Education
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-1957, in the name of Michael Russell, on education, and two amendments to that motion. Members who wish to participate should press their request-to-speak buttons now. I ask members who are leaving to do so quickly and quietly.
The motion concerns the need for a radical and ambitious programme to raise the standard of Scottish education. I will say a word or two about what the debate is and is not about.
I have spent many years opposing Mr McConnell as we have been through all sorts of political incarnations. I can therefore predict with a fair degree of certainty some of the red herrings that he will want to drag across the debate to distract members and the people of Scotland. I can also predict some of the rhetoric that we will hear from Conservative members. I will dispose of some of it immediately—the meaningless Tory amendment. It is a jumble of words that has no content. In short, it is dogmatic, ideological mince. That is all that I will say about the Tory amendment.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I ask Brian Monteith to let me get started. He has time enough before he is mince.
The debate is not about the performance of Labour local authorities or even of SNP local authorities. It is not about the squillions of pounds that Labour has double counted in its over-spin about spending. It is not about what did or did not appear on an SNP website, or in an SNP or a Labour leaflet.
The debate is in part about finance, but not in the terms that Mr McConnell and his colleagues will want to suggest. There is no doubt that the Barnett squeeze will impose an effect on current spending programmes and also, significantly, on any ambitions for new programmes. Barnett will first of all squeeze Scotland's aspirations and will more than squeeze them if certain Labour ministers in London have their way.
The debate is also in part about fiscal autonomy, which is—of course—supported by members of all parties. The debate about controlling Scotland's resources is not an arid economic discourse. It is a debate about the means by which we can achieve the ambitions and aspirations that we set ourselves. It is about getting the tools to do important jobs—such as being an MSP.
Most of all, the debate is about the here and now and about the ambitions that we should have for all our young people. Chief among those ambitions is that which is contained in the SNP motion: that we should give our children a quality education. That ambition can make a real difference to the opportunities that are afforded to—and the prospects of—our children and grandchildren.
My old school, Marr College in Troon, has as its motto "Hic patet ingeniis campus". I do not have to tell the learned members sitting in the chamber that the motto means, "Here lies a field open to the talents." We need to make our society open to our young people by developing their talents. The debate today is about how we do that.
Over the past few years, the issue of class sizes has become increasingly important. In their 18 disastrous years in government, the Tories said and did very little about class sizes. Those years are not going to come back for the foreseeable, or even—reading the polls—unforeseeable future.
Tory rhetoric about class sizes was only rhetoric. There were no financial resources to match the need for educational change. Local authority funding has remained under pressure from 1997 onwards. However, there have been some notable successes and I pay tribute to them. One of the successes—early intervention—is mentioned in the Executive amendment. It was certainly discussed during the Tory years, but it only came into significant effect in recent times.
The process of introducing early intervention was started in 1996 by Conservative Government legislation. Does Mike Russell agree that the incoming government only accelerated the process?
I used the words "it only came into significant effect in recent times"—that is accurate. However, it is good to hear from a Tory who has a popularity rating higher than that of William Hague. That is probably the case for all of the Tories on the bench opposite, even the ones whom nobody knows.
Early intervention in the first years of primary school helps to overcome disadvantages and adds value to the educational experience for those who are at the precise point where added value can be of most help. The inescapable logic of early intervention is that it indicates a need for close pupil-teacher contact in the key, formative years of a child's education.
In a pioneering study conducted by the Institute of Education last year, the effect of that contact was observed and reported on by a distinguished team. Its leader, Professor Peter Blatchford, pointed out that to most parents and teachers it is "obvious" that children do better in smaller classes and that smaller classes are better than larger classes.
One of his colleagues, Professor Goldstein quantified that difference in the conclusions of the study when he asserted that
"A drop in class size from 25 to 15 leads to a gain in literacy of about one year's achievement for the bottom 25 per cent, and about five months' for the rest."
That study was the first British study of an American phenomenon that I will talk about in a moment.
It is fair to say that new Labour has recognised the link between class sizes and attainment. Labour manifestos since 1997 have set targets for class size reduction. Labour has repeated those targets this year and no doubt it means to achieve them, but it is not yet doing so. The latest figures indicate that some 19,597 children are being taught in classes that are outwith the targets for primaries 1, 2 and 3. It is obvious that, to meet the target date, more effort and resources will need to be expended.
Even if that reduction is achieved—and it would be better to work at it than to promise it—its effect would be marginal. It is certainly marginally easier to teach 30 children than 33 children. However, any teacher will say that it is only marginally easier. The ratio of adults to children in classrooms has got better but, as all studies show, that is not nearly as good as reducing the class size.
The Executive may have ambitions to reduce class sizes further. It is clear that 28 is better than 30 and that 25 is better than 28. Twenty-five is, of course, the maximum that is permitted for a composite class. However, as I was told only last Friday in the most impressive Ullapool Primary School, any teacher will say that, for a composite class, 25 is still quite a challenge for even the best teachers.
There is strong practical experience and there are strong practical examples of the fact that the optimum class size lies at around 18. The evidence that shows the effect of achieving and sustaining reductions to that size comes in the greatest part from the STAR project—the student teacher achievement ratio project—in Tennessee. That project commenced 16 years ago and has been followed up in other parts of the United States. At the present time, some $1.3 billion is being spent on emulating it in the United States alone.
Although much has been written about the STAR project, it is easy to summarise its outcomes. The project found that smaller class sizes, with an optimum of 18 or less, resulted in a substantial improvement in children's attainment. That attainment was sustained in later classes, behaviour improved and the need for later educational intervention declined. The project found that the effect of smaller class sizes on ethnic minority pupils was particularly marked. On those who suffered the effects of social exclusion, positive achievement was initially doubled before it became equal to that of the majority groups.
The STAR project also found that pupils with special educational needs were identified earlier and received more effective support at crucial times. Those results are not surprising. To quote Professor Blatchford again, they are "obvious". Smaller class sizes give pupils better learning environments, teachers the opportunity to teach more effectively and young people a better start in life.
Some surprising results have been found in the STAR study and in subsequent work. The STAR study found that the effect of smaller class sizes in the first three or four grades was long lasting. It found that the cost of the programme was offset by reduced high school drop-out rates, a diminished need for remedial instruction and long-term special educational support and—significantly for Scotland—by increased teacher retention. Perhaps it is not surprising that the project found that investment produces dividends.
Let me turn to the cost of that investment. I note that the Labour press release that attacks the SNP manifesto launch—and what a magnificent manifesto it is—attempts to cost the programme of class size reduction. The costing is from the usual dishonest Labour spin machine. What is particularly revolting is that, instead of entering into a debate about the desirability or otherwise—there may be other views—of radically improving education by reducing class sizes, Labour prefers to use false numbers to frighten Scottish parents. That, no doubt, was a Liddell ploy. I hope that it will not be a McConnell ploy today.
Of course, there is a cost attached to any new initiative. For a start, we will need more teachers, in particular more primary teachers even than the number proposed under the McCrone settlement. I recently commissioned research on the latest figures that Mr McConnell provided in a parliamentary answer. We will actually need 3,115 extra primary teachers. The research also shows how a reasonable programme that increases places for primary teachers can be put in place.
The programme would use the substantial over-application for primary teacher courses—currently, there are about 9 applications for each place—to increase the annual intake to 700 students for the postgraduate certificate in education course and 1,100 for the Bachelor of Education course. That is a rise of 200 from current assumptions for the PGCE course and of 300 for the B.Ed course. The number of primary teachers that will be required to implement both the McCrone settlement and such an initiative should peak at around 23,500, which is a rise of over 5,500 from current numbers.
That programme could be achieved within 7 years and would allow for the McCrone increase. That is the first reason why the SNP proposes a phased introduction for such a programme, which would start in areas of social exclusion. By summer 2006, which is three years into the next session of the Parliament, we could have 600 new primary teachers in post under the programme. By summer 2007, that number could rise to 1,480. The cost of all the training that would be required would be £56 million over 7 years with a steady-state recurring cost of £3.1 million. It would not be the £28 million in a single year that the Labour press release claims. Mr McConnell knows that.
Just as that figure is wrong, all Labour's other claims are wrong too. A Labour document claims that 5,000 new classrooms would be needed. No account is taken of existing available space or progressive refurbishment, or team-teaching, or even that Labour's figure for the teachers is wrong.
We are talking about the SNP's proposals. What are the SNP's costings for new classrooms? How many extra portakabins would be needed in Scottish schools?
There is a substantial number of portakabins at present. We must get rid of them. That is why we need a refurbishment programme. I am coming to that. Good things are still to come in this speech.
There is no doubt that ambition costs money. We have indicated the lack of ambition and the worry about money.
Will the member give way?
No, I want to finish.
