Literacy Commission
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S3M-5512, in the name of Des McNulty, on the report of the literacy commission. Unless there are a few surprises, we have a little flexibility, so I will not be too rigorous in enforcing time limits—unless I have to be.
I express my gratitude to the members of the literacy commission, some of whom are in the gallery, for their efforts in producing the substantial report that Labour has chosen as the subject of today's debate. I also praise my predecessor as Labour's education spokesperson, Rhona Brankin, and our former leader, Wendy Alexander, for their foresight in setting up the commission.
The report was warmly welcomed in educational circles following its publication last month. It brings together findings and evidence from a variety of sources, presents a powerful case for literacy becoming our top education priority and contains a set of recommendations that I hope that members of all parties will support.
In some respects, the report is a wake-up call. It highlights the importance of literacy to economic competitiveness, to social inclusion and to individuals. Despite advances in information technology and the advent of new forms of communication, literacy skills are more vital than ever in the modern world. The inability to read and write renders the internet impossible to use. It is arguable that the more communicative possibilities we create, the more disabling illiteracy becomes.
The report uses international indicators to provide evidence that other countries might be progressing faster than Scotland. That is a disturbing finding, given the lead that Scotland once enjoyed. Historians such as Tom Devine and Arthur Herman have chronicled Scots' contribution to the development of thought across a series of disciplines, including philosophy, economics and mathematics, and Scots' contribution to literature and to the advancement of scientific knowledge and its application in industry, medicine and the social sphere. Since the age of enlightenment, Scots have been noted for breakthrough after breakthrough in a wide variety of fields. Several explanations have been offered for the influence that Scots and Scotland have had on the modern world, such as economic circumstances, the restless character of the people and religious beliefs, but in my view our education system was the cornerstone of Scottish achievement.
For a long time, the most distinctive features of our education system were its universality and accessibility. Our people were taught to read, write and count. A higher proportion of the population were given opportunities to acquire higher-order literacy and numeracy skills through our schools and universities than was the case elsewhere. Literacy and numeracy were central not just to the school curriculum, but to our definition of the foundation of a good society. That is not to say that the system was always successful; the report rejects the idea that there was a golden age. Many older people lack literacy and numeracy skills, because they were failed by the system. However, the idea that society has obligations to ensure basic literacy for all and to promote higher-order literacy skills widely is one that we can and should embrace, by making a long-term commitment to zero tolerance of poor literacy.
The literacy commission report places literacy at centre stage again. The commission argued that it is unacceptable that thousands of our young people leave school every year with correctable problems that render them functionally illiterate and lacking the basic literacy skills that are needed if they are to function in a modern society. We can no longer tolerate low achievement among youngsters at school for whom there is no physiological or severe learning difficulty barrier that would prevent them from acquiring adequate literacy skills. We must ensure that there is total commitment to a zero tolerance policy on illiteracy and we must put in place measures to ensure that that is achieved.
The commission estimated the scale of the problem and suggested that about 13,000 school leavers each year are functionally illiterate. It provided overwhelming research evidence that the most important cause of correctable poor literacy is socioeconomic disadvantage. There is no doubt that our failure to equip some of our young people to read and write adversely affects their life chances. In the most disadvantaged communities in particular, a significant minority of young people who cannot read or write end up having no job, suffering health problems or getting into trouble through offending behaviour—frequently all three. That is expensive for us, but it is even more costly for them. The proportion of people in our prisons and young offenders institutions who have literacy problems demonstrates the importance of early intervention, not just for the individual concerned but for society. Anything that we can do to ease the frustration and exclusion that results from illiteracy will pay considerable dividends and must be a key priority.
The literacy commission identified teaching and learning methods that are proven to be effective in acquiring basic literacy skills, even among people who face barriers in doing so. The commission argued that we need to take specific action to remove barriers to the acquisition of literacy skills, especially in areas of socioeconomic disadvantage. We know what works; the methods are listed in the commission's report. Surely we can engineer a successful programme.
Our motion suggests that pilot schemes be implemented in areas in which there are the greatest concentrations of socioeconomic disadvantage, to address some of the prerequisites of learning that are identified in the report. Earlier this week, lain Gray and I visited Lochview nursery school, where two-year-olds from Easterhouse are given the opportunity to learn and play in a warm and welcoming setting, with trained staff. The approach provides a foundation for nursery and primary education that goes a considerable way towards ensuring a level playing field with children from more advantaged backgrounds. It should be a precept that no child should fall behind before they even get into the education system. We need to focus attention on children in the birth-to-three category, because that is the most crucial period in a child's physical and mental development. If we do not concentrate attention on that age group and sort out problems at that point, we will lose those kids.
The commission cited health research that suggests that disadvantage has a physiological impact on the body and affects not only health but brain development. If the circumstances of disadvantage include a chaotic lifestyle, parental drug or alcohol abuse or domestic violence, the likelihood of educational success is severely compromised. We cannot allow such circumstances to blight the prospects of so many children in Scotland. We must intervene to give children who suffer such disadvantage a greater chance.
There is evidence from West Dunbartonshire and Clackmannanshire that the use of techniques such as systematic phonics, coupled with one-to-one support, is effective in developing basic literacy skills among many youngsters who have experienced barriers to the acquisition of such skills. Glasgow City Council and North Lanarkshire Council set up nurture classes, which provide support to youngsters and parents and directly address the fact that many children in the most disadvantaged areas lack the tools to discuss and express their emotions. In Glasgow every school has a literacy champion, who has responsibility for leading literacy development in their establishment. A programme is being rolled out in early years establishments so that staff are better able to support children who have poor language skills and to assist such children with language acquisition.
Ultimately, we need to decide what we want our schools and early education establishments to prioritise. There are a variety of ways in which educationists measure success or failure. We have league tables of attainment, systems of inspection and other mechanisms that provide information about the performance of schools, nurseries and education authorities. If our priority is that every child who could be taught to read and write should be supported in acquiring those skills, and if the development of such skills is regarded as a core indicator of success or failure in our school system, not just in the most deprived areas but throughout the country, we will galvanise an education system that is faced with competing objectives to pay particular attention to literacy.
It is clear from the report that literacy cannot be addressed only by educationists in schools and nurseries. We must mobilise resources across the board and co-ordinate them effectively, so that the most vulnerable children, who are most at risk of disadvantage, get the support that they need if they are to make the most of their lives. That is the core message of the literacy commission's report.
Delivering basic literacy skills should never be the only objective or criterion against which schools or educational establishments are judged. As the report makes clear, we need to move children beyond basic literacy to help them to engage fully with modern society and the workplace. The ability to apply knowledge, understanding and skills in areas other than the one in which they were acquired is vital. We need critical thinkers—people who can gather, analyse and use information in new ways for a vast variety of purposes. Literacy-related skills can be a passport to success for the individual and a vital resource for employers.
The report calls for a national strategy to set priorities for assisting children to move beyond basic literacy by improving standards of comprehension. I hope that the Government will adopt that recommendation and the others in the report. I have had early indications from the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning that he is receptive to many of the recommendations in the report and I understand that he met members of the commission this morning. My message for him is that it is not only about the curriculum for excellence and the way in which things are ordered and organised in the school; he must work with his colleagues across the portfolios and make literacy a national priority. Literacy must become a key priority: the top educational priority for Scotland and a top priority for the Government.
Given the importance of workplace learning in tackling illiteracy among adults, I hope that the literacy action plan that is called for in the motion will incorporate a strategy for supporting and encouraging workplace learning and that trade union organisations will be among the stakeholders who are involved in discussions on it. In the past, people who left school unable to read and write rarely got an opportunity to acquire those skills later. In recent years, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and its affiliates through Scottish union learning have stepped in to assist with workplace learning through partnership with employers in training for employees and as providers of everyday skills activities. Much of that work has been supported through the Scottish union learning fund and I hope that the fund remains in place beyond the current round, which ends in March 2011.
The Scottish National Party amendment, which highlights the importance that is placed on developing literacy in the curriculum for excellence, is a constructive addition, provided that we are not saying that literacy can be taken forward only in the context of the curriculum for excellence. It is one route and one aspect of the report's message, but we need to go well beyond that.
The Liberal Democrat amendment, which reminds us that illiteracy is not an exclusively urban phenomenon, is also worth while, although I point out that the report suggests that there is no instance in Scotland of a school serving a poor neighbourhood that achieves results comparable with those of schools in the more affluent areas. It is regrettable that areas in which socioeconomic disadvantage is concentrated are typically the same areas—overwhelmingly, although not exclusively, in urban settings—in which we find the highest levels of functional illiteracy.
The commission envisages as a central purpose of testing the provision of diagnostic information about students who are struggling to assist in working out what steps should be taken to help them progress. I am not sure that that is consistent with the Conservative amendment, which seems more concerned with summative assessment and the segregation of children at primary 7 into academic and vocational streams. The commission's version of back to basics—placing emphasis on the acquisition of basic and higher-level literacy skills—is far preferable to the reintroduction of the 11-plus, so Labour will not support the Conservative amendment this evening.
I am a little bit confused by Labour's position, given that Mr McNulty and all his Labour colleagues voted on 7 January 2009 for exactly the same wording as is in our amendment.
Perhaps Mr Fraser should read carefully the literacy commission's report, which makes an overwhelming case against the approach that he and his Conservative colleagues seek to adopt.
I turn from literacy to numeracy. We know less about how to improve standards of numeracy than we do about literacy, and it is a matter of concern that many teachers feel less comfortable about their own numeracy than they do about their literacy skills. In a global market, companies and individuals face a huge challenge from competitors whose education systems lay great emphasis on the acquisition of numeracy skills.
It was not part of the literacy commission's remit to consider numeracy, but I argue that it is of equal importance. I urge ministers to ask experts for advice on the development and dissemination of numeracy skills, possibly in the context of implementing the curriculum for excellence, and report back to Parliament. The socioeconomic factors that are associated with high levels of functional illiteracy in all likelihood produce poor numeracy too, but we have much less evidence about how to overcome that barrier or boost standards in numeracy more generally.
The core message from Labour is that we want the commission's recommendations to be implemented; we want the Government to implement a literacy action plan in partnership with local authorities and others; and we believe that literacy should become the Government's key priority. I look forward to hearing members' speeches in a debate that I hope will be serious and consensual.
I move,
That the Parliament welcomes the report of the literacy commission, set up by Labour, and its recommendations on actions needed to support the acquisition of basic literacy skills and the development of higher-order literacy-related skills; calls on the Scottish Government to bring forward as a matter of priority, following discussion with the literacy commission and all stakeholders, a literacy action plan; notes also the successful role of trade unions in promoting literacy and numeracy among adults and the commission's support for nurture groups in primary schools in areas of disadvantage as pioneered by Glasgow City, North Lanarkshire, West Dunbartonshire, Clackmannanshire councils and others, and suggests that, in order to assist those children facing the biggest barriers, the Scottish Government work in partnership with local authorities serving areas with concentrations of socio-economic disadvantage to implement and assess pilot schemes that can provide continuous and systematic support for families with children in the birth to three age group.
I welcome the debate, as it gives me another opportunity to thank publicly the members of the literacy commission—some of whom are in the gallery—restate the Scottish Government's commitment to continually improve literacy, remind members about the work that is under way and anticipate further necessary work.
I also thank Mr McNulty and the Labour Party for initiating the debate and, indeed, Rhona Brankin and others for establishing the literacy commission. It has been a valuable innovation and its report is of great importance to us. I think that Iain Gray called it a wake-up call, and I hope that the debate will reflect across the parties the concern that the commission has reminded us that, although improving literacy skills is not a new priority for the Government or its predecessors, it is important to refocus from time to time on what needs to be achieved in Scotland. That is what we need to do now.
Reducing adult literacy and numeracy problems is one of the indicators on the Scotland performs website. That indicator is moving in the right direction; in adult literacy, we are making progress. We await the results of a national survey into adult literacy and numeracy levels throughout Scotland. It is the first such survey in more than a decade and will provide an updated baseline to measure progress better.
