Good morning. The first item of business is a Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party debate on the management of schools.
09:15
Education in Scotland was once rightly renowned for its outstanding quality. The Conservatives firmly believe that it can be again. The vast majority of our pupils and teachers have the potential for outstanding success, but not if we continue to pretend that all is well in the current structure of school management and to resist the need for change.
The facts speak for themselves. Since 1999, successive Scottish Governments have doubled spending on our schools, yet overall standards of attainment have been flatlining and, sadly, actually declining in some cases. Each year, 13,000 pupils leave school unable to read or write properly. Only 30 per cent of pupils in secondary 2 reach the required standard in mathematics, despite the figure being 85 per cent in primary 3. Scottish pupils are now ranked below the global average in mathematics and science and, only two weeks ago, the Scottish Government’s latest statistics revealed that two thirds of S2 pupils struggle with literacy. That situation is just not acceptable. It is not acceptable to parents, pupils and teachers, all of whom know that we should be doing very much better, or to the Scottish Conservative party, which is why we believe that it is time for radical change.
I put on record the fact that many communities throughout Scotland are fortunate to have an excellent state school on their doorstep, but far too many are not. In too many areas, particularly in some of our most disadvantaged communities, schools underperform because the present system provides them with too little incentive to improve. However hard our teachers work, their efforts are often compromised by a system that is unresponsive to the needs of individual schools and pupils. That seems particularly ironic at a time when the principles and modern methodology of the curriculum for excellence are driving at greater diversity in the curriculum and, I hope, more fulfilling options for more pupils in Scottish Qualifications Authority examinations.
All communities in Scotland should have access to a good state school. Social and economic background should be no barrier, and nor should an arbitrary catchment area or parental income levels. However, nothing will change if there continues to be an obsession with a one-size-fits-all policy for our local authorities and the long-standing—and, I must say, socialist—love affair with comprehensive education. That approach persistently confuses the principle of equality of opportunity with that of uniformity and has created false tensions between the pursuit of social justice and the pursuit of excellence. As a result, politicians have become the controlling factor in our schools, when it should be headteachers and parents.
Earlier this week, we set out why we believe that the evidence clearly shows that too many school children in Scotland do not get the education that they deserve. We also set out our plans to raise standards, which fall under three headings: breaking up the current monopoly that the state has over the provision of education; giving teachers and headteachers more control; and giving parents more choice over which type of school they want to deliver their child's education. In short, we argue that we need to take power away from the politicians and start trusting the professionals on the front line.
The member will know that, about this time last year, her colleague Michael Gove announced a plan for primary academies. In an education debate last year, I asked Murdo Fraser whether that was one of the radical policies that the Conservatives support north of the border and to which Elizabeth Smith refers. He replied:
“The member refers to a policy that is being introduced south of the border. Of course we will study the detail of it with great interest.”—[Official Report, 30 April 2009; c 16920.]
A year later, has the Conservative party concluded its studies of its English policy?
Very much so. If the member is asking whether I support what Michael Gove is doing down south, the answer is that I do. Obviously, Scottish education has a different tradition and structure. I am keen for us to have greater diversity and we are interested in the academy model but, at present, it would not be particularly appropriate in Scotland.
The member commented on Labour’s supposed love affair with comprehensive education.
Members: It was a socialist love affair.
Order.
Apologies. I am proud to associate my party with socialism, unlike some other members in the chamber.
Is Elizabeth Smith aware of the consultation that took place some years ago on the national priorities in education in Scotland, which showed an overwhelming endorsement of comprehensive education or, in other words, a love affair with it in the whole of Scotland?
Mr Macintosh should go back and consider his socialist credentials. In 1991, Professor Howie said that there was a great need to diversify in comprehensive education, certainly beyond S4. We are attracted to that model.
We are talking about the provision of new free schools that can compete with existing local authority schools. Those schools would remain state funded and would not be allowed to charge fees or become selective. Most important, they would remain subject to the same rigorous inspection processes of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education and the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care that exist at present for all schools. The schools could be run by educational charities, not-for-profit trusts or other philanthropic bodies.
There would be scope for local authorities to transfer a school, or perhaps a cluster of schools, to an educational trust. Interestingly, that is along the lines of a suggestion by a Scottish National Party councillor in East Lothian Council, who has said that the principle behind the proposal is the need to drive up standards, as well as the need to help local authorities make the best possible use of scarce resources at a time when local authority finance is stretched. Although we do not yet know the full details of Councillor Berry’s proposal, we applaud that innovative thinking, unlike the Labour Party, which seems to have dismissed it out of hand.
Recently, there has been an increase in the number of parents who want to exercise their legal right to choose their child’s school. There has been a spectacular failure to deliver the Scottish Government’s class size policy in its original format of 18 or fewer pupils in primaries 1 to 3, precisely because of the obsession with a one-size-fits-all agenda. Now, whether it is a face-saving mission or what the cabinet secretary described at yesterday’s Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee as a “helpful” measure, we have a more relaxed target of 20 per cent of pupils being in such classes. However, concerns are still being expressed about councils’ ability to deliver the policy, precisely because it does not suit diverse needs in various parts of Scotland.
I have no problem with smaller class sizes, but I have a problem with an overbureaucratic model that has not only created much heartache in our councils, but caused a growing number of parents to feel the need to go to court to exercise fully their right to choose different types of school. They should not be put in that situation. Some people tell me that state schools throughout Scotland already have different characteristics—I agree, and they always have done. However, where is the logic in preventing parents from taking advantage of that diversity? If more parents want the right to choose from different types of school, they should have it, and they should be able to take their child out of a poorly performing school and transfer him or her to another school where standards are better. No longer should they be dictated to by a one-size-fits-all arbitrary postcode that is unreflective of real demand.
Before Christmas, I wrote to the convener of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee to suggest that the committee’s 2010 work programme should include an examination of the school structure in Scotland and how we can address the current failings. I am grateful to Karen Whitefield for pursuing that request and to my colleagues on the committee who, on 3 February, agreed unanimously that we should examine the issue in detail.
I hear on the grapevine that it is proving difficult to get a ticket for a flight to Sweden this weekend. I have discovered that not only are the cabinet secretary and some of his officials winging their way across to Scandinavia, but so too are Tavish Scott and some of his officials, such is the sudden desire of senior political figures to see for themselves what the Tories have known for many months, and even for many years. David McLetchie, well ahead of his time as usual, made exactly the same visit back in 2005 and, last September, we invited one of the most respected Swedish experts on education, Thomas Idergard, to Edinburgh. So I must ask Labour Party members, if even the yellow bus is making its way out to the airport, will they jump on it, too, or will they just stay at home and miss the bus?
I am genuinely pleased that the cabinet secretary has agreed to debate the issue and I look forward to his response and to seeing whether he really is out to grasp the thistle, which involves asking whether Alex Salmond and his fellow Scottish Cabinet colleagues will break their deafening silence, stand up and be counted.
The Scottish Tories are determined to take a lead in the debate, even if that means upsetting some apple-carts that are dragged along by conventional thinking. The polls in Scotland show consistently that the public feel that there has been a failure to deliver better quality in public services and that the Scottish Government needs to respond more effectively to the diverse needs of different groups of people. Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands and Alberta in Canada have got that right, which is why we believe that lessons can be learned from countries in which parents have the freedom to choose between different providers in the state sector instead of being told what they must do. In those countries, the aim is to provide a good education for everyone and not just some, and to raise attainment levels—to drive up standards instead of being content with the lowest common denominator.
I know that some siren voices say that our proposal is all wrong. Yesterday, we were accused of having rationing as our main aim, which was rather an extreme view. I fully acknowledge that it took eight years to convince a once-sceptical public in Sweden that the new freedoms in the state sector would work, but they did. Now, almost no one, including those who are on the left of the political spectrum—they are socialists, Mr Macintosh—wants to return to the old system, such is the conviction that the new system is much better at raising overall standards.
That is true not only of the new schools but of the existing state schools in Sweden. Many teachers there liked the new system because it gave them much more flexibility and scope to concentrate on raising standards in the classroom rather than filling in far too much unnecessary paperwork. Incidentally, that is the same flexibility as we seek in the curriculum for excellence.
I will dwell on that point a little longer. If the curriculum for excellence has a central message, it is about catering for the individual pupil’s needs. That principle is supported throughout the Parliament. In turn, that should mean that we are serious about opening new avenues for pupils who neither wish nor are able to pursue a purely academic curriculum. We should develop formal vocational courses for middle-year secondary pupils and ensure that they have every opportunity to learn an apprentice trade, just as in several other European countries. If that means that specialist schools come into being, just as in Denmark and the Netherlands, so be it.
Following the introduction of new providers in Sweden, 10 per cent of pupils attend free schools—the figure is nearly 20 per cent in the upper secondary. As for the merit value of schools there, five years after the introduction of free schools, the average attainment level was 206 points, and 226 points in free schools. However, just as important is the fact that standards rose not just in free schools but in existing schools. I stress firmly that the average of 206 points was an increase on the figure before 1991, when free schools were introduced. The Swedish National Agency for Education highlighted that, reporting that standards improved across the board because existing schools needed to compete with the new free schools if they were not to lose pupils.
The Scottish Conservatives believe that that model can work well in Scotland because it strikes the right balance between supporting the many good schools throughout Scotland where parents are very satisfied with the education that their children receive and improving schools that consistently underperform and with which parents are dissatisfied.
How much more evidence is required and how many more children need to be let down before the SNP, Labour and the Liberals realise that Scottish education needs to be brought up to date so that we can keep pace with other developed countries? Doing nothing is not an option. The evidence that radical change is required is compelling, as is the demand from parents and teachers that we need to deliver higher standards across the board. We must ensure that reform extends parental choice, devolves more power to headteachers and provides far more freedom in the state sector. If we do not, the educational futures of too many young people will be at stake. I ask members to support the motion in my name.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees with the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning that “choice and diversity are the hallmarks of a mature and confident society” in the provision of state-funded education and that it is now time to explore alternative models for delivery of school education with a view to empowering head teachers, raising standards and increasing parental choice; welcomes the community trust model for schools put forward by East Lothian Council as worthy of further examination and believes that this and other models to be found elsewhere in Europe should be the subject of detailed consideration and debate, and calls on the Scottish Government to publish an options paper on models of school organisation to facilitate this.
As I should have done earlier, I ask members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.
09:29
I congratulate Elizabeth Smith and the Conservatives on initiating the debate. As I have often said in a variety of guises, it is right that we in the chamber openly and constructively debate future patterns of activity. The only really jarring point in Elizabeth Smith’s speech was the prospect that Mr Macintosh and I might be having a socialist love affair, which has quite put me off for the rest of the day. However, as I suspect that any such discussion would be X-rated, we can move on.
Jeremy Purvis raised an important issue. It is important not just to import into Scottish education what Michael Gove thinks. I have no doubt that he thinks interesting thoughts but, from what I have heard, I do not think that many of them are relevant to the system that we have developed in Scotland and to the different way in which we want to take that forward. Perhaps some confusion will arise in coming weeks about that. For example, in last night’s education debate on “Newsnight”, three individuals debated a topic for which they have no responsibility in Scotland. I hope that Scottish voters noticed that and that the BBC noticed the ridiculousness of that debate for Scottish viewers.
I will start from where I came from. It is probable that the starting point for all of us in the debate is our experiences in schools. I attended a rather odd school—a grant-aided comprehensive. It was perhaps typical of Scotland that such strange hybrids could exist. I was a pupil at Marr college in Troon; my father was in the first intake there in 1935. The school was established by philanthropy—by a vast sum of money that Charles Kerr Marr left. He was a coal merchant who made his fortune in London and left it all to educate young people in Troon. The school building was unique in its time and cost about £35 million. The first chairman of the school governors was Sir Alexander Walker of whisky fame.
Marr college admitted every child in Troon and nobody else. It continued as a grant-aided school until a Labour Government abolished such schools in the 1970s. By that stage, problems aplenty could be observed. I am probably the only education secretary, and certainly the only Opposition education spokesperson, to be barred from his former school when I achieved those offices. I was barred because I wrote several articles that examined how that great school had fallen from greatness and asked why that was so.
The baseline of my thinking is that the principles of access and excellence on which Marr college was based—the principles that no exclusion should take place through academic or financial selection and that every child should aim as high as they can—underline my educational philosophy and are the principles that Scotland should take forward.
