“Reviews of National Policies for Education: Quality and Equity of Schooling in Scotland”
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-1131, in the name of Maureen Watt, on the report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development on Scottish education, "Quality and Equity of Schooling in Scotland".
I am delighted to introduce this important debate on the OECD report into Scottish education, "Quality and Equity of Schooling in Scotland", which was published on 11 December 2007. As a measure of the importance that the Scottish Government places on this extremely insightful external analysis of our school education system, we alerted all members of the Scottish Parliament to the report prior to the Christmas recess—knowing that they would of course wish to read the review from cover to cover during their Christmas and new year holiday.
I say at the outset that we are grateful to the previous Executive, in particular to the former ministers Peter Peacock and Hugh Henry, for their involvement with the OECD review. Peter Peacock had the insight and good sense to commission the review in the first place, and I acknowledge that it takes some courage to commission such a review. It shows his confidence in the Scottish education system, but I am sure that the Danish experience lay at the back of his mind. The Danes commissioned an OECD review following disappointing results under the programme for international student assessment and that might have given Peter Peacock a bit of worry, but he need not have worried. I thank Hugh Henry for supporting the work and for meeting the OECD review team when they visited Scotland in March.
Such an expert analysis is consistent with our overall wish to challenge Scotland's education ambitions against the achievements of other countries as a basis for improving performance. I am sure that all of us here aim to uphold Scottish traditions of being open to outside opinion and constructive in our response, and of trying
"To see oursels as others see us!"
The OECD's seminal report helps us to do just that.
The OECD team presented their report to ministers at a special session of the OECD education policy committee in Edinburgh on 11 December. It was a pity that the BBC broke the OECD's embargo and, as a result of not having the full report, ran a rather unbalanced story—but there we go. The special session meeting was a unique event, in that senior education representatives from 14 countries discussed the report and its findings with ministers for the whole day. I am pleased to say that there is much in the review team's report that aligns with this Government's strategic priorities, such as our commitment to tackling education inequalities from the earliest stages, our new relationship with local government, the skills and vocational learning agenda and the reform and modernisation of the curriculum through the curriculum for excellence. I also welcome the positive things that the review says about some of the key strengths of our system. For example,
"Scotland is a well-schooled nation by international standards."
I attended a seminar in London last week with education ministers from 60 countries and 180 senior policy advisers. Seventy-two countries were represented, covering 67 per cent of the world's population. As well as coming away with a better understanding of the digital divide, which the seminar was about, I came away knowing that many countries wish to know more about our education system.
Many participants told me that we do not shout loudly enough about our good system here in Scotland. We should not be surprised, therefore, that the report commended our consistently high standard in the OECD's programme for international student assessment, or PISA; the quality of head teachers in Scotland; our impressive system of near universal, high-quality pre-school education; the 2001 teachers agreement, with its impact on morale and on interest in the profession through improved salary and working conditions and continuous professional development; the renovation of our schools; and our approach to teacher induction, which was described as "world class" in the review.
In Scotland, we are in the vanguard of leading education nations. We are a learning nation—and it is reassuring to be told by external, impartial examiners from such an august body as the OECD that that is indeed the case.
I do not wish in any way to denigrate the findings of the report, nor to question the PISA standards, but how does the minister balance what the investigation into Scottish education standards found with the Government's own programme, which is running a television advert saying that one in five—almost one in four—adult Scots has difficulty with reading and counting?
I will come on to the matter that the member raises later in my speech.
As Professor Richard Teese, rapporteur for the review, said to us, the key question for the team was, "How do you improve a system that is already very good?" However, the review throws up some key challenges, such as the need to reduce the achievement gap that opens up at about primary 5 and continues to widen throughout the lower secondary years; the fact that young people from poorer communities and low socioeconomic status homes are more likely than others to achieve less; and the need to build on our strong platform of basic education through socially broader and more successful participation in upper secondary education and greater equity in Scottish higher education.
The OECD review states:
"In Scotland, who you are is far more important than what school you attend, and at present Scottish schools are not strong enough to ensure that ‘who you are' does not count."
Inequalities in staying-on rates, participation at different academic levels of national courses and pass rates in those courses are a major concern of this Government, as they are in many countries in the world.
The review also highlights the number of young people who leave school with minimal qualifications and the comparatively high proportion who find themselves in precarious transition. Those problems are by no means unique to our nation. As Mrs MacDonald said, there are adults in Scotland today who have not had the basics in education to enable them to cope. We are addressing that issue.
I am happy to hear that the Government is aware of the issue and plans to address it. Will the minister's starting point be people in the 50-plus age group? It might be found that people who left school in Scotland that length of time ago were better equipped in respect of basic reading, writing and counting skills than people who left school in Scotland 30 years ago.
The member makes an excellent point. The fact that our early years strategy and our early intervention strategy use the whole family to raise aspirations is in line with what she mentions.
In essence, the review makes it clear that our key challenge is how we improve a successful system to make it more equitable and to ensure that the benefits of a Scottish education are more widely shared, particularly at the latter end of school education and through the important transition period.
To help us address those challenges, the review makes a series of recommendations in five broadly-framed areas:
"National priorities funding through local government compacts … Greater school autonomy in a local government framework … A comprehensive, structured and accessible curriculum … Continuous review of curriculum and teaching"
and monitoring of student destinations.
We will, of course, look carefully at the specific recommendations in all five areas and consider how they might help us to deliver our strategic objectives, particularly in relation to our smarter and our wealthier and fairer objectives, in partnership with local authorities and other key education community agencies and stakeholders.
We look forward to engaging with the Scottish education community, particularly within our new outcomes-focused landscape following the signing of our historic concordat with local government leaders on 14 November 2007, so that we can work together as partners in an atmosphere of mutual respect to consider what we can do to respond in a positive and constructive manner to the OECD's findings and recommendations.
The question is not so much, "What is the Government going to do in response to the review?" as, "What does the review mean for everyone in the Scottish education community and what are our shared responsibilities to engage with its findings?"
I welcome this opportunity for a mature debate that forms part of a continuing reflection on what we are doing and why, within the context of the review and other sources of evidence, both national and international, which are at our disposal. I had hoped that we could focus the debate on the merits of the review itself and address the issues raised, rather than debate amendments. I am sure that that is what most members will want to do this afternoon, but we should be mindful that the review team and other countries are interested in what we say about their report, rather than in party political points that speakers might score.
We can all be proud of the success of Scottish education and what we have achieved. However, as the OECD points out, it is not a success for all children. That is the challenge that we need to face up to collectively if Scotland and its education system are to be the best that they can be in the 21st century.
We need children and young people who are effective contributors, responsible citizens and confident individuals, as well as successful learners, if we are to achieve a smarter Scotland. More importantly, people deserve that for themselves, to improve their own life chances and opportunities.
Our ambitions for Scotland are challenging—and rightly so. In our first eight months in government, we have taken important first steps towards shaping tomorrow's Scotland and making Scotland smarter. The challenge is to ensure that Scotland's reputation as a smart, learning nation is maintained and enhanced and that Scotland becomes a country that can build on firm foundations, harness the talents of our people and create opportunities for all to flourish and excel.
We want Scotland to be everything that it can be. Good teaching and learning lie at the heart of that. A love of learning is a liberator for learners of all ages—which relates to what Margo MacDonald said—and that is what we want to see throughout the system.
We welcome the review and today's debate because we believe that Scotland should be in the vanguard of educational thinking on the international stage. Our ambitions are high. We should be engaged with, and leading, cutting-edge thinking in education across the world and we should be reflecting, on an on-going basis, on how the evidence that we have from both national and international sources, including this important external review, can help us to achieve a smarter, wealthier and fairer Scotland.
I move,
That the Parliament welcomes the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's (OECD) Reviews of Policies for National Education: Quality and Equity of Schooling in Scotland and its findings; notes the many positive aspects of our school education system highlighted by the OECD, and agrees that this report is an invaluable international evidence base on which to debate and develop Scotland's educational policies for the future, recognising the significant challenges identified by the OECD.
A debate on education has been a long time coming to the chamber, but I do not wish to be churlish, as I welcome the opportunity.
As has been said, in 2006, Peter Peacock commissioned the report from the OECD to examine the strengths of Scottish schools and the challenges that they face in the attempt to attain high standards for all our children. The report found many strengths in education performance. We perform at a consistently high standard in the programme for international student assessment. There have been reductions in underachievement, greater consistency in the early years of primary school and a rise in the number of students achieving higher grades in the final year of schooling. Further, our induction programme for new teachers was highly praised, as was our near universal, high-quality pre-school education. Indeed, the comprehensive secondary school system was seen as
"another major strength of Scottish education."
Two key challenges were identified. First, there is the challenge to reduce the gap in achievement that opens up in primary school and widens in secondary school, of which I am very conscious. When I used to visit students who were working in nurseries and primary schools, I saw that they never failed to be amazed at the wide gaps in areas such as language development that existed even in groups of children who had been at school for a few years.
The second challenge is to improve participation in upper secondary education and to create greater equity in higher education. Of major concern are the young people who leave school and become people who are not in education, employment or training. Indeed, the Labour Party was particularly concerned about that when we were in government.
Importantly, the report underlines the relationship between disadvantage and educational attainment. The report says that children from poorer homes are more likely to underachieve, disengage from school work and leave school earlier than others. This is nothing new, and it is a particularly difficult area to tackle. Our closing the opportunity gap measure was to raise the attainment levels of the worst performing 20 per cent of students, which was a stubborn target to achieve—that is not easy to do.
The report chimes with what Labour is saying about our existing social justice policies on parenting and early intervention and our strategy to support pupils who will potentially leave school without education, employment or training. I ask the cabinet secretary, in responding to the debate, to clarify whether the Government will honour its manifesto commitment to introduce a £30 million additional support for learning fund or whether that will be another broken promise. Will the cabinet secretary also clarify whether she will commit to the provision of nursery education for vulnerable two-year-olds?
The report expresses concern that the two key instruments of change and adaptation in schools—innovation in the curriculum and schools' flexibility in teaching resources—are currently limited and recommends that the Government create greater management freedom and encourage innovation and risk taking within a clear mandate. We support that very much. In addressing the challenges, the OECD welcomes the development of the new curriculum and points out that, now that higher staying-on rates have been achieved, the challenge is to increase demands on students. The key recommendation—which, again, we very much support—is to continue to develop our approach to vocational studies in schools. Importantly, the report says that that should not be viewed too narrowly—just in terms of employability. That is an important lesson for us to learn. It also emphasises that the learner perspective is absolutely essential in all this.
