Schools-Colleges Review
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2793, in the name of Peter Peacock, on the schools-colleges review.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The document to inform the debate has not yet been delivered to members. I understand that there is a hold-up at the printers. Advance copies were eventually given to the Scottish National Party spokesperson and the other spokespeople yesterday afternoon, but no other member has had the opportunity to see the document. I would like the Executive to explain why it has failed to provide the appropriate documentation to allow a debate that was scheduled three weeks ago to take place. Given that the debate is supposed to be about the review document, I wonder whether you think it appropriate for us to continue.
The supply of documentation is not a matter for me; it is a matter for the Executive. However, what has happened is unfortunate.
Shall I begin my speech, Presiding Officer, or do you want me to deal with the point of order separately?
I think that you should deal with the point that has been raised, as it is clearly germane to the debate.
I fully acknowledge the point that has been raised. The documents were due to be in the Scottish Parliament information centre by 9 o'clock for members generally. We made provision for Opposition spokespeople to get access to the documentation midway through yesterday, to give them plenty of time to look at the document so that they could contribute effectively to the debate. I intend to set out in my speech what is in the review; I do not think that there is any reason why we should not proceed with that. We understand that the documents are now on their way. A mistake has been made. It should not have happened and I apologise to members for it.
Further to that point of order, Presiding Officer. Mr Peacock and Mr Wallace are due to launch the document this morning at Telford College. It is questionable whether that is appropriate during a debate in which members will want to express their views to both ministers. Does the fact that the document has not been produced for the Parliament mean that it will not be available for the launch? If so, will the ministers not have every opportunity to stay and listen to what members have to say about the content of the review?
The Parliament has agreed that the debate should proceed and that is what should happen. The Minister for Parliamentary Business made efforts to get the documents out yesterday. The situation is unfortunate but, as we have agreed to have the debate, I suggest that we proceed with it.
It is my pleasure to open this debate on school-college partnership. We know that many pupils already benefit from the learning opportunities that colleges bring to the school curriculum. We want to increase and enhance those opportunities throughout Scotland in order to open clear, new opportunities for pupils; to tailor learning to suit individual students; to offer more choice to pupils; and to ease pupils' transitions into further learning, training or employment. That is why we have today published the document "Lifelong Partners", our strategy for school-college partnership, and the guide to partnership that accompanies it.
The strategy outlines how we will deliver on our partnership agreement commitment to enable 14 to 16-year-olds to develop vocational skills through college courses. It has been developed in the context of our national priorities in education, our lifelong learning strategy and our comprehensive agenda for action and change, which is set out in the document "ambitious, excellent schools". The partnership approach recognises the breadth that we advocate in our curriculum review, "a curriculum for excellence", which was published last year—a breadth of learning that schools will be able to deliver more fully through working together with colleges. The strategy that has been published today also acknowledges that existing school-college activity will grow over the coming years. That growth, to which we commit ourselves in our strategy, represents a significant realignment of the school and college sectors.
The strategy completes our schools-colleges review, which has been on-going since October 2003. Despite its name, the review was never principally about schools or colleges; it was about pupils. The review has been wide ranging and lengthy. It has encompassed a conference of 120 representatives to frame a discursive consultation paper; consultation on that paper; consultation on the review's interim report and a draft outline strategy; the issuing of leaflets seeking the views of school pupils; and numerous other consultation events and meetings. Our research has examined existing school-college links and, crucially, the attitudes of pupils to further education study as part of their school curriculum. The research has shown that pupils generally value college learning during part of their school week. The review has also included the findings of a number of working groups representing both sectors, as well as pupil and adult student interests.
Our strategy focuses on increasing and further enhancing school-college partnerships and on extending opportunities for pupils to access high-quality experiences and gain full recognition for their learning with colleges. We will measure the strategy's success by the success of the pupils—by their attendance at courses, by their attainments and achievements and by the ease of their transitions into further learning, training or employment.
In "ambitious, excellent schools", we set out our agenda for action, which is built on our belief in the potential of all pupils and our commitment to help each of them to realise that potential. We also gave a clear statement in "a curriculum for excellence" of the purposes of school education from three to 18, along with principles for the design of the curriculum. Our aspiration for all children and for every young person is that they should be successful learners in life, confident individuals throughout their lives, responsible citizens and effective contributors to society and at work. We want to give pupils the opportunity to benefit from the widest range of educational opportunities and an enriched learning experience. We also want to equip them with a variety of skills that prepare them for life, the workplace and the community.
The principal locus for the education of school pupils is, and will remain, the school. However, we will broaden opportunities. Schools will increasingly work in partnership with other bodies to meet pupils' education needs. Allowing some pupils to access the more specialised learning opportunities that are available through colleges may be the most suitable way of helping them to fulfil their individual potential.
I welcome much of what the minister has said. He has spoken of the role of other institutions. Are there any plans to examine the links between schools and higher education institutions? Recently, there have been some difficulties in my constituency around that issue.
The specific focus of this work is school-college links, but other work is on-going between higher education institutions and schools and we want to encourage those links. A recent initiative has been the summer schools that are run in Glasgow to encourage young people who might not otherwise do so to think about pursuing a university education. We are also encouraging universities to reach down into schools to help and support them in more dynamic ways than they have in the past. That work is not off the agenda, but the focus of today's debate is further education.
Work-based vocational learning is an integral part of our national strategy for enterprise in education, as set out in "Determined to Succeed". We want colleges to help schools in their task of developing the capacities of young people. They can do that by widening pupils' opportunities for progression in learning; by preparing them for further learning; by easing pupils' transitions from school to further learning, training or employment; by broadening pupils' curriculum choices; and by enriching pupils' educational experiences. Partnership can, among other things, give pupils access to specialist staff, materials and facilities that schools may generally be unable to offer and it can provide the opportunity to undertake meaningful courses and experiences in vocational areas.
I am sure that the minister will agree that the role of careers services is vital to the whole process that he is describing. How will that role be promoted to ensure that pupils are given the right advice about which skills areas they might want to go into?
Sylvia Jackson raises an important point. I am not going to refer to the matter specifically today, but I know that people want to develop more appropriate relationships between careers staff and students in schools and in further education colleges. That area will gain more attention from us over time.
The process of going to colleges can help to demystify post-school learning for young people; it can encourage pupils to see the value of post-school education and understand the lifelong nature of learning. That is why, as we outline in our strategy, all secondary and special schools in Scotland will, by 2007, have an effective, meaningful and appropriate partnership with at least one college for pupils in secondary year 3 and above. Similarly, Scotland's colleges will have effective, meaningful and appropriate partnerships with secondary and special schools.
Vocational education can provide a suitable context for learning something that might capture pupils' imagination and interest and better engage some pupils to learn. It provides an opportunity to demonstrate the relevance of subject-related skills such as literacy and numeracy in practical ways.
As a country, we are generally good at laying the educational foundations for those who train to be professionals, such as teachers, social workers, doctors, lawyers and accountants. However, our education system could do more for those pupils who want to be professional care workers, electricians, technicians, plumbers and the like.
The key means by which we will deliver our partnership agreement commitment is the development of skills-for-work courses. Those courses will lead to nationally recognised qualifications in vocational areas as an alternative to one or more standard grades, for example. The courses are for national qualifications at levels from access 2 through to higher and will consist of Scottish Qualifications Authority national units, each of which will be assessed on a pass or fail basis. The courses will be integral to the school curriculum.
I am interested in what the minister is saying, but, if there is to be an impact on the world of work as well as on pupils, will he indicate the quantity of pupils who he expects will participate in college courses during the next few years? What is his vision of the situation in five or 10 years' time?
I will say something about that later. We will be piloting a lot of the work so that it can be fully tested before it is rolled out across the system. As I will indicate, I hope that we can do that in an orderly fashion, so that we do not simply dump pupils out of the school system into the college system—the work must be planned so that colleges can cope with the changes and create the capacity that they require to allow the change to happen.
Some schools might be able to provide the skills-for-work courses, but many courses will be delivered in partnership with colleges. We recognise that the success of the courses will depend on the quality of the progression routes that they present to pupils, on the extent to which the qualifications are respected in the labour market and the learning community, and on how they improve job prospects and career development.
Just as pupils who study geography or history at standard grade are not necessarily expected to go on to become geographers or historians, pupils who are undertake the new skills-for-work courses will have open choices to make about their future occupations. The availability of the qualifications will provide a wider range of activities that make up a balanced education. The courses will be valuable regardless of whether pupils wish to pursue a career in that subject area in later life. At their heart will be those core people skills that are relevant to all, such as communication and team working.
The courses will also seek to enable pupils to develop those skills and attitudes that are demanded by employers, such as an understanding of the workplace and the employee's responsibilities, self-evaluation skills, flexible approaches to problem solving, and confidence to set goals and to reflect and learn from experience. The courses will help to give pupils who want to progress in their chosen field a solid educational pathway to further learning, training or employment.
The SQA will develop the courses, with quality experiences at their core. To pick up Fiona Hyslop's question, I should say that the courses will be piloted during the academic years 2005-06 and 2006-07, in order to evaluate them with a view to rolling them out nationally in August 2007. The subjects for the first year of the pilot are early education and child care, construction craft skills, financial services, and sport and recreation.
I am delighted to say that the expressions of interest that the SQA has received from local authorities, schools and colleges that want to participate in the first pilots have well exceeded our expectations. We will ensure that the participating centres and candidates receive appropriate support in order to maximise the potential for a successful pilot. That means that the overall scale of the pilot has to be manageable and feasible.
Pupils of all abilities in S3 and above will be able to be considered for college learning opportunities. Those opportunities should be regarded as a positive choice to access specialist provision in colleges, not as an alternative provision for pupils with additional support needs or disaffected or disengaged pupils. We will not dump difficult pupils out of school and into college. Decisions on going to college must be in the interests of the individual child, not wholesale transfers from one setting to another.
Options will be made available to pupils on the basis of available capacity, as they are with all other students in further and higher education. Given that there is an inevitable limit on capacity, and to maintain colleges' central ethos, due regard will be paid to those pupils who will benefit most from activities that enhance their life chances.
Schools and colleges already have in place robust internal quality procedures to measure progress on quality issues. To further ensure high-quality experiences for pupils, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education will carry out evaluations of school and college contributions to the partnership activity within its inspection and review programmes. The SQA will develop the new vocational courses in close partnership with the education and training community. We will develop a new professional development award within the teaching qualification in further education professional development for the teaching of pupils under 16 years of age.
By the summer, HMIE will publish a self-evaluation guide in its "How good is our school?" series on school and college partnerships. Also, by October of this year, we will establish a working group to consider matters concerning the qualifications of non-schoolteachers who teach pupils.
I recognise and commend the innovative activities that colleges have undertaken in recent years to satisfy local demand from schools. We need to build on the good practice that currently exists. Partnership with schools is an essential and significant part of colleges' work, but it is—and will remain—a minority activity for colleges. Colleges are predominantly for adult students, as their delivery of learning reflects. The distinctive contribution that colleges make to pupils' education arises from their role as centres of voluntary learning for adults. It is therefore essential to the success of partnership working that that ethos is not altered by the changes that we are making. Colleges' partnership work with schools is a priority for the further education sector that sits alongside its other priorities.
