Better Behaviour, Better Learning
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-379, in the name of Peter Peacock, on better behaviour, better learning, and two amendments to the motion.
I welcome the opportunity to open today's debate on a subject that is important for Scotland's schools and wider communities. I am particularly pleased to see Fiona Hyslop today, because she told me yesterday that she had a competing claim on her time—a debate about discipline in Inverness this afternoon. She did not say whether it was about discipline in the Scottish National Party or in Scottish schools. Perhaps it was about both. I am glad that she has given this debate priority, because the issue is important for us all.
Better behaviour in Scotland's schools is of great importance. Improving discipline and behaviour in our schools is a key issue, not only for pupils, but for parents and teachers. I am pleased to say that I have made it one of my top priorities since becoming Minister for Education and Young People. Of course, I was not the first to identify the area as one in which we need to make great improvement. A major programme of work was already under way through "Better Behaviour—Better Learning: Report of the Discipline Task Group". As I am sure members are aware, the discipline task group was chaired by the First Minister when he was Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs.
The report set out a comprehensive programme, including 36 recommendations, which ranged through issues such as promoting a better curriculum, with more flexibility, to engage young people better in learning; school policies on inclusion; a staged intervention process in relation to improved behaviour; sharing best practice among schools; better guidance to teachers; involving pupils more effectively in designing school policies; involving parents more effectively than we do at present; and many more matters. Action has been taken on all those fronts. That has been backed by resources from the Executive and has bought real improvements in schools.
The minister talks about giving support to teachers. Does that mean that teacher training in college and at in-service days will pay more attention to disabilities that often lead to discipline problems?
Absolutely. I confirm that it will mean that in both areas. Earlier this week, I announced a review of initial teacher education. I emphasise that one of the dimensions of tackling the problem—it is only one; there are many others—is support for better classroom management. A separate dimension is better initial teacher education on young people with additional support needs. I emphasise that exactly the same things require to be addressed in continuing professional development.
I hope that there will be cross-party support for the need for action on a broad range of issues in relation to school behaviour and school discipline. It is no use simply to highlight problems. We need to concentrate actions to support better behaviour and better discipline. I will listen to any good ideas that members can contribute on those matters.
Undoubtedly in Scotland we need to build on the superb practice that is available in our schools, share that good practice much more effectively and let every school develop approaches that are best suited to their circumstances. The issue is complex and dynamic. I realise that we need to keep working on it. During the summer, professionals, teachers, pupils and parents raised it with me as a concern. For them, it is a significant issue, and I am certainly not going to hide from it.
I am particularly concerned that teachers at times have felt unsupported. I make it clear that we take the issue very seriously and take supporting teachers in their task in that regard very seriously indeed. We will do everything we can to back up their efforts to promote positive behaviour in schools. If that means that we have to change areas of current policy and practice, that is exactly what we will do to achieve our objectives. That is why I have made it clear that any target on exclusion should not override local professional judgments. I make it absolutely clear again that we will not second-guess head teachers' daily judgments on individual cases in schools.
Does the minister feel that exclusion targets, if they still exist following the statement that he has just made, should be abolished altogether in favour of a greater emphasis on monitoring and input from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education as a more rounded way of dealing with the issues?
I agree with Robert Brown's latter point—that we must deal with those issues in a more holistic way. HMIE and its reporting have a role to play. On 27 June, in response to a question from Kenneth Macintosh, I made it clear that although we remain absolutely committed to bringing about a trend of reduction in the number of exclusions from school, for all sorts of reasons, such a reduction must be
"based on the application of the best available management practices, not on a specific target".—[Official Report, Written Answers, 27 June 2003; p 245-46.]
The specific target is no longer relevant to the pursuit of our objectives.
Among other things, I am asking officials to rephrase the guidance on handling exclusions, to emphasise the right of the majority of pupils who are hard-working and well behaved to enjoy a positive learning environment. That circular is currently out for consultation with professionals and I hope to issue it very soon.
Is the minister aware that often the recommendations of joint action teams and joint support teams are overturned because of a lack of alternative facilities for the very small number of young people who are disruptive and who need support and help outwith school to reintegrate them?
As Rosemary Byrne knows from her professional background, a great deal is being done to support young people who display particularly challenging forms of behaviour. We can do that in a range of ways, which includes providing support in schools. I have seen good practice in schools and I hope that that will continue and will be extended. We need to support those young people, to help them to confront their difficult and sometimes offending behaviour, and to try to keep them in the education system, because the alternatives are much worse for society as a whole.
Although there are important issues to address, we must be clear about what the issues are. I do not want to anticipate Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's speech, but he is prone to painting the entire school sector as an active and constantly violent battleground—completely unsafe and out of control. He is wrong every time he does that. He lets down the majority of pupils, who are positively motivated and well behaved, and he lets down our teachers and head teachers, who work hard every day of their professional lives to promote positive behaviour and who are successful in doing so.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton often cites what seems to be his favourite statistic: that a teacher is assaulted every 15 minutes. That is part of his attempt to paint a picture of Scottish schools as reminiscent of Beirut in the 1980s. The same statistic that Lord James has cited in the past and which, I am sure, he will use again today allows me to say that every 15 minutes more than 50,000 teachers are not assaulted and more than 740,000 pupils are not engaged in violent activity.
I am sure that the Conservatives do not characterise every school as a battlefield. Is the minister not concerned that the number of violent assaults has increased sevenfold under this Administration?
I am coming to that point; I am not hiding from the problems. However, playing with statistics in the way in which I have just done and in which Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has done recently is a very dangerous game in this context. Rather than constructing glib soundbites, we need to use the evidence of what is actually happening to inform policies in our schools.
Our schools are not mired in constant high levels of violence, but they face major challenges in changing the behaviour of some of our young people. Some of that behaviour is clearly disruptive and violent. Regrettably, bullying and intimidation of fellow pupils remain an issue. As we all know and have seen all too often in the recent past, bullying can literally destroy lives. School bullying ought to be as unacceptable to society as drunk driving is. Rightly, tackling bullying in our schools is a high priority and is part of the process of tackling wider behavioural problems in Scottish schools.
Teachers report changing behaviours. Pupils and parents are much less tolerant of education being disrupted by sliding behavioural standards that gnaw away at and threaten success in our schools. To paint our schools as places of gross and constant violence is as wrong as to suggest that there are no issues to confront—clearly, there are.
We should welcome the fact that the Executive is encouraging the reporting of incidents in our schools of the sort to which I have referred. There was a time when teachers who reported incidents thought they would be criticised for doing so. They felt that that was a sign of their weakness in the classroom and that somehow such incidents would always reflect on them and their abilities. We are encouraging the recording of incidents on a no-blame, no-stigma basis for teachers. To pick up the specific point that was made by Murdo Fraser, that means that the number of incidents reported has risen, and will probably rise further as we encourage the reporting of incidents so that we can analyse problems more effectively.
We use such statistics to understand better the nature of the problems we face. We should discourage any idea that antisocial behaviour should be tolerated as part of a teacher's daily work or a pupil's daily experience. However, we should not leap from that to making simplistic assumptions about levels of violence and assault and implying that, in this context, reported assault is always physical assault. I will not sweep the matter under the carpet, and that is why we are collecting and publishing statistics on those types of incidents. The Tories never did that when they had the opportunity to do so when they were in power.
There are many examples of good practice in creating positive school communities. Challenging the perception that the school was a battleground was an essential first step in Blairgowrie High School's approach to resolving recent difficulties with bullying and discipline. I have seen how schools tackle practical issues with imagination and enthusiasm. On my visit to Craigton Primary School, I saw sound leadership, a commitment from staff to develop clear expectations of pupils, and systems for rewarding good behaviour and involving pupils in the development of school policies and the school's ethos. I also saw such good practice when I visited Bruntsfield Primary School earlier this week and heard about it when I met the pupil council at Culloden Academy just a few weeks ago. Those positive actions typify the approaches that are being taken throughout Scotland every day of every week.
We must not only back our school leaders but give them the flexibility to respond to situations as they arise. We are doing that not least through the creative use of dedicated resources provided to better behaviour, better learning projects, which will get £10 million a year. However, I want to do more. That is why we are promoting master classes for head teachers and other school staff, which allow them to hear and learn from their peers about new approaches at work.
Teachers emphasise that a major concern is not only violence, but the corrosive effect of lower-level indiscipline. The Scottish Secondary Teachers Association recently published a survey of its members that revealed low-level incidents of loutish behaviour, indiscipline in the form of failure to do homework, disrespect to teachers and other pupils and challenging behaviour in the classroom. It is in their approach to exactly those issues that head teachers and their staff are being increasingly imaginative and creative. They are not only confronting questions of indiscipline and bad behaviour, but doing so in ways that keep young people in the school system, for the reasons that I set out earlier to Rosemary Byrne.
Much excellent work is being funded by the Executive in all those fields of endeavour through our alternatives to exclusion programme. A range of funding streams is helping schools to create a safe and positive learning environment and to tackle problems when they arise. That funding includes £11 million for the alternatives to exclusion programme, £10 million for better behaviour, better learning projects and £20 million for integrated community schools. I could go on at some length, but as the Presiding Officer is looking at me in a menacing way, I will try to move to a conclusion.