We support what the report says about the move to greater autonomy in curriculum and finance; however, importantly, the report says that that must be achieved with greater transparency and accountability. That will be a genuine issue for the Government, as it intends to move to an outcome-based approach. We have major concerns about that, relating to transparency and accountability, and many stakeholders share our concerns.
The report points out that the Government does not currently have reliable information on the extent to which educational standards are being reached in each of the local authorities. I add to what Margo MacDonald said about there being a major concern about literacy and numeracy in Scotland. I have already asked the cabinet secretary whether she would be prepared to show leadership in that area, as there has been a clear failure to show leadership in tackling the issue at a national level. What has happened in West Dunbartonshire has shown us a way forward, and I would be interested to hear whether the cabinet secretary is prepared to reconsider her decision to leave the matter to local authorities. I call on her to show some leadership in that very important area.
The report voices concerns about the current formula allocation of block grants and emphasises, again, the need for reliable data on student achievement and performance throughout Scotland. We know that there are still inequalities throughout Scotland, so we need a national strategy. It cannot just be left to local authorities; there must be a clear national strategy and transparency as well as, of course, regular assessment of impact.
Overall, we think that the report is a perceptive piece of work by the OECD. Its analysis of the challenges that are faced by Scottish education should not surprise us—it does not surprise those of us who have been in government. Labour is only too well aware of the inequalities in Scottish education, of the impact of poverty and deprivation and of the challenges that we face in tackling them. That is why we frame our policies on children and education as we do.
However, a key point for us is the need to change an education system that can lack flexibility, that does not always reward innovation and, importantly, that still leads to huge regional variations in performance. That is a big challenge for the Government. There is a fundamental inability to make informed judgments at Government level about the effectiveness of policy and resources in the absence of comprehensive data on outcomes throughout Scotland. There will need to be some hard thinking about our current assessment regime and the information that is available to us. That might be a challenging debate, but we need to have it.
Although the report advocates greater devolution to local authorities and schools, it also points to the clear need for leadership at Government level. That is important because of the huge variations and challenges that we face at local authority level and the difficulty with monitoring the assessment of students. The Government intends to take the huge leap of introducing outcome agreements and performance indicators without having the ability at the centre to make informed judgments on performance. That is a significant risk, and the report states that it could lead to greater local variations. I will be particularly interested to hear what the cabinet secretary has to say about that.
The member is wrong to think that we will not have a handle on what is happening locally. With single outcome agreements, we will have more of a handle on performance at the local level. Indeed, we had a meeting earlier today with representatives from Aberdeen City Council with responsibility for children, families and education to find out precisely what is going on locally. We can find examples of best practice from throughout the country and put people in touch with each other.
I repeat what I said, and indeed what the report says. At the moment, in the absence of comprehensive data on student outcomes throughout Scotland, the Government has a fundamental inability to make informed judgments about the effectiveness of policy and resources. I would be interested to hear exactly how you are going to do that.
Overall, the report reflects Labour's analysis of the continuing barriers of poverty and deprivation. Importantly, it supports a targeted approach to tackling equity issues. We support such an approach, but we know that the SNP has difficulties with it. Bodies such as Save the Children and Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People have expressed concerns and stated the importance of tracking spend on education and children, and the report adds weight to that.
The report is hugely important and we are keen to develop policy around it. It gives us a huge opportunity to drive our social justice agenda in education, social policy and health policy. We challenge the Government to develop the national plan that is needed to tackle equity issues and ensure that the devolution of funding and powers to local authorities is not simply used as an excuse for a total abdication of leadership on social justice and education by the SNP Government. I ask you to support the Labour amendment to the motion.
I move amendment S3M-1131.2, to insert at end:
"recognises the challenge in closing the gap in achievement associated with poverty and deprivation and the need for improved vocational education and high quality training; calls on the Scottish Government to take leadership and place an emphasis on literacy and numeracy, devolve power further to head teachers, develop leadership in schools and further develop vocational studies linked to high quality training, and regrets that this government has failed to address these priorities and has failed to deliver on key pledges made in the SNP manifesto."
Thank you. At this stage, I remind all members that the only time they should use the word "you" is when they are speaking to me.
The Conservatives welcome the opportunity to debate the important challenges that Scottish schools face. Four of those challenges are given a high profile in the OECD report and they deserve urgent attention if we are to improve education standards in Scottish schools. Indeed, we believe that the debate should not only build on the undoubted strength of the system, which the Minister for Schools and Skills outlined, but set the priorities for education policy in the immediate future.
The first concern, which comes through loud and clear in the report and which came through loud and clear from Margo MacDonald this afternoon, is that a worrying lack of basic skills remains among too many of our pupils, especially when it comes to reading, writing and arithmetic. I am conscious that politicians will use the evidence that suits their case or, in some cases, scaremonger on the topic, but nonetheless there is convincing evidence on the difficulties that we face with the three Rs. I will put our cards firmly on the table because I believe that, if we address the problem properly, we will go a long way towards unlocking the other problems with education in Scotland.
I believe that there is a way through for the three Rs. I will not accept any suggestion that success or failure in the three Rs necessarily reflects social background, although of course that can have a major impact.
The report contains strong evidence that that is exactly the case. As Rhona Brankin said, a person's background determines their success. It should not, but unfortunately, as the report says, it does.
I am saying that background does not necessarily determine performance, although of course it can have a big impact.
I point to what both Clackmannanshire Council and West Dunbartonshire Council have done, which Rhona Brankin mentioned in her speech. They have had remarkable success in combining good teachers with the right teaching methods, high expectations and good discipline for pupils right across the ability range. There is a lesson to be learned from that.
A second interesting finding in the report is the fact that the attainment gap in Scotland begins to develop in earnest in primary 5, rather than in earlier years, which is sometimes assumed to be educational wisdom. The attainment gap gets bigger when children are aged around 10. If the problem continues to worsen in the early years of secondary school, that is an important lesson about where remedial help is most required.
The report's third important finding is that our curriculum and its accompanying exam structure do not currently serve the best interests of our pupils. Although there are many exciting developments in the curriculum for excellence, especially the initiative to ensure that education is about developing a well-rounded and responsible citizen, as well as one who is fit for the workforce, there is a key message in the OECD report that our system is failing too many youngsters. It is failing them because it is not providing enough focus for those who do not wish to pursue a purely academic career. I know that the Government is interested in developing that line of thinking.
The public exam system needs to be simplified, to be made much more rigorous and to put greater emphasis on basic competence in literacy and numeracy than it does at present. As we have said before, we entirely agree with the OECD that there needs to be a much more radical approach to vocational opportunities.
It is my contention that public exams should continue to start in secondary 4. Standard grades should be replaced by an exam that takes on board the best of the current intermediate 2 courses and puts much heavier focus on the use of literacy and numeracy. If that means that pupils take slightly fewer but more rigorous exams at that stage, so be it. The Scottish higher, which by and large retains its place as a highly respected qualification, remains the focus for the end of S5 and, therefore, the basis for university and college entrance, but we need to think about what happens post higher. The advanced higher, which is an excellent exam in many cases, far superior in some areas to the English A-level, is not being taught in enough schools, and the danger is that universities will soon start to disregard its worth. During the Christmas holidays, there were many calls on that issue. I hope that the Government will take up the cause of listening to what people are saying about reform of the exam. The debate about a Scottish baccalaureate is still to be had.
Finally, I come to the OECD recommendation that schools should have more autonomy in their governance. Members will not be surprised when I say that Conservative members are delighted to hear that, because if there is one fundamental problem that is holding back the whole system, it is the straitjacket of central control, which pays no heed to regional differences, the needs of different types of schools or the needs of individual pupils. Conservative members believe that standards in schools will improve only if we put control back into the hands of the professionals on the front line and take it away from the bureaucrats. The same is true of all other public services.
The OECD has said some extremely important things about what Scottish schools do well, and rightly so. However, it has also said a lot about the important challenges that we face. It is incumbent on all members of the Parliament, including members of the Government, to address those specific challenges without further delay.
I have pleasure in moving amendment S3M-1131.1, to insert at end:
"further notes that the report's key challenge to Scottish schools is to make them work consistently well and equitably and that this outcome is dependent upon greater autonomy within school management, much greater emphasis within the curriculum on basic skills in English and mathematics and greater opportunities for pupils to follow vocational opportunities."
Like others, Liberal Democrats have held for a number of years that the Scottish approach to education is one of our country's greatest assets. The OECD report is a vote of confidence in our country's teachers, who are shaping a profession and a sector that the OECD recognises as having very few peers. Page 30 of the report states:
"To the OECD observer, Scottish schools are very energetic and committed enterprises. It is not surprising that the country performs so well on international measures."
Scotland was pioneering in the 17th century, with a school in every parish—there was little point in people understanding the law of the Bible if they could not read it. In the 18th century, a reaction to unwieldy Presbyterianism led to education transformation in our universities. We have progressively developed and honed an education system and protected that core community asset.
Unlike south of the border, we continue to have an holistic and community-based approach to education. We have not heard in this debate or seen in the OECD report mention of skills academies, grammar schools or pupil passports—if the Conservatives remember those. Those approaches south of the border have meant fragmentation and have set pupil apart from pupil. It is to our credit that we have rejected them in Scotland since devolution. As an example, I quote from page 68 of the OECD report:
"Scotland has succeeded in building a widely accessible and high quality system of secondary schools which are shared by most families as a community asset."
We are now tasked with developing our education system for the next generation. We know, because of the OECD report, that we are building on secure foundations, but in doing so we need to address the valid comments on the achievement gap for some pupils that are outlined in section 4 of the report.
Even a casual observer of the OECD report will find references to its statement that few countries can outperform us on the key aspects of education, in all areas of learning and at each stage of learning. Indeed, the OECD points to the fact that Scotland has a fair, open and equitable education system that operates under good management by local authorities and good leadership by teachers and heads, but it notes that there is an issue with some pupils—predominantly from poor backgrounds—who do not progress as well as others through the formal compulsory years of education.
It is with regret that I say that we have a Government that is complacent at the very least—so far, we have even seen some negligence. The Scottish National Party approach has been to present a small number of headline-grabbing education policies that have questionable coherence and little consistency.
Consistency has been only one victim of the massacre of the manifesto that we have seen since May. One of the most concerning issues has been class sizes. We have heard this afternoon from the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning that someone's background and the area in which they were born should have no relevance to the standard of education or quality of provision that they receive. However, on the Government's own flagship policy of reducing class sizes to a maximum of 18 pupils in primary 1 to 3—regardless of the gymnastics that we have seen on whether it should be delivered in this session of Parliament—the established policy, which is enshrined in an agreement with local authorities, is that the reductions will be delivered by demographics. Demographic change—in other words, the population trend of the area where someone is born—will determine whether someone's class will be smaller than in other areas. That is not acceptable as Government policy; neither is it acceptable to enshrine it in an agreement with local government. It is wholly inconsistent with the thrust of the OECD report.
