Schools of Ambition
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-1601, in the name of Rhona Brankin, on schools of ambition.
It took a newspaper report to reveal that the Scottish National Party planned to scrap the hugely successful schools of ambition programme. Since it clearly had no plans to make a formal announcement, it is important that Labour should subject its decision to scrutiny in the chamber.
The schools of ambition programme was introduced in 2005 to give schools an opportunity to raise their ambitions, expectations and standards. The programme was initially for 20 schools, but such was its popularity among local authorities, teachers, parents and pupils that 52 schools now benefit from the programme, each of which will receive at least £300,000 of extra funding over three years. Such was the success of the programme that Labour committed to creating more schools of ambition so that more schools throughout the country could benefit.
Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education reports on individual schools of ambition demonstrate ably the success of the programme. Two weeks ago, St Ninian's high school in Kirkintilloch, which was one of the first schools to benefit from the schools of ambition programme, received an outstanding report. It was awarded seven excellent and 10 very good ratings, which is a record for a Scottish secondary school.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I would like to get into my stride. I am happy to take an intervention later in my speech.
St Ninian's used the extra money to improve its modern languages department. The HMIE inspection report praised the outstanding quality of modern languages provision at the school.
Only yesterday, I visited Newbattle community high school in my constituency of Midlothian to hear at first hand about the transformation that the school has undergone as a result of its schools of ambition status. The school serves the former mining villages of Mayfield, Easthouses, Newtongrange and Gorebridge and has seen major improvements in recent years. The head teacher and staff have real ambition for their pupils; they jumped at the opportunity to become a school of ambition.
Newbattle community high school is now two years into its three-year plan. Colin Taylor, the head teacher, told me how the programme had enabled the school to innovate and reach for new horizons: record numbers of fifth-year pupils are now returning for sixth year; standard grade results are the best in the history of the school; the number of pupils who are applying to be senior prefects has doubled; and pupils have a greater leadership role in the school.
Pupils told me that the schools of ambition programme had given them pride in their school, renewed self-confidence and a sense of ambition. As someone who spent many years working in education, it was a genuine pleasure to see such enthusiastic and motivated pupils taking a real pride in their school and in their achievements.
The school's move to being a school of ambition has made it a school where teachers want to work. Every probationer teacher who was given a placement at Newbattle wants to work there permanently. I talked to teachers who were absolutely passionate about the opportunity that the extra funding has given the school. They told me that the programme had given experienced and younger teachers real leadership roles to play.
Those are real success stories. However, in SNP Scotland, we are moving from schools of ambition to poverty of ambition.
Oh, no.
The minister may groan, but I look forward to hearing what the SNP will do about the schools of ambition programme.
MSPs, teachers, parents and pupils have now discovered that the SNP will scrap the scheme. It is doubly disappointing that we found out about its plans only through the pages of the press.
That said, the SNP Government's disrespect for Parliament and for Opposition MSPs is not a new phenomenon. On 5 March, a spokeswoman for the Scottish Government told The Herald newspaper,
"There are no plans to continue the scheme at present";
yet, the same night, on "Newsnight Scotland", we heard a different story from Fiona Hyslop. She said:
"It's a nonsense to say we are not continuing it."
Scotland's parents, pupils and teachers deserve to know whether the schools of ambition programme is being ditched, or not. What a pity that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning has not come to the chamber for the debate. She does not have the backbone to admit that she is ditching the scheme, perhaps as a result of the appalling deal that she secured for the education sector in her budget discussions with John Swinney.
Let us look at the facts: in 2005-06, schools of ambition funding was £1.1 million; in 2006-07, it was £3.2 million; and this year it will be £5.7 million. Next year, it is projected to be £6 million and, in 2009-10, it will be £5 million, after which the funding tails off to just £500,000 in 2010-11, with no funding whatever planned after that. If that is Fiona Hyslop's idea of continuing a programme, she is living in a fantasy world. Let us be clear: the money is not new SNP money; the Government is simply giving schools the money that the previous Executive had committed to them.
As a diversionary tactic, the cabinet secretary has talked about making all high schools schools of ambition, but that will simply spread the resources thinly across all of them, diluting the benefits to schools. What she said is not backed by one penny of new money. Indeed, as Judith Gillespie of the Scottish Parent Teacher Council rightly pointed out, if the money had been distributed among every school in Scotland, it would have made no impact whatever. If it had been spread among 381 high schools, schools would have received about 25 quid a day across the six-year period of the programme. If that is how the Government intends to raise aspirations and standards in schools, I am sorry, but it is not good enough.
Does the member agree with the comment that Fred Forrester, formerly of the Educational Institute of Scotland, made in The Herald last week? He said:
"The notion that all secondary schools have equal need of targeted extra funding is palpable rubbish".
Absolutely. I agree with him. However, I am afraid that the SNP Government does not seem to recognise the need to make real, big differences in education.
We know that £21.6 million is not coming in 2011. John Swinney has effectively muzzled the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, leaving her to hide behind the cover of a future spending review. Under the SNP Government, from 2011, absolutely nothing is coming forward. We know that from the way in which the funding tails off at the end of the spending review period.
The debate is important for every pupil, parent and teacher in Scotland, as it is for anyone with an interest in improving our schools. The schools of ambition programme has demonstrated that targeted intervention can build aspiration, unleash potential and raise standards. Labour has ambition for our schools and for our young people. No amount of SNP rhetoric today can change the fact that the SNP plans to dump the scheme.
It is not too late for the Government to show leadership by committing to continue the schools of ambition programme. I hope that the minister will make a commitment today to continue the programme beyond the spending review period. I hope that she will say that the Government will increase the amount of money that is available so that the programme can continue.
I urge members to support the motion in my name.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises the important contribution that the Schools of Ambition programme has made in giving schools greater freedom to develop creative and innovative approaches to school improvement; notes HM Inspectorate of Education's positive comments on the programme's effect on pupil motivation; deplores the Scottish Government's decision to axe the Schools of Ambition programme in the face of such success, and calls on the Scottish Government to continue the funding of existing schools of ambition and to identify further individual schools that would benefit from becoming schools of ambition.
