Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Wednesday, December 13, 2023

Official Report 1079KB pdf

---

Education

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-11635, in the name of Liam Kerr, on improving the performance of the Scottish education system. I invite members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible. I call Liam Kerr to speak to and move the motion. You have around 11 minutes, Mr Kerr.

14:51  

Last week saw the publication of the programme for international student assessment, or PISA, statistics. They are a four-yearly analysis of almost 700,000 15-year-old pupils, across 81 countries, who are studying maths, science and reading. The PISA statistics are generally seen as the gold standard. The results held some deeply uncomfortable truths for Scotland, with scores in those subjects being at an all-time low.

Indeed, the scores have fallen since the last report in 2018 and are lower than the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average scores in maths and science. The drop from 2018 was 18 points in maths, 11 points in reading and seven points in science. As Professor Lindsay Paterson of the University of Edinburgh put it,

“A change of 20 points is approximately equivalent to one year of mid-secondary schooling. So these falls correspond to nearly a year in mathematics, over six months in reading, and a term in science.”

However, crucially, that is not simply a reflection of some of the particular circumstances of the past four years, because they also show that Scotland’s science score was down 14 points from that of 2015 and is significantly lower than that of the United Kingdom as a whole. In maths, the score has dropped by 20 points since 2015 and is significantly lower than that of the rest of the UK. Our reading score was 33 points shy of where it stood in 2000 and is at its lowest-ever level. I will quote Alex Massie. He said:

“Fifteen-year-olds are producing the kinds of scores that would have been expected from 13-year-olds a generation ago.”

Of course, some people suggest that PISA is only one study. It is, but we must remember that it is virtually all we have. Rather than address what appeared to be the early signs of falling education standards, the Scottish Government decided to withdraw from the trends in international mathematics and science study and the progress in international reading literacy study more than a decade ago. The scrapping of the Scottish survey of literacy and numeracy in 2016 led this Parliament’s Education and Skills Committee to conclude, in 2019, that

“The lack of baseline data means no meaningful conclusions on upward or downward trends can be reached, at a time of reform within Scottish education.”

Although I welcome the re-entry of Scotland to PIRLS and TIMSS, the data will not be available until 2026—20 years on from the previous measurements, which is a problem because, although it is trite to say it, what gets measured gets fixed. Even absent those measurements, surely we, as a Parliament, have a duty to try to come up with solutions. I look forward to colleagues across the chamber setting out what they feel are the underlying issues and their solutions.

I agree with Liam Kerr that what is measured matters. Does he therefore accept that statistics such as those from PISA, although they are important, make very limited provision in terms of helping us to understand the Scottish education system?

No, I simply cannot accept that, because we are measuring maths, science and reading. We can measure the trends over a very long time and there are, in fact, extremely worrying trends that we all have a duty to address.

Let us be absolutely clear that this is not the fault of our young people, who, like young people everywhere, have had to deal with unprecedented challenges in the past few years. Nor is it a failure of our teachers and their staff, who continue to do absolutely everything to deliver in a context that is far from ideal.

As The Courier put it,

“The report is ... a damning indictment of the failure of successive education secretaries to get to grips with their most important task—ensuring every Scottish child gets the best possible education”.

They are education secretaries including John Swinney—who apparently dare not even come to the chamber today—and Fiona Hyslop, Angela Constance and Shirley-Anne Somerville, who succeeded him. He told Parliament—without evidence—in 2021, that he had “cautious optimism” that standards were improving, shortly before he abandoned an education bill. The situation culminates most egregiously in the Scottish Government’s press release last week in response to the PISA figures—which showed Scotland’s worst-ever performance in science, reading and maths—that

“Scottish education maintains international standing”.

I listened very carefully to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills’ statement yesterday. I was, in fact, encouraged by much of the tone and by the acknowledgement of previous failures. It sounded as though we finally had a Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills who would take responsibility. That is why I was rather surprised and disappointed by—and will not vote for—the amendment in her name. Rather than acknowledging and dealing with PISA, as she seemed ready to do yesterday, her amendment suggests that yesterday’s figures trump PISA—a stance that Professor Lindsay Paterson claims is

“either disingenuous or evidence of dismaying statistical ignorance.”

This starts with acknowledging the issues, with not seeking to slopey shoulder the blame, and with taking responsibility for the solutions. The solution is about addressing issues including the epidemic of violence, ill-discipline and poor behaviour that was also revealed by the PISA results, which show that Scotland has more frequently bullied students and that our young people are two times more likely than the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average to witness a fight at school.

In that context, the “Behaviour in Scottish schools: research report 2023” last month was clear that perceived lack of consequences for pupils who frequently engage in disruptive behaviour leaves educators unsupported. By failing to teach those who are perpetrating such behaviour that life has consequences, and by suggesting that abuse and violence will not lead to sanctions, we fail them as much as we fail the victims, whether they are teachers who are going off sick or pupils who are absenting themselves from school after being disrespected or verbally or physically assaulted.

We need boundaries and genuine consequences for perpetrators. Perhaps, as some commentators suggest, there should be immediate removal of perpetrators from the classroom. There should be proper resource put towards educational psychologists and the like to work with perpetrators to see whether they can be returned and helped to learn, and to ensure that teachers can teach and other children can learn. There should not be an extraordinary policy such as that which Fife Council seems to have adopted just last month, part of which states that school bullies should not experience negative consequences or punishment due to their behaviour.

The situation means that we need to look again at what is happening with the curriculum for excellence and to address the question why—as the University of Stirling has found—since its introduction in 2013 there has been a decrease in the number of subjects that are being entered into and studied by fourth-year pupils. It also means that we must look at genuine vocational studies so that those whose skills and talents lie somewhere other than the academic route are properly catered for. None of that is news.

In 2021, Shirley-Anne Somerville said:

“10 years on from CfE being introduced, it is right and proper that we review how it is being implemented. We accept in full all 12 recommendations from the OECD.”

However, how many recommendations have been achieved remains somewhat questionable. Perhaps the cabinet secretary will assist with that later.

Does Liam Kerr agree with the conclusion that the OECD reached in 2021, that curriculum for excellence was the right approach and the failing has been in implementation for those who are at the chalkface by those who are at the top of the pyramid?

Yes, I do. The chamber is on board with the principle of curriculum for excellence, but implementation, particularly under the current Government, has all too often been found wanting.

We also need to examine teacher numbers. There are more than 1,500 fewer secondary school teachers now than there were when the Scottish National Party came to power, and there are now 350 fewer primary school teachers than there were last year. Statistics that were released yesterday show that the number of teachers who are still teaching after their teacher induction scheme is lower this year than it was in every other year since 2017, and that almost 5,000 of those who have gone on to teach are on temporary contracts, which fuels job insecurity and lowers morale. That is in the context of the preference waiver payment failing, with fewer than 7 per cent of probationer teachers agreeing that they can be sent anywhere in Scotland, which leads to the teacher shortages in places such as the north-east that I constantly hear about. Meanwhile, in the midst of rocketing numbers of pupils reporting having additional support needs, there has been a decline of 700 support for learning teachers.

All of that has happened in the context of the average class size remaining at just over 23 on average, as we learned yesterday, despite a promise to cut class sizes in primary 1 to P3 to 18 pupils or fewer. That is why it is disappointing that the Liberal Democrat amendment was not accepted for debate.

I hear from teachers that the incidence of classroom violence is driving them out of the education system. That is why we are losing so many valued high-quality teachers. The Government is just not supporting them.

That is right. It is certainly what I hear, and I am sure that it is what all members hear.

Perhaps the cabinet secretary will elaborate on why reform of Education Scotland—an agency that, according to a recent annual report, costs more than £30 million a year to run—remains outstanding. That cannot wait, given that, last summer, Scottish Conservative Party research found that more than 1,000 schools in Scotland—44 per cent of schools—had not been inspected in the past 10 years.

I want to hear the cabinet secretary’s thoughts on what to do about matters such as those and on our proposals to give headteachers more powers and budgetary autonomy; to deliver a new deal for teachers by cutting red tape and unnecessary bureaucracy; and to ensure that we have a curriculum that is focused on the development of digital skills, subject-specific knowledge and adult education and apprenticeships in the workplace.

Sixteen years of SNP decline shall not be undone in the two and a half years that we have left to endure the Government. The matter is bigger than party politics, and we all, Opposition and Government, have a responsibility to acknowledge what the data shows us, to take ownership of uncomfortable truths, not to seek scapegoats among our young people, teachers and local authorities for lack of action at Government level, and to confront difficult realities. Ultimately, the future of Scotland’s economy, national health service and justice system and, above all, our kids’ futures depend on the actions that we take now.

That is why I move,

That the Parliament recognises the significance of the challenges facing the Scottish education system, as highlighted by the recent Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) report; notes that, despite the efforts of teachers and school staff, Scotland’s positions in mathematics and science have dropped below the OECD average to an all-time low, while standards in reading are at a their joint lowest level since PISA reporting began; acknowledges that the OECD report also found that bullying in Scottish schools is more frequent than the OECD average, and that one in three of Scotland’s pupils don’t feel like they belong at their school, with pupils in Scotland twice as likely to observe violence in school as the OECD average; notes that Scotland was removed from a number of international statistical studies; recognises that education was devolved in the Scotland Act 1998; demands that the Scottish Government use its powers to address the many wide-ranging problems facing Scotland’s pupils, teachers, school staff and parents, beginning in and including early years; recognises that the implementation of Curriculum for Excellence has failed; calls for a fundamental rethink about schooling to raise standards, and considers that solutions should be explored, such as re-entering all statistical comparisons and benchmarks, addressing issues surrounding class sizes, teacher and support staff numbers, as well as the use of probationers and temporary contracts and urgently tackling the violence and discipline problems in Scotland’s schools.

15:03  

I am grateful to the Conservatives for bringing this debate on Scottish education to the chamber. There have been a number of updates to Parliament in recent weeks. When we return following recess, there will be, subject to parliamentary approval, fuller time to debate proposals on qualifications reform.

As I stated yesterday, post-pandemic Scottish education is at a juncture. There is much to be positive about in Scottish education, but I recognise the need for improvement. In that spirit, I will engage with the debate and listen to any tangible solutions from the Opposition—or, indeed, my own party—to that end. As Mr Kerr said, this is bigger than party politics.

I spoke yesterday about this year’s impressive set of achievement of curriculum for excellence levels data, which is also known as ACEL. That is the most comprehensive and up-to-date national picture that we have of young people’s attainment in literacy and numeracy. The ACEL data shows that the proportions of primary school children achieving the expected CFE levels for literacy and numeracy are at record highs for children from both the most and the least disadvantaged areas of Scotland. The attainment gap in literacy in primary schools is the smallest on record, and the gap is also reducing in secondary schools. I again pay tribute to our young people and their teachers for achieving those results. It has been a difficult time for all of them since the pandemic, which makes the data all the more impressive.

Although I hope that everyone in the chamber can welcome that progress, I have seen some commentary questioning the ACEL data because it is predicated on teachers’ professional judgment. I whole-heartedly reject that view. I think that it is an insult to the teaching profession. Scotland’s teachers are skilled and trained professionals. The judgments that they make should be trusted, much in the same way that, every year, we trust our teachers to set, mark and agree the national standard in our final examination system.

The cabinet secretary is right to trust our teachers. They are graduate professionals who know their job and, more importantly, know the children they teach. Can the cabinet secretary explain why she was unable to mention the PISA results in her amendment, which might have made it easier to come to a consensus across the chamber?

I will come to the PISA results, which I spoke to yesterday in my update to Parliament. The PISA results are important in giving the whole picture of progress in the education system. What I am doing at the current time is putting on record the results that were published yesterday, which show a welcome trajectory.

What is the reason for the considerable gap between the PISA results and the ACEL results?

They are two different data sets. The ACEL results are predicated on teacher judgment and the PISA results are predicated on survey data. That means that, if we engage with the OECD, as I have done, it is very difficult to draw comparisons across countries in terms of the way in which we might use the ACEL data. They are different data sets, and I do not think that it is possible for us to look at each and draw comparisons.