The problem for the Executive is that failure is much more expensive than ambition. At present, we are failing to produce the optimum results in Scotland's schools. The SNP phased implementation programme to reduce class sizes would be completed in 7 years. During that time, money would be required for new school buildings, for refurbishment and repair, for salaries and for training. The cost of the programme would, at its peak, be around £100 million over that period. That would be £100 million well spent—it represents a quarter of the Executive underspend for this year, it is 0.5 per cent of the Scottish budget and it is just over 2 per cent of the increase in the Scottish budget that has been promised by new Labour. That £100 million would be better spent on education than on weapons of mass destruction. It would be £100 million of Scotland's hard-earned revenue spent according to Scotland's hard-headed priorities for its future. [Interruption.]
I am sorry that Labour members do not think that spending £100 million on Scotland's young people is worth while. That is a great shame.
It will no doubt be said that such a programme would be too expensive. All sorts of doubt will be cast on the figures and we will get inaccurate figures from the Executive, but those are excuses, not reasons, for not changing Scottish education. We have had enough excuses. The results from America clearly show that there would be actual financial benefit from such a programme. Instead, we get miserable parsimony from an Executive that knows the price of everything and the value of nothing—or perhaps just knows nothing.
The motion encourages the Parliament to think big about Scotland's future and Scotland's education. It encourages the Parliament to take practical steps to improve not only our education system but—in time—our entire society. That is what politics is about. That is what the Parliament is about. That is certainly what the SNP is about.
I move,
That the Parliament notes Labour's failure to meet its 1997 and 1999 manifesto pledges with regard to class sizes in the early primary years and the failure of the Executive to meet the same targets, as set in its first programme for government; further notes the examples of good practice that indicate a direct correlation between class sizes substantially smaller than the Executive's target and higher sustained levels of attainment; recognises also the clear results from programmes of class reduction that show the particularly strong effect which class sizes of 18 or less have on children suffering from social exclusion, and therefore calls upon the Executive to follow the SNP's lead and work much harder to achieve real and meaningful reductions in class sizes in the early primary years, setting 18 as the maximum figure.
I, too, welcome the debate, not least because it has given us a chance to hear Mike Russell start his speech with the red herrings that he claimed might come from other parts of the chamber.
Over the last three weeks, I have found it fascinating to watch the topsy-turvy nationalist election campaign, which has gone from defending the Barnett formula against all comers—for about a week and a half—to criticising the Barnett formula against all comers—for about a week and a half. It has gone from mentioning a separate Scotland very briefly at the manifesto launch to talking about everything that is the responsibility of this Parliament, which it has done for the last fortnight. Today, the nationalist Opposition, which has spent most of its debating time over the last two years trying to discuss reserved subjects, cannot face the prospect of debating those subjects when, in the middle of a general election campaign, they are a bit more in the public eye.
I am happy to take on the debate about education, because there is a clear choice between Mike Russell's motion and my amendment. The motion clearly refers to an unrealistic, uncosted and ill thought-out policy. The policy is designed for a headline and for the old ways of Scottish education. The Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition, however, is implementing a comprehensive programme of investment and improvement that is making a real difference in Scottish education.
I will refer briefly to that improvement and investment framework before returning to the content of motion. First, the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 set out, for the first time ever in Scottish education, our national educational priorities. The act ensures that all levels of authority in Scotland are under a duty to achieve education that realises the full potential of each individual child. It operates against the backdrop of investment: investment in education, in under-fives, in early intervention, in special educational needs, in school buildings, in information and communications technology, in extra teachers and classroom assistants, in teachers' pay and in out-of-school activities. We now have record levels of investment in all those areas and record levels of investment in Scottish education.
Let us take a moment to see what that might mean in practice for the children that will go through our schools in 2002. Children of age three might next year benefit from the nursery place that they should have been guaranteed a long time ago. Children of age four might well be in their second year of nursery provision and they will certainly be enjoying nurseries that are full of four-year-olds.
A child in primary 1 will benefit from early intervention in literacy and numeracy and from parental involvement, which is so important for the later years. A child in primary 2 will benefit from class sizes of 30 or under. A child in primary 3 will be part of that improvement and attainment that has seen three-quarters of pupils reach the expected level in reading and two-thirds in writing.
Fiona Hyslop might enjoy this if she would listen.
A child in primary 4 will benefit because 70 per cent of Scotland's schools that did not have internet access under the Tory Government now have it. A child in primary 5 will have access to e-mail that allows them to communicate with the wider world. A child in primary 6 will benefit from one of the modern personal computers that will be in place for every 7.5 pupils in Scotland's primary schools by 2003. A child in primary 7 can look forward to out-of-school activities leading to a better transition to secondary school than Scottish children have ever had before.
A child in secondary 1 will attend a school that has access to the internet. One hundred percent of Scotland's secondary schools have access to the internet—up from 70 per cent just four years ago. In secondary 2 there will be a modern computer for every five pupils in the classroom. In secondary 3, a child will benefit from record spending on books and equipment in schools. Investment in books and equipment during 2000-01 averages more than £17,000 per school.
That is a wish list.
In secondary 4, when children are preparing for their standard grade examinations, they will benefit from the Easter clubs and out-of-school activities that are helping children from all backgrounds at a crucial time in their lives. In secondary 5, a child will benefit from the new national qualifications that give children of all levels of ability—not just the elite—a chance to develop qualifications beyond the age of 16. In secondary 6, having gone through school, a child will have benefited from improved school renovations and from new schools across Scotland.
Across Scotland, all those benefits are set against a backdrop—Mr Monteith may also learn something from this—of investment in thousands of new teachers over the next five years, special education for those who need it most and 62 new community schools.
I was interested to hear about what the minister sees as the achievements of the Labour party and the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition. In the minister's time as a teacher and as a member of Stirling District Council, did he on any occasion argue against many of those initiatives, which had their germ during the 18 years of Conservative government? Did he not protest against them, only to recant now and claim them as a victory for Labour?
I may be slightly mistaken, but I understood that it was not Scotland's district councils that were education authorities, but the regions. History can be rewritten on occasion, but facts are facts.
I heard Mrs Ewing say that this is a wish list. It is not a wish list—it will be reality in Scotland's schools by 2002. Those are the facts. Those are the improvements.
Will the minister give way?
I am coming to Mr Russell's argument in a minute.
Those are the facts in Scotland's schools today. Those are the benefits that our schoolchildren and our students see before their very eyes, even if the nationalist party does not.
I see that the Conservatives want to interrupt. Let us compare where we are today with where we were four years ago. In five years—between 1992 and 1997—the share of gross domestic product that was being spent on education in this country went from 5.1 per cent to 4.7 per cent. It is now back up above 5 per cent. Pupil-teacher ratios increased every year between 1990 and 1997. They have gone down every year since 1997. We are well on target for an adult-pupil ratio in Scotland's schools of 15:1 next year. That was the target set out in the excellence document three years ago. Spending per pupil fell in every one of the Tories' final three years in government. It has now increased by £300 per pupil.
Will the minister give way?
I am coming to Mr Russell's argument in a minute. He might want to wait until then.
Investment in nurseries was down to only £3 million in 1996-97; it is £138 million this year. Investment in books and equipment has increased by 64 per cent.
The motion calls for one policy to solve all our problems in Scottish education: a reduction in class sizes to 18. Any sensible analysis of that policy would estimate the additional number of teachers at about 5,000. The cost of those 5,000 teachers would be £168 million a year, if we do not include training and professional development. The 5,000 extra new classrooms that would be required for them—let us call them portakabins, because in many parts of Scotland that is exactly what they would be—would cost £350 million to put in place. The upkeep of those classrooms would cost about £23 million a year. That is the cost of one policy in the nationalist manifesto: £190 million a year for the additional costs, and £350 million for the new portakabins that would be littered across Scotland's playgrounds as a result. Those are the costs of implementing the full policy—that is, the full policy that was being claimed by Mr Russell until yesterday.
I remind Mr Russell that he said yesterday that the SNP would spend only £100 million on the policy in its first four years in office. Fewer than 10 per cent of Scotland's primary schools would benefit from the policy, which is an attempt to deceive during an election campaign, not an attempt to improve Scottish education.
Will the minister give way?
Will the Presiding Officer let me finish after Mr Russell has intervened?
Yes.
I am surprised that Mr McConnell did not realise that ours is a phased policy, as that was stated in the SNP paper "We stand for Education". He asked for a copy of that document—although we were probably slow in sending it to him. He knows now, however, and can go back and check that it has been a phased policy from day one. I will ask the minister a simple question. He says that the objection to the policy is financial. Taking into account all the international evidence that I have given him and all the research that he and his civil servants have at their disposal, does he not consider that the policy is a good idea?
I was just coming to that. The manifesto does not say, "Only 10 per cent of Scotland's primary schools in the first four years." It talks about a phased introduction of class sizes of 18. It does not mention all the other investments that I have described today—maybe that is because Mr Russell wants to abolish primary 1 in order to pay for his policies, which are skewed to one end of the education system.