I cannot take any further interventions because I am running out of time.
I particularly want to make the point that my officials are exploring new approaches and taking our agenda into schools. For example, we are considering approaches to restorative justice, which can be brought to the school setting in a worthwhile way, just as it has been brought to the wider community. We need to do more for those who have been affected by violence and bad behaviour in schools, making it clear to them that the impact of indiscipline on them has been acknowledged and acted on. I want progress on that in the near future.
Antisocial behaviour in our schools, towards pupils or teachers, is simply unacceptable. Parents, pupils, policy makers and teachers need to work together on the problem. It is a societal problem that we need to address. I hope that we will have a constructive debate today. As I said, if members have positive things to say, I will be listening.
I move,
That the Parliament supports the need to continue a long-term comprehensive programme of action to promote better behaviour for better learning in our schools.
I, too, welcome the debate, as it addresses a key issue in education. I note, as the minister did, that the SNP conference in Inverness is currently debating indiscipline in schools.
Standards in education have been a matter of concern for many years. Much of the debate in recent years has been about the importance of the three Rs in the achievement of core standards. If we do not approach behaviour and discipline problems in schools, we deny children the right to develop to their full potential. I suggest that we need new criteria in Scottish schools: the three Ps. If we are to make progress, pupils need a peaceful, positive and productive environment in which to be educated.
Indiscipline is the factor most often cited as a problem for teachers in their work. Teachers are meant to be educators, yet many complain that they spend too much of their time policing the classroom and dealing with crowd control rather than nurturing young minds. The reported 76 per cent increase in incidents of violence against staff since 1999 is staggering. However, we should also note that general and persistent bad behaviour can be as stressful as, if not more stressful than isolated serious incidents of indiscipline.
There are no quick fixes. The causes of the problems are complex, and the solutions multiple, so the Executive's motion states the obvious. The question for this Parliament is whether Government interventions and strategies are helping or hindering the process. I welcome the work of the discipline task force and the moves to drive that work forward. However, even after six years of a Labour Government, and four in tandem with the Liberal Democrats, the answers are seen as policy developments with no action and no changes in the classroom.
For many teachers, discipline changes have yet to hit the classroom. I use the word "hit" advisedly, as corporal punishment was banned the year after I left school. I went to Ayr Academy, the same school as Alex Neil went to. I might add that he went many, many years before I did. The school's motto is "Respice prospice," which means, "Look backwards, look forwards." Looking back, I remind Parliament what the Government has said.
"Violence and threatening behaviour has no place in a school."
That was said by Helen Liddell on 10 February 1999.
"Violence and threatening behaviour against teachers has no place in our classrooms."
That was said by Sam Galbraith on 16 February 2000.
"Violence and threatening behaviour against teachers has no place in Scotland's schools."
That was said by Jack McConnell on 24 January 2001.
"There can be no excuse for violence and threatening behaviour against staff in Scotland's schools."
That was said by Nicol Stephen on 23 January 2002. Then, this year we had:
"Violence and threatening behaviour is unacceptable in a modern society and will not be tolerated in our schools."
We need to break out of that groundhog-day repetition every time the school violence statistics come out at the end of January—we have got the message. However, for the best part of five years, head teachers have been hamstrung by misplaced targets—as referred to by Robert Brown—on the need to reduce exclusions by one third. That is a failed policy not simply because the target has not been reached but because of the serious concern that, in practice, the policy has compounded rather than relieved discipline problems.
The General Teaching Council's publication of 13 September—which was only last week—has a comment piece by a teacher on indiscipline. It says:
"there is no doubt that the Executive's social-inclusion policy has played a very large part in creating levels of indiscipline and stress previously undreamt of in our worst nightmares."
It goes on to say:
"we find ourselves now working in a state of almost permanent crisis."
The teacher then makes a very important point, which relates to my amendment:
"Unless drastic changes are introduced soon, we very much fear that the authorities will find increasing difficulty in recruiting and retaining staff".
The member says that nothing has really happened in schools, but substantial amounts of money were put in following the work of the discipline task group. Does the member agree that the Scottish schools ethos network has been very useful? A total of 2,000 schools are now involved in that, promoting a better ethos in schools.
The member makes two important points. I welcome the money in the better behaviour, better learning fund, but the problem is that the funding is short term. We must recognise, as the Executive does, the need for long-term funding.
I absolutely agree with what the member says about recognising the school ethos. Leadership in schools comes from head teachers. That is why it was important that the Executive did a U-turn and ensured that head teachers would be empowered to deal with discipline issues in their schools.
Looking forwards, we must recognise that we have to build that peaceful, positive and productive environment. Many of the things that the Executive is doing are laudable. However, I want to address the Government's social inclusion agenda, which will be key to how we cope with future problems.
Mainstreaming is now embedded in the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000. Mainstreaming is endorsed, but I am not convinced that it is being embraced by the Government. Exhortations, guidelines and legislation for mainstreaming could fall badly if not resourced properly.
We have increasing problems with pupils with social, emotional and behavioural needs in our schools. Many such pupils are increasingly being mainstreamed. I fear that, unless there are resources to support their behavioural problems, such pupils will have an increasing effect on mainstream pupils. If we do not take seriously those support needs, we will leave teachers with little in their armoury to ensure that all pupils in their care have a peaceful, positive and productive environment. If that happens, I fear that there will be a backlash from parents. I support mainstreaming absolutely, but we should not be misty-eyed about what a nice thing it is to have. Mainstreaming involves hard choices and it involves many teachers in managing difficult situations.
The member said that she read that a teacher had written that the present extent of inclusion in schools was leading to behavioural problems, but I do not understand that. How can the member square that with the fact that there are similar numbers of pupils in special schools now as there were years ago? Given that that is the case, how can inclusion be leading to worse behaviour in schools?
The member will acknowledge that I was giving a direct quotation from an article. There is increasing identification of pupils' social, emotional and behavioural problems; endemic poverty is putting growing pressure on young people in schools.
I am conscious of time, so I will focus on my amendment. We know that 40 per cent of teachers are about to retire, that we desperately need more recruitment and that the welcome reduction in class sizes will lead to a need for more teachers. New teachers are less experienced at dealing with discipline issues, so we must ensure that they are supported. We have a problem with retirement. The Government must consider strategies to deal with what is about to happen—the retirement of 40 per cent of teachers in a decade. That will take place at the same time as new teachers will have to deal with mainstreaming. We must address that problem strategically.
I also point out that we had better not massage the figures. I am concerned about reports that indicate possible changes in how we define severe incidences of indiscipline. I agree with the minister—it is better that such instances are reported, even if that means that the number of reported instances rises. However, it is more important that we deal with them.
Does Government hinder or help? If we want to allow head teachers to have more powers in their schools, they will need to have space for exclusion zones, for example. One problem with the new public-private partnership contracts is that they often include a restriction on the amount of space that is available, not just for addressing discipline issues, but for providing support for learning. That needs to be tackled.
At long last, head teachers are having more powers restored to them. The school ethos is also imperative. However, unless the Government examines the other issues that I have mentioned—mainstreaming, PPP, teacher retirement, and teacher recruitment and training—it will fail our young people.
It is time to close.
We want a peaceful, positive and productive environment, but I ask the Executive to consider the wider sphere. We do not come up with the individual, practical, day-to-day solutions—our job is to be strategic.
I move amendment S2M-379.2, to insert at end:
"and notes the importance that teacher recruitment will have for this process."
I welcome the opportunity to debate the importance of behaviour in schools and the effects of poor behaviour on learning. When the minister took up his new office, he put it on record that discipline was one of his top priorities. Although we welcome that assurance, we consider that the key to improving discipline is to give greater freedom to head teachers and schools to deal with problems that relate to indiscipline.
The announcement that there will be a review of teacher training in relation to indiscipline and disruption is a much-needed development but, as well as teachers, parents must play a vital role in tackling the subject.
Although I acknowledge that the minister has changed the emphasis of his policy in relation to the target to reduce exclusions, I have to say that the target did contribute to the reduction of exclusions by head teachers, which failed to arrest the trend in increasing levels of violence and indiscipline. It is not surprising that teacher absence through stress continued to be a matter of serious concern.
I will respond to the minister in the spirit of good humour with which he approached the subject. Of course he is right—there are examples and models of good practice in Scotland. Half the members of the Education Committee saw such an example this morning at Drummond Community High School. Its excellent document "Promoting Lifelong Learning and Mutual Respect" contains a page on guidelines and expectations, which is particularly significant, because eight of the expectations could just as well apply to MSPs before they enter the chamber. They are:
"1 All … should arrive on time.
2 Be prepared by bringing required … equipment and homework so deadlines can be met.
3 Co-operate … by listening and following instructions.
4 Do your best at all times by working quietly and safely.
5 Treat others and their work with respect at all times.
6 Everyone is allowed access to drinking water.
7 Mobile phones should be turned off and put away.
8 Always be positive to others."
I welcome the positive approach that the minister has taken to the subject.