However, in the totality, it is important that we have a wider data set. That is why the Government has committed to rejoining TIMSS and PIRLS. It was good to hear Liam Kerr welcome that news in his contribution. It is also worth saying that the ACEL data are official statistics. The data set has been produced in accordance with the professional standards that are set out in the code of practice for statistics.

One of the key findings from the recent PISA data that the member alluded to is the increase in the number of pupils with an identified additional support need. As I mentioned in the chamber yesterday, although that figure is now nearly 40 per cent nationally, in some of our schools, such as the one that I visited on Monday, it is nearer 50 per cent. The PISA data gives the Government an opportunity to recast how we support that cohort of young people.

However, it goes without saying that the achievements of pupils with additional support needs should be recognised. Indeed, 75 per cent of pupils in the 2021-22 cohort with an additional support need left school with one pass or more at SCQF level 5 or better.

Will the member take an intervention?

I would like to make some progress, if the member does not mind.

In the same cohort, 93 per cent left school with one or more qualifications at SCQF level 4. Additionally, the latest figures from 2021-22 show that spend on additional support for learning by authorities has reached a record high.

We have also invested an additional £15 million since 2019-20 to increase the provision of support staff in Scotland. I heard the member’s challenge in relation to additional support needs teachers, but it is worth saying that that investment has led to more than 1,000 additional support staff across Scotland, bringing the total number to 16,606—a record high. That investment is reflected in young people’s outcomes, and I have mentioned some of the progress that we have seen in relation to young people with additional support needs and their outcomes.

The Conservative motion notes that the PISA report highlights challenges that the education system faces. The First Minister and I have both accepted that the PISA results are not good enough, but there is an assertion in the motion that Scotland’s positions in mathematics and science have dropped below the OECD average. That is not accurate. Scotland’s PISA results, based on the 2022 survey results, remained similar to the OECD average for both maths and science. For reading, Scotland performs above the OECD average. I accept that, since the last round of PISA, Scotland has seen a reduction in PISA scores, and we need to see improvements. However, let us be accurate about what PISA is telling us and what it is not telling us.

We also need to take a holistic view of educational performance in the round.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

I am happy to do so. Presiding Officer, can I check whether there is time in hand?

I can give you a little bit of time back.

Surely what PISA is telling us is not that, in the past few years, Scotland has somehow flatlined. It is saying that, over a considerable period, there has been a significant long-term decline under this SNP Government.

I am reiterating—I have stated this previously—that, based on the 2022 survey results, our results in maths and science remain similar to the OECD average. [Interruption.] Liam Kerr’s hand gestures suggest that he believes that Scotland is unique in respect of its results. We are not unique, by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, the independent OECD called this edition of the results the Covid edition. Covid has impacted on the outcomes for our young people. I hope that Liam Kerr understands that that is not unique to the Scottish system.

Will the minister give way?

I would like to make some progress, and I believe that I have no time in hand.

I gave you nine minutes; I can probably give you 10 minutes.

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

On Monday, the Cabinet visited Haddington for a public meeting. As George Adam observed following the meeting, the best and most challenging questions that the Cabinet received came from the school pupils in the audience—whether on global warming or on asylum, they raised the big issues of the day.

I think that that speaks to a difference that we have already seen recorded by PISA as recently as 2018, in its assessment of global competence, in which Scotland was one of the top-performing countries. That important PISA study assessed young people’s ability to examine local, global and intercultural issues, including sustainability, and to interact effectively with people from different cultures.

I am conscious of the time, but I want to touch briefly on some of the progress that we have been able to make since the pandemic. The previously mentioned ACEL data is supplemented by our examination system, in which the overall pass rates at national 5, higher and advanced higher were higher this year than the 2019 pre-pandemic levels. Since the pandemic, the attainment gap has narrowed.

However, of course I accept that not everything is perfect, which is why we must commit to redoubling our efforts to secure better improvements in the Scottish education system to deliver better outcomes for our children and young people. We are already responding to PISA in a robust and comprehensive way. In doing so, we are focusing on maths and curriculum improvement, on which we are taking a range of steps, which I set out in detail in the chamber yesterday. I have also committed to expanding the range of objective data that we have available to us—an issue that Liam Kerr alluded to—by rejoining a number of international surveys.

Part of Scotland’s improvement journey must be about our education reform programme, which I think will help to drive the measures that need to be taken to improve outcomes. As part of that, reform of our national education bodies will deliver change in practice and in culture. Liam Kerr mentioned the role of the inspectorate. The recently appointed interim chief inspector will play a pivotal role in providing the critical leadership that is required to deliver the change that is needed.

I am also ensuring that the voices of teachers and people with a stake in the education system are heard at every opportunity. That is why there has been on-going consultation and engagement on the new qualifications body and how to maximise the positive impact that I think that reform can deliver, and it is why I am committed to designing—along with teachers, professional associations and other stakeholders—a new centre for teaching excellence. I am grateful to the Scottish Council of Deans of Education, which I met earlier today to talk about some of its work to support that venture.

There is a lot to be positive about in Scottish education, although I accept that there is work to be done to secure improvements. For my part, I am focused on those improvements, some of which I set out in the chamber yesterday. I do not shy away from the challenge, and the implicit opportunity must not be missed.

However, in the same spirit, the Opposition cannot shy away from the fact that there are real positives in Scottish education. At primary level, we have record attainment levels and a record low attainment gap in literacy. Exam pass rates are above the pre-pandemic level, and we have the highest investment per pupil and the lowest pupil teacher ratio in the UK.

In the rush to attack the Government, which I accept is part and parcel of the approach to politics, the Opposition is also dismissive of some of the achievements of our pupils, teachers and support staff. Today, I ask members of the Opposition to engage with the substance of the data rather than the politics. If they do so, in me they will have a willing partner. It is in that spirit that I move my amendment, which sets out the facts and accepts that there is a need for improvement. I hope that members across the chamber will be able to support it.

I move amendment S5M-11635.3, to leave out from first “notes” to end and insert:

“welcomes the publication of Achievement of Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) Levels 2022-23 (ACEL), which shows that the proportion of primary school pupils achieving expected levels of literacy and numeracy has reached record highs, that the poverty-related attainment gap in literacy in primary school has reached the lowest level on record, and that attainment at secondary level has increased and the poverty-related attainment gap decreased; understands that ACEL represents the most up-to-date and comprehensive statistics on attainment in Scotland, and that the findings are testament to the hard work of teachers, support staff and pupils; notes that PISA found that pupils in Scotland were less likely to witness issues with a number of aspects of behaviour in school than in other parts of the UK; welcomes the Scottish Government’s decision to rejoin Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS); notes that Curriculum for Excellence was endorsed by the OECD in its 2021 report as the right approach for Scottish education, and agrees that the process of education reform, working in partnership with local authorities, and including the reorganisation of national bodies and reform of qualifications and assessments, offers the opportunity to raise standards, ensure that all children and young people can meet their full potential, and deliver excellence and equity across Scotland’s schools.”

15:14  

I welcome this debate because it comes at a time when there is a consensus in education that enough is enough. In the past week, a range of statistics have laid bare this Government’s 16 years of inaction and broken promises in education and the fact that, ultimately, it has let children down, left teachers exhausted and allowed too many pupils to fall through the cracks. The PISA data showed that Scotland’s once world-leading education system has declined in the international rankings and that the attainment gap has grown. Summary data on Scottish schools revealed concerns around teacher numbers and pupil attendance and behaviour. The ACEL data showed that pupils with additional support needs continue to be more likely to miss important milestones at every stage of their school career.

The situation should not have had to get that bad and it should not have taken so long for the Government to acknowledge the scale of the problem. Teachers, parents, pupils and queues of experts have been sounding alarm bells for years but, instead of listening, the Government has long-grassed concerns by setting up groups and reviews, and it has removed us from international studies that could have given us vital signs of the path that we were on. Ultimately, it has camouflaged the decline.

I was pleased to detect a bit of a change in the cabinet secretary during the statement that she gave yesterday. She finally appeared to grasp the gravity of the situation, and I look forward to hearing more detail of the proposals. That change was welcome, but it could be too little, too late for the thousands of children who started school as the SNP took office. The failure to address the long-standing, systemic problems in the education system that have got us to where we are means that the problems that we face are numerous, so the solutions must be numerous, too. I hope that the recognition that we saw yesterday develops beyond vague statements, because it is vital that we reverse the decline. Much of that process will include addressing some of the issues that are outlined in the motion.

Class sizes are getting bigger, support staff numbers are dropping and attendance rates are plummeting. Teachers are being crushed under the weight of a policy that was developed on high without their involvement. They are drowning in paperwork, are struggling to find the time for lesson planning and are facing an exodus of their colleagues, who cannot bear the pressure any more. In some areas, we have probationer teachers filling vacancies, such is the scale of the recruitment and retention challenge.

The SNP has recognised what some of the solutions could be, and it has even committed to implementing some of them. However, so many teachers have been left waiting—in some cases, for more than 15 years. Not only have they been met with a lack of delivery, but things have actually got worse. Despite the Government committing in 2007 to reduce class sizes to 18 pupils or fewer, many teachers still have more than 30 pupils in their classes, and there are more classes with more than 18 pupils than there were back then. The pupil teacher ratio is flatlining rather than improving, which means that teachers are being stretched even more. A chronic shortage of non-contact time for teachers is compounding the problem. That is another promise that the SNP has failed to deliver on. The cabinet secretary knows that I have raised that issue with her on a number of occasions, and she knows that I remain disappointed that the Government has still not given a timescale for delivery.

I say to the Government, not only in relation to that policy, but in relation to every commitment that it announces, that, when it makes a promise, it should already have done the work to ensure that it can deliver. People understand that such issues are tricky and that time is needed to sort them, and they understand that the Government will want to talk to people about them. However, they do not understand why they are presented with things that they assume have been thought through only to realise that they have not or, ultimately, why they are let down when the commitments are never met. It is not fair that the Government is leading teachers and pupils up the hill and leaving them there, waiting for action that never comes.

According to the Scottish Government’s survey, more than two thirds of teachers have had enough and are considering leaving the profession due to the overwhelming workload and lack of support. At the same time, we are seeing a fall in teacher numbers, which is driven by a decline in initial teacher education for the second year in a row. There are also fewer support staff to help the teachers who are there.

The cabinet secretary will know that, earlier this year, the national discussion on education report stated that more than a third of children—as the PISA data points out, the figure is sometimes 40 per cent, and in some classrooms it is 50 per cent—are identified as having additional support needs. Those needs cannot be considered to be additional any more, and the cabinet secretary has accepted that. They are a fundamental feature of our education system, so I cannot understand why there was no mention of them in yesterday's statement. The ACEL data makes it clear that those children are less likely to reach the expected levels in reading, writing, numeracy, listening and talking at every stage. They are five times more likely to be excluded and they have lower attendance rates, especially in secondary school. To leave them out of the statement and rely on proposals that are more than three years old is not good enough.

We need up-to-date, targeted, ambitious action for pupils with additional support needs, and we need progress on the Angela Morgan review. Right now, despite the best efforts of teachers and school staff, educational inequalities are being exacerbated because the system is under so much strain that it is struggling to meet everyone’s needs, never mind pupils’ additional support needs.

Curriculum for excellence was intended and designed to deliver personalised learning, but I am afraid to say that the SNP has failed to give teachers the time, the space and the resources that they need to make it happen. It gives me no joy to say that the Government’s management of our education system is characterised by a lack of coherence, years of underinvestment, a failure to prioritise children’s needs, schools being starved of resources, overcrowded classrooms, outdated facilities and a lack of qualified teachers. That cannot go on any more.

If the cabinet secretary and ministers detect exasperation in my tone, it is because I really am exasperated and angry about the situation on behalf of pupils and teachers across Scotland, who have been let down. Scottish Labour believes that we must now take the necessary steps to support teachers and invest in our schools and that, if we do that, we can create a system that empowers young people to reach their potential.