I am amazed that Labour initiated a debate on the back of a press article whose accuracy it did not even check. Rhona Brankin was wrong when she spoke on the radio this morning about school buildings, and she was wrong when she spoke about St Ninian's in her speech. The St Ninian's that got the excellent school report is St Ninian's in East Renfrewshire. The school of ambition is St Ninian's in East Dunbartonshire. We can take everything that she says with a pinch of salt.
It is important for me to set the record straight with a few facts about the Government's support for the schools of ambition programme. There has never been a question about the Government's support to continue the funding of schools of ambition for the lifetime of the comprehensive spending review. We have increased the commitment to £11.5 million from the previous Administration's spend of £10.6 million. Each of the 52 schools of ambition will still receive at least £100,000 a year for three years.
Now is an opportune time to reflect on the origins of the schools of ambition programme, including the reasons why it was set up and the intended outcomes. It was intended to support fast-track transformation in selected secondary schools, which would transform educational outcomes, increase ambition in the schools, instil belief and ambition in pupils and improve life chances. The schools involved would act as flagships for innovation in their local areas and nationally.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No, thank you.
Even at the inception of the schools of ambition programme, it was not universally welcomed. David Eaglesham said that it struck him as a cosmetic exercise and that it was meaningless to target just 20 schools. He said that the proposal was against the traditions of Scottish education and would not be effective.
The programme provided a means of testing Scottish schools' capacity to innovate. Supporting them to realise their ambitions and enabling them to do what they always wanted to do has provided a rich source of learning that applies to all schools. I expect that that learning will enable all schools to become schools of ambition. We cannot underestimate the power of peer-to-peer learning in effecting change. We aim to make that the focus of our sharing strategy and to raise awareness of the learning opportunities that are available through schools of ambition in a variety of ways to reach as many different audiences as possible. We are supported in that aim by the Hunter Foundation, which has pledged its help.
Will the minister take an intervention?
You did not take one from me. I am not taking one from you.
We have distributed widely the first annual research report on schools of ambition, which outlines the emerging learning. We have redeveloped the schools of ambition website and relocated it within Learning and Teaching Scotland to share practice. We will hold conferences in June to demonstrate the wide range of approaches that the schools of ambition are taking and their relevance to every school. The conferences will be open to local authority management staff and teachers.
We are also bringing together pupils from schools of ambition to host their own conferences, where they will share their views on the impact of the programme. The first conference has just taken place in Shetland, and pupils from 18 schools of ambition shared their experiences. The next conference will be held in Edinburgh on 17 June. Each school of ambition will produce a resource that tells the story of their transformation. It will comprise a mixture of statistical evidence, an analysis of the impact of transformation and some personal testimony. A magazine on schools of ambition will be produced and distributed to every school staffroom.
We intend that every teacher will know about schools of ambition and every school will be able to share in the learning and use it. We want every school to become a school of ambition.
I move amendment S3M-1601.2, to leave out from "deplores" to end and insert:
"recognises that the Scottish Government has increased funding to Schools of Ambition in the Comprehensive Spending Review period 2008 to 2011 from £10.6 million to £11.5 million, and notes that two conferences will be held this summer which will share emerging lessons and demonstrate the variety of approaches taken by schools of ambition in order to embed these across the system which can help all local authorities and all schools to develop their own ambitious programmes for transformational change."
I think the minister was getting her St Ninian's schools in a twist—there are, of course, two. The one that Rhona Brankin mentioned is in Kirkintilloch, and had a glowing HMIE report on 4 March this year that highlighted the success of the schools of ambition funding that the school has received.
However, I want to say a little about another school of ambition. Last Thursday evening, I had the great pleasure of attending a gala dinner at Blairgowrie high school in my region. It is an annual event that is attended by more than 100 members of the community. What is remarkable about the event is that all the catering, service and entertainment are provided by pupils at the school. In recent years, the school has developed an excellent reputation for catering and hospitality under the able stewardship of Lynn Smith, who is the head of home economics.
Relationships have been developed with local hotels whereby chefs will mentor talented pupils who might want to consider careers in catering, and pupils have access to a programme whereby they can work in the kitchens of those hotels to learn vocational skills. That excellent initiative helps to provide skills for the workforce in a part of the country where tourism is the major industry. It is also an excellent example of the success of the schools of ambition programme. Blairgowrie high school has been able to access £100,000 a year for three years to help to support and develop such initiatives, and specifically to fund the construction of a new training kitchen in the school for pupils who are interested in a career in catering.
Rhona Brankin's motion
"deplores the Scottish Government's decision to axe the Schools of Ambition programme".
The word "deplores" was carefully chosen and is appropriate. The SNP Government's decision to scrap the programme is indeed deplorable, because the programme has been a success. It has helped schools such as Blairgowrie high school and schools throughout Scotland, many of which draw pupils from catchment areas that include pockets of deprivation, in all manner of different ways.
As the Conservative education spokesman, it is not my function to praise slavishly the initiatives of the previous Labour and Liberal Democrat Executive, any more than it is my function to praise the initiatives of the SNP Government. Almost uniquely in the Parliament, the Conservatives have the opportunity to consider such initiatives dispassionately and to judge them on the evidence. Based on that evidence, I have no hesitation in saying that the schools of ambition programme has been a success, and I deeply regret that it is about to come to an end.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry. I simply do not have time.
We can only wonder at the SNP's motivation. Perhaps it is simply that the programme was a successful initiative by the previous Labour and Liberal Executive, and that for reasons of narrow partisan party politics the SNP Government wishes to bring it to an end.
However, perhaps there is something more sinister at play. We know that the SNP is wedded to a one-size-fits-all principle in Scottish education. It finds the idea of any sort of diversity within school education deeply offensive. It cannot stomach the thought of schools' being funded directly from the centre and making local decisions about how money is to be allocated. My amendment covers both points. Motivated by political dogma, the SNP has decided to scrap a successful programme.
