Education
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3204, in the name of Brian Monteith, on encouraging diversity in education, and two amendments to that motion.
I am pleased to open this debate, which I hope proves to be as entertaining and informative for me as the previous one was.
During the past month, pupils throughout Scotland have been sitting exams. For some pupils, those exams will be a stepping stone to other qualifications, while for others they will result in the only piece of paper that the pupils have to show for 11 years at school. Sadly, some will leave school with nothing. Illiteracy imprisons people in a life of poverty, often of squalor and sometimes of crime. Nothing is more liberating than being able to read, write and count.
It was not a fondness for socialism, but a fondness for education and a yearning to learn that made Scotland a truly meritocratic country. For Scotland, few things are more important than our education and we owe much to it. We are a small nation. Thanks to John Knox and his vision of a school in every parish so that people could read the Bible for themselves, we carved out an important place in the history of the world. We did not have a vast army like the French or a vast armada like the Spanish, but we produced many bright people who went on to help to found and administer what might be called the Scottish empire. Scots were numerate and canny, literate and romantic. Without the benefits of a sound education that taught children of all means—I emphasise that point—to read and write, we could not have put the great into Great Britain.
It is, therefore, a national tragedy and a cause of national embarrassment that, having built a worldwide reputation for our education system, we have let it slip through our fingers. The Scottish collectivist establishment, the officials of the Educational Institute of Scotland, the directors of education and the socialists of all other parties believe that education can be delivered from the top down according to some great universal plan. We see that in the amendment that the coalition Executive has lodged.
As Enoch Powell said:
"Power devolved is power retained."
So it is in our schools. Head teachers cannot fix dripping taps without employing the council plumber. Schools cannot specialise in the arts, sport or languages unless they are part of a grand Government scheme. The result is that we have an education system in which all feet are expected to fit one shoe size. Is it any wonder that so many of our children are hobbling from the discomfort of an ill-fitting education?
The Conservatives believe that every child is an individual—even twins are different—and that they all need an education that fits as well as possible. That requires choice, and for choice, diversity is required. Diversity cannot, and never will, be provided from the top down. No Wizard of Oz, no education minister, can spin the wheels and pull the levers to deliver an education system that suits us all. Only the unplanned, spontaneous interaction of individuals—teachers, parents, priests and philanthropists—can give us the beautiful kaleidoscope that we need in education.
If we are to provide our children and grandchildren with an education that is fit not only for the future but for the here and now, we could do worse than consider what made our schools a success in the past and what makes the schools in other countries so much better than ours today. We should remember that our parish schools had the autonomy to ensure that our education was different and more successful than England's education. Diversity is delivered in Denmark. It is the norm in the Netherlands. It succeeds in Sweden, New Zealand and throughout the world. All those countries perform better than Scotland. Diversity is not, and never will be, delivered through soviet socialist councils.
Brian Monteith states that, in the countries that he mentioned, the schools perform better than Scottish schools. Does he accept that, in the programme for international student assessment statistics, which examines the performance of more than 30 countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Scotland was in the top 10 in all the subjects that were examined and performed better than most, if not all, of the countries to which he refers? The international performance of Scotland's schools is extremely strong.
In other words, Brian Monteith is wrong. What a surprise.
I am sorry to disappoint Mike Rumbles, although I do it regularly. The truth is that the OECD pointed out that much of the Scottish information was not comparable and could not be used to determine the proper outcome. As a result, I have lodged a parliamentary question to find out why the information that our schools provided could not be used.
Instead of monolithic, municipal comprehensives throughout Scotland, why should we not have locally managed schools? Such schools would still be funded by the state but would offer diversity in educational approach. Choice comes through diversity, and everyone—particularly those in need—has a right to choice. Choice is also the means to improve the service for all. There is always a better way to do things. Choice means providing services that are free to adapt and have an incentive to do so. It leads to innovation and a widespread improvement in standards—levelling up, rather than down.
In Denmark, if 28 parents get together and produce a sensible business plan for a school of their choice, they are given a state budget and the school is inspected to ensure that it delivers. I am sure that the nationalists will agree that Denmark is a small nation not unlike our own. It is one of the Scandinavian nations that the nationalists often cite. If Denmark can opt into a system in which parents can build their own schools, why cannot we? If Sweden—a social democratic or, some say, socialist country—can introduce vouchers for the benefit of the poorer people in society, why cannot we? We must examine such models to find out what we can learn and adopt.
We must build a new culture in Scotland, in which not only is education cherished for its own sake, but parents and teachers take more responsibility for schools that will become their own. Schools will for now remain the responsibility of local authorities—I accept that—but their management must be loosened so that they can let go altogether in the future.
I congratulate Glasgow City Council, not only on its recent good report from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education, but on its work on devolving further management to schools to the point that when we ask them, "Is there anything that the council can do that you could not do yourself?" they tell us, "No. We would rather have even more powers." We can devolve more and more to schools. We should consider developing the Danish model to suit our experience so that the parents of between 20 and 30 pupils can launch new schools that offer different approaches under the guardianship of HMIE.
Let there be no mistake: I am not suggesting that we will encourage schools to opt out. That is how the Conservative policy was portrayed in the past when we talked about self-governing schools. We need to create new schools that will opt into the system. Such schools would opt in to provide girls-only schools like Notre Dame High School in Glasgow, which is a state school—which is great. They would opt in to provide Gaelic-medium schools like the Gaelic-medium school in Glasgow.
There are parents in Edinburgh who want a Gaelic-medium school but cannot get one. They are told that there is not enough demand. We should give them the ability—the budget and direct finance—to establish a Gaelic-medium school in Edinburgh. That school would flourish. It would be a magnet, and people would move to Edinburgh as a result. Places such as Perth would ask why they could not have a Gaelic-medium school. We would witness the flourishing of Gaelic education. We would witness the halting of the decline of the language and find the way to turn it round. We will change the situation of Gaelic in Scotland by letting parents build the schools that they need.
We could have other types of schools, such as sports schools or language schools. The Executive is allowing us to have specialist schools—from the top down. Why, if such schools are allowed to select pupils on the basis of their ability in sport, languages or music, are they not allowed to select pupils on their ability in English or maths? Oh—I am sorry to make such a suggestion. That might be regarded as selection. It might mean the end of the comprehensive system as we know it. The truth is that the comprehensive system as we know it is disappearing fast under those who pretend most to defend it.
We could have faith schools. There is a great deal of debate about such schools, so I leave that subject to a colleague to take up, because it will take some time. I point members to the information that is available on the success of faith schools. I urge the Executive to exercise great caution when it patronises politicians who say that faith schools are a good thing and accuses them of advocating divisive, creationist, sectional schools that will rip society apart. The evidence, which has been seen and reported on by Tony Blair, is that schools such as Emmanuel City Technical College in Gateshead do not fit that description—not only politicians but people of other faiths are quite clear about that. The Labour party in England established four Muslim schools, which is a good thing. Those schools were established in areas in which there is no divisiveness, rioting or trouble. They are a bridge to building an inclusive society.
