Education
The next item of business is a statement by Cathy Jamieson on the national debate on education. The minister will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions during it.
I am happy to make this statement on an important issue. We all know that education is key to delivering the best possible life chance for every child and young person in Scotland. Our aim is to give Scotland a world-class education system. That means raising standards for all and closing the gap between those who perform well and those who fall behind. We have evidence of solid progress.
We have a large number of professional, dedicated and highly effective teachers who—on the whole—deliver good education. That is not just my opinion; it was demonstrated in the recent results of the programme for international student assessment—PISA—which is a major international study of pupils' achievement. When ranked against their peers in more than 30 countries, Scottish pupils were fifth in mathematics, sixth in reading and ninth in science. Our challenge is how to work in partnership with the whole education community to continue that improvement. We must remember that Scottish school leavers surveys show that differences in family circumstances are one main source of inequality in attainment.
In Scotland, we are justly proud of our record in education, and of the achievements of Scots around the world. We continued to lead with the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000, which established a focus on education that encourages, supports and inspires every child to reach his or her full potential. The pace of change in the world, the growth in the knowledge economy and the demands that they will place on us create an urgent need to consider what it means to deliver education for the individual in that changing society.
Last December, I wrote to the convener of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee to announce formally my intention to hold a national debate on the future of school education. It is my privilege today to launch that debate and, at the same time, to launch a unique partnership between the Scottish Executive and the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. In the spirit on which the Scottish Parliament was founded, the Executive and that committee will work together to consider the future of school education. That public service is vital to the well-being of the people of Scotland. I take this opportunity to thank Karen Gillon and the parties that are represented on the committee for their willingness to enter the partnership and to bring their expertise to the challenging task that lies in front of us. Make no mistake—the task will be a challenge.
The Executive's role is to lead in developing policy, but that is not the same as imposing our views on people without proper consultation. Early next year, we intend to publish our strategy for the future of school education, which will look at least 10 years ahead. I want to hear as many views as possible on what people want from our schools, so that the strategy will be as robust and as grounded in reality as possible. Crucially, I want to build on evidence from the people who deliver education in our schools every day and who know what works.
Our strategy will be achieved by continuing to work with teachers, parents and young people; we will work with everyone who has an interest in education. The strategy starts with listening. We are determined to build on the new atmosphere that we have begun to create in schools. The Executive will work nationally and locally with organisations—including parents organisations, teaching unions and young people's groups—to help to bring the debate to as many people as possible. The debate will be national.
The process is designed to collect views that will be expressed in discussion about fundamental education issues. In discussing views with one another, we will develop our thinking and get the most from the exercise. We have prepared a briefing pack, which will be sent to every education authority and school, and to the organisations that are already discussing with us their plans for the national debate. We will advertise widely the fact that anyone who wants to participate can get a pack by ringing a national phone line or by downloading the material from the Executive's website.
Also on the website will be an invitation to submit feedback or join a discussion online. There will also be an up-to-date timetable of national debate events around Scotland that the Executive has heard about in advance. I invite everybody to get involved. My officials are ready to offer advice and support to any organisation that is interested in getting involved in the debate. If anyone is arranging an event, they should tell us about it so that we can publicise it on the website.
As I said, the Scottish Executive and the Education, Culture and Sport Committee have agreed to work together. The committee will complement the Executive's arrangements by producing papers that consider key issues in more depth. The committee will also take oral evidence and will share with the Executive valuable feedback that it receives. We will share with the committee the feedback that is submitted to us from discussions around Scotland. Today, the Education, Culture and Sport Committee has formally launched its plans for the national debate, and I believe that the partnership will leave the Executive and the committee with a better understanding than ever before of what we really want from school education.
It is important that we challenge ourselves every so often by asking some fundamental questions about education and our schools. We need to ask what school education is for, what we want it to cover, how we want to deliver it, who should be involved and what skills they will need. We need to ask when we want to deliver it—when in young people's lives, when in the year and when in the day. We need to ask what sort of places our schools should be in the 21st century and we need to hear the views of young people and the views of parents, teachers and educationists.