Will the member give way?

Do I have time, Deputy Presiding Officer?

I am afraid that the member is just concluding.

I am sorry. I have only half a minute left.

The situation cannot go on. We need to create a system that empowers young people to reach their potential. That means taking the promised action to reduce class sizes, increase non-contact time, prioritise support for children with additional support needs and reverse the trend of cuts to local authorities. We have to hold the Government to account for leaving children struggling and teachers overwhelmed, and I will not apologise for saying that.

When the Government comes to the chamber with specific actions that will make a big difference to education in Scotland, we will of course support it. With a fair, equitable and ambitious system, education can unlock the potential in every young person in Scotland. That is the sort of education system that Scottish Labour believes in, and we will fight for it.

I move amendment S6M-11635.1, to insert at end:

“; considers that there is an urgent need for action to reverse the widening inequalities as highlighted by Scotland’s performance in the 2022 PISA results, and recognises the excellence of Scotland’s teachers against a backdrop of Scottish Government failures.”

Unfortunately, we do not really have any time in hand this afternoon, due to the pressure of business at the back end of the afternoon, so I require members to stick broadly to their time limits. I call Willie Rennie. You have up to six minutes, Mr Rennie.

15:21  

Deputy Presiding Officer, I am grateful for your permission to leave the chamber early this afternoon. I apologise to colleagues, but I have an important appointment that I must attend.

We are not really debating whether the PISA results were bad. The First Minister has already admitted that they were. They were the worst ever. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills is right to say that the performance of all countries has declined since the pandemic, but Scotland’s has declined more than most. This stings, but we are behind England on reading, maths and science, and we must remember the context that, back in 2016, we were promised a dramatic closure of the poverty-related attainment gap and a dramatic improvement in performance. In short, big improvements were promised, but instead we have had decline.

Yesterday’s ACEL figures do not really change that analysis. I am disappointed that the education secretary described those figures as being at a record high. They have only been in place since 2016, and it is not a great achievement to have a record high for results over such a short period.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am sorry, but I do not have enough time. I have a lot of constructive things to say.

Members: That is a shock.

It is not a shock.

I was disappointed yesterday to note the level of the Government’s ambition on the poverty-related attainment gap. It admitted that it will only be reduced by a third by 2026, whereas it had promised to close the gap completely.

It is reasonable to say that the most recent set of reforms has not worked. They were always an incoherent mix with no central philosophy. The fundamental weakness was that the Government did not really know what was wrong with Scottish education before it embarked on those reforms. If ministers do not know what is wrong, I do not know how they can fix it.

At the Education, Children and Young People Committee last year, I asked Shirley-Anne Somerville, the previous Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, what she thought was wrong with education. She told me that it was the weak middle, which would be strengthened by the creation of regional improvement collaboratives. They have now been ditched, and I am not sure what the Government now thinks is the problem with Scottish education. To be honest, I am not even sure that what we heard was an answer at the time, and I do not think that we have got an explanation today as to what the current education secretary thinks is wrong with Scottish education.

It is not just the most recent set of reforms that is the issue. We need to acknowledge that curriculum for excellence has not delivered on its promise. Everyone agrees with the principles, but the implementation has just not worked. I know that the decline in education performance stretches back some time before curriculum for excellence, but the decline has accelerated since its introduction, so it looks like there is a link.

Many have focused on the move from the two-plus-two-plus-two model to the broad general education and senior phase, as well as on the two-term dash to higher and the narrowing of subject choice in the senior phase. Although those are all issues, the problem must be about something more fundamental, and I think that that is the balance between knowledge and skills. It is not about one or the other—there must be a balance. That is where yesterday’s statement by the cabinet secretary on literacy and numeracy was interesting, given its specific reference to knowledge in the review of maths. Carole Ford, Keir Bloomer and Lindsay Paterson have been highlighting that for some time, and I know that the education secretary has been in discussion with them. Perhaps the dilution of knowledge, particularly in primary education, could be the reason why we have struggled with our international performance.

However, there is also an issue with implementation. Teachers feel as though they were cut adrift. They were left to reinvent the wheel class by class and to produce materials in some crude attempt to empower them. I would support classroom materials being co-produced by teachers nationally, which teachers could then adopt for application in their classrooms. To assist with that, we need to reintroduce subject principal teachers so that we have subject specialist leaders across the country.

At all stages, standards should be set for teachers to assess the attainment of pupils. I am still not convinced about the Scottish national standardised assessments, as they bring all the negatives that come with league tables but none of the benefits of independent assessment. I hope that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills will extend to other subjects the change that she mentioned yesterday on the balance between knowledge and skills for maths, and that she will look at standards at every level, as well as the production of materials for the classroom.

As we consider the reform of the education inspectorate, we need to ask ourselves why its predecessor did not pick up on the falling standards in Scottish education. Why was that not identified and how can we make sure that that is not repeated in future?

I will turn to behaviour. Last week, teachers were insulted by the inference that they are the problem and that they require to be retrained. The only tangible announcement in the statement was that a paltry £900,000 is to be allocated for training. I do not accept the claim that training teachers is essential to solving the problem of violence.

Will the member give way on that point?

No. I am sorry.

We need to change the guidance on discipline so that there are clear boundaries and consequences. When I was at school, there was perhaps too much punishment. I think that it is right that we have moved away from that and that we have moved to understanding more. However, I worry that we now understand a little too much. We need to look at how the nurture agenda is working so that it does not act as an incentive.

You must conclude, Mr Rennie.

I am supportive of the nurture agenda, but we need to make sure that we get it right. We also need the resources and specialist back-up to make it work. We need an education secretary who is on it. We want to support her.

15:28  

The headlines tell a sorry tale, as the latest PISA study confirms that Scotland has fallen to record low levels in maths, reading and science internationally. As Willie Rennie has said, the cabinet secretary should not be so proud of that dismal performance, with maths and science lower—and lower, indeed, than the OECD average. The PISA study also shows that attainment in maths, science and literacy has risen in countries such as Japan and Korea. In two of those categories, other countries, such as Singapore, Italy and Israel, have also experienced increases in attainment. We must remember that Covid was global and it cannot be used as an excuse for anything any longer.

As education expert Professor Lindsay Paterson has pointed out, the results show that the decline between 2012 and 2022 is the equivalent of losing 16 months of maths teaching and eight months of reading. The loss of 18 months in science schooling is truly shocking, as it is vital to our competitiveness in an increasingly digital world. We must wake up and smell the roses: we are falling behind.

Professor Paterson has also pointed out that, since 2010 and the introduction of curriculum for excellence, the attainment gap between those from the poorest backgrounds and those from the wealthiest has widened. Members should remember that the issue is, after all, one of priorities. Closing the gap was once claimed to be the priority of the SNP and the former First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon.

The Scottish Government’s behaviour in Scottish schools report has found that levels of disruption have increased across all the surveyed categories. Low-level disruptive behaviour, disengagement and serious disruptive behaviours have all increased since 2016, and there has been a decline in most reported positive behaviours.

It will come as no surprise to anyone in the chamber that I want to focus on mobile phones, on which the Scottish Government’s behaviour in Scottish schools report could not be clearer. In secondary schools, the behaviour that was most commonly reported as having the greatest negative impact was pupils using and looking at mobile phones or tablets when they should not have been. More than half of secondary school staff said that it was one of the three behaviours that had the greatest negative impact.

Of course, most pupils are well behaved, but all suffer from the consequences of disruption and are vulnerable to distraction. We know that mobile phones are not the only cause of growing school discipline problems; the report also cites rising incidences of drug and alcohol consumption. However, if mobile phones are a significant contributor, their removal must surely be part of the solution.

Gordonstoun school made headlines earlier this year when it banned phones, and the headteacher, Lisa Kerr, was spot on to argue:

“we don’t allow them unfettered access to other addictive substances, so why mobiles?”

She also claimed that it is

“lazy, irresponsible, and dangerous not to place controls on young people’s access to an online world which they, and we, simply don’t fully understand and can’t control.”

Frankly, I agree.

Quietly, other schools are following suit.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am afraid that I do not have the opportunity. I apologise for that.

Here in Edinburgh, the headteacher at the Royal high school has taken the opportunity to strengthen its mobile device policy. Devices are not permitted to be used during the school day, and that is being strictly enforced. As a result, there has been a marked improvement in pupil engagement, with pupils talking more and being less heightened about what they are missing on their devices. The headteacher, Pauline Walker, said:

“it took a couple of weeks for pupils to realise the school was serious. Now they are more engaged and less anxious about what they might be missing on their phones, but know they will be confiscated for the rest of the day if they are seen in use.”

One problem that was cited in the behaviour in Scottish schools report was the perceived lack of consequences for pupils who engage in serious disruptive behaviour. It is essential that they know that rule breaking means trouble. Banning mobile phones in schools will not solve deep-rooted problems, but it will help. A consistent and enforced mobile phone policy restricting their use is vital if we are serious about tackling behaviour issues in our schools.

It was heartening to learn yesterday that refreshed guidance will be forthcoming to reinforce the banning mobile phones in our classrooms as an option for headteachers. I thank the cabinet secretary for her commitment yesterday that she will write to me with further details on that.

The Scottish Conservatives will restore excellence in our education through learning in schools, giving teachers and school staff the support that they need and giving every young person the chance that they deserve.

15:33  

No one in Scotland can be satisfied with the latest PISA ratings data. However, given long-term trends, no one among the developed economies can be satisfied either. In this short speech, I will explain that more.

I have been impressed by some of the qualitative analysis in the PISA report and some of the external expert commentary, including from Andreas Schleicher, the highly regarded director for education and skills at the OECD. However, we should not ignore the fact that we must take care when interpreting some of the statistical data. Indeed, a recent article in the Financial Times put it this way with regard to data for English schools:

“critics argue that Pisa rankings give a misleading picture as the difference in performance between some countries is not statistically significant and methodological issues mean the headline scores can be over-interpreted.”

Andreas Schleicher made the further point that attainment in Scotland was declining long before Covid came along. Does the member recognise that, and does she agree with that?

That goes back to Labour’s point.

It does. It goes back to the point made by the Labour front bench, with which I agree.

The failure of many advanced economies to meet sampling standards is a serious issue. The UK is among the worst, so we cannot rely too much on the broad statistical data and must look instead at the qualitative analysis of long-term trends. Any understanding of those wider trends and more of that in-depth analysis are missing from the Tory motion, which, frankly, just seeks superficial headlines.

There has been a long-term trend across advanced economies of a decline in educational performances measured by PISA. As Andreas Schleicher points out, Covid was not the only cause of the decline in standards in advanced western economies. He argues that one striking trend over the past decade has been the constant deterioration of average reading and science scores in the OECD and that the developed world no longer has a monopoly over good education. He says:

“The world is no longer divided between rich and well-educated countries and poor and badly educated countries.”

What can we learn from the decline in developed countries and the high performance of countries such as those in east Asia? Surely that is the point of this debate. Finland, which was once thought to have a particularly successful education system, is a case in point. Its learning loss since 2018 has been almost three times the OECD average in reading and four times higher in science. Schleicher argues that that is because Finland has relaxed its academic expectations for students. It has also been argued that there has been a trend in wealthy countries towards commodifying education, with pupils and students becoming consumers and teachers becoming service providers—something that we have ferociously resisted in Scotland.

In contrast, successful Asian countries are geared towards high expectations and strong social relationships between teachers and students. In other words, the culture that surrounds and informs the education experience is a key issue. During a debate in my early days as a member of this Parliament, I argued that our college sector, following the Cumberford-Little report, should strive for excellence rather than competence. We need to assess whether we have a sufficient focus on excellence in the wider education sector. Andreas Schleicher argues that the lesson

“is that we have to achieve student wellbeing not at the expense of academic success, but through academic success”.

I acknowledge that Covid has had a significant effect. Truancy rates across the UK have increased, as is the case in many other countries coming out of Covid restrictions. Countries that imposed shorter lockdowns were more likely to have relatively higher attainment, and education systems were more resilient where children had the skills to learn autonomously and where pupils felt more supported by their teachers.