I contest the idea that Marr college has fallen from academic excellence, but its building and its fabric are certainly in utter disrepair. Will the cabinet secretary support the campaign to find funding to build a new Marr college?
It would of course be improper of me to give such support. However, although I do not often advise people to do this, if the member goes back through the archives of my writing—one reference has already been made to previous writing of mine—he might find support aplenty for his view.
I did not mean and do not want to imply that Marr college has fallen from academic excellence—it has not. However, answers to the questions can be found in the stewardship of previous South Ayrshire Council administrations. In the worst period, the people who ran that council were from the Labour Party. However, this is a debate of consensus, so let us keep the spirit of consensus. [Laughter.] I do try—I keep trying.
The debate is timely, because we are on the cusp of important developments in Scottish education—the curriculum for excellence and the accompanying debate on attainment. The delivery of school education is central to parents’ concerns and is vital for every young person. We have a huge collective responsibility to ensure that that delivery happens well.
A consensus exists in Scotland about the outcomes that we need in education. I do not think that there is any doubt about that—if there is, we have just to look at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report to know that we have a broad consensus about the outcomes. We are beginning to debate with vigour the delivery methods. There is nothing unusual in that because, in a sense, the curriculum for excellence started as a debate on delivery methods. It started as a question about how we did things in Scottish education, and we were able to come to a conclusion that, together, we could devise a better way forward. I am hopeful that we might be able to do that again in this debate, and I am very much in listening mode in that regard.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that, if we were to move to a different system for the management of schools in Scotland, cross-party support for that would be essential because, once we had started on that road, it would be unthinkable for another party to come into power and turn that change around?
That is an interesting question, which will need a lot of thinking about. The best approach would undoubtedly be the one that Margaret Smith suggests. However, if, for example, one party in the Parliament could not agree to any change, the rest of the parties would have to ask themselves whether change was more important than consensus. It is a difficult question. As the curriculum for excellence has showed, the ideal way to move forward is with consensus and I am very keen that we keep consensus on such developments. The member raises an important point, which we will need to bear in mind as we move forward.
The curriculum for excellence is being put in place and we have mounting evidence that, although it is a necessary part of change, it is not sufficient for the change that we need. The Scottish survey of achievement, for example, points us in the direction of the need for changes in Scottish education. The question is what needs to change and how. Let us start again from where we are: Scotland’s education is not monolithic in delivery. That assumption is constantly made but it is simply not true. Many of the bedrock pieces of legislation on Scottish education are documents about diversity rather than conformity. I particularly call in evidence the Education (Scotland) Act 1918, which was a uniquely successful way of reconciling difference and allowing diversity to continue. We have a tradition of diversity; if we can ally that to the imperatives of access and excellence, we have some clues about what we do next.
It is also important that we widen our horizons and consider what other people are doing. I was unaware that there was a stampede to Stockholm this weekend. I am going to Helsinki first, so I will probably not see Tavish Scott—I am sure that both of us will live with that disappointment over the weekend—but I will focus closely on what has been done in Finland and Sweden and what the Swedes and Finns think does not work for them.
Are schools in Sweden and Finland not closed at the weekend? I urge the minister to go and see some of them in operation, as some of us have done in the past.
As usual, Mr McLetchie is too good for the likes of me. He has pointed out a major weakness, but I have to say that his party started the problem because it announced to the world that I was going this weekend. Certainly, I am going on Sunday afternoon, but I will be there on Monday and Tuesday—I am slightly nervous about telling people that in case they take advantage of it. I am visiting schools, universities and a range of institutions; I have a very full programme.
I do not want to anticipate what happens in Finland and Sweden, as I am by no means an expert and, unlike Mr McLetchie, have not been there. However, I know that an active debate is taking place there, on which we should reflect. For example, there is a debate about freestanding schools versus communal schools, which appears to illustrate that, in the Swedish experience, the key issues in improving performance are not only delivery structures—although they are important—but the quality of leadership; a clear vision and sense of direction; staff teamwork and participation; effective use of performance; accurate baseline data; and this interesting point: self-evaluation.
A distinctive part of the Finnish model is that, as a Finnish educational expert said, it does not allow teaching to get in the way of learning. Assessment in Finland is very light touch indeed and is done only at the conclusion of the educational journey. If we were to say that we wanted to change evaluation totally, would we find willing supporters among Conservative members? I hope that we would at least have an open debate about the issues.
Of course, the tradition of assessment in Scotland is different. That illustrates to us that, whatever we learn when we examine what other people do, we must lay that against our experience and traditions and find the right solution. Although visiting Helsinki and Stockholm will be important—visiting many places is important—in terms of educational experience, the most important thing when one comes home from travelling is to think and to ensure that the lessons that one has learned are set against what is happening and what we want to happen.
I go back to what we want to happen. We consider other education models not simply because we can lift them and impose them; we want them to tell us how we can do what we want to do better than we are doing it. We want an educational system that prioritises access and excellence. Let us start the journey with those two words.
The debate has started well on the basis of the motion and the amendments. There is an awful lot of good will about moving forward and councils that are creatively thinking about possibilities, such as East Lothian Council, are to be encouraged. Nobody knows the outcome of East Lothian Council’s journey. A major event will be held in April and the council will then get more detail. It is wrong to say that, because it does not know all the answers, it should not ask the questions—quite the opposite: we should ask the questions and look for the answers.
If other local authorities in Scotland—they are the deliverers and many of them do superbly well—have ideas about what they want to change and how they want to change it, they should bring them to the table. They will find that I am an enthusiast for thinking new thoughts. I think them all the time, not only when I am on aircraft or in Scandinavia. Let us think new thoughts, be positive and constructive and do our duty by Scotland’s children.
I move amendment S3M-5926.3, to insert after “debate”:
“; recognises that Scottish education is generally of good quality with many important strengths; believes that any alternative models that are considered should build on these strengths and preclude academic selection as a legitimate criterion for school entry”.
09:41
We must tackle four key problems in Scottish education. First, too many of our young people leave school unable to read and write. Secondly, urgent change is needed in S1 and S2 where, as the evidence that was published a fortnight ago shows, pupils are making little progress and many are going backwards in attainment terms. Thirdly, there is huge uncertainty over the implementation of the curriculum for excellence—the most important educational reform for a generation—because teachers feel that they do not have the information and materials that they need to plan the new curriculum, which leaves them and parents not knowing whether implementation will go ahead in August as planned. Fourthly, we need to find a way to improve attainment levels for all pupils and simultaneously close the attainment gap that blights our society.
The test of any reform is whether it assists or hinders the task of dealing with those problems. Education largely escaped the upheaval of the last local government reorganisation. My job as chair of the reorganisation committee in Strathclyde was to move 103,000 staff to new employers while trying to ensure that service delivery was uninterrupted. That was achieved, but the costs of reorganisation were considerable and the uncertainty distracted council staff from implementing service improvements. It also backfired spectacularly on the Conservatives, who were left with no councils under Tory control and no representation at Westminster.
There is no doubt that Scottish education is not performing as well as it should, but pupils get only one chance and, for their sake, we cannot afford to get it wrong. If reform proposals can deliver benefits that outweigh the downsides of upheaval, we should consider them, but many parents will argue that the task of Government and local authorities is to get together and work out how to get more out of the system that we have.
The strains and stresses in the system in the past three years are attributable to policy failure. The broken promises on class sizes, the reductions in teacher and support-staff numbers, the cuts in school budgets, which are directly attributable to the concordat, and the momentum lost on replacing crumbling school buildings are all the responsibility of the current Scottish National Party Government.
Will the member give way?
No, I will not at the minute. I am sorry.
I am not convinced that structural reform will overcome those problems any more than it will overcome the urgent issues that I identified at the start of my speech.
Elizabeth Smith extolled the Swedish model in her usual brisk and efficient style. I welcome the Conservatives’ interest in Sweden, a society that is suffused with a social democratic ethos and a commitment to advance gender equality and full employment that I wish us to emulate. Given their other views—their opposition to redistribution and their antipathy to extending welfare entitlements—the Conservatives’ interest in Swedish education policy is somewhat surprising. I would have thought that, if they wanted to consider a particular issue, they might have examined the Swedish taxation model, which requires the publication each year of everyone’s tax return and might have avoided embarrassment over Lord Ashcroft’s donations to the party.
Will the member give way?
I can see from their faces and the fact that Derek Brownlee is on his feet that it is only the Swedish education model that attracts the Conservatives. If the Swedish model was world leading in performance, that might be more understandable, but the TIMSS—trends in international mathematics and science study—shows that, unfortunately, it is not. Between 1995 and 2007, the average Swedish score went down. In science Sweden saw the biggest drop of any country, while in maths it had the biggest drop after Bulgaria. A recent report from Skolverket—the Swedish equivalent of the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills—showed that the grade point average in several central subjects, not just maths and science, declined over time, the drop in performance coinciding with the reforms that introduced the system the Conservatives now appear to advocate.
I was referring to average standards of education in Sweden. There is categorical evidence that they improved with the introduction of the new schools, not only in those schools but in the existing schools. I do not deny that there may have been blips in some subjects, but the average standards have gone up and continue to go up.
If the member looks at the Skolverket report, “What Influences Educational Achievement in Swedish Schools?”, which I have here in my hand, the OECD statistics and the TIMSS statistics I referred to, she will find that the evidence is as I have suggested.
Swedish academics have raised concerns about decentralisation—that it adversely affects pupils from “less-favoured learning environments” and those with “weaker support from home” because resource allocation policies fail to take account of the varying needs of schools. The evidence suggests that a consequence of the approach has been that social segregation becomes more pronounced.
We know that in Scotland the attainment gap between pupils from better-off backgrounds and those from poorer backgrounds is already unacceptably wide. In terms of raising attainment and reducing inequality, the evidence base is not there to support the introduction of the Swedish model in Scotland.
Implementation of the Swedish model here would raise other, practical concerns. In my constituency we have four outstanding new secondary schools, commissioned by Labour and opened last August. The schools are efficient—pupil numbers are near their design capacity and they are very popular. Any new school that opens in my area with state funding would require cash to be taken from a limited pot, and it is difficult to see how it could be other than at the expense of the budgets of existing schools. That raises some pretty serious questions—if we can only rob Peter to pay Paul, are we improving the situation?
Many concerns have been expressed by senior Conservatives in local government. Paul Carter, leader of Kent County Council said:
“we have a duty to educate all children and if schools are going off randomly, setting out different standards, different rules and regulations, it’s very difficult to have a coherent education system in a town, in a county the size ... of Kent.”
Another prominent Conservative, David Kirk, cabinet member for children’s services in Hampshire County Council, said:
“It is difficult to understand at the moment, where, in a time of constraint, financial constraint, when we are very worried actually about what our budget levels are likely to be in future ... how one could manage to effectively subsidise a number of surplus places”.
The member should be closing.
Will the member give way?
No, I am at the end of my speech.
I think that there could be reforms. I am open to new ideas for Scottish education, but I want to look at them systematically and rigorously and see what the benefits are. I return to the key challenges that face us in Scottish education: literacy, change in S1 and S2, the curriculum for excellence and attainment standards. Any reform that does not directly address those issues or distracts attention from them is not right for Scotland. We have to choose our priorities; Labour's are set out in the amendment in my name.
I move amendment S3M-5926.2, to leave out from “and that it is now” to end and insert:
“; supports schools and teachers being given more opportunities to innovate and head teachers greater control over school budgets; believes that the education system should incorporate both parental choice and local accountability; further believes that schools should encourage every child to achieve to the best of their ability and not be sources of social division, and considers that the Scottish education system should be open to learning from experience elsewhere in the United Kingdom or Europe in the interests of raising standards, reducing the achievement gap and meeting the needs of every pupil.”
09:48
Aristotle said:
“it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it”.
Hear, hear.
I knew that members would be waiting for their weekly dose of philosophy from me.
That is a reasonable and cautionary note on which to enter this debate. Liberal Democrats are keen to look at alternative schooling models—an approach backed by our party conference at the weekend. We are keen to improve our schools, our levels of attainment and the education opportunities of our young people. What we do not believe in is change simply for the sake of change: reform must be motivated by the raising of standards and attainment for all, not the rolling out of some preconceived educational dogma.
We recognise that Scotland’s education system has generally served us well for many years, and we therefore support the SNP amendment. We want a system that serves all our children, which rules out selection.