The Scottish Government and previous Administrations have identified the relationship between literacy and poverty. We have done so particularly in the health inequalities framework and "Achieving Our Potential: A Framework to tackle poverty and income inequality in Scotland", our anti-poverty framework. People with good literacy skills are more likely to maintain and enhance their own health and wellbeing and that of their family. They are also more likely to adapt and improve skills, get a job and stay in productive employment. Those are positives that arise out of reducing adult literacy problems in particular.
I am grateful to the literacy commission, which has considered a range of issues independently and come to some important conclusions about how we advance literacy across society. Those conclusions can add to, help to develop, underpin and expand the work that is already going on.
It is important to note—without in any way being complacent—that the need to improve literacy is not unique to Scotland; it is a persistent problem throughout the United Kingdom and internationally. International attainment surveys show that the performance of young people in Scotland in reading and writing compares not unfavourably with performance within the UK and internationally, although much more needs to be done.
I will start with what is being done. I acknowledge the good work of our nurseries, schools, colleges, communities and libraries—all the individuals and institutions that help people to improve and build literacy skills, whatever age they are. For example, in West Dunbartonshire, a literacy initiative tailored to local circumstances was aimed at transforming the achievement of all children in the four-to-seven age range and eradicating illiteracy in the school population. The programme involved a range of approaches—including synthetic phonics, about which I am sure we will hear more—and resulted in a 6 per cent reduction in illiteracy levels. Also in that local authority area, practitioners from all social studies departments came together to produce resources to help to embed the building of literacy skills into the teaching of history, geography and modern studies, thereby encouraging the idea of literacy across learning.
I am aware of an active literacy programme in North Lanarkshire, with all teachers receiving associated continuing professional development. Teachers are provided with resources to help them employ tactile approaches to phonics and to encourage young people to learn from one another. The programme has sparked cross-authority sharing—pupils from Kildrum primary school recently visited a school in South Ayrshire to discuss their positive experiences.
As Mr McNulty said, I met members of the literacy commission this morning and enjoyed an interesting discussion about its report and recommendations and how it might go forward. The discussion reflected the aims of this Government—certainly my own aims—to drive up standards of learning and teaching to ensure that our young people have the literacy skills they need, and I am in complete agreement with many of the commission's recommendations. I agree that we need to take continuing action to improve literacy in Scotland; that we need sustained commitment from all levels of Government and educational management to improve standards of literacy at all levels; and that all local authorities have a strong role to play and should have literacy plans suited to their individual circumstances.
There is clearly a big issue about adult illiteracy and the impact that it has on families. What expectation does the cabinet secretary have that the single outcome agreement process will ensure that literacy is given an appropriate place, not only for children but for adults?
That positive suggestion from Johann Lamont that the single outcome agreement process—a developing process that was positively discussed yesterday at the meeting between the Cabinet and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—can continue to develop so that literacy is one of the issues included within it may well be useful and the local authorities that are not already doing that might wish to do it.
I agree with the commission's recommendations that successful schemes should commence at an early age and use a range of proven teaching methods and that raising higher-order literacy-related skills should be a priority—I will return to that issue.
It is true that there is no agreed definition of functional or basic literacy, but there is a clear understanding of what we as a society need to achieve. Within curriculum for excellence, the acquisition of literacy skills will not only provide every child and young person with the basic skills but help them acquire the higher-order skills of analysis, interpretation of information and evaluation. Mr McNulty's point about numeracy is an interesting one, because there is a sense in which, when we define literacy in that way, we also embrace numeracy and literacy becomes, in essence, the skills that someone requires to function and cope in modern society.
The term "functional literacy" is central to the matter. In West Dunbartonshire the concept of functional literacy is used as a benchmark to measure progress against, but it seems to me that we are still light years away from recognising the concept of functional literacy. Does the minister recognise the term "functional literacy"? His predecessor did not.
I do not want to get into what my predecessor or her predecessor or any other predecessor did. I recognise the term, but one of the things that the literacy commission does for us is to extend the terms that we are using in the debate and recognise that there are levels of expectation in society that we need to address. I do not think that we should fall out about the issue. However, I think that there is such a thing as functional literacy, which we need to look at, but the higher-order skills must be there as well.
I will focus on the curriculum for excellence, which is the burden of my amendment. For the first time, in the curriculum for excellence every teacher will have a responsibility for the development of literacy skills and to provide a coherent education from three to 18. The curriculum guidance for literacy is concise, thorough and clear about the outcomes that we want our young people to achieve.
Good teaching and learning in primary schools is the best way to provide the platform from which to improve literacy skills. Literacy across learning will enable secondary teachers to help young people better express their understanding of subjects and better explain their ideas in all they learn. Teachers will be freed up from overprescription—they know best how to teach.
We are introducing new national literacy qualifications from school year 2012-13 to ensure that those skills are formally accredited and recognised. Our expectation is that most young people will be presented for the qualifications at some point before leaving school. The new qualifications will also be available for adult learners in colleges.
Under the curriculum for excellence, young people will therefore learn the fundamentals of reading, writing, listening and talking, including spelling, structure and punctuation and, equally important, they will learn how those skills can be applied critically, across different media. Work is well under way to ensure that there is a detailed underpinning for the curriculum for excellence literacy proposals and I will keep the chamber and Scotland well informed about that.
I agree fully with the commission's view on the importance of a child's early years and the importance of early intervention, not only for literacy but for a child's life chances, future health and employability, all of which are tied up with literacy. That is why we are working with local partners to implement our comprehensive early years framework and the associated frameworks that are aimed at tackling health inequalities and poverty.
Rolling out the child-centred, personalised and multi-agency support in getting it right for every child should ensure that every child gets the required support. We are, therefore, putting into practice Labour's call for continuous and sustained support for families. We are also supporting local initiatives, such as equally well test sites, the family nurse partnership and Barnardo's you first programme. Nonetheless, I am happy to say to Mr McNulty that if more is needed, we will do more, and we recognise that more probably is needed.
Early intervention will mean improved outcomes for each child further down the line, in respect of life chances, health outcomes and educational attainment. Investment in the early years pays dividends for society as a whole, in both social and economic terms.
Developing parents' capacity to be the best parents that they can be for their children and helping them in the vital role that they play is another key. That is why we have developed a marketing campaign—play, talk, read—and a supporting website, showing parents that they can make a difference to a child's uptake of essential skills.
Reducing class sizes in the early years of primary school can make a contribution to driving up literacy standards. Every child would benefit from smaller classes, in which more time is spent by teachers on literacy and early intervention. In that way, together with providing the right level and quality of nursery provision, we are ensuring that our children are ready to succeed. There is no dichotomy between the good things that can happen and are happening in some nurture groups and the good things that can happen and are happening with smaller class sizes. I want to ensure that that understanding takes place, and that was part of the discussion that I had this morning with the literacy commission.
The real question is partly a matter of priorities. What is the Government's priority? Is it improving literacy or reducing class sizes? Even more important, is the Government's emphasis on outcomes, in the form of literacy, or is it on inputs, if we are going to talk all the time about class sizes?
I am very deliberately not talking all the time about class sizes. I have discussed the subject in a paragraph almost 11 minutes into my speech. However, I think that there is a link between having smaller class sizes and increasing literacy. I am happy to say that literacy is, of course, a priority, but the means by which we achieve it can be many and varied.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
No. Sorry, but I would like to finish this point.
The means by which literacy is achieved are many and varied. I accept the literacy commission's recommendations, but I should be entitled to bring to the table other means that I think are important, too. We had a constructive discussion this morning and I do not want the debate to be unconstructive—there is a sort of Pavlovian response when I mention smaller class sizes.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
No, I do not want to take a point from Johann Lamont. It is possible to see a contribution being made by smaller class sizes, just as it is possible to see a contribution being made by nurture groups, for example, as driven forward by Glasgow. Let us be generous in our understanding of each other's positions.
I am conscious of the time and want to bring my speech to a conclusion. This morning, I spoke to the literacy commission about a number of specific actions in which I would like it to be involved to move the issue forward. I am happy to say now what those actions are. The management board for curriculum for excellence is of great importance in advising me and driving forward the issues. I have asked the board to meet the literacy commission to discuss its recommendations, so that we can embed them in curriculum for excellence. We will take forward that process, and I was grateful for the commission's positive response.
I suggested that the commission meet Graham Donaldson, who is undertaking a review of teacher education, so that he can embed within his review the issue of literacy as a priority. I also said that I wanted to ensure that all teachers would have the opportunity to include literacy in their CPD time, in the enhanced CPD that I communicated to schools last week; literacy should be part of the additional day that we are doing this year, as a taster rather than anything else.
I take Mr McNulty's point about the issue being wider than the curriculum for excellence. I have therefore said to the commission that I would like my officials to consider a range of other issues in the report and we will meet the literacy commission again so that we can package an action plan with it around a range of things, including the curriculum for excellence. I am taking each of those issues seriously, moving matters forward and, I hope, involving members of the literacy commission in that way.
I have already welcomed, and am happy to welcome again, the literacy commission's report. I agree that we should raise standards of literacy for all in Scotland. I await advice from the management board about curriculum for excellence and the literacy action plan, following its discussion with the commission.
I am happy to note the success of the trade unions and others in supporting adult learners. We will continue to work in partnership with the Scottish Trades Union Congress on adult literacy and numeracy.
I have noted the mention that has been made of the role of nurture groups. We have funded three pilots in nurture—in Stirling, West Dunbartonshire and West Lothian—as well as a national training event to promote the nurture approach. There is no dichotomy between that and the aim of reducing class sizes. We need to ensure that we continue to learn from the positive outcomes of on-going work with local authorities and community planning partnerships.
I commend to members my small amendment on the curriculum for excellence. I understand that our amendment is acceptable to Mr McNulty. We will support the Liberal Democrat amendment, but we will not support the Conservative amendment—
Is that another U-turn?
Although Mr Fraser might point out that we voted for such an amendment the last time, times change.
I move amendment S3M-5512.2, to insert after "literacy action plan":
"within the context of the Curriculum for Excellence, which has the aim of raising standards of literacy at every level".
We warmly welcome this debate on a topic that the Scottish Conservatives have long believed is the most important in education. I, too, pay tribute to the work of the literacy commission, the members of which have, yet again, laid bare the true facts about Scotland's literacy levels among both school pupils and adults and produced a blueprint of recommended policy proposals. Although many of those proposals are not new—in my view, their implementation is long overdue—the breadth of the commission's membership and experience was particularly important.
I have no doubt whatsoever that parents expect their children to come back from school able to read, write and count properly. Teachers and employers expect that, as does Scotland at large. I also firmly believe that people expect that competency in those basic skills should be gained in primary school, before children make the move to secondary school. For generations, as Des McNulty said, Scotland had a proud record of doing just that, so it is deeply worrying that, by comparison with other countries, we seem to have been slipping back for approximately 10 years.
I know that the Scottish Government will come back and say that the curriculum for excellence will provide a major step forward in imparting literacy because, in the words of the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, for the first time all teachers will be involved in teaching literacy. Just what does the cabinet secretary think that teachers have been doing for generations? Why is he so sure that the curriculum for excellence, the principles of which we support, will provide a magic wand to improve literacy when the word "grammar" appears only once in its detailed guidelines?
Just to be absolutely clear, I neither said that nor believe it. The work that is required to be done to continue to build a curriculum for excellence is what will make the difference. If Elizabeth Smith and others will join in that work, it will be all the better.
Cabinet secretary, I am more than happy to join in that work, but the assertion that teachers across the board have never been involved in dealing with literacy—
I never said that.
Forgive me, but the cabinet secretary's words indicated exactly that.
Let me be clear: there is absolutely no need to reinvent the wheel. Many good things have happened in recent years on the equipping of our primary school pupils with the basic skills that they need in later life. However, speak to most primary school teachers and heads and they will say that a more structured approach to literacy teaching is required. They will confirm that the intentions of the five-to-14 programme were good, that many of the accompanying materials were good and that the system was better able to cater for the diverse needs of different pupils. However, despite those good intentions, overall standards did not improve.
Why? Because the five-to-14 programme had too many escape routes. The five-to-14 programme was neither watertight nor sufficiently rigorous in testing reading, writing and arithmetic skills. There was an understanding that teachers would use the tests only when they felt that the pupil had reached a level at which they could pass them or when the teacher wanted to confirm his or her own judgment about the skills of the pupil. Therefore, it was far too easy for different approaches to testing to be used in different parts of Scotland.