I am interested to hear the member raise the rule about switching off mobile phones given that his mobile phone went off when we were visiting Drummond Community High School.
That is a cautionary tale and I take it to heart.
I would be grateful if the minister would consider the six proposals that I am about to set out.
First, the Executive should give more freedom to schools. That would enable every head teacher to draw up their own code of conduct and give them the power to enforce it.
Secondly, we would give more power to head teachers to allow a zero-tolerance policy to be adopted for those who break the rules, if the headmaster and school were certain that that should be a priority. Such a policy would enable head teachers to exclude persistent offenders from the classroom.
Thirdly, we would protect grant in aid for schools that offer vital education for children who have social, emotional and behavioural difficulties, such as the Balikinrain residential schools in Glasgow. Although we acknowledge that funding for such schools is expensive, it is justified on merit for those concerned.
Fourthly, we are in favour of on-site units where disruptive pupils can receive education that meets their needs until they can be absorbed back into the main stream of the school without disadvantage to himself or herself or the rest of the class. I acknowledge that that could involve considerable expenditure, but it is justified on merit.
Fifthly, parents have an important role in tackling indiscipline. Where problems arise, teachers and parents should discuss them calmly and objectively. We are glad that the Executive is involving parents with a view to ensuring that homework is done and that there is good behaviour in schools.
Sixthly, we would like to increase flexibility in the secondary school system so as to offer all secondary 3 and secondary 4 pupils a chance to access further education. If it is established that some youngsters in that age group become disillusioned with the education system, offering a wider range of courses, particularly vocational courses, could help to find a solution. Glasgow City Council's vocational programme is a good example of how issues of in loco parentis, travel arrangements and funding can be dealt with.
Discipline in schools is important and should command the highest priority. Effective solutions should be put in place to ensure that the disruptive behaviour of the few does not damage the education of the many. That is the principle.
I acknowledge the validity of what the minister said about there being a great many to whom the issues surrounding indiscipline do not apply. Nonetheless, where it exists, indiscipline is a real problem. We want clear and unequivocal support to implement discipline, accompanied by high teaching standards, good teacher morale and pupil attainment.
I move amendment S2M-379.1, to leave out from "supports" to end and insert:
"believes that headteachers and schools should have greater freedom to deal with bullying and disruptive pupils to maintain good order in schools."
I was conscious of two slightly different trends in the opening speeches. Despite Fiona Hyslop's initial protestations, she seemed to blame the Scottish Executive for everything that is happening in relation to discipline in schools. From what she said, I believe that she was talking not just about strategic matters, but about the detail. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton seems to be strong on the idea of local schools and their head teachers having more powers. I do not recognise his description of what happens in local schools. Schools already have considerable local powers. If I am picking up the signals correctly when I visit schools, schools are looking for more guidance, standard setting and spreading of good practice, particularly in relation to special needs. I say that just as an introductory note, rather than as a general point.
It is important to put discipline in schools in a wider context; it should not be looked at only in the school context. Behavioural problems result from individual behaviour, disablement or learning difficulty problems; inadequate, drug-using or abusive parents; stresses and the challenge of puberty; and short-term issues, such as family bereavement. Bullying can be a factor, as can boredom. Indeed, it might be said that a lack of personal discipline and organisation are the natural order of things, to some degree, with young people generally, as part of the process of growing up, testing limits, and developing personality, and of rites of passage.
I agree that the problems that Robert Brown highlights exist, but they have always existed and, as a former teacher, I know that they did not necessarily lead to discipline problems. We have to address the fact that many teachers find that discipline has broken down so far that they do not wish to continue in the profession, despite the fact that they care deeply about the welfare of children. The involvement of parents and society as a whole must be addressed.
Margaret Ewing's point is well taken. I was going to put it in context. Most disciplinary issues are low level, but the difficulty is the persistent and demoralising effect of those low-level problems. It is likely that such problems are increasing. It is difficult to be clear about the statistics, because there are reporting and definitional issues, as has been mentioned. However, a rise in reported incidents from 1,898 in 1998-99 to 5,412 in 2001-02 is a bit beyond mere statistical error and is in line with the impressions that many of us get and the anecdotes that we hear when we go round schools and other institutions.
It is fair to add that only 237 of the incidents in 2001-02 were serious enough to be reported to the police. There may be a question about the cut-off point and there may be definitional issues but, as the minister suggested, serious incidents are clearly not the norm across the board, although each case is a major problem.
The Executive survey in January 2003 found that 37 per cent of all the incidents were in primary schools, 30 per cent were in secondary schools, 32 per cent were in the special sector and 2 per cent were in pre-school centres. I suspect that some problems in secondary schools translate into higher truancy figures, because people who are more mature can leave the schools. The fact that a third of the incidents took place in special schools or special units makes it clear that discipline problems are not primarily just issues of deterrence or punishment. They are, at least in part—and this echoes Margaret Ewing's point—to do with support and structures to help young people with problems of various sorts, some of which in the past were not recognised to the extent that they might have been.
For whatever reasons they arise, behavioural and indiscipline problems in schools are barriers to learning, but they are diminished by a positive school structure, ethos and strategy. Part of such a structure is a mechanism to relieve pressure by the exclusion of the child, temporary or otherwise. I welcome the minister's confirmation that targets can sometimes have side effects that are not in line with the original objective. I say as an aside that I am increasingly sceptical about the value of a good bit of our monitoring and target-setting machinery, which can sometimes give rise to such side effects. The central targets must be kept in mind.
As Fiona Hyslop mentioned, there is a major training challenge, which is dominated by tight time constraints. Working with children with special needs or children who pose a disciplinary problem is challenging and, like people in other challenging occupations, teachers need the support of high-quality and relevant training and of demanding good-practice standards. It is no good if teachers tell us, as they have done on Education Committee visits, that they cannot go for training because they have no time. Does the minister accept that the provision of proper, adequate, relevant and acceptable training, and the time to go for training, is an issue? Will he give me some assurance that, in special-needs areas in particular, teacher training—not just when teachers come into the profession, but as part of continuing development—will be strengthened and that adequate time will be found for it, despite curriculum pressures? That is an important issue.
The problem is multifaceted. I welcome the broad emphasis of the Executive's strategy, but I believe that there is a considerable way to go on the ground to ensure that the good intentions at the centre can be carried through most effectively in partnership with local authorities and education institutions.
I welcome the discipline task group's report and the opportunity to debate such an important issue.
There is a need to go much further than other members have suggested. A small minority of young people are disruptive and have a huge impact on the learning and teaching of others in our schools. As has been said, there is low-level indiscipline, which must be dealt with as well. The majority of young people want to learn and they want to focus. They are in school to learn and are supported by their parents. However, there are some young people out there who are struggling and whose parents are struggling. But, the assistance that they require is not available.
I asked Peter Peacock about joint support teams and joint action teams. I can give many examples in which those teams—which include educational psychologists, guidance teachers, pupil-support teachers and social workers working with parents and young people—have had their recommendations about young people ignored, despite the fact that they are professional bodies, because there are no resources to implement what they recommend. There should be a complete review of the system and a full discussion about what teeth such organisations have and what can be done to support schools and the small minority of young people who require help.
Other issues cause problems in our schools and need to be addressed. Many young people in our schools have mental health problems and, unfortunately, are on antidepressants. Some young people are school refusers, either because they have been bullied and are afraid to come to school or because there are issues at home that they cannot deal with. The shortage of people working in child and mental health is huge. There are waiting lists. Parents cannot get the help that they require and have to wait for ages. When they are referred, they have to go on to a priority list. Many young people are not getting the services that they need.
There are problems with getting help from social services. Many parents want to support their child but are having difficulty doing so. We all know that there is a shortage of social workers—it has been mentioned in the chamber many times in the months that I have been here. We need a special recruitment scheme for social workers. Something imaginative is needed to bring people into the service. Those who work in young people's support teams to support staff in schools provide an excellent service, but they are being called back into the social services department to do generic social work so that other social workers can do the legal work that has to be done. The situation is disastrous and it must be fixed.
We cannot keep on being punitive with disruptive young people and their parents. We must provide positive help to encourage parents to support their child. I know many parents who want to support their child, but the services and agencies are not there for them. The system has to be joined up. We must have the people on the ground to give that kind of support.
I very much agree with what has been said, particularly as I was an administrator in social work. However, in addition to the matters that Rosemary Byrne mentioned, we must remember the children who are young carers, who are not identified and who do not have parental support. There must be some mechanism by which we can help them.
I agree that such a mechanism should exist. There are some good organisations out there, but not all the work is joined up, which is part of the problem.
Class sizes have not been mentioned. We can talk in the chamber all we like, and I welcome the moves that have been made in English and maths in S1 and S2, but we must make a definite commitment to review class sizes across the board and to look towards a 21st century education system. Young people from backgrounds of deprivation, of drug addiction—which has been mentioned—of alcohol abuse or of domestic violence need to be in settings where they can be educated and mentored at the same time.
Will the member give way?
I do not have much time.
The member is in her last minute.