As we know, there are areas in which we need to improve, but we need to think seriously before contemplating any radical overhaul of the system and its core structures. We also need to consult widely across all the partners in the sector. The local school, underpinned by a catchment area and backed by central support, often has a strong local identity, as any of us who have ever had to deal with catchment changes or closures will testify.
Nevertheless, we will support the Conservative motion, because we believe that there is nothing to lose by looking at alternative models of education and learning from them. We believe that parents should have more choice and that headteachers and teachers should be empowered at a school or cluster level. As the cabinet secretary said, that was part of the thinking behind the curriculum for excellence.
Education is at the heart of the Liberal Democrats’ vision for fairness. We want to see a society in which every child has chances. The kind of education system that provides opportunity for all is one to aspire to. That is why we supported the cross-party consensus in the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee to examine different models. It would be important for any structural change to command cross-party backing, so let me say again that we are keen to look at alternatives and to consider change so long as the motivation for making changes is raising attainment.
Raising attainment is crucial, particularly in literacy and numeracy, in which we know that attainment in the five-to-14 age group is decreasing. Literacy and numeracy need to be key priorities from early years all the way through primary school. We heard recently that two thirds of 13-year-olds are failing to reach expected standards of writing and that 18.5 per cent of pupils leave primary school without being functionally literate. That situation is unacceptable and must be improved.
We see the merit in learning from other education systems, particularly when that can help to address the discrepancy between socioeconomic circumstance and educational attainment, which the OECD report highlighted. The rich and poor separate in attainment at age seven and never meet again. That is why we propose a pupil premium that will mean that extra funding follows the most disadvantaged children, with—crucially—decisions about how to spend that extra money being taken by schools and headteachers.
We have heard a lot about Scandinavian models, but it is worth looking across Europe. I had a look at what is happening in Portugal, not because I particularly want to go off on a golf trip to Portugal—
I do. [Laughter.]
He has already been there, too.
If I did, I am sure that Mr McLetchie and various others would be happy to join me.
In Portugal, work has been done on creating school clusters. To some extent, that echoes some of the suggestions coming out of East Lothian, where there have been about 50 different suggestions, so I would not like to say that East Lothian Council has decided on a particular way forward.
In Portugal, the greatest success has been in areas where socioeconomic indices were low and where adult education was below average. The clusters are schools that are grouped together geographically under a single management plan and have a common and integrated education plan. Clusters are based on the principle that education policy should be decided at local level, with teaching practices that are student centred and take into account the communities in which the pupils live. There is much more sharing of activities and resources with local partners—there is a community partnership model, involving independent social welfare organisations, sports and youth groups, and so on. The clusters have apparently been successful in increasing attainment and reducing drop-out rates and the need to repeat school years.
Crucially, the Portuguese model shows that services can continue to be integrated and targeted. In any model that we have in Scotland, the integration of services, as well as the targeting of resources, is crucial. Given the getting it right for every child agenda, we need to ensure that any educational management model works in terms of joint working among education, social care, additional support, health and child protection services.
We know that performance in schools can be improved by better leadership and governance, by innovation and incentive. A strong and skilled headteacher, a team of high-quality staff and high aspirations are the most important factors in delivering excellence in education. We do not believe that excellence can be achieved through micromanagement by central Government, neither do we buy into the idea that a new educational marketplace, in which people can profit from children’s education, will necessarily improve attainment for all.
It is important that schools and teachers are given greater flexibility and autonomy to decide and deliver the best outcomes for their pupils and communities. Headteachers are ideally placed to know what is most appropriate and beneficial in their school. Education does not stop at the school gates: good parenting is vital to supporting children to develop and achieve their potential. We have not yet embraced the proper role of parents in our schools.
Education in Scotland is going through enormous change and faces tough challenges, such as the curriculum for excellence, significant cuts in the number of classroom teachers and the slashing of education budgets. I say that not to make a point against the cabinet secretary but to point out that a debate on potential structural change in schools must be set against the reality, which is that our schools are going through a tough time. We accept that the Parliament and the Government should undertake work to consider management systems, which will take time. However, given the on-going difficulties, many parents, teachers and headteachers are unlikely to regard structural change as the number 1 priority. Changes would therefore be more likely to happen in the mid term rather than the short term.
Instead of trying to adopt a completely different model from the get-go, we need to work to enhance our existing system, where that can be done. We can learn from nations that are getting it right, but no system is flawless and each system is a work in progress. The Conservatives seem to be having a bit of a love affair with Swedish free schools, or maybe they are having a love affair with a Swedish model—I am the last person in the Parliament who would say no to that. However, we must introduce a little realism into the debate. Liz Smith might see the Swedish situation through rose-tinted glasses, but the head of Sweden’s schools inspectors said that the introduction of independently run schools had not produced better results in the country. It occurred to me that—
I am sorry. You must close now.
It is important that we continue to look elsewhere, to ensure that we have the best possible school system that delivers the best attainment for all our children.
I move amendment S3M-5926.1, to insert at end:
“; believes that any changes to the model of school organisation should be motivated by raising attainment and improving pupil outcomes rather than profit and dogma; recognises the benefits of greater community and parental involvement in the management of schools; notes that the implementation of a new curriculum, falling teacher numbers and straitened budgets remain key areas of concern for education professionals, and recognises the cross-party consensus behind the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee’s examination of the management of schools.”
We come to the open debate. Members might have guessed that we do not have a lot of time available. I ask members to stick fairly closely to their allocated time.
09:57
I will paraphrase what people say in Yorkshire: when something is broke, you fix it. There is little doubt that despite the sterling efforts of headteachers, teachers and other people in the education system, all is not well with Scottish education. As Liz Smith said, the debate takes place against a background of figures that cause serious concern. I will not repeat the grim litany. However, given that only a couple of weeks ago the Scottish Government produced statistics that show that well over 60 per cent of S2 pupils are struggling with literacy, we can all agree that we have a problem. We must challenge the notion that we can carry on as before; we simply must consider different education models.
There are many examples of situations in which people have responded positively to being given greater responsibility and control over their lives. Indeed, in the context of post-war public sector housing in Scotland, members have heard me talk about how the extension of the housing association movement has been a tremendous success and has removed the dead hand of municipal socialism from the throats of tenants, giving people much greater control over their homes. In many ways, the extension of power to parents, so that they have much greater input into the education of their children, is a vital continuation of that principle.
The most obvious example of such an approach is Jordanhill School in Glasgow, which is acknowledged to be the most successful public sector school in Scotland. I will not weary members with a potted history of the school. It is sufficient to say that it found itself under threat some 25 years ago, when its unique funding situation was challenged by the Westminster Parliament. I was the councillor for the area at the time and I worked closely with the headteacher and parents, who, on their own initiative, came up with a system of governance for the school that is an exemplar of how schools can be run. After the intervention of the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, Jordanhill School was allowed to operate on the agreed basis, and the school’s success over the years has been little short of remarkable, as is testified to by the significant number of Labour politicians who have chosen to send their children there.
My children went to Hillhead high school. Mr Aitken knows Jordanhill School well. Does he consider that the fact that 80 per cent of the mothers of the children who attend the school are university graduates—which is perhaps not the case in schools in other parts of Glasgow—is a factor in the school’s outstanding performance?
Perhaps for the first time in his life, Mr McNulty has anticipated what I was going to say. I was about to make the point that a high proportion of parents in the Jordanhill catchment area have a background in education, which, added to the general nature and affluence of the area, makes it more likely that the school will succeed. I concede that point. However, why has the school succeeded? It has succeeded on the basis of the model that is applied. That is the situation.
Other models should be tried. Like the cabinet secretary, I went to a grant-aided school—Allan Glen’s school in Glasgow—which enabled a boy like me from a poor area to have an education that I could not otherwise have had, until, in an extraordinary display of political spite and education vandalism, that school and others like it were closed down by Des McNulty’s statutory predecessors. Allan Glen’s school had not failed in its educational standards; it was terribly successful, but success could not be allowed in the socialist Glasgow of the time, because it made the rest of the education system look bad. That was the thinking behind the school’s closure.
Every parent, whatever their social background and wherever they live, has a commitment to their child’s education. Parents must be given a greater say. We must also recognise the professionalism and abilities of headteachers. Let us cut the bureaucracy and allow our teachers and headteachers to get on with the job for which they have been trained. All Scotland’s communities and parents should have access to a good state school, but that will be achieved only when politicians butt out and allow a much greater degree of self-governance.
If further evidence is required of the failures of the current system, I point to the recent controversy over the catchment area for St Ninian’s high school, in Mr Macintosh’s constituency in East Renfrewshire. Parents in an area south-west of Glasgow had to take to judicial review a decision not to admit their children to St Ninian’s. The situation arose because parents regarded the school as more successful than the alternative. If the Government’s approach to schools were to change, there would simply not be the stark contrast that that controversy illustrates, because standards would rise, as the Swedish experience has demonstrated. We must acknowledge the validity of the Swedish model.
Will the member take an intervention?
It is a bit late to take an intervention.
I am sorry for that. I know that some members reject the principles of private education and selectivity and do not want to remove the current monopoly whereby local authorities are the sole providers of education. I do not agree with those views, although I acknowledge that they are sincerely held. However, to say that no parent should be able to buy a better education for their child is one thing; to say that a better education should be denied to every child in Scotland as a result of outdated political thinking and, in some respects, prejudice is little short of shameful.
10:03
Another education debate has sprung upon us and we march merrily into the chamber to offer members the pearls of our wisdom—and some vinegar in which to dissolve them.
The Conservatives want us to examine models from elsewhere in the world. I read in the newspaper that Liz Smith fancies the Swedish model. I am more of a fan of Swedish music, but I am delighted that the Conservatives are at last taking an interest in what happens in Scandinavia and are thinking about how it benefits a nation’s people to believe in society and consider what will benefit society rather than individuals. I look forward to hearing Liz Smith persuade her colleagues, with a cry of “Take a chance on me”, to embrace other Swedish models. Progressive taxation is one such model—[Interruption.] I look forward to hearing George Osborne and Derek Brownlee argue for that. I know that they want to do so. No doubt we will hear Conservative calls for an upper rate of income tax of nearly 60 per cent. I think that I can hear Derek Brownlee singing “Money, Money, Money”.
On progressive taxation, did not the SNP used to argue for lower taxes for business? Has that been dropped now?
Like Derek Brownlee’s party, we advocated lower taxes for business. So, there we go: I am just giving him an example of the Swedish model. I hope that he will consider that, because that is how the Swedes pay for their education: money, money, money. They regard investment in good education as an important part of building decency into communities and building a progressive society that will deliver benefits across the board. They believe that education should be state funded through a fair taxation system—they had that dream and that dream came true.
I am sure that the Conservatives’ attraction to the Swedish system relies to a great extent on the voucher system—knapsack funding—but they might be missing something, because the voucher system does not allow independent schools to set the curriculum.
The Swedish Government centrally sets the curriculum, the programme goals and the syllabus, subject by subject. There is no postcode lottery in education in Sweden. I am sure that Liz Smith would be delighted to see the SNP Scottish Government set all those areas, but I might be mistaken.
Another important difference between Scottish and Swedish education is that the spend on education in Sweden is fairly large: it is nearly 80,000 kroner per child in what we would consider primary school education and nearly 90,000 kroner per child in what we would consider secondary school education. That is the equivalent of £7,500 for every primary school pupil, whereas the equivalent spend in Scotland is just over £4,500, which is a difference of £3,000 for every pupil in every Scottish primary school. There is no better news for older pupils, because Sweden spends the equivalent of nearly £8,500 for every secondary school pupil, while Scotland’s spend for such pupils is less than £6,500 per pupil.
I am positive that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning would jump at the chance to give our schools another £3,000 per pupil, and I am certain that John “Super Trouper” Swinney would be delighted to hand over millions more to local authorities to pump into school budgets, but I wonder where the Conservatives see such money coming from.
I am confused, because an official publication from the Swedish National Agency for Education states categorically that educational attainment and performance went down in the 1990s and that there has been greater differentiation with the devolution of funding to municipalities. The publication states that in the 2006-07 academic year in Sweden, the teacher pupil ratio was 8.3 per cent, which is 4 per cent less than the ratio in Scotland. I am not sure what point the member is making.
My point is that we are all looking at different models across the world and at what does and does not work, and comparing what is being done, which is exactly what Jeremy Purvis has just done.
