The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-19754, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, on education. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.
16:10
I apologise to members and, in particular to Bob Doris and Jamie Hepburn, for getting the two confused in my closing remarks in the previous debate.
Hear, hear!
I am pleased to bring this debate to the chamber, which is motivated by my deep concern about the deteriorating learning and working environment in schools in Scotland. Education is a great leveller, when we get it right. It can open horizons, build skills and deliver opportunity. For many, it can be a route out of poverty and into good and fair work. Education changed my life, and it is incumbent on all of us here to ensure that we build and deliver an education system that gives every young person in Scotland the tools that they need to get everything that they want out of life.
Scotland’s education system was once the envy of the world but, sadly, after nearly two decades of the Scottish National Party Government, that is no longer the case. It is not just me who worries about that. Satisfaction with our schools, especially among those who experience them first hand, is at an all-time low. When we look at the environment in schools, we can perhaps see why. Trade unions report that 44 per cent of teaching staff say that, in the past 18 months, they have experienced physical abuse or violence from pupils, and that 90 per cent have experienced verbal abuse. They have been sworn at, hit or punched, kicked, spat at and head-butted, and one teacher even had a firework thrown in their direction. Most worryingly, there is growing evidence that female staff suffer more frequent violence and abuse than their male colleagues, with nearly half of female teachers in Scotland saying that they experienced physical abuse or violence from pupils, compared with 36 per cent of males.
A report from School Leaders Scotland that was published in the summer found that school leaders have significant concerns about the rise in aggressive and abusive behaviour. One school leader commented:
“The abusive and aggressive behaviour of a small but difficult core of young people, and the lack of available sanctions to use or support from the authority, makes the job seem not worthwhile at times.”
At a GMB round table—I refer members to my entry in the register of interests in that regard—pupil support staff told me that violence in schools has become expected and seen as part of the job. One pupil support assistant shared that she even has an alarm that she charges every day and wears around her neck in case she is attacked.
Trade unions and others, including members, have long been calling for the Government to tackle the rising issue of violent and abusive behaviour. Workload is making things worse. Overworked staff and underresourced pupil support have left classrooms like pressure cookers. Forty-five per cent of respondents to an Association of Headteachers and Deputes in Scotland survey said that, if they could change one thing, it would be the support for pupils with additional support needs and distressed pupils. That is what I hear everywhere I go, including from parents who talk passionately about their worries on child and adult mental health services waiting times, which render help a pipe dream; a lack of speech and language therapists; and the lack of a pathway for neurodivergent young people to get the support that they desperately need.
Those are just some examples of the systemic issues that must be addressed if the Government’s late advice on consequences and risk is to be truly helpful. The Educational Institute of Scotland is balloting its members, because this has gone on too long. The SNP Government promised action on non-contact time in its manifesto. With six months until the next election, that looks set to become another broken promise. The Government has also sat on—not acted on—a report that is now 10 years old that sets out ways to address workload pressures, yet we have teachers reporting working at least a day a week above their contracted hours. The Government has broken its promise on having 3,500 more teachers, and 15, 16 and 17-year-olds across the country are denied chances to study some subjects as a result.
It is not only that evidence and report that the Government has ignored. The Hayward and Morgan reports, as well as screeds of advice from experts such as Enlighten on the need for knowledge in the curriculum, and from others on the importance of teaching synthetic phonics, all sit on the cabinet secretary’s shelf.
We have some of the most dedicated teachers and school staff, the most determined pupils and the strongest and most ambitious parents in the world, but the SNP Government’s failure to listen to experts, act on advice and act fast to prioritise young people has left the attainment gap stubbornly wide, teachers struggling with unmanageable workloads, parents at the end of their tether and, ultimately, nearly a quarter of a million young people not in employment. I am afraid that its incompetence and distractions have allowed schools to deteriorate and denied young people the opportunities that they deserve.
Scotland’s young people have enormous potential. Together, our job is to ensure that every child leaves education confident, resilient and equipped with the knowledge and skills that they need to thrive in work and in life. I ask the Government to reflect, change course, use this moment and reset. It should focus on retraining, support and working with staff; gather data on which teachers are needed, where and when; make pupil equity funding permanent; provide security in planning and address staff workload urgently; take action to make reporting and recording poor behaviour mandatory and consistent, to help improve the working environment and retain staff; rebuild the scaffolding around young people so that they get the support that they need from cradle all the way to career, so that they can get the best out of education and so that opportunity is spread at every age and stage; make classes phone free and make learning the priority; reform initial teacher education so that it meets the needs of the moment and aligns placements to a comprehensive workforce plan, which the Parliament voted for more than a year and a half ago but which we have yet to see from the Government; create a national register of supply teachers so that teachers can move to where they are needed and get jobs when they want them; and use technology and digitisation to reduce workload.
Many great ideas are proffered not only from these benches but from screeds of reports and experts across the system—from parents, pupils, teachers and staff—in Scotland. The Government must listen to them.
Things have deteriorated on this Government’s watch, and this is not as good as it gets. We can have a system that delivers high and rising standards, the right support at the right time for every child and staff member and that unlocks opportunity for all—that is the future. That is what is at stake and what Scotland can have if it changes direction. After nearly two decades, it is clear that this Government cannot or will not do that, but a Scottish Labour Government will do that if we are elected in May.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises that pupils and staff are being failed by the deteriorating learning and working environment in Scottish schools, overseen by the Scottish National Party administration.
16:17
Doom and gloom have haunted the Scotland national men’s football team since we last qualified for the world cup in 1998, but last night they gave us all—a nation gripped with the possibility of what might be—a reason to believe again. Daring to dream, the Scotland men’s team have given the country more than a bit of hope today.
However, I am afraid that no such hope is invested in the Labour Party’s motion this afternoon. In fact, the motion might as well have quoted the words of the brilliant John McGinn, who, on leaving the pitch last night, declared:
“I thought we were pretty rubbish, to be honest.”
Labour’s motion has no ideas on how to improve our schools and, although I accept that there are challenges, I do not recognise the bleak picture of Scotland’s schools that has been painted for us today. There is a huge amount to celebrate.