Mr Russell mentioned research on class sizes—research that was conducted many years ago. I am sure that he is aware of more recent research in America, where there has been a review of 277 separate studies on pupil-teacher ratios by academics. Only 15 per cent of those studies reported improved academic results from smaller classes. Thirteen per cent showed a decline in pupil performance as classes became smaller. Many factors affect academic attainment in Scotland's schools, not one. The policy puts headline grabbing ahead of partnership and investment. It is the old policy for Scottish education, not the new one. It is an uncosted policy, which hides the fact that primary 1 will probably be abolished to pay for it.
We, on the other hand, have a costed programme of improvement and investment and a context for it in rising standards. In Scotland today, the number of teachers and staff in our schools is up. Attainment levels are up. Standards are up. Morale among parents about our teaching profession is up. The only thing that is down is class sizes, which is the very area where Mr Russell wants improvements. We want good education, from the cradle to the grave and at every age from three to 18. It is only with a comprehensive programme that we will achieve that.
I move amendment S1M-1957.1, to leave out from the first "notes" to end and insert
"continues to support the framework for school improvement which it put in place in the Standards in Schools etc. Act 2000 and recognises that to achieve the highest possible standard for each and every pupil investment must be made across the whole of a child's education, providing a quality experience in pre-school for every 3 and 4-year-old child, effective early intervention to ensure a good foundation in literacy and numeracy, support for all children with special educational needs, a modern, well-resourced school environment and a highly motivated, professional teaching staff."
After the minister's litany of errors in his description of the education results of the Scottish Executive and the then Scottish Office, I am rather tempted to aim my speech at the minister and at Labour's record. However, I should do the right thing and aim my response at Michael Russell, who has been good enough to lodge the motion for debate.
It tickles me somewhat to respond to Michael Russell. He has made a good attempt at demolishing Labour's record on reducing class sizes, but as usual the high priest of sanctimony has gone too far. The point that Michael Russell failed to make was that Labour's election promises were not required here in Scotland. They were a political soundbite that was imported from down south. Class sizes in Scotland had reduced considerably under Conservative Governments and were far better than in England, where problems remain. Similarly, pupil-to-teacher ratios were below 20:1 for the first time. There is only one way to look at that record, and it shows that the problems in Scotland were considerably different from those in England.
The very idea of policies being imported from down south normally rings alarm bells in the ample cavities of Mr Russell's head, but there is a difficulty here, which is that the SNP required a big idea for the current elections. What better than to trump Labour on class sizes and say that the SNP will reduce them further?
However, the policy is not so much a big idea as a big mistake. I shall give an example of problems that are associated with class sizes. The Royal High Primary School in Edinburgh, which both my sons attended until recently, has two classes of 30 in each year. That is 60 pupils in each year and 420 in the school. The school is full and has to turn children away. The SNP's policy would require the school to lose six pupils from each of primaries 1, 2 and 3 and to introduce three classrooms with an additional three teachers. That would mean a possible 36 more disappointed parents and a requirement for considerable spending at a time when the school is already facing cuts of £4,000 to £5,000 in its devolved budget.
That is the minister's fault.
Indeed.
Some neighbouring schools have spare capacity, but even they would require an additional teacher because they, too, have two classes each for primaries 1, 2 and 3—a total of more than 36 in each year. Even undersubscribed schools need more teachers, although they might have the physical capacity for more pupils.
Given that Mr Hague has assured us that public spending will be cut back by only £8 billion if the Conservatives win the general election, does Mr Monteith care to detail the effect of such a policy on class sizes in each constituency in Scotland?
Bill Butler tries to bring falsehood into the debate, with allegations that we will make cuts in public expenditure that will affect constituencies. If he cares to study the figures, he will find that those are savings in the increase in spending—spending that the Institute of Fiscal Studies says Labour cannot afford. There is a £10 billion black hole, which Bill Butler will not explain; neither will he explain that the cost of £32 million to each constituency of introducing the euro will ensure that there will be cuts in spending on education. However, that is another debate for another day.
When we replicate the SNP's policy throughout Scotland we can see that there will need to be a minimum of 2,542 teachers and the same number of classrooms to deal with the extra classes. Currently, classes of more than 30 require more teachers for those schools. When Mike Russell was explaining the recruitment policy that he has been working on, he did not take account of that point, nor did he answer questions about it. If the Executive, post-McCrone, is already encountering difficulties in recruitment to the teaching profession, what does Mr Russell have to say about the problems that he is likely to face in increasing the teacher input?
I addressed that issue directly in my speech, but I am happy to repeat my point now. There is indeed a recruitment crisis in many areas, but the ratio of people who apply for primary education courses to those who get in is 9:1, as I said. Colleges will confirm that at least three times as many suitably qualified people apply as there are places available. There is no crisis in recruiting people for primary education. The crisis is elsewhere.
Of course, what Mr Russell does not say is whether all those nine new teachers are without a post. Teachers move from school to school and they apply for new posts. Clearly, we will require more people to fill those posts.
The SNP's class-size policy also faces an insurmountable problem that is particularly important and on which it certainly cannot square the circle. It has already admitted defeat by saying that it will have to phase in its policy over two parliamentary terms. We also know that, if it seeks to restrict classes to only 18 without building new classrooms at popular schools, the policy will create parental revolt. Parents will not take kindly to having their choice of schools limited; the policy will, ultimately, fail for that reason. Parents will send their children to schools that have 30 or even more in a class if that school has a good reputation, rather than to a neighbouring school that might have class sizes below 20 or about the figure that Mike Russell suggests. Reputation is important.
Other aspects of the SNP's policy document include suggestions for limiting information to parents, limiting the powers of school boards and giving authority to a souped-up quango to discuss education, despite that fact that we now have a Scottish Parliament and an Education, Culture and Sport Committee. The truth is that the SNP's education policies have not been thought through and if they have, the spokesmen need to go back to school to learn arithmetic.
Some schools had unacceptably high class sizes, but that was generally caused by parental demand for good schools, rather than by overcrowding. Indeed, a greater problem was the many schools—especially in areas such as Glasgow—that suffered from low numbers which were exacerbated by relatively high truancy levels.
I do not doubt that Mike Russell is sincere and well-meaning in proposing his policy. I believe that he thinks that there would be real educational benefits in it and, for some children and in some subjects, he might well be right. He has talked a great deal about research documents, but he must be aware that other research papers contradict his policy. In a report that was based on 260,000 students from 39 countries, the Kiel Institute of World Economics said:
"If a more productive way of using resources in bigger classes outweighs any potential positive effect of smaller classes, there could even be an adverse effect of class size."
The jury is out on class sizes. Michael Russell should meet me half way and accept that although—as I acknowledge—there could be some improvement, there is no ideal way. There is no perfect educational system other than one that allows diversity of provision, so that different approaches can be tried and so that each and every child has the opportunity to get the right education for him or her. If schools want to offer small class sizes, let them. If schools want to offer foreign languages from an early age, Gaelic-medium education or an emphasis on the arts, let them.
The problem with Michael Russell's education policy is that the nationalists are a one-horse party. That horse is separatism and it is not even at the races. What is there about independence that gives members of the SNP a different perspective on education policy? They have no ideas that are predicated on independence: there can be none. Education as a separate institution has survived and blossomed within the union. The parties ruling at Westminster have been careful to protect and enhance Scotland's reputation for having a sound, meritocratic educational system. Let me remind the SNP doubters that we did not introduce a national curriculum in Scotland, as happened in England.
Let me clarify a number of points. Labour, the Liberals, the Social Democratic Party, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP and trade unionists all had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the real world, where public services are there for the benefit of the public, rather than for those who work in or administer them. Changes such as parental choice, school boards, the publication of exam results and truancy levels, and devolved school management were opposed at every opportunity. Those parties opposed the expansion of the nursery sector, funding for which moved from £3 million in the pilot spending programme to £70 million the following year. They also opposed at every opportunity early intervention and private finance initiatives.
The SNP's policy on class sizes is manifestly doomed to fail. I say, "Come back, Nicola Sturgeon. Your party needs you."
I move amendment S1M-1957.2, to leave out from "further notes" to end and insert
"believes that there is no uniform homogenous educational system that can provide the right type of education for every child and that such a dogmatic approach should be replaced with a liberal and diverse system which provides specialisation by schools and more choice for parents; further believes that class size is only one aspect of educational provision which may help to improve standards in Scotland's schools, and considers that greater devolution of decision making to teachers and parents should be the goal of the Scottish Executive."
In a way, I hesitate to comment on poor Mike Russell. After the shelling that he has had from Brian Monteith and Jack McConnell, I fancy that he is holed above and below the waterline.
As we all know, there is a problem with getting sufficient teachers. If Michael Russell's plans went into operation, goodness knows what a problem we would face. Classrooms have also been mentioned, and points were well made. Michael Russell said that he had visited Ullapool High School, but I wonder how many other Highland schools he has visited. If he went to Canisbay Primary School, near John o' Groats, he would see that it is so overcrowded at the moment with the nursery unit in place that corridors have to be used for teaching. The idea of cutting class sizes in that school would be almost unworkable. It would not simply require portakabins; a significant amount of money would be needed.