As I said, I wonder where the Conservatives see the extra money coming from, when both of the people who might be Chancellor of the Exchequer in a couple of months have said that cuts are coming our way. Given the polls, I wonder whether the winner will take it all.
I am persuaded to look again at the Swedish model, which was cost neutral. One of the reasons for Councillor Berry in East Lothian Council raising the issue of school trusts was the possibility that trusts would give better value for money.
I will elaborate later on what Councillor Berry said.
We could play fantasy politics and pretend that the Lib Dems are in a position to influence spending decisions. Tavish Scott has promised us an extra £300 million and, I believe, a pony for every little girl. Margaret Smith, with her tango last week with the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, is quickly becoming our resident dancing queen. What Tavish Scott proposes would mean an extra £440 for each pupil—just another £1.7 billion to find. I wonder where all that money will come from.
Will the member take an intervention?
Sorry, but I have taken loads of interventions.
Scottish education is getting some serious funding, but there is a big gap between our funding and the funding afforded to the Swedish system, which is because of Sweden’s willingness to pay high taxes to fund the very best public services. I am delighted that the Conservatives are coming on board with that, and I look forward to their championing fair taxation. Another reason why the Swedish education system is so good is that it is delivered by local authorities to a central plan under, believe it or not, an historic concordat. It is true that it is difficult to get a better model than a good Swedish model, and I congratulate Liz Smith on taking a second look at that model.
East Lothian is not quite as far away from here as Sweden is, but it has a forward-thinking SNP council that is trying to find innovative ways, using the resources at its disposal, to improve the education system. East Lothian Council is looking at a raft of measures, and I wish it well; perhaps it will do things that we can take forward. Finding ways of spending money more wisely rather than in greater quantities is a bit like searching for the holy grail, but at least SNP councils have set out on the hunt—I wish them well in that. Their job could be made even harder, though, when the cuts start coming through from Westminster. The task must be not to improve parental choice but to improve school education. Our professionals—our teachers—have been striving to do that, and they continue to push that improvement forward.
Scotland’s education system is in fairly decent health and is moving forward steadily. Slow, steady progress is what is needed: a gradual movement towards improvement. The improvements that the Scottish Government has already put in place will continue to filter through. I am always pleased to take part in education debates in the chamber. I look forward to next week’s instalment.
10:10
I confess that I feel slightly sorry for East Lothian Council, because not only has it unwittingly garnered the support of the Tory party, which must be a great shock to it, but it finds itself at the epicentre of a debate on a policy that does not actually exist. As the council has made clear, its trust idea is not fully formed yet. When I first heard about it, it seemed to me that it was more a pragmatic response to financial pressures, similar to the establishment of leisure trusts across Scotland. I hope that I do not do the council a disservice in saying that.
Elizabeth Smith made clear that lying behind the Tory enthusiasm for trusts and having a wider debate on them in Scotland is the old chestnut of creating a marketplace for schools in Scotland. There is no one more sceptical about that kind of policy than me. There is no international evidence that that kind of policy raises education standards. Indeed, the evidence all runs in the opposite direction—tomes of OECD evidence testify to that. Does that mean that the status quo in Scotland is right in all respects? The emphatic answer is no, in my view. I have made it clear previously in the chamber that there are too many local education authorities; I would move to having a more regional structure—I speak very personally on that. I would hope that, in such a structure, local authorities would create education boards that could co-opt on to them other interests representing, for example, parents, further and higher education, trade unions, headteachers and business, which would allow more people to participate in and support our education system.
I very firmly believe that it is necessary to devolve more authority to headteachers.
Will the member take an intervention?
With the greatest of respect, I will not. I want to develop my argument.
I will not reveal too much, but it would be a mistake to think that ministers always win the battles inside their departments or in the system. When I was a minister, I moved devolution to headteachers a bit further forward, but I did not get as far as I wanted to. With the benefit of hindsight, I very much regret that. However, there has never been a better time than now to move more authority to headteachers. The calibre of our headteachers is truly outstanding. We should remember that that has not always been the case. Only in the past seven or eight years have headteachers had any training or qualifications to do their job, which is an astonishing fact. Now, headteachers are better qualified and prepared. In my judgment, they need not only greater control over their budgets but real control over staffing. They need to move away from the standardised way in which staffing seems to emerge in our system. For example, a school of a certain size tends to get so many physics teachers, physical education teachers and so on. Much more discretion is needed on that aspect.
As I travelled around the country, I used to find a worrying sameness in Scottish secondary schools. Obviously, they are not entirely the same, but there is no real expectation, particularly in our secondary sector, that any one school should be particularly different from another. There are no rules about that, but there are unwritten conventions that clearly bind the system. Why is that the case? There is no legal impediment to freedom. In fact, our schools are legally completely free to do different things on the curriculum, staffing and the like, but they tend to conform. That is partly due to the inspection system and how it is interpreted, not necessarily how it works. However, schools also like to keep in a comfort zone with one another and never step too far beyond the boundaries.
It is the same with local authorities. I remember that North Lanarkshire Council was one of the very few local authorities in my time that pushed the boundaries and broke the conventions—thank goodness that it did so. I also found very few schools that tried to break the conventions and the boundaries, although the highly successful St Modan’s in Stirling was one that did. For those reasons, we created as an experiment or trial, but a promising one, the schools of ambition programme. We wanted to break the barriers and say to schools that, if they were given authority and autonomy, they could be different and be the schools that they wanted to be.
That programme gave headteachers complete discretion on budgets, which was new. It tried to provide more colour, variety and creativity in the system. I very much regret that the Government ended the programme, and I hope that, as part of the present process, Mike Russell will reconsider it. It was only a first step towards creating greater variety. All that is entirely consistent with the modern curriculum for excellence and the desire for more curriculum freedom in our school system. There is plenty of scope for change in some of those regards.
I emphasise that I am talking about devolution to headteachers, not devolution to schools, which are very different things. I have never detected any thirst among parents to be more involved in the governance of their schools. Indeed, the opting-out experiment failed because of that. The way forward will involve the new parent councils, which are less constrained than the school boards were, working in partnership with teachers and headteachers who have more authority.
Is there still a role for local authorities in that world? I think that there is. Why? There are some obvious reasons, which are to do with economies of scale. Why would a headteacher want to organise a specific transport system or a specific school meals system for their school, or hold budgets for major maintenance projects? It makes sense for that to be done at local authority level. In addition, councils continue to require to perform pay bargaining functions. More than that, local authorities exercise trouble shooting functions on a daily basis to sort out nitty-gritty problems that the public often do not see. Not every headteacher is brilliant—things go wrong and someone needs to intervene to protect the public interest. Local authorities can do that.
Local authorities need to develop a greater ability to spot the next generation of school leaders, whom they should nurture so that we get the benefit of their skills. Induction and support for probationers should be organised more effectively than happens at the moment. Local authorities need to do a range of activities, but does the balance need to shift towards headteachers? In my view, yes.
Every system needs checks and balances. To me, the debate is about adjusting the balance. If we want to improve the educational experience, we should not look just at governance; it is not a magic bullet. We should look at investing in our teachers, school leadership and self-evaluation, which the Finns do, as Michael Russell said. Part of that mix should involve giving headteachers more discretion. However, there is no single, quick answer to all the problems in Scottish education. A mix of measures is required, and governance is only a small part of that mix.
10:17
Three weeks ago, I said:
“Members have heard many times, often in education debates and often on a Thursday morning, about the importance of equipping our younger generations with the skills and knowledge that they need to succeed personally and contribute to the wellbeing of our society.”—[Official Report, 25 February 2010; c 23976.]
Murdo Fraser told us during last week’s education debate that we would all have to wait patiently for an opportunity to hear more about the Tories’ lessons on how to learn from Sweden and move Scotland’s education forward. Here we are again on a Thursday morning, and I am again happy to put on record my support for the education system in Scotland and the role that it plays in making our country the best that it can be. I know that members from across the Parliament all support that sentiment.
However, no matter how good we know much of Scotland’s education system is, we can never rest on our laurels. The SNP is well known for its outward-looking and internationalist approach to policy matters, so it is right for us to have a full and frank debate about what works, what does not work and what is worthy of further exploration.
As I said, the SNP has always sought to learn from other countries that are comparable in terms of population size, geography and economy. I will not disappoint colleagues by pointing out that more often than not, the said countries enjoy the normal status of being independent. As we noted in last week’s debate on global education, countries such as Finland, the Netherlands and New Zealand have recently been ranked above Scotland in the OECD’s programme for international student assessment for science, maths and reading. As has been mentioned, it is interesting that in those OECD rankings, Sweden lies below Scotland for maths and science. Nevertheless, the Swedish model has caught the eye of the Tories, and it has become the foundation of the education policy that they announced earlier this month.
Although I admire the proactive nature of the Tories’ input to policy discussion and debate, I think that we should be cautious about some elements of the Swedish system that may not fit in well with Scotland’s culture, traditions and history, and which may fail to be adaptable to Scotland’s unique circumstances. In that vein, it might be useful for the debate to highlight elements of the Swedish model that may seem counterintuitive to the Conservatives and their political ideologies.
In Sweden, fewer headteachers—just 5 per cent—reported that businesses had an influence on the curriculum, whereas in the UK as a whole, 15 per cent of headteachers reported that business and industry had a considerable influence on the curriculum. There is less emphasis in Sweden on keeping siblings together through school place allocations and, on the whole, entry to schools is less residentially based, which means that schools have less of a community character. Given how supportive politicians were of our recent legislation to protect rural schools, I cannot imagine that anyone would wish to erode the important community function that they fulfil by copying that aspect of the Swedish model.
The Conservatives’ motion refers to East Lothian Council, and I am sure that they recognise that the community trust model that that council has put forward is simply one of a number of options for the future of education in the area. I understand that the models that it has proposed would ensure that there was no selection of intake and no private funding. Membership of the trusts would consist of community representatives, teachers, parents, councillors and lay experts, and could include representatives from health, community learning, social work and local enterprises. East Lothian Council has proceeded in that way because it is having to deal with financial pressures. All councils are finding that they will need to think more creatively about how they deliver services in the face of the cuts that Scotland faces.
The cabinet secretary has usefully stated that he is open to suggestions from all sides about how to take education policy forward, and that same sentiment of seeking more dialogue and debate is, I feel, echoed in the Lib Dem amendment, the Conservative motion and even the position of the Labour Party. We should be open to investigating other systems and seeking inspiration not only from Sweden, but from New Zealand, Finland, Canada, the Netherlands and Portugal, where academic performance is good. Education commentators appreciate politicians and policy makers taking that approach, which is why many of them have been so interested in and welcoming of East Lothian Council’s approach to thinking out of the box.
In the spirit of consensual dialogue and allowing space for debate, we might also do well to heed opinions that might not always be as palatable, but which nevertheless need to addressed, such as whether, if headteachers are given more responsibility, we can guarantee that they will always do the right thing. I have certainly heard from teachers who work under heads and do not think that that is the case. Peter Peacock made a similar point. Another such view is that of the parents who simply think that children should go to the school that they live near, regardless of parental choice, and that striving to ensure that the local school attains good results and improves should be what is concentrated on.
I hope that colleagues understand that I raise such issues because I think that they are important considerations to take on board, and so that we can all hone our arguments in a consensual manner in an effort to drive policy forward together. Education policy is one of those unfortunate topics that everyone knows is important but on which we are probably all far too guilty of dismissing ideas before we have given them a proper airing. That does the Parliament and the topic that we all care so passionately about a disservice.
Whatever model East Lothian Council or any other council chooses to adopt, I hope that the Parliament can agree that there are some principled lines that we do not want to cross. For example, we do not want to return to academic selection in Scotland’s schools or have a voucher system that provides direct state support to independent schools, and the idea of an internal market in education is totally at odds with the principles that have been the foundation of our school system in Scotland for centuries.
Despite our many lively debates on education, the Parliament’s record since 2007 has been to find common ground and consensus in many areas. The Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 and the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2009 were passed without division, and both will have a beneficial effect on the education of schoolchildren in Scotland. In addition, the Parliament has given its support to the curriculum for excellence on many occasions.
Scotland can and will learn from other parts of the world, just as, in years gone by, other countries looked to Scotland for all their ideas and inspiration. It is in the interests not just of the Parliament but of all those who play a part in our education system in Scotland to defend those principles and to concentrate on delivering the best possible results for our children and young people.