Sometimes that happened because heads or local authorities wanted to ensure that the timing of the tests articulated with the publication of their school performance results. Sometimes there was a reluctance to apply the tests on a uniform basis because of the perception that they would be too stressful an experience for many of the children. Critics say that formal testing makes pupils and their parents overanxious. Really? I suspect that parents will be a lot more anxious if their son or daughter becomes one of the 10,000 pupils who leave primary school unable to read or write.
Does the member recognise the value of the continuing examination of literacy that is available through the national assessment bank materials, particularly within primary schools, as a means of ascertaining children's skills in literacy and other subject areas?
If the member is referring to NAB materials within secondary schools, I think that there are deep concerns about that process—
I referred to primary schools.
Regarding the primary set-up, I think that most teachers are anxious that there should be considerable improvement in the testing process to ensure that pupils are tested against identified nationally agreed criteria. That is what it is all about.
Much has been made—and rightly so—of the success of Clackmannanshire Council and West Dunbartonshire Council in bucking the trend. They have done so because of the highly successful—and, yes, traditional and perhaps old-fashioned—means of combining phonics spelling with rigorous testing, such as the Schonell spelling test or the British ability scales reading test. I challenge anyone, including any Labour member, who disputes that testing works or persists in the assertion that illiteracy is necessarily a problem in areas of high deprivation such that testing should not take place against nationally agreed criteria. That is why most parties in the Parliament agreed to our previous motion. It is disappointing to hear that some have now changed their mind.
I do not accept that stand-alone papers in literacy and numeracy in secondary 4 are the answer, not just because of the reasons that Carole Ford of School Leaders Scotland outlined in a letter to The Herald last summer but for the simple reason that S4 is too late. I have no doubt whatsoever that, on the issue of testing, we require not to increase the number of tests but to improve their quality and to ensure that, first and foremost, they are set against nationally agreed criteria. That is why, exactly one year ago, we moved amendment S3M-3164.1, which called for more rigorous testing of reading, writing and arithmetic by the time that a pupil leaves primary 7 and which was supported by all other parties in the Parliament. That is also why I am moving an identical amendment today.
Unbelievably, some argue that we do not need tests at all—an argument that I find extraordinary given what the evidence shows and given the opinion of the vast majority, which is to say 72 per cent, of employers. However, I do not doubt that other things can also help. Where schools have initiated parents advice forums and workshops that help parents to work with the school on supportive work at home, they have proved immensely successful. The high turnout at many of those workshops shows just how many parents recognise the need to address literacy issues as a top priority. Internet sites, as the cabinet secretary said, can be designed to help parents who struggle to find time to visit school to see their child's teachers by providing them with the information in their own home. The literacy commission also made an important point about the scope within the General Teaching Council teacher training programme for improving the skills of teachers in delivering the basic skills to their pupils. I note that media coverage has suggested that the training should include more about grammar.
I also suggest that some attention needs to be devoted to the skills that are required for the Scottish Qualifications Authority's examinations. Increasingly over the past 10 to 15 years, there has been a move in some subjects towards bullet-pointing of answers and more descriptive comment rather than expansive analytical answers, which allow pupils more scope to demonstrate their intellectual abilities. I suggest that that is one reason why employers so often complain about the poor linguistic skills of their employees. Anything that constrains the use of language is in itself a major obstacle to literacy.
Nothing is more important than literacy, not just in advancing opportunity but in promoting confidence, self-esteem and self-discipline. Far too many people are disengaged from society and the economy because they are illiterate. It is our duty to address that, so nothing is more important than ensuring that we return to tried and tested teaching methods and introduce far more rigorous testing of the three Rs in primary schools.
We will support the motion and the other amendments in addition to our own. I move amendment S3M-5512.1, to insert at end:
", and, in particular, recognises the need to ensure that pupils in Scotland are properly schooled and tested in the basic skills of literacy and numeracy by the end of primary seven and also to ensure that the qualifications structure better reflects the specific needs of all pupils, whether they wish to pursue courses that are more academically focused or more vocationally focused."
In speaking to the amendment in the name of my colleague Margaret Smith, I add my thanks to the members of the literacy commission for their work in producing the report, which highlights the enormous problem of illiteracy in Scotland. We want the Government to continue to take action as quickly as possible to address the issues that are highlighted in the report, so it was encouraging to hear the cabinet secretary's comments in that regard.
We understand that literacy levels cannot be changed overnight—that is why we are pleased to support the Labour motion—and it is clear that tackling illiteracy will not be easy. As has been mentioned, even measuring literacy levels can be problematic because there are various ways of doing that and there is no single definition of basic literacy. However, the fact that the issue is complicated must not be used as an excuse for a lack of action.
The Liberal Democrats believe that Scotland must have an education system that ensures that all children reach their potential regardless of their background. We want a system of education that shares our vision of fairness, equality and social mobility. It is worrying that the current system seems to be failing around 13,000 pupils or 18.5 per cent of children a year. In addition, it is extremely worrying, if not surprising, that, as the commission highlights, the number of youngsters who face illiteracy is much higher in areas of social deprivation. We need to address that situation in a serious, constructive and joined-up way.
The literacy commission report concluded that socioeconomic disadvantage is the most important cause of correctable poor literacy. It seems that no school in a deprived area can record a similar level of success to that achieved by almost all schools in the most affluent areas—although we need to be a bit cautious about taking a blanket approach, as to do so creates the possibility that young people who live in an affluent area and who are subject to some of the same social pressures, if not the same economic pressures, that are faced by young people who live in more deprived areas might be missed out.
The report also states that a child's social circumstances outweigh other factors, including the quality of teaching. I question that slightly, given that many of us would agree that an inspirational teacher can play a huge role in turning round the life of a disadvantaged child and mitigating some of the challenges that they might face. However, there are some basic effects that material disadvantage can have on educational opportunities. Overcrowding in houses can mean that there is little or no space for private study. In addition, as Rhona Brankin suggested in her question to the cabinet secretary, the literacy of adults in such families is often equally poor. Even though we might develop methods of giving children literacy skills through the education system, it might not be possible to continue that work in a household in which the parents have difficulty with those issues. Addressing that situation becomes an onerous burden on the education service. We need to find a methodology for doing so, which is quite a challenge.
Another factor to bear in mind, which ties in nicely both with what the report says and with Mr McNulty's comments, is that in socioeconomically deprived families, particularly those with young teenagers, the youngsters often go out to work to supplement the family income, which means that the opportunities for additional education are extremely limited.
At a United Kingdom level, the National Literacy Trust has highlighted the importance of the home learning environment. The upshot of deprivation and socioeconomic disadvantage is that too many young people with excellent minds who have not been equipped with literacy skills cannot translate that intellectual ability into positive outcomes.
The NLT looked at five key areas of an individual's life: their economic situation, their aspirations, their family life, their health and their civic and cultural participation. In each of those areas of activity, there was a clear relationship between those who had poor literacy skills and those who achieved lower outcomes. Rather than suggest a causal relationship, the data that were collected indicate that low literacy forms part of a cycle of deprivation, which leaves too many people in Scotland—both adults and children—unhappy and unhealthy.
Therefore, we support the key vision of the report, which, as Des McNulty said, involves the adoption of a zero tolerance approach to illiteracy. We recognise the importance of challenging illiteracy, but, although that is at least partly an educational issue, it cannot be addressed only in our classrooms. Although formal education is the predominant means of delivery of literacy, it is clear from the NLT's study, "Literacy changes lives: An advocacy resource", that there are factors beyond that. The role that trade unions play in learning and the provision of services for youngsters with additional support needs such as hearing loss or a visual impairment must be tied into supporting the literacy agenda.
I am concerned that a simple focus on low achievement among schoolchildren for whom there is no apparent barrier to learning and obtaining adequate literacy skills is too narrow an ambition. I agree that that is a good place to start, but it is clear that a huge amount more needs to be done if Scotland is to be a fully literate nation. I hope that we can advance that ambition in what has thus far been a substantially consensual debate.
Given the economic world in which we live, a critical point is that it is not just at an individual level that poor literacy has a negative impact. According to some estimates, poor literacy costs the UK economy between £198 million and £2.5 billion every year. I have not done the Barnett calculation to work out the figure for Scotland—mathematics was never my strong suit.
Don't worry—there is a numeracy debate next week.
Thank you for that.
We agree with the report's recommendation that there should be a sustained policy commitment at all levels of government to providing our young people with the best possible start in life. There are concerns that some local authorities are beginning to look at ways of saving money that involve the removal of classroom assistants, who play a vital role. A school in East Dunbartonshire is cutting the number of classroom assistants by about 50 per cent, which cannot be helpful. The Government needs to look extremely closely at attacks or cutbacks on such front-line services that are made as part of an economic package, because they will have a negative impact on the objectives of the literacy commission and our own general objectives on literacy.
Literacy is a social justice tool, because it widens everyone's access to things that many of us take for granted. It also widens young people's ability to address the challenges that they face in other areas of academic activity. For example—to return to numeracy—it is not possible for someone to deal with a mathematics question if they do not have the capacity to analyse and understand the question that is being asked. Literacy goes much wider than just being able to read.
We will support the Labour motion and the Government's amendment. I look forward to listening to the rest of what has thus far been an extremely positive debate.
I move amendment S3M-5512.3, to insert at end:
"and make sure that these efforts produce benefits for children from low-income families wherever they live in Scotland."
My belief in the importance of literacy was developed during the many years that I spent as a teacher working with youngsters who were failing to acquire basic literacy skills and my subsequent time lecturing in what was described as special educational needs.
Over a number of years, I saw a significant number of youngsters come into S1 who were not functionally literate and who then had difficulties accessing the curriculum—in the high school in which I taught, the figure was more than 20 per cent of those who were assessed. Those pupils were regarded almost as having learning difficulties, when in fact, for a variety of reasons, they had failed to master functional literacy skills in primary school, where a systematic approach to tackling those difficulties had not been adopted. Many of those youngsters went through the education system failing, fundamentally because they had failed to acquire basic literacy skills.
As someone who saw that at first hand over a number of years and who talked to and worked with the students concerned and their parents, I know the transformational effect that support to acquire basic literacy skills can have, and that is what drives me and the Labour Party. We have a passion for education and its transformational power, and we believe that every pupil in Scotland has a right to access high-quality education and that every child in Scotland has an absolute right to acquire basic literacy skills or functional literacy.
We know that, despite having one of the highest percentages of youngsters going on to higher education, we also have thousands of pupils leaving school who are not functionally literate. We have 13,000 pupils leaving primary school without functional literacy and a million adults in Scotland who are not functionally literate. That is simply unacceptable, both in terms of the economy and in basic human terms. We know that there are major barriers to Scotland's economic success. From speaking to people in education, teachers, people in business and academics, we know that there is widespread concern about literacy. We have only to talk to parents to know that that concern exists and that there is a recognition of the fact that pupils are being held back.
It is said that, when a job needs to be done well, one should ask busy people to do it. I echo the thanks that have been given to the literacy commission. The members of the commission had one thing in common—a belief in and passion for education and a deep commitment to doing something about it. I apologise for the fact that, when I asked them to do the job, I said that it would probably take six months—I recognise that it has taken something more than that. However, it is a very important and academically robust report, which has come up with a route map for the vision to make Scotland the first country in the world to achieve full literacy.
I give special thanks to Judith Gillespie, the redoubtable chair of the commission, who had the unenviable job of holding together a group of people who are all extremely successful and vocal and who have their own strong views and passions. I recognise that that was not always easy, and I thank every member of the commission.
The report is academically robust and sets out the vision for a fully literate Scotland. Scotland could and should become the first country in the world to banish illiteracy—we must all share that vision. That is not the massive problem that we might imagine; it has been done before.
Members have referred to the work in West Dunbartonshire that was led by Professor Tommy MacKay, who was part of the literacy commission. Over a 10-year project, the pupils in West Dunbartonshire developed functional literacy and, indeed, went on to have higher-order literacy skills as they got older.