Let us consider enterprise and vocational education. It is concerning that funding for the determined to succeed programme, which provides enterprise education in schools and is a core part of our citizenship agenda, has been frozen at the current year's level for three years, which means a cut in real terms of 8 per cent. There is no clarity about whether that education will be delivered by a national body, local authorities or colleges. Indeed, the £16 million set-up costs for the national skills body alone is nearly the sum of money for the whole skills development agenda, which is critical if we want to catch young people in secondary education and support the skills for work programme and adult literacy.
Of course, it is not just a question of catching young people in secondary education—early intervention is critical. On that, we also have a lack of clarity from the new Government. In its policy on early intervention and nursery teachers for every nursery, it has gone from promising to double provision to a 50 per cent increase in hours, and we still do not have clarity on the Government's definition of access to a teacher for every nursery-age child. That is simply not good enough. We have given the Government some element of freedom in its first few months. It has stated that it has delivered more in seven months than was delivered in seven years, but surely it takes less than seven months to put in the public domain a definition of access to a teacher for every nursery-age child. That indicates the lack of transparency in the Government. The situation is exactly the same with further and higher education, and the youth services that have critical links with schools.
The Government is silent on the curriculum for excellence, so we must assume that it is content with the direction of travel. Teachers are asking the Government for its vision, but seven months in we have not heard whether it is content with the curriculum for excellence strategy, whether it is seeking changes or, indeed, how the strategy fits in with the wider issues.
We will work with the Government in many areas on early access and developing better support for young people, but we will resist the approach to class sizes, which would mean potential group sizes of 25 in nurseries, moving to artificially low groups of 18 in primaries 1 to 3, potentially moving back up into the 30s for the rest of primary school, and then on into another inconsistent model for secondary schools. We want a gradual and progressive approach to reducing class sizes at all ages, and a better transition from primary to secondary. However, that cannot be done in isolation, without transparency and published definitions from the Government, as well as the funding commitment to back it up.
We have seen real progress in the past eight years, and the OECD report confirms that the direction of travel has been correct. It will continue to be the right direction of travel if we get additional support from the Government and can see what direction it is taking, instead of the Government just noting the success, as ministers have done, while Scottish National Party back benchers deny it has happened. We need more clarity from this Government, and we will work with it to bring that about, but we will hold the Government to account when it does not offer it.
I move amendment S3M-1131.3, to insert at end:
"welcomes the recognition of the success of educational innovations and developments in Scotland since 1999, and believes that the OECD recommendations for further development of the vocational provision of education, for the development of further leadership in school head teams and for a greater emphasis on transition into primary and between primary and secondary education, with greater devolved but more transparent funding to deliver them, should be the priorities of the Scottish Government in improving even further Scotland's strong internationally renowned education system."
I am, not surprisingly, delighted to support Maureen Watt's motion. I agree with her that the OECD report indicates the strength of the Scottish education system and the challenges that we face in improving it for the benefit of us all.
I am delighted that the SNP Scottish Government has begun the enormous task of improving Scottish education, including refreshing and renewing the partnership with local government and freeing local decision making from the dead hand of ring fencing.
There is a range of interesting amendments. The Conservative amendment has some merits, especially in its call for greater opportunities for vocational education. I am sure that Elizabeth Smith agrees that Scotland's colleges have been driving that agenda, and we have a lot to be grateful to them for, but more needs to be done. We must take time to examine the possible ways forward, the routes that Scottish pupils can choose and the resources that are available in our schools. We can be sure that the Minister for Schools and Skills is carefully examining the issues around vocational education and that she will report to Parliament in due course. I look forward to examining the issues and grilling the minister—gently, of course—on the options that she chooses.
I take issue with one part of Elizabeth Smith's amendment. I am inclined to agree with her that there is scope for placing a greater emphasis on English and maths, because of the beneficial effects of using the basic tools of those subjects, and because later and more in-depth study of them can offer benefits to the whole country. In particular, the study of maths is a prerequisite for much of the further study of technology and science—we have heard several calls for a greater number of students to travel those routes. However, I point out that, for quite some time, Scottish politicians have relinquished direct control over the curriculum, and for very good reason. In Scotland, we trust education professionals far more than is perhaps the case elsewhere in these islands. I am sure that Elizabeth Smith appreciates that. I am also sure that she agrees that it should not be any other way.
I also agree with some of Rhona Brankin's amendment, if that does not cause her too many problems. I agree that there is a massive challenge for Scottish education to close the achievement gap that is associated with poverty and deprivation. It is shocking that such a challenge still exists in Scotland. In 1997, Labour promised us an end to poverty in Scotland—it was not delivered, of course. That was one of Labour's many broken promises. In 1999, Labour came into this Parliament promising continuous improvement in Scottish education—again, that was not delivered, and it was another broken promise from Labour.
Does the member accept that when we were in government we reduced child poverty?
The member should look at page 144 of the OECD report, which shows that three in four primary schools are still in the highest poverty band. I will not take any lessons from the Labour Party on that point.
In 2003, the partnership agreement for the Labour-led Administration suggested that improving attainment was a matter of providing more staff in schools rather than any other Government function. There was supposed to be a focus on improving numeracy and literacy but, by the end of the 2005-06 scholastic year—the most recent year for which figures are available—no improvement in attainment had occurred at all. Several cohorts of Scottish pupils have reason to regret Labour's failure to address those priorities and to deliver on key pledges in its manifesto. Like the rest of Scotland, Scottish pupils were failed year after year by Labour's broken promises.
Rhona Brankin's amendment calls for the devolution of more power to head teachers. Can we dare to hope that Labour members are beginning to understand the purpose of removing ring fencing? Like the principle of subsidiarity, removing ring fencing allows decisions to be made at the most appropriate level. Given that Labour now displays a desire for decisions to be made at the most appropriate level, I hope that we can expect support from the Labour group for the principle of removing ring fencing.
In that spirit of consensus, I note that the removal of the derived grades procedure from the Scottish Qualifications Authority marking process has resulted in a far more equitable system. Without doubt, we now have a far more level playing field than when we had the skewing factor of derived grades. We should be pleased that pupils can be absolutely confident that they gained the grades that appear on their certificate and that they have not been inflated artificially—pupils can be proud of their true achievement. That is certainly an improvement.
One main underpinning of the Scottish education system's reputation throughout the world is the inherent honesty in our approach, which has led to the insistence that it is the abilities of the individual that matter, not their place in society. That is a prime support of the Scottish education system and I am glad that we have it. The debate on the direction of travel for Scottish education will, rightly, continue, and from it we will plot a sensible route forward. I am pleased to support the minister's motion.
I welcome the debate. I found the OECD report informative, as I am sure many other members did. I did not read it during the Christmas holidays, but I have had a good look at it since then. The report provides much food for thought, but I will concentrate much of my speech on the "Staying on at school, building on school" section, which is important.
I am sure that members agree that decisions that people make between the ages of 14 and 18 significantly determine the shape that their life takes as they get older. I recall my decisions at that time and those of my friends, who in some cases were eventually left with no choices. Even in 1989, leaving school at 16 was a vastly different experience from doing so in 2008. Then, we had a declining number of apprenticeships and lots of youth training scheme courses—on which people were paid about £20 a week—and the number of people who entered higher education was nowhere near as high as it is now. There were fewer employment opportunities and those that existed did not enjoy the protection of the national minimum wage or the right to paid holidays. The employment picture was vastly different from today's situation, as we now have more opportunities in the labour market.
The OECD report highlights a concern that we all share about those who are not fortunate enough to be in employment, education or training, and it recognises the importance of earlier intervention for young people. That thinking lies behind the Labour Party's support for skills academies. In our opinion, the establishment of such academies would provide a vital link in the transition from compulsory education to further or higher education, and therefore into the world of work.
As I said, I was fortunate to find an apprenticeship on leaving school, but many of my friends did not find an apprenticeship or suitable employment and they found themselves in low-paid and low-skill jobs that they struggled to get out of for several years. That is why schools should develop strong vocational programmes to provide young people with the grounding for the best range of opportunities when they leave compulsory education.
One recommendation in the report is that vocational courses be made available to all young people from secondary 3, spanning the ages 14 to 18. If Government is to make the right policy decisions, it is vital that it knows about and understands the implications of young people not having the right opportunities at that time, whether in education, employment or training.
Colleges have a hugely important role in providing accessible and flexible vocational learning. The best of the existing school-college links utilise that role effectively, although most people would like more such activity. However, the report outlines clearly that, without the expansion of vocational education programmes in schools, there is a danger that colleges will be used as a dumping ground for low achievers and that the attainment and social deprivation divisions that exist between communities in Scotland could increase.
Equally important to young people between the ages of 14 and 16 are the opportunities that are available to people between the ages of 16 and 18 once they have finished their compulsory education. I am always looking to other European countries for ideas and for ways of increasing the level of vocational training. I am sure that many other members do the same. However, in this case we do not have to look too far from home to find the right type of direct Government intervention to maximise vocational development opportunities for people over the age of 16. The United Kingdom Government recognises the importance of that period in people's lives, therefore it is introducing measures to raise the education/training age to 17 in 2013 and then to 18 in 2015. That is part of the Education and Skills Bill. The Westminster proposals will not raise the school-leaving age, as some might suggest; rather, they will extend the educational opportunities for young people. If young people are not at school, they will be able to participate in a number of different ways. For example, they will be able to benefit from the extension of modern apprenticeships or they will be able to work while also taking training courses.
It seems that every time I speak in the chamber I talk about modern apprenticeships. I hope that members will indulge me a little further, because I know that many of them share my interest. Apprentice numbers have increased significantly over the past few years, as has the range of courses. Good progress has been made, but the argument for the need to get more skilled people ready for the economic challenges of the future has never been more compelling.
As part of its proposals for apprenticeships, I urge the Scottish Government to consider the Westminster proposals. The forthcoming apprenticeship reform bill will seek to get more young people into skilled employment in the longer term. Measures in the bill will include giving a right to a modern apprenticeship by 2013. That right will be offered to all who meet the proper entry requirements. Can members imagine that? If someone wants an apprenticeship, they will get one, full stop. To back up that right, the bill will propose a duty on public bodies—
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, minister, but I am in my last minute.
I will let you take the intervention if you wish.
I am quite happy to take the intervention.