Did the cabinet secretary not hear the final minute—or minute and a half—of my speech, in which I outlined exactly what she and the Scottish Government could do to inject hope and opportunity into Scotland’s education system?
I direct the member to her motion, which mentions nothing positive about Scotland’s education system. However, there is a huge amount to be positive about in our education system.
Yesterday, I attended the Learning Places Scotland conference at the Scottish Event Campus, and it might interest Labour MSPs to know that officials from the United Kingdom Government’s Department for Education were present. They wanted to learn more about how this Government has transformed the learning environments in Scotland’s schools. Thanks to direct investment from this Government, the proportion of schools in Scotland that are in good or satisfactory condition has improved from roughly 62 per cent in 2007, when Labour was last in power in Scotland, to more than 92 per cent today. The learning environment in Scotland’s schools, which is derided in Labour’s motion, has been transformed under the SNP Government. Even if Scottish Labour cannot appear to accept that in its motion today, I very much welcome that civil servants working for Labour ministers in London can do so.
I appreciate the cabinet secretary being so generous and giving way again. Can she reflect on the fact that, for hundreds of schools across the country, the school condition survey has not been carried out for more than five years, so the data that she is referring to has not been updated?
I do not accept the point that the member makes. She has asked me several written questions on it; some of them pertain to private finance initiative schools, which were a feature of Labour’s time in office and which mean that this Government is having to repay millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money for those school buildings. I have less in my education budget because of actions that were taken by Ms Duncan-Glancy’s colleagues in a previous Parliament.
However, there is a lot to be positive about in Scottish education, so let us look at some of the positives. Last week, I was pleased to secure agreement from the teaching unions to a 7.5 per cent pay increase over two years. That pay deal means that Scotland’s teachers remain the best-paid teachers on these islands and ensures that our teachers get that pay increase in time for Christmas, which I know is welcome news. The agreement means that our classroom teachers will now earn up to £54,000, and those on the rung below depute heads will earn up to £74,205 from April—roughly £300 less than an MSP’s salary.
Securing that two-year pay deal has been important in providing the impetus for securing progress on reducing class contact. As we have heard today, greater standardisation in education will also provide for more consistency for pupils. In relation to workload, we know that there is a need to standardise what is being asked of our teachers. Data should be about driving improvement and supporting quality learning and teaching. It is not fair that, for example, reporting requirements differ by local authority; expectations of our staff should be consistent. The Government will begin discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the standardisation of data collection to support the reduction of teacher workload.
That work is being supplemented by two CivTech challenges. One of those was launched back in summer 2024 and is building a tool that seeks to use artificial intelligence to streamline admin and planning in relation to ASN. This summer, we announced a further challenge, which is about identifying opportunities to use AI to support a reduction in teacher workload.
Teacher workload cannot be reduced without a role for pupil support assistants. I confirm my support for a national model of accreditation for pupil support assistants. I will be taking that forward with COSLA as a matter of priority.
Today’s motion also makes no mention of poverty. We should be mindful that, last month, the NASUWT’s survey of teachers told us their views on austerity: teachers said that the two-child cap means that kids from larger families are not able to be supported. I hope that Labour members will be impressing those points on their colleagues in London to ensure that the two-child cap is lifted across the United Kingdom, to lift those children and young people out of poverty so that they can attain their educational potential.
This year’s education and skills budget provides a record £4.3 billion for Scottish education. It is imperative that that funding, which is protected at a national level, gets to Scots in the classrooms where it is needed. That is why I have appointed former headteacher John Wilson to provide the Government with an independent report on reforming school governance and funding. It is essential that that funding makes its way into our classrooms where it is needed most.
I look forward to the remainder of the debate and to listening again to the positives of Scotland’s education system.
I move amendment S6M-19754.2, to leave out from “that pupils” to end and insert:
“the challenges in Scotland’s schools post-COVID-19 pandemic, particularly with attendance and an increase in additional support needs (ASN); welcomes the additional funding agreed to in the Budget for 2025-26 to support outcomes for children with ASN, and to support and enhance the ASN workforce; acknowledges the key role that staff and teachers play to support children to succeed; welcomes the agreement last week, which ensures that Scotland’s teachers remain the highest paid in the UK, with an uplift of 7.5% over two years; remains committed to undertaking further work to reduce teacher workload, which sits alongside the commitment to reduce class contact time, and agrees to recognise and celebrate the successes of Scotland’s young people.”
16:22
I start on a positive note by thanking the Labour Party for sponsoring a debate on education. It is important that we have those; in January, the Scottish Conservatives sponsored a similar debate about our school environments. I would return to the subject every week, because parents, pupils and teachers are telling us that the problems that are still happening in our schools must be addressed. I do not see that as a negative thing—I see it as what people are looking for the Parliament to do something about.
In March, we secured a debate about ending violence in our schools. Maybe when the cabinet secretary is giving her closing speech, she can touch on some of this. We have seen a movement from the Scottish Government in the past year to recognise that we have a problem in our classrooms and that violence in our classrooms is something that we cannot just hope is not happening.
The number of teachers has decreased by almost 1,700 over the time that this Government has been in power. I think that that is because of the school environment. The number of post-probation teachers who find full-time employment has decreased and there has been a huge increase in the number of days that have been lost because of teachers in our school workplaces having poor mental health. More than 30 per cent of pupils are missing more than 10 per cent of their school learning because of that. Scotland’s classrooms are now the most violent in the UK: between March 2014 and 2024, there were 490 reports of serious injuries to school staff in Scotland caused by violence. Adjusted for population, that rate is higher than the rate in England and Wales.
So, we have a problem, and we need to ensure that, rather than burying our heads in the sand, we look for solutions. I hope that the cabinet secretary will listen to those of us who have raised the issue.
In the debates that we led on the subject, we asked for a clear national policy on consequences. The cabinet secretary said that such a policy would be provided in the guidance. We must have a situation in which pupils are required to take responsibility for their actions; in which any violence in our schools is not tolerated; and in which the option of exclusion is available for teachers to take as a last resort, if they need to, with the support of this Parliament and the cabinet secretary. Ministers have acknowledged that the rise in violence and abuse in our schools must be addressed.
