Education
The first debate this morning is on motion S1M-3879, in the name of Michael Russell, on education. I invite all those who want to take part in the debate to indicate that now.
Two weeks ago in the chamber, the Minister for Education and Young People launched a glossy document called "Educating for Excellence: Choice and Opportunity"—I have a copy of it in my hand. I am sorry that the Minister for Education and Young People is not here today. Most people in Scottish education looked forward to the document. We are talking not about the great debate, but about the response to the great debate. Our motion finds the Executive's response to that debate wanting.
We should consider what the great debate brought forward and what those who were encouraged to respond to the debate said. People had to be encouraged to respond, because many were obviously confused by the process. The team that was established to analyse the results of the great debate—Professor Pamela Munn and her colleagues at the University of Edinburgh—identified four key areas that required improved funding and support. The first area was more pupil choice. In the document, there is repetition in respect of further initiatives, further interventions and an overcrowded curriculum, but there is no indication that anything in the document will produce more pupil choice.
People wanted smaller class sizes. There is a vague commitment to those in the document, but it is not backed up with any details or concrete proposals.
People wanted more professionally qualified teachers, but the document and the minister's statement two weeks ago are heavy on matters such as adult to pupil ratios and light on the key issue of getting additional teachers into classrooms to make a difference. Indeed, the Executive's projections on teacher numbers show that it is intended that numbers will peak in 2007 and fall thereafter.
People wanted better buildings. Many reports, including the Accounts Commission's report, say that the way to get better buildings is not through the current private finance initiative scheme. The Accounts Commission report, which was published in January 2003, showed that it was harder to get better-designed buildings under PFI procurement, particularly buildings with wider corridors, enough social space, swimming pools and good equipment.
Will the member take an intervention?
No—I have only just started. I will give way shortly.
On the key requirements, there is an obvious mismatch between what people want and the Executive's responses. The most dramatic mismatch relates to a key requirement that came through in virtually every request in the great debate—a move away from performance measurement, tick boxes and meaningless statistics and towards actual achievement in education. The gap between achievement in education and what the Executive has proposed is as dramatic as the gap between the Executive's rhetoric over the past four years and the reality of Scottish education.
Has the member visited Balfron High School? Many characteristics that he said were not appearing in new schools have appeared there.
I am sure that some buildings are better than others and that, if the member believes that Balfron High School is among the best of those buildings, she will carry that belief, no matter what the evidence is to the contrary. However, the reality is that PFI contracts throughout Scotland are not delivering the buildings that are needed, particularly as they do not allow schools to be built in a way that will reduce class sizes.
The gap between the Scottish Executive's rhetoric and the reality is absolutely stunning. One should consider what the Executive has promised and what it has delivered. To some extent, I am sorry that the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People is here, as he is not responsible for that gap. He did not write the Labour party's manifesto or other documents in the Labour party's name. However, he must take responsibility for them—that is one of the pitfalls of coalition.
The gap between what was promised and what has been achieved is stark. One target in the Labour party's manifesto was for
"80% of children to reach the appropriate standard in reading, writing and arithmetic by the time they leave primary school."
The reality is that, in reading, 28 per cent of pupils, in writing, 41 per cent of pupils, and in maths, 32 per cent of pupils did not reach the basic minimum level expected of them by primary 7. That is a gap between rhetoric and reality.
Another pledge was that there would be
"An e-mail address for every Scottish child and at least 4 modern computers per class."
That has not been achieved. There are 2.2 computers per primary class and only 16 per cent of primary school children have an e-mail address; indeed, not even two-thirds of secondary school children have an e-mail address.
There is a whole list of other examples. The Labour party's manifesto target was for
"13,000 pupils to achieve higher standards at Standard and Higher grades."
The gap in attainment at standard grade is now wider than when the Labour party took office.
Another target was for
"Every child in Scotland to have access to an After School Club."
That process has hardly started.
Another target was to
"Reduce by half the number of 16/17 year olds who do not go on to education, training or a job"
between 1999 and 2002. That gap grew.
Another target was to reduce school exclusions and truancy by a third. Since 1999, unauthorised absence in primary schools has risen by 30 per cent and in secondary schools by 21 per cent. The statistics for violence in schools are off the chart.
Another target was to recruit 5,000 extra classroom assistants by 2002. That is the target that Labour trumpeted most, but it has not been achieved. The target of 1,000 additional teachers by 2002 has not been achieved. Another target was to improve assessment by 2003 so that achievement could be measured effectively; the Executive has given up talking about that, such is the mess that it is in. Another target was the development by 2002 of a comprehensive building strategy. The school estates strategy that was published last week contained none of the promised information. It is empty rhetoric; all that it asks for is information by December 2003.
I could go on with that list, but there is a longer list of the gap between rhetoric and reality in education. It is extremely important that that gap is closed, but "Educating for Excellence: Choice and Opportunity" does not close it. Within hours of the document being published, those who know something about education were complaining about it.
An example is the proposals on inspection, which were very confused last week. Cathy Jamieson talked about stronger inspection and the document mentions "‘proportionate' inspection." The following Friday, after the document was published, an article in The Times Educational Supplement Scotland started:
"Education directors have told Cathy Jamieson there is no need for extra Scottish Executive powers to deal with schools or authorities deemed to be failing pupils."
The directors of education state that there is no need for the extra powers. There is a gap between rhetoric and reality. We must close that gap in the coming Scottish Parliament elections. We must say to people in Scotland, "This is what can be achieved in Scottish education and this is how we are going to achieve it."
I will focus on three issues that need to be addressed; they are listed in the SNP motion. The first of those issues is smaller class sizes. There is a desperate need for that throughout each school, but there is a particular need in primaries 1, 2 and 3, where investment in smaller class sizes produces the biggest results. That can be achieved and it will be achieved by an SNP-led Executive, because it has to be done. Sylvia Jackson finds that amusing; she finds anything that will bring forward real change in Scotland amusing. That is the problem with Labour in Scotland; it can only laugh at the reality of real change, because it is unable to achieve it. It is essential to have smaller class sizes in the early years in Scottish primary schools.
The second issue is simplification of the five-to-14 curriculum, with a new emphasis on core skills. The minister talked two weeks ago about literacy and numeracy being among our most pressing problems, but the document states that the Executive will carry on with the present failed policies. We know that those policies have failed. We must simplify the core curriculum and introduce an emphasis on core skills. In secondary 1 and 2, where the problem is most pressing, we must not play around with ideas of a teacher here or a teacher there; we must refocus on core skills.
Will Michael Russell give way?
No thank you.
It is impossible to have a modern and vibrant economy and a successful Scotland without an emphasis on core skills. We build on those core skills of thinking and learning. If they are not deeply embedded by S1 and S2—and, according to the figures, they are not—the prospects for Scotland and its economy are grim.
Michael Russell talks about core skills. Will he define what he means by telling the chamber what subjects will be dropped to establish core skills? Will music, art, science or ecology be dropped? What will be removed from the curriculum to establish the remaining subjects as core skills?