It is through the creation of a vibrant, diverse and competitive education system that choice can be assured, that high standards can be delivered and that a passport to numeracy and literacy can be guaranteed for all in Scottish society. Only when we achieve that bottom-up choice and diversity will we liberate our people from the poverty of aspiration that has been created by socialism in Scotland.
I move,
That the Parliament believes that schools should be given the flexibility to organise learning in the ways that best meet the needs of their pupils; further believes in the fundamental importance of diversity in education; supports the view that the elimination of denominational schools would be damaging to Scotland's education system, and recognises that the key challenge is to improve educational opportunities for all Scotland's young people through encouraging greater diversity and devolved management.
I found it interesting to listen to Brian Monteith's purple prose. It just goes to show that umpteen mentions of socialism and quotations from Tony Blair or others in the Labour party do not add up to anything other than the same old Tory mantra. If members listened to the coded language, they would have heard mention of vouchers, competitive systems and magnet schools. That is not what the Executive is about.
Let me start by making it absolutely clear that the Executive is committed to giving every child and young person a high-quality education that meets their needs, that raises standards across the board and that closes the opportunity gap, about which we did not hear a huge amount from the Tories. Young people need schools that will challenge them to achieve as much as they can. Some young people need particular help and support to reach their full potential. Our ambitions and aspirations for education and young people are high, and we must rise to the challenges. We must remember that excellent work is being done every day in schools throughout Scotland, rather than talking down what is going on in Scotland's schools. I know that that excellent work is going on from the visits that I make, from my discussions with staff and young people and from the feedback that I get from parents, as well as from the results that my colleague Nicol Stephen quoted earlier.
It is worth remembering that we are delivering major investments in schools and teachers. Pupils are benefiting from an increase in the budget for education through the local government finance system and through additional allocations of resources that go straight to schools. Teachers are benefiting from an investment in pay, conditions and professional development. Training places are being provided for probationary teachers and reduced class-contact time and mentoring support are also being provided to help them to settle into the profession. Pupils and teachers are benefiting from investment in new or substantially refurbished schools and we are prioritising further improvements in school buildings—we recognise the work that needs to be done. Parents and carers are benefiting from the pilot new community schools, which are bringing together the services to support them and their children and giving them closer involvement in their children's education. We plan to spread the benefits of that approach throughout Scotland.
The motion mentions denominational schools. I want to repeat a comment that I made in the chamber in answer to a member's question. The Executive recognises and remains committed to supporting the valuable contribution that is made by denominational schools.
It is particularly appropriate that I ask the minister this question, given that children from Our Lady of the Missions Primary School are in the public gallery. Does the minister agree that parents such as me choose to send their children to denominational schools in order to secure a wider social base and because of the work that those schools do with children with special educational needs? We do not claim any exclusive preference or benefit—all communities can bring a different insight to how education is delivered. It is through building a wider school community within a distinct faith setting that the real benefits of denominational schools must be seen.
I was going to come on to that issue by speaking about the answer that I gave to a question that I was asked in the chamber. In my answer, I recognised the fact that many denominational schools have a particular ethos and focus that is welcomed by many parents. We will continue to recognise that.
Brian Fitzpatrick alluded to another important point, which is that we need to focus on the individual needs of children and young people, the outcomes for pupils and what we put into the system. Through the way in which schools work and the way in which learning is organised, we must aim to improve standards, to close the opportunity gap and to ensure that every child gets the education that best meets their needs.
The Parliament has much to be proud of. The Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 established a focus on education for the individual, and we are making that a reality for every school pupil. The Executive established the national priorities for education, which were endorsed by the Parliament in December 2000. Local authorities have been given responsibility for improvement at the local level and have published improvement plans for implementing the national priorities in a way that makes sense to them. That is not a top-down approach; rather, it is a broad, strategic approach that gives local authorities and schools the opportunity to take account of the national priorities in their development plans.
Will the minister give way?
I will move on a little and then take an intervention.
Our framework paves the way for schools to make local decisions about how to achieve the best outcomes for every pupil in the context of the national priorities.
I thank the minister for giving way.
The minister says that the Executive is taking a strategic approach, not a top-down approach. If there is demand from parents for the creation of a Muslim, Sikh or Jewish school—such schools have been created in England—will she accede to that demand and allow those schools to be established?
I remind Brian Monteith that local education authorities have responsibility for providing schooling. I expect local education authorities to consult their communities, and the issues that he raises are being consulted on in the context of the national debate, which is a healthy approach. This may be unusual, but I welcome the SNP amendment as it gives a central place to the continuing role of local authorities in state schools. We will be happy to add that to our amendment to Brian Monteith's motion.
We are making progress on devolved school management. More than 80 per cent of respondents to a recent survey for our working group found that existing arrangements gave them the flexibility to respond to changing local needs. We want to develop that important finding further.
The Executive issued a circular in August 2001 that promotes flexibility in the curriculum. We recognise that authorities, schools and teachers have the best understanding of local circumstances and we encourage schools to work with parents, carers and communities to respond to pupil needs. In that context, flexibility for schools is not simply a good theory—it is real and is already happening in practice in classrooms around Scotland.
North Lanarkshire made a significant proposal when it signalled its intention to develop three sports comprehensive schools, which will allow pupils to develop a speciality in sport within the comprehensive context. That move must be welcomed. A school in Edinburgh has a project team that is identifying young people who have some of the attributes that may help them to become successful entrepreneurs. It is interesting to note that the team has identified mostly young people who had become disaffected with school but who could be turned around, as they have the potential to become a success in years to come.
I could give members examples from throughout Scotland on how better links are being made with employers. When the Parliament met in Aberdeen, I saw how Northfield Academy had introduced a hairdressing course for some of its pupils, with a fast track into college for pupils who wish to follow hairdressing as a career.
The Executive is delivering an improvement in education and there are successes in schools throughout Scotland. It is true that pupils who pass examinations and gain university or college places are a measure of success, but so, too, is the pupil with special needs who learns a new skill, supported by patient, caring staff, or the disaffected pupil whose attitude is turned around by imaginative teaching, backed up by support from other professionals.
We can and should aim for excellence and inclusion. We should raise standards and close the gap. We need high-quality schools and well-trained teachers who provide encouragement and inspiration and who enable each pupil to reach his or her full potential. Scotland's children deserve the best, and the Executive will ensure that they get the best.
I move amendment S1M-3204.2, to leave out from first "believes" to end and insert:
"welcomes the Executive's progress in investing in school education including A Teaching Profession for the 21st Century which recognises teachers' valuable contribution, modernising the school estate, the establishment of clear national priorities for education with an improvement framework involving both local authorities and schools, the promotion of flexibility in the curriculum and devolved school management arrangements, the contribution made by New Community Schools to supporting pupils' learning and involving parents and carers, recognises the valuable contribution made by denominational schools and believes that our priorities should continue to be the provision of a high quality education appropriate to the needs of every young person in Scotland and closing the opportunity gap."
Members will have noted Michael Russell's absence from today's debate and I advise them to anticipate a slightly different style of delivery.