The real message of the decision is that the SNP Government has no ambition for Scottish education. Its message to schools and headteachers is, "Don't get above yourselves. Don't try to excel. Don't try to develop specialisations or expertise. If you do, we'll haul you down and reduce you to the lowest common denominator."
The Scottish Conservatives do not believe that the SNP's approach is the way ahead for Scotland's schools. Let us keep the successful schools of ambition programme and send a clear message today that Parliament has more ambition for Scotland's schools than the SNP Government will ever have.
I move amendment S3M-1601.1, to insert at end:
"and to continue to provide Schools of Ambition funding directly to schools and to support decisions being taken on the expenditure of such funds at school level."
For clarity—and perhaps to declare an interest—I point out that the St Ninian's that we are talking about is the one in Kirkintilloch. Why do I know that? I have an interest because it is my former high school.
Over the months since May, we have had numerous debates around education and skills. In each and every one of them, the Scottish National Party Government has been at great pains to point out how ambitious it is for Scotland. Just yesterday, we heard about its determination to ensure that Scotland's education system remains at the top of the international table of success. I am sure that I am not the only person who detects a note of irony in the fact that the first overt—I say "overt" advisedly—SNP cut to our education system has been inflicted on a proven success which, ironically, is called schools of ambition. What are these people about?
Before SNP members get a little bit annoyed about that, I stress that we fully accept that each school in Scotland is ambitious for its pupils, its staff and the community that it serves. We also recognise that not every school starts from the same place, and that factors that are outwith the control of the dedicated staff, pupils and community mean that some schools face greater challenges than others. That recognition was at the heart of the original schools of ambition programme. To be fair, some of the work is now being included as part of the curriculum for excellence.
However—here is the catch—the SNP Government, in scrapping the additional support that the schools of ambition scheme provided, has failed to recognise that not all schools start from the same point, or that not all will travel at the same rate with the curriculum for excellence. Some of them need additional support, resources and—perhaps most of all—a positive indication from Government that their difficulties have been recognised and that they are being given a chance to make a difference to the whole community, despite the extraordinary challenges that they face. I am puzzled because yesterday the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning sat nodding vigorously in agreement with me—like the dog in the Churchill Insurance advert—when I made exactly the same point about how we assess attainment in schools. It would be good to get some consistency at least from the Government, if nothing else.
The Government has promised to continue to fund the 52 schools that are currently involved in the scheme. If the Government is as ambitious for all Scotland's schools as it says it is, that funding should be extended across the whole high school and primary school system. The SNP is not going to do that, but simply using the current funding across all Scotland's schools would provide something like £1,800 a year, which is barely enough to buy a set of pencils and some jotters. Referring to one of the points that Rhona Brankin made, what difference will that make to the progress that those schools will make? None.
The Government has said that it will fund the original scheme; we heard that from the minister. I want to know exactly what the schools of ambition programme for the whole of Scotland will provide. That seems to be what the Government is offering. What resources will be provided to all schools? I do not think that there will be any, and I do not think that we will hear an answer to that. Let us have some straight answers from the minister. Is the Government promising that every school with ambition—effectively, that means every school in Scotland—will get an extra £100,000 a year to develop the key themes in the Government's development plans? Is it offering every school the additional funding, or is it just offering them a set of rubbers, so that they can rub out yet another SNP broken promise?
I move amendment S3M-1601.3, to insert at end:
"and considers that head teachers play a crucial role in leading excellent schools and turning around schools that face challenges, and therefore calls on the Scottish Government to provide additional support and incentives for head teachers to improve their schools, including enhanced contract terms with more flexibility and increased rewards for outstanding leadership."
I was quite interested by the start of Rhona Brankin's speech, when she suggested that we should believe everything that is written in a newspaper. This whole debate is founded on a newspaper article.
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
I ask Mary Mulligan to let me develop the point. In spite of the fact that the cabinet secretary wrote a letter to said newspaper, it is choosing not to accept what the cabinet secretary has said.
I am not aware that the Government in the previous two sessions made commitments beyond the comprehensive spending review period. It is absolutely clear that the SNP Government is continuing the programme throughout this comprehensive spending review period.
No—
Let me develop the point. In fact, more money is being spent on the programme by this Government than was committed by the previous Government, and it is being spent in the context of a very tight financial settlement. That hardly equates to a cut, an abolition or a broken promise.
The SNP was clear about how it felt about the matter when it was in opposition. We firmly believe that we should have ambition for all our schools. We do not believe in selective education—selection, targeting and means testing—unlike the Labour and Tory parties.
No, thank you.
We want the best for all our children, not just for those attending one in seven schools. Members have given examples from their constituencies of individual schools that have benefited from the programme. What about those that have not? How many of them is the Labour Party promising to bring up to the standard to which, it believes, it has brought the 52 schools in the programme?
Will Brian Adam take an intervention?
Let me develop the point. One of the reasons for the programme was that philanthropists wanted to help with our education system—I refer to the Hunter Foundation in particular. They hoped that their contribution might be matched by those of many others. Undoubtedly, theirs was a helpful contribution. It was additional money—not Government money—without any particular ties. That is very welcome in education. The SNP Opposition welcomed it. Ewan Hunter's comments of this week give the lie to the idea that there are problems in that regard. We have not received significant money aside from that from the Hunter Foundation.
We have given more than the previous Government promised—the Government should get the credit for that. Members who talk about broken promises should consider the number of schools that their parties claim to have built, but did not; the number of schools that they closed, which they certainly did—in fact, in excess of the number of new ones that were built; their failure to deliver their promises to reduce class sizes; and their failure to deliver on education in general.