Finally, I want to raise a Covid-related issue, not from PISA, but as a result of observations from our own professional speech and language therapists in Scotland. Glenn Carter, the head of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists Scotland, stated in an important report in January this year that

“We’re facing a spoken language crisis in Scotland. If no action is taken these issues will have a significant impact on children’s mental health, learning, and future life chances.”

There has been a 20 per cent increase in the number of young children needing communication support in Scotland. Starting school with weak language skills makes early years education extraordinarily difficult. If we do not act, it will increase the attainment gap. We need to find ways of better supporting pupils and teachers in tackling the language crisis, which has been caused partly by the pandemic, and I would welcome comments on that from the minister or the cabinet secretary.

I have only scratched the surface of the qualitative challenges that we face. I hope that the Education, Children and Young People Committee can play its part in contributing to learning lessons for the future of Scottish education. I certainly intend to play mine.

15:39  

The PISA statistics that were published last week were a gut punch, and they have rightly generated anger across the country. They should serve as a wake-up call to the Government, but how many such wake-up calls do there need to be? The contributions so far have, in my view, reeked of complacency and denial. It is a listless torpor of a Government that is out on its feet, out of ideas and, increasingly, out of time.

The cabinet secretary is keen to emphasise that this is the special Covid edition of the PISA figures. She is less keen to observe that the outcome is due to a decline across the entirety of the 16 years of the Government, which the Government has done nothing to check and has only served to accelerate.

On the impact of Covid, the decline in Scottish performance post-pandemic has been worse than that in economically comparable countries across the OECD. That is little wonder, given the risible nature of the education recovery plan that was published in October 2021, which amounted to a series of reannouncements of previous projects and an aspiration to put back in place just some of the teachers whom the Government had already cut. There was no concerted action to help the groups that were most impacted by the pandemic. That shows in the figures. Frankly, the Government never even got round to cutting off the bottom of the doors.

Our nation is at an all-time low in maths and science and at our joint-lowest level in reading in the history of the figures. Urgent action is needed to arrest the long-term decline that the SNP Government has presided over.

Yesterday, I listened with some dismay when the cabinet secretary was cautioning that the data should not be read in isolation—we have heard that again, twice now, from back-bench SNP members. I certainly hope that PISA does not become the new “Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland” figures for the SNP, with methodological quibbles, internet conspiracy theories and rampant whataboutery.

Last month, the Institute for Fiscal Studies warned that Scotland had experienced the largest decline in maths of the UK nations. In 2006, it was the best performing of all the UK nations.

What are the other wake-up calls that I refer to? I will give a small selection.

In 2015, there was the report on the OECD perspective on the CFE. In 2018, research from Professor Jim Scott was damning about the variation in the curriculum structure across Scotland. Also in 2018, there was research from Professor Priestley and Dr Shapira on the narrowing of the curriculum. Their further work in 2023 showed a dramatic reduction in subjects taken in secondary 4 under CFE across Scotland.

Will the member take an intervention?

Not at this moment.

In 2018, which was a key year, Professor Lindsay Paterson wrote for the London School of Economics and Political Science:

“no ... baseline data were ever collected that would allow us to trace the curriculum’s impact.”

In 2019, there was the Parliament’s Education and Skills Committee’s damning report on the implementation of CFE, the narrowing of the curriculum and the failures in transitions.

I have listened with interest to the member’s highly selective quotes and statistics, and I am wondering whether, at any point in his speech, he will come up with positive measures to start to address some of the complexity in the situation or whether he is just going to moan.

It is fair to say that the current situation is well worth a moan. We have brought a variety of issues to the chamber over recent years and talked about the necessary reforms in education that the Government has completely neglected to undertake.

Only in June this year, there was a report on the national discussion on Scottish education. It was brutal on the structure and operation of CFE.

In 2021, the OECD report—which was published after the Scottish Qualifications Authority scandal that the Government presided over, in which SNP ministers cut the grades of the poorest kids in Scotland—led directly to Professor Ken Muir being commissioned to report on the reform of the SQA and Education Scotland. We were happy to support those positive measures to reform education in Scotland. There were warm words from the education secretary at the time, but none of it ever happened. The SQA was never scrapped, and Education Scotland was never reformed.

Shirley-Anne Somerville asserted that she wanted to progress at pace—would you ever believe it?—and that the Government would have operating models for new bodies in place by the end of this year, but that year was 2022. We are at the end of 2023 with nothing done at all. Professor Muir must wonder why he ever bothered at all.

Professor Louise Hayward came forward with more of her recommendations from the work that she did, which were further delayed by this cabinet secretary. Why embark on serious, challenging work when we could have another working group, another consultation, another statement and another discussion? Perhaps the people of Scotland will not notice that their Government is not really doing anything at all.

I used to warn about the glacial pace of education reform. Frankly, it has slowed to an absolute standstill. The hard work of genuine transformative reform could set our education system back on track, but that is filed under “Too difficult” by a Government that is interested only in political stunts, easy wins and giveaways.

I am afraid that we are past the point at which this cabinet secretary can garner any sympathy for being the latest one in the door and for having to clean up the mess of her predecessors. She is getting on with the work of scrapping the regional improvement collaboratives, the establishment of which was the defining education achievement of John Swinney’s calamitous tenure as education secretary. Maybe she might look at Shirley-Anne Somerville’s decision to slash poverty attainment funding for the most impoverished communities in Scotland.

Let us remember that, eight years ago, Nicola Sturgeon said that she wanted to be judged on all that. She called it her “defining mission”. God forbid that anything else that the people of Scotland care about should be subject to the same missionary zeal when whatever matters most to them comes under the focus of this Government.

15:45  

This is a very serious debate and, as a member of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, I am genuinely pleased to be taking part in it.

It is important to acknowledge that there is much to be positive about in relation to Scottish education. We have the lowest pupil teacher ratio, the highest spend per pupil and the best-paid teachers in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, our higher education and further education are more affordable for people, and this year’s exam results have shown continued progress in closing the poverty-related attainment gap.

However, we must acknowledge that there are big challenges and that we must work to continually improve. As we move forward, we will better serve our constituents if we are constructive, work together and put our young people first.

As some colleagues know, I worked in a school office during the 2009-10 academic year. I often think about those times to help me, in this role, to put myself in the shoes of staff and pupils. I think of the context that we have been in since that time, in which curriculum for excellence has been implemented. I think of the consequences of the financial crash; the years of Conservative-Lib Dem austerity; the welfare reform that took place during that period; the negativity of Brexit and the disruption that that caused; and, of course, the pandemic.

During that period, society has been under severe challenge, and we have seen initiatives from the Scottish Government not only to intervene directly to improve our education system and help our young people but to improve equality and social justice, whether that be the Scottish child payment lifting around 90,000 children out of poverty or the pupil equity funding that I know makes a really significant and important difference in my constituency.

I say to Opposition members that, although they should, of course, hold the Scottish Government to account, they would better serve their constituents if they also put pressure on their colleagues at Westminster, which holds the power when it comes to so much of the social security system.

All those challenges were, of course, exacerbated by the pandemic. It is right that we need to move beyond the pandemic and that we must not use it as an excuse, but the PISA results—although they are important and demonstrate the need for improvement—factually reflect the cohort of young people who experienced unprecedented disruption to their education because of school closures during the pandemic, and reflect the behavioural changes that are affecting schools throughout the UK and beyond, and across the majority of the countries participating in PISA. That is why all three countries in the UK saw reductions in their reading, maths and science scores.

I appreciate the particular challenge for Scotland, and we must take that seriously, but we have not seen a decline in the number of our young people in Scotland going on to further and higher education. We also need to keep in mind that there are positive destinations for the vast majority—around 94 per cent, as far as I can recall—of our young people.

The PISA report outlines that, for Scotland and many other comparable European countries, this is also a crucial time for reform. Colleagues have been right to raise that. To achieve the changes that we want to see, we must move on from political knockabout and the language of league tables and into a serious and collective sense of determination to reform our system, to recognise the wide array of skills and achievements of our young people, and to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

Reforms that I would like to see and that we have considered at committee include moving to a position in which we are not teaching to the tests in the same way but are still achieving consistency. That is really difficult. How do we improve our primary education system? Willie Rennie emphasised that. How do we improve the situation for those with additional support needs? Pam Duncan-Glancy was right to point out that issue. How do we embrace new technologies? Michelle Thomson emphasised that. How do we enhance our teacher training and continuing professional development?

Professor Kenneth Muir wisely said:

“As a system, we genuinely need to learn lessons from the introduction of curriculum for excellence. It is questionable how successful we were in doing that. Professional learning and the engagement of all staff in the philosophy of any reform or change is critical.”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 20 September 2023, c 44.]

It is about learning lessons from where we did not get it quite right in introducing curriculum for excellence. It is about sharing the philosophy, developing the understanding and, critically, ensuring that teacher education programmes in Scotland and the continuing professional development that teachers require are provided up front as part of the reform process.

That also requires reform in how we discuss the issue in Parliament. In committee, Professor Walter Humes said:

“I want a much more hard-headed kind of political discourse in which things are described as they are and ideas are engaged with at a proper intellectual level. It is not all about promotion, advertising and getting the headline in tomorrow’s press.”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 8 November 2023, c 28.]

That applies to all political parties in the chamber.

Education is important. It should be about real issues, real aspirations and realistic aspirations that are not overhyped or boasted about. Let us rise to that challenge in our political discourse and in how we reform our education system by listening to experts and working together.

15:52  

Deputy Presiding Officer,

“The only true advantage we can have is to learn faster than our competitors.”

That is a quote from a good friend of mine, Frank Dick, who was the director of coaching at British Athletics and is now one of the most revered sports and business coaches in the world. It means that, in our increasingly competitive world, it is not enough to improve if those who we are in competition with improve faster. The net result will be that we still fall further behind.

That is what the PISA results starkly highlight. Yesterday I listened to the cabinet secretary’s statement to Parliament, in which Covid reared its ugly head again—that catch-all for everything bad that is happening across Scottish Government portfolios. The inconvenient truth for the cabinet secretary and for the Scottish Government is that Covid was a pandemic that affected the whole world, and the Scottish Government managed to oversee a much faster drop in PISA figures than anywhere else in the United Kingdom.

Despite the cabinet secretary’s claim that Scotland has a better teacher pupil ratio than the rest of the United Kingdom, outcomes are not this Government’s strongest suit. In fact, it should be noted that the sharpest relative drop in PISA rankings in Scotland happened between 2012 and 2015—try linking that to Covid.

Education is the cornerstone of every portfolio, and solutions to just about every challenge that a country faces are rooted in a flourishing education system that gives pupils every opportunity to develop their talents and be all that they can be. Get education wrong and every portfolio suffers. Unfortunately, we have a Scottish Government that is only interested in headlines irrespective of outcomes. Look at health, in which education plays such a pivotal role. The Scottish Government will tell us that it—

I am grateful to Brian Whittle for giving way, and I apologise for interrupting him in mid-sentence. He talks about education being the cornerstone of every portfolio, which I absolutely agree with. However, education is not the cause of failings in every portfolio, which seems to be a point made by some people.

The member is absolutely correct, but education is the solution—that is the point here.

In health, the Scottish Government tells us that there have been record levels of investment in our health service, with more nurses and doctors than anywhere else in the United Kingdom, yet the outcomes tell us that we are the unhealthiest nation in Europe. In the economy, which continues to underperform, our poor health record is the biggest drag. We have the highest levels of economically inactive people and of disability and unemployment.

Education is so much more than maths, English, physics and chemistry; it is about developing our youth to be confident and resilient and to be aspirational risk takers and innovators, for which Scotland has such a world reputation. Where the current cabinet secretary and her predecessors seem to have a complete blind spot is on the solution that our schools desperately need. It is not more academic classes; it is a complete change in the learning environment. We need to tackle poor physical and mental health and poor behaviour, attainment and nutrition. We need to unshackle our teachers to allow them to do the job that they love and are trained to do.