10:23
We should always be wary of the grass-is-greener approach, and that is particularly the case with education policy. We have heard from the Conservatives that a radical response is needed to an education system that Bill Aitken said is broken. We have a good education system, not a broken education system in Scotland. The fact is that it could and must be better for our children. That is the context of the debate.
Does that mean that we should adopt other models? We should look at them and study them, as we in our party have done, and I assume that all other parties will do likewise. We should examine how school buildings are funded and how schools are run. When I asked Liz Smith whether, as part of their radical response, the Conservatives in Scotland were proposing academies for primary schools, she replied that that would not be appropriate in the Scottish system, so I am not sure whether the radicalism that Bill Aitken demanded, which he said it would be “shameful” of us not to have, applies only to our secondary schools and not to our primary schools. I think that we should be told.
I am happy to give the member an answer on that. As we discussed earlier, the traditions of the Scottish education system are different from those in England, and as the cabinet secretary also acknowledged, we must be mindful of those differences and know what system is appropriate.
Perhaps it is the institutionalised comprehensiveness that Elizabeth Smith attacked in her speech that she was referring to as being good for the primary sector.
We have talked much about Sweden, but let us look at the actual position. A lot of myth has been repeated this morning, so let us look at the facts. Elizabeth Smith said that there is “categorical evidence” that attainment and performance improved in Sweden during the 1990s. The most recent official statistics from the Swedish Government show that the proportion of pupils completing year 9 who have received or should have received grades according to the goal and knowledge-related grading system has gone down since 2003-04. It was 89.6 per cent, and it is now 88.9 per cent.
When we interrogate the Swedish Government information, we see that one of the biggest contributory factors is the fact that the differential between those pupils whose parents have only a pre-secondary education and those whose parents have a post-secondary education, such as a further or higher education qualification, is 30 per cent. The figures are 66.9 per cent to 95.3 per cent. So the evidence is not “categorical”.
Members should not just believe me, and I suspect that Elizabeth Smith might not. The foreword to the Swedish National Agency for Education official report from September 2009, which was written by Per Thullberg, the general director, said:
“One clear indication of this is the dramatic increase in interest in participating in international educational assessment.”
We are all learning from Sweden.
“At the beginning of the 1990s, Swedish pupils fared well in international comparisons. In the interim, the performance of Swedish pupils has declined. Factors that might have influenced these changes have become a central issue in the debate.”
That is quite right, and that is the central issue of today’s debate.
Will the member give way?
I will if I have time later, but I wish to get through some of my material.
Let us look at that central issue. The introduction to the Swedish National Agency for Education report starts:
“International studies of educational attainment, since the middle of 1990s, have indicated a decline in performance by Swedish compulsory school pupils (Skolverket, 2009a). Declining results are most notable in mathematics and natural science, but are also apparent, though to a lesser degree, in reading comprehension. This raises the question as to how to explain these declining performance levels.”
Page 16 of the report goes on to conclude that
“grade point averages within several central subject areas have declined over time.”
It goes on to say:
“In addition to average grades having worsened in certain regards, the spread of grade point averages has widened over time.”
So the picture is not clear.
The Swedish report also makes positive points, and we should be fair about that. Sweden did not follow the policy because it is an independent, free, small European nation but because, in the 1990s, it made the political choice to devolve to municipalities the delivery of funding for education, which has made the differential between the municipality costs per school vary and not come together. Page 28 of the report says that the variation is between costs per pupil of about 60,000 kronor and 108,000 kronor in the municipality with the highest costs. The variation has increased. As I said in my earlier intervention, the pupil teacher ratio also decreased during that period.
For some pupils who are from better socioeconomic backgrounds, including those who are from non-Swedish immigrant families, quality issues have arisen, and the educational performance of their parents is also critical.
What does all this mean for us in Scotland and what can we learn from it? The Liberal Democrats look at how schools are operated and we have a great deal of sympathy for considering a different model for the running of the building, or asset, of the school. That is why we were pragmatic in looking at non-profit distribution models in Argyll and public-private partnerships in the Borders.
Please wind up.
Companies are running and administering those schools efficiently. We are not saying that we want to take an educational approach lock, stock and barrel from another country. It might not be consistent with our approach in Scotland and we should not copy it wholesale because the grass is greener in some of its elements. That is not the right approach.
10:30
There can be little doubt that education and health are two of thepublic services that the public most cherish. In today’s debate, we have seen again our country’s commitment to public education; it has been reflected in contributions from all parts of the chambers.
However, we should not look at school management in isolation. New management systems can only do so much. Just as important, if not more so, is who manages and what they do. We must continue to strive towards excellence in the teaching profession and those who are in charge of our schools. We have so many good and hard-working teachers and headteachers, but we can and must improve. I welcome steps to ensure that the small number of teachers who are not performing are brought up to the same high standards that we expect from all.
We are moving towards the implementation of the curriculum for excellence, which represents something of a sea change in how we educate our children, and that is to be welcomed. The cabinet secretary is quite right to highlight in his amendment the point that Scottish education is generally of good quality. It is certainly not broken, and it has many important strengths. Those are recognised by the 2007 OECD report “Quality and Equity of Schooling in Scotland”.
Equally, we must ensure that identified weaknesses are being addressed. Changes to the education system must be targeted at the problems that we have identified, and should not just be for change’s sake. That is the first question to ask about the various alternative models of school management that are being mooted.
We should also ask why headteachers cannot be empowered and why standards cannot be raised while schools are retained under local authority control. There are plenty of examples in all our constituencies of schools in which innovative headteachers, staff, school boards and parents make remarkable differences to the education of our children. One school is not necessarily going to be better than another just because it is run by a trust or any other model over a local authority. As I said, the key question is not as much the management structure as who manages and how they go about it.
We must be very careful not to hold up any structure or country as some sort of panacea that will cure all the problems facing our education system. I return to the simple point that changes to the system must be targeted at solving the problems that we have at home.
Curriculum for excellence is aimed at bringing our schools right into the 21st century. Smaller class sizes are designed to increase teacher and pupil interaction and improve attainment in the early years that can be built on thereafter.
One of the problems facing education in Scotland is the link between deprivation and underachievement. The same OECD report that I mentioned also said that children from poorer communities and low socioeconomic status homes are more likely than others to underachieve, while the gaps associated with poverty and deprivation in local government areas appear to be very wide. The OECD went on to identify particular concerns over inequalities in rates of staying on and participation in different academic levels of national courses and in pass rates on those courses.
The recent Scottish survey of achievement raised similar concerns. That study recorded that the proportion of pupils in the most deprived areas who had well-established or better reading skills at the expected level was around 20 percentage points less than for pupils in less deprived areas across all stages of education. One of the largest differences was that pupils from less deprived areas were about twice as likely to have well-established or better skills at the expected level. Converting a school to another management model does not necessarily do anything to solve such issues.
However, I also agree with other members that we should not close our minds to ideas if they are shown to work well. I am happy for the positive aspects of schemes that are in place elsewhere to be brought back to Scotland. We have already heard about the cabinet secretary visiting Finland and Sweden, and Labour has introduced myriad systems in England and Wales. There is much to be learned from south of the border, Europe and beyond, and we should be open to learning from those ideas. However, we cannot assume that the successes of any school have come about just because it is a trust school or because it has any other type of management model. It will often be the case that non-trust schools copy the same strategies and policies while staying under local authority control.
We must also set down some clear markers when we are considering change—key pillars of our education system in Scotland that we must never see undermined. No school should have the power to select pupils on the ground of academic merit. Open access is a fundamental principle of our education system, and that can never be tarnished. Therefore, I look forward to the cabinet secretary reporting back on the lessons that he has learned from his Scandinavian visit. I am sure that there will be future education debates in the chamber very soon that will enable him to do that, when we will all have the opportunity to ask what lessons can be learned in adapting the Swedish model for Scotland.
It will also be necessary to revisit the issue as and when we know much more detail about how the trust schools—for example, those in East Lothian—might operate. In the meantime, the work to improve standards in Scotland’s schools must carry on, and I commend the cabinet secretary for the work that he has done on that since taking up his post.
10:35
I am pleased to support Labour’s amendment. It is right that members consider how we can all improve education in Scotland. We have become a fairly familiar team in the chamber on Thursday mornings, although we are joined this morning by others such as Peter Peacock, who gave an excellent speech and has brought a great deal of knowledge and understanding to the subject. He demonstrated clearly that Labour is engaging in the debate from a position that holds to our belief in an inclusive education system that works to reduce the attainment gap and meets the needs of every pupil.
The Conservatives are arguing that this is a debate whose time has come; however, I question whether that is the case. In recent weeks, the Parliament has been concerned with the introduction of the curriculum for excellence and, although concerns are being raised over preparedness and resourcing, we have all been united in recognising its value and its potential to address many of the educational challenges that our young people face. Surely, we must question whether this is the time to unpick the education system, fracturing the delivery of education and potentially destabilising the system. No one believes that the system of delivering education in Scotland is set in stone and that we should not be open to innovation and change, but I question whether this is the time for the Scottish Government to be working on an options paper on models of school organisation when there is so much else in education for the Government to be giving its attention to.
Of course, the Scottish Government is happy to pursue an option that is driven by the argument that the system is failing rather than accept that it is the Government’s stewardship of education that is failing. The Conservatives’ proposal also appears to pre-empt the inquiry of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee into the management of schools—a proposal that was agreed by all parties and that is surely more suitable as an investigation of the issue than a Government options paper that implies that an option must be chosen.
Does the member accept that one of the options in that paper must be the status quo—or what we might call the status quo with tweaks, which was outlined in an excellent speech from her colleague, Peter Peacock?
I fully accept that point. If the Government is to pursue an options paper, it must be extremely wide ranging and recognise the value in the current system. However, the concern is that the committee is already committed to a detailed inquiry into the issue.
The Conservatives’ choice this morning is, no doubt, influenced by the fact that there is a general election around the corner and they are struggling to find a positive alternative. They are not the first to be attracted by a Swedish model, as has been made clear in some of the speeches this morning. In calling for an alternative schools system to be run in parallel with the current state system, they are returning to familiar arguments for independently run schools that compete for pupils in order to drive up standards. But where is the evidence for such a model? The argument that competition will drive up standards is familiar Tory territory but it has many failures. There is very little evidence to suggest that such a stepping stone to a subsidised free market would tackle inequality. The United Kingdom Conservatives’ admission that they would have to place artificially 220,000 pupils from the poorest backgrounds into their academy schools raises more questions than it provides answers. How would those pupils be selected and supported?
I presume that if the member is opposed to the idea of independently run, directly funded schools in Scotland, she is equally opposed to the hundreds of schools that are operated on that model in England by the UK Labour Government.
They are quite different models. The models down south look for contributions and have a wide-ranging board, whereas the Conservative model is directly funded, privately independent schools.
No, it is not.
Yes, it is.
In recognising that they would have to create the demand artificially, the Conservatives are admitting that families and parents who have the resources and a high level of engagement with their children’s education will be able to negotiate the proposed system more effectively. They claim that their model will not be selective, but if demand for state-funded independent schools grew, would they not be forced into a selective position and draw more state money, leaving struggling schools in poorer areas with less money and investment? John Dunford, the head of the Association of School and College Leaders, has stated:
“It will be the disadvantaged who suffer if the school system splits into 20,000 autonomous units”.
There is also the issue of staffing. An alternative schools system would present challenges for pay scales and terms and conditions, which could run the risk of draining state schools of their most talented staff.
In addition, where is the accountability? The Conservatives’ proposals would set schools free from any accountability to the Government or the education authorities, leaving the Government with very little responsibility for education. Of course, the Conservatives will argue that parents can vote with their feet if they are unhappy with a school, but where does that leave schools’ long-term sustainability and planning? Does such instability not create problems rather than solve them, and who will pick up the pieces when there is failure? The Swedish example suggests that it will be the municipals.
At the heart of the argument is the proposition that if we want standards to rise, teachers to have more control and parents to have more choice, we must break the state monopoly. However, that is an inaccurate interpretation of the reality of schools in Scotland today. The suggestion that improvements can be achieved only by allowing direct state funding of new, independently run, free schools that compete with existing local authority-run schools creates more problems than it solves.
All parties agree that we should be open to learning from experience in the rest of the UK and abroad, although I have often heard in the chamber that other countries around the world look to Scotland for a model for delivering education. We must take a critical look at the positives and negatives of other models. Although there is much to learn from the Swedish model, it faces increasing concerns and challenges around attainment levels, which other members have mentioned.