I commend the Government's amendment.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate. The schools of ambition programme, which was established by the previous Labour-Liberal Executive, has been an outstanding success, inspiring and challenging pupils, teachers and schools throughout Scotland. It has allowed the schools that are most in need of change and reform to implement locally agreed proposals for transformational change—change that is aimed at enabling schools to stand out in their locality and nationally as innovators and leaders, which can increase young people's self-esteem, ambitions, opportunities and life chances. It has allowed schools to build success and experience and to drive up standards. The programme not only benefits the 52 current schools of ambition, but enables schools throughout Scotland to share in their success, which benefits the whole education system and every community.
The recent decision by the Scottish Government to withdraw funding for that successful programme is shameful. It affects not just the schools that are involved in it, but all Scotland's schools and each and every pupil whose school has begun to change. It is astounding that the SNP Government is scrapping a scheme that not only has broad support from parties throughout the chamber and from the education establishment, but which is driving up standards across Scotland's schools and giving students up and down the country greater opportunities and prospects.
Surely it is too early for the Government to say that there will be no future funding for the programme, when its evaluation is at such an early stage. Early evidence is already showing real signs of great improvement in attainment. Such signs include successes such as those that have been achieved at Cardinal Newman school in North Lanarkshire, which has pioneered vocational education that is aimed at boosting pupils' awareness of business and enterprise. That not only expands choice for pupils but allows teachers to learn new skills and techniques, which makes a real difference to everyone at school. Already, the school has won official recognition for its work, winning the Catering in Scotland innovation in training award, the Scotland and Northern Ireland restaurant of the year award and the Scottish Qualifications Authority star award.
Other successes include those that have been achieved by Taylor high school in North Lanarkshire, which is specialising in technology and is enabling each pupil directly to experience DVD production, podcasting and digital recording, and is allowing all pupils to develop electronic portfolios of their work. Such initiatives are important. Only yesterday, the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee heard, as part of its inquiry into the creative industries, evidence about the extent of the skills shortage in that area.
Those are just a couple of examples, but across Scotland, the evidence demonstrates that the schools of ambition programme is transforming schools and the learning culture, raising young people's aspirations and self-esteem and making them more successful and motivated learners by enabling them to develop life skills that prepare them fully for the challenges of the 21st century. Such radical transformation is possible only because support is targeted where it can make the most difference.
The SNP Government has said today that it wants every school to be a school of ambition. That is laudable, but does that mean that every high school in Scotland can expect to receive an additional £300,000 over three years, with no strings attached?
I listened carefully to what Maureen Watt had to say this morning. The only thing that she offered to those schools in North Lanarkshire that are schools of ambition or aspire to be schools of ambition was a magazine. Quite frankly, a magazine for every high school in Scotland is not going to cut it.
Yesterday's debate on the curriculum for excellence did not offer the certainty, which has been demanded by teachers, about the resources that they require for implementation of that important change to teaching in Scotland. If the Government cannot even provide certainty about that fundamental change in our schools, we can have no confidence that every one of our schools is to become a school of ambition.
The schools of ambition programme is proving to be a success, and we must ensure that that is allowed to continue, not just for the schools that were designated as schools of ambition by the previous Government, but for all the schools that aspire to be schools of ambition.
The Government's policy in respect of schools of ambition is as clear as mud. Maureen Watt told us that the newspaper article that Rhona Brankin talked about is a load of nonsense, but then spent a lot of time quoting comments about why schools of ambition were not a terribly good idea in the first place. Brian Adam spent a good deal of time saying that all schools ought to be schools of ambition, but did not deal with the crucial issue of funding them across the board.
Since 1999, there has been substantial consensus across the chamber about the general shape and direction of the education system in Scotland. All parties broadly shared a pride in our schools and the achievements of children and teachers, and were signed up to the major initiatives that were undertaken by the previous Scottish Government on the curriculum review, leadership in schools, the school renewal programme, enterprise and education, schools of ambition and many more subjects. However, that is no longer the case. Today, there are strong signs that the commitment of the SNP Government to the programme and to education more generally is faltering. Today's Herald notes with regard to the school-building programme, that
"the coming to power … of the SNP appears to have slackened the pace of transformation".
We know that the much-heralded class-size reductions, which have simplistically been seen as the way to a step-change in education, are only so much hot air because they are not accompanied by funding. We know, too, that the Government's skills strategy has been greeted by widespread indifference, based on the recognition that it is superficial and lacks effective drivers. The common features across those various areas include a lack of a coherent vision and a substantial lack of evidence base or proper sector consultation on the initiatives—both features that mark the SNP Government's activities across the board.
The schools of ambition initiative falls in the same category. By most measurements, those schools have been successful, although they had early difficulties. For example, it took time to get schools to come forward with good projects. Empowering schools in this way was a new concept that took time to develop and realise. However, the central nugget, which is that schools supported by schools of ambition status and funding would pioneer new ways of working and would act as standard setters to others, has been successful and has achieved critical mass. At St Machar's academy in Aberdeen, at the six schools that have been supported by the Hunter Foundation in Glasgow, at St Ninian's high in East Dunbartonshire, at Barrhead high in Eastwood and at many more schools across Scotland, headteachers, staff and children are setting new standards and horizons and are acting as standard bearers for good and aspirational practice.
I welcome the conferences that were mentioned in the Government's motion. It is laudable indeed that the Government wants all schools to be schools of ambition, as we all do. However, if the current funding were to be spread across all secondary schools, each school would receive only a pittance, which would no doubt be welcome, but would hardly be transformational. I tell the minister today that slackening pace will become the watchword of this Administration if it persists in withdrawing funding from proven projects. Rather than withdraw the funding, which is typically £100,000 a year, the Government should continue the programme and concentrate on identifying more funding to help turn around schools that face challenges, and to support headteachers in the most difficult schools so that they can make a difference, as is called for in the Liberal Democrat amendment.
Pious platitudes, however, about every school being a school of ambition cannot disguise the thin gruel of the SNP's ambition for Scotland's education system. I suggest that the minister and her colleagues might usefully spend the Easter recess—and, perhaps the summer recess—going homeward and thinking again on these matters.