By directly looking at those solutions, we could address the current performance slide. It is about creating an inclusive and active environment to feed the thirst for knowledge that youth should have, embedding the huge opportunities that the green economy brings and enthusing our pupils to think that Scotland is a place to stay where the brightest of futures is there for them to grasp.

The decline in the PISA results reflects a decline in physical activity, music, art and drama and much of the extracurricular activity that school pupils once enjoyed. Those activities draw in active minds and give an outlet for enthusiasm. They deliver aspiration, self-discipline and an appreciation of application. They help to create an environment where learning is varied and exciting.

The Scottish Government’s response to the PISA results has been to try to persuade us that Scotland has maintained its international standing when, quite clearly, the Government is managing its sharp decline. Curriculum for excellence was voted in by parties from across the Parliament, but it is in the implementation that the Scottish Government once again fails. We should all get behind innovation but, in doing so, if it is not gaining the results that we plan for, we have to be prepared to listen and adapt. Not getting everything right the first time is not a crime, but not getting it right and continuing to plough the same furrow with our head in the sand is criminal. The Scottish Government is ignoring all the warnings from across agencies, teachers and the Parliament, with its usual massaging of figures and nothing-to-see-here attitude. That typifies a Government that places little stock in outcomes and more in headlines.

Education should bring the Parliament together. Failing to get education right has a profound impact across society, and Scottish society is having to live with the reality of an SNP failure to grasp the enormity of the problem that it has created. Nicola Sturgeon said, “Judge me on education.” It is just a pity that Scotland has to wait more than two years to get rid of the current Government and start the process of rebuilding our once-envied education system.

15:58  

I am pleased to speak in the debate. Education is a hugely important subject, so it is good that the Conservatives have brought the debate to the Parliament. One of my colleagues, who shall remain nameless but who sits on the front bench, was mocking me yesterday as I had mentioned something of what school was like in the 1960s and 1970s, when I was there. Perhaps, however, it is worth remembering some of the changes since then.

Class numbers were well over 30, which was not unusual. I and many others lived in fear of our teachers. We spent hours and hours on spelling correctly. Memorising times tables was an absolute key, and we got belted if we could not answer questions from the homework that we were meant to have done. I think that most of us would agree that there have been improvements in all those factors since then. When I go into schools in my constituency nowadays, there seems to be a much healthier relationship between pupils and staff, and I think that our schools are turning out much more rounded individuals than they did in the past.

Mr Mason was a pupil at Hutchesons’ grammar school, as were Mr Sarwar and Mr Yousaf. Does he think that they are more rounded individuals as a consequence of their more modern education at that school than he is as a result of his time there, when he was bullied and blootered, as he has just outlined?

Well, I do not think that my school days were the happiest days of my life, if that answers Jackson Carlaw’s question.

I accept that levels of spelling and grammar have deteriorated. When I take on a younger member of staff, their spelling and grammar can sometimes be pretty grim, but, then again, that is the case in the newspapers that I read and on the BBC.

Last Christmas, I was given a book called “Bad Data” by Georgina Sturge from the House of Commons library. It is an excellent read. One of the messages is that we should not believe all that politicians tell us when they quote data or make comparisons with data, either between jurisdictions or over time. Therefore, when we look at the PISA figures or any other analysis, we always need to ask ourselves whether we are comparing like with like, whether we are sure that we are using an objective comparison and whether the figures are, to some extent, skewed by other factors.

Does John Mason recognise that, over many years, many reports have identified a litany of failures that are pointed out in such statistics, that we need to consider the matter in that context and that we need genuine reform, as has been recommended?

We need to take all the factors into account, but we have to compare like with like. Comparing the Scottish curriculum, or the lack of it, with the very tight English curriculum is not a fair comparison.

Last week, there was a good article on the PISA results by James McEnaney in The Herald. He starts off by saying:

“a lot of the response”

to the PISA results

“has been characterised by panic, puffed-up rhetoric and a somewhat tenuous relationship with the concept of accuracy.”

That is fair enough. He goes on to point out that Scotland’s declining PISA performance

“was a feature prior to the first election of the SNP.”

He notes that, at an international level, there has been

“widespread decline in the performance of 15-year-olds.”

Specifically, he points to Germany, which improved dramatically between 2000 and 2012—up 24 points in reading and maths, and up 37 points in science—but whose performance is now four points lower than it was in 2000. He argues that the data itself is not a problem but that the application of it can be.

The Conservative motion is certainly wide ranging and covers a lot of ground. It says that “solutions should be explored”, without being very specific about what those solutions should be, although it proposes

“re-entering all statistical comparisons and benchmarks”.

However, as has been said by others, measuring a problem does not solve it. Weighing a pig or comparing it with other pigs does not fatten it. Some of the language in the Conservative motion is a bit over the top. It

“demands that the Scottish Government use its powers”,

says that

“the implementation of Curriculum for Excellence has failed”

and

“calls for a fundamental rethink”.

That is all a bit black and white. Yes, I accept that there is room for improvement, but let us not throw out the baby with the bath water.

Class sizes and support staff numbers are, of course, important factors, but let us also remember that we are in tight financial times and that, in next week’s budget, we have to choose priorities among all that we would like to do. Is the priority the NHS, the hospitality sector or education? If it is education, is the priority schools or colleges? Are we going to support all those sectors? If that is the case, it will be to a limited extent.

One thing is certain: we cannot do all that we want to do within our budget. Especially with Westminster cutting national insurance contributions and giving companies corporation tax breaks, there is less money in the UK and in Scotland for public services.

We should remember that the percentage of young people going to positive destinations is really high, at 94.3 per cent. That seems to me to be a key measure. Of course, we want those destinations to improve over time—a higher level of training, a better job and so on—but, when we have debated the matter previously, I think that we have agreed that university is not the right destination for everyone. There is a right path for each individual young person.

Parental involvement is also key, and I know that some schools have been using PEF money to strengthen such relationships. I remember that a headteacher told me that it was like having two schools under the one roof—one set of pupils had parental encouragement and support, whereas another set of pupils did not. It is clear that some families from ethnic minority backgrounds—both parents and children—have a huge commitment to education and that those children are doing very well, even in poorer areas. I do not believe that schools, even with the best will in the world, can make up for all the issues that there might be in the home.

We need a bit of balance in all this. Yes, the PISA results are not great and we need to work on improving them, but let us not exaggerate the problems that our schools face. We all want Scotland to be one of the best places in the world for all types of education. Our universities are clearly world class, so let us work together to ensure that our schools are, too.

16:04  

Much of what I have to say today really does depress me, because it is three years since I first sat on the front bench, holding the education brief. It really depresses me because what we have heard discussed about the PISA rankings this week made for dire reading for those who really care about Scottish education—not those who dismissed the findings as simply not as bad as they could be or, even worse, those who questioned the league tables themselves. I say to Mr Macpherson that league tables matter—they really do—and, whichever way you spin it, the rankings made for grim reading.

Will the member take an intervention?

Let me finish.

Every commentator worth their weight in academic salt has agreed with that. They made for utterly grim reading. The only rose-tinted glasses that I see in the whole debate are worn by those sitting in the middle benches of the chamber, as is evident from the speeches, the amendment and the reaction to the PISA results—a reaction that I have to say was as quick as it was desperate yesterday. Minister Gilruth took to the airwaves as quickly as she could to launch her counter-PISA defensive, which was seen to ward off all critique and criticism. In response, the academics said that the annual report is “next to useless”—a phrase that will surely haunt Ms Gilruth.

If the Government is keen to talk about results and reports, let us do that. Let us talk about the metrics that really matter. PISA matters because it compares Scotland not just to the rest of the UK but to the rest of the world. Here is what it tells us: the OECD average score for maths is 472, the UK-wide score is 489 and Scotland sits at 471, which is lower than the score in Poland, Switzerland and Ireland. PISA tells us that the OECD science average is 485 and that Scotland is at 483, way below the UK average of 500 and depressingly below comparator nations such as Denmark and Sweden. That is not a one-off trend; it is a long-term trend. That is what concerns me most.

It also matters because SNP members like to spend much of their time in the chamber lamenting and talking about a global, connected Scotland competing in Europe and on the international stage, and yet they are perfectly comfortable with the fact that we trail behind so many of those countries on the very skills that make us competitive in the first place.

The story with regard to reading is not much better, as we have heard. I wonder what the great figures of the Scottish enlightenment would make of today’s dismal rhetoric from SNP ministers. Every SNP manifesto since 2007 has promised to close the attainment gap—not narrow it; close it. Therefore, the statistics that really matter are the academic results themselves—the Scottish Qualifications Authority results. They matter because they compare pass rates across our communities.

In 2023, one in four pupils from the most deprived areas achieved an A grade in their national 5 exams. That compares to one in two pupils in neighbouring areas. Just think about that for a second—13 per cent of pupils in our most deprived communities got a no-grade award at national 5. That compares to 5.7 per cent among those in our least deprived communities. That is identical to the statistics that we read in 2019. We have made no progress on that whatsoever.

Five years ago, the gap between our least and most deprived pupils achieving a pass rate in their national 5s was 17 per cent. That was the established attainment gap. By this year, that gap had shrunk, to give credit to the Government, but it has shrunk to 15.6 per cent. If the Government thinks that a 1.4 per cent reduction in the attainment gap over five years is something to celebrate, it is clearly deluded. At the current rate, it will take 56 years to close the attainment gap. That is not a record to be proud of.

What are the reasons for all of that? The answer lies in a litany of broken pledges and ignored warnings and an educational ecosystem that has gaping fault lines. We all know that already. The class size promise has been broken. The teacher number promise has been broken. The flagship education bill has been ditched. The Scottish Qualifications Authority reform pledge has been ditched. The curriculum for excellence reform pledge has been broken. We have had report after review after task force—the Donaldson report and the Cameron, Bloomer and McCormac reviews. All were good reports and all contained answers. They are all sitting on the shelves of numerous education secretaries, the majority of whom were too embarrassed to show face today for the debate.

The improvements that we see in our schools today are happening not because of the actions of this Government but in spite of them. No amount of ministerial whataboutery can mask one simple truth: too many parents and teachers have simply lost trust in the system. The fault for that lies squarely at the feet of this Government—this Government and no one else.

16:09  

As we have heard, the recent PISA report comes on the back of the global Covid-19 pandemic [Interruption.] I am no finished yet, so haud oan. It saw unprecedented disruption across society, including to the provision of education. For context to today’s debate, I hope that we would all agree that it has undoubtedly impacted on Scotland’s PISA results. That is not to say that we do not agree with or recognise the challenges that we face, as set out in the Conservative motion; however, for context, I would have hoped for a recognition of the unique set of circumstances that we have all faced.

Will the member take an intervention?

Maybe later on.

The OECD even described this edition of PISA as the Covid edition, saying that there had been an “unprecedented” drop in attainment globally, with mean performance in OECD countries down 11 points in reading and almost 16 in maths, which is equivalent to three quarters of a year’s worth of learning.

Will Bill Kidd at least accept that Scottish performance in PISA during the Covid years dropped remarkably quicker than that of the rest of the United Kingdom, under the same circumstances? That has to be levelled at the Scottish Government.

Let us put it this way. As I said, the OECD described it as the Covid edition and said there had been an “unprecedented” drop in attainment globally. There are variations on that, but it is no as if everybody has been great and Scotland has been terrible.

For further context, this weekend’s report by the centre-right think tank the Centre for Social Justice may be of interest to all colleagues. In its report, the CSJ states that the Covid lockdowns had a “catastrophic effect” on the UK’s social fabric, especially for the least well-off, with the gap between the so-called haves and have-nots blown wide open. Its research shows that, during lockdown, calls to a domestic abuse helpline rose by 700 per cent; mental ill health in young people went from one in nine to one in six, and up by nearly a quarter among the oldest children; severe absence from school jumped by 134 per cent; and 1.2 million more people went on working-age benefits, with 86 per cent more people seeking help for addictions. Alarmingly, it also argues that, by 2030, if things remain on that route, more than one in four five to 15-year-olds, which may be as many as 2.3 million children, could have a mental disorder.