When we ask those questions, we must remember that schools are not the only places where young people learn. Children and young people also learn in other settings. Families and peers can be strong influences on learning. How can we channel that positively? I believe in the importance of lifelong learning, wherever it takes place. It can happen for young people in clubs and organisations. School education must be partly about preparing people for learning throughout their lives. To achieve the best for all our children, we want to hear from organisations that work with children outside schools, from further and higher education, and from business and industry. Those views will be important in helping us to explore models for the future.
Researchers, education professionals, parents, pupils, teachers and others might already have views on those fundamental questions. The national debate is a forum in which to draw all those views together constructively. It is not about individual organisations pressing for their views to prevail, but about finding ways to work together in future. There might be others—perhaps parents or grandparents—who worry that they will have nothing to offer the debate. They might have seen much change in education since they left school and feel that their views will not count, but that is not the case. I want everyone to join in the debate in whatever way they feel most comfortable, whether through a local group discussion or an online discussion, or by simply sending in their views.
I have no doubt that people will want to ask me what I think the answers are to those fundamental questions. Of course I have views, but the consultation exercise is not narrow. I am not offering for comment a view of the future—I want to find out the extent of consensus about the future of Scottish education and I want to know where there are disagreements and differences of view. I want the difficult decisions that we will have to make in setting our strategy for education to be as well-informed as possible.
So, is everything about school education up for debate? In exploring fundamental issues about education, we open up a range of possibilities. I shall spell out the approach that will underpin the strategy. First, any future system of school education must be grounded on the principles of inclusion and equality. In order to give every child the best possible start in life, we must address those fundamental needs. Secondly, school education must remain a public service that is available to all—a principle that I believe will be endorsed by all members. Thirdly, the vital links between schools and communities must be recognised and developed. Much good work is being done to integrate children's services across institutional boundaries and I want that work to continue and grow. Local authorities' clear and continuing role in the provision of education for children, and linking that role with other local services, will be key. I am not setting out those principles to constrain the debate; I believe that those principles will give us a sound foundation for the future.
We all have a responsibility to ensure that our education system allows every child or young person to develop to his or her full potential, regardless of background or circumstances. Many countries are thinking about the future of education and international discussions suggest exciting possibilities. Schools must continue to do much more than transmit knowledge if they are to give young people what they will need. Young people need to be engaged by their education, to be excited by it and—dare I say it—to have fun, as was suggested by young people whom I met yesterday.
We are educating the future citizens of Scotland and the wider world. We want young people to be creative, confident and capable citizens. We must consider the latest learning research and use it to help each individual. Young people are more aware than ever—perhaps more aware than us, occasionally—of the huge range of opportunities that is available to them. Our challenge is to equip young people to make the most of those opportunities. Together, we can ensure that Scottish education rises to the challenges of the future.
Some people might be concerned by the thought of looking several years into the future and planning for change in school education. The teachers who work every day with children in Scottish classrooms and who deliver on the promise of giving children a good start in life might feel that in recent years teachers have had to cope with more than enough change. When I am in schools, I often hear a heartfelt plea for a period of stability. I know that many parents and pupils worry about the pace of change. Therefore, I want to reassure them that the education debate is not about causing another upheaval for the next couple of years, but about genuinely setting out a vision for the future—not just my vision, but a shared one. That is why I am so pleased that we have overwhelming support for the national education debate from teachers' organisations, education directors and local authorities.
We must focus more sharply on what works for young people. We must not expect that adding more and more subjects for schools to deliver will improve education. We must avoid the temptation to launch new initiatives in response to perceived problems or opportunities in schools. A strategic approach will help us to promote change that will bring benefits, while providing the stability that will allow a focus on delivering for young people.
We have begun to provide that period of stability for schools. We are tackling issues of pay and conditions for teachers. We are reforming the arrangements under which new teachers enter the profession and we are introducing the chartered teacher status. The national priorities framework will cascade into planning at local authority and school level. We must allow schools to be free to get on and deliver the best outcomes for their pupils in line with national priorities.
We all have a common aim—we acknowledge and share the objective of giving every child and young person in Scotland the best possible start in life. We have a duty to today's school pupils, but we also have a duty to plan school education for tomorrow's pupils in order to give them the best start for life in a different world.