On Friday, along with the cabinet secretary, I attended the School Leaders Scotland conference. I was struck by the conversations that I had with teachers about the fact that technology and bullying are at the heart of their concerns. Although the First Minister has told us that work is being done on the issue, school leaders want the Government to provide leadership on what they should be doing. A ban on social media—
Did Miles Briggs take away from that conference the message that I took away from it—he has hinted that he did—which is that, without 100 per cent support from the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, school leaders will not be able to enforce such a ban?
I did. That is why I wanted to touch on the issue, on which our school leaders are asking for support. We must ensure that the Parliament and the Government hear that message, because if they do not, the issue will be the subject of the next crisis that we debate. I was shocked by some of the conversations that I had about the bullying that young people are experiencing. I hope that the Government will realise that there is a need for more debate on the issue.
I am running out of time, so I will conclude. It is clear that the fact that violence is out of control in many of our classrooms needs to be addressed. The Scottish Government must ensure that teachers have 100 per cent support in tackling the issue. Scottish Conservatives would work to bring back common sense in dealing effectively with disruptive pupils by empowering our teachers and rolling out the mobile phone ban that is making such a positive difference in some of our classrooms.
I move amendment S6M-19754.1, to insert at end:
“; notes with deep concern the decline in standards and increasing pupil violence, which are intensifying pressures on teachers and support staff; believes that these trends reflect years of underinvestment and a failure to provide the support and resources needed to maintain safe and effective learning environments, and calls on the Scottish Government to deliver urgent action to raise attainment, improve discipline in classrooms and support teachers to deliver the high-quality education that every young person in Scotland deserves.”
16:27
I am glad that the Labour Party has given us the opportunity to debate the situation in Scotland’s schools, although, frankly, I am depressed and disappointed by its motion. Teachers, support staff and their students all face huge challenges, and Labour had an opportunity to lay out potential solutions to those challenges in its motion. However, the motion does not do that—it represents a wasted opportunity.
The Scottish Greens recognise the challenges in our classrooms, and we have solutions to those challenges. I will start with the issue of teacher workload. Although teaching is a very well-paid profession, there are huge recruitment and retention challenges in the secondary sector. The most common reason that is cited by teachers who are considering leaving the profession is the crushing workload. Much of that workload does not even improve the quality of teaching and learning. It is bureaucratic and entirely unnecessary. A vast system of data collection has been established by national and local government, with the burden falling on overworked classroom teachers.
Let us take the example of standardised tests. The Scottish Greens oppose Scottish national standardised assessments entirely. We believe that they are rooted in a mistrust of teachers, and that the anxiety that they generate is simply not worth the limited data that is collected. In session 5, Parliament voted to scrap them in primary 1 entirely, but the Scottish Government ignored that and went on with them. They cost at least £5 million per year, which is hard to justify when education budgets are so squeezed.
Even if we accept the premise of SNSAs, the mission creep around them has created significant extra workload for teachers. Schools and councils have added their own reporting requirements on top of the core system. Teachers spend more and more of their week generating reports to feed the system, rather than focusing on the quality of their teaching and the needs of their pupils. SNSAs are just one example of the huge variety of data collection demands that are placed on teachers across the country. That is one area in which reform could be delivered quickly and save rather than cost money.
Green MSPs submitted a report to the cabinet secretary two years ago. Based on focus groups with teachers and headteachers from across the country, it laid out examples of unnecessary and inconsistent data collection. We strongly urge the Scottish Government to use that report as the starting point of a discussion with COSLA about how to reduce and standardise data collection in our schools.
Our report also highlighted how the RAG—red, amber, green—system creates an incentive for schools to focus on the amber students, where most of the measurable improvement gains are to be had, effectively acting as a disincentive to support pupils who are struggling and flagged as red. A system that revolves around blunt metrics is one that no longer sees our young people as individuals. That is the opposite of what the curriculum for excellence was supposed to have delivered.
We would also like the 2015 report on tackling bureaucracy to be dusted down and implemented. Many of those issues are not new; we did not need to reinvent the wheel to tackle them. However, we need to trust teachers. That level of trust requires safeguards—not more form filling and reporting but giving teachers the time and space for proper peer review and support.
There are huge strengths in our education system. We should not create a doom loop of political and media commentary. Raising the challenges and putting pressure on both levels of government to solve them is essential. That requires solutions. Our school staff and students deserve nothing less.
16:31
Teachers and staff do some really good things in schools. They achieve an awful lot and transform young people’s lives, and we should recognise that. However, I sometimes think that the Government is a hindrance rather than a help in that regard. We have massive challenges in our schools with behaviour, additional support needs and absence, which are all interconnected.
Moreover, many teachers leave the profession because they have just had enough—they are fed up with the regular attacks and the challenges of coping with the fact that 40 or 50 per cent of their classes, sometimes more, have additional support needs without the appropriate support to help them.
There is, of course, the long-vaunted closing of the poverty-related attainment gap, which has basically not changed since Nicola Sturgeon promised to close it about 10 years ago. In addition, international performance data triggered a serious debate about the performance of Scottish education.
The Government has lost its way. It spends most of its time repairing the damage that it caused in the first place, rejects the reviews that it commissioned and is failing to deliver on its own promises. Let us consider teacher contact time. It was a big promise, which the Government was supposed to have delivered by now. Although the last SNP manifesto promised that it would be 90 minutes a day, we know that it is 90 minutes a week. Teachers are furious, so much so that they are talking about going on strike at the start of next year. We should have delivered that promise by now, but the SNP has failed to do so and is typically blaming somebody else for that failure.
Then there is the poverty-related attainment gap. Although the cabinet secretary has not mentioned it, within a few months we are supposed to have closed the gap. The reality is that, although we are supposed to have made that progress, the gap has flatlined over the past few years, particularly in secondary school. It is worth reminding people—I know that it is boring—that the then First Minister said that we would judge her on education. However, she is nowhere to be seen now and the cabinet secretary does not even talk about that promise any more.