Diversity in education encompasses many things. The Scottish National Party wants to encourage alternative provision where local demand exists and where local circumstances might be better served by such provision. We are clear that such choice and flexibility should be available within a strong and well-funded state system.
The SNP's belief in diversity within a unified but devolved state system is in keeping with the best traditions of Scottish education. The Executive's over-direction from the centre, with its target setting and its tick-box culture, is less in keeping with those traditions. Our approach is in stark contrast to the Tory agenda of encouraging private education and the purchase of privilege and the Tory belief in early streaming, which results in a permanent disadvantage to the majority of pupils.
One of the big questions in the national debate is whether we should move away from mixed-ability teaching to setting and streaming. What is the SNP's view on that?
We support the research that says that setting and streaming are only ever of benefit to a very small number of pupils. Ronnie Smith, the general secretary of the Educational Institute of Scotland, has blamed class sizes for what he called "the sorry spectacle" of secondary schools returning to a setting and streaming agenda. At their recent conference, EIS delegates noted that a radical reduction in class sizes was the most important priority for schools in the next 10 years. I wonder whose policy that is.
The SNP vision of diversity within Scottish education also supports the broader philosophy of opportunity for all—a belief that I doubt the Conservatives have ever held.
The SNP is committed to further extension of devolved school management, with appropriate levels of responsibility and the introduction of more robust systems. The SNP supports a devolved school management system in which councils would be expected to allocate meaningful sums on a regular basis and would not have the right to override control and to claw back funds from schools. Unlike the Tories, the SNP believes that local authorities, as democratically accountable institutions—that will be even more the case after proportional representation reforms—should retain powers over the framework of the delivery of education.
Will the member join me in condemning the hypocrisy of Labour party members who, while claiming to support the comprehensive system, buy houses in the catchment areas of good schools such as Jordanhill School or Lenzie Academy in order to benefit from a standard of education that is denied to those who live in poorer areas?
I will leave it to the member to make that point.
Devolved school management is another way of ensuring that as much money as possible gets to front-line services. In that context, I challenge the Conservative and Labour obsession with private finance. The use of public-private partnerships to build and run our schools brings significant additional costs and provides questionable service and quality. Furthermore, the need to have commercial rates for the use of facilities is against the ethos of community schools.
The con that PPP represents best value has been exposed by the recent Audit Scotland report, which shows that taxpayers and education authorities are paying up to £18.7 million a year extra under the private finance initiative for schools projects alone. We should think again on that issue.
Diversity is also about future changes in technology, such as the use of broadband and videoconferencing, which are useful for remote and rural areas. There should be diversity in language provision and we support the legal right to Gaelic-medium education where demand exists. On faith schools, as well as supporting Catholic schools, which in Scotland operate within local authority provision, the SNP supports other examples of difference within the state system, such as Steiner Waldorf schools. Steiner Waldorf schools are funded as part of the state sector in other parts of Europe. Why cannot that happen here?
It should also be possible for parents to choose to home educate their children. The draft guidelines that the Executive recently issued would make that more difficult and would interfere unduly with the rights of parents to make such a choice. Why cannot we introduce regulations that enable parents to exercise that choice responsibly and that remove the highly unsatisfactory bureaucratic system that exists?
Last month, a head teacher wrote in The Times Educational Supplement Scotland:
"The SNP has now published its policy paper on education … the commitment to ‘encouragement of diversity based on common high standards within a unified but devolved state system' neatly synthesises the aspirations of many teachers."
I rest my case.
I move amendment S1M-3204.1, to insert at end:
"within a strong and well-funded state educational system administered through Scotland's local authorities."
In yesterday's sports debate, we had some fun with the wording of amendment S1M-3192.2, as it became clear that the amendment did not say what Brian Monteith meant it to say. This morning, we must again look carefully at Mr Monteith's wording and reflect on what he is really trying to say.
On reading motion S1M-3204, I find that there is much to agree with. However—to adapt a Shakespearean image—the motion might look like an innocent flower, but we must beware the serpent under it. The motion is not a straightforward list of well-meaning prescriptions for improving the Scottish education system. Instead, it is a thinly concealed attempt to implement a programme that would undermine the widely accepted and well-established philosophical basis of the comprehensive system. I am a convinced advocate of comprehensive education.
Mr Jenkins is entertaining, as always. Does he believe that setting or streaming is compatible with the comprehensive system? Does he support the introduction of setting or streaming in the comprehensive system in Scotland? It is clear that the Minister for Education and Young People supports its introduction, as she is allowing it in the west of Scotland.
I detest streaming, but I do not mind setting.
As I said, I am a convinced advocate of comprehensive education. I want a system that is comprehensive in the sense that it is open to all, treats all its pupils with equal respect and parity of esteem and seeks to maximise opportunities for all and to realise the potential of every child within the system.
Such a system must also be comprehensive in offering pupils schooling and an educational experience that cater for the whole child as an individual and as a member of society. In other words, I want a system that fulfils the purposes of education, which we are debating across the nation, as fully as possible in the school context. The comprehensive system must be inclusive rather than divisive and must seek to be supportive rather than judgmental and exclusive. It must help to break down barriers between people rather than to erect them. If we hold our discussions within those parameters, I will be able to consider the motion and to endorse some of its proposals.
Of course schools should be given the flexibility to organise learning in the way that best meets the needs of their pupils and of course we ought not to stifle innovation and creative approaches to teaching and learning. If one were to pick out the bits of Brian Monteith's speech that referred to what is happening, one would find that there is diversity and that diversity is working.
If members were to review the evidence that was given to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee on Tuesday by representatives of parents, teaching unions and directors of education, they would identify a desire across those important stakeholder groups for the professionalism of teachers and the potentially innovative role of managers to be acknowledged. Teachers and managers should be given the opportunity to offer pupils a flexible curriculum that is responsive to their needs. I support the devolving of funding for schools. Diversity will be delivered through such developments.
There needs to be a substantial debate about how diversity is delivered in areas such as music, drama and sport, where we recognise that a youngster has a special talent that is so outstanding and important in that individual's life that it needs to be nurtured and promoted to an exceptional degree. I like the idea of sports comprehensives and there is an argument for elite schools in those areas.
The debate on the provision of centres of excellence for pupils with profound special educational needs is not closed. Mainstreaming is important, but there is still a place for centres of excellence and we must guard against totally throwing out such centres.
We should be able to incorporate into our comprehensive system schools that have a particular philosophical approach to education, such as the Steiner Waldorf schools. In my view, we also need to be a wee bit more relaxed about home education. In all those cases, the debate should take place within the context of the kind of comprehensive system that I described.
The motion mentions denominational schools as though such schools were under threat. Cathy Jamieson's amendment makes it clear that there is no imminent threat and recognises the valuable contribution that such schools make to the Scottish education system. However, within that context, I am instinctively resistant to the creation of new schools that are based on exclusivity. I am resistant to schools that are designed to erect barriers that mark out differences and separate some pupils from others in a divisive way. I do not wish to throw out the argument, but my instinctive position is that I do not wish more barriers to be created.