By setting out a long-term strategy for education, we can plan effectively for future developments and manage them properly. Only by taking that long-term view, which will be informed by the widest possible discussion of the issues, can we develop a world-class education for all Scotland's children.
This is our chance to look to the future, informed by the past and the present. Our experiences and those of our parents and our children can contribute to a shared vision of education for the 21st century.
Thank you. I must tell members that the debate is heavily over-subscribed, so this question session cannot be open-ended. I appeal, therefore, for short questions and answers, to allow as many members to speak as possible. We start with Mike Russell.
I at least partially welcome the statement. However, I cannot help but remember that when the SNP called for a debate on education in 1998, the then minister with responsibility for education—Helen Liddell—attacked us on the grounds that such a debate would be
"a diversionary tactic to avoid answering questions about"
our "education policies". There is an element of such tactics in the Executive's announcement.
However, let me be generous. There is a need for a debate in Scotland, although I feel that its proper place is in the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. I am sorry that the Executive is duplicating that committee's work, but I hope that the evidence that the Executive receives will be made available to the committee, as we will make our evidence available to the Executive.
There are some key questions about Scottish education to which we need answers, not more questions. For example, we need to know whether the Executive is really in favour of streaming. I will quote Helen Liddell again, this time with some approval. When Michael Forsyth introduced the debate on streaming in the mid-1990s, Helen Liddell said that to bring in such a policy would be
"flying in the face of everything that we have learned in Scotland over the last 30 years".
Is there a serious intention to debate streaming? I hope not.
Will serious attention be paid to the problems with the McCrone agreement, which is unravelling before our eyes? Will we receive any answers about the huge difficulties that have arisen, particularly in relation to probationary teachers? Furthermore, will we receive any answers about the difficulties that young people face owing to the pressure of exams?
We are in a position to ask questions about education. It is the Government's role to provide answers and I would be more relieved if we received some of those answers now, instead of more questions. I look forward to the minister's comments.
If that is a welcome, I am not sure what to expect from Mike Russell's criticisms. I am a little disappointed by his tone, given the constructive discussions that we had with members of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, including Mr Russell. We agreed to develop the matter in a way that would allow everyone to be involved in discussions about the best way forward for the children and young people of Scotland. I am disappointed that Mike Russell has turned his question into nothing more than a party-political rant.
I will refer to some of the issues that Mr Russell mentioned. In launching the debate, I made it very clear that we have a responsibility toward Scotland's children. The Executive is delivering on education. We are actively involved in addressing attainment levels in schools and in closing the gap for the most disadvantaged pupils. We are also preparing work on how to provide more inclusive education for children who have special educational needs. As a result, we have no difficulty with continuing to address those questions.
The national debate is an opportunity to look to the future and to leave a legacy for Scotland's children when we leave our positions and others take over. I hope that people will participate in the debate with that in mind.
Unlike Mike Russell, I welcome the minister's announcement and look forward to a national debate on education. I can also assure the minister that, again unlike Mike, I got out on the right side of the bed this morning and will consider the minister's comments.
The minister spoke many fine words that very few, if any, of us could disagree with. Her sentiments are fine: it is important that we ensure that every child in Scotland has the best possible chance in life, and education plays a fundamental part in that. However, I want to raise two points from the minister's statement.
Very early on, the minister said that she would not impose the Executive's views without consultation. Does that mean that she will impose those views after consultation? If we are going to have a debate, we must ensure that it is open. I seek clarification on that point, because on page 11 of the statement, all her fine words give way to an admission that there are limits to the debate, such as the need to maintain the role of local authorities.
I draw the minister's attention to an article in The Scotsman today by John McTernan, who, as I am sure that she knows, was a former chairman of education in Southwark and a former head of policy for Henry McLeish. Mr McTernan suggests that local authorities should not provide education; instead, the funding should go directly to schools, which would then buy in services from local authorities. That would maintain the role of local authorities, but would direct the money in a different way.
In drawing that article to the minister's attention, I seek reassurance that the debate will be worth while and that doors will not be closed on ideas that genuinely seek to secure the egalitarianism in education that the minister would like. I seek reassurance that there will be a real opportunity for debate and that the minister will not close that debate down.