Mike Russell talked about his eminent and learned friends, the professors who have given forth—
Will Mr Stone give way?
I shall give way in a minute.
Mike Russell gave examples from America, but I wonder how often he has visited our staffrooms and talked to those at the chalk face. If he talked to teachers—in the Highlands anyway—he would find that reducing class sizes to 18 would not be at the top of their agenda. As Mr McConnell said, the partnership Government has given a great deal. There has been a transformation in the morale of the teaching profession. If one talks to teachers and directors of education, one will hear that real delivery has come about in our schools because of the partnership between the Liberal party and the Labour party.
Will Mr Stone give way?
I shall give way in a minute.
If Michael Russell went into our classrooms and talked with the teachers, he might hear something rather different about what is at the top of their agenda. I know that the Executive is examining the issue of transport for nursery pupils; it is a continuing problem, particularly in the Highlands.
School infrastructure is far more important than reducing class sizes to 18. I make no apology for mentioning that; it is an old Liberal Democrat argument. As ministers know, I have banged on about that at great length, especially when I was the education spokesman for my party. I remember Sam Galbraith giving me a particularly good answer when I raised the issue at the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. He said that, if other committee members and I were willing to go away and think about it, he would be happy to consider any suggestions that we came up with. It is a tricky question, because we are boxed in by the public sector borrowing requirement, but it is an issue that is still with us.
Thurso High School in my constituency was opened in the mid-to-late 1950s. It now faces repair bills of hundreds of thousands of pounds, and that story is repeated throughout the country. Improving school infrastructure is a job of work that lies before ministers and before the Education, Culture and Sport Committee—of which I am, alas, no longer a member. That is one of the most important problems that must be addressed at the chalk face.
More than a year ago, I wrote a report for the Education, Culture and Sport Committee on rural school closures. One of the factors that lead to rural school closures is the lack of capital budgets, and constituencies such as mine and Margaret Ewing's suffer from that problem. Again, that takes us back to infrastructure. My report, which is probably gathering dust now, is still with the committee.
Those problems are the ones on which we need to work, and I believe that by doing so we will address the issues that are important to our children and to the teaching profession. At the end of the day, what is the SNP policy? Given his rather ill thought-out policy, I dare say that Michael Russell will be looking for a new job in the next reshuffle, when John Swinney changes all his spokesmen. Perhaps Nicola Sturgeon will come back.
The SNP's policy is a fig leaf to cover the monstrous thought of separatism. No matter what one says about the SNP, ultimately that is its policy. Everything else that it says is merely to disguise that. Mr Monteith made some telling points.
I will, as no one else has, lay off Michael Russell and direct a little bit of fire at my good friend—he is a good friend—Mr Monteith, because not much mention has been made of the Tory amendment, least of all by Mr Monteith. I will enlighten members. Michael Russell described Mr Monteith's amendment as "mince", but it is mince with a soupçon of strychnine. Where Mr Monteith is coming from—as I remember from my time on the Education, Culture and Sport Committee—is that he always argued for diversity in schools and said, in particular, that the special educational needs policy that was proposed by the Executive was inappropriate. He said that he did not like the policy, because he thought that it threatened specialist schools. I think that Mr Monteith will agree that that is the point that he made; he has been consistent on it.
The amendment has a lot of Monteithism in it; he is nothing if not consistent. I will demonstrate where the strychnine lies in the amendment. I will quote from that increasingly unpopular man, wee Willie Hague. This is the guts of the Tory policy that Mr Monteith is hinting at; the policy that dare not speak its name. I will read from one of Mr Hague's recent speeches. He stated:
"Some schools will wish to select part of their intake, others will wish to be wholly selective. That means new grammar schools will appear, reversing a 30-year policy of destruction that has done more than anything else to lower standards in our state education system."
I went, probably not 30 or more years ago, to what had effectively been a grammar school and which was one of the first comprehensives in Scotland—Tain Royal Academy. It did not do badly by me and I had no problems. However, my three children have attended that school—my eldest has left and my twins are sitting their highers—and it has improved from when I was there. It is utter nonsense to talk about "destruction". If members want to shiver in the middle of the night and have a bad dream, think about what Hague is saying. All of us who believe in equality of access to education for all children, regardless of background—they are all Jock Tamson's bairns—should put the Conservatives' policy in the bucket of history. I say to Mr Monteith that it will be put in that bucket in two weeks time. I hope that I have not upset Mr Monteith—he is a nice chap in other ways.
I was very disappointed by the tenor of Mr McConnell's reply. The one point on which I agree with him is that many factors affect academic achievement. We do not dispute that. A reduction in class sizes is one factor. However, I am unsure whether the Executive is repudiating the STAR project. Our position is that we believe that a reduction in class sizes is beneficial and we believe that studies indicate that. I have no doubt that some studies in the United States indicate to the contrary, but there are, no doubt, educationists in the United States of America who will argue that we face the end of civilisation as we know it if Harry Potter is not proscribed.
It is incumbent on Mr McConnell, or his colleague Nicol Stephen, to indicate whether the Executive is suggesting that reduction of class sizes is not, per se, beneficial, or whether the Executive accepts that the benefits exist. It is a matter of whether the Executive believes that that is one of the major aspects that should be supported.
We believe not only that reduction of class sizes is an individual's right, but that it is in the national interest. We believe in education for education's sake. We believe that it is everybody's right to progress as far, and to achieve as much, as they possibly can. We also believe that that creates better individuals and better citizens. The corollary of that is that a better-educated person is able to contribute more effectively to the society in which he or she lives. Therefore, we as a society and as a community collectively benefit from investing in education. We believe that one of the best ways of ensuring that everyone has that opportunity is to ensure that children benefit at an early stage. We underestimate the importance of that at our peril—it is as much in our interest as it is in theirs.
In other debates in the Parliament, we have discussed the fact that there are significant skills shortages in Scotland. The tragedy in Scotland is that we have many idle hands. Children leave school without basic literacy and numeracy, never mind other aspects that I will comment on. We, as a nation, cannot afford that. A demographic time bomb is ticking away. We have severe skills shortages in an array of areas. We need the hands that are currently idle to contribute to the economy in future years. We believe that it is much better to do so by intervening early than by having to return later to address earlier problems. That is why we believe that there is a national interest.
I will make two points about educating about learning. We all accept the concept of lifelong learning. First, on a reduction in class sizes, many trainers tell us that they face with youngsters problems not only of a lack of basic literacy or numeracy skills, but of a lack of basic self-confidence. We have a significant cultural problem—I understand the difficulties in legislating for culture—in that we in Scotland are shy and self-effacing and we must address that. That is much better addressed in a classroom in which there is much more one-to-one intervention by a teacher, than when there is rote learning and the pupil is one among many. We would benefit from giving children more self-confidence.
Secondly, we must recognise that we live in a knowledge age. I, like some other members, was at the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's away day. I see that David Mundell is nodding. He will recall that when we spoke to those who are involved in lifelong learning, they quoted from Treasury statistics that show that individuals can expect to have to change their careers or the field that they work in 10 times in their lives. It was suggested that it would be different if a person was a lawyer or a doctor. I have to say, looking back on 20 years as a lawyer, that my whole life changed; the type of law that I practised changed manifestly. That is why even the professions talk about continuous professional development, although such development is much more marked in other jobs.
We must have a society in which people recognise that they have to learn, upskill and change. They must have the capacity to learn on the go. That means early intervention, so that we educate people not only in literacy and numeracy, but in the ability to learn as they go through life.
I support the amendment that was lodged by the minister, because it treats a serious subject with proper gravity. It presents a coherent approach to the construction of an improved environment for learning in our schools. Mr McConnell detailed the strategy when he moved the Executive's amendment.
I am disappointed by the SNP motion, although I will not pretend to be especially surprised by it. It begins with an assertion that is plainly false and ends with an ill-thought out and uncosted piece of cynical electioneering. Education, and the debate around it, is much too important to indulge ourselves in such a way. The education of our children is a means by which even those from the poorest backgrounds can fulfil their potential, free their creativity and build better lives for themselves. To reduce it to a Dutch auction is to treat the electorate with contempt.
It is clear that class sizes in primaries 1 and 2 have been reduced to 30 or less and that this Labour-led Executive is on target to achieve the same for primary 3 by August. Those are facts.
Bill Butler said that it is a fact that pupils in primaries 1, 2 and 3 will be in classes of 30 by August. I have a daughter, who is currently in a primary 1 class of 32. Which of her fellow pupils should she expect to disappear over the next 12 weeks so that the Executive can reach its target? What Bill Butler claims is not fact—it will not happen and Bill Butler should face up to that.