We recognise that school-college activity is supplementary to the education that is delivered by schools. It will therefore be financed separately from existing funding for schools. We will continue to fund the Scottish Further Education Funding Council and its successor body as the primary source of funding for college courses for school pupils. We are investing substantial resources to increase and enhance school-college activities and we will make available more than £41.5 million in the financial years 2005-06 and 2007-08 to implement our strategy. That is in addition to the resources—about £19 million in 2003-04—that colleges already devote to pupils' learning. Among other things, the funding will support more pupils benefiting from college learning; stable funding arrangements that do not disadvantage colleges in providing courses to pupils; training for college staff; college activity to implement the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004; and enhanced careers advice to inform pupils of school-college options.
Presiding Officer, I am conscious that time is moving on, so I will move to my conclusion. The purpose of the initiative is to increase and enhance opportunities for young people across Scotland, to give them clear and new choices, to tailor learning to suit individual students, to offer more choice to pupils and to ease pupils' transitions into further learning, training or employment. I commend the strategy to the Parliament. We intend to accept the Conservatives' amendment—much to their surprise, I suspect.
I move,
That the Parliament welcomes Lifelong Partners, the Scottish Executive's strategy for school and college partnership to increase and enhance further vocational and other specialist opportunities for S3 pupils and above to access high quality educational experiences and gain full recognition for their learning with colleges; acknowledges that further education colleges, as principally centres of voluntary learning for adults, play an important role in helping schools realise the potential of young people; supports the growth in college learning opportunities for pupils outlined in the Executive's strategy, and recognises that colleges' partnership work with schools is a priority for the further education sector.
Before I come to the substance of my speech, I must reflect on the circumstances of the debate. It is not acceptable for members of the Parliament not to have the document that they are supposed to be debating. Back benchers might have more reason than I have to be outraged and angered by the situation. It is perhaps ironic that the debate is on a subject about which there is consensus. I have had an opportunity to read the document, which is actually very good. However, it is unfortunate that other members have not had the opportunity to read it and so are not able to make more constructive contributions to the debate.
My more serious concern is that, as was advertised, ministers chose to launch the document at the same time as the debate in the Parliament. The Parliament is where constituents and members of the public expect their views to be heard. Strategy launches should not be organised as photo opportunities for ministers. Moreover, the Conservative education spokesperson and I both represent the Lothians constituency. On any other occasion, we would have been more than delighted to welcome the minister to the Lothians so that he could find out about the good work that is going on in colleges. To add insult to injury, the strategy is to be launched at the meeting of the College Liaison Association with Scottish Schools—CLASS—which is taking place this morning at Telford College. That might have been appropriate if the strategy was about university entrance, but not in the context of this morning's debate. The minister's launch of the strategy has been flawed, which perhaps detracts from what is an important subject matter.
There may have been some misunderstanding. I am deeply flattered that Fiona Hyslop wants me to remain in the chamber all morning, but that is what I intend to do. Jim Wallace will launch the strategy outside. Because I have respect for the Parliament, I will be here all day.
I am pleased to hear of the minister's change to his previously advertised plan.
A great deal of consensus exists in the Parliament on the subject of today's debate. In the summer of 2002, my party launched the concept of having greater links between schools and colleges. In the autumn of that year, our proposal was adopted by the Conservatives at their party conference. The policy then found support from the Liberal Democrats and, before the end of the year, from the Labour Party. Therefore, the policy is one of those issues that attract commendable cross-party consensus and agreement.
As Education Committee colleagues who visited Glasgow yesterday will confirm, some outstanding work is already taking place in respect of greater involvement of schools with colleges. All 29 of Glasgow City Council's secondary schools have embarked on a school-college liaison along the lines that are promoted in the strategy that is being launched today. The strategy document also highlights the situation in Banff and Buchan, where many pupils are able to attend their local college thanks to the well-organised articulation that exists between schools and colleges, as well as between schools and higher education institutions further on. However, given the document's reference to the fact that those links grew out of the lack of technology teachers in the local schools, we perhaps need to reflect on the figures that were released yesterday, which show a shortfall in the number of such teachers and a drop of 15 per cent in the number of technology students since 1997. Perhaps those warning bells need to be heard.
Our amendment highlights three issues that will be critical to the policy's success: college capacity, pupil accreditation and lecturer training. I acknowledge that those issues are addressed in the document, but our amendment simply identifies that they are key areas on which the policy will stand or fall.
I very much welcome the additional funding that is being made available to address college capacity, but that funding must reflect the differing experiences of colleges in different parts of the country. I suspect that Glasgow colleges have been able to provide some opportunities because of the falling population there, although the city has skills shortages in certain areas. However, in other parts of the country, colleges are bursting at the seams because they are oversubscribed. That is certainly the case here in the Lothians. A big challenge is to ensure that the opportunities that we provide for school pupils do not displace students in subject areas to which additional numbers of older students need to be attracted to meet the urgent skills capacity issues in areas such as the Lothians.
For example, Jewel and Esk Valley College will need 8,500 student units of measurement if it is to return to the SUMs per head of local population that it had in 2001. That is a good example of an oversubscribed college in an area that has a growing population. In plumbing, the college is providing an example of good practice by aiming to have 20 school pupils and 20 apprentices on its introduction to plumbing course this coming year. However, the industry wants 35 apprenticeship places. We do not want a situation in which school pupils might displace prospective apprentices, who would be able to contribute to the local economy by putting their skills into action within the next year or two.
I very much hope that the resources that are being made available will address those capacity issues, especially in areas such as the Lothians, Perth and Kinross and Aberdeenshire where the growing population is placing increased demands on the colleges. In that regard, I know that West Lothian College in my area has particular problems. As the minister will know from the Auditor General's report, the problems stem from a damaging private finance initiative contract, under which 13 per cent of the college's revenue is automatically siphoned off to pay for the PFI. The college now has problems in developing new courses and in increasing capacity, because of the way in which its original construction was treated for capital purposes. I hope that that issue is addressed.
On pupil accreditation, I am pleased to see the progress that the SQA has made. One issue might be the pace of change, as we need to ensure that the courses are available in time. As the minister mentioned, it is also important that the articulation with higher education is considered.
It strikes me—my colleagues who visited Glasgow yesterday will no doubt agree with this—that, as the minister also mentioned, employers want to see confident individuals who can work together and who can communicate their ideas and express their suggestions with confidence. That is an obvious contribution that pupils should be able to gain from their experience of college. I must say that I was a bit disappointed with some of this morning's media coverage, which suggested that the strategy is about only the disengaged and disaffected and how those with behavioural problems might be displaced from the school to elsewhere. The striking thing about the young people from whom we heard yesterday was that they believed that their experience in subjects such as horticulture or construction could help them to re-engage in their studies in other subjects. That needs to be considered.
Another concern that must be wrestled with is the accreditation of college lecturers by the General Teaching Council for Scotland. Indeed, the issue of the relative status of lecturers and teachers, not least in relation to pay, will also need to be addressed. I believe that GTC accreditation is the right idea, but it will need to be carried out with a light touch, especially in the early stages. I am glad to hear that that will be the case. However, there is an issue with the optional status of the proposed professional development award for lecturers, which perhaps should be made mandatory during the programme's roll-out. I recognise the concerns of the colleges, which feel that they should be more aligned with higher education by being affiliated with a professional body for higher education lecturers rather than coming under the auspices of the GTC. Such bureaucratic and administrative issues are probably far removed from the experience of the pupils, but they will be critical to the programme's success.
We welcome the funding streams that have been announced. Already in 2003-04, the Scottish Further Education Funding Council was allocating 6 per cent of its budget to provide for some 44,000 pupil enrolment places in colleges. The additional resources will be helpful, but we need to consider some of the key issues that will be critical in making a difference.
I very much welcome the support that has been announced for the implementation in colleges of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004. As the minister will recognise, the Education Committee pushed for that. I also took up the issue with Jim Wallace latterly in respect of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill. We need to think about the transition issues for pupils with special needs who transfer from schools into colleges, so I am glad that those issues are being addressed.
We still need some alignment of volume and quantity under the policy, given that an estimated 120,000 pupils—the minister might have the more accurate census figures—could benefit from it. The success of the scheme in Glasgow seemed to come from the fact that all pupils rather than just those who were perhaps underperforming were able to benefit from the experience, which provided a window into the world of work. It was also impressive that teachers recognised that the scheme had expanded their own experiences, which had perhaps been limited.
Partnership between schools and colleges helps to make the curriculum flexible, although it does not replace the need for further curriculum flexibility, which needs to be pursued. It does not replace the wider skills strategy for the economy, but it gives young people an opportunity to see the world of work in a way that is responsive to their education needs. By making their subject relevant to the world of work, it provides a window into that world for them. I am pleased that there is cross-party support for the future provision of such valuable experiences for our young people.
I move amendment S2M-2793.1, to insert at end:
"but, in doing so, recognises that the success of the strategy will depend in particular on the effectiveness of measures that address college capacity, pupil accreditation and training of lecturers."
I am grateful to have the opportunity to open the debate on behalf of the Conservatives. The Scottish Executive's initiative to develop effective partnerships between schools and further education colleges will benefit our young people immensely. Such a commitment to further education has been a key strand in Conservative policy for a number of years. Indeed, both the modern apprenticeship scheme and the young enterprise initiative were established under a Conservative Government. If I may say so, we are becoming accustomed to having Conservative policies absorbed into Labour policy a short time later. I shall not dwell on that point, because we welcome the Executive's approach, but it appears to be part of what is becoming a seamless web.
We warmly welcome the publication of the strategy and the implementation plan for school-college partnerships, which mark a welcome commitment to a broader curriculum in vocational training. Access to vocational training at further education colleges benefits school-age pupils in a number of ways. First, it allows pupils to gain a taste of college education, which may encourage them to enrol on FE courses after school. Secondly, it gives school-age pupils hands-on experience of the skill or trade that they wish to train for as well as of the demands of the world of work. Thirdly, it helps to enhance social development, self-esteem and personal responsibility. For all those reasons, we strongly support the initiative.
We recognise the need to give greater opportunities to 14-year-olds by allowing them to study in further education colleges. Access to a broader curriculum and to vocational training will undoubtedly help more young people to fulfil their potential and it will help to combat disengagement, as well as filling the skills gaps in our economy. The sector skills council has found that, if we trained up just another 1 per cent of the current workforce across the United Kingdom, £8 billion would be added to the UK's gross domestic product.
Dumfries and Galloway College is an example of best practice in the heart of David Mundell's constituency. The college is running an effective partnership with local schools at the Crichton campus and is currently taking around 300 pupils each year on to courses that the schools do not have the resources or specific and sufficient facilities to provide. The subjects include care—which the minister mentioned—psychology, hairdressing, hospitality and travel and tourism, to mention but a few. The college offers courses that lead to national qualifications at intermediate 2 and higher levels, thereby allowing for effective articulation with other school-based learning and qualifications. For those pupils for whom the practical, vocational route is more appropriate, such early experience of college life will be invaluable.