We should have a national strategy for mentoring. Buddying systems with senior pupils work well and are excellent, but we must also consider good role models and find adults in the community and in schools who can mentor young people who have no one at home to talk to them and no means of putting across their problems.
I am sorry that I had only a short time for my speech. It is a pity that my amendment was not selected, as I have much more to say. I know that I have gone over the time for my speech, so I will just say that I cannot support the motion or the amendments. I hope that we can debate the subject again in future.
I have an interest in the debate as a former teacher and teacher trainer and as a member of the Educational Institute of Scotland. When we say that better discipline means better learning, it is important to reaffirm what better learning means. To me, it means that we give every child the best start in life that we can. Children will have different achievements, but we should hope that they realise their potential. Discipline affects achievement, so it is important. Without discipline, the teaching and learning environment will suffer.
The minister mentioned the discipline task group, which reported in 2001. Fiona Hyslop gives the Scottish Executive no credit at all, but the task group considered many important aspects, one of which was the emphasis on positive behaviour, rather than negative matters and exclusion. As I have said, the number of schools that have joined the Scottish schools ethos network has greatly increased. The indicators that form part of that approach are to be found not only in the reporting by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education, but in school development planning. That is important, as it means that the approach is interwoven into a school's structure.
Another important factor is teacher training and training needs at the pre-service level, the probationary level and the continuing professional development level. I welcome the recent news from the minister about the second stage of the initial teacher education review, but he did not mention that that will widen access to teaching to people who might be thinking about changing or starting a job but whose circumstances might prevent them from going to university for their course. Distance learning will be helpful to them, so the review is to be welcomed.
It is widely accepted that the teacher training curriculum must be altered. Courses have changed gradually to cover more discipline issues and to include more information about social inclusion and special educational needs. That must continue, because we need to make teachers more aware of the inter-agency work that must be done with parents, social services and others to tackle discipline problems. I think that Rosemary Byrne was beginning to make that point. We must ensure that our teachers are properly informed about all those matters, particularly the operation of community schools.
My next substantive point follows on from Fiona Hyslop's comments about social inclusion issues. There is no doubt that she noted the views of a group of teachers that are detailed at the back of the GTC report. Three resolutions that were passed at the most recent EIS conference highlighted social inclusion as a particular issue in relation to funding, adequate consultation and planning. The EIS also resolved that nothing should compromise either the teaching and learning of others—which echoes Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's point that the few should not affect the many—or the health, safety and welfare of staff and pupils. Those are real issues.
I took exception to Fiona Hyslop's speech only when she seemed to confuse social, emotional and behavioural difficulties with special educational needs and social inclusion. She did not seem to know the difference between the two. Indeed, I thought that Robert Brown, too, was a bit confused about the issue. It is important to remember Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's comments about carrying out some background work before we come to the chamber.
Does the member not appreciate that the range of special educational needs includes SEBD?
That is exactly what I said. The Scottish Parliament information centre report that we received today points out that
"there is no agreed definition of SEBD and that SEN covers a much wider spectrum—indeed only 4.3% of pupils with Special Educational Needs … had their main difficulty reported as social and emotional difficulties".
That makes my point. We should not equate SEBD with the whole social inclusion agenda.
Although it is important to realise that, as Fiona Hyslop and Rosemary Byrne were correct to point out, there are real issues to address, we must accept that we are making real progress. The discipline task group has made important recommendations and suggestions on how to move forward. We must also remember that we have the McCrone agenda and that work is continuing on the second stage review of teacher education. I hope that Fiona Hyslop and the Opposition accept that we are addressing those issues in the long term.
Although Fiona Hyslop and I both went to Ayr Academy, the level of excellence in its history classes was never up to the standard of your classes at Belmont Academy in Ayr, Presiding Officer. Perhaps I should point out that the discipline at Belmont Academy was also excellent.
You will not get any more time for those comments.
The issue is complex. After all, many factors contribute to indiscipline in our schools. I will highlight one factor that has not been mentioned so far in the debate—motivation.
In some cases, pupils are unruly or undisciplined because they are not adequately motivated by what is going on in the class. That might be because of the curriculum or because they do not have a good relationship with the teacher. Indeed, the teacher's inspirational qualities might not live up to a pupil's needs.
As well as examining a range of issues within the school and the many other important issues that Rosemary Byrne raised, we should find out how we can improve motivation among our young people in the classroom. I will give the chamber some examples in which practical steps could be taken to improve motivation in both primary and secondary education.
One practical step relates to class sizes. We all recognise the importance of reducing class sizes in order to improve the quality of education. The evidence shows that a by-product of smaller class sizes is better discipline in class. That is because more attention is paid to each pupil and children feel more motivated when they are part of a smaller group where any misbehaviour is more likely to be noticed not just by the teacher, but by the child's peers in the class—in those circumstances, children often apply peer pressure on others to behave themselves.
Does the member agree that some children are vulnerable because of difficulties at home or what they get up to outside school and that a class of even 15 or 20 can be a difficult place? Does he also agree that we should be seeking flexibility in schools to allow for very small groups to be organised at certain times and for bigger groups to be managed elsewhere? We have to be careful not to be too prescriptive about class numbers, although I acknowledge the important points that he makes about how people get on in class.
I could not agree more with Johann Lamont—what she says is absolutely the case. However, I am arguing a point of principle: if class sizes were smaller than they are in many areas at present, that could contribute to better behaviour in the classroom.
My second practical step would apply particularly to secondary education. We need to introduce more flexibility for children aged 14 and above. In some cases, we are forcing those children down a route to stay at school when in fact they are ready for further education or even vocational training.
What are the member's views about incorporating vocational education into the school curriculum? Does he support the Conservatives' suggestion that children should go to separate schools when they are 14 or does he believe that vocational education should be included in the existing secondary school curriculum?
I would allow such children to go to further education colleges. Earlier this year, in the first session of Parliament, the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee addressed that issue in its lifelong learning report. We achieved all-party agreement that far greater flexibility from the age of 14 onwards would be beneficial—
I was a member of that committee and I would not want Alex Neil to leave members with the impression that it agreed that children should be separated at the age of 14, with some being siphoned off into FE colleges. Schools should be able to provide flexibility in conjunction with FE colleges and if pupils wish to remain in school they should be able to do so.
With Rhona Brankin in the chamber, I would never try to mislead anyone—I know that I would get three of the belt from her if I did.
Flexibility is the key issue in relation to motivation. One of the reasons—although not the only reason—why we should introduce that flexibility would be to improve the motivational levels of those of our 14-year-olds who are not keen to take an academic route in school that will lead to university.
I have given examples of practical steps that could be taken in respect of class sizes and 14-year-olds and, finally, I want to emphasise the importance of external resources and support. I do not have time to develop my point, but I specifically mention the resources that are available to help children with autism and in particular with Asperger's syndrome. Frankly, the resources to support such children are still wholly inadequate to meet their needs.
I congratulate the minister on choosing the subject of the debate. The issue is vital and—crucially—it is one over which the Parliament has the power to do something. However, I hope that his opening remarks do not represent an attempt to underplay what is a real problem in Scottish schools. I have had almost 20 years' experience of—as the public see it—a real job at the chalkface and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that discipline is the most important issue to be tackled if we are to improve standards in Scottish schools.
No one measure will of itself solve the problems that teachers face in coping with disruptive pupils, but a number of key areas must be addressed in order to tackle those problems seriously. We should start by recognising that discipline begins at home. For proof of that, if anyone needed it, we need look no further than primary 1 classes Scotland-wide, where it is, sadly, not uncommon to have a five-year-old child totally out of control.
Intervening early to curb that pattern of behaviour, which is learned at home, can be done only by working in partnership with parents. That is a potential problem in itself. The stereotype of a parent is of someone who is interested in their children's work and supportive of school. Although the vast majority of parents conform to that stereotype, a growing number of parents did not have a good learning experience and are now anti-school and anti-teacher. More needs to be done, therefore, to promote parenting skills and to break down the barriers that lead to a continuation, or even an escalation, of disruptive behaviour. North Lanarkshire Council is to be commended for promoting two booklets, published by the Family Caring Trust, that outline a commonsense approach to parenting.
The Scottish Executive, the SNP and the SSP all seem to favour a reduction in class sizes. That is a worthwhile aim if no discipline problems exist. In response to Alex Neil, I can confirm that our stance is a point of principle, but it is not about numbers. The principle is that there must be the flexibility and the mechanism for removing disruptive pupils from the class; if that mechanism does not exist, the benefits that people hope will accrue from smaller class sizes will not materialise. That must be the Scottish Executive's first priority.
In primary schools, an overcrowded curriculum puts pressure on teachers to cover too many subjects, many of which are activity based. That in turn provides more opportunity for potentially disruptive pupils to play up. More emphasis on core subjects would aid learning and help to improve education standards and discipline. East Ayrshire Council's framework for intervention provides a systematic approach to dealing with low-level disruptive behaviour in the classroom and is worthy of further examination as a model for a comprehensive strategy to tackle discipline problems.