That shows about as much understanding of the process of simplifying the five-to-14 curriculum as does Mr Monteith's amendment, which I find baffling.
It is necessary to deconstruct the current curriculum and take it back to the core skills. The curriculum can then be rebuilt on the basis of all the things that we have talked about, which centre on the core skills. Any primary teacher in any classroom in Scotland understands that. It says something about the Conservatives' education spokesperson that he does not understand it.
The start of this Parliament was seen as a time when people in Scotland might establish renewed faith in the delivery of public services in Scotland. They have spent four years looking for an opportunity to re-establish that faith. It is a cruel hoax on the people of Scotland, after a so-called great debate, to produce a document that is as empty of initiative and as empty of solutions as "Educating for Excellence". It is an even crueller hoax to come to the chamber and try to justify the document on the basis that it is what people want. In respect of the document, people have asked for bread and they have been given a stone. [Interruption.] I am sorry that a quotation from the scriptures makes Karen Gillon laugh.
Will the member take an intervention?
No.
People are being deceived in Scotland. It is time that we had honest politics that shows that it will deliver. The SNP is pledged to deliver real excellence in Scottish education; what it will not do is deceive the people.
I move,
That the Parliament notes Educating for Excellence: Choice and Opportunity, the Scottish Executive's response to the National Debate on Education and the statement by the Minister for Education and Young People on launching the document; further notes that in places the document is contradicted by the Minister's statement; expresses concern that the document contains little new despite the high quality of many responses to the consultation; is particularly concerned that, despite the Minister's admission in her statement that matters of literacy and numeracy "are among our most pressing problems" and that "we will not tolerate underperformance in literacy and numeracy", the document contains no clear and firm commitment to actions that will change the present situation in which the number of pupils failing to meet the required standards of literacy and numeracy by S2 is unacceptably high, and therefore supports the Scottish National Party's radical programme to reduce class sizes in the first three years of primary education to 18 or below and to re-focus teaching effort on core skills throughout the primary school and into the early secondary years.
I welcome the opportunity for the Parliament to consider again the key issues that face education in Scotland. Cathy Jamieson presented the Executive response to those issues in her statement on the national debate at the end of last month, on the same day that we published the document, "Educating for Excellence: Choice and Opportunity", which was referred to in such glowing terms by Mr Russell.
I remind Mike Russell, in among all his false and feigned anger and his bluff and bluster, that the document is all about creating choice and opportunity. At the core of the document is a move from a one-size-fits-all system to a new curriculum and a new approach to education, which meets the needs of each individual pupil. That is the core of the document.
I will start with our plans on class sizes. The Executive has already delivered smaller class sizes for pupils in primaries 1, 2 and 3. The early years of primary are a critical stage in pupils' education, but we all know that many pupils are not making the progress that they should in the later stages of primary—primaries 5, 6 and 7—and the first two years of secondary school. That is also a critical stage for young people. The Executive is not prepared to let those young people miss out on the opportunities that each and every one of them should have. We are committed to reviewing class sizes at all critical stages—the early stages and the P7 to S1 and S2 transition—and to bringing forward proposals to make reductions, after consultation with the education community, where they will matter most.
The minister is aware of the proposals that I mentioned—my colleagues will talk about specific proposals. Could he tell me the time scale for the reductions that he is talking about, where they will apply and what they will cost?
Not yet, because we will establish that in consultation with parents, pupils and education authorities throughout Scotland. That is the right approach. It is the approach that we have taken through the national debate and it is the approach that we will continue to take. We are not going for the single, monolithic SNP policy of reducing class sizes in P1 to P3; it is not as simple as that. To suggest that it is that simple is to deceive pupils and parents throughout Scotland who are looking for improvements to the education system.
Will the minister give way?
No thank you.
We are particularly keen to reduce class sizes in maths and English as part of our overall strategy to improve literacy and numeracy. Mike Russell is correct that we must raise standards of literacy and numeracy. We must close the unacceptable opportunity gap for many of our children in Scotland. Doing that means taking action on all fronts.
Teachers are central to everything that we do throughout Scotland's schools. That is why we are reviewing initial teacher education, so that new teachers will have even better skills to improve standards of literacy and numeracy. We will give literacy and numeracy their place at the heart of a fully revised curriculum, emphasising their key importance. Above all, we will not tolerate underperformance in literacy and numeracy. We expect education authorities to play a key role in driving forward the issues to ensure the highest standards in their schools.
Raising standards means that we need good information on the outcomes of education for pupils. I agree that we cannot and should not reduce the outcomes of education to simple tables of exam results for each school, which is why the Executive rejects league tables in Scotland. The key reason for assessment in Scotland should be to support the learning of the individual child. That is why the Executive has put in place a framework based on the national priorities in education and the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000, which the SNP supported and which was approved by the Parliament.
We want good education authorities and good information for those authorities. We want good teachers with good information and we want pupils and parents to have access to excellent information to assist the education of each child. We want to take into account all the national priorities, not only exam results.
Later this year, we will publish the first baseline report on national priorities, which will draw together reports from all schools and education authorities and give a rounded picture of what we are achieving in education throughout Scotland. That is a huge step forward, but it is only a first step. We will do more to allow parents and pupils to achieve a clear and meaningful understanding of each child's development and the performance of their school. Exam results will be a part, but only a part, of the picture.
Given that it will be difficult to take the league tables out of the public domain, is the minister considering a value-added approach, whereby the improvement of schools, rather than crude raw information, is taken into account?
The approach taken through the national priorities is intended to achieve exactly that—a far more rounded picture that takes into account not only exam results but a range of indicators. Our approach will not try to compare one school in one area with a different school in another area in a crude league table.
The Executive has set out its plans for delivering excellence in education in Scotland. We are reducing class sizes and improving literacy and numeracy. We are determined to give parents, pupils and the Scottish community better information and to involve those people more in the education system. We want to implement our plans for excellence for Scottish schools, as outlined in our response to the national debate.
Our plans involve creating a more flexible and relevant curriculum; giving head teachers more local control; allowing teachers to work more flexibly across primary and secondary schools; reforming the assessment system; reducing and simplifying the burden of assessment; improving facilities and the design of school buildings; and involving parents more in their children's education. Those priorities reflect the broad range of concerns that pupils, parents and teachers throughout Scotland raised during the national debate. We are determined to deliver a world-class education for all Scotland's children.
I move amendment S1M-3879.1, to leave out from first "notes" to end and insert:
"welcomes the strategy for the future of education in Scotland published in Educating for Excellence: Choice and Opportunity with its focus on raising standards and closing the opportunity gap; supports the plans to reduce class sizes and the measures to improve literacy and numeracy and to ease transitions between key stages, and endorses the strategy's key objectives of an education system centred on the needs of each individual child with a more flexible and relevant curriculum, a streamlined assessment system and greater parental involvement in our schools."