It will come as no surprise that we oppose Mr Monteith's motion. If we were to follow Mr Monteith's instincts, we might end up with a plethora of schools, each of which would go in its own direction with no regard to the needs of the community as a whole and with no organising principle. If diversity is king, there is a danger that particular individuals and groups will fall through the net and not be catered for properly. If, as the motion suggests, diversity is paramount, the clear danger exists that pupils in some schools will not cover important ground.
It is clear that there must be an organising principle and a system of monitoring to ensure that the Scottish education system provides high-quality education for every young person in Scotland. I believe that we can have such a system and that that system can be comprehensive and diverse.
We move now to the open part of the debate.
I welcome any opportunity to debate education in the chamber, but I am disappointed with today's Tory motion. In recent weeks, Brian Monteith has issued myriad press releases to make negative utterances about education in Scotland. The motion fails to address the real issues that face us in Scottish education.
The Scottish Executive has rightly focused on increasing investment in schools to deliver high-quality education for our pupils. The reality is that the Tory Government presided over underinvestment in education, crumbling school buildings and a demotivated teaching staff. The Scottish Executive has delivered key improvements: reductions in class sizes; a fair pay deal for teachers; a £500 million school building programme; and free nursery places for every three and four-year-old.
From recent Tory utterances, it is clear that the Tory concept of devolved management means the direct funding of schools and the abolition of the role of local councils. Not only is that a direct attack on the democratic accountability of local government, but it would have disastrous results for schools and pupils.
If our proposal would be so disastrous, why do practically all the countries above Scotland in the international tables not administer their schools through local authorities? Instead, those countries encourage diversity by allowing schools to be managed by teachers and parents in partnership. Why would that be so disastrous? Why cannot such a system work here, as it does in other countries?
In the remainder of my speech, I will be delighted to explain exactly why the Tory proposal would be disastrous.
The Tory motion talks about diversity in education, but a role for local authorities and for Government is vital precisely because of the diversity and differences among schools and among pupils. That role must be in service delivery. I will provide an example from direct experience to show how direct funding of schools would destroy schools' ability to meet the ever-changing needs of their pupil populations.
In the provision of services for pupils with special educational needs, it is absolutely vital that there is co-ordination at both local authority and national Government level. The policy of inclusion of pupils with special educational needs can work only if adequate support systems are in place for both pupil and school. In practice, local authorities provide core pupil-support funding to each school so that the schools can provide day-to-day support for pupils with special educational needs. However, in many instances, a pupil's needs are more complex and additional staffing or additional information technology equipment is required. It is absolutely essential that schools can respond flexibly and acquire additional funding to meet the needs of such pupils and their families.
Let me give an example of how the Tory policy of direct funding would have failed one particular child. My daughter went to a 25-pupil rural primary school. Because she has spina bifida and complex physical needs, she required a high degree of additional funding, which was given to that 25-pupil rural primary school. She continued to receive additional funding throughout her primary and secondary education. That additional funding and support was vital in allowing her to gain enough highers to progress to university. I would die in a ditch to ensure that such pupils who require additional funding receive it. Because additional funding was provided for that child, she was able to be educated in the school in her community alongside her friends.
The key is to find the right balance between giving schools flexibility and ensuring high standards of provision for all our pupils, whatever their needs. Local authorities have a clear role to play and national Government would be failing in its duty if it did not give clear strategic direction for Scottish education. I ask members to support the Executive amendment.
In rising to support the motion in the name of my colleague Brian Monteith, I make no excuses for returning to the issue of the preservation of rural schools, about which I have spoken many times in the chamber. In the rural environment, diversity means little to those of us who have a limited choice in the schools to which we can send our children. In that context, diversity can often be limited simply to preserving the existing schools so that some choice exists.
Today, I will speak about one case that has been brought to my attention. Aberdeenshire Council has submitted a £35 million bid for a school building programme under the Executive's public-private partnership scheme. The Scottish Conservatives fully support the use of the PPP scheme, which allows councils to increase the quality of the education infrastructure. In recent years, the Lib-Lab Executive appears to have changed its mind and its approach quite radically, but the Conservatives continue to support the scheme, which we pioneered.
If the Aberdeenshire bid is approved, the Scottish Conservatives will be pleased to support many aspects of the proposals, which include plans for a replacement primary school in Kintore and a much-needed extension of the school in Portlethen. However, we disagree with the proposals to close the highly successful, popular and well-attended primary schools in Old Rayne and Rayne North. The council proposes to centralise those services at a new, larger primary school at Logie Durno.
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
No.
If those two schools close, the area will lose the considerable benefit that it currently receives from them. Both schools provide a high-quality education for pupils, are in decent physical condition and have no shortage of pupils. Indeed, Old Rayne will see a considerable expansion in numbers in the short to medium term.
I try again to intervene—
Mr Rumbles, you are entitled to offer an intervention, but you may not stand up and simply make an intervention. As you will speak later in the debate, you will have your chance then.
The council's plans will involve primary pupils facing lengthy bus journeys of approximately an additional hour a day. Those journeys will be along single-track roads, which are especially dangerous during wintry conditions. Children as young as four and a half or five could be put on a bus at 8 o'clock in the morning and not return home until after 4 o'clock in the afternoon. Local parents from Old Rayne and Rayne North have been right to fight the proposals to close their schools. I have visited Rayne North and communicated with many of the parents from both communities. I back their campaign. Parental choice should be a key factor. Part of the reason for the success of both schools is the regard in which they are held by parents, which is demonstrated by the parents' dedicated campaign to fight the closures.
Is not there something unsuitable in the logic of private finance initiatives, as applied to rural councils that have a large number of small schools? When Alex Johnstone talked to parents, did he ask them what they thought about PFI schemes?
I understand that PFIs are being used in Dumfries and Galloway and that that is supported by the SNP. Is not that the case?
Alasdair Morgan indicated disagreement.
Both Old Rayne and North Rayne primary schools are in small rural communities and both are the focal points of those close-knit communities. Village fêtes, Christmas nativity concerts and sports days are all held at the schools. The buildings are used by organisations such as the girl guides, the brownies and the Scottish Women's Rural Institute. As one local parent put it to me, closing the village school would be like ripping the heart out of the community.
I note that, in its amendment, the Executive states its belief in community schools and their ability to contribute to communities. The Scottish Conservatives believe that small rural primary schools, such as those in Rayne North and Old Rayne, are vital to the future of our fragile rural communities and should not be closed unless there are exceptional circumstances, which is not the case in the current situation. The SNP is as guilty as any party in the chamber of closing rural schools. I ask the Executive to consider carefully the current proposal.
I am beginning to feel as though I am in charge of a number of teachers here. The public might like to work out which of us were in education before we came to the Parliament.
I welcome pupils from the modern studies department of Paisley Grammar School—my old school—who are in the gallery. Although the school was a grammar school, in practice it was comprehensive, because it took in anyone who had a family member in the school. That is where I came from.