I am afraid that we will have to agree to disagree. I believe that what I said is fact and that it is incontrovertible, which might be indigestible for the national party, but it is fact nevertheless. That is not what dismays me so much about the national party's motion, but what is quite irritating is its claim to be giving a lead on the link between class sizes and achievement and its claim that reducing class sizes to 18 will almost certainly improve everything holus-bolus. Mr Russell claimed that the motion says, "a phased reduction." The motion does not say that; the national party's manifesto says that. That was just a little disingenuous. The motion indicates that it will be holus-bolus and we are debating the motion.
Furthermore, we have not been told about how we are going to reach this educational Eldorado. Where are the SNP's figures? Mr Russell attempted to give them to us, but I am neither convinced nor impressed and I doubt that members or the electorate will be either. For the sake of argument, let us set aside the perfectly legitimate educational concern that reducing class sizes to such levels in the early primary years is not necessarily a good thing and that it can lead, for example, to problems with socialisation. Even if we accept that reduction of class sizes is an entirely valid proposition, it cannot be achieved through the SNP motion, which is merely a foolish attempt to outbid the Executive's real achievements.
Parents, teachers and pupils appreciate those real achievements; they represent tangible progress, not all-too-transparent promises. They include: developments such as 47 new community school projects, one of which is at Drumchapel High School in my Glasgow Anniesland constituency; 1,297 extra full-time teachers; the negotiated achievement of the McCrone agreement and all that flows from it; 1,500 classroom assistants; an increase in internet access from 70 to 100 per cent in secondary education and from 40 to 70 per cent in primary education; and an increase in education spending as a share of GDP from 4.6 per cent to 5 per cent.
People prefer deeds to uncosted promises, which is why the Executive's policy will commend itself to members today and to the country in two weeks' time.
I had always thought that the SNP was very proud of the fact that many of its policies were home-grown. However, it seems forever to be picking up ideas from abroad and putting them forward as new inventions. The Tennessee STAR programme ran from 1985 to 1989, which means that it was introduced 16 years ago. Mr Russell said that much of it was good, but an examination of the paperwork that was attached to the programme shows that the results are ambiguous. No benchmarking was carried out at the start of the programme to allow results to be compared accurately, and much of the programme was not quantitative, but qualitative.
Interestingly, in the two years before the programme began, most of the teachers that were assigned to it had completed an in-service training exercise that dealt with classroom management, individualisation of instruction, teaching higher-order thinking skills and how to work with an aide in smaller class settings. That training produced results—the number of pupils in the class did not. Furthermore, paper after paper on the STAR programme indicates that it is out of date. I do not know why the SNP is pretending that it has something new to offer Scotland when even the Americans have accepted that that approach is not necessarily the way forward. Although we all buy into the idea of better pupil-to-teacher ratios, we need the teachers in place to make it work.
Will the member give way?
I will give way in a moment.
On Saturday, I took part in an interesting exercise in the square at Stonehaven with the deputy SNP education spokesperson—Irene McGugan—and some of her young colleagues. She showed me her pledge card and we spent half an hour discussing education issues. Unfortunately, I could not find any logic in anything the good lady said, so perhaps when she winds up she will answer the questions that I asked her on Saturday. Where are the nationalists going to find the extra teachers? How are they going to train them? How are they going to provide the extra accommodation? Most important, how are they going to fund everything now that they have abandoned their penny for Scotland policy? Which money tree will provide the funding for this proposal? Irene McGugan said that there had been a reprioritisation of effort within their education programme, but she could not tell me what had dropped down the priority list. Perhaps they are all just false promises once again.
Does Mr Davidson agree that that half-hour conversation was not something for which the electorate of Stonehaven would have been extremely grateful?
Yes. I was not thanked for keeping people away from their Saturday morning shopping. However, the exercise was interesting nonetheless.
As for Papa and Nicole—although I see that Papa seems to have left the chamber—perhaps they can tell us how they are going to deliver reduced class sizes, because the promise to do so by the end of this August was made in 1997. None of the figures that we have heard from Labour members seem to stack up, and perhaps when he winds up the minister will give us the Liberal Democrat view of how the coalition Executive will deliver on that promise.
I am regularly asked about the full funding of the McCrone recommendations, which is a vital element in ensuring advancement in education. This week, I received once again a holding answer from the Minister for Finance and Local Government. The Executive is patently having second thoughts. Perhaps the minister will confirm today whether the McCrone report will be fully implemented, and set out the time scale for its implementation. I know that the local authorities are desperately keen to know what Jack McConnell meant when he talked about the full implementation of McCrone at a meeting I attended, and why other ministers are not backing him up.
In their 1999 election manifesto, the Liberal Democrats said that they would deliver 2,000 extra teachers. However, that figure has now been dropped to 1,000. Will they tell us today whether they will settle for a lower figure that happens to coincide with what Labour ministers are telling them to say? I get the impression that they have watered down their stance after talking up education as a vital Liberal Democrat policy area. We have not heard very much of a practical nature from them today.
The Conservatives believe in parental choice, which is an issue that has been avoided today. Although some schools might suit certain children, other schools might suit them better. However, the minister's litany made no reference to how we will deal with transport to schools. If we follow SNP policy and cut class sizes, children in rural areas might be forced to travel miles to a different school from that which their siblings attend. That would be utter nonsense. I ask members to reject the SNP motion and to disregard some of Jack McConnell's comments. I hope that he gets his problems at the Scottish Qualifications Authority sorted out before the end of the summer.
I wonder whether the chamber will give me a moment to offer good wishes to Willis Pickard, who is retiring as editor of The Times Educational Supplement Scotland after a quarter century of service. The educational community in Scotland owes him a considerable debt. [Applause.]
The business bulletin said that we were going to debate education, but the SNP motion is more about electioneering and Labour-bashing. The Scottish Parliament is not an appropriate place for such a debate; we deal with Scottish education and should not be used to promote a general election campaign for the Westminster Parliament.
I am absolutely committed to the proposition that class sizes matter and that we should aim for smaller class sizes, and it is good to see that politicians have broadly accepted that principle. Although we might argue about how much we should reduce class sizes—and despite worrying moments when members seem to draw back from the idea—members have generally accepted that bringing class sizes down to 30 is a good idea. We must carry on and introduce a phased programme that addresses the whole issue.
The SNP motion concentrates on early-years education. I did not open for the Liberal Democrats this morning because I did not know whether I could get back in time from a talk I was giving in Penicuik about the sure start programme. That programme gives help and support to youngsters from 0 to 3 years to give them a good start. The early-education programme with its commitment to pre-school education and to reducing class sizes in primary schools shows that the issue is very high on our agenda. However, although I accept the idea of early intervention and of giving children a good start, I agree to an extent with Mike Russell and—surprisingly—with Brian Monteith. As Brian Monteith pointed out, the practical problems associated with the reduction of class sizes are manifold and centre on issues such as accommodation and the recruitment and training of teachers.
The arithmetic that Brian Monteith used shows that the sums do not work out easily. Class sizes cannot be reduced from 30 to 18 just by doing the sums. People do not fit into the boxes so easily. We cannot set a maximum size for classes, as children might enter a class at different times, and such a policy would create a range of practical problems and knock-on effects. We should have a debate about class sizes and about where the programme should take us. There should be a programme—however, what Brian Monteith suggests is not that programme. It is not properly costed: it is glib, superficial and uncosted.
Although many schools throughout Scotland target class sizes at 30 pupils, they are aware that, if pupils leave, that figure may fall to 28, 27 or 26 for a term and that, when the abstract of their class sizes is taken, they will lose money to the devolved budgets that affect their spending because their class sizes have decreased. As a result, schools encourage teachers to take in 31 or 32 pupils, so that they will not risk a cut in their budgets.
Mr Monteith is beginning to lose me with his arithmetic. However, as a former teacher and the head of a department who had to plan class sizes, I know that class sizes do not work out easily and I accept the fact that targets cannot be set that will ensure 100 per cent efficiency.
It must be remembered that the substantial programme that the Executive has outlined is work in progress, and that class sizes matter not only in primary schools, but in secondary schools. Also, if we concentrate on a single policy, on a single front, we will forget about other issues such as the state of school buildings. The problems are diverse and complicated, and the SNP's proposition is simplistic, uncosted and impractical.
I am sorry that the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs is not present to hear my speech, as I mentioned during his speech the fact that he appeared to be reading out a wish list for his election manifesto. I suspect that, if he repeated that speech in front of a group of concerned teachers and parents, he would receive the same treatment as Jack Straw received last week from the Police Federation. It took the minister eight minutes to begin to address the issues that are raised in the SNP motion.
I inform members who said that ours is an uncosted programme that we have costed it and that the figure is not vast. When parents and teachers look at the figures that we are talking about, they will contrast them with the expenditure that the Government here has colluded with the Government at Westminster in providing for the millennium dome. I would rather spend the money on the children of Scotland.
Will Margaret Ewing take an intervention?
No, I have only just started.