Unlike the SNP, I will not concentrate on the coalition Government's response to its great debate. Why should I? The document is worthy and full of good intentions and it contains much on which members of all parties can agree, but we all know that it is really just an appetiser. It tickles our taste buds, but leaves us unsatisfied.
The main course is still to come: we will not have it at least until the election campaign, or after it, if the coalition parties form the Government. The minister's problem is that he is scared to reveal the real agenda for change. He is scared that the unions, the directors of education and many members sitting behind him will find it unpalatable and throw it back in his face. The minister uses flowery language like that of fancy restaurants to disguise his true intentions. In future, will he intervene in failing schools or failing council education departments? Will he use independent school expertise? There is nothing in the document to reveal that, but there are suggestions that that is the way that the coalition Government will go if it is re-elected.
The minister's boss might be a vegan, but—nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more—the truth is that the document suggests that she will be eating bacon rolls and red-blooded steak tartare.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is it in the interests of the Parliament to discuss someone who is a vegan and to make such appalling comments?
I do not think that it is insulting to describe someone as a vegan if they are one.
My point is about the relevancy of that issue to the debate.
If I were to rule on relevancy, that would be a full-time job.
I assure members that I did not mean the word "vegan" as a term of abuse; I was simply drawing to members' attention the metaphor that the minister may be forced to eat something that she finds unpalatable.
To some extent, the document is a deceit, but it is nothing compared to the great deceit of the SNP's education policies. The policy of having class sizes of 18 or fewer is well intentioned and laudable, but without the right ingredients, it is a recipe for disaster. The simple truth is that class sizes of 18 or fewer cannot be delivered without abolishing placing requests, tearing up the current catchment areas and, in many cases, building extra classrooms and new schools. As long as the SNP resists admitting the real cost to parental rights and choice, it will be lying to the electorate.
The SNP policy is predicated on using the spare capacity that some schools have and which many more might have in the future because of falling school rolls. However, many schools are in the wrong place and many are half empty because parents choose not to send their children to them.
I will take an intervention.
Mr Monteith anticipates my every move.
There is no intention to abolish placing requests, which I support. In those circumstances, I find Mr Monteith's argument bizarre. I find it even more bizarre, although illuminating, that many of the Labour members nodded in agreement with him. Many parents will find it simply disgraceful that members are dancing on the head of a pin to stop smaller class sizes.
I will move on and give a few examples so that Michael Russell understands why his policy is a deceit. As I said, the policy is predicated on falling school rolls, but some schools are simply in the wrong place. Some parents choose not to send their children to certain schools, which creates the empty classrooms that Mike Russell wishes to fill up. However, there is a difficulty: if we decide to send children to schools that their parents have not chosen, parental rights and placing requests will, in effect, be abolished. That would create a terrific backlash and a clamour for independent primary schools.
Parents guard jealously their right to placing requests and, though many politicians try to deny it, they often choose schools by choosing houses that are located in a particular catchment area. I will give a recent example with which Sylvia Jackson will be familiar. In Dunblane, there has been outrage from parents in the Barbush area, who found that the area was to be rezoned into a new catchment area, which would mean that new pupils would go not to Newton Primary School, but to Dunblane Primary School. The parents held public meetings and, with some effect, sought to change the situation. Families had located to Dunblane because of its schools; they had bought houses in the Barbush area because it fell within the catchment for Newton Primary School, but they were told that that was going to change.
The problem is that Newton Primary School is full to the gunwales and, from next year, class sizes will reach 30. Dunblane Primary School has just enough spare capacity to accommodate the city's expansion and St Mary's Episcopal Primary School is full. All three primary schools in Dunblane are full, with no spare classrooms and no budget to expand, so catchment areas are having to be redrawn. Placing requests for those schools from outside the catchment areas, such as from Bridge of Allan, will have to be refused in the future.
Will the member give way?
No, I am running out of time.
You are already over time. I have given you injury time.
To introduce class sizes of 18 or fewer in Dunblane will require seven more classrooms and seven more teachers, but there is no budget available. There is no spare capacity in Dunblane.
Thank you, Presiding Officer, for allowing me to extend, given the interventions that I took. The SNP's policy is nothing more than mutton dressed as lamb. It will ultimately disappoint the electorate, who would be better turning to the Conservative benches; we will strengthen parental rights, because, on these benches, we know our onions.
I move amendment S1M-3879.2, to leave out from "in places" to end and insert:
"the response of the Scottish National Party has been to advocate policies which, whilst well-intentioned, would require placing requests to be abolished, catchment areas to be re-drawn and, therefore, parental choice to be considerably restricted, and calls upon the Scottish Executive to reaffirm its support for the placing request provisions of the Education (Scotland) Act 1981."
It is fashionable for some parties to play down and seek to undermine the Parliament's achievements. There have been many achievements in education. We are improving standards and broadening the curriculum. Devolved school management has enabled schools to develop areas of particular excellence and £14 million has been invested to support that.
We have introduced new national qualifications, bringing together vocational and academic qualifications. We are extending opportunity. We are committed to allowing children with additional support needs to have access to mainstream education.
Higher still offers all young people the opportunity to gain a qualification and provides a better assessment of their abilities. In 2002—for the first time—more than half of school leavers continued their studies in further or higher education.
Some 97 per cent of Scottish secondary schools now provide access to the internet. We are improving the learning environment through better conditions for teachers and better school buildings. More than 4,000 classroom assistants have been employed in primary schools and by 2006 there will be 3,000 more teachers, ensuring a 15:1 adult to child ratio in all local authorities.
We have implemented the new community schools programme in 430 schools and have committed £78 million to roll out the approach to all schools by 2007. We are investing more than £1 billion to rebuild and refurbish schools and have recently announced an additional £110 million for improving school buildings over the next three years. Record investment in education means that, by 2003-04, education spending will top £5 billion for the first time. That represents £1,000 for everyone in Scotland.
I do not plan to dwell too long on what has been done and what is already under way. I want to look forward beyond the posturing of the SNP motion to a more constructive view of where we are going.
Our objectives are clearly supported by the responses in the national debate. We want a review of the school curriculum to ensure greater subject choice and to enable pupils, within a comprehensive system, to opt for academic and vocational subjects that best match their interests and aspirations. There should be simplified assessments and fewer tests and exams, with more flexibility for schools to address the needs of individual pupils. Do we really need pupils to sit exams every year from S4?
The member makes an interesting point, which the minister raised two weeks ago. Do we need pupils to sit exams every year? What is the Executive's official policy towards the schools that have already abandoned the standard grade? Is there a framework for change or is change happening piecemeal? What are the specific proposals to reduce the examination overload?
The member will have to ask the Executive that. I am suggesting that we examine the issue. The member knows from the many inquiries that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee has undertaken that we need to examine the issue of over-assessment. I suggest that he ask the Executive about that.
Smaller class sizes and improved pupil to teacher ratios at the crucial transitional stage between primary and secondary school—P7, S1 and S2—in mathematics and English are clearly the priority.