If the minister is serious about promoting better behaviour, he must realise that there are limitations to the Executive's mainstreaming policy. For some children currently attending special schools, mainstream education is simply not appropriate. Alana Ross, president of the EIS, said:
"Sometimes including one child can be to the detriment of others."
There must still be alternative education provision for some young people who need it.
Will the member give way?
Yes, certainly.
I thank Margaret Mitchell for allowing me to intervene. Of course, Margarets are all saints in Scotland.
As someone who is qualified in special educational needs, I understand the complexities involved in referring a child to a special school. I had to go through that process, counselling parents and saying, "I think this is the best course of action for your child." Does Margaret Mitchell understand how difficult that can be at times?
As someone who has taught in special schools, I know that that environment is comfortable for many of the children and that to remove them purely for reasons of social inclusion—almost political correctness—would be criminal.
There must be alternative provision for young people who need it and with whom mainstream education cannot cope. The question for the minister is whether he will accept that fact and act accordingly. Failure to do so will undermine all the initiatives that are being taken and the hard work that is being done to tackle discipline problems in Scottish schools.
I start by picking up on a couple of points that Margaret Mitchell made. I congratulate her on highlighting the attempts made by two Labour local authorities with respect to the difficult issue that we are discussing. It is comforting to hear our political Opposition congratulating Labour local authorities for a change, rather than criticising them.
On the point that Margaret Mitchell made about parents with poor educational experiences and children with difficulties—
I hope that the member's criteria for considering such initiatives are not based on narrow dogma and the political party that introduces the initiative, and that he welcomes initiatives that can be embraced Scotland-wide. If he is being serious, I hope that he considers initiatives in that spirit.
I deliberately picked up on the fact that the member mentioned two local authorities that are Labour controlled for the very reason that she mentions. Too often in the past, when speaking about education on behalf of the Conservatives, Murdo Fraser in particular has spent most of his time having a go at Labour-controlled local authorities.
Margaret Mitchell made a worthy point about the difficulties that parents with poor educational experiences have. However, we should recognise that times have moved on, certainly since I was at school. Then, parents were actively discouraged from being involved in their children's education and were kept at arm's length from schools. The only times when parents were in schools—apart from the annual parents' evening—were when their children had done something wrong. The change in emphasis in our education system towards bringing parents into their children's schools, particularly in the primary years, should be welcomed. That change has been quite successful.
We are fortunate to have as MSPs so many former teachers who can bring their particular expertise and ideas to debates such as this. I am not a qualified teacher, but I spent almost 15 years working with youngsters with social, educational and behavioural difficulties.
I note that the Executive has dropped the formal target to reduce school exclusions by one third, but it should be acknowledged that it was necessary to highlight school exclusions as an issue. In the past, the number of exclusions often had little to do with what was happening in a school and more to do with the school's general ethos. I remember that, when I first started my social work practice in the early 1980s, two high schools that served exactly the same catchment area had exclusion policies that meant that one school had the highest number of exclusions in Scotland and the other had a considerably lower-than-average number of exclusions. There was no explanation for that situation, except the schools' ethos.
We must be careful about saying that indiscipline issues in our schools can be resolved simply by giving more power to head teachers to do whatever they wish to do in their schools. Too often in the past, young people were on an exclusion merry-go-round. They would be excluded from one school, sent to another school and then excluded from that school. From previous debates, we know the appalling statistics relating to youngsters who have been outwith the mainstream education system and the resultant blighting of their life chances.
Like others, I accept that a small minority of pupils are disruptive in our schools, but their actions have a grossly negative impact on teachers and other pupils and students. Sometimes when we discuss exclusion and disruption in schools, we forget about the effects on other pupils. The issue is not just about the effects of disruption on teachers or their difficulties with teaching, but about the difficulties for other individuals, particularly in relation to bullying. We have begun to acknowledge that the problem of bullying is perhaps far greater than had been recognised in the past and we are now doing something about it.
On Monday afternoon, I was at Queen Anne High School, which is in my constituency and which has just been rebuilt. I went round it with the rector and talked to youngsters in the learning and behavioural support units. Among the consistent themes that emerged when we discussed the differences between the old Queen Anne High School building and the new building were how much safer youngsters felt in the new building, the importance of safety for pupils who have social, educational and behavioural difficulties and how those pupils' views of the school had changed.
Rosemary Byrne spoke of inter-agency working both within the school and outwith it, involving guidance staff, educational psychologists, community education workers and social workers. I welcome her comments. If we are to resolve the difficulty, we should not regard what happens in schools as happening only in schools—far too often, what happens in schools is a mirror image of what happens in our communities. We should not regard indiscipline in schools as having nothing to do with what goes on outside them. It is important that the agencies that are involved with families outwith our schools are also involved with youngsters in the schools.
We must think about the youngsters who have difficulties. However—I return to an issue that I have talked about in the past—the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 gives local authorities a corporate responsibility for the welfare and well-being of children. Too often, we compartmentalise those youngsters' difficulties and see them as educational or social problems but not as local authority difficulties that the local authorities must solve by working together.
I pay tribute to my former colleagues in the teaching profession—all of them well trained and doing extremely good work in the classroom with, for the most part, excellent materials, although everybody could do with better resources. Over the years, plenty of attention has been paid to the development of all the subjects in our curriculum. I will address first the Executive's document and, secondly, my concerns about the overall shape of our education system and how that is relevant to the debate.
I am pleased that the word "support" appears in the document on at least eight occasions in the context of our directly supporting, in one way or another, children who have problems. However, I am concerned about some of the language that is used in the document: "positive discipline", "managing", "discipline", "expectations", "rewards", "behaviour", "management", "disciplinary matters", "conduct and behaviour", "mechanisms", "responsibility", "behavioural difficulties" and "behaviour management". I pluck those words and phrases out of the 36 recommendations in "Better Behaviour—Better Learning". The language of the document suggests that the mindset behind it is similar to the mindset behind the antisocial behaviour bill, which has not been especially well received by many of the people who deal with the concerns of children and young people in Scotland.
As Fiona Hyslop said, if we do not solve the problems of indiscipline, we undermine the possibility of young people reaching their potential. Our system is not assisting young people to reach their full potential. Over the past 20 years, there has been a continual chipping away at the provision of music, art, physical education, dance, craft and design and outdoor education. What should we do with children who have problems with self-worth? We should get them out into the countryside, doing something and meeting challenges. We should get them outside, risk taking. If young people have problems in adapting to society and getting on, we should put them on courses run by the Airborne Initiative and the Outward Bound Trust. If a school wants to help its young people to socialise and get used to collective working, it should send the whole first year to an outdoor learning centre. We need to recognise that education is an experience, not a process, for our young people.
The Executive's document will address the problems in some ways, but a lot of it is to do with either commonsense measures or initiatives that might or might not work. Above all, it is mechanistic in its approach. We need to look at things from the child's point of view, but this is a top-down document. Is indiscipline among young people always a function of the child, or is it a function of the way in which the child or young person reacts to the education system? I would say that in many cases it is the latter. The system does not provide enough for some children to realise their potential.
Will the member give way?
No. I am sorry, but I am the only member to speak for the Scottish Green Party.
The 36 suggestions in the document are fairly sensible, but 10 of them are about control, 13 are about uniformity and 11 are about providing resources and cash; only eight provide us with new ideas.
We need a system that is fit for purpose to produce confident, skilled young people whose potential is largely realised or encouraged while they are at our schools. We must recognise that fulfilment, self-worth and opportunities to work and act collectively are crucial to engaging fully all our young people in the educational experience.
I will go through many of the outside organisations and people who have offered guidance. First, there was R F Mackenzie back in the 1960s, who challenged our system and said that it could do so much more to help young people to realise their potential.
A second guidance source is the grounds for learning week. This week, schools throughout Scotland are getting children of the classroom and into challenging situations. A third source is the home education movement, which will take some pleasure from recommendation 22 in the Executive's document.
Another source of guidance is Professor Peter Higgins, who has been developing at Moray House school of education a training course for all holders of the Batchelor of Education and graduate teachers—that course is now on the shelf. A further source is Professor John Smythe, who worked for years on the Scottish environmental education council and whose reports are still gathering dust somewhere in Victoria Quay. Other guidance sources are the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, the eco-schools, education 21, the WWF, Scottish Centres, the Institute for Outdoor Learning, the John Muir Trust, RSPB Scotland and the Lagganlia and Benmore Lodge outdoor education centres.
None of those sources is working in an educational environment that will focus on and help them to develop our education system towards where I think it should be going. [Interruption.] Someone muttered from the audience.
Keep going, Robin.
I am sorry but you will not keep going, Mr Harper. You will finish now.
I will wind up by saying that, as far as I know, the Executive's big education debate has been shelved. However, we need to reignite that debate and take a look at what our entire education system offers our young people. The Executive should not simply think that producing the "Better Behaviour—Better Learning" document will solve everything.