Of course, we want to see diversity in the education sector and greater opportunities for young people to make choices that meet their needs and interests. We must properly support school and college liaison, look further at national centres of excellence, such as that at Plockton, and get on with introducing the curriculum for excellence and the new exams framework. There will always be the opportunity for parents to make placing requests and exercise a degree of choice. Nevertheless, I know from my region that schools that previously experienced a high number of placing requests from pupils and parents who chose to pursue alternative schools have seen a drop in the number of parents who are making that choice. More pupils and parents are positively choosing their schools because they have received increased investment and improved facilities, because excellent leadership has been demonstrated by the headteachers and because more involvement of parents has led to raised aspirations. Those factors have changed and are changing schools, and that is where our attention should be focused.
10:43
As other members have said, whatever else divides us in the chamber, all the parties share the same objective of ensuring that every child in Scotland has the opportunity to make the most of their abilities regardless of the income or wealth of their parents. I do not doubt the sincerity of members from other parties who take a different view on how we get there, and I hope that, in return, other parties do not doubt our sincerity in taking the view that we do on how we achieve that.
For too long, we have been guilty of dwelling on our historic reputation for high standards in education. In the past, the slightest criticism of an individual school, overall attainment levels or our place among international comparators has been met with attacks and the assertion that that is simply undermining the efforts of pupils and teachers. Of course, it is entirely the opposite. If we cannot challenge attainment levels and the success of the current system, we will not drive up standards or establish a culture of continuous improvement, which is what we need.
All members will be able to name state schools in our constituencies where we would be happy to send our children to be educated. However, few of us—if any—will not have in our constituencies schools that, at the very least, we would have reservations about sending our children to. I wonder whether, if the children of politicians had to be educated in the poorest-performing schools in their constituencies, we might find more interest in improving standards across the board rather than dogged defence of the status quo.
I grew up in the Borders and, like the vast majority of people in the area, was fortunate enough to have access to good state schools locally. Indeed, one of the pressures in the northern part of the Borders at the moment is that people are moving there from Edinburgh, partly attracted by the high standard of schools in the area. It is a generalisation, but parent satisfaction with school standards in the Borders, Dumfries and Galloway, East Lothian and other parts of the region that I represent is very high. In The Sunday Times top 50, the Borders, East Lothian, and Dumfries and Galloway feature disproportionately among the top-performing schools. I accept that that is a crude measure, but to some extent it tells a story about attainment.
In other parts of the country, however, the picture is slightly different. In Edinburgh, a significant number of parents choose to pay for their children to be educated privately. A significant number choose to pay for a more expensive property in the catchment area of what they perceive to be a better school, and a significant number—probably the majority—have no choice because they cannot afford to pay for school fees or buy a property in a catchment area of their choice. They just have to hope that their local school is good. That lack of choice is less of an issue for parents in rural areas. In places such as Haddington, Peebles and Thornhill, the local schools are very good.
Having said that, even the best schools need to improve continually if Scotland is going to improve relative to competitor nations. Schools that are currently world class will not necessarily be so in future simply by maintaining the status quo.
Is there not a disconnect in logic in what the member is saying? He is saying that good schools exist in areas where choice is not an issue and that, in areas where there are schools that are not so good, choice is the solution. Rather than introducing a solution that he is arguing will not work in areas that he represents, is the solution not more effective management of schools that are not performing as well as they could?
I am arguing that there is less demand for choice in areas where the local schools are good, which is a very different point.
The issue is how we raise standards across the board. I am not saying that introducing greater diversity or parental choice is the whole story, but it is part of the answer. Over the past few years, we have proved—if any proof were necessary—that spending more money is not the way to drive up standards in education. We have tried pouring money into education and it has had no discernable impact on attainment levels. Earlier, Des McNulty made a point about attainment levels and deprivation. He must lie awake at night, worrying about why the gap between rich and poor has increased under the Labour Government that he supports.
As other members have said, in England, parents have the freedom to establish new schools. Last month, the Elmgreen school in Lambeth was officially opened. It is a non-denominational, non-selective secondary that aims to specialise in humanities. It was established under laws that were introduced by a Labour Government, and it was opened by a Labour minister, Tessa Jowell, who called it
“a true and lasting testament to all the parents who campaigned tirelessly with me to see it built”.
Another school that is opening in London, the Jewish community secondary school in Barnet, is already oversubscribed, although it does not open until September. In Acton, there are proposals to build a new school based on the model that the cabinet secretary mentioned, the ethos behind Marr college in Troon.
One cynic on The Guardian website commented:
“Free schools cannot possibly work. They do not have Ed Balls in charge.”
That gets to the heart of the issue. The reason why we think that that model has the potential to be successful is that it does not take a top-down approach to raising standards; instead, it allows a bottom-up, profession-led approach. I accept that we should not introduce wholesale into Scotland models from other nations, but we should learn from them. Liz Smith spoke at length of the experience in Sweden. Jeremy Purvis seemed critical of the evidence from Sweden, but if it is so bad, why is Tavish Scott going there? Is it perhaps so that he can be escorted out of a shopping centre in Stockholm rather than Aberdeen?
10:49
Liz Smith argued that there is a need for change and that education is currently unacceptable to parents and has to become acceptable. However, I would suggest that the recognition in the SNP amendment that we have good-quality schools now is at the heart of how we assess how we make those schools better. Talking about the need for change sounds more like an argument for ideological change than an argument about the nuts and bolts.
We have heard some interesting arguments and—mainly from the Conservatives—a lot of rhetoric. Bill Aitken laid out a grim litany on Glasgow. I do not recognise in what he said the community that I come from and the one in which I used to teach, in Easter Ross. In those communities, there is a variety of catchment areas containing a variety of schools, some of which are favoured by parents and some of which are not. What I have noticed is that in the schools to which parents aspire, success is less to do with what happens in the school and more to do with the fact that parents can afford to get tutors after school to get their children to a standard that allows certain schools, such as Fortrose academy, to get the records that they do. That is an issue to do with being better off, not the structure and governance of a school.
I accept the member’s point, but is that not critical for allowing all standards to be driven up so that that divide is not as great as it is now?
We need to assess where we are in education. We are talking about parents who have grown up in the television age and children who, in the past 10 years, have been growing up in the internet age. Does that affect the way in which they view literacy and numeracy? I do not know whether, educationally, those things have made a big difference, but what I do know is that communities must be given an opportunity to provide the options in education that will meet the real needs of our society.
We live in a society in which many people will not do the most basic jobs, and we rely on immigrants to do such jobs. Perhaps we need to ask parents about their responsibilities: are they moving out of their comfort zone, or is it a case of getting their children to university and into the safe professions? One of the reasons why Ireland has not been as successful a society as it should have been is that the middle classes have aimed for comfort, rather than for the adventure of taking the economy forward. The governance of our schools should expose children to such ideas. It bothers me that when the Conservatives talk about diversity in Scotland, what they are actually talking about is uniformity, and the ideology driven by the Conservatives in London. Derek Brownlee recently gave examples of schools set up under Labour and the Tories, based on ideology. We do not need to talk about setting up schools. Where are we going to put a free school in Easter Ross, among the community schools that are already there? That is a load of piffle. We need schools that meet the needs of each area. Who is going to go to somewhere other than Anderson high school in Shetland? That kind of talk is not related to reality.
Peter Peacock argued that parents do not want to be more involved in the running of schools. In my experience, when people come to communities and join school boards and so on, they bring their experience from England of governors and boards, and an attitude that is completely out of kilter with what we have here. In Scotland, parents and teachers work together. In fact, the reason why Thatcher failed to break Scottish teachers in the 1980s is because the parents were right behind them. In those days, communities stood together and rejected the Tory ideology, and they will reject it today.
The member should come and join us. He is on the wrong side.
Well, Peter Peacock made arguments that Des McNulty should listen to. He was clearly talking about ideology rather than practicalities.
The issue of parental rights and responsibilities is relevant here. I remember when we talked about consortia, and allowing pupils to move around. Nowadays, ideas can move around, and it is possible to educate pupils using technology. For example, Inverness College’s higher psychology course is being used by 18 secondary schools in Highland Council. No matter which community someone lives in, they can do higher psychology. Out of 26 secondary schools, that is not bad going.
We are talking about rolling out the curriculum for excellence, which will allow for diversity. However, it must also allow communities of excellence, based on the kinds of economies that underpin the society in which we live, rather than on a single, one-size-fits-all ideology.
What we need is a responsive approach by local authorities that gives local people opportunities to make more decisions. When we think about it, it would be better to have smaller local authorities so that people could be elected at the level of secondary school catchment areas. People could then take a direct democratic interest in the issues. That is why the democratic element in East Lothian Council’s proposal is worth considering. It goes in the right direction, although not to the extent that I wish to see. We need governance that helps real communities in real circumstances and not this fake debate in an election campaign about power in London.
10:55
Another Thursday and we are having another education debate. That might seem a flippant point, but it clearly illustrates that all political parties are keen to debate education. Although the cabinet secretary was keen to seek consensus this morning, the Tory party’s motion shows that there are still some clear dividing lines in opinions about the way forward for improving our education system.
When it comes to the education of our children and young people, we should not close our minds to any reasonable proposal. If good education models exist elsewhere in Europe or throughout the world, be they for curriculum development or for school management, it is right that we should examine them and, where appropriate, learn from them. Similarly, I support moves to improve parental involvement in our schools and to devolve appropriate powers and budgets to our highly skilled headteachers and the wider school community.
However, I am somewhat surprised by the Tory party’s enthusiasm for the so-called Swedish model. It is true that, since the early 1990s, the Swedes have pursued a policy of increased decentralisation of education powers and resources, first to the municipal level and then to individual schools. That increased the possibilities for pupils and parents to choose their schools as well as greatly increasing opportunities to establish independent schools. However, as other members have said, it is far from clear that the decentralisation has resulted in improved educational attainment. A report by the Swedish National Agency for Education entitled “What Influences Educational Attainment in Swedish Schools?” points out:
“grade point averages within several central subject areas have declined over time. The National Agency for Education’s own national evaluations, as well as international studies, present a broadly consistent picture of Swedish school pupils’ results in mathematics, natural sciences and reading comprehension in later years of compulsory school, showing a decline in performance since the beginning/middle of the 1990s.”
Jeremy Purvis highlighted that point. Even more concerning, the report goes on to state:
“From 1993, attainment differentials have increased between various schools ... The analyses have also pointed to increasing differences in grades attained by various groups of pupils (differentiated by social background, gender, and ethnicity) but most particularly between groups differentiated by parents’ educational background ... researchers conclude that an increasing differentiation of levels of attainment coincides with comprehensive changes in the Swedish school system that have occurred since the beginning of the 1990s.”
The report concludes:
“A strong common denominator was decentralisation.”
We must be careful about introducing changes to school management that might result in increased segregation in our schools on the basis of social background, gender or ethnicity.
The Conservative party wants to introduce competition in our school system as a way of driving up attainment. That should not surprise us, as it is consistent with the Conservatives’ fundamental ideological position on most policies, but in any competition that I have ever witnessed there have always been winners and losers. We should remember the mess in which the Tory party left our health service. Competition between health boards in Scotland led not to improved services but to cut-price cleaning contracts, dirty hospitals and a postcode lottery in the health service.
Would the member care to acknowledge that some of the highest cleanliness standards in Scotland’s hospitals are achieved where the service has been contracted out and that, regrettably, some of the tragic deaths that have occurred were in hospitals where the contracts are still held in-house? Those, I am afraid, are the facts.
The fact is that, when Mr McLetchie’s party contracted out the service at Monklands hospital in my constituency, our hospital was not nearly as clean. When the service came back in-house under a Labour-led Executive, the hospital became much cleaner. The Tories should reflect on that.
The proposals in the Tory motion would heighten inequalities in education. Indeed, I have already demonstrated that that has happened in Sweden—the country to which the Tories seem so keen for us to look. I want to quote a previous speech by Liz Smith. I am sure that she is impressed that I have been reading her speeches. She said:
“Many communities across Scotland are fortunate to have an excellent state school on their doorstep but far too many do not. In too many areas, particularly in some of our most disadvantaged communities, schools are under-performing because the present system provides them with too little incentive for improvement.”
Liz Smith should explain clearly just how the Tories’ proposals would provide that incentive. Are they really trying to tell us that teachers in some of our most disadvantaged schools lack the incentive to provide a high-quality education? I certainly do not think that that is the case.