I enjoyed Brian Monteith's history of Scottish education, brief and strange as it was. I was interested in his obsession with the bottom-up development of education, given that the parents charter, to which we all now subscribe, was imposed from the top down by a Conservative Government.
It is clear from the motion and the two amendments—let us lay aside the customary self-congratulatory welcome by the Labour party and the Lib Dems of their own policy—that we all agree on diversity in education or
"flexibility in the curriculum and devolved school management arrangements".
There is nothing new in those concepts. By definition, every community and every school in every community is diverse, as is any group of teachers or any roomful of pupils. A secondary teacher's skill lies in adjusting the message and the medium to the group of pupils in the room and in adapting to successive groupings as they charge through the room in the course of the day. A primary school teacher's skill lies in managing the diversity of children in the room all day and sustaining their interest, which is an infinitely more terrifying prospect.
The ethos and style of a school will inevitably reflect the community in which it serves. I was promoted from a secondary school in Greenock, at which it was generally assumed that every pupil would get a batch of highers, to the post of depute head teacher of a school in Paisley that had major social problems. The school was a junior high, whose academic pupils would be transferred at the end of secondary 2. The head teacher and I—then the only two members of staff—worked out the priorities for the school, establishing links with the children's panel, the social work department, the police and other supportive agencies, and decided to beef up the guidance structure. In other words, our ethos and structure were moulded to the perceived needs of the community and were completely different from those of the school that I had left.
The ethos and structure are moulded in every school to accommodate different social, religious and cultural needs. It is obvious from the establishment of school boards and from the well-articulated opinions of concerned parents that schools reflect their community needs far more accurately than they did in the past.
Diversity has always been evident. Despite the centralist tendencies of some local councils, most head teachers, certainly in Glasgow where I was a head teacher for 12 years, subscribed to the Frank Sinatra theory of school management—I did it my way. I will not sing. [Members: "Aw."] All right then:
"I did it my way."
All the time, that approach was driven by the need to meet the best interests of the pupils and to balance the essential demands of the curriculum with the management of the adults whose task it was to deliver the service.
Irene McGugan's amendment refers to
"a strong and well-funded state educational system administered through Scotland's local authorities."
I worked for local authorities. It is a matter of great regret that none of the ones that I worked for was run by the enlightened SNP; instead, they were run by the Labour party. In other words, I did not agree with their complexion and sometimes their policies, but I believe absolutely that education is a right and that the service must be delivered within the local authority context. If people want to change the context, they go to the ballot box. To deliver the service well, it must be well funded, so that the specialised needs and educational requirements of every child are met. We are still far from that position.
I welcome the GMB retired members branch to the gallery. They may be retired, but they are still active.
It pains me to say this, but if Brian Monteith had stayed long enough to listen to all the evidence at the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, we would not be wasting Parliament's time debating a motion that enjoys no support among parents or education professionals in Scotland. The overwhelming majority of parents want local authorities to be responsible for our schools, yet once again we see the Tories displaying their classic tunnel vision and entirely missing the point about what matters to pupils, to parents and to teachers. Contrast that with Labour's approach—increasing investment in our schools year on year to realise the potential of every child in Scotland.
Let us continue Rhona Brankin's little history lesson with a few more reminders of what education was like under the Tories. Under the Tories, too many of our children left school unable to read or write. With Labour, we have brought about real progress in our primary schools. Standards are up and are rising in reading, writing and maths. We have achieved that by cutting class sizes and focusing relentlessly on what matters.
Will the member give way?
No, I have heard enough from Brian Monteith today. I know that he does not like what I am saying, but he should listen.
Under the Tories, we had school buildings that were much more suited to the 19th century and that were crumbling through lack of investment. With Labour, we are building and renovating 100 schools by 2003. We are delivering results for parents, pupils and teachers. I visited one of the new schools in Glasgow. Not only is the learning environment better, but teachers say that the pupils are better motivated and there are early signs of better attainment.
Under the Tories, we had fewer teachers to more pupils and the trend was getting steadily worse. Now, with Labour, the position is reversed. We have more teachers in our classrooms, smaller classes and more individual attention for our children. That is just a flavour of what education was like under the Tories.
What lies behind Brian Monteith's motion? It is intriguing. Where is his big idea? I looked for it. it is to be regretted that the motion says nothing new. It outlines the discredited policy that the Conservatives trumpeted in their 2001 general election manifesto, which was resoundingly rejected by the electorate, in case the Conservatives have forgotten. For "devolved management" we should read "free schools". That is their big idea—the direct funding of schools and the abolition of education authorities. The implementation of that Tory policy would mean, as Rhona Brankin said, an end to effective services for pupils with special educational needs and an end to co-ordinated school transport services.
Will the member give way?
I do not want to hear from Murdo Fraser, either.
We would see an end to the careers of 700 teachers who are employed to reduce class sizes. What would be the result of the Tory policy? A patchwork quilt of services that failed to deliver high national standards. What else would we get from the Conservatives? More inequality and inconsistency in the delivery of education services throughout Scotland.
The debate is more about Tory dogma than about diversity. The proposal is not the education model that anyone I know in Scotland wants for their children. Of course we want flexibility in our schools—the flexibility to ensure that pupils are taught what is relevant to them. Creativity and innovation in the curriculum can help to make school relevant to everyone.
I am afraid that if I were Brian Monteith's teacher, I would not only despair, but suspect that his report card would say: "Learned nothing; achieved little. Needs to apply himself better. Perhaps Brian needs to repeat a year, but not at this school."
I call Mike Rumbles, to be followed by Jamie McGrigor. I ask the final three speakers in the open debate to keep their remarks tight, as we are over time.
Encouraging diversity in education has been and remains a main theme of Liberal Democrat education policy and is the key to ensuring that Scotland's educational system is fit for the 21st century. Schools should be given the flexibility to organise learning in the ways that best meet the needs of their pupils, but that does not mean that the role of education authorities can be ignored. They play a valuable role by giving local schools help in and guidance on the delivery of education at the chalkface.
The diversity in our education system is one of its greatest strengths, but I do not accept the proposition in Brian Monteith's motion that
"the elimination of denominational schools would be damaging to Scotland's education system".
There is no question of the Government legislating to eliminate denominational schools, so I can only surmise that Brian Monteith's motion is aimed at highlighting the fact that if the denominations themselves decided to end the special status of those schools, that would be damaging. He used the word "patronising". I am surprised at the patronising view that the Tories express. Perhaps I should not be so surprised, because of their track record of pretending that they know best.
Will Mr Rumbles take an intervention?
No. I have been asked to keep my speech tight.
The fact that the Tories pretend that diversity is good but that free choice is bad is an Orwellian conundrum that only they can explain. That is like Brian Monteith's amendment yesterday, which called for a full-time equivalent physical education teacher in every school. When I gave him the opportunity to explain whether that applied to one or two-teacher primary schools, he could not admit that he had boobed and got it wrong. Of course he knows that that proposal is rubbish. Here we are again—Brian Monteith has got it wrong and will not admit it.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will, if the Presiding Officer will give me a little more time. Will you?