The Executive is supporting the creation of a more flexible curriculum that will address disengagement with, and disruptive behaviour in, schools. That said, the drive to enable more pupils to have extended access to vocational training must go hand in hand with raising awareness of the high standards that are demanded on those courses.
Some administrative issues remain to be addressed and they will require careful monitoring. I am referring to the need for adequate capacity in colleges in order to accommodate all eligible school pupils, the establishment of effective and fair systems for dealing with disruptive behaviour in colleges, if and when it arises and the essential requirement for funding for school pupils who are studying at FE colleges to be dealt with correctly.
We face a considerable challenge. Although the scarcity of people with good vocational skills and qualifications puts a premium on their value, the fact that manufacturing industry has declined in Scotland means that it may be perceived as a less attractive option for long-term employment. Only when we make the Scottish economy really competitive will the economic climate be conducive to growth for enterprising and aspiring businesses. I repeat that the Conservatives would like business rates in Scotland to be put on a level playing field with those in the rest of Britain, as that would help our economy.
Sir Digby Jones, director general of the Confederation of British Industry, said that young people should be encouraged to embrace responsibility and
"exploit risk if the next generation is to continue Britain's economic and business success".
Encouraging access to vocational training and enterprise in education is an important step in the right direction. In addition, the business climate needs to be attuned to economic growth if such worthy measures are to attract the success that they deserve.
I welcome the minister's stance on the issue. In the short time that I was the Scottish Office minister with responsibility for education, I tried to raise the status and stature of further education colleges in Scotland. The Executive has a good policy, which should be strongly supported. I believe that, if we give it our support, it will be seen to succeed for our people.
Before I move our amendment, I thank the minister for accepting it. I move amendment S2M-2793.2, to insert at end:
"but notes, however, the need for the Executive to monitor issues of funding, college capacity and delivery of the strategy, particularly in rural areas."
I give a warm welcome to the publication of the documents on school-college partnerships. The Executive has implemented yet another key Liberal Democrat manifesto commitment in the field of education. We Liberal Democrats practise what we preach: we give opportunities to young people, as was seen in the recent election of Jo Swinson as the youngest member of the House of Commons. I also welcome the £41.5 million injection of resource over two years, which will be extremely important in this area.
The ability to fulfil one's potential in life and to increase the life chances of and opportunities for young people in modern Scottish society have always seemed to be central to the concept of liberal democracy—certainly, they are central to my concept of it. Those are also many people's view of the purpose of the Scottish Parliament.
Particularly since I became the convener of the Education Committee, it has been my privilege to be able to visit schools and colleges across the land. Fiona Hyslop mentioned the committee's visit to schools in Glasgow yesterday to meet staff and young people and to see something of the work that is being done across the country to educate, motivate and encourage young people.
The country has, and the committee has met, some extraordinary young people. I call them extraordinary not because of their academic abilities or their personal qualities—although they have those in spades—but because of their enthusiasm and promise and the contribution that they will make to the future of Scotland. They are extraordinary young people because they have exceeded what was expected of them by overcoming difficult environmental circumstances or other barriers to learning.
The central point to make at the beginning of the debate is that Scotland has much to be proud of in its children and young people. Their achievements do not come about by accident. They happen because of the dedicated efforts of staff, inspired school leadership, adequate public resource and the structures that make the most of all of those things. There has been recognition that the policies of the Executive and the Parliament, particularly in this area, are influenced by the contribution of the Liberal Democrats. We are delivering in Government on a long-term and comprehensive basis.
The Executive has examined the transitions: from nursery to primary; from primary to secondary; and from secondary to the world of work. It has also examined the curriculum and disadvantage and additional support needs, not least through the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004. Above all, the Executive has considered the twin issues of disaffection and discipline, which are often two sides of the same coin.
Three things are clear: the first is that individual schools in similar catchment areas have substantially varied performances; the second is that the traditional school structures can sometimes seem meaningless and uninspiring to some children and young people; and the third is that, partly out of a desire to give more young people the opportunity to go into higher education because we want to be socially inclusive, we can lose sight of the fact that equally valid, equally useful and more relevant careers can often be found in what we have sometimes disparagingly called vocational areas.
The school-college review is at the heart of the debate. I congratulate the minister and his officials on the documents that have just been published. They are relevant and insightful and point the way forward to achieve the partnership agreement aim of allowing 14 to 16-year-olds to have the opportunity of spending part of their time in the more adult environment that colleges provide, where they are able to access a wider variety of vocational opportunities than is possible at school.
I turn to some of the stress points and difficulties that must be addressed in the debate. The issue is complex and we will not always get it right, although we can draw on the experience of the past five or six years and before that time. I was pleased to hear the minister stress the fact that the review is not just about dealing with difficult pupils or dumping them from our schools into some other environment. As I said, the issue is complex, and we must support young people in taking forward this work.
When the Education Committee visited Glasgow yesterday, we found that existing projects are making the school-college link by way of an option column in the standard grade options. That is the right way to proceed. It gives vocational college courses parity of esteem with other courses, which is exactly how things should be. It strikes a major blow for the equality of different career choices. That said, vocational courses need proper certification.
I will be interested to hear what the Executive has to say on the subject of the timetable, as the minister did not touch on that in his speech. The timetable is important: people need to know that there will be something in it for them. College options need to be recognised, encouraged and praised—all of that is extremely important.
It is also important to recognise that different schools approach these matters differently. Some schools have embraced with enthusiasm the opportunity to develop school-college links. Other schools pay only lip service to the concept: they have not done things properly and have a good distance to go. It is important to stress that the school-college link must not be seen as the part-time duty of one member of staff who has many other things on their mind. If schools do not make it the dedicated responsibility of one senior official or teacher, the drive will be lost.
There are capacity limits. We must acknowledge that already, in some colleges, 600 pupils take part in college courses. There is much to build on, but we must link to the wider issue of how we encourage and support young people. How do we motivate them so that they are ready to take advantage of opportunities? There are linkages to work placement. The skills-for-work courses that the minister talked about are important, but they are only one of a number of ways forward.
There are issues about long-term career opportunities. Hospitality is often cited, and I have been struck in discussions by the fact that it sometimes does not provide the career opportunities that exist in other areas. That must be dealt with. The issue is not particularly one for the Scottish Executive Education Department, but it is important.
The way forward will require resources for transport, a focus on head teachers and dedicated people in schools. Stable funding arrangements are required to deliver the fee income to colleges, which I was pleased to hear the minister talk about.
Instinctively, we all feel that the proposals are an important and relevant way forward that affords many opportunities and advantages, but will we be able to test that? Will we check whether the result is less unemployment for school leavers? Will we ensure that we do things properly?
Today's announcements are landmark announcements that build on previous work, look to the future and set targets for what we can do in education. New opportunities and choices are being given to pupils. The strategy has much to offer Scotland. On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I warmly welcome the announcements and the document, which will enable us to do a lot of work in the future.
As we seem to be continuing the election campaign that I thought had finished last week, I play my part by saying that other parties might have had the proposals in their manifestos, but local government in Scotland, which is largely Labour led, has been implementing them since the 1980s, when it was not politically expedient or particularly fashionable to do so. I was involved in that.
I welcome the strategy. I share the concern that Tricia Marwick expressed in her point of order that back benchers have been unable to get the briefing that was provided to Opposition spokespersons or to see the strategy. That has made it somewhat difficult to prepare a speech in advance, but I will do my best.
The strategy is consistent with what the Government in Scotland has been doing to bring coherence to lifelong learning, almost from cradle to grave. Although I could never compete with the Parliament's epitome of the benefits of lifelong learning—Stewart Stevenson—I have had a fairly varied working life. In 1988, as a new lecturer at Fife College in Kirkcaldy, where my boss was my colleague Marilyn Livingstone, I recall having a three-hour class on a Friday afternoon of what was known as schools link. The pupils were either disaffected, disruptive or otherwise disinterested—or, rather, uninterested. They did not want to be in school, and they did not particularly want to be in college, but that was marginally better than being in school. The amount of benefit that they got was questionable.
I confirm and support the comments of many members that we are not talking about some sort of dumping ground for disruptive or disaffected pupils. What we are talking about looks to provide the element of choice that pupils and young people need and will help them to make that choice rather than force choice upon them. That is an important distinction, and it is borne out by some of the evidence from Glasgow, where it was found that following their college experience during their secondary school years pupils were clearer about the choices that they wanted to make, and those choices were not always in the areas that they had studied when they were in college. If that alone is what comes out of the review, it will be of great benefit.
Is Christine May aware of the Careers Scotland research that identified the close link between people having a goal in life and attainment? Does she think that that is relevant to the debate?
Yes, I do. I was privileged to have a lengthy discussion with the consultants who prepared the report for Careers Scotland on the benefit to young people of having a structured choice programme. I hope that Careers Scotland and Futureskills Scotland will, at the Executive's behest, continue to identify improvements that can be made.
The issue is the links between schools and colleges throughout the country, some of which are good and some of which are not so good, as Robert Brown said. As the minister said, from the start colleges have been firmly involved in the strategy that has been produced today. It might contain no surprises, but that is a good thing, because many of us have been involved with our local colleges in what is being done. A one-size-fits-all approach will not be taken. The approaches that are taken will be appropriate to rural areas and urban areas, and perhaps will be more advanced in some places than in others.
The adult ethos of colleges should not be compromised. We must be careful that we do not seek to turn colleges into schools or schools into colleges, because they are different institutions with different purposes. One interesting statistic is that the average age of students in Scotland's further education colleges is 28, which in itself presents problems for school pupils. The minister and his officials have had considerable discussions with colleges, school boards and parent groups about how that might be managed.
The strategy supports the curriculum development work and review work that have been going on in schools, such as the skills-for-work programme, to which the minister referred, the enterprise education programmes and various other measures. I welcome the additional funding announced by the minister, which will provide a firm financial basis. For too long, programmes have been funded by cobbling together whatever money might be spared, largely from colleges but some from the Education Department. I ask the minister how the funding will be continued and built into budgets.
Around 1,000 school pupils attended Glenrothes College in my constituency as part of their school work last year, and they all had meaningful experiences. However, as I said, they did not necessarily follow up what they did there.
We must define what we mean by vocational skills. The term applies not just to craft subjects; it can apply to skills that enhance people's ability to work. Vocational skills have long been part of the development of professional qualifications.
I congratulate the Executive and support it. I hope that at the end of today's debate we will be able to find a consensus for the benefit of all our young people and colleges.
Tricia Marwick has withdrawn.
We all share the objectives that are set out in today's documents. We all agree that in principle we support the expansion of the role of further education colleges to include S3-plus school pupils. As Fiona Hyslop said, the documents were presented to us late last night, and I have not had an opportunity to study them thoroughly, but they appear to have the characteristic hallmarks of the programmes that the Executive launches; the ideas are good, but it is unclear whether the details have been thought through.