The key features of the West Dunbartonshire project were a policy commitment at all levels to the development of literacy, leadership at all levels, and acceptance and support right across the education system that was shared by parents as well. Importantly, there was also a systematic approach to assessment that identified pupils who were failing to learn to read, which included the screening of pupils at a pre-school stage.
That is what was fundamentally missing from the five-to-14 assessment, and the danger is that it will still be missing from the curriculum for excellence. Yes, there will be formal literacy assessment in secondary schools—we welcome that; Labour called for it in the past—but there will be no progress until the Government accepts that functional literacy must be a benchmark, which is what was accepted in West Dunbartonshire, and it sets that as the level that it is going to get youngsters up to. We will continue to describe pupils' progress as we did in the five-to-14 assessment but, until we recognise the importance of the concept of functional literacy, we will merely continue as we did in the five-to-14 assessment. Sadly, I do not see any change in attitude by the people who are doing the work on the curriculum for excellence.
I hope that, without saying whether there has been a change in attitude, the member will welcome the fact that, in ensuring that the literacy commission meets the management board, which means that the literacy commission's recommendations are taken into the system, even if there is no willingness now—although I believe that there is some willingness—we are ensuring that the potential exists for that to change.
I very much welcome what the minister has said about the steps that are being taken. Nevertheless, the fundamental issue remains that, until there is an understanding that we must set a benchmark that all pupils will be able to read by the end of primary school and that we must measure their achievement against that benchmark, we will not make progress.
That is fundamentally different from what the Conservatives and Liz Smith are saying. They want formal testing—effectively, a return to the qually, which will serve merely to label pupils. We want something very different from that. We want a systematic programme of assessment that identifies pupils' problems and then forms the basis for the development of a programme.
Will the member clarify exactly what the Labour position is on the issue? I am calling for nationally agreed criteria for testing, which is exactly what Clackmannanshire did. Does the Labour Party support or reject that?
The Labour Party believes in a systematic programme of diagnostic assessment that informs the learning, that tells us the level that the pupil is at and that sets out the steps that need to be taken to reduce the barriers to learning for that pupil. That is fundamentally different from the formal testing that the Conservatives are talking about. It is different from what was done in the five-to-14 assessment. Unlike the Tories, we do not want a return to the 1950s; we believe that we need a systematic approach to assessment in primary school that allows us to make the judgment and to demonstrate that youngsters have acquired functional literacy by the time that they leave primary school.
It is not enough for the Government to say that it is meeting the literacy commission, although I welcome that and the steps that are being taken. What we are calling for is not difficult or expensive, although it requires leadership and vision. It is Labour's number 1 priority and it simply must become the number 1 priority of the Government.
The best way in which to cultivate literacy is to encourage reading and a love of books. For example, in both primary and secondary sectors, time must be dedicated each day to private reading, ranging from 10 to 60 minutes depending on the pupil's age. Alongside that, we must promote a culture of reading and each child should always have the book that they are reading in their school bag or close by them. Built into the curriculum should be opportunities for people to talk about reading. The five-to-14 assessment's emphasis on talk encouraged that, as does the talk element of standard grade English and the group discussion element in intermediate English.
The key is to normalise reading, as it will not be the custom in every home. Children who do not read at home have a much poorer chance of engaging with the curriculum and achieving successful outcomes. That could be done alongside reading initiatives such as DEAR—drop everything and read. A bell could ring in the school once a day or once a week and everyone—from the janitor to the head, wherever they were and whatever subject they were studying—would have to take out a book and read until the bell rang again. That reading spell could last as long as the school saw fit. It is also important that children see adults reading for pleasure.
Reading assessments are important. Regardless of the level they are at, children must be assessed according to nationally standardised criteria, with feeder primary schools sharing assessed work with secondary schools and vice versa. That used to be the norm, but it is not done nearly enough these days. It is important that primaries and secondaries understand assessment criteria in the same way. If we do not all assess in the same way, with the same application of national criteria, the transition to secondary can be difficult and there may appear to be slippage when there is none. Indeed, that is why there are many difficulties with the transition between primary 7 and the first year of secondary school in a number of cases.
Once a child's stage of development is understood, teachers can set individually agreed long-term and short-term targets for that child with the parents involved as much as possible. A role should be found for parents in overseeing progress towards those targets. When that is not possible, teaching staff could be assigned a tutor group of pupils. A child's progress towards achieving his or her targets should be monitored, and they must be realistic for the child; otherwise, they will not be achieved despite the child's best efforts, and the child could even be discouraged. Literacy evenings in schools encourage parents and pupils to discuss how they can ensure that a culture of reading is developed at home, and local writers could be invited to such events.
The school library must be used across the curriculum in secondary schools, not just in the English department, although that is where it clearly plays a key role. There is no subject in which a library does not have an important role to play, and every school should have a qualified librarian. Primary schools in a cluster could share one between them if they were not large enough to justify their own librarian. Of course, the number of school librarians was reduced under Labour and the Lib Dems. I believe that local government should be encouraged to restore school librarians where they have been removed.
Encouraging children and their parents to join their local library is also important. Reading could be set as a piece of homework to be completed with a parent, even when parents do not value education—a situation that itself must be addressed. As other members have said, there is an issue about generation after generation being in the situation of functional illiteracy.
Reading is important for instilling civic responsibility, too. For example, there could be a readathon, and children could be sponsored to raise money for a charity by having, say, five class hours over a week to read at home. They could be sponsored by the hour, by the book or at a flat rate, and the whole class could gather a sum for an agreed charity. Illiteracy can be solved with imagination.
The findings of the literacy commission must act as a stark reminder of the problems that we face. Only yesterday, at the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, we were advised by a witness that, astonishingly, trainee journalists at Cardonald College in Glasgow often have to be given remedial classes in basic spelling, punctuation and grammar. That is unbelievable.
Shocking figures in the commission's report reveal that 18.5 per cent of Scots children leave primary education functionally illiterate and that 1 million Scots have literacy problems. The Scottish Government recognises the report's recommendations, such as the creation of literacy plans by local authorities, and is already working actively to promote literacy and numeracy.
We whole-heartedly agree with the call for a sustained commitment to tackling illiteracy at all levels. The curriculum for excellence has three action points in relation to that. First, as a fundamental principle, the focus on literacy and numeracy should be increased and embedded throughout all learning and teaching. Secondly, all teachers—rather than just English and mathematics teachers—will be responsible for improving literacy and numeracy. Despite what Liz Smith said, I do not believe that that was previously a fundamental principle in all subject areas. The Scottish Government is introducing a national literacy qualification, which all children in secondary 3 will take.
The proposals have been heralded by many education experts, including Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education, which stated that the
"Curriculum for Excellence proposes to address literacy and numeracy directly, emphasising the need to develop these fundamental skills across the curriculum and to provide formal recognition of progress up to the end of every young person's school career."
The Scottish Government contributes £500,000 a year to the positive behaviour team, a nurture group working alongside local authorities and schools to provide training and support to improve educational approaches and attitudes towards learning. The Scottish survey of achievement will, biennially, measure performance on literacy using a representative sample of pupils from primaries 3, 5 and 7 and secondary 2. At present, the survey is conducted only every four years, but the information will be used for action on illiteracy.
Illiteracy is not confined to the classroom. As other members have pointed out, many adults have difficulties. Last September, the Scottish Government published "Progress in Adult Literacy and Numeracy in Scotland", which sets out goals and directions to improve adult literacy. Central to that is the Scottish Government's learning connections adult literacy team, which provides support and funding in a variety of forms. For example, learning connections funds the big plus campaign to encourage improvements in people's reading, writing and numeracy by their taking up some of the free help available throughout the country.
The community learning and development initiative also plays a pivotal role in combating adult illiteracy. The partnerships in each local authority, comprising representatives from councils, colleges, third sector organisations, Jobcentre Plus and trade unions, help to deliver adult literacy and numeracy. The Scottish Government is investing a further £4 million in the initiative over the next two years to improve skills and boost the community learning and development workforce.
I welcome the work and commitment of the Scottish Government, and parliamentarians from across the political spectrum, in attempting to eradicate the problem of illiteracy in Scotland.
The findings of the literacy commission established by Labour may not come as a surprise but the levels of illiteracy highlighted should be shocking to anyone living in 21st century Scotland. We know that the UK can no longer compete in low-wage manufacturing or service industries. The only way in which Scotland can compete in today's economy is to ensure that our workforce is one of the best educated and best trained in the world. It goes without saying that literacy is a prerequisite for that goal. To fail in that effort is to perpetuate inequality and poverty. That is why Labour believes that tackling illiteracy needs to be the number 1 education priority for the Government.
The commission's report highlights the need to target our efforts on those children and young people who are most in need. It also emphasises the need for early intervention. I will focus on those two key features of the commission's report. I will also say a few brief words about the important role played by the trade unions in improving adult literacy.
However, I begin by highlighting the excellent work that North Lanarkshire Council is carrying out in its primary schools. The nurture clubs that I have visited are making a real and measurable difference to the children and parents who attend them. That success was highlighted a few weeks ago in an article in The Times Educational Supplement, which highlighted the outstanding work that is being undertaken in St Brigid's primary in Newmains, which is in my constituency. The school is in an area with relatively high levels of deprivation, and as such faces particular challenges. It has piloted the active literacy programme for pupils with additional support needs and was recently praised by HMIE for its literacy work. That work has resulted in significant improvements in national test results. Reading levels improved from 89 per cent in 2006 to 93.4 per cent in 2008, writing levels improved from 66 per cent in 2006 to 85.8 per cent in 2008 and mathematics results improved from 72 per cent in 2007 to 91.5 per cent in 2008. Those results are dramatic and impressive. The improvements are down to not only the hard work of the children but the leadership shown by Karen Somerville, the headteacher, and all of the staff members involved. I hope that members join me in congratulating them on their efforts.
Moving on to early years and early intervention, North Lanarkshire Council is, again, leading the way in Scotland. The council has developed a document, "Effective Early Development and Learning: the critical period from birth to three years", to offer support and guidance to all who care for and work with children under the age of three. It has invested significantly to create stimulating learning environments and has 17 learning centres for children under three in its nursery centres. Children who attend those centres are usually referred by health workers or social services. Individual profiles are maintained for each child and are carried through until the transition between nursery and primary. Those profiles assist in the effective planning of teaching approaches and content for the individual child.
North Lanarkshire also provides services to the under-threes that are open to all. Those include bookstart rhymetime sessions, which are offered in local libraries to parents with young children and seek to encourage parents to read to their children from an early age and to introduce children to books from the start of life. Those sessions are extremely popular, and the children who attend through referral by health or social work are given free books. That is another example of resources being targeted at those who are most in need.
The commission's report highlights the importance of continuous professional development, which it sets out as a key recommendation. Staff and volunteer training must be consistent between agencies, and indeed between private and voluntary sector partners, to ensure that everyone is working towards common goals. Those who are involved in teaching at nursery or primary level must have sufficient breadth of skills to ensure that they can respond appropriately to the individual needs of the child at any stage in their development.
It is important to note that no single method should be used to improve literacy: an approach that uses a range of initiatives will deliver the most improvement. That is why it is important that we consider teaching using synthetic phonics, which is used in North Lanarkshire and is also widely used in Clackmannanshire and other local authorities. Writing, dictation and tactile work using magnetic boards, Plasticine and other media all have a role to play in improving literacy in our schools.
Sadly, illiteracy is an historical problem, and too many adults still go through their lives impeded by their literacy and numeracy levels. The trade union movement has a proud tradition of supporting people in that position and it is an important part of the education continuum in Scotland. I recently had the privilege of opening the trade union learning centre at Waverley station, which is an excellent example of what an employer—in this case First ScotRail—working in partnership with trade unions can do to enhance the skills and knowledge of staff. It is a win-win situation, because staff and employers benefit from a relatively modest investment of time and resources.
However, as the Scottish Trades Union Congress briefing points out, there is a need for a workplace literacy strategy with a central funding stream that can be accessed throughout the country. My colleagues in the trade union movement are concerned that, at present, access to workplace learning varies greatly across Scotland and is largely dependent on the approach adopted by the local authority's adult literacy partnership. I encourage the cabinet secretary to listen and respond to their concerns.
