Teachers
Good morning. The first item of business this morning is a debate on motion S3M-4910, in the name of Rhona Brankin, on teacher numbers.
Another day, another education debate; another week, another broken promise. The Scottish National Party has now confirmed what we suspected was going to happen months ago and dumped its promise of smaller class sizes in primary 1 to 3. Another promise was quietly dumped yesterday. In fact, we said that it was dumped a year ago, but the SNP denied it. Yesterday, it dumped its commitment to increase access to nursery teachers for every child, because the number of nursery teachers went down again. However, we are here to debate teacher numbers, which is a hugely important matter. We have discussed it in the chamber several times and we on the Labour benches make no apology for returning to it today.
Teachers should be valued. I declare an interest because, like many other members, I am a former teacher. Most if not all of us can remember a teacher who made a difference in our lives. That is what we want for our children and what some of us want for our grandchildren. We want them to have teachers who encourage them not only to learn but to raise their ambitions and aspirations. Thousands of teachers throughout Scotland are doing that day in, day out. I start by acknowledging the great work that they do.
We should all have the utmost respect for the teaching profession. It is therefore unfortunate that the SNP Administration has seen fit to renege on its manifesto promise on teachers. The SNP manifesto was clear. It stated:
"We will maintain teacher numbers in the face of falling school rolls".
Ministers might not like to be reminded of that, but Labour members will continue to remind them of it from now until the next Scottish Parliament elections. It is clear from the first 28 months of the SNP Administration that it has no intention whatsoever of maintaining teacher numbers. The "Teachers In Scotland, 2008" census shows a cut of almost 1,000 in teacher numbers, spread right across Scotland, with 24 of the 32 local authorities having cut teacher numbers, including, the minister might be interested to hear, 12 of the 13 SNP-run councils.
The First Minister defended those figures by saying that pupil teacher ratios had been maintained at 13:1, but that was yet another shoddy attempt to move the goalposts to spare his blushes and those of his hapless Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning. Under the SNP, a majority of local authorities have seen either no change or a worsening in pupil teacher ratios.
Beyond those faceless statistics are real teachers with views and experiences, and we need to listen to them. I encourage SNP members in particular to look at the forums section of the Times Educational Supplement Scotland website, where they might learn something about life at the chalkface under their Government. On it, Pam writes:
"I am … coming to the end of my third year as a teacher and have actually been asked to attend a job interview outside teaching. It's going back to the job I had before teaching, working in a lab and quite a good job. I enjoy teaching but am fed up with being unable to get a permanent job. I am at the point now that I don't think I can continue doing supply and having no job security, no stability and no regular income."
Jane writes:
"you will earn more as a shelf stacker in Asda than a supply teacher here. I haven't stepped in a classroom since the end of June. Supply far outstrips demand and there is very little demand for enthusiastic teachers these days ... we are just waiting on people to die or become ill or sustain some horrid injury. Teaching is a very casual profession now."
What is the SNP solution to that crisis in teaching? It is cuts. Fiona Hyslop and John Swinney are taking £10 million from the teachers budget next year. That is a betrayal of our young people. It is more about plugging holes in the SNP's budget than about doing what is right for the country. As Ronnie Smith of the Educational Institute of Scotland put it,
"Scotland needs more teachers, not fewer."
He said that the cuts will
"inevitably lead to fewer teachers in our classrooms and larger class sizes for pupils."
However, as we saw yesterday, the SNP's promises on class sizes have been ripped up. Yesterday's climbdown confirms what we have known for at least a year—that the SNP has no intention of maintaining teacher numbers to reduce class sizes.
Fiona Hyslop's solution to the issue of unemployed teachers is to slash spending on teacher training, but what she really needs to do is to keep her promise to maintain teacher numbers. If she had not cut teacher numbers by nearly 1,000, we might not have a situation where there are 543 applicants for one teaching post in Perth and Kinross.