It is desirable to provide more opportunities for schoolchildren, but I want to focus on the impact that the proposals could have on colleges that provide both further and higher education. Our task is to distinguish between the important and the essential. I suggest to the minister that the essential issue for many colleges, including Inverness College in my constituency, is that the proposals will not address the financial problems that some colleges have faced for several years. If Inverness College were to be a participant in one of the pilot studies, it is unclear whether the impact of the new programme would compound the college's already difficult financial situation.
I have a letter from the principal of Inverness College, which states:
"The College's funding for the year is based on a target of student activity, which is sent to all FE Colleges in April for the coming year. For the past 3 years, there has been no increase in this target figure (and consequential funding for the College), although the demand for some courses due to external factors has increased dramatically (e.g. in Construction)."
Inverness College has a deficit of about £3 million, about half of which is attributable to the notional cost of pensions and half of which is historical. The college has already paid off £2 million of deficit. At present, a large number of staff are facing their P45s, at a time when the college could and would like to take on more adult students for construction courses. I put it to the minister that the immediate priority that faces him, as the minister responsible, is to sort out the institution's existing problems. I am mindful that a huge amount of effort by a large number of people is going into solving the problems, but the problems remain and there is no suggestion that they will be solved.
I had a meeting with Roger McClure, who argued that it would be wrong to use public money to eliminate or pay off part of the deficit of colleges, which, as he argued, have been poorly managed, because that would not be fair to colleges that have been well run. We all understand that argument, but it does not detract from the fact that colleges that have been badly managed in the past or are badly managed at present can address their problems only by making staff redundant, cutting courses and eliminating opportunities for students, which is what is happening now at Inverness College. Obviously, I welcome new ideas and aspirations, but I contrast them with the current unpleasant and unwelcome reality in which many of my constituents who have a professional pride in their job now see their P45s arriving.
Perhaps Mr Ewing will explain to me how additional funding for activities that are carried out at present but not funded will, as he suggests, cause problems, rather than assist the college.
We do not know what the impact will be because the documents do not say that. We know that the sum will be £41 million but, as Fiona Hyslop said, we have no idea what the impact will be on capacity, training or the number of staff. We know that pilot studies will be carried out, but we do not know where. We do not know the detail. Although the programme is worthy in principle, my question is whether it has been fully thought through. I have had only a short time to study the available information, but it does not seem to me that the answer is yes.
When Wendy Alexander, who I think was in the chamber earlier, occupied the minister's role, she made a contribution of around £7 million to reduce the deficit of some colleges. We can debate whether that was a proper use of public money, but what is not in dispute is that, unless the deficit that Inverness College faces is tackled, the victims will be the students, the potential students and the staff.
The new policy is rather like someone setting out on a journey, marching into the unknown without a map, a compass or a rucksack. I wish the minister well on his journey.
The Executive review, "Building the Foundations of a Lifelong Learning Society", is a most welcome document. Set beside the merger of the tertiary education funding councils, which we debated last month, it is to be hoped that it signals a shift towards parity of esteem for all post-school education streams. As Lord James Douglas-Hamilton mentioned, the extraordinarily productive co-operation at the Crichton university campus in Dumfries, involving the University of Paisley and the University of Glasgow, is an excellent example of what can be done at the tertiary education level. As I set up and taught a course at the campus, I am aware of the importance of the institution to the local community.
The Executive has always maintained that it does not publish school league tables, but unfortunately many Scottish newspapers do publish them. In the past 20 years, an insidious and divisive ethos has been developing in Scottish secondary education, whereby all schools are judged simply by their standard and higher grade results and on how many pupils they get into universities. No league table in a Scottish newspaper has ever congratulated a school on the number of pupils who go on to develop the many and varied skills upon which the success of our economy entirely depends.
I will comment on one or two aspects of the "Lifelong Partners" report. The Scottish credit and qualifications framework is a good basis for understanding and is to be welcomed, as are many of the provisions and the nature of partnership activity. Many young people grow out of school well before the school leaving date. Some of them know what they want to do and want to get on with it; some of them know only that they want to get out of school. The provision for pupils in S4 to attend college full time is much to be welcomed and encouraged.
I am concerned that paragraph 3.18 of the guide for schools, which is on local delivery methods, leaves it up to schools and local authorities to decide whether they want to build vocational education facilities in schools.
I want to know whether I understand correctly what the member said a few sentences back. He seemed to say that he envisaged S4 pupils going fully into further education, but the thrust of the document is about supplementing school education.
The important point is that there is provision for pupils in S4 who want to have alternatives to school education, as well as school education. They should be able to go into college and take up what is on offer there. The important point is the diversity of possibilities to which the document opens the door.
Although, without local flexibility, the measures could lead to the unnecessary duplication of facilities, if there is no encouragement to go down the road, that might not happen at all, because extra investment will be required. In most schools, the demands of the academic sector could mean that the needs of young people who would benefit from a vocational course at school will continue to be ignored.
Section 4 of the guide is on the roles and responsibilities of partners. I am delighted that learndirect Scotland has been included as a partner in that section. I pay tribute to the huge success of learndirect Scotland, as exemplified in its figures for the past 12 months. The organisation's learning centres are particularly useful and important where there are no local college facilities. We must acknowledge that learndirect Scotland makes a distinct, unique and important contribution at school and adult level, through its 483 learning centres and 1,300 providers, which give 94,000 opportunities for adult and school learners to pick up practical skills in informal settings. There is a huge demand for its services. Every 15 seconds, there is an inquiry about its services, which amounts to 500,000 calls per annum. It runs roughly 40,000 learning episodes a month. Of particular note is the work that it does with adults who have missed out on early skills development. Those adults gain skills that they would probably never have been able to access in any other way.
I welcome the Executive's commitment to support learndirect Scotland and I encourage ministers to do everything that they can to allow learndirect Scotland to meet the demand.
I, too, am pleased to welcome the strategy, which is part of the Executive's modernisation of the school curriculum to provide greater flexibility and choice to pupils. We must consider it in the context of a package of measures that the Executive is introducing to increase flexibility and choice.
I am getting more perturbed as the debate goes on, because everybody other than me and my colleagues seems to have seen the strategy document. Unlike Fergus Ewing, I certainly did not see it last night. I was in the Parliament at 11 o'clock last night and I was here at half past 8 this morning and it still was not there, so, to a certain extent, I am talking off the top of my head. However, I will not hold ministers responsible for the vagaries of the printing system.
I notice that the Association of Scottish Colleges, which also seems to know something that I do not know, has also welcomed the strategy, in particular the increase in investment in vocational education and the promise of parity in funding for college courses that are offered to school pupils—a point that Christine May raised in an intervention.
In the absence of the strategy document, I read a piece of research on school pupils' attitudes towards further education that the Executive commissioned as part of the consultation. It was undertaken by Carole Millar Research and involved 12 colleges and 26 schools. It was interesting to read that the pupils' perceptions of college were generally favourable. Indeed, 80 per cent of S4 pupils who had participated in school-college links found that college attendance had helped them to make decisions about their options for the future. The sorts of things that are being discussed in the context of skills for work will assist pupils in making such decisions.
Robert Brown, who was able to go on the visits yesterday—I was unfortunately prevented from doing so by a prior engagement—referred to the fact that pupils who are disengaged from education in a school environment often gain motivation and a sense of achievement in college. Many of the pupils in the research found that college increased their awareness of lifelong learning and that attendance at college helped to ease the transition between school and higher or further education. That is particularly relevant in the context of the discussion about boys not being engaged in higher education, which has surfaced in the media again this morning. The strategy provides opportunities to address some of the issues about the balance of boys' achievements within school and further education.
The research also seemed to provide evidence that there are fewer incidents of bad behaviour in college, although some pupils felt that, when behavioural problems occurred, the lecturers were not as effective in dealing with it as teachers—teachers might argue that themselves. However, I agree with Fiona Hyslop and the minister that it is extremely important that colleges are not considered to be dumping grounds for pupils who have behavioural problems. In the past, the pupils who have been sent to colleges have been those who, as Christine May said, are unable to cope or are disengaged from school, but we are talking about something different: offering college education to all pupils, not only those with behavioural problems or who find school difficult. That needs to be based on the individual child's needs.
The strategy is about bridging the gap between academic and vocational training, enabling students to move between academic and vocational courses and acknowledging the vocational content of many higher education courses. As I science student, I spent many hours in laboratories. I learned not only academic knowledge in those laboratories, but practical and vocational skills. My eldest child is at the University of Abertay Dundee studying computing studies, and he is learning many vocational skills as well as academic skills. We need to break down the rather false barrier that has grown up between vocational and academic education over the years.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton referred to Dumfries and Galloway College, which is located in Russell Brown's constituency—we are all making digs at the moment. I do not think that the college was involved in the research project to which I referred, but I will make a point that the Tories have rightly made: I hate to be thinking what they are thinking, but it is correct to say that there is a problem with timetabling for rural areas. I would hate to think that, although school pupils in Dumfries are able to benefit from the links with Dumfries and Galloway College, students from Langholm Academy might find it more difficult because they have to travel an hour to get to the college. The minister talked about piloting the schemes in other areas, and I hope that some of those pilots will be in rural areas where the transport and timetabling issues can be addressed.
I inform members that the documents for which we have all been waiting have arrived. I apologise again to members for their tardy arrival and recommend the speed-reading provisions that they will find therein.
To respond—
Minister, you need to speak into your microphone. Dr Murray will not mind if you turn your back on her.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
To respond to Elaine Murray's principal point on the roll-out of piloting, it is our intention to ensure that the pilots cover a geographical spread of all Scotland and that rural areas and their specific needs are considered within that.
I am pleased to hear the minister say that, because it is extremely important.
I will be a little bit parochial. Chris Ballance mentioned the unique collaboration between higher and further education that exists on the Crichton campus in Dumfries—I will not mention whose constituency it is in. If we are now to have a collaboration between school and further education there, that will provide a great opportunity that I find exciting. The pupils who go into that environment will see not only something of what happens in colleges, but a tertiary transition that enables articulation between further and higher education, allows people to move between further and higher education, shows people the opportunities of lifelong learning and progression and helps to break down the barriers for people who, because they think that they are not terribly good at school, decide to go into a job and not take part in education after the age of 16.
The partnership between the University of Glasgow, the University of Paisley, Bell College, Dumfries and Galloway College, Barony College and the Open University that exists at the Crichton campus and the wide range of courses and facilities on the site provide an exciting opportunity for Dumfries. If, as might happen, Dumfries and Galloway College eventually relocates to the same site as the university campus, school pupils who take part in education there will see people training as social workers or primary school teachers, people engaged in continuous professional development and a model of lifelong learning that could be inspirational.
After a general election, we might find it a little boring to see consensus breaking out across the Parliament, but I am glad that we all regard school-college links as a way forward for education that will improve the life skills and life chances of our younger generation.