I welcome the literacy commission's report, which sets out clear ambitions and targets for all of us and challenges us to aim high and make illiteracy a thing of the past. I hope that we can all support that aspiration.
I welcome the report of Labour's literacy commission. Indeed, I am delighted to find my Labour Party colleagues so intent on making such a positive contribution to the education debate. I hope that they will be similarly constructive in all our other public policy debates.
I was extremely interested to see the quality of the members that Labour managed to get together for this exercise. For example, the commission included Iain McMillan of the Confederation of British Industry, who was serving on another commission at the time; Lindsay Roy, who was fresh from his by-election victory and who put his considerable knowledge of education to good use; and Ian Rankin, who stepped out from behind the pages of his books to see what could be done to encourage more people to read—of course, there might have been a little self-interest in that, but it was in the service of our coming generations. The membership also included various local authority staff from Glasgow, Midlothian and East Renfrewshire; John Loughton of "Big Brother" fame; Keir Bloomer, who worked on the curriculum for excellence; Geraldine Gammell of the Prince's Trust; Gordon Matheson of Glasgow City Council; and Graeme Waddell, who provided some real business experience. There was also input on the psychology front from Tommy MacKay, the architect of the West Dunbartonshire literacy initiative and the East Renfrewshire self-declaration study and a past president of the British Psychological Society, and Dr Gavin Reid, who I believe is an expert in the learning challenges caused by dyslexia. The commission itself was chaired by Judith Gillespie.
I pay tribute to the commission for producing a concise report of 24 pages from tip to tail. If more of the documents that we got were as brief, we might save a forest or two. That said, although I welcome the report and the contribution that it will make to the debate, I have a couple of queries that I hope the sponsoring Labour members will be able to clear up, and one small point of disagreement.
Reluctantly, I must take issue with the comment in the introduction that Scotland has "tolerated the intolerable" and accepted the fact that some youngsters leave school "functionally illiterate". I simply do not believe that. A quick search on the Scottish Government website reveals that concerns about literacy rates were raised and action taken as far back as 1999. The actions that Scottish Government ministers have taken since 2007 to improve literacy mirror the efforts made by previous Administrations and their education ministers. Indeed, the literacy commission refers to one of the fruits of the efforts of the first Scottish Executive: the 2001 publication "Adult Literacy and Numeracy in Scotland", which laid the foundations for the subsequent work that has effectively tackled literacy rates in Scotland.
Perhaps I can attempt to answer the member's point. My understanding is that the commission's report does not say that the problem was not recognised in the past; instead, it specifically points out that there have been many attempts to remedy the situation. In fact, millions and millions of pounds have been spent on literacy projects. The key point is that we have not made the difference that we ought to have made, which is why it was felt important to take a fresh look at the issue and to make it clear that it should be everyone's number 1 priority and that a systematic planned approach should be taken throughout Scotland to tackle the problem.
I agree that our nation's education should be an on-going project on which we should all focus. However, I might be able to respond to Rhona Brankin's comments as I develop my point.
It is only fair to recognise the efforts of past education ministers and to pay tribute to their commitment to literacy. I should apologise to the Conservatives for not looking back far enough to see what they did when they were in government, but I am confident that those in the blue corner will be relatively supportive of the collective effort to raise standards.
The commission can be easily forgiven for using a bit of hype to give its points some bite—something, of course, that no politician would ever do, honest. I hope, though, that Des McNulty or one of his colleagues might, in the winding-up speeches, clear up a couple of points of information for me. The commission defines literacy as the ability to function in an adult society, which
"equates to a midpoint between levels C and D in the 5-14 programme".
Given that, according to the 2005 attainment figures, only 9 per cent of primary 7 pupils failed to reach level C in reading or writing and only 16 per cent failed to reach level D by the second year of secondary school, I was left wondering where the commission got the figure of 18.5 per cent for the percentage of pupils leaving primary school who were functionally illiterate. Unfortunately, the report provides no reference for the figure, so I was unable to check it for myself. The fact is that three quarters of Scotland's pupils reach level D by the end of primary school—in other words, above the level of literacy that the commission wants for adults. While, of course, keeping a weather eye on those who need a bit more help, we should celebrate and applaud such success and congratulate pupils as well as their teachers and parents for hitting that standard. They will only continue to improve throughout their school career.
I would also be grateful if Labour members could clarify the report's claim that 1 million Scots adults are illiterate. Again, there is no reference for the figure. However, according to the 2001 publication mentioned in the report, the figure at that time was 800,000. Also, the Scottish Government labour market statistics show that the percentage of adults with literacy issues has fallen from 23 per cent in 2001 to 14.8 per cent now, due in large degree to the efforts of the previous Administration. However, 14.8 per cent of Scotland's adult population is about 607,000, which is some way short of the million highlighted in the report. As I say, I would be grateful for some clarification to help to inform the debate.
Like Karen Whitefield, I pay tribute to the STUC and the Scottish Union Learning centres for their valuable contribution to developing an educated workforce in order to benefit our nation. Given that, as the Scottish Union Learning briefing tells us, people with literacy challenges are less likely to vote, it is important and indeed in the interests of everyone in the chamber to ensure that our nation not only is literate but has the support to develop its literacy skills.
I welcome the report's contribution to the debate, look forward to continuing our efforts to improve literacy in Scotland, and congratulate pupils, teachers, parents, the commission and everyone else on their efforts in this area.
Like others, I welcome the commission's work and its valuable contribution to the development and enhancement of literacy in Scotland and I pay tribute to my Labour Party colleagues who commissioned the report.
I know that everyone in the chamber appreciates the significance of literacy—or, perhaps more accurately, the significance of illiteracy. A National Literacy Trust paper by George Dugdale and Christina Clark that eloquently sets out some of the issues refers to a 2002 report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which indicated that
"Reading for pleasure has been revealed as the most important indicator of the future success of a child ... and improvements in literacy, at any point in life, can have a profound effect on an individual."
I am sure that we all agree with that analysis.
In their report, George Dugdale and Christina Clark outline the profile of a literate community. In such a community, individuals are far more likely to participate in its work, are more likely to trust its people and are more likely to perceive it to be safer. Such positive aspects can serve only to enhance the quality of life in any community.
The report also sets out the profile of a literate nation. Such a nation is more likely to vote, the significance of which cannot be overstated; is less likely to smoke and drink—and we are aware of the profound significance of such factors; has better mental health; and has a better skilled and more flexible workforce. Some of those issues highlight why tackling the problem of illiteracy should be the number 1 educational priority of this and indeed any Administration. The fact is that every child who leaves primary school should be able to read, write and count.
However, any literacy policy needs to address three key factors: gender; parental input, which Karen Whitefield mentioned and to which I will return; and socioeconomic factors. On gender, we should not dismiss lightly the differences between boys and girls as far as literacy is concerned. We know that boys at any age are less likely to read. However, although we need to find ways of engaging them more, we should also recognise that boys' books are pitched at a lower level than are books for girls of the same age. With that in mind, I encourage the cabinet secretary to engage with Learning and Teaching Scotland to review the advice that is given on practice so that it reflects available expert opinion.
There is another issue around literacy that we need to encourage, and on which I hope that the Government will also engage with Learning and Teaching Scotland. We need to encourage better and more significant links with the United Kingdom and the rest of the world, so that we articulate our success with some of the initiatives that have been outlined this morning, and so that we learn from best practice elsewhere in the world. We could do some more work on that.
Karen Whitefield mentioned some of the parental input initiatives. Over the years, the contribution made by some of the good sure start projects—I am not saying that every sure start project has been a success—has clearly shown the benefits of more parents getting involved with children at a young age. That has a lasting impact on the child, and indeed continues when that child becomes a parent. As a teacher working in a deprived area, over the years I saw generations of families that were failing because the parents were unable to articulate to their children, and when those children became parents they were unable to help their own children to develop. We were cementing in disadvantage in certain parts of the country, which was tragic for those families, the community and the country.
We need to consider socioeconomic issues. The Dugdale and Clark research looks specifically at impacts on the individual. The profile of a person with poor literacy shows that they are more likely to live in a non-working household; they are less likely to have children, and if they do their children are less likely to be successful; they are more likely to live in overcrowded housing; and they are less likely to vote. If we tackle the problem of illiteracy, such families and individuals are less likely to rely on state benefits and more likely to become home owners. They are more likely to be able to engage productively in the workforce and to be able to use the new technology that is increasingly available in every workplace. We know about the negative results of socioeconomic disadvantage and the positive ways in which literacy can address them. We ignore that at our peril.
Socioeconomic issues demand different types of teaching in different areas. Language development will be different in different communities. We cannot take a one-size-fits-all approach to the problem. Teaching children who traditionally have a small vocabulary needs teacher-intensive phonics and vocabulary building, whereas children who come from more affluent households can go with more child-directed work and develop as a result. I say to the cabinet secretary that we should encourage and allow local authorities to allow individual schools to take the approach that is best suited to the children they teach. We can all sign up to that crusade.
I understand Christina McKelvie's point that we should not be negative about what has been allowed to develop in this country, but the truth is that, despite the best efforts of this and previous Administrations, there is clearly a deep-rooted problem in Scotland. If we do not tackle that problem and double, redouble, and quadruple our efforts, in 20, 30 and 40 years we will be having the same debate and failing the same families from the same areas.
Sometimes we politicians like to use words or language in a way that softens the difficulties we face; we talk of concerns instead of complaints, and of challenges instead of problems. However, as the Scottish Parliament was founded, the talk was of finding Scottish solutions to Scottish problems, and there can be no doubt that illiteracy is a problem in Scotland. The extent of the problem and the challenges that we face as a result are made clear in the literacy commission's report, and I am happy to join members in welcoming the publication of the report and the initiative that led to it.
As members on my side of the chamber will know only too well, opposition is about more than simply saying no and disagreeing with everything proposed by the Government of the day. Constructive policy development and seeking to find consensus in the best interests of the people who have sent us here are part and parcel of the role, and the fact that we can unite today to support the work of the literacy commission is an example of that.
The report deals with issues surrounding the definition and measurement of literacy, especially identifying the functional or basic levels of literacy that will enable an individual to function in an adult society. It is worth noting that it is not only the Scottish Government that uses a range of indicators rather than one strict definition to measure illiteracy; that is true internationally and in countries where different cultural and linguistic traditions have an impact. We should also recognise that the Scottish survey on attainment will now measure literacy performance every two years, which will allow a much clearer picture to be built up of the state of literacy in schools in coming years.
It is clear, however, from the report and the wide range of source material upon which it draws that Scotland can and must do better in raising literacy rates. We owe it to the individuals who struggle with poor literacy to give them the best opportunities in life, and to Scotland as a whole, which stands to benefit from an active, confident and literate society that contributes to our economy and culture.
We must therefore examine how best to tackle illiteracy and cultural disadvantage at all levels of society, including in the family unit. The concept of a zero-tolerance approach, which is suggested in the report, demonstrates the kind of focus and effort that will be required to achieve the goal of eradicating avoidable or unnecessary illiteracy.
In its programme for government and key strategies, the Scottish Government does not shy away from the challenge of tackling low literacy rates. Indeed, reducing the number of working-age people who have severe literacy and numeracy problems is a key national indicator. That is also recognised in the curriculum for excellence, which seeks to embed the fundamental principles of literacy and numeracy across the curriculum and in all aspects of learning. That means that all teachers are responsible for literacy, because, as the report recognises, literacy is acquired not just in English classes but in interaction with others and through applying cognition and communication skills in a range of situations and environments.
The Scottish Government has also recognised that with the big plus adult literacy programme. Last year, footballers from every team in the Scottish Premier League—although before my team, St Johnstone, secured its place in the SPL—selected their favourite adult and children's books, which were made available in libraries and learning centres to inspire a love of reading among adults and children, especially those who might not naturally pick up a book for leisure or enjoyment.
Familiarity with books and literature can only help to build a more literate and fluent society. The cabinet secretary will know that I am very supportive of an Edinburgh Napier University project that gives third year publishing students the opportunity to manage the process of publishing by printing new editions of Scottish classics that are out of copyright. The books are then given free to secondary schools, so that great Scottish literature is made more available to pupils. It is a wonderfully simple scheme, and it can only help to promote reading and familiarity with Scottish literature among the younger generations. It will go some way to filling the libraries that Kenneth Gibson spoke about.