And yet, and yet—it is not all bad news out there. Let me describe the situation in the very far north. I suppose that what will follow will be an unapologetic advertisement for my constituency. If members look back at Highlands history, they will see that the very far north was a rough place. As John Farquhar Munro and Alasdair Morrison know well, the McKays used to come stravaiging out of the north and lay waste to the lowlands or the gentle towns that were not really Highland towns, such as my home town of Tain. If one goes back to burgh minutes, one sees that, time and again, the McKays came into a town, stole all the cattle, raped the women and generally trashed the place.
And yet, if I took members north to Farr High School, in Bettyhill in Sutherland, they would find one of the best examples of good practice. The key is the quality of the leadership of the rector, Jim Johnston. He is humane in his approach and courteous, and he expects courtesy from pupils in the way that they treat their teachers, one another and, indeed, the rest of society.
There are two examples of good practice in the school that I think would be of interest to members. There is a care group, which consists of Liz McIntosh, who is the principal teacher of management, the rector, the deputy rector and a guidance teacher. That group works well; it reviews individual cases and, if a problem is flagged up, the group can take that on board, track it and seek a solution in a personal way through a yellow-card system. If a pupil is guilty of a misdemeanour, they are given a yellow card, which means that for the next 24 hours the teachers of all the classes that the pupil attends sign off the yellow card and comment on the pupil's performance. That personal approach is about tracking pupils, which seems to work in a positive way. People might say that it is all very well doing that in a small Highlands school, but I think that that is an example of good practice. When ministers and others go looking for examples of best practice, they should take in a wide geographic spread.
Farr High School has a pupil council that is involved in Highland Youth Voice and the Sutherland teenage action group. This is an old point—I know that Rob Gibson and Peter Peacock have heard me make it many times—but empowering pupils and giving them the dignity that comes from having their views accepted and listened to can go a long way towards young people taking responsibility for their actions. We have all seen that work—the minister and I have seen it work in the Highlands in the past. We should listen to pupils, learn from them and tell them that their views are important.
Earlier, the point was made, wisely, that the issue is not only about schools but about society in general. I hope that the day will come when every community council in Scotland will include a few members of the fourth, fifth or sixth years of the local secondary school as that will make a huge difference.
Until we take young people seriously, we will not do a lot to improve the discipline situation. However, there are many examples of good practice in the country and I urge ministers to visit those schools and take from them what knowledge they can.
I welcome the restatement in this debate of our commitment to children and young people and, in particular, the emphasis on behaviour in schools. I will also comment on the proposed review of teacher training.
Like others, I talk from a position of some recent experience. This year, I was one of the teachers from my school who produced a response for the EIS survey on social, emotional and behavioural difficulties. Further, because I filled in some of the reports on assaults on teachers, I have even taken complaints to the police. However, I do not think that we do teachers any favours if we concentrate on the small minority of pupils who are extremely disruptive. Although I agree with the call for resources, alternative provision and, in particular, social workers, I am disappointed that, at times, the tone of the debate has been disheartening. That is not helpful to education.
On behaviour, instead of a late concentration on exclusion, schools are encouraged to consider positive behaviour models, which is a much better approach. The nurturing of a positive atmosphere, in which people can work unimpeded by interruptions, is a strategy that every establishment should strive for. In that regard, I would like to add to Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's comparison of schools with our place of work. Yesterday, at the Equal Opportunities Committee, we new members expressed our delight at the welcoming and helpful atmosphere in the Scottish Parliament and congratulated the personnel office on its achievement. That atmosphere has been deliberately nurtured and encouraged through on-going training and monitoring. One of the Parliament's staff told me about the effects that his being positive has on the driver of the bus that he takes to work. He said that he has started to smile and say good morning and that the driver is beginning to respond positively and spread good feelings generally. That simple but effective strategy is being introduced into schools and is needed to improve the ethos.
However, it is difficult for some pupils to adopt that strategy as they are frightened that something more will be read into a friendly greeting than was intended or are set against showing any softness in front of their peers. That is what teachers are up against when they try to change the ethos of the school.
Although improving academic excellence is still a major goal, we are also striving to develop different kinds of intelligence, such as emotional intelligence. Education is involved in a different ball game now but people are beginning to pick up on such concepts—in fact, emotional intelligence was mentioned on "The Bill" last night, so the idea that different kinds of intelligence should be encouraged is beginning to get into popular culture.
Our young people are entering a much more complex society and need diverse skills. One size does not fit all—not for schools, teachers or pupils.
I welcome the review of teacher training but caution against making changes for the sake of it. The recent McCrone agreement, detailed in "A Teaching Profession for the 21st Century", has already brought about a great many changes, some of which, such as the restructuring of promoted posts that is going on around Scotland, will take years to bed in.
Education is an ever-changing environment. Whatever up-to-date methods or approaches are introduced, it is important to remember that, after 10, 20 or 30 years of teaching, the thing that will remain the same for a teacher is that there will still be change. Teachers have to cope with that changing environment positively to help pupils to thrive.
The minister has announced that more emphasis in training will be put on classroom management, which is itself an ever-changing skill. Nowadays, we expect the curriculum to be tailor made to reduce boredom. Of course, if a pupil is interested in a subject area, they will show their interest and learn more easily and more thoroughly. However, we now expect the curriculum to include citizenship, health, parenting skills and anti-bullying measures, which are all essential. Citizenship is essential because we want and need our society to flourish. Health is obviously essential and deserves its new emphasis in the present climate. With the roll-out of the new community school approach, every school will soon become a health-promoting school. Discussions on how to stop bullying are absolutely necessary, and I have always believed that there should be room on the curriculum for discussions about basic parenting skills. We expect a great deal from new teachers because, as well as all that, they must be aware of the array of learning needs from dyslexia and dyspraxia to disaffection, which is possibly the most challenging need of all.
I agree with Marlyn Glen about the importance of teacher training and welcome the Executive's announcement this week. Does she agree that pressures on new teachers will increase purely and simply because of the number of older teachers who are retiring and that new teachers will face many pressures in the next few years?
Yes, I certainly agree. The age profile of teachers needs to be examined carefully. I welcome the idea that the age profile should become lower, so I welcome young teachers into the profession.
On top of everything else that teachers have to do, they have to lose their focus on their own subject specialisms so that pupils are fully prepared for further and higher education and for work. We must consider carefully what the point of education is. It is not only for work, although a well-educated work force is crucial to growing our economy. Different kinds of wealth are to be encouraged; we need education to increase social wealth, too, and young people therefore need to be educated for their own lives, as well as for work. That is sometimes forgotten.
Our young people can be surprisingly worldly wise. Sometimes, their expectations can be too low. Most of them have few illusions about the paths that their lives will take, and we need to help each of them to see their potential. That concentration on the individual has changed education for new teachers and pupils.
I note the slogan "better teaching, better learning". It is powerful, but we must be careful of the messages behind slogans and ensure that they are positive. Perhaps it would be better to say, "Better teachers mean better teaching," but we must acknowledge that teachers strive all the time. I therefore suggest as a slogan "even better teachers, even better learning". I urge the minister not only to consider policy, but to set a positive tone.
Mr Rob Gibson (Highlands and Islands) (SNP):
We are debating a long-term, comprehensive plan of action to promote better behaviour for better learning in our schools. I was a teacher from the early 1970s to the mid-1990s and I would like to mention a number of aspects of that experience—from the child's point of view and from the teacher's—that are still relevant to the debate.
Some of the revealing remarks about the way in which teacher training must change have long-term implications. We have been talking for the past three decades about making teacher training more relevant to ensure that, when teachers land in classrooms, they are able to manage the conditions that they are likely to face.
Will Rob Gibson give way?
I ask Rosemary Byrne to let me get into my stride. I will not give way at the moment.
I was a guidance teacher for 17 years and I point out that guidance teachers had some of the better training for dealing with the counselling that was required when children had to be removed from a classroom or were excluded.
Some fundamental aspects of education have not changed—the buildings for a start. Apart from a few that have been designed for the purpose, the buildings do not lend themselves to allowing teachers to maintain contact with a child when that child is excluded or removed from the classroom to enable intervention to take place so that they behave differently when they come back into the classroom.
Exclusion is a removal. The disruption of the learning process for the majority in the classroom is a major issue and the disruption for individual who has been removed is never overcome. In that situation, a spiral of decline develops. That is a fundamental part of the problem in secondary schools. In teacher training colleges, such issues were rarely addressed properly for many decades up to the present.
The teachers who will be recruited come from the modern society with which we now deal. They, too, may be disaffected. Most of us know what disruptive behaviour is like because we have been involved in it as pupils. We may have been disruptive in a mischievous way when we were young, but in some cases the cause may have been low self-esteem—who knows? Perhaps some people's self-esteem improved as they became adults. However, we must recognise that in the classroom the system will always be tested by pupils, whatever their age. Teachers must be able to cope with a situation in which children want to kick over the traces, even for a short time.
If the long-term, comprehensive approach is to be effective, we must find the skills and time to give teachers the experience to pick up new ways of dealing with disruptive behaviour. Robin Harper said that we have a well-trained work force. We have a work force that is allowed to spend more time on training that may be targeted more specifically by the system than it was before, but the question whether teachers are better trained to deal with the circumstances that they have to confront remains unanswered.