Is the member aware that there has been an historical right to apprenticeship and training in Scotland, but that that right has not been properly exercised? The value of what he is suggesting might therefore be questioned.
The Leitch report and other studies have identified that we need to compel people to push modern apprenticeships much further up the agenda. That is why I believe that the apprenticeship reform bill will be innovative legislation.
As I was saying, the bill will propose a duty on public bodies to provide modern apprenticeships. It will also propose a duty on the equivalent of our enterprise companies to provide modern apprenticeships. People will have that opportunity.
Thank you, Presiding Officer, for giving me some extra time. This is an issue on which we have to put party politics to one side. If good things are happening in other parts of the UK, the Government should not simply pursue a wholly Scottish solution. We all recognise that more unites the United Kingdom than divides it. Without a shadow of a doubt, our concerns about the skills problem are similar to those in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. We could all learn a great deal from each other.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in this afternoon's debate on the findings of the OECD review of the quality and equity of schooling in Scotland. As others have said, it is important to acknowledge that much in the review is to be welcomed. By and large, our education system compares favourably with many of our international competitors. For example, we are above average in the three literacies of science, maths and reading; we have one of the lowest levels of poorly performing pupils in OECD countries; and the gap between the top quartile and the bottom quartile is below the OECD average. However, the PISA findings show that our international position has slipped compared with 2003.
Figures also show that the number of our students who end up in the not in education, employment or training category remains stubbornly and worryingly high: the 1999 figure was 37,000 and the 2005 figure was 36,000. I do not use those facts to criticise the previous Executive; I am simply stating the present position. We have to go forward together in the education debate in order to achieve success for our schools and our schoolchildren.
It is in that context that we view the OECD review and its concerns about inequality in educational attainment. I note the point that the report makes about that:
"Little of the variation in student achievement in Scotland is associated with the ways in which schools differ. Most of it is connected with how children differ … children from poorer homes are more likely to underachieve, disengage from schoolwork, leave school earlier than others, and—if they continue—study at lower academic levels and record lower pass rates."
Rhona Brankin touched on a similar section of the report.
The previous Scottish Executive attempted to progress the situation, and we must examine the schools of ambition scheme in that context. After a bit of research, I found that Springburn academy is working to incentivise parents from deprived areas to take a real interest in the progress of their children. The situation is not all bleak, but we have to improve and move forward together.
The Government's early years strategy will assist in tackling social inequalities in education, and it is right that it should be monitored in years to come. Indeed, it will take a number of years to see the benefits that our youngest children will derive from the strategy and carry through to their secondary education experience.
We must also ensure that pupils who are at secondary school today have the best possible education experience in terms of educational attainment and the quality of the learning experience. With the curriculum for excellence and the very interesting recommendations in the OECD report, we could be entering a period of great change in secondary schools in the next few years.
I turn to one of the OECD recommendations—that standard grade examinations should be phased out as part of the new three-to-18 curriculum. There is much reasoning behind that recommendation, and much of it might even be logical, but ditching standard grades could be the proverbial throwing the baby out with the bath water, although I remain open-minded.
When standard grades were introduced, there was a belief that students of all abilities could study across a full range of subjects and be assessed at an appropriate level. The concept was meaningful certification for all. Many students and teachers might now believe that a system in which the majority of students study, say, eight standard grades across a range of subjects and courses that seem to some to drag on for two years is in need of review and reform. However, I am not sure about scrapping standard grades completely.
The OECD contrasts what could be achieved by abolishing standard grades with how it interprets the current system. It refers to
"a reformed programme of studies that is seen as purposeful and meaningful and can aim at high accomplishment in a range of areas or a transcript of examination results which shows how little academic learning has occurred".
The OECD says that that is the choice to be made.
I might be a bit of a greybeard, but the concept behind standard grades built on the foundation of comprehensive education. What people got wrong was the fact that comprehensive education was meant to be social education, and that transferred to how standard grades were used in schools. The idea was not that everyone had to do exactly the same courses at the same time in the same way. If the member reads his history books, he will find that that is what standard grades did not get right.
I thank the member for that intervention. I was one of the guinea pigs in the first year of the standard grades intake. It was put to us that standard grades meant certification for all. I do not know whether that is a good or a bad thing to say about the standard grades system.
Although there is an element of truth in the OECD review's comments, it misses the point. It may be true that some students are sitting in low standard grade sets waiting for two years to get the grade 6 that they and perhaps their teachers anticipated anyway. On entering S3, the standard grades route may not be the most appropriate for many. Greater flexibility and a variety of provision are needed in S3 and S4 to ensure that many students are not left disillusioned and simply marking time. That is what much of the new skills for work programme is about. I recognise the need for change.
However, there is another story to tell. Although many students might not be high achievers or at the top end of the academic spectrum, they still enjoy the subjects that they study. Indeed, they might gain satisfaction from accessing the curriculum at an appropriate level for their needs and they might not want that opportunity to be taken away.
In that context, I note Liz Smith's comment that if standard grades are to be replaced they should be replaced in S4 with intermediate 2 qualifications, which are at credit level and beyond. I am incredibly wary of such a move, as it could mean that summative assessment at the end of S4 would be for only the very highest achievers in academic subjects. I am open-minded on the matter, but I want to ensure that elements of choice and diversity in the current system are not lost. The OECD's apparent suggestion that summative assessment should be removed requires closer examination. However, I agree that it might be possible to merge the higher still S5 and S6 curriculum with what is happening at standard grade.
As I have said, I remain open-minded about the future of certification and the curriculum in S3 and S4, and I am interested in hearing other members' comments on the issue.
I very much welcome not only the debate, but the tone of the minister's opening remarks. I am also delighted to find that Bob Doris can speak in a reasoned and moderate manner. I hope that he will continue to do so.
I regarded it as a major privilege to serve as Minister for Education and Young People. During my time in that role, I knew that, as the OECD report has confirmed, we were part of a very successful and strong education system. Indeed, the report shows that the Scottish education system is not only strong but leads world thinking on certain subjects. However, my concern was that that very strength might lie at the root of what could turn out to be one of our biggest problems. Because we were strong, we might become complacent and feel no need to change. Indeed, over the years, there was some resistance to certain reforms.
I was always—and remain—acutely conscious of the effects of the changing world and the globalisation of world markets. With better and cheaper transport, human capital is globalising as the world economy itself globalises. That means not only that jobs are moving across the world to people who are better skilled than our people, but that people are moving across the world to take jobs in this country. As a result, our young people now face more competition for employment than at any other time in the past and we all have an absolute obligation to ensure that they can compete effectively in the new world. Because of globalisation, our education system is in direct competition with other education systems and their product.
As minister, I was concerned whether we really knew how we were doing in the world context. The PISA results showed that we were strong and doing well—as Bob Doris and others have pointed out, we were in the top third—and, despite recent challenges, we are still in that position. However, PISA is only one measure of how well an education system is doing; for me, a more important consideration was how well our policies were doing. How did we compare with our world competitors? Was our direction of travel the right one? Could we innovate more? Who was innovating more? Were there any blind spots in our thinking about what was going on in the rest of the world? Were there any approaches working elsewhere that we were not trying? Who had better approaches to dealing with social disadvantage and why were they better? Were our curriculum developments complete enough? Which systems took a better approach to personalising learning and improving young people's motivation?
As a result, I began to look at what was happening elsewhere in the world. Every time I attended European council meetings in Brussels—which, I have to say, are the most interminably boring events imaginable—I always tried to fix up meetings with ministers from countries of similar size to Scotland to find out what they were doing. Those very valuable discussions showed clearly that we were seeking answers to questions that many other countries had not even begun to ask, and I was confident that we were ahead of the game in many respects.
I visited New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Singapore and Finland, and chaired the conference of Commonwealth education ministers when it met in Edinburgh. Those experiences confirmed to me that compared with the rest of the world we were in the vanguard of much of the thinking and action on this matter. However, it was clear that many other countries were getting smarter, investing heavily in education, copying us and even beginning to overtake us with their own very successful approaches.
That is why I concluded that we needed to take a much more comprehensive, in-depth look at our education system. As Maureen Watt suggested, I might have feared such a review, but I did not fear it at all, because I knew that, in some respects, our performance would be strong. I also knew that, in other respects, we would be criticised, or given the opportunity to improve. That is why the OECD report was commissioned. I am delighted with its outcome, which has exceeded my expectations in a variety of ways. It is perceptive and extremely honest. In parts, it is beautifully crafted in its analysis and in posing some of the key questions that Scotland must answer and, at times, it is hard-hitting. That is why the report was commissioned. It confirms the good things that we do, but challenges us to do more.
The review contains a huge number of recommendations, but I want to pick up on just two of them. The first relates to the biggest challenge that we face, which has plagued our system for many generations and continues to be an intractable problem—social disadvantage or low economic status and how it impacts on education. Other members have mentioned the issue.
As the report puts it, we in Scotland are exceptionally good—better than most other countries in the world—at "formal equity". Wherever in Scotland a young person lives, they can expect to go to an extremely high-quality school that has good provision, resources and staffing levels, and in which the staff are well trained and, in most cases, well led. Despite that formal equity, it is ever clearer that the outcomes for our young people are unequal. Because of their socioeconomic status, some young people simply cannot reap the benefit of the excellent service that we provide across the country. The system has not adequately supported them to perform better and has thereby failed to address our societal needs. Broadly equal inputs result in unequal outcomes.
We have done a great deal to tackle that situation—Bob Doris spoke about some of the measures that have been taken—but it remains a major challenge for any Government, for local authorities, for schools and for the teachers organisations. Curriculum changes, different teaching approaches, teacher training changes, people support, the parental/home link with schools, more personalised learning and more personalised support of young people through the provision of individual learning plans will all be part of the answer.
However, perhaps the biggest challenge of all is how we distribute resources. At the root of the issue is how we can impact on the problem through the allocation of resources. We must now consider making unequal inputs to get more equal results. The Government has a role to play in that in how it distributes cash to local authorities. As the report indicates, local authorities have a role to play in how they distribute cash to schools. Headteachers have a role to play in how they allocate resources to particular pupils to challenge social disadvantage. That is one reason why the report—rightly, in my view—argues for more headteacher freedom.
In the future, we must move towards a model of anticipatory education and support, just as we have done in the health service through anticipatory health measures. We can anticipate who will struggle in our education system, just as we can anticipate who will struggle as regards health. In the future, we can apply our knowledge of communities and families to the issue more effectively.