I am glad to know that Brian Monteith got out of bed on the right side this morning. I am sure that he always gets out of bed on the right side rather than the left.
Brian Monteith asks whether I would seek to impose views after consultation. I believe strongly that consultation is a continuous process. We do not want to start by presenting only one option for the future and saying that people can take it, leave it or have a bit of it. We genuinely want to get views and opinions.
I have set some parameters for the debate. It would be wrong of the Executive, when a period of stability is needed, to suggest that there might be a fundamental change in the immediate future. The debate will give us an opportunity to explore in more detail many issues in which particular organisations have a particular interest. I encourage—indeed I urge—all organisations to put their views into the debate.
It is important to acknowledge that we have plans to pool all the information at a later date. We will then seek to draw up a strategy on the basis of which we will consult. The ministerial statement is the first part of the process. I look forward with interest to hearing all views and opinions. I may not agree with them all, but I will hear them.
I, too, was disappointed in the tone of Mike Russell's remarks. Perhaps when he gets out of the grandstand and back on to the pitch, he will play a full part in the team.
I welcome the tone of the minister's announcement. I like the idea of a wide-ranging debate on educational issues that seeks to involve the whole nation in an open and inclusive discussion to reflect on where we are and where we want to go. It is a poor organisation that becomes so engrossed in its day-to-day work that it becomes impossible for it to stand back from time to time to consider its position and look at the direction in which it is going.
Does the minister agree that the debate can take place on several levels? Does she agree that practical questions that relate to discipline in schools, the shape of the school year, methods of assessment, how classes are structured and the content and shape of the curriculum are important and legitimate topics that must be grappled with? Does she also agree that the debate is an opportunity to discuss more fundamental questions about the kind of opportunities that we wish to offer our citizens—not just our school pupils, although I know that we are talking about school education in particular—in a world that is changing fast? Does she agree that it is an opportunity to talk about how our education system can balance its desire to cater for the needs and rights of the individual with our wish to shape a caring, compassionate and inclusive society, and an opportunity to debate the balance between knowledge, ideas, skills and personal development? Finally, does the minister agree that, in debating those wider issues, we seek to provide a framework inside which we can better address the practical issues that I mentioned a moment ago?
The short answer is yes, but I will take a minute to expand on that. The issues that Ian Jenkins raises are the fundamental questions that we will consider during the debate. The material that we have prepared to encourage people to become involved in the debate enables them to participate whether their interest is at the practical, day-to-day level or in the wider issues such as research into the ways in which young people learn best or the way in which schools should be organised. There is a range of ways in which people can participate.
I am interested in encouraging people to talk about the issues and to give their views. I outlined my view that it is important to do that in the context of wanting the best possible opportunities for all children and young people.
I remind members that we must have short, single questions. I have a long list of people who want to be called and there is no hope of calling them all.
I, too, welcome unequivocally the minister's statement. The minister will recall the concerns that were recently raised by Professor Joe Farrell of the University of Strathclyde about standards of literacy among school leavers. I am sure that she will be aware that concerns about literacy and numeracy are shared by others in higher and further education and by employers.
Will the minister give an assurance that the forthcoming debate on the matter will allow such concerns to be fully aired and explored? Will she give an assurance that the parameters of the consultation on this subject will not end at the school gate, but that the Executive will reach out to those in direct contact with school leavers—notably those working in further and higher education—and to employers?
I can give the member reassurance on both those points. We are giving priority to the improvement of literacy and numeracy and we have taken a clear decision that we want to hear from employers, from others in the higher and further education sector and from young people themselves about their experiences and about what will assist them to move into the world of work in a creative way.
I had an interesting discussion with some young people in Edinburgh yesterday and they highlighted the opportunities that they felt could be made available. I am sure that that will be our focus in the course of the forthcoming debate.
Will the debate be genuinely wide, and will it question the philosophy and purpose of education and examine the place of drama, music, outdoor and environment education? Has the Executive identified anybody to lead on the development of environment and outdoor education?
I want to reassure Robin Harper that the issues that he raises will be options for discussion during the debate. We will also continue to focus on them in our day-to-day work.