There should be more involvement for parents and improved information about the child's progress. The suggestion that we review and reform the role of school boards and parent-teacher associations is welcome, but there is a clear need for full consultation with all concerned before there is movement on that.
Head teachers should have more control over budgets, so that those closest to children can decide how best to use resources. There should be greater flexibility for schools and education authorities through agreements for excellence.
We want to improve literacy and numeracy, particularly among the most vulnerable and disadvantaged young people. We must ensure that all children have a good grasp of basic skills. Smaller class sizes are crucial, but we should not focus only on that—having additional adults in the classroom is probably more important. We want better discipline, building on the recommendations of the discipline task group.
The aim of the measures that I have mentioned is to create confident, articulate young people who can realise their potential. The national debate has confirmed many of the ideas that we have been discussing for some time and has thrown up new ideas that deserve serious consideration.
The purposes of education inquiry will add to the important national debate. Although I cannot divulge the contents of the inquiry, I assure members that it will make a positive and challenging contribution to our consideration of the future of education in Scotland. Taken together, the inquiry and the Executive's document will enable us to achieve clarity of vision.
Will the member give way?
No, I am just finishing.
They will ensure that we can deliver education that is fit for citizens of the 21st century.
The Deputy Minister for Education and Young People's opening comments were permeated with phrases such as "we want to", "we will" and "first steps". One is tempted to ask the Executive what on earth it has been doing for the past four years. It seems that it has been doing nothing, which is of course why the great debate is taking place. The Executive is not doing less, better; it is doing much less, worse.
Will the member give way?
No. I have just started.
It seems that Brian Monteith was being sponsored for every cooking reference that he made—there was much less reference to education.
I shall concentrate my remarks on school buildings and the need for young people to be educated in facilities that are conducive to learning.
Will the member give way?
All right, then.
The member asked what the Executive has done in the past four years. I invite her to Pollok to see the new Rosshall Academy, the new St Paul's High School and the refurbished Lourdes Secondary School. We now have an environment to match the talents of the young people in my constituency.
I wonder whether Johann Lamont, unlike her colleague Cathy Peattie, is speaking on behalf of the Executive.
As I said, I shall concentrate my remarks on school buildings—the very point that Johann Lamont brought up. At a recent conference in Edinburgh, it was revealed that schools that have an abundance of natural light and ample ventilation significantly outperform more traditional schools in terms of academic results. Professor Brian Edwards of Heriot-Watt University claimed that research from America shows that the more natural light in schools, the better pupils learn. Too many of our young people are being taught in poor physical conditions. It will cost up to £2 billion to bring Scottish schools up to standard.
Unfortunately, the new PFI schools are generally not being built to a desirable design that will allow pupils to attain. As John Swinney revealed last week, the Amey group made profits of 31 per cent on its schools PFI projects, so £13 million was stuffed into the pockets of Amey and its shareholders—money that should have remained in our schools system. Audit Scotland found that PFI projects will cost taxpayers in Scotland £18 million more every year than they would have paid if all school projects had been funded by normal public procurement methods.
Will the member give way?
No, I shall continue.
The PFI projects have been beset with problems, such as small classrooms, poor materials, no swimming pools in any of the Glasgow schools, very little social space—
Is the member aware that the five new PFI schools in Falkirk all have swimming pools, all have lights and all have central areas to visit?
Falkirk is not in Glasgow.
As my colleague said, Falkirk is not in Glasgow. Moreover, there has been a problem with reduced community access—it is costing communities an extortionate amount to hire the facilities within schools. Even though public money has already bought those facilities, youngsters who play for football teams are being forced to go elsewhere.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I am running out of time.
For the past six years, the Labour Government has fixed it to ensure that PFI projects are the preferred option. Indeed, they are the only game in town. The National Audit Office referred to the so-called public sector comparator as "pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo".
That is the result of a dogma that permeates all the thinking on the provision of new facilities. The Treasury's drive to get capital projects off the balance sheet has ensured that PFI projects cost more, that profits are squirreled out of the public sector and that the facilities that have been provided are not as good as those that could have been provided if students, teachers and the wider community had had some influence on the design process.
I understand that the Liberal Democrats now favour public sector trusts. I look forward to hearing the Liberal Democrat Deputy Minister for Education and Young People say that the past four years of PFI have been a wasted opportunity from the point of view of both cost and design. I suspect that it will not suit him to do so.
The SNP will ensure that our young people have decent facilities to learn in and that any profit will be returned to the education system, rather than being put into the pockets of those who seek to profiteer at the expense of our public services.
When I reflect on the education of SNP members, I note that Mike Russell must have done particularly well in his creative writing class and that Tricia Marwick must have sailed through her geography class. The observation that Falkirk is not in Glasgow is most illuminating. It might surprise Tricia Marwick to learn that Scotland is still in Britain.
Will the member take an intervention?
No—I am still in my first minute.
Although everyone knows that education and opportunity are closely linked, the link between ambition and opportunity is talked about less often. Opportunity needs to be courted. Opportunities do not just appear with the milk on the doorstep; they need to be seized. I want the children of Scotland to be educated, to be ambitious and to seize opportunities. I want them to be educated with a can-do attitude. To encourage such an attitude, it is essential to recognise the child as an individual, to address life skills as well as maths and English and to build confidence as well as qualifications.
The Scottish Executive has invested money in education in the traditional sense, through the provision of bricks and mortar, school books, equipment and teachers. Unlike the SNP, it has also shown a clear understanding of education in its broadest sense.
Will the member give way?
No, I will not.
Through sure start Scotland, we have recognised that a child's early educational background and family environment have an impact on their ability to learn and to fulfil their potential later in life.
New community schools also embody the principle that the potential of all children can be realised only by addressing their needs in the round. In new community schools, teachers, social workers, community education workers, health professionals and others work together in a single team to meet an individual child's needs. Following that route has meant that children in Dumbarton constituency have access to health development officers, to family and pupil support—to address barriers to achievement at school—and to groundbreaking educational information technology systems. Subsequent evaluations have shown that those investments have paid dividends, particularly in improved literacy, numeracy and good behaviour.
Will the member give way on that specific point?
No. Unlike SNP members, education has come a long way in the past four years. However, I am always the first to agree that more can be done. The national debate revealed the need to make progress in some areas. I am pleased that the minister is addressing those issues.
The sheer scope of the five-to-14 curriculum is one of the most important issues, as teachers in my constituency—most recently, staff at John Logie Baird Primary School—have pointed out. In trying to cover so many areas, teachers cannot give sufficient attention to core areas. A slimming down of the curriculum would lead to the devotion of more class time to core skills and would ensure that everyone attained a level of foundation learning.
I must take issue with the SNP on the important issue of class sizes. Yet again, the SNP conveniently fails to acknowledge what is being done. The Executive has already set targets for primary and key secondary school years. Let us step back to analyse the logic of the SNP's call for smaller classes across the board. How would such a change be paid for? Smaller classes ultimately mean more classrooms and a complete overhaul of the school infrastructure. Although the Executive is committed to improving the school estate and has secured £1 billion to do so, that would not be enough to fund the SNP proposals.