Andy Cook, the chief executive of the Centre for Social Justice, said:

“Lockdown policy poured petrol on the fire that had already been there in the most disadvantaged people’s lives, and so far, no one has offered a plan to match the scale of the issues. What this report shows is that we need far more than discussions on finance redistribution, but a strategy to go after the root causes of poverty, education, work, debt, addiction and family.”

I highlight that report to stress the connection between inequality, poverty and the challenges that those factors create for our young people, educationally and in general life. It is, though, also important to acknowledge and recognise, as other members have done, achievements where they have been made. Scotland has record numbers of young people going to positive destinations, with 94.3 per cent of 16 to 19-year-olds in Scotland in employment, education or training.

On the social inequality piece, does Bill Kidd, like me, bemoan the fact that the Scottish Government has failed appallingly on free school lunches implementation?

I do not like to have to say it, but if it wisnae for the fact that Westminster has cut our money so much, we would have been able to deliver everything. Besides that, it was this Government that, in fact, made that commitment.

Last year’s achievement of curriculum for excellence levels results showed the biggest single-year reduction in the attainment gap in primary schools in numeracy and literacy. This summer, Scotland had the highest-ever number of national 5 passes in an exam year since the qualification was introduced, in 2014, and higher and advanced higher pass rates were above those seen pre-pandemic, in 2019.

That data and those facts also help to inform us about the state of Scottish education and the Government’s record. In that respect, it is important to look at the holistic picture rather than an isolated study, which the motion is in danger of appearing to do. I do not say that that is done deliberately or that it paints a misleading picture, as I am sure that colleagues’ concerns are well intentioned.

I will highlight one final point that might also have been unintentionally overlooked. Much has been made publicly of the comparison in the results between Scotland and England. However, it is worth noting—or even essential to note—that England did not meet the PISA standards of reporting in a sample that was found to be biased because more higher-achieving pupils participated than lower-achieving pupils. The OECD estimated that that likely resulted in an upward bias in the reported results of approximately seven or eight points. That is an important difference.

In the spirit of co-operation and in recognition of the challenges that we must face and overcome, we must all aim to work tirelessly with our colleagues from all parties to advance a common strategy for tackling the issues that have been highlighted. I hope that, in her closing speech, the cabinet secretary will take the opportunity to acknowledge the words of the chief executive of the Centre for Social Justice, that any strategy must

“go after the root causes of poverty—education, work, debt, addiction and family”—

if we are to be successful, and that she will signal the Government’s willingness to work with the Education, Children and Young People Committee to achieve that aim.

16:16  

In his speech at the opening of the Parliament in 1999, Donald Dewar described the story of Scotland with vivid imagery that evoked our past. In particular, he described the richness of learning and the value of drawing out ideas. He spoke of

“The discourse of the enlightenment, when Edinburgh and Glasgow were a light held to the intellectual life of Europe”.

He spoke of a nation of poets and philosophers, of economics and science, and of reason and wit. Those are the foundations of much of our national life and our national institutions—institutions that, to this day, remain integral and command pride.

In that speech, quoting Burns, Donald Dewar also spoke about the idea

“that sense and worth ultimately prevail.”

That was understood by Tom Johnston, who set out the road to building in Scotland a more equitable education system, free of academic selection, in which everyone had the chance to learn and get on.

That was understood by Harold Wilson’s Government, which set about, with reforming zeal, putting in place the comprehensive education system and creating new universities, thereby broadening horizons for more and more people. It was understood by Donald Dewar, who recognised that the education system in Scotland is an institution that is of fundamental importance to all our lives.

We have a comprehensive school system that is powered by exceptional teachers who want the best for young people, regardless of their background. Colleges are at the heart of learning at every stage of life, and provide people with opportunities to reskill and retrain.

Our world-leading universities are curing diseases, developing technologies that previously did not exist, and continuing to lead the discourse on international affairs. They are powered by people from comprehensive schools across Scotland.

Will the member give way?

I would like to make some progress, if the member will allow me.

Governments are custodians of that institution. They are tasked, as part of the social contract, with protecting it and enhancing it—not so that it remains unchanging or unmovable, but in order to consistently build on its foundations. The immense power of this Parliament has given us a huge opportunity to do that. As Dewar also said:

“The past is part of us. But today there is a new voice in the land, the voice of a democratic Parliament. A voice to shape Scotland, a voice for the future.”

For 16 years, the SNP Government has had the opportunity to shape Scottish education. Narrowing the attainment gap was, as we have heard, the number 1 priority to ensure that the promise that we make to all young people—that the only limit is their ambition—could be better realised.

Where do we stand today? Promises have been broken and decline has been normalised. In all three subject areas that are covered by PISA, the scores of Scottish 15-year-olds declined between 2018 and 2022, with drops of 18 points in mathematics, 11 points in reading and 7 points in science. Over the decade from 2012 to 2022, the Scottish decline was equivalent to about 16 months of schooling in mathematics, eight months in reading and 18 months in science. In 2022, attainment in highers fell by 13 per cent among the most deprived quintile. That compares with a 5.9 per cent fall for the least deprived quintile. The SNP has knowingly reverted to a system that fails the poorest pupils, and the poorest 20 per cent have been affected twice as much as the richest 20 per cent.

Teachers are stretched to breaking point, with a lack of support and a lack of resource. Subject choice is narrowing in secondary schools, and universities are cutting courses. It is clear that this Government has no idea how to respond other than by spinning its way through the situation and ignoring the need for comprehensive change. What a waste.

No institution in Scotland is stronger after 16 years of SNP Government, and that makes me angry. It makes me angry for teachers and support staff who are being so badly let down and angry for parents who are worried about the future for their children—in particular, the parents of children with additional support needs. It makes me angry most of all for our young people, who are missing out on opportunities that were afforded to so many of us in the chamber.

More warm words from the cabinet secretary will not cut it. The time for warm words is over. It is clear that the Government cannot fix the problem that it has created, so it is beyond time for change, and it is beyond time for us to act on the countless recommendations that have been made in previous years.

Paul O’Kane began by citing some examples of how his party improved education in Scotland. I am more than happy to acknowledge the verity of those examples, but can he explain how he intends to continue in that tradition, with his party’s having committed, for the first two years of an incoming Labour Government, to the Conservatives’ spending plans? How does that fit with that tradition?

When Labour Governments are in power across the United Kingdom, education substantially improves through investment. That is clear. Children are lifted out of poverty by the investment that is made. We will grow the economy, and in growing the economy we will invest in public services.

Let us look at the record of the Labour Government here in Scotland. I outlined some of it in my opening remarks. Schools improved, things got better, teachers told us how they felt valued, and parents, crucially, had trust in their local schools. There has been a 10 per cent drop in confidence in local schools since 2011, according to the Scottish household attitudes survey. What does that say?

Scottish Labour believes in an education system that enables our country to reach its potential, that equips our young people with the skills that they will rely on throughout their life, and that responds to the needs of employers in building a high-wage and high-skilled economy—a Scotland where “sense and worth ... prevail.”

16:22  

I, too, welcome this debate on our children’s and young people’s education, and the focus on how we can invest in better outcomes for our young people and their future.

I agree that the recent PISA results are a matter of concern, and I welcome yesterday’s statement from the cabinet secretary and her commitment to real-terms improvements in Scotland’s education system for our young people, their parents, and the future of this country.

Nevertheless, it is imperative that we avoid examining the PISA results in isolation and that we consider the inescapable influence that austerity and the pandemic, which have been intensified by the current cost of living crisis that has been driven by the Tories, have had on our youths’ educational experiences.

That said, as a mother of three teenagers I have personally witnessed the extraordinary resilience that is displayed by our young people in navigating the challenges along their educational journey. In the face of adversity, their determination really stands out. Yesterday’s publication of “Achievement of Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) Levels 2022/23” certainly showcases that remarkable display of resilience.

The proportions of pupils achieving expected levels of literacy and numeracy have reached record highs. I welcome the notable rise in the proportion of primary pupils achieving expected levels in literacy and numeracy and, in particular, how that positive trend extends across children from the most deprived areas and from the least deprived areas. I trust that everyone in the chamber today will agree that those achievements by our young people deserve not only acknowledgment but celebration.

In the report “Upper-secondary education student assessment in Scotland: A comparative perspective” by Professor Stobart, curriculum for excellence is described as

“a pioneering example of 21st-century curriculum reform”.

That is in stark contrast to the Tories’ unfounded perspective that curriculum for excellence has failed.

Furthermore, the report “Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence: Into the Future” stated:

“Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence continues to be a bold and widely supported initiative, and its design offers the flexibility needed to improve student learning further”.

Again, that contradicts the notion that curriculum for excellence has failed.

In response to the recommendations for review and improvement that the OCED made in its report, the Scottish Government committed to undertaking an ambitious process of education reform that included the “Let’s talk education” initiative, which was the biggest public engagement exercise on education to have been undertaken nationally in Scotland. That exercise has ensured that learners’ needs and experiences have continued to be at the forefront of reform and of the process of shaping a future Scottish education system that truly empowers and serves our young people.

Scotland has made commendable strides in narrowing the attainment gap, and the continuous efforts in education reform aim to enhance that positive trajectory.

However, we must acknowledge the harsh reality that an increasing number of families are grappling with unimaginable financial hardships. Consequently, due to stress that is induced by poverty, a growing proportion of children and young individuals are forced to spend their educational days grappling with anxieties, fatigue and hunger, instead of enjoying the opportunities that exist for learning and play. How can we expect our youth to fully engage in education under those circumstances?

Nevertheless, within its limited powers, the Scottish Government is advancing efforts to prevent poverty from hindering the education of our children and young people. Notably, the progress encompasses initiatives including the transformative Scottish child payment, which has supported 43,885 children across Lanarkshire. That represents an investment of £62.5 million.

In addition, there is generous provision for cultivating positive family relationships and enhancing emotional health and wellbeing, and, consequently, promoting active participation in the school day. I will quote Barnardo’s Scotland, which said:

“If we uplift these children and families out of poverty, get them the right access to support and mental health then surely we can help children be ready in the class to learn”.

I completely agree.

I will make a few final points. Michael Marra and others believe that the PISA results are worth a moan, but using PISA as a stick to beat education with and, basically, rubbishing the Scottish education system in its entirety is unfair and unhelpful. It undermines the teachers and staff who are working so hard to support wellbeing, and it undermines the achievements of our children and young people, which go way beyond academic scores and exam results. Let us be mindful of how political point scoring can impact on our schools, and let us prioritise our young people’s needs.

16:27  

This is my 19th debate on school standards. I have been through the eras of Fiona Hyslop, Mike Russell, Angela Constance, John Swinney, Shirley-Anne Somerville and now Jenny Gilruth—who, I see, has gone out of the class, just like the rest of them.

Jenny Gilruth was, of course, a teacher, and that is a big plus mark as far as I am concerned. She served on the Education and Skills Committee for a short time in 2016 and then again from 2018 to 2020, when the question of school standards was never far from the agenda. That was largely because Nicola Sturgeon had told education leaders unequivocally that education was her number 1 priority and that there would be a new education bill. John Swinney followed that up by telling us that

“the status quo was not an option”.

No one disagreed.

Looking back at the Education and Skills Committee’s deliberations, there was plenty of evidence as to why that was the case. Jamie Greene reminded us that we should consider whether we would still be debating school standards if the Scottish Government had listened to and acted on the collective findings of the Donaldson, McCormac, Cameron and Bloomer reviews of Scottish school education, all of which were commissioned by the Scottish Government and carried out by experts in their respective fields between 2011 and 2016. The collective message from those reviews was that, although Scottish education had much on which to pride itself, the school system had to be shaken out of its complacency. How true that was.