The member asks whether we have identified anybody specifically to lead on outdoor education and education about the environment. A long list of organisations, ranging from the teachers unions to individual schools and organisations, are involved. It is open to any organisation that wishes to put in a submission to get in touch with us, and we will give what assistance we can. If the member has any organisations in mind, I hope that he will encourage them to play a full part in that.
I wish to press the minister further on the extent to which the consultation is meaningful. Does she think that the consultation encourages genuinely open debate, given that the Executive seems to have made up its mind on a number of fundamental issues, such as private finance initiative building programmes, streaming, home education and mature students, to name but a few?
I repeat that this is a genuine consultation exercise. We have agreed a unique partnership with the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, of which Irene McGugan is a valuable member. I look forward to hearing her contributions during the forthcoming debate. Our programme covers work that is being undertaken now and that we will continue to deliver for the children of today. We genuinely want to hear views and opinions about how we will take that work forward.
I welcome the minister's statement. On one of the points raised by Irene McGugan, much emphasis appears to have been laid on school buildings, but the minister is as aware as I am that formative education, particularly in the early years, does not always take place inside school buildings. If we are truly interested in providing the best possible educational start, what assurance can the minister give me that those who are involved in pre-five education will be part of the holistic approach that she hopes to move towards?
I know that Margaret Jamieson takes a close interest in pre-five education. I hope that she is aware of the amount of work that the Executive has already done to ensure that nursery provision is made available to three and four-year-olds and that she recognises the other work that has been done to improve opportunities for young people and families. The link for vulnerable young people between the home and nursery provision or between the home and school is vital. I expect that issue to be addressed during the forthcoming debate and I encourage people in the sector to become actively involved.
I draw the minister's attention to the excellent report that was published yesterday by the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. That report contains a great deal of evidence and many recommendations that are relevant to her responsibilities, particularly in the section that deals with transitions from school.
Susan Deacon referred to problems in terms of numeracy and literacy. Opinion is divided on the scale of those problems, about which I would like to make two specific points. First, some of the evidence that we received was very disturbing. The University of Strathclyde modern languages department said that it had to run remedial courses for school leavers because of their low standards of literacy and numeracy. That issue needs to be addressed.
Secondly, under the previous First Minister the moneys that have been made available to deal with low standards of numeracy and literacy were to be channelled through the college sector, but they have since been channelled through local authorities. Will the minister ensure that those moneys end up in literacy and numeracy programmes, rather than being used for purposes that have nothing to do with literacy and numeracy?
I am aware of the report to which Mr Neil refers. It will be a valuable contribution and will provide us with issues to think about during the debate. We will examine the report in due course.
Mr Neil made a couple of interesting and helpful points. It is important to recognise that opinion is divided on where and to what extent problems exist in relation to numeracy and literacy. It is important that we continue to ensure that such problems are addressed at the earliest possible stage—from the moment that young people become involved in the educational process as well as in pre-school years. A number of important initiatives are under way that will encourage parents to work with their children from an early stage. We will keep a close eye on such initiatives and give them priority.
Unlike Mike Russell, I welcome the minister's comments about the unique partnership between the Executive and the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. We have a real opportunity to develop a shared understanding of the way forward.
The committee is keen that we consider how we deal with alienation of some children in our schools. As the minister knows, there is a clear correlation between poverty, disadvantage and low educational attainment. Is the Executive minded to focus not only on equality of input but, increasingly, on achieving equality of outcome?
I thank Jackie Baillie for her helpful comments. I hope that my statement made it clear that closing the opportunity gap is vitally important to us. I also hope that during this debate we will address that point, consider ways of ensuring that a young person's potential, rather than their postcode, determines the outcome of their education and ensure that every young person has the opportunity to get maximum benefit from their school education. That means focusing on improving attainment levels overall and closing the gap for those who, until now, have not had opportunities to succeed.
In the debate about streaming, will the minister distinguish between rigorous research and mere anecdotal evidence? Is she aware that, according to every relevant, reputable academic study, streaming leads to lower educational achievement for the vast majority of pupils? It would be turning the clock back for the Scottish Executive to reintroduce the divisive system of selecting and rejecting pupils at an early age—a system that was discredited more than a generation ago because it contravenes the principles of inclusion and equality of educational opportunity for which the minister has expressed support.