I welcome the idea of partnerships between schools and colleges; I speak with experience of having explored that route in my previous existence as a principal teacher by trying to make links between my school and James Watt College of Further and Higher Education in Kilwinning and Reid Kerr College in Paisley. I am excited about the prospects, but I also have some concerns that need to be addressed, one of which is that we must not move away from introducing a more flexible curriculum; such links are part of the flexible curriculum, but they are not themselves the flexible curriculum. I emphasise that they are only part of what we must do to introduce more flexibility into our school curriculums.
The strategy should, as the minister said, also be thought of as a move to give children more experience—more enrichment and more specialist input—but should not diminish the quality and standards of education in our secondary schools. It is important to emphasise that.
The strategy will, I hope, not be used to paper over the cracks of the teacher shortage—to do so would be disastrous. Our schools offer a high standard of education and must continue to do so. We need enhanced provision so that we can give young people more opportunities within a structured and well-planned environment. I am concerned that a huge amount of planning will be needed to make the strategy work, and that key people in schools and colleges will have to devote much of their time to it.
I take on board the points that have been made by Rosemary Byrne, but does she agree that much of the planning has already been done, and that the strategy adds value to that? Much work has been going on in respect of school-college links; I could cite many examples in Fife. The strategy will formalise that, and funding will be added so that it can be delivered, which should be welcomed as a positive move. We are not starting from scratch.
It is not about starting from scratch, but it has been about starting from small pilots and small experiments that people who have the will to do so have initiated in schools.
If young people are to select the right courses and make the right moves in their education, they have to be counselled. They need to plan with teachers and other key people the courses they will take and the moves they will make. That requires that time be set aside, which will have staffing implications for schools and colleges, so strategic planning will be key.
I am heartened that the local authority in whose area I live, North Ayrshire Council, has such strategic planning in place; it exists in some areas. I cannot, however, overemphasise the need to ensure that the appropriate staff are given the time that is required, otherwise young people will end up making the wrong choices. Colleges should not be a dumping ground for disillusioned young people; rather, they should be part of the curricular choices that young people make at the end of secondary 2 for S3 and S4. In that way, choices will be properly planned and structured.
We need to enhance the position of the careers service in all this. I know that the minister has mentioned and has been asked about the careers service, but I have not yet read anything that tells me what its role will be. I will be interested to hear what the minister has to say in response to that. As far as I am concerned, if careers advice is not fully linked to the strategy, wrong choices and mistakes will be made at key stages for young people. There are not enough careers staff linked to schools to do that job at the moment.
I hope that the strategy will not dump Christmas leavers, that we can achieve equality of opportunity across the board and that the dialogue that I have been repeatedly calling for can proceed among pupils, parents, teachers, college staff and careers staff, which will ensure that pupils' choices are correct and are made at the right time.
Fiona Hyslop and other members mentioned qualifications for teachers. It is crucial that college lecturers be suitably qualified to deal with our young people and that they have a teaching qualification and registration with the General Teaching Council or similar body. We must maintain standards and ensure that the quality of teaching is right.
The salaries of college lecturers are important, although they have not so far been mentioned. We cannot have a situation in which teachers are offering curriculums that must be joined up with college partnerships but are paid less than lecturers. That situation needs to be reviewed and taken care of, otherwise, disillusionment will set in. We must also ensure full disclosure for all college lecturers who deal with young people, as is the case for people working in schools. I would like some reassurance on that.
I was pleased to hear the minister refer to the role of the SQA. There are many good courses at access and intermediate levels that should and could be used—I am thinking in particular of a digital photography course at Reid Kerr College with which I was involved. We must be imaginative enough to include in courses what is available at higher still level. We should not completely ignore what is already there, because there is much development still to be done with some courses. There is great potential for the future, but I worry that the desire to plan strategically and to put key staff and resources in place will end up diminishing what we are trying to do. I hope that will not be the case.
I will mention rural areas, as much of my region is rural. We need equality of opportunity. We must give all young people access to appropriate courses, wherever they live, and we must ensure that transport and other links are properly developed, rather than provided piecemeal. The strategy is a long-term strategy and it will need to be built up. I will watch the pilot schemes with interest.
I thank the Presiding Officer for calling me and allowing what I hope is still my sunny disposition into the debate. There is considerable consensus in the chamber. I recall an occasion back on 6 November 2002, when Nicol Stephen, the then Deputy Minister for Education and Young People, accepted my amendment to a motion on this very subject. I have no doubt that, after 2007, Nicol Stephen will be keen to accept far more Tory-inspired motions and amendments.
As First Minister?
We will not go there. It is open to debate where Nicol Stephen and I may be by then.
When I hear everyone in the chamber agree, I begin to worry. It is in the nature of democracies that, when everyone agrees, we might sometimes be making the wrong choices. I seek to stretch the debate a little and perhaps even to provoke a few members—although, of course, that is not my nature. I wish to examine the issues outside the box. It is not difficult for Conservatives to talk outside the box at the moment, because we are clearly outside the box of political popularity in Scotland, although I assure members that that will change.
What more might colleges themselves do, and what more could they be liberated to do? I suggest that there should be not just partnerships between schools and colleges, with school pupils simply attending colleges, but that colleges could manage schools on local authorities' behalf or create schools within their institutions, which could provide particular facets of education. [Interruption.] Already I hear gasps of amazement, so I am clearly halfway towards my objective.
The fact that colleges are not under the control of local authorities, but are incorporated—a fact that nobody seems to be challenging—allows them greater flexibility. Colleges could more easily work with the assistance of private benefactors such as Tom Hunter or Irvine Laidlaw, with fewer constraints on giving such generous patrons a say in their development.
I will give members an example of where that approach might work: the skills shortage in football and rugby. Those are serious skills shortages, and football and rugby are large and important businesses in Scotland. It should be possible for colleges, in partnership with employers such as premier football and rugby teams, to establish schools that are not just sports academies in the morning, but which also teach English, maths and other courses in the afternoon. That would dovetail with the training regimes of sports clubs; it already happens in Barcelona, for example. We can see the results of that for Spanish clubs and the Spanish nation. I have seen many highly talented footballers of 13 and 14 years of age being signed up with professional clubs, but being released by those clubs at 15 or 16 because they have lost their way at school and have fallen into bad habits such as smoking, alcohol and drugs. Football or sport schools that were run by colleges could save those young people from themselves and help our local and national teams.
Is the member aware of the exciting project in Dumfries whereby Queen of the South Football Club and the north-west resource centre, with its education facilities, do precisely the sort of things that enable young people to become re-engaged with education through their interest in sport?
I am not aware of that project, but it sounds like an example of what I would like to see developed throughout Scotland. If the member can provide me with further information, I will certainly read up on it.
As Christine May and others have said, the programme of involving colleges more in school education is not about dumping children who are disengaged or disruptive; it is about catching them before they make that mistake and allowing them to make better, more productive and progressive choices.
I turn to the summary of research findings number 14/2004, with which members have been provided. The paper states:
"The need for local authority intervention and forward planning was identified as crucial in order to avoid ad-hoc provision."
What does that mean and what would that intervention entail? We have to acknowledge the independence of further education colleges. If the intervention is about creating a partnership to determine what can best be done, I would accept it. However, intervention in the college programme by the local authority holding out for agreement would be a negative step.
The paper also states:
"a few college contacts noted that they were currently less able to cater for girls due to their emphasis on providing courses in the skilled trades."
It suggests that the programme should be added to or changed to attract girls. I say no to that: although colleges must try to provide as many courses as possible that attract pupils, we must challenge the stereotypes that suggest that girls cannot take certain building courses because they have not done so in the past. We need to challenge that and ensure that girls realise that there can be a future for them in a wide variety of professions that were previously the domain of males. That way, we would provide girls with more opportunities and have a far more productive economy.
I welcome the motion and the amendment and I am pleased to support both.
I support strongly the thrust of the discussion and the "Lifelong Partners" document. My colleague Robert Brown covered the main issues thoroughly in his usual highly competent manner, so I will not run over them again. As far as I am aware, neither he nor I are candidates in our party leadership election, so I can praise him without fluttering doocots.
We have inherited from Westminster the bad and anti-democratic procedure whereby we start debating documents before we have read them. No self-respecting teacher in a college or school would instruct their pupils to debate a document that they had not read, so why on earth should we do so? The procedure should be that the minister launches the document, gets his stuff on the television—which is what the TV companies want—and then a day or two later, when we have read the document, we can have an intelligent debate about it.
The present position is futile. It reminds me of an excellent lady in Edinburgh who for many years made a good contribution to public life by denouncing what she thought were dirty shows at the Edinburgh festival fringe. She had never seen them, but she had acted on the basis of the hype and press publicity, which was always far more lurid than the shows. Here we are, debating a document that we have not read, on the basis of the hype and publicity about it. That is foolish and undemocratic and we should stop doing it.
Does Donald Gorrie accept that the usual procedure is for the minister to make a statement to Parliament and be cross-examined, after which we have a full-scale debate?
That is a good procedure but, again, it is helpful for us to be able to read the document before we question the minister. I accept entirely that it is important to get ministerial statements.
The fact that there is such consensus on the main issues—even Brian Monteith made a constructive and reasonably consensual speech—shows that Scotland could manage its affairs in a number of ways. On many issues, it would be perfectly possible for a minority Government to negotiate with the Parliament and make progress with policy that was supported by consensus. There is scope for a considerable number of variations of coalitions or agreements between parties for governing Scotland acceptably. I throw out that idea for consideration.
The basic consideration is what is best for each young person. What is proposed will help many young people who are not turned on by school—who are in fact probably turned off by it—who would be re-enthused by having part of their education at college. We should extend that; there should be more use of voluntary activity to replace some school activity. There are good systems based on sport, outward-boundery or other character-building activities, which play a great part in helping many young people.
The biggest problem that many schools face is disruptive pupils. If we could find something that stopped pupils being disruptive we would do much better. If they could be taught outwith the school, whether in a college, voluntary organisations or in other milieux, that would benefit them and they would stop fouling up everyone else's education.
We are too classroom oriented. My experience is that education took place outwith the classroom. The things that I remember about my education with satisfaction and which had an effect on me did not take place in classrooms; I refer to orchestras, rugby teams, visits and scout camps. We should pay more attention to things that excite pupils and open up such avenues for them.
We have to get over the idea that intelligent people go to universities and read books and less bright people go to colleges or do some other less intellectual activity. That is a false notion because we need a lot of intelligent craftspeople. The people who built up Britain's prosperity in the 18th and 19th centuries started at the bottom—as blacksmiths, for example—where they got to know their subjects and then invented, developed and manufactured railway engines, for example. If in the building trades we had intelligent people who qualified fully as plumbers and electricians and then built up businesses and worked in design and management, we would get somewhere. Given that we are in this building, we are fully aware of the fact that we need intelligent people to manage our building industry. Colleges should start attracting brighter pupils to learn trades and build up from that.