This year's publication is James Hogg's "The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner", which the cabinet secretary described last week as
"one of the … great unfilmed books in Scotland",
although I recently heard that a screenplay has almost been completed. As he said:
"If it is read by a much wider audience in Scotland, there will be a much better understanding of our dual nature in Scotland."—[Official Report, 7 January 2010; c 22564.]
Next year's publication, complete with a foreword from the First Minister and Christopher Harvie, is "The Thirty-Nine Steps", and I am sure that it will go on to inspire a new set of youngsters to pick up a good book.
While at university, I did a bit of studying on bothy ballads, which provided a huge insight into just how important a good story and song have been to Scotland over the centuries. It is no wonder that this small but multiform and infinite country has produced far more than its fair share of literary greats, but with that talent comes responsibility. The literacy commission's report has focused the mind on Scotland's poor literacy rates, and it is the responsibility of us all to ensure that we give every young person the tools to appreciate our history, culture and literature, and to spread their wings to appreciate those same things in other countries around the world.
Later this month, people throughout the world will celebrate the life and work of Robert Burns, one of the greatest literary talents ever to emerge from Scotland or anywhere else. The literacy commission considered in detail the impact of socioeconomic circumstances on literacy and educational attainment, so it is perhaps worth bearing in mind the humble background from which Burns came and the relatively youthful age at which he produced his works. Burns received little formal education but was taught by his father, who was self-educated. That speaks of a belief in the power of education and learning to improve one's sense of fulfilment and wellbeing.
Today, 251 years after the death of Robert Burns, and in the spirit of our bard, who despised unfairness and sought equality, it is our turn to tackle head-on the scourge of illiteracy, inequality and poverty that has plagued Scotland for far too long. I know that the cabinet secretary and the Scottish Government have been doing all that they can to ensure that that happens and will continue to do so.
Like other members, I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss in more detail the findings of Labour's literacy commission. I add my thanks to the members of the commission, who did such a good job in a fairly short period, in contrast to some of the long-grass commissions that we have all seen in government. The commission produced an excellent report that shows the passion that its members have for education. I also put on record my thanks to Wendy Alexander and Rhona Brankin, who had the foresight to recognise that the issue was important and to set up the commission to ensure that we have the report that we are discussing.
All members agree that every child deserves the best possible start in life and that early education is absolutely vital to that. We also all seem to agree that, if every child is to achieve his or her full potential, tackling illiteracy must become the Government's number 1 education priority. That is not to be entirely critical of what has been done previously—members might expect me to say that, as former education minister—but we must acknowledge that, whatever was done previously, we still cannot be anywhere near satisfied. A figure was quoted about 75 per cent of pupils reaching a particular stage, but that means that 25 per cent do not reach that stage. We should not be satisfied with that level of progress.
As my colleague Hugh Henry said, in the 21st century it is surely not too much to have the aspiration that every child who leaves primary school should have the ability to read, write and count. The literacy commission report makes a timely contribution and gives us all food for thought. I suspect that most of us will not be particularly surprised by the report's point that areas of social deprivation will require additional resources to address the specific challenges that those communities face. Hugh Henry outlined those challenges in detail. I am pleased that the report recommends early intervention from birth to three years old and that it calls for children with educational, behavioural and social needs to be identified and specifically supported.
Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when I was a parent of a child at primary school, I saw for myself how imaginative approaches in areas of social disadvantage can engage people in the wider community with literacy and the importance of reading in the home. As well as having early access to nursery places, parents were invited to our local school for a short series of classes to help us understand the approach to teaching children to read. Parents were taken through a process of trying to learn the basics of the Greek alphabet and the associated sounds to help them understand what it is like for children trying to match symbols and sounds and build words. That stuck with me.
Many years later, when I became education minister, I was interested in the early developments in various local authorities of a return to the synthetic phonics approach. In 2005, the education department published the results of a seven-year study on the effects of synthetic phonics on children's progress in reading and spelling, which highlighted that children from less advantaged socioeconomic backgrounds notably improved their performance through that approach and method.
We have heard already about the success in Clackmannanshire. At the end of the seven-year study, children were approximately two and a half years ahead on reading ability. As Hugh Henry said, importantly, boys in particular benefit from that approach. We might well argue that it is more a common-sense approach than rocket science, but it requires adequate time and resources for the teachers, classroom assistants and parents to work with pupils and to pick up problems at an early stage. I was particularly interested in the cabinet secretary's comment, in response to an intervention from Johann Lamont, that he will consider how the single outcome agreements could better reflect the need to have literacy, and ensuring the resources for it, as a top priority for local authorities.
I am sorry that the Minister for Children and Early Years has not been able to remain in the chamber, although I am sure that he has other important business. Perhaps his colleagues will pass on to him a message about the importance of support for literacy among young people who are looked after. The literacy commission report highlights the responsibility that local authorities, as corporate parents, have for the young people who are brought up in their care. It is simply not good enough to continue with a situation in which young people who are brought up in the care system do not receive the same support that is afforded to children who live at home. I hope that that will be picked up on in the single outcome agreements.
Despite our best efforts, the reality is that too many pupils still leave school without the literacy and numeracy skills that are needed for life generally, as well as for the world of work. Kenny Gibson was concerned about the number of trainee journalists who require what he described as remedial education at Cardonald College. I am sure that Kenny Gibson will be well aware of this, but if he talks to lecturers in further education colleges that are closer to his constituency, such as James Watt College, he will hear that they have to provide basic literacy and numeracy support for young people who want access to social care or policing courses and those who ultimately want to go on and be involved in primary education. I say that not to be critical of the schools or teachers who have worked hard during the process, but simply to highlight the importance of getting it right at an early stage. We also know that many employers have to introduce courses and support for their employees.
We have heard about the importance of the role that trade unions have played through learning in the workplace. That route is often much more easily accessible for people who have difficulty with literacy and numeracy, as they feel more confident approaching their local learning representative rather than having to admit to someone in the management system that they have difficulties. I hope that that will continue.
I am glad that the cabinet secretary has indicated broad support for the commission's recommendations and is prepared to make progress on them. I hope that he will pay particular heed to the part of the Labour motion that calls for pilot schemes for children in the birth to three-year-old age group in the areas of most social disadvantage and that, at an early stage, he will produce an action plan to implement that and the other recommendations in the report.
Teachers have, unfortunately, not been mentioned much in the debate, so I put on record my thanks to the many teachers who work very hard, sometimes in difficult circumstances, to deal with not only education issues but social ones. That must be acknowledged. As Hugh Henry said, if we do not recognise the issues for people who live in social deprivation, we will fail the families that the literacy commission and the Parliament were set up to help.
It is safe to say that, with regard to the acquisition of literacy, we are all reading from the same page and we all want progress, particularly in light of the evidence that we have heard from various quarters on Scotland's international literacy ranking. As many members have pointed out, according to an international study last year, Scotland has gone from 14th to 26th place and England has fallen from third to 19th place. However, in the spirit of clarity and consensus, let us not forget—it has been mentioned by many members, including Cathy Jamieson—that the decline happened over many years and under previous Administrations. I hope that we can give credit where it is due: to the Labour Party in opposition for setting up the literacy commission to address those concerns. Labour is to be commended for recognising the need to better understand and tackle literacy problems in Scotland. In the same spirit, I hope that we can give credit to the actions of this SNP Government, which, since coming to power has introduced initiatives aimed at improving literacy through support for adult literacy developments and by putting literacy at the heart of the curriculum for excellence, as others mentioned.
Although the curriculum for excellence might have some detractors among members in the chamber, I hope that today's debate will refocus on the need to work positively and constructively to achieve what is best for the people we serve. I note that the report recommends early intervention, with which I agree. I am sorry that Des McNulty is not in the chamber, but perhaps someone will mention to him when he returns my surprise that in his opening speech he mentioned Glasgow City Council, but did not mention the fact that it removed nursery teachers from schools. That was a retrograde step. We must recognise that early intervention is important and that Glasgow City Council should not have removed those nursery teachers.
The member spoke about nursery teachers and Glasgow City Council. Does she share my disquiet about Renfrewshire Council's removing nursery teachers from schools?
I seem to remember that when Hugh Henry was the leader of Renfrewshire Council, that matter did not concern him. I will leave it at that and he can take from it what he wishes.
Although the report's recommendations are welcome, as others mentioned, I would like to have seen more input on the reasons for the issue. The report sets out a lot of detail about the situation and how to improve it but, if we are to move forward on tackling illiteracy, we must understand why literacy levels are falling in the first place. That is worthy of a full debate, but perhaps it will suffice to receive a commitment from the education secretary today to include in any future deliberations about literacy the reasons why there are problems.
It is undeniable that we have seen an unprecedented rise in the use of electronic media—I will go on to say why I think that literacy levels have declined, whether because of television, gaming or other areas—and I assert that such media have had a direct impact on children's time and volition for reading, as well as on adults' time for reading with them. That is important because, in our debate on how to address the issues, we must not confine ourselves to the remit of academic and professional attainment, which was mentioned before. In our drive to improve literacy, we must be careful that we do not unwittingly turn young people off reading so that they see it as a merely academic activity—something to be tested and quantified. Reading has to be enjoyed and we must be mindful of the fine line between testing and encouraging enjoyment. Those from disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to leave school without the necessary skills to realise their potential. Studies have shown that many find themselves in that situation because they find it difficult to accept the testing and qualifications structures that make up a large part of the education system. I hope that that is taken on board by the minister and others.
It is important for youngsters to enjoy reading and to see it as a fun activity that stimulates their imagination and makes them want to read even more. It is possible to experience the joy of reading and the tingling sensation of suspense that a good book can bring. I am sure that we can all recall a time when it was hard to keep our eyes open and we knew that we should turn off the light, but felt compelled to read the next page or go on to the next chapter. I am sure that we have all enjoyed telling a story to a youngster who got totally absorbed and carried away. Indeed, as one of the members of the literacy commission, Ian Rankin, admitted, he spent much of his childhood reading comics and it was not until he was older that he started reading books. I am glad that he did so.
It might be difficult to encourage children to go from reading "Charlie and Lola" to "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", but we must recapture that encouragement if we want to drive up and sustain literacy levels. As I said previously, to address the problem we must understand why those levels are falling. I am sure that today's debate will go some way towards enabling us to do so.
Like others, I commend the members of the literacy commission. Their work has obviously been hard because the commission report refers to the lack of empirical data on the subject on which to accurately base measurement and comparison and it cites data from the range of sources that it used. It has not been an easy job to pull the report together.
Regardless of what people think of the detail in the commission's report, it certainly shows that we should not be complacent, but, a bit like Christina McKelvie, I do not believe that we should put out a message of doom and failure either. As Cathy Jamieson and others mentioned, since 1999 this Parliament has recognised the importance of education incorporating functional literacy from nursery schooling right through to lifelong learning. Indeed, in 2006 when the OECD followed up its 2001 international adult literacy survey, the Scotland background paper noted the learning opportunities accessed by adults in Scotland, which prompted envious praise from practitioners in England.
We must have balance in our discussions and in our terminology. As Rhona Brankin pointed out, too often people understand the phrase "functional illiteracy" to mean that people cannot read or write a word or a sentence. The terminology gives a false impression of the subject under discussion. However, we have to recognise the disadvantages that deep-seated functional illiteracy brings to individuals of all ages. As was ably outlined by Hugh Henry, it brings great disadvantages to individuals, families, groups and communities. Hugh Henry referenced the Dugdale and Clark study, which looked in great detail at the effects of community illiteracy. That leads directly to the introductory paragraph to the commission's recommendations and its call to recognise that socioeconomic issues are the main underlying cause of illiteracy and the need for programmes to address those problems.
Socioeconomic issues underpin so many problems in our society, right across the board: in the areas of justice, education, attainment and many others. Many programmes over many decades have purported to address those problems. I must be getting on a bit because I can think back to urban aid programmes, social inclusion partnerships and so on. As others have said, those programmes have not always been hugely successful. The Labour motion mentions pilot schemes and I make two pleas in that regard. The first is that although a pilot scheme cannot be long term, it should look at long-term solutions to address the problems, which are deep-seated, as Hugh Henry said earlier. We should not undertake pilot schemes, walk away from them and then come up with another initiative; something sustainable has to be done. Many have tried and failed in that regard.