I am quite sure that the Scottish education system knows how to do some of that, but I am just as sure that we do not know how to tackle all those issues effectively. We must challenge thinking in the system, break conventions and be prepared to do things differently. Open debate, piloted approaches and better sharing of results across the system are necessary. That is partly why today's debate is so important. Tackling social disadvantage is a huge challenge, but the OECD says that we must meet it; we know that we must meet it, for economic and social reasons, and to give people a greater sense of self-worth.
I am acutely conscious that I am well over time, so I will try to be extremely quick in addressing the second issue on which I wanted to comment, which is vocational education. The section of the report on that is a joy to read. It confirms that the steps that we have taken on skills for work courses were steps in the right direction, but that they were highly tentative. It shows just how much further we must go—we in Scotland have a huge distance to travel to catch up with the rest of the world and the rest of Europe in our thinking on vocational education.
We must take a much wider, more significant and deeper view of vocational education than we have done in the past. It is not about unrelated courses for kids who are struggling with the current curriculum. It is not just about preparation for work. It is emphatically not about laying a trap for young people—albeit unwittingly—that ushers them out of learning altogether. It is not just about colleges. It is about what we do in schools. It is about improving the status of vocational learning. It is about keeping people in learning through vocational study, so that they are more motivated to engage in wider, academic learning. It is about developing a range of new approaches to vocational learning, so that such learning is part of the system, rather than occasional and unplanned. Scottish education must take vocational learning to a far greater depth. Vocational education must be a firm part of all aspects of our education system. It must be more legitimate than it currently is and it must enrich the whole education system. It is not about siphoning off difficult pupils into cul de sacs or out-of-school systems.
I have not mentioned standard grades. I have comments on that issue, which I am sure I will make in the future.
I have not talked about many aspects of the report. Scotland has been handed a hugely significant instrument, with which we can re-examine where we stand and challenge what we have done in the past, and from which we can take pertinent lessons. We can develop the report's perceptive recommendations in a Scottish way, for the future of our system. If we take that opportunity, we can look forward in 20, 30, 40 or 50 years' time not just to Scotland continuing to be one of the top nations in the world for education but perhaps to Scotland becoming the top nation in that regard.
I agree with much of Peter Peacock's speech and particularly with his comments about the part that multiple deprivation plays in reducing young people's chances throughout their education. Investment in community regeneration and early intervention—not just when children are three years old, but from birth—will do at least as much, if not more, in deprived communities than will increasing resources for education.
I remember the inspiration of a headteacher with whom I worked in the early part of my career. Bob Mackenzie, at Braehead secondary school, wanted to get rid of examinations and made that suggestion as early as 1958, if I remember correctly, when I was teaching at the school. If we took away exams we would have to ask what education is for. We would have to put on our thinking caps and consider what should be in the curriculum.
The previous Government developed the curriculum for excellence, which I enthusiastically supported, because it provides a framework on which we can build. I commend the previous Government for commissioning research from the OECD. Peter Peacock was right to say that there is no reason for complacency, but we should congratulate the people who work in our education system on their successes and the fact that across a range of criteria we come out well in competition with other countries. Of course, we should set our own standards. We should not just accept the OECD's criteria; we should have our own criteria for success.
An impartial observer who visited our country would learn that the visiting teachers of art, music and physical education, for whom schools must pay, are the first things to be cut when a primary school is short of money. They would learn that in secondary schools art and music are always the first subjects to lose a teacher—however good their departments are—if something else needs to be squeezed into the curriculum. The impartial observer would be forgiven for thinking that we place no importance on those subjects.
An impartial observer who visited this country would find that there is, I think, only one full-time teacher of outdoor education at secondary level in Scotland and that we rely to a great extent on private provision of outdoor education, although the Scottish centres do an excellent job. Such an observer would be forgiven for thinking that we do not consider education in the outdoors and outdoor education—two separate things—to be of any importance in the Scottish education system. However, I know, and I think that all members know, that those subjects are important and we would disagree with anyone who said the opposite. Teachers and parents know that those subjects are important, and yet they are squeezed.
Over the next two years—at the most, I hope—we have a chance to debate what part those subjects should play in our curriculum and how they feed into things like being a responsible citizen and a confident individual. There is plenty of research to show that those subjects have an enormous part to play in developing confident individuals. According to research, 25 per cent of the children who leave Scottish schools—even now, despite the successes that we have had—have found schooling to be relatively negative, because it did not offer them the full range of skills and the possibility of developing those skills. Despite the comprehensive nature of schooling, children can still get only a relatively narrow range of experiences at school, not just in Scotland but in many other countries. However, Norway, which I have mentioned previously, is different. One example of the difference between Norway and Scotland is that in Norway children have to spend one day a week out of school, either in education in the outdoors or in outdoor education. That is the law. How far away from that are we here? How many children have a guarantee of even a week?
I signed Elizabeth Smith's motion—I hope that many of the members present have signed it, too—and support her plea for more importance to be given to outdoor education.
Given the importance that the OECD report places on the breadth of the curriculum, does Mr Harper share my concern about the removal of funding for cultural co-ordinators in our schools?
Yes, indeed. The previous Administration appointed 600 sports co-ordinators but only 60 cultural co-ordinators. Even the previous regime could have given a bit more assistance than it did, although now the figure seems to have retreated to zero.
Within the framework and ethos of the curriculum for excellence, there is room to express an implicit but clear commitment to an education system that will develop all the innate skills and potential of our young people. There is room to express a commitment that is geared not only to literacy and numeracy, to getting children into universities and colleges, and to the requirements of industry and the commercial world, but to encouraging the development of all the skills—spiritual, artistic, empathic, social, communication and kinaesthetic—and potential of these living beings with beating hearts. I would welcome a commitment from the minister and the cabinet secretary to extend our vision of the potential of education to add all those areas. We can build on the curriculum for excellence. Over the next four years, let us think deeply and creatively not just about doing things better, but about doing better things.
How long do I have, Presiding Officer?
You can take seven minutes.
I will try to speak for less than that, because I am grateful to the members who took interventions.
I said in one of my interventions that I did not want to denigrate the OECD's report. However, I hope that it makes the comparisons that we would want to be made, because I have a horrible fear that education in its widest application is greatly influenced by a creeping Americanisation of all cultures—not only the United Kingdom, but Europe—and that, in the satellite technology that is now to hand, what we would have considered to be the essential building blocks of any civilised culture are short-changed. I say that to start off with, but I will not be too philosophical.
Robin Harper talked about the purpose of education and got right to the core of it. The OECD report refers a great deal to examinations but, as he asked, what do we have exams for? It is to test what we have learned. Why are we learning? It is to cultivate—we hope—a civilised, compassionate and humane society and the civilised, educated and humane man. If we do not do that, or if we think that we are cultivating people who do not reach those standards, is our education system what we would want it to be?
Peter Peacock asked the OECD to undertake the research. In passing, I pay tribute to his excellent speech, which I thoroughly enjoyed—more please! However, the OECD did not go into the reasons for education or consider how it is measured. For example, the report talks about the teaching profession in Scotland and, although it does not say that teachers' morale is high, everything implies that it is. Morale in the teaching profession in Scotland is not particularly high, but that has nothing to with what the OECD examined and everything to do with the behaviour of the young putative citizens in the teachers' care. The report does not refer to the lack of discipline in schools and greatly undermines what many excellent teachers and headteachers are trying to do.
The report does not compare the timetable that we have now with the one that we had when I was at school—although it does not look it, that was quite a while ago. The timetable is grossly overcrowded now and, as a result, we have overstressed and overstretched teachers. We would do well to greatly reduce the number of formal teaching blocks per subject in the timetable. Some subjects that are taught in schools are imaginative—not necessary informative, but certainly imaginative. Teachers are required to prepare and correct lessons in those subjects, all of which diminishes the energy and enthusiasm of teachers and perhaps gives us a clue why many of them opt out before they have reached their requisite length of teaching time.
However, the OECD talks about standard grades. There might be agreement in the Parliament—with the exception of Bob Doris, who was cruelly done down by them—that the standard grades have outlived their usefulness. I prefer the OECD's recommendation of adopting a Scottish certificate of education that is flexible and can reflect all the different strands of learning.
Margo MacDonald raises an important point about what the OECD says or does not say about the curriculum. She identifies the assessment and qualification aspects of standard grades and a kind of leaving certificate. However, she does not address—and Robin Harper did not acknowledge—that the four capacities in the curriculum for excellence are precisely about what education is for, which is not necessarily qualification, assessment and achievement. I suppose that she wants to put more emphasis on that, which is the right thing to do. Education is not all about qualifications; it is also about the experience and being a responsible citizen.
I agree with what the cabinet secretary said but, with all due respect to her, far too much emphasis is put on entrance into university, for example. Students are processed down that pathway, which presupposes that they have to think about attainment within the curriculum for excellence, rather than achievement.
I move on to the socioeconomic argument that was advanced as the main indicator of the gap between those who achieve and those who do not. 'Twas ever thus. In the 1930s, people leaving junior secondaries—as they were called in Scotland—were usually a lot poorer than the people leaving senior secondaries. However, many of those who left the junior secondaries could go to night school and get a qualification that, although it was not a university qualification, would qualify them for the sort of job that a university graduate might do.
We threw out a baby with the bathwater with our attitude to how people from poorer backgrounds would learn. That is a disgrace. I would not expect the OECD to tell us this straight to our faces, but we let down people like me, my brother and my sister, who were maximum grant students. We were able to learn because we had ambition to learn and there was nothing to stop us learning. We are letting down children because the right sort of attitude is not inculcated in parents. I want much more work to be done in that regard.
I was glad to hear Peter Peacock—I think that it was him—saying that we should have pilot-led studies. Could we please have a pilot for learning English grammar, alongside Latin grammar? I am convinced that we should go back to basics and learn grammar. One of the ways in which we could teach ourselves might be to go back to that tried and true method.
Peter Peacock was right to say that the OECD report has given us a lift-off. However, it has not given us absolution. There is a great deal that we must still get much better.
There is no doubt that education is one of the most important issues that the Parliament deals with. It is fundamental to Scotland and to the future life chances of our young people. Like other members, I strongly welcome the OECD's report on Scotland's education system. I hope that the Scottish Government will study its findings closely and act on the key challenges that it has identified.
We Scots are rightly proud of our education system. Scottish schools continue to outperform most competitors and are truly world class. It was right that the OECD report highlighted Scotland's success and praised the excellent work of our teachers and our comprehensive school system. However, the report also raised concerns that we cannot afford to ignore. It pointed out that too many children in our primary schools and even greater numbers of secondary school pupils are falling behind, and that those who fall behind tend to stay behind. The report said:
"Who you are matters a great deal more in Scotland than what school you attend, and ‘who you are' is defined largely in terms of socio-economic status."