The education secretary has scrapped the regional collaboratives that the now First Minister introduced. However, you will notice that she continues to refer repeatedly to the fact that local authorities—32 of them—run the Scottish education system, with a hint that she wants to centralise education. If that is what she wants, she should come out and say it rather than just hint at it. If that is her policy, let us have that discussion. I do not think that Scotland wants to get into another debate about structures, just as we have done in the debate about skills. We should focus on the challenges that we face rather than have diversionary debates about structures.
On additional support needs, the cabinet secretary celebrates recruiting more ASN teachers, but it was this Government that cut the number of teachers in the first place, so it is not something that we should celebrate.
Finally, there was the Hayward review. That was commissioned by the Government and spent months—years—debating the issue and gathering the support of many people across the education world. However, as soon as the education secretary got a hold of it, she in effect rejected it.
The Government has no real vision. I do not really understand what it is trying to achieve. I would love it to focus, for instance, on parity of esteem between vocational and academic education, which would make a transformational difference to many young people who get lost at school because school does not fit their needs. I would love a proper programme of consequences and boundaries to empower teachers to manage their classrooms. I would love best practice on dealing with additional support needs to be shared across the country, so that young people with those needs get chances just like everyone else.
However, the Government is just lost. It does not seem to know what it wants to do with education. I just wish that that would change.
We move to the open debate, with speeches of up to four minutes from back benchers.
16:35
I rise to raise in particular issues of spatial planning in schools. Glasgow is facing some significant challenges in that area. After many years of population decline, the city’s population has increased by around 7 per cent in the past decade, and the increase in school rolls is projected to continue. Glasgow’s secondary pupil school roll is forecast to grow by 18 per cent over the next decade, and the primary school pupil roll is predicted to grow by 4 per cent in the next two years.
The issue has been particularly acute in neighbourhoods in which there has been a high level of new-build development, such as Robroyston in the north of the city. I have recently undertaken a significant amount of work in that community, with the community council and parents. A statistically significant number of parents and people who are planning to have children have told me that they are simply unable to access either secondary or primary school provision in the area.
The nearest non-denominational secondary school is Smithycroft, but Robroyston is right on the limit of that school’s catchment area and children have to walk for an hour to get there, including through an unlit graveyard. That is quite an unsafe route. It is not at all well provisioned. That school is reaching capacity. The city’s proposed strategy for the expansion of school capacity is not to build a new school, which is probably fair enough given the logistical aspects of running a school—the duplication of overheads in resourcing, and so on—but simply to construct modular accommodation. That has already happened in a number of schools across the city in recent years, and it is simply not optimal. Building glorified portakabins to accommodate expanding school rolls at secondary level is simply not acceptable.
I am keen to hear the cabinet secretary’s views on how Glasgow City Council in particular is managing school expansion. There are 30 secondary schools in Glasgow, 29 of which are operated under public-private partnership model arrangements that will come to a conclusion in 2030. However, even under the PPP scheme, there has been proper expansion, such as the Bellarmine extension to St Paul’s on the south side, which opened in 2023.
I would like the cabinet secretary to engage more directly with Glasgow City Council to understand its estates management programme and to challenge the conclusion that modular buildings are the solution. The situation is upsetting to parents and it is not good for the city’s spatial planning in areas such as Robroyston, which are at the limits of existing catchment areas. Parents feel that their children are put under a lot of pressure to travel long distances to access schooling, including in inclement weather, and some are unable to access schools at all. The area is on the boundary with East Dunbartonshire. There was previously an arrangement with East Dunbartonshire Council—and, before that, Strathclyde Regional Council—whereby placing requests were much easier to facilitate. However, that has been less the case in recent years, as the planned capacity of the schools has been reduced.
There are a number of issues pertaining to the north of Glasgow, particularly in relation to secondary school capacity, but also for the primary estate. Modular buildings are being used at Wallacewell primary school to sustain capacity, and with Smithycroft now reaching capacity, the planned solution is to build modular buildings there. I really do not think that that is acceptable.
I have examined the modelling for school capacity planning in Glasgow. Although it looks good on the surface, the projections do not seem to tally with the lived experience of people in the communities. I am keen for the cabinet secretary to engage with Glasgow City Council on the issue and to explore options with East Dunbartonshire Council. With the rebuild proposal for Lenzie academy, could there be options to share capacity with new-build estates in the north of the city?
I have written to the cabinet secretary about that. I am still awaiting a formal response from her, but I am keen for her to meet me and representatives of the community to discuss the matter in more detail and consider how, with Glasgow’s new director of education, when they are appointed, we can plan ahead in a more robust and resilient way. Although the modelling looks good, it does not tally with the lived experience of people in Robroyston.
16:40
I thank Sarah Boyack, who is sitting down the front, for lodging the motion. Never mind that Bob Doris was not even in the room! I say to Pam Duncan-Glancy that I am sorry about that joke.
As a member of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, I have found it to be a pleasure to work together with colleagues from across the chamber on a wide variety of issues concerning Scotland’s education landscape. I have genuinely enjoyed my time serving on the committee. The dedication that is shown by colleagues from every party on the committee reminds me every week that, whatever our political colours, we are here for the same purpose—to improve education in Scotland and to give every young person the chance to develop and thrive.
In that vein, it is important that we ground the debate in the real challenges that our schools face—not in slogans or point scoring, but in facts. The Scottish Government’s amendment highlights the challenges that we have faced post-Covid. The reality is that schools have struggled with reduced attendance, greater variation in pupil engagement and a significant rise in the number of pupils with additional support needs. That is why I welcome the additional funding to improve outcomes for children with ASN and to strengthen and expand the ASN workforce. Let us be clear that those steps will directly impact the classroom experience by ensuring that children who need the most support receive it and that the staff who deliver that support are properly equipped.
I welcome the recent agreement that ensures that Scotland’s teachers remain the highest paid in the UK, as the cabinet secretary mentioned, with a 7.5 per cent uplift over two years. I also welcome the commitment to undertake further work to reduce teacher workload, alongside the commitment to reduce class contact time.
Crucially, we must celebrate the successes of Scotland’s young people. Their achievements in classrooms and communities, including in the arts, sciences and sports, deserve recognition in the chamber and beyond.