I take on board the comments that Dennis Canavan has made. I will be interested to consider the rigorous research to which he refers. It is always helpful to examine any initiative to find out whether it is delivering what it says it aims to deliver. We will continue to do that. I reassure the member that my basic principle—the Executive's basic principle—is to ensure that every young person has the opportunity to fulfil their potential. We want to identify ways of delivering that for individual young people and of ensuring that no young person is written off or suffers because the opportunities that best meet their needs are not available to them.
I welcome the statement that the minister made, particularly on how wide-ranging the consultation will be. Will the minister ensure that the marginalised groups of children who slip in and out of education are considered in the consultation? I refer to looked-after children, Travellers, school-phobics or those who have poor health that makes them unable to cope with full-time education. Sometimes there are no groups to represent those children. I ask the minister to look for advocates for them during the consultation exercise.
I am happy to give Maureen Macmillan an assurance on that. She will know that we have given priority to improving the educational attainment levels of looked-after children. We have also taken significant steps to assist young people who suffer from health problems to attain educationally. I want to ensure that we consult young people or people who represent them during the process.
Debate is always welcome, but I am interested in the question of how genuine the debate that we are having is. Will the Executive change its policy on exclusions if the clear view that it is wrong emerges from the consultation? What will happen if the clear view emerges that we should have a policy of compulsory school uniforms or that we should get rid of Catholic schools? I support Catholic schools, but would the minister defend them if that view were to emerge? The key question is whether the consultation is a cosmetic exercise or whether the minister is prepared to consult and listen to responses even if they contradict existing policy.
I have made it very clear that we welcome views and opinions. At the end of the process we will have to examine and analyse all the information that we get in. The Education, Culture and Sport Committee will take oral evidence and consider some of the issues in more depth in its inquiry. I would prefer to wait to see what the consultation process produces and what some of the issues are. I hope that it will not simply result in each pressure group using the debate as an opportunity to lobby only for its interests.
It is important that we find ways of working together and building consensus on the way forward. I hope to do that by bringing people together to discuss the important issues.
I, too, welcome the national debate that the minister initiated today. Does she acknowledge that the guidance that is provided to young people as they go through school is particularly important? In that sense, vocational and academic streams must be acknowledged as equally important in the decisions that young people make as they go through school.
Does the minister acknowledge that the national debate must address the pressure that teachers feel because of the bureaucracy that they face, in her constituency and mine, particularly in small schools in situations in which there are composite classes?
The member makes valuable comments. We will address in the consultation process the issue of ensuring that young people have the opportunity for work experience or vocational opportunities during their education. That links in with the report of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee to which Alex Neil referred earlier.
We acknowledge that there is a range of schools of different sizes, natures and styles throughout Scotland. I want to hear suggestions for a way forward from people who are involved at the sharp end in all those schools.
I welcome the minister's statement. Does she agree that the rather anecdotal evidence about literacy and numeracy skills that Alex Neil cited is not borne out by fact, given that more young people leave school with more qualifications than ever before? Will the minister assure us that an evaluation of higher still will continue to examine the link between school and the world of work?
I hope that I have given that assurance and that I have said that we will examine evidence-based research to try to find out what works and what the position is. Although we will listen to views and opinions, we will want to check out the kind of information to which Rhona Brankin has referred. We will balance what we have evidence of with anecdotal evidence from other quarters.
I welcome the minister's statement and the fact that staff, pupils and teachers are to be given the opportunity to be involved meaningfully in the wide-ranging exercise. Will the minister assure me and other members in the chamber today that the strategy that is to be produced will strike a proper balance between the intellectual development of young people, which is important, and their emotional or affective development?
In our discussions with young people yesterday, they gave us graphic examples of the good learning opportunities that are available in schools. However, they also said that they felt that there were areas—life skills in particular—on which they wished to focus in more depth. They also wanted to be given more support on some of the issues and difficulties that are involved in growing up and in being a teenager. We want to ensure that we get that balance right. We have to remember that education is about academic learning and about giving young people an education for life.
I thank the minister and the chamber for their co-operation. We have got through all the questions at a brisk pace without trespassing on the time that is allocated for the next debate, which is heavily over-subscribed. I ask members to show self-restraint when giving their speeches.