I believe that Scotland's young people require a better deal than they are getting from the SNP Government and I think that Parliament requires clarity about the Government's policy on schools of ambition. Will the policy go on into the future? Is the money being spread across the board? Will the current schools of ambition have continued funding? What exactly is the position? We want some answers from the minister before the debate ends today.
I am sorry to see the Labour Party wasting Parliament's time on a debate that is built on false premises and misrepresentation.
I have long been involved in education, so I am interested in seeing real improvements in Scottish education. Therefore, when I read reports about the ending of the schools of ambition programme, I was concerned about how it had been sprung on us with no prior warning from the Government. I do not, however, remember people rushing to the polls last May to vote for parties proposing an extension of the schools of ambition programme. Scotland voted for new choices and new thinking: that is what we are getting from our Government.
Of course, I discovered that the programme has not been scrapped. Not only will it run for the full duration that was planned by the previous Administration, but the SNP Government will spend more money on it than Labour and the Liberal Democrats planned to. However, the falsely reported demise of the programme is not the only falsehood.
The motion refers to "positive comments" about the programme by HMIE. However, a look at the inspectorate's report on schools of ambition reveals that the inspectors made no such comments. The report on St Ninian's high school in Kirkintilloch said:
"In many departments, staff engaged in high quality debate about the curriculum and approaches to learning and teaching, arising partly from the school's involvement in the School of Ambition initiative."
To turn a compliment about the motivation of staff into a ringing endorsement of the whole programme is typical Labour spin.
Will the member give way?
I have only four minutes. The member can press his button if he wants to make a speech.
He has already made a speech.
He could have made a contribution on that point, but he chose not to do so.
Doon academy entered the schools of ambition programme following two inspections in 2002 and 2004. It had been making progress that had been hampered by the serious condition of the building—hardly an ideal mechanism by which to enter such a scheme. Of course, the school needed support to recover from that disruption, as would any school. However, local authorities should not have to justify that to officials and ministers in Edinburgh. With the removal of a great deal of ring fencing, local authorities will have more flexibility to respond to such events. At its heart, the motion is simply another repetition of Labour's dreary old song about ring fencing.
The schools of ambition programme appears to have no real criteria beyond a school's having performance difficulties and wanting to improve. There are no generic outcomes defined for the programme and, therefore, no way of assessing its effectiveness. As with all ring-fenced programmes, the existence of unique resources skews thinking in some quarters. Some schools measure their success by their ability to gain school of ambition status. Scotland was and is full of schools of ambition: the problem was that we did not have a Government with ambition.
Yesterday, I witnessed some incredible scenes at East Ayrshire Council, as the SNP-led council saved from closure three ambitious rural schools that had received little or no investment from Labour via its SOA scheme or its selective private finance initiative schemes. Crossroads primary school in my constituency had the princely sum of £18,000 spent on it over the previous 12 years under Labour. Sorn and Littlemill schools also suffered. They were all in danger because of the condition of the school buildings. That is a disgrace, from a party that now pretends that it is the friend of rural schools.
The sight of parents weeping with joy as the SNP council took the decision to save their schools will live with me for many years. Those schools are the real schools of ambition, but that is not thanks to the previous Labour Executive or the previous Labour council. Tom Hunter's words are still appropriate in Scotland: every child deserves the opportunity to succeed and to be all they can be. A scheme that excluded 88 per cent of secondary school children in Scotland hardly delivers on that noble ambition. Our Government has that ambition for all Scotland's schoolchildren rather than only the few, as was the case under Labour's failed scheme.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate and I will support Rhona Brankin's motion.
I would have thought that Willie Coffey might at least have managed to show some humility in respect of the rural schools in East Ayrshire, given that it was an SNP-led council that proposed the closures in the first place. It is testimony to the parents, the pupils and the local communities that they have been saved from closure. He should hang his head in shame at being a councillor on the council that proposed the closures in the first place.
Willie Coffey mentioned Doon academy in my constituency and the other school of ambition in my constituency, Carrick academy, which I had the privilege of visiting when the schools of ambition programme was launched. I saw how excited the teachers, the other staff in the school, the headteacher and the local community were about being accepted on to the programme.
A few weeks ago, just before we heard that the programme was to be scrapped, I had a further communication from Carrick academy, which asked me to participate in the evaluation. What kind of message does the Government's decision send to schools that are currently involved in the programme and have not even got to the first stage of the evaluation? They know that the work that they are doing is not being recognised or valued and that it will be thrown on the scrapheap. [Interruption.] I hear the interventions that are being made by the Minister for Children and Early Years—he will have a chance to respond in due course. Irrespective of whether he says that the funding is currently continuing, the reality is that people already know that a decision has been made that the programme will not continue. That devalues the work that the schools are doing and it sends a message that what they are doing to try to raise the hopes and aspirations of their pupils is not valued.
We have heard during the debate what the real agenda is. Brian Adam said that the SNP does not support targeting. I hope that members all noted that statement. It is remarkable that every other political party in the Parliament—including the Conservatives, who at various times I would not have had much in common with—now supports targeting resources to ensure that we level up rather than level down achievements and aspirations. The SNP is the only party in the Parliament that does not support targeting. How can the SNP try to convince anyone that it is the party of social justice when it is not prepared to put resources into schools in the most disadvantaged areas and schools that need a hand up to ensure that they give every child the best possible opportunity? How can it claim in any shape or form to be the party of social justice?
We know that the programme will not be rolled out and we know that there is not £100,000 per school, because the budget figures tell us that. In 2010-11, there is £500,000 for the whole programme. No warm words about how good the programme is or about websites or magazines—Karen Whitefield exposed how ludicrous such statements are—get away from the fact that no more schools will be added to the programme.