No. Perhaps the member has passed the buck there.
The so-called party of free choice betrays itself as the party that says, "We know what's best for you, so you'd better listen."
However, I acknowledge that Brian Monteith has got right the last part of his motion, which says that
"the key challenge is to improve educational opportunities for all … through encouraging greater diversity and devolved management."
That is spot on. It is a pity that he could not get the whole motion right.
The Executive's amendment is far more appropriate, as it welcomes the progress that has been made in investing in our schools, recognises the valuable contribution of our teachers and highlights the plans to modernise the school estate. Parents and teachers in my constituency eagerly await the Executive's imminent announcement on Aberdeenshire Council's application for funding to allow new schools to be built in Banchory and lower Deeside and to refurbish Portlethen Academy, to which Alex Johnstone referred. I hope that a positive announcement will be made soon.
Alex Johnstone was less than straightforward—if I can put it that way—about Aberdeenshire Council's proposals. The council has given a guarantee that it will not close Old Rayne School or Strachan School in my constituency if the community wishes to keep them open. I can think of no firmer or more straightforward guarantee. The council is building new schools, but if the community does not want to close the old schools, that is fair enough.
The Liberal Democrats passionately believe that the diversity in our education system is the key to its success and reject the Tory not-so-hidden agenda of centralising control of schools in Edinburgh by abolishing local education authorities. We believe in real diversity and in decisions being made locally, in the best interests of our children.
I ask the last two speakers in the open debate to keep to three minutes, please.
I congratulate Oban High School on completing its refurbishment after 13 years and wish it well for its opening ceremony on Tuesday, which the Minister for Education and Young People will attend. I also congratulate that school's teaching staff on the marvellous work that they are doing with children on environmental education, the results of which I saw at a Scottish Natural Heritage meeting in Oban earlier this week. They are teaching children to be aware of biodiversity and of what is happening in the surrounding areas and to keep the environment clean, which is important.
I re-emphasise what my colleague Alex Johnstone said about the importance of primary schools. Last week, I visited Dalavich, which is a community in north Loch Awe side in north Argyll. That community is attempting to reopen its mothballed primary school to prevent children having to take a 25-mile journey on single-track roads every day, winter and summer. That is a question of parental choice and I hope that the go-ahead is given to reopen that school.
I emphasise what Brian Monteith said about Gaelic. Gaelic is incredibly important to Scotland. It is vital that the legacy of music, poetry and song is maintained as part of our heritage.
Gaelic is in crisis. Despite the Executive's so-called commitment to Gaelic and its inclusion in speeches by people such as Alasdair Morrison, little appears to be happening. The key is education. Our city centres—places such as Edinburgh, Perth and Inverness—should have Gaelic schools. There should be more Gaelic teachers in primary and secondary schools—there is an enormous shortage of such teachers. Willing teachers should be allowed to take immersion courses, as happens in some Spanish regions, where such action has been an enormous success in maintaining languages. We have a centre of excellence in Gaelic in Sabhal Mòr Ostaig on Skye, but that must be supported by education in other areas.
The university of the Highlands and Islands, which the Conservatives kick-started, is important. The momentum must be continued, so that people in remote areas can study at higher education level where they live, without going elsewhere.
I am most grateful for the member's brief speech.
Like other members, I will talk about rural schools, which exemplify the diversity in our educational system. They are different from urban schools in many ways. The ethos is different; the pupils in rural schools know one another better and know pupils throughout the age range; and the degree of community involvement is different. That is not unique to rural schools, but is practised in them much more.
Rural schools and particularly rural primary schools are also distinct because of their size. Rural schools have more composite classes, which often have large age ranges. They give teachers particular challenges. There is also a significant number of two-teacher and single-teacher schools.
A common feature of rural schools is that they are uniformly excellent and almost inevitably receive glowing reports from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education. Therefore, I am surprised that some people in the educational hierarchy have a down on single-teacher schools. I was especially surprised when an official from Dumfries and Galloway's education authority was quoted in a paper last week as saying that the
"Council do not in principle support single teacher schools".
I do not know whether he was speaking on the record, but he certainly said that. I refute such ideas, because those schools are of high quality and give pupils a high degree of social interaction and learning. Pupils also offer a high degree of support to one another.
I will touch briefly on PFI, since it has been mentioned, but I will leave aside the general concerns on it, as I suspect that we will get an opportunity to discuss that within the next couple of weeks. There are specific problems with PFI in rural areas. I do not think that PFI projects are suited to situations where local authorities have a large number of small schools, all of which need refurbishment.
To respond to Alex Johnstone, I have every sympathy with councillors who are forced to support PFI schemes against their better judgment, as they know that there is no choice in the matter and that, because of the Executive's policy, they will not get any money in other ways.
There is a problem, and a difference, in relation to secondary schools in rural areas because of the restricted availability of courses in many areas. Irene McGugan referred to that in her opening speech: we need to improve the availability of technology so that courses that are being taught at some schools in a region can be taught in other schools there too.
I congratulate rural schools on the way in which they contribute to the diversity of education in Scotland. Their contribution is one that we dare not lose.
This has been a good debate. I always welcome the opportunity to discuss education in the chamber, even if that means discussing Brian Monteith's hotch-potch of proposals.
Diversity is an essential part of the educational framework, and we would not have it any other way. Diversity should not, however, become a fetish, elevated to a status that outweighs other considerations. It should exist within a coherent and holistic approach to education. Nor should diversity be used as a smokescreen. We should be wary of those who would use calls for independence from the system to peddle intolerance or extremism.
If we are serious about diversity, we need to nurture it in schools as well as in the differences between schools and between education authorities. Devolved management is one thing but, as our nationalist colleagues will agree, devolution is not independence. Catholic schools are good examples of diversity working within the system. We want to give schools as much freedom as possible within a framework that ensures a high quality of education across the board.
I have been called many things, but this is the first time that I have been called a fetishist. I am sure that it will not be the last. The member mentions the role of Roman Catholic schools. What would the member's reaction be were congregations of the Church of Scotland—or indeed the church itself—to come forward and state that they wanted to establish a number of Church of Scotland schools? Would it be right and proper for them to be allowed to do so?
Perhaps I should have said "dogma" instead of "fetish". I will go on to discuss the role of local authorities, which play a crucial decision-making role.
I was saying that we want to give schools as much freedom as possible within a framework that ensures high-quality education across the board. That is devolution and subsidiarity. The limits of that freedom are imposed by what can be gained from co-operation and from combined resources. In the context of a large and complex sector, that requires oversight and the guiding hands of local government and the Scottish Parliament. Irene McGugan and Rhona Brankin also raised the importance of local government in delivering education.
True diversity in education is much more easily delivered when built upon a properly resourced foundation that addresses the individual and collective needs of pupils, staff and parents, and that is open to the input and influence of pupils, staff and parents.
Labour has delivered on a reduction in class sizes, a new pay deal for teachers, free nursery education and classroom assistants to provide much-needed support in the classroom. The feedback that I get from teachers says that that support is working and is very welcome in the classroom. Labour has also reformed the Scottish Qualifications Authority, and changes to the higher still exam are in the pipeline.