As I represent some of Scotland's more deprived communities, I understand that and I take a little bit of an issue with some of the things that Liz Smith said in her speech.
If our education system is to continue to be world class, changes are needed to ensure that it better meets the needs of all our young people, and to ensure that every young person, whatever their background, can benefit from a high-quality education and learning experience—an education that meets their needs and aspirations and equips them with the confidence and self-esteem that so many young Scots continue to lack.
I hope that members understand—today more than ever—why I want to highlight some of the things that are happening in my constituency, in North Lanarkshire. As part of the OECD's review, a team of independent international examiners visited four Scottish local authorities, including North Lanarkshire. The OECD team visited two schools in my constituency: St Andrew's primary school and St Margaret's high school, both in Airdrie. I have always known that both schools set very high standards and constantly strive to build and develop on existing good practice, so I am very proud that the OECD report also recognises that.
I have always believed in the importance of traditional academic education, but I believe that a vocational education should have equal status. I am therefore delighted that North Lanarkshire's approach has been singled out, with its innovations in vocational education described by the OECD as "outstanding". Supporting vocational studies should not be driven only by a desire to improve a student's employability but should be part of a wider strategy to raise achievement for all. The experience in North Lanarkshire has proved that to do that effectively there must be extensive consultation in schools; expert support and guidance for schools; emphasis on flexibility and choice for students; and partnership working with external partners in industry and in colleges to deliver choices within the school environment. Taking those steps can lead to a reform and redesign of the curriculum to better meet the needs of all students. That good practice, which the OECD states should act as a benchmark for local authorities throughout Scotland, is being delivered every day in schools throughout North Lanarkshire.
We must ensure not only that every child can access high-quality vocational education and training but that the academic curriculum is more accessible and inclusive, which will lead to effective engagement in learning for everyone. Developing and nurturing self-confidence is essential for all young people, but it is especially important for students in communities such as the one that I represent. Their parents and carers have not always had the most positive experience of school and their education did not seem relevant to the outside world of work. That is why it is important that we get vocational education in the classroom right. I hope that the Scottish Government will learn from the successes of North Lanarkshire.
It continues to be of great concern that about 36,000 young people aged between 16 and 19 are not in education, employment or training. As my colleague John Park said, the UK Government is taking action to ensure that all school leavers can access an apprenticeship place. A failure to make a similar commitment in Scotland is a missed opportunity.
If we are to ensure that no young person is left behind in 21st century Scotland, we need an education system that is tailored to the needs of all our children, whatever their needs, abilities, aspirations or interests.
I hope that the Government will consider the OECD's recommendations carefully and act to ensure that North Lanarkshire's innovative approach is adopted throughout Scotland, thereby enabling all young people to access vocational courses within the school environment. That approach is helping to ensure that our young people are enthused and engaged and that every child, from every background, can reach their full potential—every child in Scotland deserves nothing less.
Many good speeches have been made in an important debate about a substantial report on a crucial subject: education.
Education is a huge determinant of our future. It very much decides the economy and to a large extent the progress of the country itself, so it is a subject worthy of considered discussion. For those reasons, I welcome the OECD's review.
I congratulate the OECD, an esteemed international organisation, on its methodology, which, in placing Scottish schooling in international rankings, recognises that although we may not have our independence as a country we at least have it for our education system. I am looking forward to what the new Scottish Government will do with that independence and I am glad to see that evidence from the OECD endorses the Government's educational priorities.
The SNP has already recognised the importance of the earliest years, with our proposals for the expansion of pre-school provision by 50 per cent. Not only does pre-school provision improve attainment but, in the words of the OECD report,
"Pre-school moderates the gap in achievement which tends to widen during primary school and which, unchecked, undermines compulsory secondary education in comprehensive schools."
The report's title refers to "quality and equity". No one could object to those priorities and I hope that no one in the chamber would object to the focus on pupil-teacher ratios in the early years of primary school. An investment in our children at the earliest stages pays off over their whole time in school and, beyond that, over their whole lives.
The Lib Dem amendment highlights the importance of the transition between primary school and secondary school. Having spent 11 years on an education authority, I know that that is a stubborn problem, which is at the root of how we can solve the problems in our secondary schools.
As a former council leader, I find it rewarding to see that we are now starting properly to recognise the autonomy of local authorities. During my time at Clackmannanshire Council, as has been mentioned by Liz Smith, new ground was broken with the much talked about synthetic phonics method of teaching reading. Not only did synthetic phonics have an immediate impact but it meant that primary 7 reading was consistently ahead—up to three years ahead, by some measures—of where it was previously. It reduced the differences between socioeconomic groups and, interestingly—as this is not really touched on in the report—between genders. It has been interesting to hear some of the discussion about the purpose of education and the extent to which socioeconomic inequalities are still being reflected in the education system. Of course, one of the original purposes of education was to reduce and eliminate those socioeconomic inequalities. However, that is not happening sufficiently at present.
I hope that the lessons of local authority experiments feed into the curriculum for excellence—not just the lessons of Clackmannanshire but those of West Dunbartonshire, which has taken on the methods as well. Rhona Brankin asked for a national strategy based on the West Dunbartonshire experience, but I would ask her why there was no national strategy based on the Clackmannanshire experience eight years ago.
For years, the SNP has made commitments in its manifestos regarding more vocational opportunities. Admittedly, the Labour Party has done so too, but the difference is that we have not been in a position to implement those commitments before now, whereas Labour has.
I was also disappointed to see from the report that, in the past eight years, socioeconomic status has become more of a factor in how well young people do in education. The number of young people who left school and ended up not in education, employment or training has gone up as well. The Labour Party often talks the right talk—as they say, a stopped clock is right twice a day—but now we can see just how short on action it has been.
Earlier, some of us—including Peter Peacock, I think—listened to a Scottish Trades Union Congress delegate talk about dyslexia in the workplace. In that man's experience, there were two shocking things. The first was the bullying, harassment and hostility that he received when it was discovered that he had dyslexia—his employer was the Department for Work and Pensions. The second shocking thing was that it was not until he was 41 years old that it was discovered that he had dyslexia.
There is a lot of evidence in the report about the confidence and professionalism of our teachers. There are also a lot of recommendations in the report—a few are imaginative and quite a few are controversial.
I was interested in what the member said about the failure to identify dyslexia. Will he support what the SNP said in its manifesto about the targeting of continuing professional development of teachers on the subject of additional support for learning? The SNP promised that an additional £30 million over three years would be provided for that.
The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning and the Minister for Schools and Skills are well seized of the opportunities to improve on the previous Executive's attainments in that area, so I am confident about the issue that Rhona Brankin raises.
A few of the recommendations, such as replacing the standard grade or increasing the role of pupil feedback, are interesting. Of course, the 18 recommendations are only opinions, although they are expert ones. We should remember that. I do not think that they all deserve to be put into practice, but they all deserve to be examined and discussed in the chamber, in committees and by parents and professionals.
There are also issues that are central to the wider role of education in society, which the OECD missed, as it focused on reading, writing and science. In that regard, I have in mind especially our national heritage. Ian Bell has an eloquent article on that subject in today's Herald. He argues that our literature and history have become
"university specialisms, the preserve of dedicated museums and authors, or held in trust by autodidacts."
I admit that I had to refer to a dictionary for the definition of that last word.
Scotland's history and literature are not mainstream subjects in Scotland's schools, although they should be. I believe that that situation is improving under the current Government. I am sure that the situation will change further, just as it will for the provision of support for the early years of school and innovating and learning from experience—two things that are argued for strongly in the OECD report, which takes a position that is supported by the experience of local authorities.
It is a new time for education. We are now in an era in which the performance of Scotland's teachers will finally be matched by the performance of Scotland's Government.
I welcome this opportunity to consider the OECD report. I wish to join other members in congratulating Peter Peacock on his courageous decision, when he was the Minister for Education and Young People, to commission the report. It would have been easy for him simply to accept the improvements that there had been since the introduction of the McCrone report. McCrone recognised the strength of our teachers and rewarded them for their contribution, which raised morale among teachers. Implementing McCrone brought stability to the Scottish education system, which allowed year-on-year improvements, as evidenced by inspection and exam results. However, the commission of the OECD was to test that improvement and find out whether we were seeing the whole picture.
The OECD report stresses the positives about Scottish education. It says:
"Scotland performs at a consistently very high standard".
It also flags up a number of challenges. One of the major challenges that Scottish schools face is the need to reduce the achievement gap that opens up, as other members have said, at about P5. I disagree with Elizabeth Smith's comments, as the report clearly recognises that children from poorer communities and homes of a low socioeconomic status are more likely than others to underachieve. Nevertheless, the report also acknowledges the notable progress that has been made in improving the achievement of children living in poverty. It is clear that efforts have been made to target children living in poverty and raise their educational attainment. Although those measures have helped, several issues remain to be resolved.
I wonder whether the member is as puzzled as I am about the gap in attainment regarding children who are classified as coming from poorer homes. According to all the measurements that we can produce, if those children were taught using the older methods of teaching, they would achieve a higher standard of attainment in the basics that provide entry to employment—reading, writing and counting. However, that is not how children are being taught now. Does the member agree that that is one practical thing that we could do to narrow the gap?
I agree that that is one practical measure that would make a difference. I was about to say that there are two issues that still need to be resolved. First, which measures—what Margo MacDonald suggests may be one of them—have the greatest impact in reversing that trend? Secondly, why is the improvement that we have seen sometimes slow and inconsistent? We need to do some work on those questions.
Let us be clear that I am not talking about failing schools or failing teachers. As the OECD report points out,
"Little of the variation in student achievement in Scotland is associated with the ways in which schools differ … Socio-economic status is the most important difference".
We need to go back to the home. At the bottom of the issue, the first and major influence on a child's development is their parents. That is why we must support all parents so that they support their children. Labour recognised that in our manifesto promise to improve and integrate parenting programmes to ensure that families receive support.
That support is particularly important for parents who have to overcome poverty or who have other issues. We have frequently debated in Parliament the problems that parents have in raising their children when they have substance abuse issues themselves. We also need to consider the challenges for parents who cannot read, write or count; parents who are still very young and do not have wider family support; and parents who have simply become disillusioned with school. The chance of those parents getting involved in their children's education is limited, which is why Labour's support for parents was so important. This is not about being a nanny state. As Save the Children suggests in its briefing, it is about
"support for parents to develop the necessary skills in order to be able to engage in children's learning."
We need to have a discussion about how we support parents in those circumstances.
Will the member take an intervention?