Consider the kind of activities that the pupils in Doon academy and Carrick academy in my constituency were involved in. In Doon academy, the pupils had the opportunity to participate in the Columba 1400 programme, and the roll-out of an information and communication technology strategy across not only the secondary school but feeder primary schools gave every child in primary 6 and P7 a laptop. Alex Neil, who will speak after me, will know that for every P6 and P7 child in the Doon Valley feeder primaries to be able to get a laptop is a socialist principle and an initiative that we should support. Every secondary 3 pupil in Carrick academy has the opportunity to participate in the Duke of Edinburgh's Award scheme. Pupils were not previously given such opportunities, but that initiative has been taken forward because of the schools of ambition programme. Let us see the Government think again—as East Ayrshire Council was forced to do on rural schools—and come back with a new proposal to roll the scheme out further.
We will not take any lessons on education policy or social justice from the Labour Party—particularly not from Cathy Jamieson. Between 2003 and 2006 alone, Labour and the Liberal Democrats closed 33 schools throughout Scotland, six of which were personally authorised by Cathy Jamieson as the Minister for Education and Young People—a minister for education without schools.
As far as East Ayrshire is concerned, we heard nothing from Cathy Jamieson or any Labour councillor or representative when we led the campaign to save St Paul's primary school in Hurlford. She is the same member who sat in the Cabinet that planned to shut Ayr hospital's accident and emergency unit, so we will not take any lessons from her.
I am sure that members agree that the key component of educational performance is how well off pupils are, not only in school but at home. After 10 years of Labour government, the folk in the Doon valley, in Girvan and in Maybole are living in relatively more poverty, not less. If anything damages educational performance, it is the concentration of poverty and deprivation. Labour looks after its big pals in the city.
Will the member take an intervention?
Sit down. I will not listen to more rubbish—I have heard enough.
Members should consider the money that has been wasted on PFI. We understand that the Tories want to make a buck or two out of education and hospitals, but Labour and the Liberal Democrats have wasted millions. Not only have they done so over the past eight years, but they have saddled future generations with millions of pounds of debt through profiteering PFI schemes that are being used to finance schools and hospitals. If we did not have PFI, we would have £100 million extra to spend on education in Scotland this year, next year and every year hence.
We will not take any lessons from Labour. It is no wonder that it is languishing at 27 per cent in the polls. People recognise the sheer hypocrisy of Labour's position. It has presided over the situation for the past 10 years. Labour members are merely playing politics with the schools of ambition programme: they do not really care about the folk involved. They have demonstrated in the past 10 years that they do not care about socialist principles. Cathy Jamieson remained a member of a Cabinet that supported the Iraq war. We have spent £4.5 billion as a nation on the Iraq war; Scotland's share is £400 million. How many schools of ambition could have been built with £400 million?
The fact is that it is right for a Government to have the ambition to make every school in Scotland a school of ambition. With the changes that we are making—de-ring fencing, allowing local authorities to keep the money from efficiency savings for reinvestment in front-line services, and making savings by getting rid of the hated PFI—we will ensure that the money is available.
Where is the money?
Where is the money?
They are shouting from the unionist benches, "Where is the money?" What about giving the Parliament our share of our oil money? No child in Scotland would have to worry about ambition.
We move to the winding-up speeches—if members are not wound up enough already.
Presiding Officer, can you remind me what debate we are having? I thought that we were debating schools of ambition. If ever there was an SNP MSP with ambition, it is Mr Neil—but, as with the schools of ambition programme, it all ends in bitter disappointment.
There is, regrettably, a woeful inconsistency in the Government's approach to schooling, and the schools of ambition programme in particular, and today we debate the latest inconsistency. The Government received "Research to Support Schools of Ambition: Annual Report 2007" in October of that year. The report was positive, and its conclusions ended:
"School leaders have reported the development of a new ‘mindset', ‘way of thinking' and ‘language' used in talking about school change and are enthusiastic about the potential of the Schools of Ambition programme to promote ‘approved risk taking' and to break down ‘traditional barriers' to improvement."
The programme has been a real success, but the Government's response is to end it—there will be not one more school under the programme.
We waited four minutes for Brian Adam to develop his point, which I think was that the previous Government was at fault for there not being more schools in the programme, but his Government has decided to scrap the programme before it has even concluded. I share one thing with Mr Adam: I have no idea what the Government's policy is. Indeed, the Government's policy is so confused that, after the minister sat down, there were even more questions about the Government's approach.
We simply do not know the Government's approach to directing resources. Direct resources are acceptable in some areas but not in others. Let us consider nursery provision and class sizes, for example. In her statement on class sizes, Fiona Hyslop said:
"We need to give more time, more attention and more access to a nursery teacher to our poorest children."—[Official Report, 5 December 2007; c 4069.]
However, this week's policy statement from the Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities had not one single message about directing resources to the poorest areas.
In response to a written question by Karen Whitefield asking how much of the £40 million announced by the Government to reduce class sizes was spent in each area, Fiona Hyslop replied on 1 August last year that funding was weighted, and that
"The remaining 5 per cent of the allocation reflects our focus on areas of deprivation in the context of class size reduction."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 1 August 2007; S3W-1741.]
So the Government was happy to provide £2 million to reduce class sizes in areas of deprivation, but now it says that the same system should not apply to developing learning in our secondary schools. Of course, the problem with the Government's policy, as we found out under freedom of information legislation, was that more was spent on staff toilets, new boilers, roofs and a long-wheelbase minibus than on reducing class sizes.
The Minister for Schools and Skills visited Hawick in the Borders to announce the free school meals pilot, which is directed towards areas of deprivation. She visited Drumlanrig St Cuthbert's primary school in Hawick shortly after she knew that Hawick high school—a school of ambition—would not receive long-term funding for the scheme. That is utter inconsistency in one town.