Like most critics, the SNP thinks that it knows the way, but it cannot drive the car. The SNP has no idea how it would deliver any of its proposals. Surely it is much more sensible to increase the teacher to pupil ratio. That is quicker and much more effective than counting the number of classrooms. After all, it is attainment that matters. We know that improving the adult to pupil ratio gives a significant boost to pupil learning.
Anyone who removes the blindfold of bias—I urge Mike Russell and Tricia Marwick to do so—must admit that great steps have been taken. Ninety-seven per cent of secondary schools have access to the internet. Extra educational resources are being targeted at those in most need. For the first time, more than half our young people are going on to university and further education colleges. Those are the foundations for a strong society and a strong economy.
I recently asked an experienced teacher what single thing he would prioritise to improve schools. He said that he would prioritise getting the bad kids out so that the good kids could be educated. He went on to tell me stories that I will not relate.
However, I will give members a couple of my stories. Discipline has deteriorated since I left teaching. With the minimum amount of force, I have gently neck locked a pupil of my size who continued—in spite of my order to stop—to kick another pupil repeatedly. My actions were aimed at safeguarding the victim, who was lying on the dining hall floor. The victim had hurled school custard at the assailant, although most of it had ended up on my suit. In a disciplinary situation, four adults, each holding a limb, have brought into my office a writhing and screaming child who was parallel to the ground. Things have not got better.
A better teacher to pupil ratio—
Will the member take an intervention?
No, because I know exactly what I will get. I have only four minutes, which will probably be my last four minutes on education.
A better teacher to pupil ratio in the early years of school is essential, because that is when the fundamental attitudes to the system and to the way in which it works are established. International evidence backs that up. Better liaison with social work and support services is needed. Teachers should be given systematic training in conflict avoidance and resolution and in how to keep themselves and their charges physically safe. I ask the minister to take that point on board.
On exclusions, there is a predictable tension between teachers and head teachers. I understand that my exclusion rate was average. The price for that was that some teachers thought that I was far too soft. Schools do not need targets for the reduction of exclusions. To demand percentage decreases in exclusions is to increase classroom and inter-staff tension and to demoralise teachers and head teachers. I ask the minister to take that on board, too.
Head teachers manage their institutions. Following a surgery with ex-head teachers who felt that they had been treated unjustly, I wrote to The Times Educational Supplement Scotland. My letter, which was published in the edition of 13 September 2002, invited any head who
"feels that he or she has been hounded from their post by the actions of staff who have adopted a culture of grievance and orchestrated a campaign against the management of the school"
to contact me in confidence. A number of head teachers did so.
Let me give a composite of their replies. Imagine a head who arrives in a school in which an influential body of staff is set in its ways. The staff are resentful of the head, perhaps seeing themselves as the guardians of the school's traditions. They may have extensive networks through parents associations or social circles, but they are clever enough not to get themselves disciplined. Alternatively, imagine even a well-established head of some years' standing, who is obliged to implement new policies with a staff whom he or she had hitherto been able to woo and persuade.
Indifference to the head's desired new policies changes to open hostility. Grievances are lodged. A succession of grievances may even be planned. The unions are brought in. To whom does the head then turn for support? The head's union may not have the wealth to fight his or her legal case—that is something that those who are thinking about becoming head teachers should investigate—or, if the staff and the head are in the same union, the union may side with the staff against the head. The union may even coach staff in the tactics necessary to beat the head. To whom then does the head turn?
Does the head turn to his or her employers? Good employers will give advice and support and even offer arbitration to solve the problem and make progress, but others may make the calculation that it is easier to move one member of staff than to move several and so side with the majority. The head must then go, even if he or she is innocent of any major wrongdoing. I have evidence that that has happened. I ask the minister to take that on board. I would love to say to the minister, "Come to my office and we will discuss it." However, I recognise that it is I who may need to invite myself to the minister's office.
At the centre of today's debate is our consideration of the Executive's response to the national debate on education, which the Executive published under the title "Education for Excellence: Choice and Opportunity". The document must be popular—I was unable to obtain a copy from the Scottish Parliament information centre yesterday, so it must be going down well with the public somewhere.
When the minister introduced the document, I welcomed it as a first step in taking up the ideas and recommendations that flowed from that extensive debate. I acknowledge that the proposals in the document are not revolutionary, but they promise solid progress across a wide range of aspects of the education system. If we can make solid progress in all those aspects, the educational experience that we offer our children will benefit from a substantial improvement, building on the sound basis that exists within our schools today. We need to build on the pre-school provision and the early-start mechanisms that are currently in place.
I was pleased that the responses to the debate endorsed the comprehensive system, but I am not complacent. I am anxious to see a system that is not monolithic but embodies flexibility and offers opportunities for innovation and fresh approaches at all levels. The document's proposals offer to increase pupil choice by reviewing the school curriculum and by streamlining and simplifying assessment. It proposes to bring forward a reduction in class sizes and to tackle discipline problems. Indeed, I endorse many of Colin Campbell's recommendations about the need to improve things such as initial teacher education.
The document also makes proposals about improving school buildings, giving more control over budgets to head teachers and improving transitional arrangements between primary and secondary schools. There will be more professional co-operation than has previously been the case and parents will be involved more fully. The inspection regime for schools is to be changed, so that it is more closely focused on schools in which there are problems. All those measures are important; cumulatively, they will offer a substantial model for progress.
Let me say a little about class sizes, assessment and the promised review of the school curriculum. As a former teacher, I well know how important class sizes are to our ability to deliver the best in education. I believe that a reduction in class sizes is important and that it should be built into how we think and plan about the future. However, the SNP promise to reduce class sizes to 18 seems to me to be wildly optimistic. As others have pointed out, the SNP policy takes no account of the cost of extra school buildings.
Will the member give way?
No, hang on.
Just the other day, I spoke to a teacher who compiled a wee Latin motto that describes the SNP policy:
"Crustum hodie in caelo est, et cras fructus conditus erit."
That translates as: "Today, there is pie in the sky and tomorrow there will be jam."
I am pleased that the Executive is committed to reductions in class sizes, but I would welcome a longer-term commitment to planned and achievable reductions within a time scale over the next few years.
The member has received no such commitment, even from his own minister.
But I would welcome it.
The commitment to simplify assessment is vital. We must always consider what assessments are for and whether they are reliable, necessary and practicable. We must also be careful about the use that is made of the results. I am pleased that the exam results league tables are being discredited as the sole benchmark of quality. I endorse every measure that can be taken to reduce the power of the league tables in that regard.
The national tests for reading and writing that were in operation when I left teaching involved a whole battery of tests that had to be applied to individual pupils or to groups of pupils when the teacher thought that the pupils were ready. Not only were the tests difficult to manage and inconvenient to administer, but they simply confirmed what the teacher already knew. They were part of a silly and elaborate bureaucratic system. We need to have a rational look at how we obtain information about standards without such elaborate arrangements. In all those ways, it is vital to reduce the burden of assessment on teachers and pupils.