I turn to the motion. There are challenges and we have work to do. To tackle those issues, we need to work together. Rather than attack, we should support the work that is being done. To say that pupils and staff are being failed is disingenuous and disrespectful to all those who work hard to improve our education system. I find it disrespectful when colleagues refer to the Scottish Government as the Scottish National Party Administration. I would hope for better from colleagues whom I have always respected. I frequently disagree with the actions of the UK Government, but I still refer to it as the UK Government out of basic respect for the institution. I would have hoped that we might hold ourselves to the same standard in Scotland.
Pupils and staff deserve a debate that lifts them up and not a motion that uses them as a weapon. They deserve co-operation and not division. Despite the wording of the motion, I remain, as always, ready to work with colleagues from all parties for the benefit of children and young people across Scotland.
16:43
I thank the Presiding Officer and all colleagues for the support that they have shown to me during my recent period of leave. Being a dad is the best job in the world, and I join the ranks of those across the chamber who are perpetually caffeinated, who spend moments in morning meetings removing Ready Brek from their clothing and who often find themselves humming the theme tune to “Hey Duggee” while walking the corridors.
Perhaps it is fitting that my first contribution on my return is on the subject of education, because few issues that we debate in the chamber are as important as the learning experiences and life chances of our children and young people.
Current experiences in classrooms across Scotland have been recounted in some detail in the debate. Violence and disruption are on the rise, attendance is falling dramatically, there are cuts to the additional support that is needed for our children and young people, and teachers are feeling undervalued and burned out. The evidence is stark from trade unions, individual teachers, school leaders and young people, who often capture that reality with their mobile phones. It is not only the Labour Party, Opposition MSPs or the media who are saying that—it is a reality in our schools and communities.
The cabinet secretary cannot continue to bury her head in the sand. Back in May, when I asked the First Minister about violent attacks in Renfrewshire that were uploaded to social media, I was assured that there would be meaningful action rather than more talking shops. He told me that the Government had listened and was taking a number of measures. The EIS said of the Government plans:
“Whilst there are elements of the plan which are helpful, the EIS has been clear that the action plan must be backed up by sufficient resources to deliver meaningful change to ensure that Scottish schools are to be safe places to learn and to work.”
The NASUWT found that, in 2025, a shocking 62 per cent of teachers were not aware that the national action plan on relationships and behaviour was being taken forward.
It seems that the view of the First Minister and the cabinet secretary is that that is all somebody else’s issue. We heard some of that rehearsed in the helpful contribution from Willie Rennie. If it is not councils, it is teachers themselves, who, according to this Government and its amendment to the motion, should be happy with their lot and stop complaining. Indeed, I think that there was an air of “You’ve never had it so good” from the cabinet secretary and ministers.
I am constantly inspired by our teachers. I come from a family that has teachers in its ranks. Teachers inspire and shape our young people, often in extremely difficult circumstances, but they are being let down by a lack of leadership. Leadership can be at the heart of many of those challenges. When I was on East Renfrewshire Council, I was the education convener, and I had the privilege of appointing headteachers to many of our schools. In doing so, I learned very quickly that leadership can make all the difference in a school community, but there are now significant challenges in recruiting headteachers. People do not want to enter that promoted post because of the challenges therein. There is a clear struggle, because leadership comes from the top.
It was interesting to hear the cabinet secretary refer to the Scotland football team and Steve Clarke. It is clear that he leads from the front, but I am not sure that the Government’s leadership can be compared to the bold vision and energy of Steve Clarke. I thought that that was a bold comment at the beginning of the debate.
I am sure that people across Scotland who are watching the debate will be asking what it will take for the Government to take its fingers out of its ears and listen to teachers who are walking away from the profession that they love. What will it take for the Government to listen to young people and parents who are worried about what goes on in our schools? If I was to have a restorative conversation with the cabinet secretary, I would say to her gently that it is clear that we need a new direction and that that is the only way to solve the current crisis in our schools.
16:48
I thank Labour for bringing the debate to the chamber on an afternoon that has focused on education and skills.
I say at the outset that the issues in our education system in no way reflect the hard work and dedication that is provided by teachers and support staff across the country. However, why do we find ourselves in a position where Scotland’s classrooms are the most violent in the UK, more than a third of our teachers have been attacked with a weapon, more than 64,000 school bullying incidents have been reported by 25 local authorities, and in a survey by NASUWT in March, 83 per cent of its members in Scotland said that the number of violent and abusive pupils had increased in the past 12 months? Why are we in a position where we are the worst in the UK?
If we do not look at those issues objectively and without prejudice, we cannot change the outcomes for teachers, children and young people across Scotland. I would like to highlight how I think some of those issues could be addressed.
A developing mind has an essential need for boundaries. According to child development experts such as Dr Ross Greene, author of “The Explosive Child”, and Dr Dan Siegel, co-author of “The Whole-Brain Child”, children who grow up with clear and consistent rules tend to have better self-control, stronger decision-making skills and healthier relationships.
Without boundaries, children can struggle with self-regulation, develop anxiety and find it difficult to respect others’ limits. I believe that boundaries and an understanding of consequences are essential, and issues in that regard are a contributory factor to the reason why Scotland has a greater proportion of violence than the other three of the four UK nations.
That opinion is not mine alone—there are increasing doubts among unions and experts about the Scottish education policy of restorative approaches to behaviour management. Mike Corbett of the NASUWT in Scotland has stated:
“The wholesale adoption of the restorative approach to pupil discipline has definitely been a problem”,
and said that
“You can’t offer a quiet chat and no serious consequences for this level of disruptive behaviour.”
Although a structured conversation between staff and pupils to address incidents of poor behaviour is certainly an option, it has to be backed up with robust consequences that are completely accepted and understood.
We are talking about restorative practice. Is it not right to say that that approach works only once a person has developed the skills of empathy and of understanding the consequences of their own actions?
Yes—I could not agree more with that, at a certain level. However, the consequences have to be accepted not only by the pupil but by the parents, the teachers and the local authority alike. I urge the Scottish Government to re-address its approach in that regard.