Yesterday, I asked Keith Brown—whom I respect—whether, given the financial settlement, councils had any excuse to cut education budgets. Tellingly, he refused to answer. The SNP knows that, although it is spinning that councils have the best settlement since the ascent of man, schools throughout Scotland are making dreadful decisions about reductions in revenue spending. The reason is that the settlement for local authorities is obviously not as good as the Government has said. For example, in the Borders the revenue grant increase is 3.81 per cent for the coming financial year, which in real terms is a revenue increase of 1.1 per cent, and that includes all of the previously ring-fenced funds that the council used to receive. That means that less than £1 million of additional funding is available for the authority to develop new policies across every policy area.
The Minister for Schools and Skills said that there are to be two conferences to discuss the schools of ambition programme so we should all relax. She did not tell Parliament about the conference in May 2007, the conclusions of which were overwhelmingly positive about continuing the policy. Indeed, one conclusion from headteachers was to recommend not only that the programme should continue but that more schools should apply to become part of it.
SNP members have been desperate to say that the scheme will carry on, at the same time as they have justified scrapping it. Councillor Coffey made the perfect point and summed up the whole debate: he took credit for the SNP saving a school that it had proposed closing. If that does not sum up the Government's approach, nothing else does.
When the Government produced its famous skills strategy last autumn, the first part of the foreword by the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning was deliberately all about how we could make Scotland a nation of ambition. It went on to refer to people who are
"hungry to continually learn new skills"
and stated that the Government would do everything possible to
"motivate and engender a culture of enterprise and ambition in our schools."
So said page 16 of that glossy brochure.
The theme was also picked up by Sir Tom Hunter, who, like most other forward-thinking people, is keen that every single available pound in education is spent on raising aspirations and self-esteem and on changing the mood of Scotland from one of sometimes reluctant learning to one of a can-do attitude. He rightly believes that that is especially important in areas where there is a higher percentage of deprivation. For him, the schools of ambition programme was a much-needed lifeline and an essential starting block for expanding excellence in schools. The key words are "expanding excellence", particularly in developing the skills that employers value so highly and in allowing schools to realise their objectives according to their own circumstances.
HMIE was also impressed, and it commented on the highly effective implementation of the programme in several schools. I say frankly to Mr Coffey that it does not matter whether HMIE believes that it is motivation or the whole effort that has gone up—the fact is that it has increased.
Given what the Government itself says, what one of our leading businessmen and philanthropists says, and what HMIE says, I am at a total loss to explain how the Government can decide to wind down the schools of ambition programme, which has so far benefited 52 schools, whether now or in three years—there is a huge debate about what the policy is now. I am told that that is being done because the cabinet secretary simply cannot tolerate anything in educational policy that does not meet the standard one-size-fits-all mantra that currently drives the SNP agenda.
In the introduction to the skills strategy, the cabinet secretary wills us to praise those who are hungry for new skills, but at the same time she is prepared to deprive them of food, simply because she thinks that they have too much of a good thing. That is ridiculous logic and, despite the excitable eloquence of Mr Neil, it is socialism at its worst. It does the cabinet secretary's credibility no good whatsoever if she wants us to accept that she is serious about ambition.
Surely we should use the highly successful schools of ambition model—especially as it has worked so effectively in some deprived areas—to build for the future and to offer much greater choice and diversity in meeting the aspirations of our children. The current comprehensive system has failed to deliver that choice and diversity by its constant obsession with one size fits all and by basing everything on the lowest common denominator.
Schools of ambition have proved how we can turn things around for some of our weaker performing schools. The programme has proved what happens when schools receive money directly and they, rather than the Government, decide how best to spend it. The staff and pupils of such schools deserve huge credit for what has been achieved. The Government should celebrate that success and not cut off schools in their prime. The Conservatives ask the Government to reverse its decision and do what Sir Tom Hunter wanted: to stop playing politics with our children's education.
The debate has been interesting. It strikes me that we have reached a consensus. We all agree that the schools of ambition programme is achieving exactly what it set out to do, which was to raise ambition, instil self-belief and confidence, improve life chances for pupils and lead the way for all schools to do the same. When we took office, we promised to bring a new consensus approach to government. In that context, when we were making decisions on the current spending round, continuous support for the schools of ambition programme was not questioned. Funding is still ring fenced and directly available to the schools concerned.
In that context, will the minister clarify what the Government's policy is?
Absolutely. Our policy is to complete the programme.
What concerns exist about the programme? Are members concerned that the Scottish Government is scrapping it? We are not. Are they concerned that we do not value it? We do. Are they concerned that we will not spread the learning? We are doing exactly that, and we will continue to do so.
All members have at least one school of ambition in their constituency. I hope that all members have visited those schools. I hope that when you visited Newbattle community high school yesterday, Ms Brankin, you apologised for the unnecessary uncertainty that you had caused. I also hope that Ken Macintosh apologised when he wrote to every school of ambition.
I certainly did not apologise. Will you apologise to Newbattle community high school for the uncertainty that you have caused for schools of ambition?
Members keep going down the same road. Only one person should be referred to as "you" in the chamber—me.
Fiona Hyslop wrote to every school of ambition after the erroneous article that has been mentioned was published, and assured them that funding was continuing in this spending round.
Recently, I visited Braeview academy in Dundee, which is a school of ambition. I was impressed by the transformation that had taken place there. I have also visited Queensferry high school, and the cabinet secretary has visited Cardinal Newman high school in Karen Whitefield's constituency.
First, Cardinal Newman high school is in my colleague Michael McMahon's constituency. Secondly, how many new schools of ambition will the Government commit to? How much money will it spend on the magazine that is to be produced? What additional resources will be committed to all Scotland's high schools?
I say to Karen Whitefield, Robert Brown and other Labour members that I am surprised that they think that it is good for Scottish education as a whole to concentrate spending on 52 schools and not to have any ambition for the others. [Interruption.]
Order.
I will take no lectures on social justice from Cathy Jamieson. We want early intervention in our schools and we want to reduce class sizes in P1 to P3 so that pupils are not allowed to fail and money does not have be spent on picking up the pieces.
