in the process of becoming chartered teachers should be, and now will be, among the first to access these opportunities.”
If necessary, I will set that to music and sing it. I do not think that I can be any clearer.
I remind the cabinet secretary that singing is not allowed in the chamber.
In his statement, the cabinet secretary mentioned Graham Donaldson’s report “Teaching Scotland’s Future” and in his responses to questions he has touched on that report and the McCormac review. How will those reports complement each other to make a positive contribution to the future of teaching in Scotland?
The interlinking of the two is well seen in Graham Donaldson’s involvement with the McCormac review panel. I am grateful to everyone on that panel, which comprised, among others, a former president of the EIS; a distinguished headteacher from Lanarkshire; Alf Young, the former deputy editor of The Herald; and a lawyer from Glasgow. Although the people on that panel had a range of knowledge, Graham Donaldson’s involvement was fairly crucial because we knew from the outset that his report would have to dovetail with the recommendations of a review of terms and conditions.
As a result of Graham Donaldson’s presence on the McCormac review, we were able to ensure that those two elements could come together. That approach has been very positive and in the announcements that I have made this morning we now have a way of taking forward both sets of proposals, linked together not only through the partnership group but through Education Scotland and the GTCS. This is an agenda for positive change and reform that should be welcomed and encouraged by every member and I look forward to negotiating on it constructively. After all, that is what we are talking about today: constructive negotiation.