Another issue that is having a detrimental effect on behaviour in our classrooms is the rise in additional support needs in a classroom setting. There is much evidence coming forward as to the detriment to our young people as a result of things such as the extended lockdowns through the pandemic and the harmful side effects of smartphone apps. It is essential that we accept the current position and provide ASN staff accordingly.
As I have previously mentioned in the chamber, the number of pupils with additional support needs has increased significantly. In 2024, there were 284,448 pupils in Scotland’s schools with additional support needs, which represents a record high of 40.5 per cent of the total pupil population. Conversely, the number of ASN teachers has decreased, to a record low of 2,837. In 2010, one ASN teacher was supporting 20 pupils, but by 2024, the same teacher was supporting more than 100 pupils. Without proper investment in ASN support staff, the difficulties in our classrooms will continue to rise.
In conclusion, we can make the policy changes that will actively change the outcomes for Scotland’s children, but only if we have a Government that is willing to do it.
16:52
The cabinet secretary opened her speech by talking about Scotland’s men’s football team and the hope that they have given us all with the great result that they had last night. In celebrating the result, I have to remind members that all roads to the United States lead to Paisley—or rather, go through Paisley, whether it is going to Paisley international airport or the fact that Steve Clarke, John McGinn, Kenny McLean and Lawrence Shankland all played for the mighty St Mirren in Paisley. As always, there is a Paisley connection.
Three of those players were youth players. Currently, St Mirren—along with the University of the West of Scotland, which is connected to the debate—has a programme to ensure that players who do not make it to the top grade in football get the opportunity to do something else and look at another career.
The cabinet secretary was right to bring up the importance of hope. We all know the story of Pandora’s box, which was not actually a box—it was just a sealed container. Pandora opened it and released all the troubles of the world, and only hope remained inside the box. That tells us that things can be better and that, in difficult times, we can make things a lot better. However, I get the impression from listening to Labour Party members that if they ever had what was left of Pandora’s box, they would just toss the jar.
I turn to the reality in my constituency. On Friday, I was at a flexible learning resource for senior-phase pupils with additional support needs at a school in Foxbar in Paisley. I was meant to be there for only a short time, but I ended up spending about an hour and a half or two hours there—with my office manager going backwards and forwards regularly to try to get me out—because it was so interesting to listen to those young people who are in that resource to learn. They probably knew more about politics than a lot of the members in the chamber today.
As always, I will talk about my personal circumstances. My granddaughter Daisy was diagnosed with autism. In the past year, she has been put into a class along with other neurodivergent young boys and girls, and she has moved forward.
In saying that, I recognise, as I always must, the real challenges that teachers and school staff are dealing with every day, whether that is the rising number of children with additional support needs, the lingering effects of the pandemic, or the pressures that come from supporting families through a cost of living crisis that is not of Scotland’s making. Our teachers are carrying a huge weight and I put on record my gratitude to them all. Their commitment, compassion and professionalism are the backbone of Scotland’s education system.
However, acknowledging challenge is not the same as accepting the bleak and, frankly, uninspiring picture that is painted by Labour’s motion. Scotland’s teachers and young people deserve better than a narrative that overlooks progress, ignores success and, at times, seems more focused on political point scoring than solutions. The truth, which is backed by evidence from across Scotland, is that the Government is delivering improvements and is investing heavily in working side by side with teachers to build a better education system. Look at the facts: attainment is rising, pass rates for national 5, higher and advanced higher are up in comparison with not only last year but pre-pandemic levels. Literacy and numeracy attainment in our primary and secondary schools are also at a record high. If that is failure, I would hate to see what success looks like to Opposition parties.
Record numbers of young people—more than 110,000—are achieving vocational and technical qualifications. That is proof that the Scottish Government’s commitment to create multiple pathways is working. Our teachers are working hard and our young people are achieving more than ever. The Government is investing more, delivering more and supporting more than any other Administration in the United Kingdom.
For the debate to be valid and constructive, we must accept the current successes in education and see how we can take them to the next level. Only then can we really say that we are looking to build a better educational landscape for our young people.
We move to closing speeches.
16:57
In my opening speech, I talked about the crushing workload challenges that teachers face as a result of the expansive and unnecessary bureaucracy that is built around our curriculum. The other major challenge that we hear about more than any other from teachers and school staff is the lack of support for children with additional needs. Much like workload and bureaucracy, that challenge is not new, but the situation has gotten much worse recently. The grim reality is that many children with additional support needs must catastrophically fail before the support that they need is put into place. Trauma has become a prerequisite of support, when it could be avoided entirely.
There is a range of reasons for that, one of which is that the underpinning legislation is simply out of date and is no longer fit for purpose. The Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 set out rigid criteria for a co-ordinated support plan, which is the only kind of plan for children with additional support needs that has statutory underpinning. That makes it the only plan that gives a child and their parents or carers the option of going to a tribunal for redress if their needs are not met. In hindsight, the criteria for a CSP should never have been included in the bill; they should have been set out in regulations, which would have made it much easier for them to evolve in response to changes in our schools and society at large. For example, we have massively expanded access to mental health counsellors in schools, which is an area of progress that we should all be proud of. However, because those councillors are located in schools, they do not count as a separate source of support. The 2004 act requires there to have been support from at least two sources for at least 12 months in order for a child to qualify for a co-ordinated support plan. The step forward in access to mental health support has perversely led to a step backward in access to CSPs for some young people.
However, that is far from the whole story. It certainly does not explain why only one in every 150 children who has a recognised additional support need have a CSP. Not every child who has additional needs requires a CSP, but thousands more do, and they are not able to get one. The 2004 act needs to be updated, which must include revising the criteria for a CSP, as well as creating a power for those plans to be updated by regulation in future. The Greens were disappointed when the Scottish Government announced that it would drop the proposed learning disabilities, autism and neurodivergence bill in this session of the Parliament, as that would have been our opportunity to at least fix that aspect of the 2004 act.
I hope that the next Government makes the time for an LDAN bill and for a full revision of the 2004 act, either as part of that bill or through a stand-alone piece of legislation. Changing legislation alone will not solve the huge challenges that are faced by young people with additional needs and those trying to support them, but it is an essential part of the process.