Hugh O'Donnell took part in yesterday's debate on the curriculum for excellence, which was more than the Labour Party's education spokesman did. He knows that the curriculum for excellence is designed to raise opportunities for every school, so that every school raises the bar in respect of pupil attainment. Record funding is being made available to local authorities to support that.
In the debate we are losing sight of the schools that are involved in the schools of ambition programme and of the people—teachers, staff, parents and business partners—who are working incredibly hard to achieve transformation.
Will the minister give way?
I have already taken interventions.
In the debate we are losing sight of the pupils who are contributing and who stand to benefit, and of the communities that are flourishing. I commend every school, teacher, staff member, pupil, parent and community for supporting the schools of ambition programme. They have accepted the gauntlet that has been thrown down and have been willing to take risks and share their experiences with their colleagues. I commend them for transforming things. They know that they are innovating and sharing with others the best practices of schools of ambition, and I am sure that they are dismayed, as I am, that they are being used as pawns in a purely political game and that they are the latest target of a Labour Party scaremongering campaign.
Representatives of one school of ambition—St Paul's high school in Glasgow—listened to part of the debate. I know that many more people who are involved in schools of ambition are watching our debate on the Scottish Parliament's website. We can combine as a united Parliament to applaud schools of ambition for their hard work, wish them well with their transformational journey, and ensure that what is learned from them is shared with all schools in Scotland.
I, too, welcome the opportunity to highlight the success of the schools of ambition programme, which has, as we have heard, attracted support from members across the political spectrum, except SNP members. Why? More important, why is the Scottish Government unable to say what it expects to happen after 2011? Does funding of £500,000 in 2010-11 show support for the programme? My colleague Rhona Brankin asked that. So far, the SNP Government's only reply has been that it wants all schools to be schools of ambition, which is like saying that we want the sun to shine every day—a nice idea, but how can it be made to happen? The Government still does not seem to have got its head around the fact that in government, people must take actions that make a difference. How else will the Government encourage schools to be innovative?
Does the member agree that there is complete confusion at the heart of what the Government has proposed? One of the strengths of schools of ambition money is that it goes directly to the schools that are involved. I presume that if every school is to be a school of ambition, the money will simply go into local government budgets and will not be ring fenced, so there will be no guarantee whatsoever that it will go to individual schools. Is that not a major flaw in what the Government is saying?
I will return to funding.
There is a question that the SNP still does not seem to be able to answer. When a school receives a less-than-positive inspection report, how will the Government provide resources to help it to get back on track? The minister must understand that children and young people are individuals, and that some children and young people have difficult backgrounds and home lives, as Mr O'Donnell said. Sometimes, the number of such children in a school means that it needs additional support. How will the Scottish Government provide it?
We have heard that not all schools of ambition are schools with difficulties, but the experience in my constituency is that there have been difficulties. Burnhouse special school in Whitburn, which the cabinet secretary has visited several times and held up as a great example, takes children and young people with social, emotional and behavioural problems. It takes children who are already struggling with their education. Like most MSPs, I read the school's HMIE report with interest. The report was different from most other reports that I had read. It was clear that the school was not providing the education that pupils deserved. The education that it provided was poor for a number of reasons, such as its staffing and building problems. The school was placed on the schools of ambition programme, which provided a real boost to continuing professional development for staff and to upgrading the building. If the minister has not already read the report, I advise her to do so. Margaret Gibson, who is the head teacher, has said:
"The staff have now taken on responsibility. They own the school and the kids own the learning. It's magical and everybody's motivated."
Why does the minister not want that to continue? What will happen to such a school when the schools of ambition programme ends? Will it just be told that, under the historic concordat, local authorities have been given increased resources? Translated, that means that the local authority will have to find the resources from what it has got, and it might have to take them from other schools, so the local authorities are on their own.
Does the member accept that schools of ambition get extra financial resources and support from central Government? We provide that support not just to failing schools that have gone on to the schools of ambition programme but to other schools in the same situation.
I am not aware of those additional resources. In fact, the only thing that the Government seems to have given to schools so far this year is a saltire.
The minister's amendment refers to two conferences that will be held to share emerging lessons. That is fine, but what is the minister going to say at those conferences? Is she going to say that the schools of ambition programme has been a great success, so the Government is not going to continue with it? She might say that the private sector is prepared to contribute additional money to fund ambition, but there will not be enough for every school, so the Government will not accept its support for any school.
Not one MSP in the Parliament is without ambition for all our children and young people, except maybe Alex Neil, who seems to have ambition only for himself. However, it is clear that a majority of us acknowledge the fact that some children and young people need extra support to help them to achieve their potential.
Several SNP members took part in the debate, although I am uncertain that they realised that it was a debate, given that they did not want to take interventions. I say to Mr Adam that we did not just read about the issues in the newspapers; we saw the cabinet secretary on "Newsnight", and she could not answer the question about why there was no commitment to the future of the schools of ambition programme. Maybe Mr Adam gave the game away, as Cathy Jamieson said. The SNP does not believe in targeting and helping those who really need help, and that is the problem.
I am not sure whether Willie Coffey said that he is in favour of the schools of ambition programme or not. He gave a very mixed message.
I say to Mr Neil that more than 200 new and refurbished schools were provided during the final term of the previous Scottish Executive, but no new schools have been commissioned since the SNP came to power. That is the difference between the previous Executive and the present Government.
The minister would stop the schools of ambition programme only if she did not understand the need for targeted support, or if she was small-minded enough to stop it because it was introduced under the Labour-Lib Dem Executive. However, I do not believe that of the cabinet secretary or her ministers; the real issue is that the cabinet secretary got squeezed in the comprehensive spending review—I see that Mr Swinney has joined us—and, as a result, Scotland's children will suffer.
Will the minister make it clear whether each school in Scotland will receive £300,000 to spend? That is what they would have received under the schools of ambition programme, and the minister has said that every school should get it. If not, the cabinet secretary and her ministers must take responsibility for letting down Scotland's schools. Perhaps they should be considering their position.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—