Disclosure was mentioned in the document. Disclosure Scotland is important, but the situation is hopelessly over the top. We are descending into the mental state that there was in Scotland during the witch-hunting mania in the 17th century. We must consider disclosure reasonably and with level-headedness.
There are issues to do with the GTC, funding colleges, and colleges and schools getting due credit for the success of their pupils, but there is huge consensus on this great subject. I hope that we will progress in the right direction.
I welcome the two reports. Members will be glad to hear that I have scanned and digested the 100-odd pages in the past 10 minutes. Joking apart, I suggest that photocopies of the reports should be made available if there are printing difficulties. I am sure that it will be taken on board that it is unfair that most members in the chamber do not have copies.
I begin by referring to earlier documents on skills and lifelong learning in particular, because their underlying principles are key to the debate. The lifelong learning strategy that was published in February 2003 spoke about the links that had necessarily to be established between schools and further education colleges—which will obviously happen with the strategy that we are discussing—and with local employers. Brian Monteith tried to get members to argue with him, but for once there was a fair bit of consensus when he spoke. I agree that local employers should be seen as being among the main stakeholders in debates on lifelong learning and skills, but we must go far wider when we consider skills and the definition of vocational skills.
The schools and colleges conference that was held prior to the consultation dealt with important principles, one of which Rosemary Byrne rightly mentioned. A national strategy and local strategies are necessary. Implementation issues with reference to careers have also been discussed and good points have been made.
One issue that arose at the schools and colleges conference was that there is no one model of collaboration, which is true. Members have said that there are issues especially in rural areas; the minister is particularly interested in a rural project that covers land-based skills at Balfron High School. Many former working methods have been lost and schools' curriculums have become much more rigid, but we have is a big opportunity to become more flexible again and to meet local needs.
The conference also dealt with the fact that the pattern of engagement in further education colleges needs to reflect local circumstances. Lifelong learning strategies are a key issue. In my area, in which Falkirk College and Clackmannan College will merge, it has been identified that the rural parts of my constituency in particular are somewhat underprovided for in respect of further education and skills development. Elaine Murray talked about ensuring that rural development and pilot projects home in on and try to shore up provision, which has obviously been lacking in many areas.
I am pleased that Stirling Council has just unveiled its latest lifelong learning initiative—it has launched its community planning lifelong learning strategy. I do not know the details of that strategy—it was revealed only recently—but I know that much work has already been done and that the main stakeholders have been involved, as earlier documents suggested should happen. Careers Scotland has been involved and pilots in Bannockburn and the eastern villages—which are in the Stirling Council area—have delivered results. Enrolments on Falkirk College courses and, I think, at Stirling Centre for Further Education, which is an offshoot of Falkirk College, have risen dramatically. Things have worked: many people who left school disillusioned have used the learning centre at Cornton as a stepping stone to go on to courses in Falkirk College. Therefore, the thrust of what is being done is in the right direction.
I am a member of the Educational Institute of Scotland, which was concerned that achievements in further education college courses—whatever they are—should be accredited. The minister said that we are going in that direction, which is welcome.
I also welcome what has been said about resources, but would like to hear more from the minister about careers. Pupil welfare and support is one of the two most important issues that the EIS has raised, and that in turn raises the issue of disclosure arrangements. We have not heard many details about disclosure arrangements, so I wonder whether the minister can give us more details about them in summing up.
There has also been concern expressed about the need for a professional body for further education. The EIS has recommended the GTC as that professional body; perhaps the minister will say what is happening in that respect.
Finally, I am sure that the Association of Scottish Colleges—which is also based in Stirling—will be happy with the proposals in the two strategy documents. It is keen that what is offered in further education colleges should supplement the school curriculum and that we should not get away from that vision. There must be no early specialisation in any form. Obviously, that is also an EIS matter.
I welcome the strategy documents and today's consensus.
I have not speed-read the documents—indeed, I have looked only at certain paragraphs—so my speech will be quite short. I am reminded that Christine Grahame can be taken out of the classroom, but the classroom cannot be taken out of Christine Grahame. Christine May used the word "disinterested" and quickly and properly corrected herself. That word is one of my bugbears and I mumbled, "Not in an education debate." If members do not know the difference between what she said and what she should have said, Christine May and I will take them to the side and explain the difference in detail.
I proceed to the matter in hand. I am not going to repeat the claims in all parties' manifestos. Obviously, we have all done very well. The point is that we are not talking about anything new. People were doing such things in the 1960s and 1970s. "I know"—as a rugby player once said—"'cos I was there." Schools had day-release and part-time release arrangements. However, stigma was attached because in those days, people who were not very bright did such courses. That stigma must go. Those of us who have been a pupil and a teacher—as I have been—in a classroom know from experience that children can be identified who are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time and would benefit from vocational experience. Such children are desperate and they sometimes turn into problem or disruptive children, or they simply become completely detached from the system, which is unnecessary.
When I see what plumbers can earn nowadays, I think that I would love to have trained as a plumber. They earn more than lawyers earn and will not come into people's houses without a £60 or so call-out fee, after which they will simply change a washer. A career as a plumber, electrician or plasterer is a far better career for a young man or woman now than it was. Far too many pupils who have gone on to college or university tell me that they have studied politics and journalism. We are awash with people doing politics and journalism courses who will not get jobs and who will not contribute to the community.
I do not share people's great concerns about the skills shortage in football and rugby. I have been anaesthetised to that since the day of my birth—I am genetically opposed to sport. However, we have serious skills shortages in all kinds of trades. I note that 3,000 pupils at further education colleges move on to higher education, so the situation is open and flexible.
I will comment specifically on parts of the strategy that have been brought to my attention by Jewel and Esk Valley College and Borders College in my constituency. As I am sure the minister is aware, colleges are worried about the expectations that have been raised and their ability to deliver on them. There is a particular issue in relation to special needs pupils who may attend colleges. If the minister would listen, perhaps he could tell me whether colleges were consulted on the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill, which is an important point.
A relevant issue that I would like the minister to clarify is who is legally responsible for pupils when they enter a college. I understand that the schools should be responsible because the discipline systems in colleges and schools are different and I understand that school pupils will go into colleges for only a few hours a week. They will have to learn to adjust to their new situations and adults in colleges will have to learn to adjust to the influx of young people, which can be mutually grand. When I started my law degree, I thought that I was awfully old—I was 38. I had to adjust to the fact that people of 18 who were in my classes kept asking me for the answers to questions. I told them that I did not know the answers, but they thought that somehow I knew stuff because of my age. Difficulties will arise from differences in age, but those differences can be mutually beneficial.
The minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the cost of an adult attending a college is about £200, whereas the cost in respect of a school pupil is nearly £800 because of liaison costs, supervisory costs, disclosure and the legal costs of discipline.
One little paragraph of the document that I managed to read concerned delivery in rural areas, which Rosemary Byrne and other members mentioned. Paragraph 11.11 states:
"Further modes of delivery may need to be considered, principally in respect of … distance-learning, including open and flexible learning and videoconferencing."
How much of that is in place and will be funded? How will it be funded? The part of the document that deals with extending delivery includes the statement that
"More than 70% of Scottish secondary schools have a broadband connection"
of a certain level—I do not know what the figure means, so I will not quote it—
"or better."
I want to know where the other 30 per cent of schools are located. Are they in rural areas to which broadband has not been extended? Will that disadvantage rural areas when they seek to take part in the strategy?
In general, the strategy is a good idea, although it is not new. Overall, it is welcome; it represents commonsense and pragmatic education development policy, which makes a change.
I, too, welcome the strategy for schools and further education colleges that the minister has outlined today. I also welcome the positive way in which the debate has been conducted, which is good to see.
The strategy is an important part of the Executive's skills and economic strategy. We all know that Scotland's greatest resource is its people, and it is very welcome that today we are focusing on our young people. We need to equip them with the skills that they need for a modern, ever-changing economy. Given that this morning we seem to be in election mode, I take the opportunity to congratulate my colleague Gordon Brown, not only on his election as the member of Parliament for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, but on being the best and most successful Chancellor of the Exchequer that this country has ever seen. I remind the chamber that his handling of our economy has ensured that we have the funding necessary to realise his and our vision of equity and opportunity for all.
As I said, we have a modern, ever-changing economy. We need seriously to consider the issue of lifelong learning and to encourage change in our young people. When many of us left school, we could look forward to having a career for life. Nowadays it is estimated that people will change their career 10 times in their working lifetime. We need to consider that issue. I believe that the strategy for school and college partnership will add value and will enable us to expand young people's further education opportunities and choices.
As Christine Grahame, Christine May and others have said, development of the vocational skills of 14 to 16-year-olds is crucial. Careers advice is vital. Having worked for many years in further and higher education, I know that it is crucial that such advice is on-going and well informed by the labour market. I hate to say this, but I agree with Christine Grahame. I have talked about sexy qualifications. If there is a programme about vets on television, we find that a lot of people want to work with animals. We must provide our young people with realistic choices, through good careers advice and labour market information.
We talk a great deal about motivation and aspiration, and we need to realise fully our young people's aspirations. We must also raise those aspirations. Today's edition of The Courier contains an interesting story entitled "Pupils gear up to student life". It is about a partnership between Kirkcaldy High School and the University of St Andrews—an excellent piece of work on which they are to be congratulated.
My colleague Christine May and others made the point that colleges should not become a dumping ground for difficult students, which is important. However, I make a plea to the minister to ensure that programmes resulting from new course development are available to all our young people. This week Cathy Peattie and I were in Thurso, as members of the Equal Opportunities Committee. We heard that lack of flexibility in course design can act as a barrier to learning, especially for those with special learning needs and impairments. None of us wants that.
Today we have heard again that it is important for us to build on best practice. I made the point to Rosemary Byrne that there is much best practice to which we can look. I welcome the additional resources that were announced this morning and draw members' attention to the view programme at Fife College in my constituency. The programme is different and gives young people tasters in areas such as construction and hospitality that they would not get if they were only at school. It not only gives them the opportunity to experience a wider range of vocational areas than they would otherwise experience, but aids transition from school to further education and from school to work. It introduces pupils to areas that they may not have thought were for them. Subjects such as information technology are offered in a different learning environment. In Fife, we have seen that attending college not only helps school pupils to make the transition to further education and work and informs career choices, but improves their performance and behaviour at school. There are already many good examples from which we can learn.
The institute of applied technology, which is a partnership between Fife College and Glenrothes College, has a young engineers club. That is important, because it is encouraging young girls into engineering. As the chair of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on construction, I have seen the gender stereotyping that exists in the construction industry. We need to tackle that problem. If we are to realise the potential of all our young people, we must ensure that they are aware of all the opportunities that are available to them, whether those be professional or in plumbing. We must start to value people who have skilled trades, as other countries do. To do that, we must show our young people, especially girls, that there are opportunities in the construction trades.
I believe that the strategy for school and college partnership will play a major part in realising young people's aspirations. In particular, I ask the minister to take on board the point that I have made about people with special learning needs and impairments.