Like the Executive's document, the SNP motion talks about reviewing the curriculum and focusing on core skills. I support such a review. I welcome the focus on literacy and numeracy, but I am anxious that the core curriculum should not be confined only to numeracy and literacy. It must embrace the wider purposes of education and involve the development of the whole pupil as an individual and as a member of the community. We must be prepared to make informed and sometimes difficult choices about the shape of the curriculum and what may have to be dropped from it. I hope that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee's document on the purposes of education will assist that process.
I believe that we now have the basis for real progress. I urge ministers to ensure that the mechanisms are in place to take the proposals off the paper and put them into action in the classrooms. That should be done in partnership with teachers, parents and pupils.
Like Ian Jenkins, I have listened to parents. I will make two points today, both of which arise from representations that parents in the Highlands have made to me.
My first point has been made in particular by school board chairmen in the Highlands. Although the McCrone report was widely welcomed, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities estimated that there would be a shortfall in funding of £150 million. At the time, many of us thought that COSLA might be exaggerating. However, now that McCrone is being implemented, the actual shortfall is £147 million. For Highland Council, the underfunding for McCrone implementation is £6.6 million, which means that the council can implement the pay settlement but little else. Classroom assistants and continual professional development are now dreams, aspirations or targets—to use the Executive spin.
Given that the McCrone funding formula was based on pupil numbers, it is hardly surprising that there should be a shortfall in an area that has so many small schools. The result is that teachers in urban areas will receive all the support and classroom help that was outlined in McCrone, whereas rural teachers will receive only minimal support. If the minister were job hunting after graduating from teacher training college, where would he choose to go? The Highlands already faces a crisis in recruiting general practitioners and dentists, but the Executive is now creating similar problems in respect of teachers. We will have a two-tier system in Scotland.
How can schools and education authorities be given a legal obligation to pursue continuous improvement when they have no funding to implement it and no staff to cover the resulting teacher absences? Highland Council's education convener said only this week:
"This financial year will not be good for education, culture and sport. £3.58 million was removed in 2002/03 from our service to help balance the council's budget which was not replaced.
That meant a 10% cut in the money schools get per pupil … and a freeze on recruiting visiting teachers."
Highland teachers also have to deal with the fact that their levels of administrative and support staff are among the three lowest in Scotland.
The second point that I want to make relates to what was said by Colin Campbell, who made his points extremely well. However, my concern is not only with class sizes. A problem that is constantly brought to the surface is discipline and bullying in schools. That could be tackled by joined-up government. It takes far too long to identify vulnerable children and bullying, too long to diagnose and assess education needs and an impossible time to get the necessary psychological support. Young offenders are simply becoming old offenders because there is no help or support for them, so they carry on offending. If addressing offending behaviour were a higher priority than the publication of glossy brochures, that would be of great benefit.
There is a critical lack of residential care for children with psychiatric problems. Without facilities and support near home, young people's problems become more acute. Those with drug and alcohol problems cannot be treated in adult facilities until they are 16—that wait is just too long for many. In Inverness, fast-track referrals to the department of health and child psychiatry take more than six months and normal referrals take 18 months.
I have raised those points because of the effect that disruptive children can have on other children and because of the demands that they can make on teachers.
I was going to begin my speech by declaring my registered interest as a member of the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals. However, having heard the earlier speeches, I will concentrate my remarks on school buildings. As we have heard, evidence shows that a pleasant and healthy environment leads to healthy education and good educational attainment.
My colleague Tricia Marwick has already quoted from the Audit Scotland report that told us that under the public-private partnership regime to which this Government seems to be wedded, we are already paying 3 per cent more in additional interest payments on the schools that we are procuring under PPP. Only last week, we heard that Amey—the company that used a PPP to build our schools in Glasgow and Edinburgh—made a 31 per cent profit on that contract.
Against that background, can we take it that the member will not be urging favourable treatment for the outline business case that was made by East Dunbartonshire Council for funding from the Scottish Executive? Is she content that schools in East Dunbartonshire should wait until funding can be secured from public revenue?
I was anticipating that intervention from Mr Fitzpatrick. I remind him of the meeting that we both attended last week with Cathy Jamieson. At that meeting, the parents of pupils who attend Kirkintilloch High School showed their hostility towards the use of private finance initiative contracts in building public schools in East Dunbartonshire. At that meeting, Cathy Jamieson said that it was her responsibility to "spend the money wisely". Given the information we have had from Audit Scotland and the gross profits that Amey has made from the Glasgow schools, how many more schools could we have built from that profit and the interest on that money? Is that a wise use of public money? How many more teachers could we have got and how much smaller could class sizes have become using those grossly inflated profits? Is that responsible use of public money?
I want to add to the very impressive case that my colleague is making by giving one piece of information that I learned on Monday. Dumfries and Galloway Council asked whether it could use a not-for-profit scheme, but that was refused by the Scottish Executive. Despite the Executive's announcements on the issues, it is determined to keep putting 31 per cent profit into private companies.
Mike Russell's comments lead me on to say that a procurement process for public buildings should be open, consultative and participative. As Mr Fitzpatrick and I know, those processes should not be shrouded in commercial confidentiality—or secrecy—as was the outline business case to which Mr Fitzpatrick referred. I wonder how the member can support an outline business case for a joint venture from East Dunbartonshire Council, when the council refuses to discuss it in public with members of the public or with parents.
Will the member take an intervention?
The member is in her last minute.
The other day, I was at another meeting with Brian Fitzpatrick, but because of the commercial confidentiality and secrecy surrounding the issue, a local school where the building is crumbling around the pupils has been offered "tarting up" and maybe—if members will excuse my cod Latin—fructus hodie, or jam tomorrow.
Not-for-profit trusts would ensure that the public, parents and pupils were involved in producing schools, rather than having foist on them schools that are not fit for purpose—schools whose only purpose is to provide profits for private companies.
By and large, our education system is reasonably successful in getting pupils to learn more, understand more, acquire facts and learn skills. However, we are less good at making pupils into better people and citizens. The problems are very difficult to solve. First, people tend to fulfil the expectations that others have of them, and to respond to peer pressure. In some communities, peer pressure pushes people in the wrong direction—it is assumed that people will fail, get into trouble and not have a job. We have to address that.
Secondly, a minority of pupils have parents who are apathetic about or positively hostile towards education, and who are often extremely hostile to teachers. We have to sort that out. The suggestions in the Executive's worthy document about improving parent-teacher associations are not relevant because such parents do not come to PTA meetings. We have to get through to them somehow.
Thirdly, a lot of learning is done outwith school, or at school but outwith the mainstream, but there is little mention of that in the Executive's document. I am sure that I am not alone in that my abiding memories are of the things that influenced me most being, for example, performing in concerts, playing in school teams, acting in plays, being involved in clubs during the holidays, and going to scout and cadet camps which, with all their failures, have still done some good work.