Let us consider the efficacy of the Parliament in the context of education. Our constituents, and the country as a whole, regard education as a touchstone on which we will be judged. Education is one of our highest priorities as a devolved power and a key policy sphere. Instead of making the sort of electioneering speeches that we have heard from many members today, we should be addressing the key issues in education.
As a young trainee teacher, I was sent to a school in which there was a disruptive class, which I was given the joy of teaching. I was told by a senior member of staff to keep them amused and to try to keep them under control. That was when my interest in special educational needs began. The advice that was given to me by that teacher is probably more applicable in dealing with politicians than in teaching our children. Through training in special needs education, I became aware of the importance and significance of the one-to-one contact that one must have with a child.
My training was in secondary education. While I was undertaking that training, one of my lecturers told me that the most complex learning process that any individual ever undergoes is learning how to read. My personal idea of hell is a world without books and newspapers. However, by the time I began to teach children with special educational needs in secondary schools, it was often too late to help many of those youngsters. Early intervention, which is what the motion is about, is critical. If we can discover the difficulties that a child is facing while they are still young, we can resolve many of them.
Other issues underpin the motion. Is the Executive satisfied that our teachers are trained sufficiently to ensure the early detection of problems such as dyslexia—a complex matter about which I have been writing to the Executive recently—or autism, which we have highlighted through our cross-parliamentary group? What about young people who suffer from epilepsy? In small classes, teachers can deal with such problems effectively, but they need training and support to ensure that they can make the correct diagnosis.
Early intervention is not an expensive option. It is a cost-effective option, because it deals with the difficulties early. If we do not do so, some children will turn into school bullies and hooligans because they cannot cope with the learning process. I say to all members that the motion deserves our support.
In the normal course of events, I would welcome whole-heartedly a motion from the SNP to debate education. After all, the Scottish Parliament is where Scottish educational issues should be resolved. If my welcome for today's debate is less than whole-hearted, that is because I believe that the Parliament's remit has been hijacked as a general election issue. Policies have been expounded in the context of a Westminster manifesto, pushing us towards adversarial confrontation rather than reasoned and consensual debate. That is a pity, as there are some suggestions among the SNP policies that, although ill-considered in its manifesto, would merit discussion and, in a reviewed form, development. Indeed, some of those proposals are already supported and implemented by the Scottish Executive and local government.
I fully support an integrated, child-centred approach to education, which encompasses the health and welfare of our pupils. Improving children's diets, as is happening in many schools, is laudable. Free fruit is available in nurseries and there are healthy eating programmes in primary schools and new community schools. The Scottish Parliament should make more progress in that direction. We also need a major programme of school investment and repair—that is why we have such a programme, which involves 100 new school developments and a new deal for Scottish schools. There are five excellent new schools in my constituency. Class sizes are also a priority and it is estimated that Labour's pledge will be fulfilled this year. We must continue to work on that issue.
Does the member agree that the small class sizes in some primary schools in the remoter areas of Scotland should be regarded as a good thing rather than a reason for closing the schools, as some councils have proposed?
Absolutely. We must look favourably at what is happening in rural schools and consider how we can measure their success in contributing to their local communities. The role of rural schools is often underestimated, but I think that the debate around class sizes in rural schools is quite different from that around class sizes in urban areas.
As Cathy Peattie knows, to her embarrassment more than mine, she and I often agree on educational matters. In councils such as North Lanarkshire Council, there has been an attempt to drive down class sizes—particularly in the first two years of school—to 20 or 18, which is a low level. That has happened in urban areas, where it is seen as a successful strategy.
I will talk later about the strategy for reducing class sizes.
Smaller class sizes might be desirable, but we should discuss the evidence for the wider educational gains that can be made in relation to the extent of the reduction and whether other exchanges could offer greater gains. We should not underestimate the costs of the changes, including what we would have to forgo to find the money. We need to decide whether the advantages in further class-size reductions would outweigh the losses elsewhere. Government is the process of making such choices. Wise choices have to take into consideration all factors. Prioritisation means that we must choose whether we want to have our cake or eat it. Pretending that both things are possible is a doomed attempt to create a grand illusion.
Many of the suggestions in the SNP manifesto are fine individually, but cumulatively they are contradictory and expensive—considerably more expensive than the SNP wants to admit. We must examine logically the full costs of the proposal to cut primary 1 to primary 3 class sizes to 18. Clearly, smaller classes mean proportionately more classes. A reduction of three fifths in the class size would require 67 per cent more teachers in the primary 1 to primary 3 classes—that would mean 5,000 teachers to recruit and train. The implications of that are a squeeze on placement choice, placement battles and families having to take one child to one school and another child to another school.
We need to consider a sustainable approach to education. We are committed to recruiting more teachers, providing more resources and better buildings, and improving the quality of education. We will do so on the basis of open and balanced appraisal of all our objectives. Education is important. We should debate and have the imagination and vision to take the issue forward.
There are two main points in this debate: we need a bigger budget for education and we have to consider how we spend that budget.
As we are in the middle of a Westminster general election campaign, it is fair to point out that the Liberal Democrats consistently criticised the Labour Government in Westminster because it followed the Tory spending plans for its first two years, which meant that there were continuing cuts. In our general election literature, we argue for a greater disbursement of UK funds for education, of which Scotland should get its fair share.
We need a bigger pot of goodies, but we must think also about how we use the available goodies. The Executive is to be commended on its decision to concentrate on sorting out the dire position that Scottish teachers were in with regard to their pay, conditions and morale. The Executive's commitment to putting the McCrone committee's recommendations into effect is praiseworthy. That is the first step towards making the teachers happy and getting them on board so that further improvements in education can be achieved.
As almost everyone has said, trying to reduce class sizes is a good idea. However, it is open to argument whether having a straitjacket of a figure of 18 pupils is the best way of doing that. It would be better to give schools more scope. If additional teachers are available, it will be up to the head of a school, in discussion with a local authority, to use those teachers in the best way. Additional help for dealing with pupils with behavioural difficulties who disrupt classes is often a bigger priority than a mere reduction in the number of pupils in all classes.
There should be more decentralisation of budgeting, which has already been started; the SNP motion is a move in the wrong direction. There should also be more teachers available for one-to-one teaching of pupils who have difficulties with learning. That will often sort things out better than simply having smaller classes.
We should put more resources into supporting small rural schools and schools in the poorer urban areas. I do not accept—I do not think that Liberals would, philosophically, accept—that we should just have blanket provision for everyone. We do not live in an equal society. We are seeking to provide equality of opportunity, but we will never fully achieve it. The children of people who come to speak in this building and children from similar families will always have a better chance in life than those who come from families that are disrupted by all sorts of problems such as poverty and addiction. However, we are all here—regardless of party—to level up or to reduce the gap as much as possible. Rather than saying that every school should have such-and-such, we should give more to the rural areas that have various problems of access and to urban schools where there are social and other problems. I have supported such moves in Edinburgh for nearly 30 years.
There are other things that need money spent on them, such as school buildings and education outside school. More good education often takes place outside school than in school, and we need much more investment in clubs, community education and so on. We should support the Government amendment, not the SNP motion.
Some members have asked why we are having this debate. I have noticed from my postbag, as other members may have done, that this is the time of year when applications for primaries 1, 2 and 3 are processed. I am being contacted by constituents from Livingston and Linlithgow, where next year's class sizes are planned to be 32 or more. That is the allocation that has been made, so the idea that class sizes in primaries 1, 2 and 3 will somehow be reduced to 30 by August is frankly not believable.
What is believable is the Parliament's capacity to have a vision of where it wants education to go. The Scottish National Party's proposals are radical but this is, after all, about what we should do. I have heard much sympathy expressed for the idea of getting class sizes down to 18, but I have also heard a lot about why the Executive cannot do it and why it is not practical. That shows what is so wrong with the current position in Scotland.
I anticipate some arguments about why we should not have that size of class on educational grounds, but—
Will Fiona Hyslop take an intervention?
Let me develop my point, please.
The idea is that we are unable to have such small class sizes because of the practicalities. I say that we in leadership—in the Parliament—should decide what we want to do and then work out how we can do it. To those members who say that that is an uncosted policy, I say that the revenue cost of such proposals would be £100 million, or less than a quarter of what the Parliament could have spent last year from its underspend but did not.
Points have been well made about the need for capital investment. Of course, there will be such a need, but let us use a Scottish trust for public investment, which would work out far more cheaply than the Executive's public-private partnership plans. Let us ensure that we use the wealth of Scotland to work for Scotland. Let us use our oil wealth for our education.
Will Fiona Hyslop give way?
Will Fiona Hyslop give way?
Will Fiona Hyslop take an intervention?
I am limited for time and want to develop some specific points.
Let us look at the reality—not many members so far have talked about the reality for parents and children. In West Lothian, people have approached me to voice their concern that they cannot get their children into primary 1 classes because of overcrowding. There were 133 applications for deferrals from parents of four-year-olds and four-and-a-half-year-olds who felt that their children were not able or ready to go to school. Of those, only 84 were granted an additional pre-school year. Forty-nine pupils in West Lothian have to go to school even though their parents do not want them to because—I refer members to the minister's amendment—the Executive is pushing its targets for three and four-year-olds.