I welcome the debate on "Lifelong Partners", even if it was announced at rather short notice. I certainly agree with Donald Gorrie, Elaine Murray and others that it was regrettable that we did not have sight of the document in advance. Although I am reluctant to admit that I have something in common with Christine Grahame, like her, I am not a speed reader. I look forward to reading the document later.
I take up a point that Lord James made in his speech. I was interested to hear him refer to the Executive adopting policies that had been proposed by others in the past. I suggest to him that that results from the use of proportional representation systems in our electoral system in Scotland. Perhaps he will now accept that after gaining no increase at all in the number of members of Parliament at the recent election, it is time that the Tories started thinking about PR for all types of elections.
When I was in the House of Commons, there was a free vote on that subject. I voted for the additional member system more than 20 years ago.
The answer to that is that one learns a new thing in life every day. I congratulate Lord James on his vote and suggest that he convince the rest of his party of that attitude to the right system for all elections.
The document gives us the opportunity to debate the key part of the partnership agreement that encourages 14 to 16-year-olds to obtain the vocational skills that they need for employment. The partnership agreement also allows more people to undertake such training at further education colleges. I say to Fiona Hyslop that that specific policy was in the Liberal Democrat manifesto in 2003 and we argued strongly for it to be in the partnership agreement, so I am delighted that it is and that we are adopting it today.
The minister used two words that were particularly relevant—"new opportunities". The programme is a new opportunity for pupils and others to go into further education and have a much wider choice of courses at FE colleges.
The key point about the announcement is that the extra £41 million is great news for colleges. I might be one of the few MSPs who do not have an FE college in their constituency, but many young people—and their parents—have contacted me about their problems getting into college. The demand in Lothian is especially great and there is not enough money in the pot to provide all the courses.
Plumbing is a prime example. Recently, I had a long conversation with the principal of Jewel and Esk Valley College in which he highlighted particular problems with his plumbing courses. He had space for 35 or 40 people and more than 200 applicants. Why could he not take more? There were two reasons: a lack of money and a lack of space. I hope that the £41 million will give colleges such as Jewel and Esk Valley the opportunity to take on more people—plumbers, electricians and others—as Christine Grahame said.
At present, colleges are doing tremendous work to provide courses for 44,000 school pupils. However, they have not received full funding. The new money that was announced will provide colleges with a stable footing on which to continue such courses and will allow resources to be put back into adult courses. Christine May said that the average age of an FE college student was about 28. We have to encourage not only school pupils but young adults to go into further education.
We need to provide more money for courses. My colleague Robert Brown spoke about the hospitality industry, which we all know is vital to Scotland's economy. Getting people to come here from abroad to be given good service and encouraging them to return can only encourage the tourism industry, which is also vital to Scotland's economy.
I agree very much with what the member says. There is a shortage of domestic hospitality workers in Edinburgh in particular. Therefore, increasing the number of places for school pupils must not happen at the expense of places for older students, particularly for those whose training could serve the important needs of the Edinburgh economy.
I do not disagree. I just said that we need to encourage young adults back into education, not just in Edinburgh but throughout Scotland. If one goes into a pub in Edinburgh, it is almost certain that one will be served by an Australian, a New Zealander, a Canadian or a South African. We need to encourage our people to get into the hospitality industry.
I am pleased that the Executive has recognised the high-quality teaching that goes on in FE colleges. It is certain that young people benefit from that. Many pupils are not suited to the academic straitjacket that traditional subjects place on them. Schools can do only so much. I saw the excellent facilities on offer at the new Gracemount High School in Edinburgh South, but providing vocational training is better suited to colleges because that fits in well beside the lifelong learning that they offer. Colleges also have the expertise and skills needed for teaching vocational subjects.
The programme signals that the Executive is committed to developing a more enterprising culture in Scotland. Following the announcement of his resignation, I congratulate Jim Wallace on the work that he has done to create the smart, successful Scotland initiative, and lifelong learning is part of that work. The initiative will give pupils the skills that they need to contribute to the Scottish economy today, and the roll-out of enterprise in education in every school in Scotland creates a good platform for the future.
The announcement today has been welcomed by the Association of Scottish Colleges and I am glad that the FE sector is now getting the resources and recognition that it deserves. I support the Executive motion as well as the Conservative amendment.
It has been a generally consensual debate. The most contentious issue has probably been the unavailability of the document "Lifelong Partners". I was one of the fortunate ones because yesterday I managed to get hold of a photocopy of the document, which I read with interest. That was helpful in informing my contribution, and those of my colleagues, to this debate. However, I have sympathy for the back benchers who were unable to be similarly informed and I am sure that the Executive will learn its lesson—indeed, the minister was gracious enough to apologise to the chamber. I hope that the situation will not be repeated.
Some post-election partisan points have been made in different parts of the chamber, but I will try to steer away from that as best I can. However, I was interested to read paragraph 3.7 on page 9 of the document. The paragraph, which is entitled "Scottish Parliament—Skills and Continued Learning Debate", says:
"On 20 May 2004 the Scottish Parliament agreed to a motion that among other things urged the Scottish Executive ‘to increase the opportunity for school pupils across Scotland to access courses in further education colleges from the age of 14'".
It does not say that the quote was from a Conservative amendment that I lodged and which was agreed to. I am delighted, therefore, that the Executive is taking on board Conservative policy.
Paragraph 3.7 also states:
"The motion had the support of 107 MSPs with five MSPs voting against."
It was the Scottish Socialist Party that voted against that amendment. I was rather surprised by Rosemary Byrne's speech, because she made it clear that she supported the initiative and yet on the day of that vote, the SSP voted against the amendment. No doubt the SSP can explain itself on a future occasion.
Will the member say, as Lord James did, that he is in favour of a proportional representation system? Will he also encourage his colleagues to adopt such a system?
Lord James should perhaps have clarified in his intervention that he meant that he supported a proportional system for a devolved Parliament. He did not support proportional representation for the Westminster Parliament, which is an important distinction. Personally, I do not support—
Mr Fraser, do you think that you could talk about the subject of the motion?
I will happily do so, but you will appreciate, Presiding Officer, that I was simply responding to an intervention on an entirely different point. However, I am sure that we will talk about PR on another occasion.
The arguments in favour of developing school-college partnerships have been well rehearsed. Dr Elaine Murray, Donald Gorrie and others set out the arguments for such partnerships. We all know about the difficulties with disengaged youngsters who are not interested in academic subjects. I absolutely accept the point made by Christine May and others that colleges should not be dumping grounds for those who find school difficult. Nevertheless, we know that there are youngsters who are not academically engaged and the opportunity for them to pursue a more technical or vocational approach is therefore very welcome. When we look at the spectrum of education and consider the figures on truancy and discipline in the classroom, I am sure that the programme will have a beneficial effect. Giving pupils a wider range of opportunities is bound to help with such problems.
We also need increased vocational training for our economy, which has skills shortages and gaps. It will be better for everyone if youngsters can come out of education at 16 or at whatever age with additional skills that better equip them for the workplace. Indeed, various studies on pilot projects have shown that they are extremely successful in re-engaging youngsters who have not been otherwise engaged in education and in ensuring that they are better equipped for the workplace when they leave education.
The Conservative amendment, in the name of Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, considers a number of specific issues that require careful monitoring. First of all, colleges must have adequate capacity to accommodate eligible school pupils, and effective and fair systems must be established to deal with disruptive behaviour in colleges if and when it arises. Finally, we must ensure that funding for school pupils who study at FE colleges is correctly dealt with. I will elaborate on one or two of those points and touch on the issue of rural areas, which is mentioned in the amendment.
On rural areas, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton mentioned the Crichton campus in Dumfries. At this point, I must correct Elaine Murray, because I understand that the Crichton campus is in the Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale constituency.
I said that Dumfries and Galloway College is in the Dumfries and Galloway constituency.
In that case, perhaps we can all agree on the matter. Crichton campus is in the constituency of Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, which of course is that of my good friend David Mundell, who is now a member of Parliament.
Other examples have been highlighted this morning. Banff and Buchan College, which is mentioned in the strategy document, delivers to youngsters in a rural area with a scattered population. Clearly, certain transport issues have to be addressed and we must consider the development of distance learning. In my area, Perth College has a number of outreach centres in towns such as Crieff, Aberfeldy and Pitlochry, and there is scope to use those to deliver services to pupils in remote and rural areas. However, the matter must be monitored carefully.
Funding must be put on a sound footing. I note that the issue is to be revised in August 2005, and it is important that we keep the matter under review.
Several members mentioned discipline. It must be pointed out that the college environment is different from that in school. For a start, the onus is much more on the student, which might, as a number of members pointed out, create a challenge for college lecturers in dealing with potential discipline problems. After all, they might have less experience than schoolteachers in such matters.
Robert Brown made a very good point about the commitment of schools. Schools must not simply pay lip service to the whole agenda and must show real commitment in encouraging youngsters to take up opportunities where they are suited to them. Moreover, the whole process must be continually monitored and evaluated to ensure that everything fits.
The exciting thing about this approach is that it opens up the prospect of a more diverse education system. Indeed, Chris Ballance conceded as much in his speech. Perhaps we should also look at the school leaving age and consider whether 16 is the right age at which our youngsters should aim to leave school. We are opening the door to a wider spectrum of available opportunities. As Brian Monteith said, we should allow schools to be as free as colleges are. If incorporation set colleges free and allowed them to expand and to follow their current successful path, why cannot we do the same for schools?
Last night, the Deputy First Minister, a number of other members and I spent a very pleasant evening in the spring sunshine on the Spirit of Fairbridge at Leith docks. As members know, the Fairbridge enterprise tries to give disadvantaged youngsters new opportunities in life. We all have a duty to look at our young people, particularly those who are disengaged from mainstream education and job opportunities, and try to bring them back in. That is why this programme is so welcome, and why we support it. We support the Executive motion, and I am delighted to support my colleague's amendment.
As my colleague Fiona Hyslop intimated in her speech, the Scottish National Party has long advocated the development of partnerships between schools and FE colleges as a means of broadening horizons and expanding opportunities for our young people. Indeed, we made such a commitment in our manifesto for the previous Scottish Parliament elections. I am also happy to acknowledge other parties' commitment in this area.
We therefore welcome the publication of the Executive's strategy and plans. The minister will no doubt be gratified with the largely supportive consensus that has emerged this morning, but it is a pity that members have been allowed little time to digest the details of the Executive's proposals. As a result, the debate has been rather more broad brush than it could and should have been. Fortunately, as Robert Brown has indicated, the Education Committee's current inquiry into pupil motivation covers school-college partnerships and we will seek to drill down into the detail before we come back to the chamber with our report.
Given the evidence that we have already taken, I am sure that our report will feature a rejection of the notion that offering vocational training or more specialist provision to 14 to 16-year-old pupils will act as a panacea and sort out the problem of young people who are disaffected by or disengaged from school education. I am glad that the minister has confirmed that that will not be the case.