The second plea is that we should not focus too much on attainment in primary schools alone. We have to look at the whole picture because, as the Dugdale and Clark study showed, family and community illiteracy is an issue. If functional literacy or absolute illiteracy is a problem in a family, the child will be severely disadvantaged, so let us look at families as a whole.
I very much welcome what the member says. Illiteracy is not just a matter for the school to deal with; we have to involve the community planning partnership, the health visitor and other agencies, first in identifying who needs support and then in the design of the support package. Literacy should be one of the outcomes, but many other outcomes are associated with such support. Does the member recognise that, currently, it costs about £60,000 to put in place a nurture class in a deprived area in Glasgow? That is money well spent and I hope that we can find resources to do more such work in those areas that really need it.
I thank Mr McNulty for that clarification of some of his views. It goes back to what I said about programmes over the years. Nurture programmes by other names have run in areas of deprivation in various parts of Scotland but, sadly, they have run out of funding. They perhaps worked for a year, two years or three years, but then there was nothing. The Parliament has discussed that before.
I emphasise the absolute need for sustainable programmes. We cannot sort these deep-seated issues in two, three, four or five years; it will probably be two, if not three generations before we see the results that we require. We have to think long term. That is why I am glad that there is general cross-party consensus in today's debate. Too often, great things get started, but then opposition for the sake of opposition kicks in and they are stopped. It is extremely important to pledge to work on this issue in the long term.
A very important part of functional literacy is of course literacy per se, or absolute literacy—the ability to sit down with a book, which Aileen Campbell, Sandra White and others mentioned. I thought that the bookstart programme was a great initiative that could be incorporated in the nurture scenario.
Literacy is important to our nation's wellbeing. Reading in English, Scots or Gaelic—in languages of all sorts—is important to our wellbeing and it should always be encouraged. Books should be a huge part of any programme that is developed.
I welcome the opportunity that the Labour Party has given us to debate the literacy commission's report. Today's motion from Labour, despite being a little self-serving, makes some fair points and, accordingly, the Scottish Conservatives will be pleased to support it.
Labour members should listen carefully at this point, because I will do something that I do not do often, which is praise the Labour Party for the good service that it has done in the formation of the literacy commission and the production of its report. I do not always agree with Judith Gillespie, as I am sure that she will know, but on this occasion I praise her and her colleagues for the sterling work that they have done in preparing the report that we are considering.
The report's headline statistic, which is staggering and deeply worrying—we have heard it repeated many times this morning—is that 18.5 per cent of pupils leaving primary school are not functionally literate. That desperate statistic should worry us all.
The importance of basic literacy cannot be overstressed. Speaking at the Scottish Conservatives education conference in September last year, Professor Lindsay Paterson of the University of Edinburgh said:
"Literacy and numeracy are not merely optional extras: they are fundamental to everything else. You cannot hope to understand science without them. Without these basic skills, you cannot read imaginative literature, or respond to great art or music, or understand where the country has come from or is going to, or hold our politicians to account intelligently."
I am sure that we all agree with those words.
The literacy commission's basic recommendation is that, as a nation, Scotland should make a formal commitment to zero tolerance of illiteracy. I hope that we can all support that. It is a scandal that any child can leave primary education after seven years in the classroom without a basic grasp of reading and writing. We know from our survey of parents' opinions that the great majority of them think that the top priority in our schools should be the teaching of those basic skills.
So, what is to be done? First, we believe that there should be a much greater focus in our primary schools on teaching basic literacy and numeracy. We often have education debates in which regular calls are made for a range of initiatives on what should be taught in schools, whether they are to do with children becoming more active; promoting healthy eating; financial education; greater access to music or art; anti-bullying initiatives; or greater access to Scottish history—and so the list goes on. Of course all those things are important, but we have to remember that the school day is strictly limited and it has not expanded at all in the past 30 or 40 years. The more time we spend teaching all those other things, the less time is available for the teacher in the classroom to concentrate on basic skills. We need to look again at our priorities. Teaching our children to read, write and add up in primary school has to be the top priority. That means that all of us who are involved in education have to exercise a bit of self-restraint when it comes to addressing all those other matters.
Secondly, we have to look at teaching methods. Only last week at education question time, I raised with the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning the issue of teaching by synthetic phonics, which has been used in Clackmannanshire and West Dunbartonshire and which has delivered spectacular results. I do not believe that the Scottish Government should dictate to local authorities or individual schools specific teaching methods, but where there is a proven track record of success, the Government should ensure that all local authorities and schools are aware of the benefits of using synthetic phonics and that the materials are available.
Thirdly, we need to test our youngsters properly to ensure that they have acquired these basic skills. The Scottish Government has proposed testing on literacy and numeracy from secondary 3 onward. In our view, that is far too late in the day. Testing should take place no later than the end of primary 7, so that when a child goes up to secondary school, everyone, from the teacher to the child's parents, is aware of their grasp of these basic skills. Putting such rigorous tests in place would focus minds much more seriously at primary school level on the importance of the three Rs. We believe that that is an absolutely fundamental point.
Just over a year ago, on 7 January 2009, this Parliament unanimously backed an amendment in the name of my colleague Elizabeth Smith, which called for tests of literacy and numeracy by the end of primary 7. Perhaps I should repeat that for the benefit of Mr McNulty: the Parliament unanimously backed that amendment, which was identical—word for word—to the amendment that we have lodged today.
Will the member take an intervention?
Yes, in a second. I am concerned and somewhat disappointed by Labour's U-turn on that vital issue, for which we have had no explanation as yet from Mr McNulty. I will give way to Mrs Brankin, who I hope will explain why her successor as Labour education spokesman has torn up Labour's previous approach.
There has been absolutely no change in the approach. Labour supported that Conservative amendment because it was not specific. After the debate, Mr Fraser's colleague Liz Smith said specifically that it was intended to refer to a final summative assessment of literacy and numeracy in primary 7, which Labour does not support. Labour supports a system of diagnostic assessment throughout primary school, not summative assessment in primary 7. Liz Smith went even further by saying that perhaps pupils should be kept behind in primary school if they failed that assessment. We do not support that.
Rhona Brankin is dancing on the head of a pin trying to find differences between what we support and what the Labour Party supports. The fact is that the Labour Party needs to make up its mind what it believes on these issues. It is suggesting today that it will reject wording that it supported unanimously just over a year ago. I really think that the Labour Party needs to sort itself out.
Of course, it was not just the Labour Party that supported our amendment this time last year. The Scottish National Party Government did so too. We had hoped that in the year that went by we would have seen the Government make progress on the issue of testing. Despite our getting a lot of warm words from Fiona Hyslop, the previous Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, very little has been done in the past year to take the issue forward.
We had hoped that the new broom that is Mr Russell would be progressing this issue but, alas, it appears that he, like the Labour Party, has performed a U-turn by trampling on his predecessor's legacy and throwing her judgment into doubt. We expected better of Mr Russell. There is time for him to recant before 5 o'clock and we live in high hope that he will come to his senses.
First, I apologise for not being in the chamber when I was meant to be called earlier.
The debate has been interesting and largely consensual. Many members have gone beyond the normal research that they do for speeches in such debates and have made significant contributions; I refer particularly to Hugh Henry's speech. Cathy Jamieson frightened me when she referred to learning Greek. As I have been trying to learn Greek for several years, I felt a chill run down my back. However, the point was well made.
I mentioned in my opening speech one challenge, which is that particularly—but not exclusively—in many socioeconomically deprived communities, many people's experience of engaging with education as children still creates a barrier to their engaging as parents. I have spoken to parents who say, "I didnae like school and I'm not desperately keen on going there with my child," because of the imprint that their experience left on their lives. We need to find a way of extending beyond the formal education system. Members have talked about that—Karen Whitefield referred to the STUC's role in widening education.
Engagement with parents is critical, because the job opportunities that once existed in many socially deprived communities are no longer available. Parents' literacy and numeracy levels need desperately to be raised in order to widen their opportunities to improve their lot in those communities, because of the literacy demands of job opportunities in the 21st century.
I have an observation about the written media's role in relation to literacy in general and, perhaps, in relation to functional literacy. Several analyses show that the register of our newspapers—the level at which they pitch their pieces—has lowered. It is estimated that the functional reading age for tabloids is seven. That does not give our young people the opportunity to be stretched by engaging, even on screen, with—
Name the newspapers.
Despite encouragement from Sandra White from a sedentary position, I will not name the newspapers.
What I said is equally true of some broadsheets. We need to find a method of engaging all of society that allows us to address the challenges that we face.
On a slight tangent, I ask the cabinet secretary to talk with the SQA about how the marking guidelines for qualifications such as standard grades, highers and intermediates operate not only in English but in a range of subjects. As I am sure other members do, I remember that, when I was at school, the history teacher would pull us up for bad spelling. I do not know whether that still happens under SQA marking guidelines, but I have heard anecdotally that that does not, and that marking is pitched differently. If we are to be consistent, that approach must be taken to all subjects.
I fully agree with Hugh O'Donnell. At a parents' night, I saw an essay by my daughter that contained several spelling mistakes. Teachers thought that they were marking the creativity in essays and that pointing out spelling mistakes would undermine the child's creative potential. Occasionally, we must return to first principles. If an essay contains spelling mistakes, they should be pointed out, so that they can be addressed.
I agree absolutely. That ties in nicely with the role of CPD and, probably, with that of teaching institutions that produce our teachers. I hesitate to say it—it is probably a bit risky—but I guess that young teachers who are coming out of our institutions might not be able to mark adequately, as a result of their school careers.
Finally, I urge a little caution. Several members referred to our place in OECD tables and so on. The previous Administration took great pains to do away with the system of league tables for our schools, which create all sorts of unnecessary pressures on schools. We need to be cautious to ensure that using bigger league tables in the same way does not damage the progress that we are making on literacy.
The debate has certainly been constructive, useful and informative. It is not always possible to say that in the chamber. When we vote on the motion and the amendments, we will show some unanimity. I take the unusual step of suggesting that the Tories seek to withdraw their amendment, so that Parliament can take a wholly unanimous view.
It is fairly obvious—[Interruption.] If I am allowed to make progress, I will explain my request. I have an open mind about some issues in relation to assessing progress on literacy—some issues in the curriculum for excellence still need to be discussed, for example. Testing and qualifications are different. Teachers have, and will have, a role in assessing each pupil's progress and achievements in literacy and numeracy at all education stages—
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
Can I finish, please? I am explaining why the Tories should withdraw their amendment; I will be happy to take an intervention when I have done that.
The teacher's role that I described does not mean a national test, but it does mean that teachers can and will use tests as a method of assessment, so there is a debate to be had about that. That was in the vision for assessment, which was published last September. The framework for assessment is due to be published later this month and the management group is consensual about progressing the issue.
If the Tories insist on our voting on their amendment, that will run contrary to the progress that is being made with the curriculum for excellence. It will therefore be useful if the Tories do not ask us to vote on the amendment, but instead wait for the framework to be published, and be part of the progress on implementing that framework. Rhona Brankin is right to say that Liz Smith was—regrettably—overprescriptive after the previous debate. That has changed the atmosphere. If the Tories were to seek to withdraw their amendment, a better debate could be had about the place of testing and assessment in literacy. That would be useful.
Several members have said clearly that they think that literacy should be the number 1 priority. I do not disagree, but the language of Parliament is often the language of priorities. We should try to look beneath that and to understand what we mean. I would rather call literacy a first-cause issue for how we operate and work in Scotland. Its central importance to encouraging and developing each citizen can be illustrated if we consider the effects of what we might call illiteracy—I use the word broadly and I know that it is not the best term to use, but let us just use it.
It is axiomatic that, without literacy skills, learning and achievement are impaired or negated. That is a serious educational issue, because it puts up an enormous barrier to an individual's gaining from the educational process at any stage. Without literacy skills, participation in society is impaired or negated: we have heard about several examples. Christina McKelvie talked about voting—without literacy skills, participating in the democratic process is difficult. Without literacy skills, participating in digital society is difficult—Mr O'Donnell referred to digital exclusion. That is another reason why literacy should be a first-order issue for us.