By no means am I saying that teachers lack an incentive. Some of our finest teachers are in disadvantaged areas, but they are constrained by a one-size-fits-all policy that does not allow them to do some of the things that they want to do to address the distinctive needs of the children in their schools.
Ms Whitefield, you should watch your time.
I am not at all convinced that simply changing the management will drive up the attainment of our most disadvantaged students.
Not only do I have concerns about the efficacy of the approach that the Tory party is proposing, I believe that there are also problems of democratic accountability. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will want to ask how such a fragmented system could possibly deliver on the concordat.
Finally, I am concerned about the impact that a fragmented education system would have on the delivery of the curriculum for excellence. There are already serious concerns in Scottish education about the implementation of the curriculum for excellence. Do we really need to introduce more uncertainty about school management at this time?
The real challenges that face Scottish education and Scottish schools are with us here and now.
You should be finishing now, Ms Whitefield
They are the reduced funding that is available to local authorities and the lack of Government strategies to build new schools and provide jobs for our teachers. Those are the problems that the Government must face up to, and I kindly suggest to the Tories that they are the problems on which they should concentrate.
11:03
As Aileen Campbell said, we were told at the conclusion of last week’s debate on education that, if we waited patiently until today, we would have the chance to discuss the Swedish education model. I have waited with eager anticipation since then, so it was with a sense of anticlimax that I noted that, for some reason, the Conservative party’s motion does not even mention Sweden. Suffice it to say, however, that that absence has not prevented us from considering the lessons that can be learned from that country—or indeed from being put through Christina McKelvie’s litany of ABBA-related puns.
We should be prepared to learn lessons for our education system from elsewhere but, as well as considering what we can adapt and imitate, we must be prepared to learn what not to copy from other countries, as the cabinet secretary said. We should reflect on the fact that, in the OECD programme for international student assessment, Sweden lies below Scotland for maths and science. The much-referred-to Swedish model is not the panacea for Scotland’s education system that it has been presented as. Entry criteria for schools in Sweden have a less residential focus. As Aileen Campbell said, that can mean that schools have less of a community character. One of the strengths of our system is the community aspect of our schools. The fact that pupils are drawn from a local residential catchment area is hugely important to the contribution that schools make to wider society. It is right that the cabinet secretary should visit Sweden and Finland to find out what can be learned from them, but he will not see educational utopias in those countries.
The motion refers to East Lothian Council, which has been prepared to think a little outside the box. Despite the best efforts of some people to argue otherwise, that council has made no final decisions on future models for the running of its schools. Whatever models may be considered and implemented, democratic accountability through the council and the schools’ position in the state sector will remain. Having that is surely an absolute must for Scotland’s education system.
We are, of course, only weeks away from a UK general election. The Tories’ position on the future delivery of education in England has been instructive. If the Tories are returned to government, they plan to compartmentalise education and undermine the sustainability of many schools with the greatest challenges. From that perspective, at least we can be grateful that Conservative ambitions to privatise our education system in Scotland will remain simply ambitions that are evidenced in debates and speeches in the Parliament but which have no chance of being realised.
Elizabeth Smith’s opening speech was instructive. I want to refer to two things that she mentioned in it. She said that politicians have direction over schools, not headteachers. That is hyperbole. It may read well in a press release and make a good soundbite, but it does not reflect reality. Headteachers are in charge of their schools, not individual politicians.
What would the member say to the headmaster in Motherwell who has said that he does not have the freedom to choose whoever he would like when he chooses his staff? That is a classic case. He must go by what local authority directives say.
I suppose that that is a matter of individual perspective. There should be a form of democratic accountability. I am sure that Elizabeth Smith recognises that that headteacher will take charge of the day-to-day running of that school, although I do not know which school she is referring to.
Elizabeth Smith talked about a socialist love affair with comprehensive education. Unlike some other members—members should take a cursory glance around the chamber—I was educated in a comprehensive school. Such schools work. They allow for different talents to come to the fore and provide a rounded educational experience. If the socialists have such a love affair with comprehensive education, one wonders why the Conservatives did not legislate to change the comprehensive system in 18 years of government. Elizabeth Smith spoke about how wonderful our schools are, but she then damned them.
Education is a right, not a privilege. It is important not simply because of its benefit and value to the individual, but because of what it contributes to the common weal. Society as a whole will benefit if more of our young people receive the best possible education.
As the Government amendment suggests, there is already much to be proud of in our state education system. Bill Aitken’s suggestion that the state education system is broken is nonsense. I do not always agree with Jeremy Purvis, but at least I agree with him about that.
The 2009 Scottish survey of achievement in schools focused on reading and writing. Some 13,000 pupils in P3, P5, P7 and S2 in 400 local authority and independent schools throughout Scotland were assessed, and it was found that performance in reading was up on 2005 and 2006 at all primary levels and that a significant proportion of children were performing above the expected level. That demonstrates that the idea that Scotland’s education system is broken is ludicrous.
However, challenges were found in levels of attainment in writing. The areas of Scotland in which that problem is greatest are not without wider challenges. Those areas are invariably among the poorest in the country. That was found by the OECD, as Shirley-Anne Somerville stated.
The answer to tackling the problem does not lie in changing the education system alone and changing things for the sake of change—Margaret Smith accurately put it in that way. It is important to embed literacy skills across the curriculum, as is happening. The goal remains to have a system that will provide relevant, inspiring and engaging education for every child and young person in Scotland.
I admire the Conservatives’ willingness, as expressed in their motion, to learn from other European countries, but why should we confine our horizon only to the continent of Europe? I can think of other places in the world where huge strides have been taken to tackle historical levels of illiteracy by making huge strides in educating people. I will leave it to Conservative members to guess where I am talking about; the pages of yesterday’s Scotsman provide a suggestion.
I welcome the debate and look forward to hearing what the minister has to say.
11:10
Education debates are so frequent on Thursday mornings that it is beginning to feel a little bit like there is a breakfast club. Notwithstanding that observation, I congratulate Elizabeth Smith on lodging the motion.
The debate has been interesting and largely consensual. We have come together in the way that old friends do to chew over the issues relating to the management of our schools. However, I respectfully ask whether the time to do that is when our education system faces so many other challenges. Margaret Smith also asked about that.
A number of education management models that are worth considering have been referred to. There is no question but that they are worth considering, although we probably need to find another way of describing the Swedish model in the chamber. I suspect that many people who googled the words “Swedish model” would be disappointed if the search results came up with a series of debates in the Scottish Parliament.
We have considerable opportunities to look across the international field and see where there are new developments. My colleague Jeremy Purvis made telling observations about the success of the Swedish model, which has been much discussed in the debate. There seems to be consensus in the chamber that change is needed, but I suspect that the noise that we can hear through our double-glazing is to do with the prospect of our teachers suffering yet another upheaval. My colleague Margaret Smith referred to the damage that such upheaval could cause.
Fairness is at the heart of the Liberal Democrat approach to education. If members decide that our modelling of school management has to change, fairness for all our pupils must be at the heart of our approach. Christina McKelvie rather dismissed Tavish Scott’s offer of a pupil premium, but the pony for every little girl that she added is no less fanciful than the promises to abolish student debt and maintain teacher numbers and any of the other things that we know that the Government has failed to do. That political point aside, there is general agreement and, as Margaret Smith said, we will support the Conservative motion and the SNP amendment.
My colleague Peter Peacock made a thoughtful and useful speech. As a former minister, he knows the subject well. He was right to point out that change for change’s sake does nothing. The objective must be to drive up achievement and attainment. I make a clear distinction between those two things because, particularly in Central Scotland, which I represent, there are socioeconomic factors to do with attainment that will not necessarily be influenced simply by changing the management structure of schools. It is clear that there is a wider area of activity, and perhaps we need to extend into that. My colleague Margaret Smith talked about fairness, and to get that into the system we need a curriculum of the home, so that the mechanisms that we use in our education system are extended beyond the schools. Educational attainment is not a straightforward race; rather, it is, in effect, a handicap race. That is why we are firmly of the opinion that the pupil premium could address some of those imbalances, such as the socioeconomic disadvantages from which people from less well-off areas suffer in their attainment and achievement attempts.
I have no doubt that we will revisit the subject, but I say now that the Liberal Democrats firmly support choice. Central Government does not have a monopoly on insight into schools. We need a system that enhances the individuality of the pupil who is given the opportunity to choose an education that works for them, and a system that empowers and inspires pupils, parents and those responsible for running our schools at all levels across a range of vocational and academic achievements and attainments. We accept fully that there is a case for looking at different models, including the status quo with, as Margaret Smith said, tweaks or knobs on—whichever is preferred. At a time when so much in education is in turmoil, any change must happen with full consultation and be taken at a steady pace.
11:16
I thank Elizabeth Smith and the Conservatives for introducing today’s debate. As both Karen Whitefield and Hugh O’Donnell suggested, Thursday mornings in the Parliament would not be the same without an education debate.
There have been clear areas of agreement and even consensus this morning. The odd barb aside, I found myself agreeing with the cabinet secretary, although I stopped short when he seemed to describe himself as a socialist. Most of us from all sides appear to be open to learning from other models of education or best practice, whether in Sweden, elsewhere in Europe or around the globe. Although we are all proud of our school system, we are prepared to admit that it is not perfect and can be improved.
I am pleased by our mutual willingness to look at ways to improve Scotland’s schools, but that should not mask fundamental differences in our analysis and therefore in our priorities. In the Labour seats, we are more sympathetic to the focus of the Liberal and Government amendments than to the original Tory motion. To take the subject of the debate first, although it might be possible to come up with improvements to the management of our schools, we remain to be convinced that that is the most pressing problem facing pupils. My colleague Des McNulty highlighted the need to prioritise the introduction of the curriculum for excellence or literacy and numeracy and Margaret Smith echoed the importance first and foremost of good-quality teaching and leadership from the headteacher. Those are the issues that make a difference in our schools. I add that if one of our biggest worries is the loss of 2,500 teaching posts, how does changing the management of our schools address that problem? As the Tory motion asks, is it
“now time to explore alternative models”,
when, as the Liberal amendment highlights, the introduction of the curriculum for excellence against a background of budget cuts was the key worry motivating thousands of teachers and pupils to take to our streets just last weekend?
The SNP amendment introduces a welcome note of balance where it recognises that
“Scottish education is generally of good quality with many important strengths”.
Elizabeth Smith started her speech by trying to develop the false premise that we have a one-size-fits-all system and Bill Aitken took it further and suggested that our system was “broke”. I agree entirely with Jeremy Purvis, who rejected that accusation. We do not have a broken system. I particularly liked the cabinet secretary’s comment that the Scottish education system is not monolithic, either in structure or delivery. That was the conclusion of the OECD inquiry into our school system that went on to point out that deprivation and low socioeconomic status were the key predictors of a child’s success at school in Scotland, hugely outweighing any other factor, including management structures.
Perhaps my biggest worry about the Conservative motion is that it might be written in code. On the surface it seems inoffensive enough, but the unspoken policy aim is to take schools out of local authority control and establish a sort of state-subsidised free market in schools. Although it is more than 20 years ago now, most of us remember well the Tories’ introduction of the school board system, another attempt by the few to wrest control of schools away from the many. The Conservatives seem to have forgotten that parents in Scotland rejected their potential manipulation through politicised school boards, and that, since then, most Scots have reaffirmed our faith in the comprehensive model through the consultation on the national priorities in education. I agree with both Rob Gibson’s and Jamie Hepburn’s analysis and approach to that matter.
The Conservative motion talks about choice—but choice for whom and at what price? Is it choice for those informed or wealthy enough to take advantage of that opportunity while the neglected are left behind? Claire Baker highlighted that it is always the disadvantaged who lose out in such systems.
The Conservatives in England and Wales seem to be pinning their hopes on introducing the so-called Swedish model of alternative state-funded but independently managed schools. However, as Karen Whitefield, Jeremy Purvis, Des McNulty and others have all pointed out, the evidence from Sweden is that the model has been divisive. They have ended up employing teachers with poorer qualifications and left us with a host of questions to which I heard no answers from the Tories today. Would the Swedish model be in addition to existing schools, and if so, which local schools would be closed? That is the automatic assumption about what would happen. If funding is to follow the child, that means cuts in existing school budgets—is that what the Tories want? Do they believe that such schools should be able to make profits? They make profits in Sweden. Michael Gove has said clearly that he is not against the principle of profit in education. Perhaps one of the Tories would like to say now whether they are against the principle of profit in education in Scotland.