Pupils with deep-seated problems that are reflected in poor attendance or behaviour records at school are unlikely to alter their attitude just because they are given access to a college course. A different learning environment will not change their personal circumstances. Surely we require early intervention to nip those problems in the bud, but policy development in that area is still rather too thin. In that regard, ministers could even consider the approach that Brian Monteith outlined—he is a bit like a volcano: he spouts rubbish most of the time, but occasionally he comes up with a good nugget.
On the other hand, academically bright pupils who want to exercise a positive choice to access a college course should not be systematically denied that opportunity or dissuaded from taking that route because such a choice does not fit with teachers' expectations for that pupil. That happens too often. As Donald Gorrie pointed out, if we want to facilitate enterprise and to help our young people to realise their potential, we must move away from a slavish attachment to the old stereotypes. If this initiative is to be successful, it is critical that we identify the pupils who would benefit most from such opportunities and ensure that they are given access to them. I realise that local circumstances might influence targeting, but I would be interested in finding out whether the existing evidence can tell us what the guidance on such decisions should be.
Does the member acknowledge that much innovative work is being carried out in this area? For example, in my area, the higher still collaboration programme gives pupils the opportunity to take courses at intermediate 1, higher to advanced higher level in subjects that might not be on general offer in their local high schools because of the shortage of applications.
I am happy to acknowledge the good work that is being carried out up and down the country. However, as Christine Grahame has suggested, there is still a stigma associated with vocational courses, and more academically bright pupils are being discouraged from going down those routes. I do not necessarily mean the institutions and initiatives that Christine May is talking about. However, such situations happen, and we need to get rid of them.
Another critical issue is the accreditation of course outcomes and the question whether such qualifications will be well respected in the labour market. Existing schemes, such as those that the Education Committee visited in Glasgow yesterday, appear to be aimed at training that is suitable for people seeking future employment in local authorities, in construction or caring jobs, for example. How does the Executive envisage the development of links with employers in the private sector? Should not the proposed standing stakeholder forum—or whatever it is called—include business organisations from the outset? I note that trade unions are represented, as are pupils, parents, teachers and staff, but I do not see any representation from the private sector.
Sylvia Jackson mentioned careers advice, which is another area that needs to be developed hand in hand with increasing access to vocational training and specialist provision. At the moment, advisory services tend to focus on the last year or two of people's school careers, and particularly on Universities and Colleges Admissions Service applications. Does the funding announced today encompass extending careers advice to inform decisions in respect of school-college activities? We know from existing research that young people who develop career goals and aspirations early on are much more focused and get more out of their schooling in terms of attaining relevant qualifications for the career that they want to pursue. Surely the school-college initiative should be used to help more young people down that path.
Notwithstanding our caveats with regard to issues such as capacity concerns and the potential for displacement, we do not want to turn colleges into schools or vice versa, as Christine May said. There is a need for pupil accreditation that has full currency in the marketplace, and I would like to hear the minister's thoughts on that. There is also a need to ensure that college lecturers have teaching qualifications that are appropriate to the tasks required of them, preferably with GTC registration. Having said all that, we welcome the extension of school-college partnerships and wish those initiatives every success.
I call Allan Wilson to wind up. Minister, I can give you about 12 minutes.
That is generous of you, Presiding Officer. I shall use the first of those minutes to apologise profusely again for the delay in getting the document to members. As our national bard said:
"The best laid schemes o' mice an' men
Gang aft a-gley."
This is one of those occasions. We have asked for a report from officials and we shall make that report available to you, Presiding Officer. We shall have to reflect on its contents, as will the rest of the Parliament, I suspect.
It has been a useful debate, nonetheless, and I am grateful to members for their constructive contributions—with one notable exception, to which I will not refer. We all know the benefits that pupils derive from the learning opportunities offered by colleges, and I think that everyone in the chamber genuinely wants to increase and further enhance those opportunities for pupils across Scotland. They are opportunities that give pupils valuable vocational skills that will help to grow Scotland's economy. That is why our approach differs from that of the nationalists, whose amendment we will not be accepting, although we will accept the Conservative amendment.
Christine Grahame said that there was nothing new in what was proposed, but I beg to differ. We began our schools-colleges review by examining existing collaboration between schools and colleges in Scotland. That collaboration has worked well for us until now and we wanted to build on the good work that was already taking place. Collaboration is about joint working on joint projects, but what we propose, on the other hand, is partnership.
Partnership is much more than collaboration. It means building a relationship in which organisations work together for a common purpose. I believe that it is indicative of the depth and maturity of existing school-college links that we now embrace a partnership approach across the country that is founded on mutual respect and trust. That is the type of approach that will deliver a successful strategy. It is clearly not a short-term initiative, but a major realignment of both sectors. That is what is new. Something else that is new is the funding that goes with that, and Christine May was right to point out that that funding must be sustainable in the long term. In addition to the existing resources of £19 million—a not insubstantial sum, as I am sure members would agree—an additional £35 million was put in by the 2004 spending review. That funding will support, among other things, more pupils to benefit from college learning and stable funding arrangements that do not disadvantage colleges in providing courses to pupils. It will also support training for college staff—as mentioned by Sylvia Jackson—and college activity to implement the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004, which other members mentioned. It will also support enhanced careers advice to inform pupils of school-college options.
I would like to sound a cautionary note. On our visit to Glasgow yesterday, members of the Education Committee learned that a considerable amount of European funding was going into supporting initiatives. As 2006 approaches and as that funding diminishes, there is a question about how we can replace that funding and sustain the initiatives. Does the minister have any comments on that?
One of my pleasant tasks in this new job has been to dispense large amounts of European structural funding to further education colleges the length and breadth of the country. Structural funds make an important contribution, as does the social fund, to further education college learning. We have to take those factors into account in our response to Commission proposals on the future of such structural funding.
The point that Robert Brown was making was that we know that that funding will be withdrawn in 2006. We also learned that the determined to succeed money is very much part and parcel of current funding. I would be interested in the minister's thoughts on whether the new money that he is announcing today will displace that current funding, or whether we can expect it to continue so that we have added value rather than circulation of funding pots.
This is neither the time nor the place to get into a debate on the contribution that structural funds make to the block grant, but the basic premise of the question is not correct. We do not know that structural funding will cease to exist after 2006, although there will undoubtedly be a reduction in our entitlement to the said structural funds, which we will have to factor into our budget considerations. In the next spending review, we must consider how we can build upon the additional resource that we have made available in the current spending review. In addition to all that, we have today announced an additional £6.5 million allocation from within the Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department budget, and the funding council will ensure, through strategic oversight, that colleges aim towards equitable access to provision for pupils across Scotland.
Decisions on the type and scale of provision will be taken locally, on the basis of agreements between colleges, schools and local authorities, and the community planning partnership process is absolutely vital to that outcome. Funding will include the usual funding supplements for pupils in rural or deprived areas. Again, those are important aspects of the additional resource. The funding methodology will also take account of pupils who require extended learning support. That point was made during the course of the debate.
I take the points that have been made about capacity and ethos. Given that there is an inevitable limit on capacity, as Peter Peacock said, and to maintain colleges' central ethos as centres of voluntary learning for adults, due regard will have to be paid to the pupils who will benefit most from activities that enhance their prospective life chances. School and college partnership is obviously not the only way in which vocational and other learning opportunities can be made available to pupils. In the short to medium term, it will be the principal means of delivering many skills for work courses, but other modes of delivery will need to be explored fully.
We know that it is important that school-college partnerships do not alter the fundamental characteristics of colleges. Their central ethos as centres for voluntary learning for adults needs to be retained. The partnership must be managed carefully so that adult learners are not dissuaded from returning to education. Moreover, the presence of too many pupils would undermine their experience of adult centres of learning, as Christine Grahame and others have said. The need to maintain colleges' distinctive contribution to pupils' education is reflected in all aspects of the strategy.
Will the minister clarify whether college lecturers will require to have teacher training and to be GTC registered, and whether their salaries will be similar to those of school teachers? How will the Executive ensure that school pupils are not dumped into college, which Peter Peacock mentioned?
The member has raised a number of points. I will not be able to cover every point that is made by every member, although I will do my best. I will obviously write to members about points that I do not deal with during the debate. I will come on to the GTC requirements in due course, so I ask the member to let me make progress.
First, I will deal with rural areas. By 2007, all secondary and special schools in Scotland will have effective, meaningful and appropriate partnership with at least one college, for pupils in S3 and above. Even the most remote school can have a successful relationship with a college. For example, we outline a likely new role for learndirect Scotland branded learning services. There will be funding supplements for pupils in rural areas and we will examine transport costs further. We have asked the GTC to confirm new, more flexible arrangements for lecturers who teach pupils in schools. As has been mentioned, we want online and distance learning to be explored locally; that will include the use of videoconferencing.
Several members have spoken about careers advisers, whose role is set out in the advice. One of the main findings of the research into the attitudes of school pupils to further education courses was that there was a need to improve the information, advice and guidance that we give to pupils when they are considering their college options. In the interim report, we explained that Careers Scotland had been asked to prepare a business case for its enhanced engagements. No decisions have yet been taken and we have asked Careers Scotland to discuss that case with the school and college sectors before funding decisions are made.
A number of members discussed pupil welfare and support. Schools and colleges have a duty of care to pupils. We recognise that pupils who attend colleges enter what is essentially an adult environment. We will ensure that advice to schools and colleges on important matters such as pupil welfare and support is provided in the guide that accompanies the strategy. Other issues that will be dealt with include the employment of appropriate risk assessment strategies, the disclosure of college staff and maximising campus safety arrangements.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton mentioned the disciplining of disruptive pupils. Although education authorities and schools have formal responsibility for the disciplining of pupils, colleges determine who can go on particular courses and can withdraw the relevant provision. At the outset, colleges and schools need to agree on the process whereby a college can withdraw a place because of a pupil's behaviour.
On sport and recreation, which is one of the key pilot areas, I agree with practically all of what Brian Monteith had to say. A number of colleges are already engaged in sports excellence. Two examples spring immediately to mind—James Watt College in my area of North Ayrshire and Falkirk College. In addition, many colleges deliver courses on sports management, coaching and advanced coaching. All that is to be welcomed and I hope that it can be built on in the report.
During the debate, every political party in the Parliament has tried to claim political ownership of the strategy; I suspect that some of them were not serious in doing so. References have been made to local authorities that have collaborated with colleges for many years, such as Glasgow City Council, Fife Council and North Ayrshire Council, which all share the distinction of being Labour councils. Of course, that is no coincidence.
Who could forget the new Labour mantra of "education, education, education" with which our Prime Minister, Tony Blair, swept to power in 1997 for the first of his three terms? Ever since, Tony Blair and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, have been building on the philosophy of James Keir Hardie, the founder and pioneer of the Labour Party, who recognised that education was the route out of poverty and into employment, and that equality of educational opportunity was inseparable from his vision of a more egalitarian society. There is not a primary school, a nursery school, a secondary school, a further education college, a learning centre or a university in this country that has not benefited from that philosophy over the past eight years and we intend to continue with it.