We must put much more effort into recreational and informal education activities. That would not require a huge sum from the education budget; however, a little more effort would have a significant effect on pupils. Those who are switched off by school can often be switched on again by a charismatic club leader, for example. Most people are interested in something and if we can get young people interested, that would do a huge amount of good.
I have experienced the good effect that Outward Bound Trust-type activities have on some people. Such activities are not everyone's cup of tea, but they do some people a lot of good. I plead that, in addition to the good things that are mentioned in "Educating for Excellence", we should pay more attention to education outwith school and try to create a better society.
Possibly the greatest contribution that politicians could make to improving education is to start saying what we mean and meaning what we say. I know that most members are well intentioned and honourable, but the public sees us as a shower of dishonest people and we must correct that. If the leaders of the country are seen to be unreliable and dishonest, young people will follow that course. We have to persuade them that society can work better if they become better and do a better job than we have ever done.
There has been a lot of talk today about the gap between rhetoric and reality, but I suppose the SNP has become expert on that in the past few years. "Free by '93" represents one of the gaps between rhetoric and reality that we can all enjoy.
The gap between rhetoric and reality is well illustrated by what the SNP says, which is that the only thing that matters is class sizes. However, parents actively send their children to schools that have larger class sizes because, in reality, there is more to school than the number of pupils in the class, although class size is important and we need to make progress. Some of the worst discipline problems come from schools that have small classes.
The SNP wants to improve the support that is available to pupils, but dismisses classroom assistants as nose wipers and pencil sharpeners–exactly the kind of educational snobbery that has put us in the current situation. The reality in every school that I have visited is that every person and every teacher welcomes classroom assistants as being valuable and meaningfully supportive of pupils' learning.
I arrived in the middle of Donald Gorrie's speech, in which he spoke about a wide range of issues. One thing that has struck me in some schools that I have visited in Clydesdale is how the whole school team, from the janitor to the lady who provides the school dinners, is part of the learning environment for every child. Whoever they are, they can be a learning model for every pupil. We cannot take away from the valuable role that every member of a school's staff plays.
There has been rhetoric about improving school buildings, but the reality is that the SNP has opposed every case where it has happened. My colleague Johann Lamont talked about Rosshall Academy, St Paul's High School and Lourdes Secondary School. Those examples were dismissed by Tricia Marwick as being irrelevant to the debate, yet there have been real improvements to the learning environments of some of our most disadvantaged children in Scotland, who are learning in places that are fit for learning. The reality is that when the new Larkhall Academy is built, Biggar High School is refurbished, Carluke High School is refurbished and Lanark Grammar School is refurbished, the SNP will oppose those improvements.
Will the member give way?
No, Michael Russell has had his turn. Sit down.
Karen Gillon said something that is not true.
Oh—the member welcomes PFI in Lanarkshire. Well done; that is good. I am glad to hear about that change of heart.
The difference between the rhetoric and the reality is only too real. Mike Russell likes to quote the Bible and the reason why I laugh is that he has done it once too often. The reality is that here in Scotland people see the truth and look for the truth; they know the difference between rhetoric and reality. People in Scotland know that although classes of 18 might sound good, the reality is that they are unachievable. On 1 May they will dismiss the rhetoric of the SNP and support the reality of the Labour party.
I enjoyed Karen Gillon's wind-up speech for Labour. There is much in "Educating for Excellence: Choice and Opportunity", and much in what Labour has said over the past five or six years, that represents a sea change for that party. There is much that is highly progressive and that deserves support from the Conservatives. I trace that back to when Helen Liddell became the shadow spokesman on education. I wonder whether much of the change is the result of Karen Gillon's input at that time. Although we will not support the Labour amendment, there is much good in it, and if it becomes the substantive motion it will enjoy our support.
I wish that there were an education debate almost every week. It would be a terrific opportunity for all of us to give examples to Michael Russell of the problems that the SNP policy faces. Every week I could mention yet another school—yet another Newton Primary School—that exemplifies the inability to deliver class sizes of 18 or fewer. [Interruption.] Michael Russell laughs as if reality has not dawned on him, so maybe I should give another example to address the obvious lack of knowledge on the SNP benches.
Take the Royal High Primary School, which my sons recently attended. It has three forms—P1, P2 and P3—with 30 pupils in each class, and two classes in each form, which equals 60 pupils in each year. Of course, 18 does not fit nicely into 60, so that school would have to have 54 pupils in each form. The catchment area would have to be reduced to take account of the falling numbers, because we could have only three classes of 18—
Will the member give way?
I must carry on with this example. The three forms would need to be reduced and we would need to reduce the catchment area to take account of the fact that there could be only 54 pupils in each year. If we had 54 pupils, we would need another classroom for each year: even if the catchment area were reduced, we would still need another classroom for each year.
Does Brian Monteith agree that that policy might result in composite classes? I do not know the SNP's line on that.
Composite classes might be a way round the problem. I would be interested to hear Michael Russell's point of view on that.
Mike Russell can answer in his own speech—I have less than two minutes left.
The point is clear: a school like the Royal High Primary School would need three new classrooms and three new teachers and would still need to reduce its catchment area. That school already has placing requests, but those would have to be removed. That would not happen only at the Royal High Primary School, but at the neighbouring Parsons Green Primary School and the neighbouring Duddingston Primary School, because in Edinburgh many schools are full to the gunwales.
Of course, the situation does not apply only to Edinburgh. I quote from a letter from the service manager in charge of education of Perth and Kinross Council, which states:
"In terms of accommodation we currently have classrooms for each class but we have no spare capacity, particularly in Perth City. We do not anticipate that the anticipated reduction in primary pupils nationally will alter that situation in the next few years as this area continues to benefit from a growing population. Obviously any proposal to dramatically reduce class sizes would have serious implications for our accommodation stock—quite apart from the requirement for additional teaching staff."
There we have it; that man is not a Tory, but an official and he is saying that it would be quite difficult, if not impossible, for Perth and Kinross to deliver smaller classes of 18. The truth is that classes of 18 cannot be achieved without additional massive expenditure and, even then, without effectively removing parental choice by removing placing requests. I put it to the Parliament that that policy would be unworkable and undeliverable, and as such it is a deceit. It is a policy that should be removed.
I commented earlier on Mike Russell's speech, and I will return to it in a moment, but first I will comment on Brian Monteith's opening remarks, rather than on the speech that he just gave.
I had a vision of Brian Monteith late at night scripting his words for this morning, desperate for good rhetoric and good analogies, and all that came into his mind—in fact, everything that came into his mind—was food. Brian Monteith is not restrictive in relation to his food; he knows no boundaries. He did not stick with vegan food; there were bacon rolls, there were onions and there were restaurant meals—the lot. Some of what he said, however, was sensible. It is important that we record that fact because it is, as we know, a rare occurrence and another such occurrence might not take place in the lifetime of this Parliament.