Yes.
Very briefly. The member is almost finished.
Will the member join me in congratulating the SNP Scottish Government on its leadership in ending the derived grades system, which is a change that supports people from the socioeconomic background that she is describing?
The member is in her last minute.
Clearly, I am not going to welcome that.
Once they are in school, some young people appear not to be helped either by the curriculum or by the way in which it is taught. Again, that is not meant as a criticism of individual teachers, but I question the way in which teachers are trained to teach. As my time is short, I simply refer members to paragraphs 147 and 148 of the report, which specifically address that point.
I hope that my comments have recognised the benefits of the education system in Scotland for the majority of pupils. Like others, however, I believe that a sizeable number of children do not benefit from the education system as we would hope because they live in poverty. I spoke to some children today—as did the Minister for Children and Early Years, Mr Ingram—who have disability issues, and for them, too, there are issues that we need to tackle.
I ask the minister to consider the recommendations that have been shared by Save the Children—that improving educational outcomes for children who live in poverty should be a national priority and that we should investigate the initiatives that are aimed at that group and identify the successes and any gaps. If the minister accepts those recommendations, will she tell us how she will take them forward? If she does, that will be a positive outcome of the debate.
This has been a good debate and a positive one in all regards. I will try not to touch on points that other speakers made adequately and probably much more knowledgeably than I could.
We can see from the OECD report that Scotland has many reasons to be pleased with the progress that we are making, although there is no room for complacency. Much of the progress is a result of the significant investment that the previous Administration made, and it would be disappointing if the SNP failed to build on that work. I will briefly touch on a couple of things that need review and further consideration.
First, the chartered teacher qualification has many merits, but there is at least anecdotal evidence of problems with the way in which the system works. A cost-benefit analysis of study for the qualification shows that some teachers would be disadvantaged. The cost is about £500 a module and teachers must complete 12 modules to achieve the full status. Depending on other commitments, there is a timeframe of up to three years. The structure poses some problems, given that teachers are likely to have other commitments. It appears that, thus far, only 53 of the 521 teachers with the qualification obtained it through the modular route.
Audit Scotland found that only 32 per cent of teachers were interested in the scheme. That raises an interesting financial problem. Based on 2006 salaries, if 32 per cent of teachers took up the scheme, the additional cost of funding it over 10 years would be £110 million. I know that the Government is providing funding for the scheme, as did the previous Executive, but that is a consideration for local authorities as well.
Audit Scotland also expressed concern that the scheme has not had the expected impact on the career structure of classroom teachers. The figures that I obtained from the General Teaching Council for Scotland show that, to date, uptake has been relatively slow. Although the work of McCrone, which was partly designed to free up teachers to teach, recognises the professionalism and expertise in the profession, it does not quite take account of the pressures that exist in schools. Often, the time that is available for continuing professional development for teachers is constrained by the availability of supply staff, by timetables, and perhaps by departmental budgets.
The other area that needs more attention and clearer thinking is NEETs. First, we need to be careful about labelling young people, because the term "NEET" has developed a life of its own and its negative connotations are not welcome. The last thing that we need is yet another negative label for young people. Previous speakers commented on the number of young people in the category; the figures range from 20,000 to 36,000. However, we need to be careful, because we are not talking about the same 20,000 or 36,000 young people. There is a huge amount of churn. We need to be careful about how we analyse the figures, and we need to consider how we develop mechanisms to access those young people. We need to take a flexible approach and not a one-size-fits-all approach.
As the report states, one key to reducing the number of persistent members of the group is earlier intervention. Raising the attainment of the lowest performing 20 per cent of pupils is a challenge, but we need to do that much earlier as part of a preventive, rather than a curative, approach. We can use the excellent schemes that are provided by external agencies such as Rathbone in Kilmarnock, Barnardo's, Save the Children and Fairbridge.
We must take a multi-agency approach to the issue. In my region, education authorities in both North and South Lanarkshire are doing first-class early intervention work with troubled young people at schools such as Ridgepark and Fallside. The community alternatives project in Coatbridge is also doing groundbreaking work. I recommend that either the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning or the Minister for Schools and Skills finds an opportunity to visit those projects, to see the early intervention work that is being done with the type of young people who, without it, would go on to become part of the NEET programme. As always, such innovative projects are expensive to run and maintain and can be a drain on local authority budgets. I would like us to develop a system that allows them to be given additional funding, over and above the grants that they receive from local authorities.
There is much in the report that is worth commenting on positively, but the Government must ensure that the resources that were committed by the previous Administration continue to be provided, so that we can tackle the long-standing problems in our education system.
This has been an interesting and well-informed debate that has drawn on the OECD report, which members from all parties have welcomed. We may even welcome it as a rare example of a report delivered by an independent scrutiny panel established by Labour when it was in government.
It is particularly interesting for me to participate in a debate outwith my normal responsibility—it has highlighted some key themes and messages to me. One substantiated conclusion of the report, although alarming, is not a surprise. I refer to the finding that, for all the attention and investment that is given to education in primary 1 to primary 3, the differentiation in achievement really takes root in primary 5. Many members have drawn attention to that point this afternoon.
The finding must call into question the Government's obsession—and that of some other parties—with early years class sizes. I note how often the Government is chastised for failing to deliver on key education pledges that it made in its manifesto—Jeremy Purvis was hot to trot on that this afternoon—but, ironically, the OECD report's conclusion on early years class sizes may be that the Government's failure to implement its manifesto should be welcomed.
The fact that the differentiation in achievement takes root in primary 5 is not a surprise, because those who are involved in schools routinely confirm that when they are asked. Children arrive at primary 1 keen to learn. By and large, they see the school, in partnership with their parents, as the source of all knowledge and influence. As any parent will know, P5 is for many, if not for all, a measurable point at which many other influences intervene and the parent ceases to be the source of all wisdom.
Apparently, it is at P5 that social inequalities kick in and influence—profoundly—likely formal education outcomes. Although that is easily said and noted, it is an extraordinary challenge for us all. We can be tribal and argue ritualistically for and against whether all would be well if this or that were different but, as Elizabeth Smith said in opening for the Conservatives, our ambition must be to ensure that success is achieved anywhere with the right and locally appropriate approach, even while we legislate and act elsewhere to tackle obvious social inequality. The differences between us, to which Mary Mulligan drew attention, may not be as real as she imagines.
It is also a false argument to say that building a lot of new schools is a solution. In Ken Macintosh's constituency, pupils at the new Williamwood high school, which is consistently one of Scotland's best-performing schools, must maintain the high standards of their predecessors, which were achieved regularly in much older and less suitable buildings. The logic of overstating the importance of new buildings is that standards will fall when those buildings cease to be new.
New builds are desirable, especially as they provide new facilities in which a wider social networking and out-of-hours platform of activity can be established, but in themselves they may not produce more engagement or better results. No, it is the recommendation that schools be afforded greater autonomy that offers head teachers the potential to create bespoke schools, to respond to the needs of their pupils and communities, and to act to engage P5 children and sustain that engagement into secondary years.
An interesting aspect of the report is that it points to the fact that some of our comparator countries with best educational practice are those where there is greater autonomy and diversity in the system. That is particularly true of countries such as Sweden and Australia, although we need look no further than my part of the world—Glasgow—where Jordanhill has boasted an outstanding educational record, many would say directly because of its autonomy within the Scottish system. Giving schools greater autonomy is central to our policy, and we wholeheartedly welcome OECD support for it. We hope that the Government will support it too and allow schools more control over how money is spent.
There can be overall agreement on devolving greater responsibility for operating schools to head teachers if that is within a local education authority setting. Is that the Conservatives' position? That would be different from some approaches south of the border, where schools are taken outwith the local education authority, which is more concerning.
It could be, but I do not necessarily agree that it would have to be.
Greater autonomy may come as a result of the ending of ring fencing, which was referred to by Maureen Watt and what now seems to be a ritual series of SNP members, who mentioned the historic concordat, concord or concordski. More noise is made about it than was ever made by the engines of its airborne equivalent—and we will all have to hope that it does not end up being the same expensive luxury.
Giving schools greater autonomy is central to our policy. Elizabeth Smith has made plain our support for the OECD report's proposals to restructure public examinations. She also made a key point of our continuing and historical support to allow children access to vocational education. As a former employer, I can confirm just how many young people entering the employment market strongly expressed the view, when asked, that the education that they received meant less to them. They were not engaged by a concentration on what they saw as irrelevant to them.
We support the report's emphasis on the need for complementary vocational education to be structurally integrated and note the OECD's concern that we have much to learn from comparator nations and our own best practice. We would not dismiss the involvement of colleges, although we acknowledge that for school pupils there should be an holistic approach rather than one tailored to an immediate and particular employment opportunity—a point that John Park made. We support a pilot city academy to deliver vocational education.
I reaffirm our welcome for the report and our support for its central recommendations to avoid any complacency. Peter Peacock made that point and many others with which I agree. We need to devolve greater autonomy to schools to allow them to make the most of their local situation and talent. We also need to ensure that while we tackle social inequality elsewhere, all schools are able to act to ensure that their P5 pupils remain engaged into their secondary years. The public examinations at standard grade need to be restructured and deliver greater ability in the core skills of literacy and numeracy. There must also be greater and earlier development of the vocational option.
I thank the minister for laying the report before Parliament and for giving us the opportunity to take stock of Scottish education—not just to stand back and look at what we have achieved in the past few years but to outline how we intend to tackle some of the challenges that lie ahead.
I will comment on some of the issues that have been raised. First, as many have commented, the main thrust of the report is the importance of poverty and deprivation. The report highlights the need to address socioeconomic inequality through wider policy initiatives as well as through education. Secondly, on the skills agenda, which many members have referred to, I want to talk about the need to progress vocational education. Finally, if I have time, I will comment on an important issue that is mentioned only briefly: the teacher induction scheme.
First, though, I would like to thank the SNP for lodging the motion. It is rare that we get an opportunity to celebrate eight years of achievement by a Labour-led Administration in a motion lodged by the SNP Government. We have become well used in recent months to the mantra, whenever criticism is levelled at our schools, "Oh, it wisnae us—it was that Labour lot." I am delighted to accept the glowing tribute that the report offers to our work in investing in and improving Scottish education. Indeed, let me quote the contribution of Mr Doris who, reflecting on Labour's years, said:
"The situation is not all bleak."
That is high praise indeed from Mr Doris.
Will the member give way?
I will make some progress first.
I know that ministers will have read the report from cover to cover, but there are some sentences to savour and to which I would like to refer. For example, it says:
"Scotland performs at a consistently very high standard in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Few countries can be said with confidence to outperform it in mathematics, reading and science. Scotland also has one of the most equitable school systems in the OECD."