My experience is that some of the best initiatives have come from individual schools and teachers. They include the anti-bullying strategy from St John's Town of Dalry and the buddying system that we learned about in videos from Perth High School. That good practice was cascaded throughout the country, but it did not emanate from teacher training colleges or elements of the formal training that the system provided. The minister will have to ask very searching questions of the system and provide us with some more specific answers today.
The range of support services in the classroom may be increasing, but because we have identified many more things that make it difficult for children to learn we will have to include in teacher training the means to deal with those. I am glad to hear that some of the initiatives to which Marlyn Glen and Sylvia Jackson referred are beginning to help teachers to deal with the problems that they face. However, the way in which the structure of management in schools has changed is a major drawback, as it may prevent teachers from becoming more effective. At this time of the McCrone changes, the idea of subject departments in a secondary school is changing and the direct line to a principal teacher is becoming more attenuated. The structure of teaching in schools does not make it easier for teachers to be given more back-up in the classroom and to deal with the range of problems that have increased in recent years.
It is important that we take on board at ground level the experience of those who have been teachers. That will allow good initiatives to be taken in local areas and cascaded to the rest of the system. We do not always create a better system by reinventing the wheel in each school. I want the system to be able to prepare teachers much better for the circumstances that they will face. The SNP amendment stresses the importance of teacher recruitment for improving discipline, but we must bear in mind the points that I have made about the training that teachers receive.
Like other members, I welcome the topic for the debate and the fact that we are making the connection between behaviour and learning. Learning is dependent on behaviour, pupil attitude and pupil self-esteem. However, it is also dependent on teaching.
Rob Gibson raised the interesting issue of the quality of initiatives derived from schools. I taught in the school where Rob Gibson taught, in Alness in Highland region, which faced particular challenges. There is no doubt that some schools face particular challenges, but some have come up with whole-school systems and approaches to behaviour that allow them to deal better with the range of pupil behaviour that they come across. Research has shown that, of two schools with similar catchment areas, one might have a high level of exclusions and the other a low level of exclusions. That does not mean that the school with the low level of exclusions has a problem with poor behaviour. We have to acknowledge that many schools have devised whole-school approaches to behaviour. Educators can get better at dealing with the range of pupils in schools now.
I refute the point that Fiona Hyslop made. We have to be careful not to confuse social inclusion with mainstreaming. The number of youngsters in special schools remains relatively stable. In this day and age, schools face particular problems that reflect the problems of society. One of the major differences in schools nowadays is the number of youngsters who are touched by drugs, whether that involves their own drug taking or drug taking within their family or community, and that poses schools particular difficulties.
Schools need to be able to provide extra support for pupils with the most complex emotional and behavioural needs. There is no doubt that there are times when it is not appropriate for pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties to be educated in the classroom alongside their peers. As Johann Lamont said, schools need to have the option for pupils to have intensive one-to-one work. That option is more important for some schools than it is for others, but it needs to be in place.
For the majority of pupils, we need teachers who are well trained, well motivated and, which is important, well supported. The majority of discipline problems in schools are low level, but saying that in no way downplays the seriousness of the problems that some schools face.
Does Rhona Brankin agree that if we are going to do something about low-level indiscipline, we need to consider class sizes? To have 30 to 33 pupils in a class with one teacher, in today's education system, with the range of needs that today's classes have, does not work. It is time to consider seriously a reduction in class sizes.
I think that it is much more complex than that, although I certainly welcome the move to reduce class sizes in S1 and S2 English and maths. Consider two subject teachers who teach the same class. One of them might have great difficulty with the class, but the other might be more experienced and better able to handle the class and its range of needs. There are major implications for continuing professional development. When students leave initial teacher education, their development is just beginning. We need high-quality continuing professional development and schools should be supported so that they can provide that themselves. Many schools have many highly professional teachers who are good at dealing with pupils who have emotional and behavioural difficulties. We need to use their expertise. I welcome the review of initial teacher education. Let us use the strengths that already exist in schools and ensure that in initial teacher education we have people who have recently been in schools, in order to maximise the use of that experience.
I will be interested to hear the minister's response to my final point, which is that we tend to separate schools and youth justice issues. We talk about indiscipline in schools, but in my experience the youngsters who are the most difficult to deal with in schools are the ones who get into problems in the community and who come from homes that have difficulties. Please can we think in a more joined-up way about the connections between schools and youth justice issues?
I have been informed that, because of some problems, the alarm may go off. It will be a false alarm. Members do not have to leave if the alarm goes off.
I am always setting off alarms—in people's heads, at least.
I approach this debate with a degree of nostalgia, thinking back to education debates in the previous session of Parliament. I am pleased that I managed to leave Scott Barrie with some warm memories of my participation in those debates. This afternoon's debate has been good and well informed, with many interesting speeches. We miss the contributions that the SNP's Colin Campbell made in the previous session. As a former head teacher, he always made intelligent and well-informed contributions, especially on school discipline. My colleague Margaret Mitchell, who is a former schoolteacher and has worked in special needs schools, brought her experience to the debate. I also enjoyed Rob Gibson's speech. He spoke from experience and was well informed.
Anyway, that is quite enough cross-party consensus from me. The Scottish Conservatives welcome the Executive's commitment to tackling the problem of indiscipline.
However.
Yes, Mr Rumbles, however. However, the top-down target-setting approach that is so beloved of the coalition partners has simply failed to address the problem. As the minister well knows, the number of violent incidents in our schools rose by a staggering 700 per cent between 1997-98 and 2001-02. That is the shameful legacy of the Executive's disastrous exclusion policy.
When I listened to the minister, I thought that he must have spent the morning polishing his brass neck. He sought to deflect criticism of the Executive's record by accusing the Conservatives of overblown language and of over-egging the pudding. He did so simply to deflect criticism away from the Executive's disastrous record. We do not believe that there is a problem in every school in Scotland and we have never said that we did. However, we know that the problem is getting much worse. It has got much worse as a result of the Executive's policies and we have yet to hear from the Executive what it will do to make things much better.
We need to give more power back to our schools, rather than bewildering them with yet more failed Executive initiatives. The Executive needs to give more power to individual schools to deal with indiscipline. For example, head teachers must be encouraged to draw up their own code of conduct and must be given the authority to enforce it.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will, if the member is brief.
Experience has shown that in schools up and down the country the best way to have a code of conduct is to get the pupils to design it themselves. It should not be imposed from above, as the Tories keep insisting it should be.
Oh, Mr Rumbles. As he well knows, we have no intention of imposing anything from above. Imposing from above is his coalition's policy; we want to devolve power to schools. But yes, let us involve the pupils too, in what would preferably be a zero-tolerance policy. When I speak to school pupils, I hear that they are as fed up with disruptive pupils as are teachers and parents.
We have problems in our schools. I had a letter from a constituent just the other week about problems in a school in Forfar where pupils were out at lunch time being disruptive and making a nuisance of themselves. I have tried to take the matter up with the school. However, we also have good examples. Blairgowrie High School—my local high school—had pretty serious problems during the previous session of Parliament. There was disruption, there were violent incidents and one pupil had to go to court to get an interdict against some of her fellow pupils so that she could get on and sit her exams in peace.
I am pleased to say that things have been turned round there. A new head teacher has come in, provided leadership in the school, and imposed a uniform policy that has considerably improved the ethos of the school. The pupils and the teachers are enjoying the new environment. It is all about a contract between the pupils, the teachers and the head teacher. Leadership is being provided locally and it is working. That is a model that should be followed elsewhere.
We believe that the current one-size-fits-all system in Scotland is too rigid and fails too many of our young people.
I thought that Alex Neil made a good point about the lack of motivation, because it is in the S3 and S4 age groups—particularly among the boys—that there is a real disengagement with the system. Sometimes pupils in those age groups see schooling as being boring and irrelevant to their needs, which leads to their becoming a source of indiscipline in the classroom. We want such pupils to be given the alternative option of moving into further education and working on vocational courses that are more in tune with their needs and wishes. In that regard, the trial that Glasgow City Council has carried out should be rolled out throughout Scotland.
Rigid mainstreaming policy does not work—it has failed. We need more local leadership and we need the Executive to scrap the ludicrous policy of targets for exclusion that has driven up the statistics on violent attacks.
During her opening speech for the SNP, my colleague Fiona Hyslop drew on ordinary teachers' experience of unruly pupil behaviour, which is highlighted in the latest edition of the General Teaching Council for Scotland's monthly magazine. I make no apology for returning to that source, as I believe that it is the authentic voice of the chalkface. Its article on indiscipline states:
"We consider chronic indiscipline to be the most serious problem facing Scottish teachers."
It goes on to complain bitterly that teachers' local authority employers have failed to protect both their rights to work in a safe environment and the rights of the majority of children, who behave appropriately.
Will today's debate as it is reported in tomorrow's newspapers send a signal to school staffrooms across the country that the Executive and the Parliament are serious about ensuring order in Scotland's schools, that we acknowledge that the 2001 discipline review has only partially addressed the problem and that much more effective action to tackle it will be forthcoming? We need an answer to that question today.