Of course, when those reports appeared, between 2011 and 2016, there were other warning signs. At the same time, the OECD, the Scottish survey of attainment, PISA, Reform Scotland and the Scottish Government’s own statistics all provided compelling evidence that Scotland was flatlining and, worse still, that the attainment gap between rich and poor was widening, thereby disadvantaging a whole cohort of young people.

That has always been fundamentally at odds with the basic principles of the good Scottish education that was once renowned across the world. We should remind ourselves why Scotland’s education was previously so good. It was because the curriculum was well founded on systematic knowledge, including for weaker pupils. Primary school education placed considerable importance on every child being able to read, write and count properly and also on working hard and respecting the teacher. Teachers were highly valued by parents and well grounded in their own subject disciplines. We took great pride in the pursuit of excellence. That is exactly how it should be today.

There is absolutely nothing at all that is inconsistent between that and the original principles of curriculum for excellence. That is why it won cross-party support, and it is why it was warmly welcomed by many international observers. The problem was, and remains, the implementation. With hindsight—I think that Peter Peacock would agree—the title curriculum for excellence was a misnomer. It was designed not to be a new curriculum, but to be a new methodology of teaching, and it is about that that so many questions have arisen. Several barriers have been placed in the way of the pursuit of excellence—barriers that have meant that teachers’ attention has, all too often, been taken away from their central role of teaching. As a result, frustration has set in, and that has affected pupils’ self-discipline in far too many cases. That needs to change, and I admire Jenny Gilruth for her willingness to tackle that indiscipline, but that needs to be accompanied by a system that inspires and delivers consistently high standards. That is not the case now.

First, we need to free up our teachers, including those who do so much for our pupils with additional support needs, many of whom have genuine learning issues, who get labelled as being badly behaved when they are not and who have to exist in classes where there is no one-to-one attention.

Secondly, the Scottish Government needs to properly reform the education agencies. It should not just rebadge them and move the deckchairs around a bit; it should properly reform them to enhance the support that is available to teachers, because that has not happened.

Thirdly, and crucially—I come to the point that was raised by my colleague Brian Whittle—we must ask ourselves what education is for, because we need to consider the intrinsic value of education. We need to stand back and ask ourselves, from a holistic perspective, what we are asking our schools to do. That has to include quality provision of extracurricular activity, which is perhaps better named co-curricular activity. As well as “successful learners”, curriculum for excellence is supposed to be about nurturing “confident individuals” and “responsible citizens”. We should never forget that the co-curriculum is the most enriching part of many pupils’ school career; but, because it cannot be easily measured, the education agencies have never wanted to know about it. That is to the great detriment of Scottish education.

I will finish on one important point. I fundamentally believe that Scottish education has the ability to be the best in the world again, but only if we recognise what the problem is and accept that we have to do an awful lot more to achieve that ambition.

16:33  

Anybody who is related to a teacher, as I am, or who has kids in school, as I do, knows that the impact on them of the past few years has been monumental. They deserve our great thanks, and hopefully that is a point of consensus on which we can all settle.

However, perhaps the most effective show of gratitude is to get our next steps on education right, and I fear that overly politicised debates miss the wood for the trees, although there have been some excellent contributions this afternoon. I have confidence in the cabinet secretary—as a former teacher with an extensive network of former colleagues, I am sure—to get it right.

There is no public service as critical as education. It is the most important duty on any society to give its young people good-quality education that equips them with the skills, knowledge and ability to thrive and prosper, but its success must be measured in outcomes and not through obsessive debates about inputs.

This afternoon, I want to talk about two of the most critical outcomes, as I see it. I am sure that I could talk about many more, but I will restrict my remarks to two. The first outcome concerns how, in our globalised world, our young people must thrive and prosper relative to their peers in other countries. There are plenty of questions about how helpful PISA results are, and we can surely all agree that they do not tell us the full story, but they do tell us something, and that something needs to be acknowledged. I want Scotland to flourish and prosper, to outperform other nations, to have lower levels of poverty and a more thriving economy and to lead the way on true equality. All of that relies fully and completely on a good education system.

We all speak to parents and teachers, many of whom can point to great successes in our education system. Whenever I visit a school, I am consistently impressed by the young people’s knowledge, the breadth of education and the focus on values, which I saw today when speaking to people from Dingwall academy in the Parliament. However, we have all heard qualitative evidence from young people, parents and teachers on ways in which Scotland’s education system needs reform. The First Minister noted that last week, and the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills has rightly acknowledged that today. Literacy and numeracy skills and knowledge really matter. One parent told me with some concern that her daughter had just left sixth year never having studied algebra and that she had never owned a scientific calculator. I was never a fan of algebra, so I am probably slightly jealous, but it is a pretty critical element of a rounded education system.

Liz Smith talked about aims, and I was going to discuss clarifying the aim of our education system. If we boil it down, the question of aims is a very contested conversation. Education Scotland says that it aims

“to equip young people with knowledge, confidence and skills”.

What does it then say? That statement continues:

“giving them a competitive edge in a global job market.”

All the comparisons with a previous golden age that we have heard this afternoon are, in my view, nonsense. I imagine that most of us were educated during that so-called golden age, and that might be all the evidence that we need that it was not golden. What really matters is the modern-day international comparison.

Kate Forbes makes some interesting comments. Does she agree, however, that, in the Scottish education system of the generation that she is talking about, there was an ability not only to impart knowledge but to inculcate the rounded individual, which made Scotland what it was? Does she not think that that is important in the current system?

Liz Smith made some excellent points in her speech. In considering how we can reform the current system, we should look back to echo the previous system while accepting that it was not perfect.

As an aside, I was educated 20 years ago or so, not just within the Scottish state system but across different countries’ systems, and I can certainly point to the fact that the system was not perfect 20 years ago.

On the second outcome that I want to discuss, the aim must be true for all children, irrespective of whether they grow up in the most deprived or least deprived communities in Scotland. The attainment gap is measured by educational outcomes, but we need to be clear that it is non-educational issues that are denying our people equal opportunities: poverty, trauma, hunger, family instability and homelessness. There is no fix to the attainment gap without comprehensive support for families and households and wise economic interventions. That burden cannot fall to teachers alone—it just cannot. To expect teachers to shoulder responsibility for all of that is completely unfair. They already have the essential role of educating, teaching and equipping our young people, pushing them, giving them a sense of ambition and aspiration and ensuring that they believe in themselves and can achieve whatever they wish. That is a full-time job in itself.

One of the things that exercises me the most is when politicians—those in the Parliament and others outside—suggest that education or schools should fix all of society’s woes. They cannot do that single-handedly. So, my second constructive point is this: I would like there to be much better integration of services to support our young people and families more generally, so as to allow our teachers to be free to teach and to free our young people to learn.

The world has changed and so must education. Hanging all our analysis solely on PISA results is short-sighted but it does confirm that the cabinet secretary and others are right to talk about reform. The success or otherwise of the debate must be measured in outcomes, not inputs. The success of our education system will determine the opportunities for our young people on an international basis. Its importance cannot be underestimated.

16:40  

As always, it is a pleasure to participate in a debate in the chamber, particularly one on education. What a crucial time we find ourselves in.

I will start, and I make no bones about it, by quoting a journalist. On 24 November, Barry Black wrote in The Scotsman:

“Teacher and scientist Carl Sagan once said it is ‘better the hard truth than the comforting fantasy’. And there can’t be any group of people in more need of hard truths than policymakers in Scottish education. There is a comforting fantasy, continually rehearsed by those at the top, that progress is being made on educational equality in Scotland, that the gap in results between the richest and poorest pupils is closing. The hard truth is simply that it is not.”

He goes on to criticise not only the Scottish Government but all politicians who hide behind that fantasy. A significant number of contributions to the debate have pointed to the same thing. As I mentioned to the cabinet secretary, the only element of the PISA study that the Scottish Government could find to quote in the amendment that it lodged was that

“PISA found that pupils in Scotland were less likely to witness issues with a number of aspects of behaviour in school than in other parts of the UK”.

Yet there has been a call for us to come together across the chamber and recognise the challenges as well as the benefits and good points. The difficulty is that that responsibility rests most forcibly with those in the Scottish Government, because they are the people who our teachers, directors of education, local authorities and third sector and charities look up to. They are the people who have responsibility to deliver for our young people.

There have been many powerful and interesting contributions in the debate. The cabinet secretary spoke about the changes that the Government is bringing with the review on maths. It is interesting that maths and literacy have been highlighted when, as we came out of Covid, health and wellbeing were trumpeted as the most important area—and rightly so. However, we have heard about the challenging mental health problems that face our young people as well as those around them. ASN pupils were omitted from yesterday’s discussion on literacy and numeracy, but so were health and wellbeing. However, we have heard about the importance of co-curricular activities, such as physical education, sports clubs, associations and other things that our young people participate in outside of school and through school that contribute to their quality of life, leading them to be happy and have fun. It is important for some of our young people to have areas in which they can excel, when they cannot do that in other areas.

We can look at maths, but there are still questions about what we are going to look at. Are we going to look at what is being taught, how maths is being taught or the sequences through which maths is acquired? We have heard that, in the past, the curriculum in Scotland followed logical steps. Those are the details that we need and that our teachers, young people and parents and the people of Scotland are saying that we need, rather than another review that goes round the houses. The cabinet secretary is aware that substantial work is being done across Scotland on how maths can be taught successfully to children who are challenged by maths in high school as well as earlier in their education. We can identify that, if steps are missed and building blocks do not exist in P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6 and P7, children will be challenged in maths. Why can we not build on that? Why can we not accept it and take it up? It carries pedagogical value.

I will mention Willie Rennie’s comments. The Scottish Government indicated that it appears that, through its stretch aims, we are looking at only a 30 per cent reduction in the attainment gap, which was noted in yesterday’s report. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to say whether that there will be other strategies to narrow the remaining 70 per cent, or whether it is saying that a 30 per cent reduction in the attainment gap will be sufficient.

I want to mention Michelle Thomson’s comments. We can argue about the value of PISA, and any set of data can be challenged. However, Michelle Thomson’s comments about the need for communication support, particularly in the early years, are incredibly valid. We should all be aware of the challenges that our young people are facing as a result of Covid and the isolation of that time, which has meant that their communication abilities and strategies are not at the expected levels. That makes teaching those young people a challenge, particularly as they move up through primary education. That was a very powerful contribution.

Ben Macpherson discussed positive destinations, which were also raised by others. One of the challenges is that the target is measured for only three months. We are beyond the measuring period for the positive destination of children who left in the summer. If they worked in a charity shop, they had a positive destination. If that shop is closed, they do not have one any more. On the acquisition of data, we need to follow that destination much further.

There are a number of points that I wanted to make, but I recognise that time is tight. Brian Whittle’s contribution was very powerful and has been echoed by members. The expectation that somehow our schools can solve all these problems is wrong, but the solution for our young people is education.

I will finish by quoting my colleague Michael Marra and simply ask: how many wake-up calls do we need?

I call Jenny Gilruth to close on behalf of the Scottish Government.

16:46  

Over the weekend, I was reading a piece by the journalist David Leask, who spoke of the perceived golden age in Scottish education that Kate Forbes mentioned and who queried whether that was ever the case. It is worth Parliament reflecting that, for generations of young Scots, school education was far from inclusive. Education was for the academic, and the rest were sent elsewhere and encouraged to leave. School was not for them.

Yesterday morning, I listened to a headteacher in North Lanarkshire on the radio describing the shift in school education throughout the course of her 30-year teaching career. She said:

“When I started teaching it was very much about the academic side - once children come in the doors they become school pupils, once they leave they go home and there was a bit of a detachment.

Now you want the community to be involved - we offer a drop-in on a Wednesday, a parent and toddler on a Friday.

It is about making sure the doors are always open”.

The inclusivity of Scotland’s education system was a key theme that emerged from the recent national discussion on Scotland’s education system—a strength in our offer that is unique to our approach.

As I set out yesterday in my statement to Parliament, a knee-jerk political response to the challenges that we face in Scottish education will not help our young people. We need to work together with our teachers, while recognising the pressure that they are under, to determine and agree how best we can deliver the improvements that we all want to see.