Something is far wrong when, to reach targets for three and four-year-olds in nursery, the Executive pressures four-and-a-half-year-olds to enter primary 1. Everybody should know that now is when councillors assess the applications. Does the minister intend to examine the flexibility of education legislation to see whether we can change the assessment of applications?
Rural schools were mentioned. A Conservative member made a useful point about falling class sizes and the closure of rural schools. In West Lothian, the minister has announced that Abercorn Primary School is to close. Let us consider how that closure will impact on class sizes across West Lothian. The classes of Low Port Primary School, Springfield Primary School and Linlithgow Primary School will not reach the class size target of 30 because Abercorn Primary School down the road has been closed.
I have 15 seconds left, so I will have to finish.
As Mike Russell said, failure is more expensive than ambition. If we are to take our nation to where it should be, the one thing that we can offer our children in primary 1, 2 and 3 is confidence. If confidence is to be instilled in them, children must receive attention when they are young. That is the message that we should take from the chamber. Let us be about ambition, not about failure.
It is an honour to sum up on behalf of the Labour party in a debate on education. The Labour party has put children at the heart of its education system. It has delivered 47 new community schools—15 more are on the way; 1,297 extra full-time teachers; 1,500 classroom assistants; 100 per cent internet access for secondary pupils and 30 per cent more internet access for primary pupils; an historic agreement on teachers' pay and conditions; increased spending on education as a proportion of gross domestic product; and a 64 per cent increase in spending on books and equipment. Labour has delivered a nursery place for every four-year-old whose parents want it and is on course to deliver a place for every three-year-old by 2002. Also, by August, Labour will have delivered class sizes of 30 or fewer for every pupil in primary 1, 2 and 3. Those are the facts. That is the record of the Labour-led Executive and that is why I am proud to support Jack McConnell's amendment.
I will deal with the SNP motion and, first, Brian Monteith's amendment. What have the Tories offered the debate? Heehaw—absolutely nothing. They have offered no proposals or ideas. It is clear that they remain as right wing and dogmatic as ever they were. They talk about freeing schools from local authorities. I remember that in their most recent sorry period in power they tried to force Scottish education down that road. There was such an overwhelming demand that the number of schools in the whole of Scotland that freed themselves from local authority control was an astounding two. Both did so for particular reasons and both are now within the remit of local authorities.
Karen Gillon is 50 per cent wrong. The number of schools that opted out of local authority control was three. She has forgotten Fort William.
Did Fort William get out or did it just propose to get out?
It was coming out but the general election prevented it from happening.
Then I am correct: two schools opted out.
When Brian Monteith talked about class sizes, he talked about the effect that the proposal would have on good schools. I am not concerned about the effect that a reduction in class sizes will have on good schools; I am concerned about the effect that a reduction in class sizes will have on every school. I do not want us to create "good" schools, so that parents feel that they have to choose one school over another because their kids will get a better education there. Every school in Scotland should achieve the same educational standard. That is the opportunity we should offer.
I want to address the amendment in the name of Mike Russell—
It is the motion that is in my name.
I am sorry—I mean the motion in the name of Mike Russell.
It is good that we are, at last, debating in SNP time an issue that falls within the Scottish Parliament's devolved responsibilities. Members may call me a cynic, but I believe that we are perhaps having this debate because it involves class sizes, which are covered by one line in the SNP's Westminster election manifesto. All of a sudden, they are a policy priority for the SNP.
If Alex Salmond and his pals are so concerned about Scottish education, they should stay with the Holyrood Parliament, where Scottish education is debated and discussed. We are talking about the proportion of Scottish expenditure, within the devolved budget, that will be spent on 5,000 new teachers and 5,000 new classes—those are the facts and figures; we are not talking about the Alex-in-wonderland economics that the SNP indulges in.
We are part of the United Kingdom and operate within a devolved budget. The costs that the SNP has proposed simply do not add up; the true costs to the Scottish people would be much greater. We should have an honest, straightforward debate about the future of education, first in the Parliament's committee and then in the chamber, and we should hold that debate outwith the heat of a general election. We should debate the issues that are of importance to Scotland when they are relevant to the Scottish people, not when it suits the political agenda of one political party.
This has been a disappointing debate, although some members attempted to raise the standard. Many of the points raised by Margaret Ewing were well made, but she must have been complicit in the fact that we have had this debate for electioneering purposes only. Whether or not the SNP had a genuine idea, and whether or not Mike Russell believed that he could develop that idea, this is not the time to raise it in the Scottish Parliament.
In the Conservative party, we are open to ideas—that is embodied in Brian Monteith's amendment. We are the party that supports the introduction of new ideas, diversity and experimentation in education. Although, as Karen Gillon was keen to point out, some issues were not taken up during the debate, one person who is keen to take up Tory ideas was not mentioned by Labour members: Mr Tony Blair. I look forward to hearing much more about his ideas on education. Labour members were keen to mention William Hague but not Mr Blair.
Jack McConnell made an interesting point when he accused the Conservatives of not wanting to deploy the internet in schools in Scotland. I do not know the exact date on which Al Gore invented the internet—as he claims to have done—but of all the policies about which we could be criticised, our policy on internet access in schools is not one.
Jack McConnell highlighted an issue that goes back to Mike Russell's point about class sizes. I fully support the policy that each and every child should have access to a computer and the internet in school. As Kenny MacAskill indicated, that policy is vital to the development of our education system. However, the provision of computers and internet access alone will not improve education. Education can be improved only by a cocktail—a mixture—of policies that includes class size. Jamie Stone alluded to that before he began his love-in with Brian Monteith. After having two Liberal Democrats agree with him, Brian will have to have a lie-down in a darkened room. It would have finished him off if Karen Gillon had agreed with him too.
Infrastructure is another part of the cocktail and lack of connection is one of our problems. As Jamie McGrigor suggested, computers are installed in schools but, at the same time, small rural schools are closed down—sometimes just after computers have been installed. Other problems with infrastructure include the use of portakabins. Bureaucracy is also stifling schools.
The other day, I met Mike Russell with parents at Castledykes Primary School in his beloved Kirkcudbright. The school is to lose one teacher because a small number of pupils have left it. That will change the whole balance and working of the school. The internal lack of flexibility and control that the head teacher, the school board and parents have in running their schools is stifling development in education in Scotland. That is why we will continue to argue for real devolution in education and why Brian Monteith's amendment is relevant.
I commend the amendment to the chamber.
Mike Russell set the tone for the debate. He spoke about Mr McConnell's red herrings and Mr Monteith's mince. Those culinary cul-de-sacs were not typical of his style and were unworthy of his usually learned and quick-witted approach. Mr Russell was soon back on to more comfortable ground, quoting Latin mottoes and American academics. It is just as well that Latin is his forte because funding certainly is not. Mike Russell said that his policy is not uncosted. If it is not uncosted, it is certainly hopelessly costed.
What about investment in other areas of education? How will the SNP fund its proposals? In the light of its manifesto, the SNP should never in future criticise the Scottish Executive for its glossy documents.
There are a number of profound differences. Our manifesto is better designed and is not produced at the taxpayers' expense.
Clearly, I touched a raw nerve.
How will the SNP fund its proposals? Its manifesto mentioned an oil fund that might be built up over a number of years after independence. The interest from the fund would be used to fund all the proposals. Would it use the Scottish Executive's underspend, which I presume it would shift from the NHS to education? In winding up, the SNP should tell us where the funding would come from.
The second key issue is: how will the SNP impose its proposals? The SNP wants to ensure a new policy initiative in Scottish education in one area only. How will that be dictated not only to the local authorities, but to the local schools and head teachers? How will the SNP override local discretion?
Education should never be a single policy issue. The SNP has reduced it to that. We want local discretion and we want to involve schools, head teachers, parents and pupils in deciding how extra investment is best spent in each local school in Scotland.
Brian Monteith told us of the great things that the Conservatives did for Scottish schools. Pupils, parents and—most of all—teachers have a very different memory. The Conservatives brought Scottish education to its knees over 18 years. There has never been such conflict in schools as there was under the Conservatives. When the Conservatives left office in 1997, 24 per cent of all children in primaries 1, 2 and 3 were in classes of more than 30. Our target is that no children in primaries 1 to 3 should be educated in classes with more than 30 pupils.
Will the minister explain how he proposes to get class sizes down to 30? There are classes in West Lothian with more than 30 pupils. My daughter is in a class that has 32 pupils. Whom will the minister have disappear over the next few weeks so that he can justify his position? Is the minister talking about only a couple of hours a day with an additional teacher? Is that his explanation?
It is a bit rich for a party that proposes to reduce class sizes to 18 to query how we will reduce class sizes to 30. We will do it, and we will do it by extra investment. To achieve those reductions in class sizes, extra investment is being made available now—this year—and will be made available in following years.