The open part of the debate was particularly good and I have no doubt that the preponderance of former teachers among members contributed to that. Robert Brown made good points, although I believe that he is not a former teacher. He argued that discipline is not about control and sanctions but about the need to establish support systems, especially for those children with social, emotional and behavioural problems.
Rosemary Byrne, who has considerable professional experience, developed that theme and called for the proper resourcing of joint action teams. Like her, I am concerned about the incidence of mental health problems, such as depression, and the growing trend for the use of behaviour-controlling medication among our schoolchildren. She made an excellent suggestion about developing mentoring schemes, which should be taken up.
Scott Barrie also drew on his experience from a previous life. He made pertinent points on parent involvement and the exclusion merry-go-round. Given the increased devolution of powers to head teachers, it is clear that HMIE has an increasingly important role to play.
I will now address the ministers. Although we welcome the measures that have been announced, especially those that are designed to provide teachers with training and support in dealing with disruptive behaviour, we question whether they go far enough fast enough. As Sylvia Jackson, Rob Gibson and others highlighted, training is important. It is apparent that, in teacher training courses in the past, dealing with disruptive behaviour has not been given anything like the prominence that it should have been given. My wife, who is a secondary school teacher, can recall only one class that covered the subject during a full year at teacher training college. Nor has dealing with indiscipline been a huge feature of in-service training.
That said, training should not be regarded as a panacea for all ills. I do not want there to be any reversion to blaming the teacher for not being up to the job of class control. Too many head teachers and education authorities have hidden behind such excuses for inaction and lack of support systems in the past.
We are glad about the U-turn on school exclusion policy that the minister announced. The target was both bureaucratic and counterproductive and it prevented head teachers from taking appropriate action, at the expense of pupil and teacher safety. We want the Executive to go further and devolve discipline policy from local authorities to head teachers. That is not to say that education authorities should not provide support in the form of guidance. I commend Glasgow City Council's education department for its recently published guidelines on dealing with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
The SNP will push four main policy issues. First, we must establish a rights and responsibilities code to instil a sense of personal responsibility and self-worth among pupils. Secondly, there is a need to establish a zero-tolerance culture in the classroom, coupled with a strategy to change behaviour by expanding alternative curricula or, as Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and Alex Neil advocate, increasing access to further education. For more seriously disruptive students, there should be temporary exclusion centres where behaviour change is made part of the learning process.
Thirdly, we should acknowledge that early intervention is critical to nip problems in the bud. Smaller class sizes have a role to play in facilitating that process. Finally, schools should be properly resourced so that they can deal with indiscipline.
I will close on that and commend the SNP amendment.
Today's debate has been important and there have been some excellent speeches. Peter Peacock set out the Executive's priorities at the beginning of the debate and I will emphasise several points and add some observations. I thank members for their contributions, which we will examine in detail after the debate. I will try to deal with as many points as I can, but lack of time will stop me from mentioning everyone.
I am in danger of adding to Fiona Hyslop's list, but low-level indiscipline, bad behaviour, loutishness and lack of respect for others all adversely the learning and teaching environment and are unacceptable to the Executive—after listening to the debate, I am confident that they are unacceptable to all members. I agree with Fiona Hyslop that such disruption is very wearing. Violent behaviour towards teachers, school staff or pupils, which is rarer, is of course completely unacceptable. Robert Brown was right to sound a note of caution about the figures. Nevertheless, in response to Murdo Fraser, I say that we do not hide from that problem at all. We know that it exists and we seek to address it. We want to ensure that the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to learn in school, which is open to all, is not degraded for anyone within the interested and engaged majority by a troubled few.
I agree with Alex Neil's point about motivation. Because I was a classroom teacher—although that was a few years ago—I can recognise his point. I agree that smaller class sizes would help. I will come on to talk about peer pressure and the 14-plus agenda later. I commend Alex Neil for reading the partnership agreement and ask him to read more of it, as I am sure that it will be of great benefit to him. The Executive's commitment is in it. Rhona Brankin also mentioned it.
We have made clear our position on exclusion of the indisciplined. We back local decision making where exclusion is necessary, but we are developing alternatives in partnership with local authorities in schools, because we value every young person.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton made six proposals with which I have little difficulty. He is right that there should be more freedom for schools. On the proposal to give more exclusion powers to head teachers, Scott Barrie pointed out the pre-target reality on exclusions and his contribution was important. However, there was only a 3 per cent decrease in 2001-02 from the 2000-01 figures for exclusions—the drop has shallowed, if I may put it like that.
Grant in aid is already guaranteed until 2007. On-site units, which Fiona Hyslop also mentioned, are part of the developing agenda. Flexible support in schools is important within the PPP context and I agree with what was said about that.
The role of parents is important. Scott Barrie made a telling point about how, years ago, parental contributions were not on the radar screen, but now they are much more welcome. There was a final point about the 14-plus FE partnership policy, which we thoroughly agree with, and which is in the partnership agreement. We are looking for a coherent, concerted programme to ensure the best learning and teaching environment.
Rosemary Byrne mentioned the important point about increasing the number of social workers. I agree with her. We have been making efforts to achieve that, for the reasons that she mentioned.
Margaret Mitchell said a lot about special schools. We accept that there is a future for special schools and are not trying to close them—far from it. We believe that they have an important future.
In the remaining time I will concentrate on four areas: the voluntary sector and challenging behaviour, because that was not mentioned in the debate; young people themselves; teacher training and professional development; and good practice in schools.
Our partners in the voluntary sector, such as Right Track in Glasgow, the Prince's Trust and its xl programme, Barnardo's, Aberlour Child Care Trust and NCH Scotland have all contributed to innovation in Scotland to the benefit of young people who require intensive support and creative learning opportunities.
The Prince's Trust's xl programme, for example, works with young people within their mainstream school setting. It involves them in personal learning and development programmes, which have improved their attendance and attainment in the mainstream school curriculum. Right Track develops programmes of intensive personal and social development activities. It allows young people to be involved in addressing some of their social problems while experiencing learning programmes that change their perceptions of what they can achieve. It would be remiss of me not to mention the work with children and families of Aberlour, Barnardo's and NCH. They demonstrate that a view of the whole child, in the context of the family, is essential for those who are struggling with difficult circumstances.
I have a question on another aspect of the voluntary sector. Would the minister consider encouraging schools to encourage young students to volunteer in the traditional sense, provided that the activities are well supervised? That volunteering might provide the excitement that is needed, which they could also get from the 14-plus curriculum or the sort of things that Robin Harper mentioned.
I accept the member's point. Volunteering is important.
I turn now to pupils' involvement in developing a framework of rights, responsibilities and school rules, which make all our schools positive and safe learning environments. A lot of good work is being done throughout Scotland to involve children and young people in their schools. That was a recommendation of "Better Behaviour—Better Learning" and I am pleased to say that it has been implemented by many schools. We should congratulate all the children involved and recognise the effort that schools make to develop such systems and to provide training for children and young people to support their peers. The schools that are involved in that important work are too numerous to mention, but I will pick out a few. [Interruption.]
Members: order, please.
In Midlothian and many other areas, primary schools operate playground buddying systems. In Fife, the training programmes for peer buddying for young people in school are well established. In many areas, the transition of primary 7 pupils to their new secondary school—for example, Kelso High School in my home town—is made easier by the involvement of senior secondary school pupils, who meet them and are available as buddies and mentors. I visited the peer education project in Dundee, where a more extensive form of peer group involvement is being enthusiastically developed.
Those are examples of citizenship in action, building a strong school ethos and demonstrating the capacity of most of our children for caring and sharing responsibility. Indeed, at the recent Childline conference for young people in Perth, I saw an excellent role-play in which students resolved bullying incidents by peer group pressure and parental involvement. Achieving our national priorities rests on having safe and positive learning environments, but in that regard we must continue to make progress on our national priority of developing the values and citizenship of children and young people.
I turn now to the important points that were made about good practice in schools. Craigton Primary School in Glasgow has in place a very effective reward scheme for well-behaved pupils. I believe that Sylvia Jackson mentioned a similar situation in a school in her constituency.
Hillpark Secondary School, which is also in Glasgow, has policies in which inclusion is key and which help to maintain those with learning or behavioural difficulties in that mainstream school with their peers. The James Hamilton Academy in East Ayrshire, which I think Margaret Mitchell mentioned, has appointed behaviour co-ordinators, who are implementing a staged approach to intervention in classroom indiscipline. That is a good example of good practice. In Grange Academy in Kilmarnock, twilight classes are held in the early evening for those who have been temporarily excluded from the mainstream setting.
Many members commented on the importance of including discipline issues and classroom management in initial teacher education. That point was well made and has been taken on board, as have the points about the importance of including training on discipline issues in continuing professional development. We will take away those points and continue to develop them in the ways that we mentioned earlier. Teachers deserve the best opportunities to develop, as much as our children deserve skilled and competent teachers. We are committed to meeting the needs of both groups.
I regret that we cannot accept Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's amendment, although we might have accepted it if it had been an addendum. However, we are prepared to agree to the SNP's amendment.