I make it absolutely clear that we would not prevent anybody from setting up a school, provided that they did so according to the education legislation of this country, which means HMIE inspections and regulation by the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care. I think that Mr Macintosh is confused; there are already private schools that do not make profits. The issue is about state-funded education, which the Swedish model makes abundantly clear. All that we are saying is that, within such a model, there should be diversity in schools provision.
I am not sure that that was the ringing denunciation of profit in schools that I was asking for. The worry is not about a state-run but a state-subsidised private education market.
We should have genuine parental choice, but through expanding plurality in the system. To found a new system on the principle of choice that can be exercised only by the few would be to entrench segregation and division in our schools, rather than bolster the values of equality, opportunity and fairness. The motion skips over some of those more unwelcome prospects, but we should be under no illusion that they exist. I hope that Scottish schools will always remain and be recognised as a public service and a social and common good, rather than a consumer purchase. The way in which we manage and hold our schools accountable should reflect that.
11:23
At the start of the debate I referred jocularly to the socialist love affair between me and Ken Macintosh. I now report the sense of astonishment that I feel that it has come so far and so fast. I point out that I did not claim that I was a socialist, nor did I assert that he was one. Both are perhaps equally unlikely. I am struck, however, by the fact that for the first time since I took up my role, Mr Macintosh and I agree greatly on some of the difficulties and pitfalls that this debate presents. Our only difference is in how we will approach those as we go forward. Caution is required in the debate.
Structures are important, but they are a longer-term issue than some of the shorter-term things that we require to pay attention to and I am happy to admit that. I accept Margaret Smith’s well-made caveat that it is important to look urgently at what change is essential. That is the issue here. Are there changes that are so important that they will assist us to make changes to the priorities? Are there other things that would be desirable over time in improving what is happening in Scotland? Are there some things that would be tinkering for tinkering’s sake? That is a helpful caveat to inject into the debate, as is the issue of resources. Resources are not limitless. If we are to apply resources to structural change in particular, we need to see that as an investment that will produce a return over a reasonable period.
Those cautions aside, it has been an interesting debate and, by and large, a good one. I was astonished by the range of knowledge of particular things from one or two individuals. Mr McNulty clearly has bought and digested whole the observer’s book of Conservative-controlled town halls. He mentioned an astonishing range of minor Conservative spokespeople—it is a slim volume, but Mr McNulty knows it inside out. Mr Purvis has the observer’s book of Swedish local authority education spending, which is very full indeed. He made one or two very important points. Christina McKelvie, not unexpectedly, has the observer’s book of ABBA hits. She knows that inside out, too.
Let us look at the truth about some of the things that we have talked about. I accept that Mr Purvis has a point about Swedish education achievement. On international comparisons, Sweden and Scotland are broadly similar in how they perform—in one or two areas Sweden is better and in one or two areas we are better. Of course, the really significant point is not about where Sweden has arrived, but about travelling hopefully. The purpose of going to Sweden is to find out how it is addressing problems and difficulties and whether any of its ideas are better than any of ours.
I recommend to Mr Russell that when he goes to Sweden he looks carefully at the zero-to-three provision, which is a model that we should look at positively.
That is a helpful remark. We must look at the whole system to see what works and what does not work. Sweden takes the same approach to us. In June 2008, a delegation from Sweden, including the state secretary for education, was here because there were things that they wanted to look at. In particular, they wanted to look at how we support teachers, continuous professional development, initial training, the chartered teacher programme, the Scottish qualification for headship and probationers, because they thought that they could learn from our experience of those things. It is a two-way street.
We must not get hung up simply on models of provision. There are models on content, national objectives and national agreements. In Finland, there is an agreement on overall education policy and there are interesting ways of taking it forward. To be even-handed, I point out that Finland, which I am looking forward to seeing on Sunday and Monday, is one of the least diverse European countries in terms of delivery—92 per cent of the schools there are public. Finland is more successful than Sweden in terms of outcomes—it is one of the best performing countries in the world in education—but that success is not due to the diversity of the system. We need to understand how that works.
There are similar models. Scotland has a very low rate of private participation in education. I am of the view that that does not hold us back. There are very high rates of private participation in Belgium and the Netherlands. In fact, the Netherlands has the highest rate of private participation; there is an absolute state guarantee about the right to private education and how the state supports it. We need to look at all those things, but we are not going down that road—it is not a road that this Government wishes to go down. If we are to examine Finland, Sweden, Norway and elsewhere, let us consider the road that we want to go down and how their lessons can help us to do so. That is precisely what I hope to be able to do.
One of the most thoughtful contributions to the debate came from Peter Peacock—I am grateful to him for that. He and I agree on a great deal, but not on everything. He is absolutely right that the autonomy of headteachers in how they operate is a key factor in the delivery of school services. Of course, leadership in schools is a key factor nationally and internationally. As Peter Peacock will know from his considerable experience in the job that I now hold, autonomy is the single most important factor in the recruitment, retention and motivation of headteachers. He is absolutely right to stress that we should look at that and see how it would work for every single one of us.
There were other interesting contributions. Shirley-Anne Somerville made some telling points about the relationship between structure and content, which Derek Brownlee fleshed out by raising the issue of rurality. There are complex relationships between how the school is structured, how it is managed, what is taught there, the nature of the community that it serves and what the parents do.
However, let us remind ourselves of the overwhelming fact that we all know that poverty is what determines most how one will do in education, including further and higher education. Children from the poorest backgrounds have the least chance of success. Although we want to debate this subject, make all sorts of interventions and change all sorts of things, the thing that we need to think about most is how we change endemic poverty in parts of Scotland and how we intervene early enough to ensure that life chances are changed for each child.
Smaller class sizes are an important part of all this, because they fit into the mix well. We know that there is growing international interest in what smaller class sizes will achieve even in places such as Singapore and Hong Kong, where there have traditionally been much larger class sizes.
The evidence, which is available to the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee as part of its inquiry, shows that those places know that they have to inculcate the skills of the 21st century—creativity, flexibility and problem solving—into young people, which is best done in smaller class sizes. They are moving away from one of the things that has been their hallmark.
We have a lot to learn from each other. The purpose of my going to Finland and Sweden is not, as Annabel Goldie has suggested, just to have a sauna. The purpose is to listen, learn, understand and to try to apply things to our experience so that we can take education in Scotland forward in the short, medium and long term. I hope that we will have a chance to debate that in the chamber in future.
11:31
This morning’s debate has exposed a great divide, as Karen Whitefield acknowledged in her speech. On the one hand, we have the forces of progress, who are ambitious for our children and young people and determined to drive up standards of attainment in our schools and promote choice. On that side of the debate are members who are receptive to new thinking and are not afraid to draw on international experience to develop an education system for Scotland that is fit for the 21 st century. Those progressive forces are represented by the Conservative party, the Scottish National Party and even the Liberal Democrats, who are gradually losing the taint of their previous associations.
On the other hand, we have the forces of complacency, with the aye-been tendency that is deeply embedded in the pockets of the vested interests of Scottish education. Those forces are represented by the Labour Party and The Herald.
Earlier this week, my colleague Elizabeth Smith set out Conservative ideas on how we could bring into being new independently run, publicly funded, free schools to break the current monopoly of provision by local authorities and provide a measure of choice and opportunity that is quite simply not available to the vast majority of parents and pupils in Scotland today.
Who did the Labour Party trot out to denounce those proposals? Was it any of the four Labour MSPs, such as Mr Peacock, who sat in the Cabinet as ministers for education? Was it any of the three Labour MSPs, such as Karen Whitefield, who have been conveners of this Parliament’s education committee? Was it even the present Labour education spokesmen, Des McNulty or Ken Macintosh? No, it was not. Despite the glittering array of talent in the Labour Party, not one of them was up to issuing a press release. Instead, in a curious case of devolution in reverse, it fell to Lindsay Roy MP to lead the charge. What was the top line of Mr Roy’s complaint? According to him, the Tory school plan would lead to “rationing”—rationing, I ask you.
We already have rationing in the Scottish education system. As Derek Brownlee pointed out, it is rationing by the price of the house that one can afford to buy and the mortgage that one can afford to borrow. State schools in certain catchment areas achieve the best results and set the highest standards. They are invariably full to capacity, with very few pupils living outwith the defined catchment area. The result is that the right to choose, which has been enshrined in law since it was enacted by the previous Conservative Government, is severely limited in practice by capacity issues and by legal and policy constraints on the number of children admitted to particular schools.
The reality that Mr Roy and the rest of the Labour Party need to wake up to is that the present system rations access by price, and the people on short rations are the working people whom Labour claims to represent, for whom choice is illusory. They are stuck with one school—their local comprehensive—irrespective of whether it best meets the needs of their children. That, Mr McNulty, is social segregation; it is educational apartheid. That is what the Labour Party wants to perpetuate. We want to change that to make education better in Scotland. We need to do that.
By contrast with Labour, our proposals to encourage the development of publicly funded and independently run free schools will enable people to make real choices, break the council monopoly and the “do as you’re telt, take what you’re given, like it or lump it” philosophy that characterises Labour education policy.
Some people dismiss learning from others as mere policy tourism. I do not take such a parochial attitude. I say to those who get travel sick when venturing outwith the city of Glasgow: there is on your doorstep a shining example of exactly the type of publicly funded, free comprehensive school about which we are talking this morning. Bill Aitken referred to it. I speak, of course, of Jordanhill, the school of choice for the children of wealthy Labour education ministers who can afford homes within its catchment area. Jordanhill is a free comprehensive state-funded school that just happens to be widely regarded as the most successful state school in Scotland. Jordanhill is, of course, the school the Labour Party does not like to talk about. It is the school that the Labour Party wanted to close when it ceased to be a demonstration school for Jordanhill College of Education. It is the school that Labour refused to bring within the ambit of Strathclyde Regional Council at the time when the SRC was the education authority. It is, of course, the school that was saved, funded and sustained as a result of decisions taken by—members will have guessed it—the previous Conservative Government.
We have set out our ideas. We think that the education system in Scotland would be improved if we had more free, independently run schools, as they have in Sweden and we have in Jordanhill, Glasgow. However, we do not claim to have any monopoly of wisdom in that respect. That is why we welcome further examination of the community trust model that has been proposed by East Lothian Council and the Scottish National Party.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you.
It is not only politicians but respected educationists such as Professor Patterson and Professor Wilkinson who have said clearly that many of the school reforms that were introduced by a Labour Government in England have raised standards there, while here in Scotland we have failed to progress despite the massive increase in spending. It seems that only Scottish Labour is stuck in the time warp.
Will the member now give way?
No, thank you.
Just as we do not claim to have a monopoly of wisdom in terms of a solution, we acknowledge that important questions need to be answered. As Michael Russell rightly said, just because someone does not have the answers, it does not mean that they should not ask the questions. One such question is: should schools that are run by community trusts or independent free schools determine the terms and conditions of employment of teachers and other staff or would that remain subject to national bargaining? Peter Peacock made some interesting observations on the issue of budgets, staffing and devolution of powers to head teachers. Another question is about the employer in a community trust school. Would it be the trust or the council? Those are important questions for staff. We need convincing answers to them because we want to take people with us.
There is little that is prescriptive in the motion. It recognises that we have to proceed with care and over a period of time. After all, even in Sweden, it has taken 18 years to reach the stage at which 10 per cent of pupils are being educated in the sort of school that we have been discussing this morning. At this stage, the extent to which legislation will be necessary to bring into existence alternative models of school organisation is not even clear.
However, I firmly believe that we have to make a fresh start with the new cabinet secretary. I welcome the fact that he is receptive to new ideas and that he is prepared to commission and publish an options paper for debate. I welcome the work that the Parliament’s Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee will undertake in this respect. That said, if, as Mr Macintosh said, the issue is not a priority, why did Labour committee members vote to include it in the committee’s work programme? It seems that he may be at variance with some of his colleagues on the issue.
Will the member give way?
No. I am sorry, but I am in my last minute.
We need to make a start in this Parliament and lay the ground. As Elizabeth Smith said, doing nothing is not an option. Having done this preliminary work and focused the debate, I believe that schools reform will be one of the big issues in the next Parliament and at the 2011 election. It is an idea whose time has come, and is coming. I hope that everyone will get on board.