No—I am not giving way.
David Davidson asked me some questions about the Liberal Democrats and the number of extra teachers that we want. In our manifesto, we commit to 2,000 extra teachers. The Scottish Executive has already committed to 1,000 extra teachers and we are close to that target. As a result of the McCrone settlement, a further 3,000 teachers will be introduced to Scottish schools.
This is about more than more teachers; it is also about more investment—tackling the backlog of repairs and maintenance in our schools. According to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, £1.3 billion requires to be spent. We have to tackle that and we have to invest more. We are doing a lot, but there is still much to do.
Ian Jenkins spoke about many things in relation to the SNP's doctrinaire approach—I am sure that there will be consensus on that around the chamber. I add my good wishes to Ian Jenkins's remarks about Willis Pickard and the excellent work that he has done with The Times Educational Supplement Scotland over so many years.
The message is that a clear choice lies in front of us: either we can have a narrow focus on a single issue—a campaigning issue, I would suggest—or we can have a broad vision of Scottish education, involving investment across all stages of education. The conclusion is clear: a single expensive policy draws investment away from other important stages of a child's education. Research shows that attention to teacher training and teacher expertise may have as big a pay-off per pound spent as investment in reducing class sizes. We have to do both and to invest in both.
The Conservatives again take a doctrinaire and centralised approach to school governance. We want to review the devolved school management arrangements. We want to focus on outcomes for education—the national priorities focus on outcomes. We want to free teachers in schools to decide how to deliver. Taking away local authority management of schools would be a disaster. If that happened, more and more responsibility would fall on the Scottish Executive. It would be a way of centralising. It would be the sort of approach that we saw during 18 years of Conservatism, with more and more power being taken to the centre, to Whitehall.
No—I am not giving way. I think that I am just about out of time.
The Scottish Executive is investing in lowering class sizes, but it is investing in a lot more, too: it is investing in pre-school education—there will be a nursery place for all three and four-year-olds; early intervention; special educational needs; and school buildings. Throughout Scotland, 100 schools will be built or substantially renovated by 2003. There will be more than £600 million of funding. We are investing in modern information and communications technology, with a commitment to new broadband technology. We are, as I have said, investing in 3,000 new teachers and 3,500 extra support staff, as part of the new pay and conditions settlement.
We are delivering more. Investment, investment, investment—that is the key. That is why we want to see more of it. Our overall educational spend over the next three years is up 7.5 per cent this year, 5.9 per cent next year and 7 per cent the year after that. That is a total increase in funding of more than 20 per cent. Most important of all, we are taking a new approach to our schools and to education in Scotland. For too long, they have been a political battleground; for too long, progress has been in reverse.
My final plea is this: let us try to do all of these things, wherever possible, together—all of us, across parties, working together to improve the education of every young person, of whatever age, in whatever part of Scotland. Today's debate, sadly, was not about that.
I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. I find it strange to be accused of electioneering. I remind members that education is a devolved matter, and therefore a wholly legitimate issue for discussion in the Scottish Parliament at any time. It is a truism that the more ferociously an SNP policy initiative is attacked by our opponents, the more concerned they are about the rightness of our cause. We are confident that we are proposing something that worries and upsets the Executive—so much so that our policy could find itself being number 11 in the list of SNP policies that are adopted by the Scottish Executive.
The SNP has a clear vision of what our education system should be about. At the heart of that vision is major investment in the early primary years, with the aim of giving children the best possible start in formal schooling. One of our key proposals is progressively to reduce all primary 1, 2 and 3 class sizes to 18 pupils or fewer. Labour promised in its 1997 manifesto to ensure that all primary 1 to 3 classes had fewer than 30 pupils by August this year, but I say to Mr Butler and Mr Stephen that figures show that 20,000 pupils are still in classes with more than 30 pupils.
Educational research shows that reducing class sizes to 30 or even 25 pupils has no real impact on the quality of education. It is only when there is a significant reduction to 18 or fewer that real improvements in the educational experience of children are achieved.
That is a laudable aim, but the research has reservations on the matter. The SNP has not gone for the figure that researchers say would make a difference, which is fewer than 18 pupils. The criticism that we have is not of the objective, but of the fact that its practical application is impossible. Irene McGugan should be telling parents that the number of composite classes would increase, that the required buildings do not exist and that their children would be forced into schools that the parents do not want them to go to. That is the reality of the SNP's proposals. Let us have an honest discussion.
Frank McAveety has not listened to one word from the SNP.
I have listened.
Well, listen again and I will repeat some of it. I put one example to Frank McAveety. It is interesting to note that in Finland the maximum class size is 21. Does that tell him nothing? A commitment on Labour's part to reduce class sizes to 30 might have looked good on a new Labour pledge card, but its benefits are marginal.
Reduced class sizes can be argued for on economic and social grounds. The benefits of class size reductions in the first three years of formal schooling are long lasting, and the gains are particularly significant for children from socially disadvantaged backgrounds. Children have only one chance to go through the vital and formative early school years. We should put resources first of all into places where there is a demonstrable need for change and improvement.
With reduced class sizes there is a corresponding increase in teacher satisfaction, which means that talented people are more likely to come into, and stay longer in, the profession. Teachers then get to know well and understand all the children in their classes and have time to promote critical and creative thinking, which should be at the heart of the education process. Discipline is likely to improve in such settings, and communication with parents becomes easier and more productive. Indeed, the effects could reach even farther. We might help to raise levels of self-confidence, self-esteem and achievement in primary school children far beyond current levels. That can only be a good thing.
As Michael Russell said, the logic of the argument is obvious, and although people have presented contradictory research—and it has been mentioned a lot—nobody has been able to propose coherent arguments that suggest convincingly that reduced class sizes are not a good thing. The only difference between the parties here today is the commitment to implement the policy.
The Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs spoke a great deal about the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 and the framework that Labour has put in place to support the education system. He may recall that there was considerable support from the SNP for almost all those initiatives, such as out-of-school care, new community schools and sure start. There was a huge degree of consensus. That is not the issue. The issue is having the desire to go further and do things even better—that is the next step.
Irene McGugan talked about the next step. How much will the next step cost? How many steps beyond that does the SNP want to take? What will those steps cost? What is the full-year costed package of measures that you propose to the chamber?
If the minister will let me proceed, I will deal with those issues.
It cannot be denied that the SNP's policy will take time to implement. It will require major investment. More classrooms will have to be found and we will require to recruit and train additional teachers. I will give Mr Monteith one example. For the postgraduate primary teaching course during 2001-02 at Jordanhill, 1,000 people applied, only 350 were interviewed and a smaller number than that will be accepted; therefore, I do not think that we will have a recruitment problem.
We can achieve our aim by phasing in the scheme incrementally as resources allow. We will begin in deprived areas, where smaller classes have been shown to have the greatest effect. We should not forget that some of the cost of implementing smaller classes can be offset in the longer term by the resulting decrease in secondary school exclusion and the diminished need for learning support services. The commitment has been made in the full knowledge that it can be achieved only if we recruit additional teachers and make the necessary improvements to school infrastructure. We will do it. We make no apology for being more ambitious for our young people than anyone else in the chamber.
Many members alleged that we are making spending commitments without considering what can be afforded. All spending is a matter of priorities. The SNP will always afford priority to our young people's education. That is where we differ from our unionist opponents, whose education spending commitments will always compete with spending on nuclear weapons, London infrastructure, millennium domes and suchlike.
At its peak, the commitment will cost £100 million a year, taking account of the additional improvements that are needed. As the implementation is incremental, the cost in the early years will be lower. The Scottish budget is to increase in real terms by about £4.75 billion in the three years, and much of that money has yet to be allocated. We would be prepared to commit at least 5 per cent of that increase to education. That will more than pay for our commitment to reduce class sizes. We should not forget that, over this year and next, we will send £8 billion more to London than we will receive back in public spending. Anyone who suggests that Scotland cannot afford first-class schools is lying and letting Scotland down.
That is unparliamentary language.
I did not accuse anyone of lying.
No one was named.
Order.
I will talk about the research and its origin in the United States. We expect the findings of that research to be relevant in this country because the benefits that smaller class sizes bring, such as more opportunity for teachers to respond to pupils, tend not to be culture-specific. As Michael Russell said, the first major UK study to examine class sizes produced results that were generally consistent with those that were reported in America. The Institute of Education's study confirms the link between class sizes and academic progress. Overall, smaller classes allowed more teacher support for learning, to the benefit of pupil attainment.
Giving children the best possible start in formal education pays enormous dividends in their levels of attainment later. It also reduces the need for additional learning support later, improves behaviour and reduces stress on teachers and schools. Accordingly, we will invest heavily in that priority. Professor Neil Kay of the University of Strathclyde said:
"It is not often we find a programme that promises to deliver outcomes both more efficient and more socially equitable than the status quo. This would be just such a programme."