The other area for improvement is staffing. Children with complex needs are often supported and cared for by staff who have no specific training in that area at all. That is why the Scottish Greens have been working with the Scottish Government on proposals for a qualification and registration system for ASN assistants.
There are solutions to the problems that our schools face. This Parliament should be far more focused on those solutions than is often the case in these debates, but I am glad that we have at least had the opportunity to discuss those issues. They could not be more important to the people we represent—individuals, families and communities—and to our society as a whole.
17:00
In my teacher training course, the only thing that really mattered was how I could get on in front of a class. Forget all the theory, the coloured pencils, the size of the lines on the paper and what I wrote on the blackboard—that shows how long ago it was—what mattered most was how I got on with young people and, crucially, whether I could build trust between me and my pupils. That trust was partly dependent on the innate chemistry in the room but also on the environment in which the teaching and learning would take place.
I do not just mean the physical state of the building, although that is important, but the atmosphere in the classroom and whether it was based on calm self-discipline, with the expectations of high standards being well understood and adhered to, and with pupils and teachers recognising that certain structures and routines are beneficial to good-quality education.
We need a school system that works and a curriculum that inspires and is complemented by an exam system that not only aspires to the highest possible standards but is diverse and responsive to the needs of different pupils. We need a system that rewards hard work, that stands for no nonsense from disruptive pupils or, as can happen on occasion, disruptive parents, that does not pander to pupils and parents, that allows headteachers to have autonomy, and that values extracurricular activity because of what it adds to the educational experience in terms of building resilience, self-esteem and confidence.
As has been rehearsed this afternoon by several speakers, in too many cases, despite all the good things that are happening in Scottish education, we have seen a breakdown in classroom discipline, in relation to which many factors are at play. That is true in society as well as in schools, but that does not excuse it; indeed, it makes it even more important that we address the issues.
What do I want to see? First, I want to see far more autonomy for our headteachers. One example of where I think that a change could be made in that regard concerns a local authority that tells all its schools that, on their five in-service days, they must all do the same topic, irrespective of whether that topic is relevant to that particular school. That cannot be right.
We need a far more rigorous approach to the three Rs, because business and industry still moan about far too many young recruits not having a grasp of the very basic skills. No one should underestimate the frustration that young people feel if they cannot read, write and count properly, which leads to poor behaviour and a lack of motivation.
As I have said many times before in the chamber, we need to reform the middle years of secondary education so that our model is much more like the European one that values parity of esteem and develops meaningful apprenticeships at a much younger age.
We need to address the problem of the disengaged. Longer-serving members in this Parliament will recall the Newlands Junior College initiative in Glasgow, which produced excellent results when it came to motivating our most disengaged pupils. How sad it was that that could not continue because of a political agenda.
Lastly—this is probably a bit controversial, but I will say it—I am strongly of the view that we are far too inclined to make pupils believe that they cannot do things rather than that they can do things. We tend to make them think that they have a problem when they do not. That is where extracurricular activity comes in—members will not be surprised to hear me say that that includes residential outdoor education. Every young person has it within themselves to be good at something, and we should all ensure that they have the opportunity to develop their skills.
I support Pam Duncan-Glancy’s motion and Miles Briggs’s amendment.
17:04
I welcome the MSPs and parties who have come forward with solutions during the debate. We have just been hearing from Liz Smith, a fellow former teacher, about the importance of the three Rs. She also talked about the role of local authorities, which we have heard about from others today, in perhaps dictating the content of in-service days, and about the importance of listening to the profession in that regard. Her final points about our curriculum and how we might better meet the needs of all learners, particularly outwith the formal curriculum, are really important.
One of the aspects that Miles Briggs, Willie Rennie, Martin Whitfield, Ross Greer and I were discussing on Friday at the School Leaders Scotland conference at Loch Lomond was school funding post-pandemic. Pam Duncan-Glancy was not able to be there, but she has talked about making PEF permanent. I put on the record that I have made clear the commitment that, if my party is re-elected next year, we will continue that funding. I know that Scottish Labour has a similar position on that issue.
There is a big-picture question about school funding that we have not really interrogated today. My question for Labour members and for the rest of Parliament is about whether it is enough. I do not think that it is anymore. Our schools are now meeting the needs of a variety of different parts of society, whether that be health needs or income maximisation for parents and carers. We need to look at the totality of funding that goes to schools. I heard Mr Rennie’s points, a number of which, I have to say, I do not agree with, but I think that John Wilson’s appointment is an opportunity to look again at radical approaches to school funding. Our schools are now meeting needs that go beyond our educational requirements, and we need to reconfigure budgets to recognise that.
I understand what the cabinet secretary is saying, but it is not all about money; it is about a cultural change that is required in our schools. As my colleague Roz McCall said, it is about ensuring that we have the right culture. We accept that there are many things that schools are doing well, and we should be enhancing that. However, it is not just about money; it is about that culture and how we build the trust between pupils and teachers.
I very much agree with Liz Smith’s points. In reflecting on our own teaching, we understand the importance of building trust with pupils and the class. That was fundamental to all that I did in my time in teaching, and I know that that was the case for Liz Smith, too. That trust was eroded during the pandemic, and we should be mindful of the challenge that, for many young people, returning to formal education has been difficult.
We heard from a number of members this afternoon about the important role of our teachers and support staff. Willie Rennie and others talked about the importance of teachers in our schools, and George Adam also spoke specifically to that point.
Willie Rennie was right to speak about the increase in the number of additional support needs pupils, which we also heard about from Roz McCall and George Adam. I was pleased that Willie Rennie’s party, supported by the Green Party, voted for the Government’s budget last year, which provided an extra £29 million for the ASN workforce.
Another stream of work that we have committed to undertaking is a wider cross-party review of ASN. As part of that, Willie Rennie came forward with a very positive suggestion on holding a national conference. I confirm that we will be holding a national conference on best practice in relation to additional support needs. That was a very sensible suggestion from Willie Rennie, and I hope that he recognises that the Government is very much listening to his views in this space.