Without literacy skills, attention to wellbeing is impaired or negated. I made that point in my opening speech and it remains profoundly true. People who do not have literacy skills do not look after themselves and do not have the tools to look after themselves.
Without literacy skills, employability is impaired or negated. Even if someone without literacy skills manages to negotiate their way through the education system, their employability is very seriously affected.
Without literacy skills, the chance of offending behaviour and repeat offending behaviour is greater. The correlation between figures on illiteracy and on imprisonment and offending is clear. It is a problem that arises when people do not have literacy skills.
Without literacy skills, it is also likely that an individual will live in poverty. That is the case for all the reasons that I have given, and more. Most profoundly of all, without literacy skills, the likelihood is that the individual's children will lack literacy skills. Without literacy skills, people in our society become locked into a cycle of difficulty that leads to impairment in learning achievement, and to exclusion, poor health, poor employability and increased offending behaviour, again and again.
Parliament can agree that literacy is a first-order issue for every politician in Scotland. We need to treat it in that way. That is why, as I said earlier, the work of the literacy commission is important. It draws our attention again to the priorities that we need to have in Scotland and how to implement them.
The cabinet secretary said that literacy is a first cause. The important thing for the Government to say is that literacy is its number 1 priority. As he knows, West Dunbartonshire Council achieved literacy in West Dunbartonshire without class sizes of 18. I will put the question that Des McNulty asked earlier: is literacy the minister's number 1 priority over class sizes? Class size is an input, not an outcome.
I regret Rhona Brankin's putting the question that way. I am trying to have a consensual debate. I regard literacy as being central to what we are seeking to achieve, but there is a difference between that and some of the methods by which we wish to raise attainment in Scotland, one of which is smaller class sizes.
I ask members to accept the bona fides that I give on the matter. We are very concerned about literacy; we regard it as important that we take strong action. I accept what the literacy commission said to me in the meeting this morning: leadership and ownership across the political process and within the education system are needed. We have agreed to take matters forward. I have listened very carefully to all the speeches in the debate and I will ensure that my officials bring all the contributions together. We will then consider what more we need to do. We have said that we will sit down with the commission and agree an action plan. I am happy to see debate in the chamber on that. Members should please accept what I say; let us not divide on it.
I turn to some of the important speeches in the debate. On making two references to the curriculum for excellence in her speech, Elizabeth Smith said that it mentions grammar only once. In fact, the guidance on reading and writing is clear in its expectations on punctuation, structure, spelling, vocabulary and accuracy. I regard grammar as being as important as literacy; certainly, it is in the curriculum for excellence.
A number of members mentioned numeracy. We should always use the word numeracy in debates on literacy, but we should remember the way in which literacy at the higher order embraces numeracy. We should ensure that it is folded into our concerns.
Christina McKelvie implied slightly unkindly that, as an author, Ian Rankin might be self-interested in the debate. As an author, I am self-interested, but I am so in exactly the way that Kenneth Gibson highlighted in his useful speech, as did other members. I refer to reading. I rather like the idea that, here as elsewhere, when a bell rings, we should all take out a book and read it. I hope that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee will consider that innovation. I would love to do that.
Ensuring enthusiasm for reading among young people is enormously important. Over the Christmas period, the Scottish Book Trust moved forward on the issue by asking a number of members what their favourite books are. I know my favourites, one of which I commend to the young people from Moray primary school who are in the public gallery today. It is "The Hill of the Red Fox" by Allan Campbell McLean, who was, of course, a former chairman of the Labour Party in Scotland: I thought that I would make the point before another member did so. That wonderful and exciting children's book had an enormous influence on me. Let us encourage our young people to read by speaking of our favourite books—
"Crowdie and Cream".
I did not hear Jamie Stone's sedentary intervention, but I always regard that as an advantage.
Hugh Henry made the important point that one size does not fit all. There should be flexibility. I am sympathetic to his point on ensuring that individual schools can respond to the circumstances in which they find themselves. We will take forward that point.
Des McNulty spoke about literacy champions in Glasgow. As a result of the curriculum for excellence, the idea is being replicated across Scotland.
The debate has been positive and has shown members' enthusiasm to engage with the issue. I make the commitment that this Government will continue to engage with the issue. I hope that the Tories listen to my appeal for them to seek leave to withdraw their amendment. It would be very helpful if they did so.
I, too, welcome the remarkably consensual and constructive nature of the debate. It is remarkable; Opposition day debates are usually rather more fractious affairs. In addition to thanking Murdo Fraser and Elizabeth Smith for their mostly generous comments, I note, and welcome, the cabinet secretary's uncharacteristically magnanimous remarks and the broad agreement that he signalled with the findings of Labour's literacy commission.
Perhaps the most basic purpose of education is to teach our children to read, write and count; a goal that has proved remarkably elusive over the years. The learning of the three Rs is no more than parents should expect of school, but Labour's literacy commission estimated that almost one in five Scottish pupils leaves primary school without being functionally literate.
In today's debate, we have a chance to accept the challenge that the commission laid down: to work together to make Scotland the world's first truly literate nation. For once, we are not debating resources or—apart from a brief diversion from the cabinet secretary—class sizes, teacher numbers and school buildings. We are debating priorities. We in the Labour Party chose deliberately to take a consensual approach to the subject of literacy. From the speeches from all round of the chamber, it is clear that there is broad agreement on the importance that we should give the subject.
Unfortunately we cannot accept the Tory amendment, as it is not in the spirit of consensus. As Mr Fraser said, almost exactly a year ago—in January 2009—we held a debate in which all parties voted for a similarly worded amendment. I remember distinctly what happened, as does Rhona Brankin. On the day after the debate, the vote was spun—or misinterpreted—in the media to indicate that there had been some form of endorsement to a return to the 11-plus, which was not what we had voted for. In rejecting the Tory amendment today, we want to emphasise that we do not endorse such a move.
What is it about the amendment that Ken Macintosh voted for last time, but which he says he will not vote for today, that he disagrees with?
It is strange to hear the Tories saying that the difficulty lies with other members when all other members are united and unanimous in saying that we have difficulty with the Tory amendment. If there is a lack of clarity or any confusion, it is in what the Tories mean.
I listened to what Elizabeth Smith and Murdo Fraser said. They talked about testing and expanded somewhat on the issue but without accepting or addressing the fact that their proposals have created broad unease in the teaching profession. It is clear that the profession sees the proposals as a worrying development. The Tories may deny that their proposals are a return to the 11-plus. I believe that the Conservative party is trying to trade politically—just as the UK Conservatives do in respect of grammar schools—to the reactionary few who hark back to those days.
The literacy commission made it clear that there is a role for exams and testing. It said that there is a need for both certification in terms of recognition of achievement and, in the context of this morning's Conservative amendment, diagnostic testing that provides information on a child's progress. I want to make it absolutely clear that, in rejecting the amendment, we are saying that we do not accept a return to the sort of divisive testing at the end of primary school that, instead of liberating pupils, condemns them to accepting second best.
Exams and testing are controversial issues. It is more important in today's debate to keep our eye on the bigger prize: the abolition of illiteracy in Scotland. That needs to happen through successive sessions of Parliament and under politically different Administrations. In the debate, we have shown that we can unite around that common goal. That is not to say that we have no criticisms of current policy, perhaps the most important of which is that there is a need for greater leadership. The Scottish Government has talked about embedding literacy in the curriculum and in all school life. This morning, Mr Russell expanded on the role of teaching those skills through the curriculum for excellence. Ministers often talk about making literacy and numeracy every teacher's responsibility, but the commonly repeated criticism—there is a note of truth in it—is that, if it is everyone's responsibility, it is no one's responsibility.
Time and again, Labour's literacy commission returned to the theme of leadership. It called specifically for national leadership and a formal statement of intent, accompanied by commitment at every level—local authority, education directorate, school and home. As other members have recognised, local authorities such as West Dunbartonshire Council and Clackmannanshire Council have demonstrated what can be achieved if there is commitment and constancy.
I am both pleased and proud that Wendy Alexander and Rhona Brankin took the initiative to establish the commission and to refocus our national attention on tackling illiteracy, but it is now up to all of us to play our part. I repeat my welcome for Mr Russell's endorsement of the commission's findings.
Today's debate is about literacy. However, as many members have pointed out—I refer to Hugh Henry's speech, in particular—it is also about poverty and recognising that we are impoverished by illiteracy both as individuals and as a country. Many of us will be familiar with the 2007 Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development report on the quality and equity of schooling in Scotland. The commission quotes one of the report's central findings, which states:
"Not all schools work equally well in Scotland. But the gaps between are far less important than differences between students. In Scotland, who you are is far more important than what school you attend".
The commission cites evidence that not only confirms that socioeconomic disadvantage is the most important cause of correctable poor literacy, but reveals or provides further proof of the pressing need to tackle the problem. It states:
"The same groups suffer from poorer health, less adequate housing, exposure to crime and violence and lower chances of educational success. These disadvantages are not merely correlated, they are causally related."
Before today's debate, Save the Children circulated an excellent submission that identified the impact of poverty on educational attainment and which crucially emphasised the importance of addressing illiteracy through anti-poverty measures. It was particularly strong on the role of parents—an issue that the commission, too, flagged up. Schools cannot achieve universal literacy if they are working in isolation.
Both Save the Children and the commission pointed out that we need to engage with families to a far greater extent. We need to encourage parents to support their children's learning, not just by turning up at parent and teacher evenings but by providing a learning environment in the home. Some local authorities, including Glasgow City Council and North Lanarkshire Council, are putting that approach into practice through early intervention programmes, through initiatives such as nurture groups and through targeting resources at disadvantaged families. Karen Whitefield described some of the effective measures that have been introduced by North Lanarkshire Council, which has focused its efforts on those who are in greatest need.
It is vital that the Scottish Government take a more active role in supporting such work by funding and assessing pilots across the country—for example, to help vulnerable two-year-olds and others to achieve their potential. In his opening remarks, my colleague Des McNulty emphasised the particular need for us to focus on the birth-to-three age range. I welcome the Lib Dem amendment, which rightly highlights the need for us to focus on outcomes and to measure the benefits that are to be gained for low-income families.
The literacy commission focused predominantly on children, but our motion and many members who have spoken today have also highlighted the importance of tackling adult illiteracy and the vital role of trade unions. Before I turn to literacy in the workplace, this is a good point at which to emphasise the continuum of literacy. Our goal should be not simply to help children to master the basics but for everyone to be helped to develop as high an order of literacy and comprehension as possible. This morning's Government amendment makes the point that everyone, not just those with impoverished learning opportunities or poor employment prospects, gains from a national literacy programme. For that reason, we are happy to support the SNP amendment.
It is clear that a lack of higher-level literacy skills is a major problem for employers and our economy. As Kenny Gibson was, I was struck by the evidence that Paul Holleran of the National Union of Journalists and Martin Boyle of Cardonald College gave to the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee yesterday on the need to improve literacy skills among trainee journalists. Those young adults have chosen a career that depends on their ability to write, but both witnesses suggested that many students could not spell and had not mastered basic grammar. I hope that Mr Gibson will agree that an encouraging aspect of the evidence was that the Scottish union learning fund has helped the NUJ to establish a literacy course for journalists. Many members will be familiar with everyday skills courses, which are another example of Scottish union learning. Such workplace learning activities help people to understand written and verbal job instructions, to read and understand health and safety information, to understand mortgage interest rates and to help children with their homework. Not having those core skills holds us back, condemns individuals to a life of low-skilled, low-paid employment and damages our economy.
I conclude with a thank you to Judith Gillespie and all members of the literacy commission, many of whom have been with us in Parliament this morning, for their work. I am pleased both by Labour's role in refocusing our attention on illiteracy in Scotland and by the fact that all parties have recognised that the issue can unite us, rather than divide us. Like many Scots, I was brought up with the idea that education and equality go hand in hand. Education is the door to a more egalitarian society. The pursuit of universal literacy could be the key to that door.