Perhaps more significant, the report highlights the difference made by key decisions taken by Labour in the Scottish Parliament:
"There have been significant reductions in under-achievement. There is now greater consistency of achievement in the earlier years of primary school. Higher proportions of students in the final year of compulsory school are passing at the highest levels of the examinations. Notable progress has been made in improving the achievement of children living in poverty."
I am grateful to Peter Peacock for commissioning the report and for his comments today on the perceptive recommendations in it. I digress slightly to agree with him on how well written it is. Many members will wade through countless official documents and reports that delight in their use of obscure language and jargon. The OECD report is clear, accessible and well constructed. There is a beautiful use of language of which I am envious. I pay tribute to Mr Teese and his team. On further inquiry, I was disappointed to find out that Mr Teese is a product of the Australian, rather than the Scottish, education system.
The problem is that the SNP's motion does not prioritise anything. It makes no choices. As several SNP members have claimed, the report emphasises the importance of providing flexibility and of removing constraints from local schools so that they can best adapt to their pupils' needs. However, it also emphasises the necessity of clear national leadership. It is all very well for the minister to talk of collective responsibility, as she did in her opening remarks, but that does not allow the Government to abdicate its responsibility for providing leadership.
Will the member give way on that point about leadership?
If I may, I will make some more progress before I take another intervention.
Leadership involves making choices. Without such political decisions from the SNP, its education policy is more akin to a wish list. The SNP is willing to give local government freedom, but where are the targets and priorities by which the Executive can be judged? I have said before that I do not doubt the good intentions of many SNP colleagues or their desire to improve Scottish education, but if they promise everything to everyone, they could end up delivering nothing of any substance. As we are beginning to realise, it was only a matter of time before election promises were shown to be hollow and undeliverable.
Poverty is the most important challenge to be identified by the OECD report. It concludes that the benefits of our excellent education system and the strengths across the board of our schools cannot and do not compensate for the disadvantages of deprivation or the possible lack of support in the home for education. As Karen Whitefield and Mary Mulligan pointed out, the report says:
"Who you are in Scotland is far more important than what school you attend",
which is exactly where the SNP Government is at its weakest.
The SNP portrays itself as a party of social justice and claims to be progressive, but the evidence does little to back that up. To be fair, Christina McKelvie talked about the importance of tackling child poverty, but she then suggested that Labour had not made a difference and drew members' attention to page 144 of the report as evidence to support her conclusions. When I turned to that page, the words jumped off the page:
"Child poverty has been falling in Scotland—from 30% of all children in the mid-1990s to 24% in 2004/05"
I am grateful to Ms McKelvie for highlighting such evidence.
Perhaps Ms McKelvie would like us to look at the SNP's record. One of its first flagship education policies was the extension of free school meals, but as members will be fully aware, students from the most deprived communities are already entitled to a free school meal. Yes, the SNP has emulated Labour's policy of extending that entitlement to families at the margins, such as those who are on child tax credits, but the biggest gainers by far are higher earners—middle class, better-off families. I do not believe that we should be spending millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on middle class families whose children do not need free school meals.
The SNP plans to abolish the graduate endowment, but most students from non-traditional backgrounds do not pay the graduate endowment. In fact, we know that full-time higher education is generally dominated—up to 80 per cent—by people from a middle class background. Those from more disadvantaged backgrounds tend to study part time and pay for their education. Who are the biggest gainers from SNP education policy? Yet again, the better off.
If we look further afield, we find that the famous concordat does not set a target for child poverty—a point that Rhona Brankin highlighted. I am sure that I do not have to remind the chamber of the SNP's plans to freeze and abolish the council tax, but those who are on the lowest incomes do not pay council tax. The SNP Government has every right to propose those policies, but it cannot pretend that they are anti-poverty initiatives. It cannot dress those decisions up in the language of tackling deprivation.
The report also identifies the need to improve our vocational education and to return to the skills agenda. Every party now agrees that we need to do more on skills, not just for the educational benefit and advantage of individuals, but because we need to improve the country's productivity.
Once we get beyond the basic fact that we have a skills strategy—for which I am grateful and which I acknowledge as a step forward—what is in the strategy document? What has the SNP added or offered? Where are the targets on modern apprenticeships? Where are the skills academies? Where is the beef? John Park commented on the contrast between what is available in Scotland and what our Labour colleagues are offering young people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I will briefly mention the probationary teacher scheme. The report singles out our innovation as world class, but it raises a concern about probationers' ability to secure a teaching post at the end of their induction year. The minister cannot pass responsibility for that to local government, because the scheme was introduced by the Executive. I ask the minister to bring us up to date on her plans to ensure that teachers do not suffer from anxiety and that trained teachers are not lost to the profession again this year.
Inequality and inequity can be easy to identify, but they are hard to eradicate. The SNP has shown that it can make easy choices; it is now time it started to make difficult choices, too. Otherwise, the progress and achievements that are highlighted in the OECD report will mark a high point in Scottish education rather than a starting point for future improvement, and Scotland's children and future generations will pay the price.
The Government wanted to provide an opportunity for a thoughtful and informed debate that would be a credit to the stimulating and challenging OECD report and that reflected the importance to all members of Scotland's education system. By and large, we have achieved that.
In a globalised world, Governments cannot operate in isolation. We all face many of the same economic and social challenges and are working towards finding the best answers. It is essential that Scotland continues to take an international perspective that develops to meet new challenges. I place on record my thanks to Peter Peacock for having the foresight to commission the report, which clearly managed to get under the skin of Scottish education in understanding it. I agree with many of Peter Peacock's comments, which I will come to later. I discussed the report and the new SNP Government's response and policies with the OECD experts at a full-day session on 11 December. I will reflect on some of our deliberations.
The publication of the OECD report coincided with the latest PISA report and progress in international reading literacy study—PIRLS—report. Therefore, by necessity, the OECD report is informed by the 2003 PISA results, not the 2006 results, which were published at the end of last year.
In the 2006 PISA study, our overall performance in science, mathematics and reading was still strong. In all three areas, Scotland scored well above the OECD average and was still among the highest scoring of the OECD countries, but in all three areas Scotland's relative standing in the international rankings has fallen since 2003. Scotland's mean score in science stayed the same, but the mean scores in reading and maths decreased. That happened under the previous Administration. More encouraging is the finding that Scotland has one of the lowest levels of poorly performing pupils among the OECD countries. Only Finland outperforms us significantly.
The biggest single challenge in Scotland remains the impact of poverty as a key factor in underachievement, not least because of the number of children who live in poverty. I say to Mr Macintosh that 25 per cent is not something to be proud of. As page 77 of the OECD report notes, in Glasgow, every second child in S2 underachieves in reading.
Will the minister give way?
I want to make progress.
Many of us believe that education is a route out of poverty, but the OECD report is clear that, for too many children, poverty is the route into educational underachievement. In the period ahead, the Parliament will hear more about the Government's drive to tackle poverty. The OECD is clear that the difference between pupils in our schools is more striking than the difference between our schools. Peter Peacock is right: we have formal equity as identified in the report. The danger is that it masks social disadvantage.
In my discussion with the expert panel, which was drawn from 14 countries, I asked for views on the new Government's emphasis on early intervention as a policy to tackle inequalities. As Jackson Carlaw said, we should bear it in mind that the panel noted that inequalities become manifest more at primary 5, when achievement differences become more obvious. As tackling poverty is key, the OECD appreciated that our efforts to provide more support in the early years to develop the resilience of families and children and to raise their self-esteem and ability to withstand the disadvantage that poverty brings could lead to resilience to the establishment of the poverty and attainment gap in primary 5.
Will Fiona Hyslop commit the SNP to supporting the extension of nursery education to vulnerable two-year-olds?
The former minister makes an important point. We have to consider whether we are offering support by taking the child away from the family and parental support, or whether—as Mary Mulligan suggested—we have to offer collective support to families and mothers from the early years. The OECD recognised that our policy of early intervention is critical in identifying and dealing with poverty. We have to have universal access, but we have to target those in need.
Peter Peacock rightly spoke about anticipatory support, which we could also call early intervention. The Government supports the early years. In the context of the OECD report, it makes sense to keep nursery teachers in areas of deprivation and to ensure more time for reading, writing and literacy in smaller class sizes in P1 to P3.
I am sorry, but I need to move on—[Interruption.]
Order. There is too much background noise in the chamber.
The OECD report has much to say on vocational training. It makes some criticism of the previous Administration and is concerned about the "farming out" of vocational education away from the mainstream school experience, and suggests that that is one of the reasons why we do not have parity of esteem. The OECD report suggests that a two-tier system will not work.
In "Skills for Scotland", the Government has clearly set out our commitment to, and our vision for, vocational learning. The OECD agrees with this Government that vocational learning should be available to all pupils as part of the curriculum and not as a separate experience perceived to be of lower value. That point was reflected in some of Elizabeth Smith's comments.
I say to John Park that the OECD's advice is that vocational education should be mainstreamed and not put out to standalone skills academies that are just for academic underachievers. It is important to have vocational education in schools and in partnerships with local authorities. That has been identified in the concordat and resourced by this Government in our deal with local government.
On decentralisation, the PISA results show no clearly and obviously successful system of educational organisation. For example, Finland has more than 430 local education authorities running education, whereas in New Zealand—another top performer—the Government runs the whole shebang itself and has control of 2,800 schools, the curriculum, and the employment of all its teachers. Both countries managed to score well.
The Finnish expert reporter was very complimentary about the new Government's concordat, even if Jackson Carlaw is not. He was complimentary about our relationship with local government and stated that it had somewhat pre-empted his presentation and recommendations. I say to Rhona Brankin that the ending of ring fencing for additional support for learning does not mean the ending of the policy. I will meet the deans soon to discuss additional support for learning.
It will be important to embed literacy and numeracy in the early years. Phonics is important and it is taught throughout Scotland. That experience can be shared, but we cannot have a policy that says decentralisation is important for education in local authorities and have a policy that wants to be prescriptive.
We will consult on the qualifications system and standard grades in the spring. Bob Doris is a product of the first year of standard grades. Like others, I am not sure whether that is a good thing or a bad thing.
The challenge is to ensure that Scotland is renowned as a smart, learning nation. The OECD report will not sit on a shelf. Under this Government, it will continue to be a catalyst for change. It challenges us all, including the Government, about educational thinking.
Scottish education has always been outward looking. Exchanging views and ideas is part of the character of our system. The OECD report is a welcome and invaluable contribution to that.