On ASN, I also highlight the national data summit that I opened last Wednesday at Murrayfield. Part of the challenge, particularly in relation to the additional support needs that we see across the country, are the various approaches to monitoring, tracking and measuring ASN. The variety of approaches disturbs the national picture, because it does not necessarily give us an accurate data set. The national summit that we had last week was extremely important, and I look forward to continuing to work with COSLA on arriving at a national understanding of how we measure ASN better to get that accurate picture.
I am very much encouraged by the cabinet secretary’s points about data. Will she reflect on Lorna Slater’s point about co-ordinated support plans, which are used much less frequently than their equivalents in England? Pupils with additional support needs need a plan, but co-ordinated support plans are currently applied only if they co-ordinate delivery of support from beyond the school. Is that not a flaw?
I hear Daniel Johnson’s point—Lorna Slater made a similar point. We have debated the issue at the Education, Children and Young People Committee. Co-ordinated support plans carry a statutory responsibility that other plans do not. There is often a reticence at local authority level to use CSPs because they are statutory, but we will consider that in the wider review. Lorna Slater made an interesting point in that regard.
Too often, I have at my door parents and carers who are frustrated by the system when it has not worked for their child or young person. We need to resolve those matters. We need to recognise where the powers rest, which is at local authority level, but we also need to provide clearer national direction in that regard.
I am conscious of time, Presiding Officer. I praise our young people and their teachers for the hard work that goes on every day in our schools and for their achievements. In short, we must give our schools hope. Some of the speeches that we heard this afternoon provide us with the necessary impetus to that end.
17:10
I draw to members’ notice my entry in the register of members’ interests.
It is a pleasure to close the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. It is a debate that speaks to the heart of what education should be. To pick up on the memories of Liz Smith—and, no doubt, of the cabinet secretary—of teacher training, teachers are often told, “You are the weather in the classroom.” That relates to Liz Smith’s intervention about the importance of culture. The weather in the classroom is about the culture that is developed.
What should that culture be? What should that weather be? There should be a safe, supportive environment where every child can learn and every teacher can teach without fear. However, that is not the reality that many children and teachers experience in Scotland’s schools today. That is not to talk down our staff and certainly not to talk down our young people, their parents or the communities that stand around them—it is a reality.
There has been an unacceptable deterioration in classroom behaviour. There has—factually—been a shocking rise in the number of violent incidents. The EIS reports that 80 per cent of its branches experience weekly “violence and aggression”. In Aberdeen alone, incidents have surged by more than 300 per cent since 2019. There is both subjective evidence and objective mathematical evidence of an increase. Teachers are being pushed, they are being hit by objects and they are being assaulted. Police Scotland has said that there were 63 cases of weapons being brought into schools in just three months of this year.
Those are not isolated events; they are symptoms of a crisis. Figures from the Scottish household survey that were published this week show that among adults in Scotland—we are mostly not talking about people who interact with schools on a daily basis—69 per cent were satisfied with their local schools. That figure is down from 81 per cent in 2011, which shows the perception that our communities have of the schools that sit at the heart of our communities.
I will talk about some of the speeches that we have heard. One of the many statistics that Miles Briggs talked about was that 30 per cent of our pupils are missing more than 10 per cent of their teaching. That is an unacceptable figure. We discussed that situation at the SLS conference on Friday.
Willie Rennie made another comment about the Hayward review; I have forgotten the number of times that he has raised it. Why has he done that? It is because, like so many previous reviews and reports, the review sits on a shelf gathering dust.
Paul Sweeney picked up on the spatial planning problem, which is a particular regional problem that speaks to a breakdown in the understanding between local authorities, the Scottish Government and families who have lived experiences.
It was unfortunate that the cabinet secretary ran out of time to refer to my speech. Will Martin Whitfield invite her to respond to my letter of 4 September?
It was responded to.
I think that Paul Sweeney has an answer, if that makes it on to the record.
I welcome my colleague Paul O’Kane back to the chamber—he has been missed. It was almost disappointing that he had to refer to a previous question that he asked in the chamber about the fact that young people are filming violence in schools and uploading it to the internet, where it will live for ever. There is dissatisfaction that there has still not been a realistic solution to that problem.
Time is short, so I turn to the cabinet secretary’s amendment, as well as the speeches by the cabinet secretary, Lorna Slater and Bill Kidd regarding the amendment. I refer—begrudgingly, I suppose—to the standing orders and the Parliament’s guidance on the purpose of motions. The purpose of motions is not to provide solutions; motions are the core procedural tool to manage parliamentary business and allow us to have a democratic debate, which is what has happened this afternoon.
If I look at the Government’s amendment, I see that it paints a picture of progress, of glory and of almost the perfect environment. It cites the pay deal and vague commitments to workload reduction. However, let us be honest: none of that addresses the core issue, which is that teachers do not feel safe, pupils do not feel safe and families are losing confidence in our schools.
The amendment ignores the reality that the scaffolding of support around young people has collapsed. Additional support needs provision is stretched to breaking point, CAMHS waiting lists are unmanageable and support staff numbers are falling dramatically. Those failures feed a vicious cycle: unmet needs lead to the dysregulated behaviour that we have heard about, which drives teachers out of the profession, leaving classrooms even more unsupported.
I would suggest that the Government’s amendment is complacent. It celebrates a pay deal, which, of course, is welcome, but ignores the fact that, even with that pay deal, 80 per cent of teachers are considering leaving the profession because of violence and aggression. We must confront that reality.
I am conscious that time is short. In restoring confidence in an education system that should be the pride of Scotland, not a source of fear and frustration, let us send a clear message today that this Parliament does not accept unsafe schools, will not accept broken support systems and will not accept excuses. Let us send the message that we will act to make our schools safe, that we will act to support them and that we will act to make them fit for the future.
Thank you, Mr Whitfield.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. During the debate, I did not have the time to answer Paul Sweeney’s point. I have checked with my private office and I can say that, following his request for a meeting, a response was sent to him last Wednesday. I have asked for that to be re-sent to him, and I am more than happy to meet him and engage on the issues that he has raised today.
Thank you, cabinet secretary. That was not a point of order, but your point is on the record.
Previous
Skills SystemNext
Urgent Question