It was important that Brian Monteith focused on some of the shortcomings of the SNP policies. He focused on areas on which I would not have chosen to focus; for example, the impact of class sizes on placing requests. In his closing remarks he focused on the impact on catchment areas. Mike Russell is itching to respond to those points. Brian Monteith probed the SNP policy in a way that the SNP is not used to and is clearly not comfortable with—
Will the minister give way?
Before I let Mr Russell in—as I will—I will focus on the key issue in relation to the SNP's class-size commitment. It does not relate to placing requests or catchment areas; it relates simply to the cost and the consequences of having to provide the additional classrooms that Mr Monteith spoke about. It is not a fair policy. It would not mean just one or two extra classrooms for P1; it would mean one or two extra classrooms for each of P1, P2 and P3, which would quickly add up to five, six or seven extra classrooms. Those extra classrooms would be required in many primary schools throughout Scotland. At the moment, that is completely uncosted, but such an uncosted upheaval must be clarified. We have to test the SNP on whether the policy has been properly thought out.
It is rich for the minister to talk about costing when he would not give me an answer about the costing of his class-size proposals. The proposals are in our policy and have been debated in Parliament and I would be happy to give him chapter and verse. The Executive could set a target in its school estate review, but it refuses to do so.
What is the figure?
Can I ask the minister one question?
Very quickly.
Why is it that although a class-size reduction programme has been put in place in Tennessee, California, Arkansas and most American states, such a programme is—according to some members—unachievable or impossible, which is nonsense? The Executive shows poverty of ambition.
Although—from a sedentary position—I encouraged Michael Russell to give us the figure, members will note that he failed to do so, because his proposals are uncosted. [Interruption.] Mr Russell protests too much, so we know that we have struck a raw nerve.
What is important in Scottish education is that we move forwards sensibly, together and in partnership—Ian Jenkins referred to that—with proposals that can be delivered and that will allow us to see progress on class sizes, and on the introduction of additional teachers and additional classroom assistants. That is the approach that the Executive has taken in the past four years. We have worked with teacher organisations, local authorities, schools, teachers, parents and pupils. I hope that we can build on that consensus and partnership approach in the next four years.
As Ian Jenkins said, what we propose is more about evolution than revolution. We should not be dogmatic about education. We experienced the politically driven agenda for too long during the Conservative years. We want rounded individuals. In "Educating for Excellence", we take a rounded approach to education that does not concentrate only on exam results and attainment, but deals with issues such as citizenship and enterprise. Those matters are important.
"Educating for Excellence" is substantial and I wanted, in my summing-up speech, to review its substance, but time prevents me from doing that. I thank members for an interesting debate.
On Saturday, The Herald contained an interesting article that reported on a study that was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, which showed that people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are broadly disappointed with the impact of devolution. However, that emphatically does not mean that they want to lose their legislatures, because that disillusion resulted in a demand for more, not fewer, powers. Of the Scots who were surveyed, 70 per cent wanted the Scottish Parliament to become more important than the Westminster Parliament. That is interesting in itself, but I highlight from the same study the finding that only 27 per cent of those who were surveyed thought that the Scottish Parliament was increasing educational standards. That comment does not originate from the SNP; it is what a random selection of voters in Scotland think and it sets the context for the debate.
The national debate consultation exercise allowed many concerns to be expressed. Relentless target setting, over-assessment, league tables, the examination system and the unnecessary bureaucracy that stifles learning were criticised. However, the Executive's response does nothing to address those criticisms and I have heard nothing today to change my mind about that. The response refers merely to current policy initiatives. The document is weak on substance and it is selective about the topics for action.
What the document calls a "radical" step—a reduction in the exam burden—is merely an announcement of a future review of the system. The response offers no solution to the excess targets issue. Despite concerns about a massive rise in school violence—the number of recorded incidents has risen by 700 per cent since 1999—the Executive will simply continue with existing policies and take "further action where necessary". What action, and when will it become necessary?
In the past four years, we have heard Labour make numerous vague promises on education, but the document is its vaguest and poorest response yet. It contains nothing that will convince people that it is any more than a public relations exercise at taxpayers' expense.
The minister and the Executive have claimed—it has been much mentioned today—that the starting point is to improve literacy and numeracy, but the document says that the Executive will continue to implement current strategies.
Those current strategies have led to half of the children in S2 failing to achieve minimum levels of attainment in reading, writing and mathematics. That applies in West Dunbartonshire, so although I know that Jackie Baillie is very concerned about attainment, it is difficult to understand how she can justify the Executive's policies, given the statements that I have just made.
Order.
One of the Executive's social justice milestones was an increase in attainment levels in basic core skills, but statistics reveal that more and more pupils are not meeting the minimum levels as they progress through school.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you.
The document says nothing about the concern over the long-term decline in modern language learning, although such learning is one of the greatest tools for improving literacy. The number of entrants to French exams has decreased by 50 per cent in 20 years and the figure is now 11 per cent lower than it was when Labour took power.
A reduction in class sizes would improve literacy and numeracy skills and it would allow those skills to be properly developed with a new emphasis on core skills. The SNP's number 1 pledge in education is to reduce class sizes in primaries 1, 2 and 3 to the internationally recognised optimum of 18. The Executive boasts that it has reduced class sizes in primaries 1 to 3 to 30 or fewer, but that is a small drop. It was achieved late and aided by a fall of more than 10,000 in pupil numbers, and it makes little difference to attainment.
"It is often claimed that research results on class sizes are ambiguous. This is not true: small reductions have no measurable effect, but large reductions do. Reducing class sizes in primaries one to three to under 20 would increase attainment, strengthen pupils' self esteem and improve the quality of teachers' interactions with pupils."
If members have difficulty with that, they should take issue with Lindsay Paterson, who is the professor of educational policy at the University of Edinburgh, who wrote that in the Scottish Educational Journal in October last year. If there were smaller class sizes, teachers would have more time to teach according to pupils' needs and discipline would improve. Smaller classes would also meet the requests from many pupils for more of teachers' attention.
The consensus for change is almost universal among parents and teachers. At the beginning of the year, the Educational Institute of Scotland—the largest teaching union in Scotland—launched its campaign to reduce class sizes significantly. It has recognised—as all international experience shows—that such a reduction would be the most important improvement and investment that the Government could make in education. However, in the past four years, the Government has made no significant progress. The Executive's complacent attitude and its lack of ambition for our schools and children have meant that Scotland has slipped down the international class-size league tables to sit below Poland and many other European countries.
We have said that it would cost an additional £105 million a year over several years to build up the number of extra teachers that would be needed for class-size cuts in the early years. We have costed the expansion in teacher training provision over seven years. There is no doubt that changes to school accommodation would add to that cost.
Will the member give way?
I am closing.
We want new and refurbished schools—we take issue simply with the funding method. All the figures and our costings have been and will continue to be disputed, but the question is: can we afford not to offer our children the best possible education? The SNP will deliver class sizes that will allow teachers to teach effectively and that will allow children to reach their potential. I ask members to support our motion.