I want to respond to some of the points that have been raised by members throughout what has been, in the main, quite a positive and helpful debate on educational improvement. I certainly welcome the commitment from many members to engage constructively with the Government on a pragmatic route forward.

On the ACEL data, Mr Rennie, who I know is no longer in the chamber—

Cabinet secretary, please resume your seat for a second. I am well aware why Mr Rennie is not in the chamber, unlike, perhaps, the cabinet secretary.

I apologise, Presiding Officer. I am, and I have spoken to Mr Rennie, but I wanted to respond to his point, as we discussed earlier privately.

Mr Rennie mentioned the importance of the PISA data. I again draw Parliament’s attention to the ACEL data, which are, of course, official statistics and are based on the teacher professional judgments. I very much trust our teachers to make those accurate assessments about our children’s progress, and I hope that members will agree with that sentiment.

Mr Rennie also talked about the co-production of support materials for our classroom teachers. I agree with that sentiment. There is opportunity, through educational reform, to look again at how we support the profession at the chalkface. I also agree with Mr Rennie’s assertion about curriculum for excellence and some of the ways in which the curriculum development or change was implemented—that was also raised by Brian Whittle. Mr Rennie might know that I was in the classroom at that time. I reflect on that now, as a cabinet secretary in this Government, and I think that there are ways that we can improve such changes in the future.

I hope that Parliament hears that some of my apprehension about where we have got to on reform is that we do not repeat past mistakes. It is important that, when we drive forward those changes, we do so at a pace that supports the teaching profession.

To Mr Rennie’s point, which I thought was a salient one, I say that teachers are not second-guessing where the changes in the curriculum will happen. As a case in point, I spoke very recently to the Scottish Association of Geography Teachers, which gave me a good explanation of the changes that it could bring forward in its suite of qualifications. That is why we need to trust teachers to drive the reform improvements that we need. That is exactly why I yesterday gave the commitment to Parliament that we will appoint a maths specialist to lead on improvements to the maths curriculum.

The cabinet secretary might not know this but, after the Conservative Government took some very difficult and contentious reforms, England’s maths ranking in PISA went from 27th place in 2009 to 17th in 2014, and it is now 11th, which is a considerable improvement. Will the cabinet secretary engage positively with her counterpart in Westminster to achieve the same thing?

I thank Mr Kerr for his intervention—I am well aware of England’s rankings. He will also be aware of England’s approach to curriculum content and how it delivers education, which, in my experience, is a bit more prescriptive than our approach in Scotland. However, I am more than happy to engage with my Conservative counterpart, Gillian Keegan. I have not yet met her, but I should say that she was not massively keen to engage with me on the recent RAAC—reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—issue that we experienced. My door is always open, as Mr Kerr knows.

I will pick up some further comments that members made in the debate. Michelle Thomson spoke about challenges with PISA and the sampling discrepancies that can arise. She also mentioned the division between rich and poor countries, which I thought was an interesting point to consider historically, and which could change the way we view education. The point that she made on speech and language was well made. I will come back to that point, as it was also made by another member. She also raised the importance of excellence, and the new centre for teaching excellence will, to my mind, play a key role in driving some of the improvement that we need.

I am conscious of the time, so I will move quickly on to catch a few points that other colleagues made. Mr Macpherson made an impressive contribution. He spoke about the record numbers of our young people who now go on to positive destinations, which is welcome progress. He was also right to talk about the danger of teaching to the test, which is the point that I made in response to Mr Kerr there. We want to guard against any potential shift towards that in our approach to pedagogy.

Brian Whittle’s point that getting education wrong means that every portfolio suffers is a live point for me, considering that we are currently engaged in budget negotiations—he is absolutely right. The point that Kate Forbes made about joining up services needs to be better reflected in how we future-proof our budgeting in the Scottish Government, and in recognising that the education budget cannot do all the heavy lifting. We need those partners to come in and plug the gaps where school education cannot necessarily be expected to do so.

John Mason spoke about education in his day. Having been a teacher, I cannot imagine ever being paid to hit a child, but that happened in Scotland’s schools in my lifetime. We have come a long way in the past 40 years, but I recognise the current challenge on behaviour. That is why I set out to Parliament a number of weeks ago the action plan on behaviour issues that we will take forward with our local authority partners.

I am very conscious of time, so I will, unless there is time in hand, move to summing up. Scotland has a strong education system. That does not mean that I am not accepting of the need for improvements—far from it—but I invite the Opposition to reflect on the role that it can play in building a better future for Scotland’s children and young people.

My view is that the chamber is Scotland’s classroom. If we want better behaviour, let us start here. If we want more attentive pupils, let us have more attentive MSPs. If we want to stop the corrosive impact of misogyny in our schools, we should consider who we follow on social media, what we share and how we engage with female politicians, irrespective of party, because what we do here matters. If, as I think we heard yesterday and, to some extent, today, there is consensus for improvement in our education system, I will work with any and every party in the Scottish Parliament to achieve exactly that.

16:54  

I am pleased to close the debate this afternoon.

I would like to highlight some of the contributions that have been made from across the chamber. There are a lot that I would like to highlight; I will do my best to get around everybody.

First and foremost, I will highlight the remarks that were made by the cabinet secretary, Martin Whitfield, Liz Smith, Willie Rennie and Pam Duncan-Glancy regarding the teaching profession. The profession deserves all our respect, and I echo those comments.

The ACEL figures were mentioned by the cabinet secretary, Martin Whitfield, Michelle Thomson and Willie Rennie. Liam Kerr made a comment regarding Professor Paterson’s quote that putting the ACEL figures above PISA is

“either disingenuous or evidence of dismaying statistical ignorance.”

It is important to restate that.

I accept the point that Roz McCall is making. She quoted Lindsay Paterson. I reiterate that we will not be putting any data set above another. It is important that we look at the data set in the round, and I hope that Roz McCall accepts that. The ACEL data is predicated on teacher judgment. We trust Scotland’s teachers every year to mark our exams, to set the national standard, and to set the examination papers, so I hope that the Conservatives trust Scotland’s teachers’ judgment in relation to the ACEL data.

I do accept that. I will make comments later on that will, I hope, address that, but I would like to get on a little bit.

The fact that these are the Covid PISA scores was highlighted by Michelle Thomson, Bill Kidd, the cabinet secretary, Ben Macpherson, Brian Whittle and Michael Marra. It is interesting that there has been an absolute split in the debate on how fundamental Covid was to the PISA scores and any failing results. That should also be highlighted.

We have to move on from Covid excuses. It is incumbent on the Scottish Government to see where Scottish policies are failing and to use its powers to move past Covid. If we are on a trajectory that was highlighted by and halted by Covid, we have to do more to get round it.

On that exact point, Michelle Thomson brought up Andreas Schleicher. Andreas Schleicher was very clear that attainment was declining in Scotland long before Covid. Does Roz McCall not recognise that?

I do recognise that. I will happily jump forward to my notes regarding Michelle Thomson’s comment. If we look at the long-term trends, we find that the trajectory is downwards, and that started long before Covid.

Pam Duncan-Glancy talked about long-standing systemic problems not being addressed for years, and she said that the decline must be reversed, that teachers are under immense pressure, and that class sizes are still too large. I do not think that anyone can argue with that.

I also want to comment on my colleague Sue Webber’s point that mobile phones have “the greatest negative impact”. If the promise of a device for every pupil in Scotland’s schools had come to fruition, it would have given headteachers the opportunity to ensure that online work was monitored through that device. It would also have given them the opportunity to ban mobile phones in the classroom. We should certainly look at pushing that forward.

I accept Ben Macpherson’s comment that it is right for us to scrutinise. It is not only right; it is essential, especially when the education of young Scots is on the line.

Brian Whittle made the comment that education is “the cornerstone” of every policy in this place. That is a perfect phrase, which highlights that it is not good enough to rise up if the rest of the world rises up faster and better.

Liz Smith made an excellent comment about how we need to free up our teachers and remove barriers to let them teach. I agree whole-heartedly that Scottish education has the potential to be the best in the world. That is something that we should all recognise.

In preparing my notes ahead of the debate, I had hoped to be more consensual. For example, the full and frank way in which the cabinet secretary acknowledged yesterday the challenges that were raised in the PISA report was certainly welcome, as was her tone when calling for cross-party work for the good of Scotland’s young people. Scottish Conservatives will always welcome any moves to drive improvement across school education, and I look forward to debating education reform in the new year.

However, I am afraid that it was the former First Minister who asked us—and Scotland—to judge her on her Government’s record on education. The former First Minister also said that she had a “sacred responsibility” to provide equal opportunities to all children. When those statements were made, the Scottish Government was full of ideas about guidelines that it would put in place to empower local authorities. The Government took complete ownership of education for all Scotland’s young people, and it is more than disappointing to see some abdication of that ownership. I hope that that is only temporary.

The SNP’s record, which has been rehearsed this afternoon, speaks for itself. The SNP Government has presided over 16 years of failure in education, with the latest PISA study confirming that Scotland has fallen to record low levels in maths, reading and science internationally. The SNP has starved schools and staff of resources, and the implementation of its curriculum for excellence has been an unmitigated disaster.

We Scottish Conservatives know that education is one of the routes out of poverty, because a thorough education that is based on knowledge, facts, the fundamental basics of reading, writing and counting, and respect for teachers and fellow pupils is a sure-fire way to change lives.

I know that the debate has moved on, but it would be remiss of me not to return to some of the issues that need to be addressed as a matter of urgency.

I have previously mentioned the issue of bullying and violence in questions to the cabinet secretary, but we simply cannot raise the issue and wait for a plan when it comes to discipline in the classroom. The current process across Scotland simply puts any consequences of bullying and violence in a classroom setting on to the victim. Bullied young people are the ones who have to alter their behaviour or move away from their friends to another seat or even class. Teachers are powerless to halt any violent or aggressive attack on pupils or even on themselves.

The OECD report found that bullying in Scottish schools is more frequent than the OECD average, that one in three of our students does not feel safe in schools and that pupils in Scotland are twice as likely to observe violence in school. There is a real sense of the need to act urgently; any delay is unacceptable.

I put a question on international standings to the cabinet secretary yesterday. I note the comment that PISA has a specific process to measure 15-year-olds’ ability to use their skills in reading, maths and science in order to meet real-life challenges. However, given that that is the only international benchmark that we use, that is the only league table that we can use to see how well Scotland is faring internationally.

It is also important to note that all the other countries that take part in the programme are monitored with the same criteria. Therefore, it is relevant to see just how well Scottish 15-year-olds fare in comparison with those in other countries in the application of that knowledge. Using our own internal processes is simply not enough to ensure that we provide an education that will open doors and opportunities across the globe. Therefore, it is disappointing that we have to wait until 2026 for TIMSS and PIRLS international league tables in order to properly assess our education system and ensure that it is fit for purpose globally.

We need a comprehensive vision for education in Scotland. I do not think that we have that currently. We need a vision that will enable every granny to look at the school that her grandchildren attend and know that there will be an informed learning environment in which they will be engaged and empowered. We need a vision that will enable pupils to learn about subjects that will not only allow them to go on to a job, college, university or positive destination, but will help them in a world in which they will always need to balance money at the end of the month. We need a vision for a world in which grammar and punctuation communication skills are more necessary than ever before and in which language is essential for proper understanding. We need a vision for a world in which information is filtered through artificial intelligence algorithms, and research and problem-solving skills are seen to be paramount in order to ensure that the truth is not masked behind opinion.

Grannies need to know that their grandchildren are safe when they are in a classroom and on school grounds. They need to know that there are consequences for misbehaviour and that boundaries are in place so that the few are not disrupting the chances of the many. In addition, pupils need to know that arts and sports are just as important as modern languages and calculus for a well-balanced body, mind and soul, and that learning home economics is a skill that will help them through every walk of life.

Until we have that vision, we are failing.

That concludes the debate on improving the performance of the Scottish education system.