The new community schools are a primary example of our holistic approach. The new community schools initiative is fully inclusive, and multidisciplinary working removes the barriers to participation. New community schools offer an opportunity to deliver education in a way that meets the needs of the child, the family and the community rather than the needs of the institution.
Special educational needs provision is another example of diversity in action. It is not about taking a dogmatic approach, but about being child centred and delivering diversity in education and opportunities for children. Parents should be key partners in that process. Mainstream and special schools can work together to provide a holistic response. The framework of inspection needs to take that into account. All children should have personal learning plans.
We need to keep our eyes on the future and to equip our children to be global citizens. The Education, Culture and Sport Committee is carrying out an inquiry into the purposes of education. Earlier this month, the Minister for Education and Young People heralded a national debate on education. We need to address the issue of how children learn and how we can give them the space do that. There is room for schools of excellence, such as Plockton High School, which work alongside comprehensive education. There is room for schools that offer Gaelic-medium education and that cater for the needs of parents who want their children to learn Gaelic. There have been successes not only in the north, but throughout Scotland. Sylvia Jackson has told me about a school in Stirling that is involved in Gaelic-medium education.
The motion before us is open to interpretation, but we cannot support the interpretation that those moving the motion place on it. When I first read the motion I thought that it looked okay, but Brian Monteith's contribution proved that I was right to be suspicious.
We must be clear about our vision and ensure that we deliver education that is fit for the citizens of the 21st century. I ask members to support the Executive amendment.
I call Fiona McLeod to wind up on behalf of the SNP. [Interruption.] I beg members' pardon—Fiona McLeod has been replaced by Linda Fabiani.
I was hiding behind the lectern.
During Brian Monteith's speech I was struck by the way in which the Tories always do down our education system and what happens in Scotland. Brian spoke about the OECD report on educational performance, to which the minister also referred. Recently I attended a meeting in Falkirk, to which educational specialists from one of the German Länder had come because they were so impressed by what they had read about the Scottish education system, backed up by the OECD report. It is not helpful for us to be negative all the time about what we are achieving and will continue to achieve in this country.
The Tory motion avers
"that schools should be given the flexibility to organise learning in the ways that best meet the needs of their pupils".
That is a fine sentiment, with which no member would publicly disagree. As Colin Campbell said, such flexibility is nothing new—it has always existed. The breadth of learning that pupils achieve through both the school and the university degree system has always been a huge strength of our education system.
Although flexibility in the organisation of learning may be an admirable aim, it may not always be achievable; in some cases, it may be impossible. Schools are still struggling to surface from the sea of bureaucracy that the Tories created during their years in Government. I worry about the fact that schools now have to wade their way through league tables and the targets that the Executive is setting. Such burdens may stymie the innovation that has always been a strength of our education system.
Today we have heard a great deal about class sizes being cut. However, I am not convinced that cutting class sizes by creating composite classes is the answer to our problems. I have heard practitioners argue both for and against composite classes, but most of them take the view that composite classes are not ideal.
Will the member take an intervention?
What a choice. I am afraid that Alex Johnstone beat Cathy Peattie to it.
Given the excellent standards that are achieved at small rural schools throughout Scotland by the use of composite classes, can the member cite any evidence suggesting that those schools offer a poorer standard of education?
Alex Johnstone should have delayed his intervention, because I was about to say that there are settings—small schools—in which composite classes have worked very well over the years. Alasdair Morgan made that point in his speech. My concern is very different and relates to schools in large conurbations, where composite classes have been introduced purely to achieve a cut in classroom sizes.
I am not aware that any research has been carried out into composite classes. I hope that the minister can tell me that research has been commissioned. Currently, we have only views from across the board. We must know more about composite classes if that is the way our education system is going. Teachers in South Lanarkshire are extremely worried about the situation. I am sure that that is reflected in all members' constituencies.
The state of school buildings is a long-standing problem that we all know about. I am not convinced that the Labour solution of PFI/PPP—originally a Tory solution—is the right one. It means selling out the future of our public services. When today's schoolchildren are adults, they will still be paying the mortgage on the schools in which they are educated now. That is not an ideal situation.
I am pleased that some councils are considering the SNP's public service trust model, an idea that was introduced a few years ago. When I asked the Minister for Finance and Public Services if the Scottish Executive had ever considered the public service trust model, he said, no. Local Labour-run councils appear to be more innovative than our Labour Scottish Executive.
Colin Campbell said that education should be regarded as a right. The SNP believes that absolutely. I worry that for too long education in Scotland has been considered an expense rather than an investment in the future of our country.
We hear pearls of wisdom about how Scotland must be at the cutting edge of the information economy. I wonder if there is anybody in power with the guts to make the investment to make that happen. I want to see it happen and I hope that things will look and sound different in the future.
I ask members to throw out the Tory motion because it is pretty awful.
But the SNP's amendment merely adds to our motion—why does the amendment not delete the motion?
The Tory motion will be thrown out by acceptance of the SNP amendment, which makes it clear that the future of our education system lies in the public service trust finance model and not in private finance.
When I saw the original wording of Brian Monteith's motion, I was tempted to support it, although I felt that it might—to use Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's words from the first debate this morning—send out "the wrong signal". However, having heard the details during Brian Monteith's performance this morning, I was very pleased that I had not supported the motion. Mr Monteith seemed to be doing his best to snatch division from the jaws of consensus. In a curious performance, during which he chose to quote Enoch Powell, he came out with the profound statement of the morning—"even twins are different." We will be able to check that statement when Murdo Fraser winds up for the Conservatives.
Whether we call Mr Monteith's speech purple prose or rhetorical rant, there is one thing that we can all agree on, even the Conservatives—it was a very negative description of the current system of Scottish education.
I remember that the iron lady, Margaret Thatcher, used to rail against people who were talking down Britain. This morning, Brian Monteith was talking down Scotland. He chose to ignore the fact that Scotland's performance in education is strong and that the programme for international student assessment—PISA—study that I mentioned shows that, out of more than 30 countries, Scotland is in ninth place in science, in fifth place in reading and in fifth place in maths. Clearly, we want to do better.
Interestingly, the countries that Mr Monteith chose to compare us with were Denmark, which is outside the top 10 in everything, Sweden, which did well but not as well as Scotland, and the Netherlands. Given what Mr Monteith said about Scotland's performance, it was interesting that he mentioned the Netherlands. The PISA report says that the results of the Netherlands have been published only partially because the Netherlands did not reach the required response rate of 80 per cent.
At present, we have a system that is working. Indeed, it is working well, but we must do better. After years of division and demoralisation, driven by Conservative dogma—we heard that dogma again today; the Conservatives are happy to come up with proposals that might help 2, 3 or even 5 per cent of the children in Scotland—we want a system that considers every young person in Scotland. We do not want to ignore or neglect the other 95 per cent, but that is what Brian Monteith's policies would achieve.
I am enjoying the minister's rebuttal of my contribution. However, on examining the coalition's record, I notice that all that the coalition has done is to abolish assisted places and self-governing schools. The coalition has continued all the policies that the Conservatives introduced to change Scottish education throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Given the deputy minister's original attraction to the Conservative motion—until the Minister for Education and Young People had a word with him—and given the fact that the deputy minister is unable to change anything, would he like to sign the motion and join the Conservative party? Surely the deputy minister should be sitting on the Conservative benches?
I am afraid that the minister is approaching his last minute.
My last minute? I am on only my first page and yet I am in my last minute.
Well, if the minister will get distracted—
My response to Brian Monteith's intervention is to say that we reject Conservative dogma. The message from us is simple: we reject vouchers; we reject selection; we reject central Government control of our schools and the removal of the role of our local councils.
If I can, in my final minute, I will briefly mention a couple of other issues. Irene McGugan made a refreshing change from Mike Russell this morning, as I agreed with most of what she said. I agreed with all of her comments except those on the use of private finance in the new investment that we propose for our school buildings. My response to Irene McGugan is simple. Do not fall into the same trap as the Conservatives. Do not allow dogma to block the major new investment that so many of our schools need so desperately.
I say to Mike Rumbles that we will respond shortly to councils in relation to the PPP bids. Politicians from all the political parties in the chamber support those bids. That was mentioned earlier.
Will the member give way?
No. The minister is in his last minute.
I am not allowed to give way.
Lucky you.
The Executive is about devolving responsibility, encouraging diversity and flexibility and delivering on the key issues. Our priority is to get on with the job.
Rhona Brankin reminded us that we have delivered. We delivered on the national agreement on pay and conditions, on nursery places for three and four-year-olds, on reduced class sizes and on new investment in our school buildings. We are going to deliver more. There is still a great deal to do, but we want to work with our teachers, parents and pupils. We reject the destructive dogma of which we got a brief but all too alarming reminder this morning.
The debate has been enlightening, although I have to say to Nicol Stephen that I cannot see how anybody could look at Brian Monteith and me and describe us as twins. They certainly could not describe us as identical twins, or at least I hope they could not.
Much has been said in the debate about diversity in education. Our party has talked about diversity for some time and I am delighted that we seem to be winning converts to the cause. In particular, I welcome the Minister for Education and Young People's conversion to the cause. To talk about rejecting a one-size-fits-all approach, as Cathy Jamieson did at the EIS seminar on 23 May, is to lift language straight from speeches that Brian Monteith and I made at the Scottish Conservative party conference the week before. Welcome aboard, minister.
People should always be cautious about lifting anything from speeches made by Brian Monteith or any of his colleagues. I want to clarify the position that I outlined in the chamber this morning. I have no problem with diversity in a system that ensures that we raise standards and close the opportunity gap. Perhaps Murdo Fraser will say what priority the Conservatives would give to pupils in disadvantaged areas for whom the opportunity gap must be closed. I do not believe that the Conservatives' proposals will address that in any way.
I will cover that in my remarks.
If the minister is serious about diversity, why does she take a dogmatic approach to St Mary's Episcopal Primary School in Dunblane, which is a successful school and which works far better outside the local authority system than it did within it? I say to Rhona Brankin that the provision of special needs education at St Mary's improved considerably when it opted out of the local authority system. It is nonsense that opted-out schools cannot provide appropriate special needs education.
We do not accept the SNP amendment. I question its logic because we already have schools in Scotland, such as Jordanhill School, that exist outside the local authority system. Is it the SNP's policy to bring those schools back under local authority control? The SNP's narrow ambitions depress me. Normally, SNP spokesmen say that we must examine what other countries, such as Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands, are doing. However, on education, the SNP does not want to consider what happens in those countries, which is a bit sad.
Denominational schools are an important aspect of the debate and I am pleased that the minister welcomed their distinctive ethos. The logic of diversity is that we should not stop with Roman Catholic schools, but allow other denominations and faiths the same privileges, where there is parental demand. Those who defend Catholic schools, but would refuse Protestant, Muslim or Jewish parents the same opportunities, must be careful about the messages that they send to the diverse society that is modern Scotland. We do not anticipate a huge rush to set up faith schools. Where they exist in England, they are popular with parents and deliver a high standard of education. We do not propose that the state should set up such schools, because they should be a response to parental demand.
I am pleased that Irene McGugan, who is very sensible when compared to Michael Russell, is here today. Michael Russell has been talking nonsense about us wanting to set up creationist schools. Where are the creationists in Scotland who want to set up schools? Are the streets of Scotland choked with parents burning copies of "The Origin of Species" and demanding that creationist schools be set up? Michael Russell's suggestion is ridiculous.
The key point is that one either supports diversity or one does not. We cannot say, as the SNP does, that there should be diversity, but only if that involves the types of school of which the centre approves. That is a centralising approach, not a diversifying approach.
Does Murdo Fraser believe that we cannot have diversity in a state-funded school system?
We are in favour of a state-funded school system. We have never suggested that the system should not be state funded. We are saying that the system should be more responsive and diverse, but still state funded. The problem is that the present system fails Scotland's youngsters.
There is a consensus among all the parties that we need a more diverse system. The people who suffer the most are the poorest in our society. The middle classes have always had the option of opting out of the state sector and choosing independent education. That is their right and they should not be condemned for it. However, only around 5 per cent of people are fortunate enough to be in that position. Other parents buy houses in the catchment areas of what are thought of as good schools. There is a degree of hypocrisy in that. Such people can be champagne socialists, who proudly claim to support the state system, but do so only because they can afford to buy a house in the catchment area of Jordanhill School, Lenzie Academy, Balerno High School or James Gillespie's High School. Perhaps some Labour members are in that category. I do not judge them. I simply wish that they were honest and did not try to deprive the less well-off of the same choices that they have been fortunate enough to be able to make.
The least well-off have no options. They cannot choose private schooling and do not have the opportunity to buy a house in the catchment area of a good school. They are left with the local comprehensives that are shunned by those who have the resources to make choices. We must extend choice so that not only the better-off benefit. In countries such as Sweden and in some states in the United States, where education vouchers have been introduced, the uptake is not highest among the middle classes, but among the least well-off. Perhaps we should consider similar models here as part of the national debate on education.
At least we are moving in the right direction.
Is Murdo Fraser seriously proposing to reintroduce a voucher system for schooling? By trying to root schools firmly in their communities, such as the community I live in and represent, we are doing more to close the opportunity gap than any discredited voucher system would. Mr Fraser has not yet addressed that point.
I thought that we were having a national debate on education. Is the minister saying that the parameters have been set so narrowly that everything is ruled out? However, I am pleased to hear that she supports her local school. Perhaps she should have a word with some Labour members and find out whether they also support their local schools or whether they are abusing the catchment area system. I am sure that some of them are doing that.
All parties in the chamber now say that a more diverse education system is the right direction to move in. The challenge is to devise an education system that provides opportunity for all, regardless of background; that promotes excellence; and that makes Scottish education the best in the world once again. That is what our motion seeks to achieve, and I urge members to support it.