The education secretary recently trotted out the excuse that local authorities are not replacing retiring teachers at the levels that were previously expected. Frankly, I think that that is a pathetic excuse. Having promised to maintain teacher numbers and utterly failed to do so, the Scottish Government is now pointing the finger of blame at local authorities. On this side of the chamber, we do not blame councils but, if the cabinet secretary is intent on doing so, perhaps she should have words with the 12 SNP-run local authorities that cut teacher numbers in the past year.
No matter how the cabinet secretary tries to dress up the figures, the General Teaching Council for Scotland statistics show a year-on-year decline in the number of newly qualified teachers who find full-time, permanent jobs. Ken Cunningham, the general secretary of School Leaders Scotland, says that the figures confirm
"the worrying trend of unemployment among usually very good, very well trained, newly qualified teachers."
That will be the Administration's legacy—a generation of talented teachers on the dole and lost to the teaching profession because of SNP incompetence and broken promises. As Dougie Mackie of the EIS says,
"The current difficulties in teacher employment are little short of a national scandal."
On the TESS website, a teacher who calls himself "SickOfHavingNoSecurity" writes:
"Think I will send Hyslop a calculator—she obviously does not have one in her office, and if I could—her P45. I can just photocopy mine and change the names."
I urge members to stick up and speak up for Scotland's teachers, parents and pupils and support the motion.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the most recent reduction in the number of teachers employed in Scotland revealed by the September 2009 public sector employment figures; further notes that this follows on from the Teachers in Scotland 2008 census, which showed that the number of teachers fell by nearly 1,000 on the previous year, and asks how this can be reconciled with the SNP's manifesto pledge and concordat commitment to maintain teacher numbers in the face of falling school rolls in order to cut class sizes; highlights with concern the Times Educational Supplement Scotland survey, published in August 2009, suggesting that only 15% of this year's newly qualified teachers had secured full-time permanent work at the start of the school term as well as the General Teaching Council Scotland follow up survey suggesting that, even half way through the 2008-09 school year, only around a third of the previous year's probationary teachers had found full-time permanent posts; believes that the Scottish Government has precipitated a teacher jobs crisis, forcing many of the most qualified new teachers in Scotland's history to look elsewhere in the United Kingdom or beyond for suitable employment; believes that this represents an appalling loss of talent to Scotland's education system and a gross betrayal of those enticed to train as teachers as well as those who voted SNP due to its election pledges on schools, and therefore calls on the SNP government to publish detailed plans of how it will deliver on its manifesto and concordat commitments on teacher numbers.
I put on the record straight away the Government's regret that, in these difficult times, anyone is unable to find the job that they want in the profession that they have chosen. We know from the latest figures that 13.4 teachers per 1,000 in the workforce in Scotland are claiming jobseekers allowance. That figure is too high. However, it is important to note that it is still lower than the equivalent figure for England, which is 14.8, and significantly lower than the figures for Northern Ireland and Wales. [Interruption.] Labour members might be interested to know that that comes against a background of perhaps £2 billion of cuts by the Labour Party to education in England, so the figure there may worsen.
As members are well aware, we are in a critical position in relation to the education system here in Scotland. The curriculum for excellence is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to ensure that our education system equips our children to meet the demands of the future, and the teacher workforce is crucial to its delivery. We have provided record levels of funding for local government, despite what Rhona Brankin says, and, through our concordat-based partnership with local government, we have made substantial progress towards our ambitious class size reduction targets.
The average primary class size is 23.2, which is a record low. At 13.1 pupils per teacher, the pupil teacher ratio is also at an historic low for the second year running, and the proportion of P1 to P3 pupils in classes of 18 or fewer rose to a record high of 13.25 per cent in 2008. The largest class sizes have been tackled first and the proportion of P1 to P3 pupils in classes of more than 25 went down to a record low of 23 per cent in 2008.
If the minister is making such substantial progress, when does he predict that he will meet his class size target of 18?
Through the concordat with local government, we have committed to making year-on-year progress in reducing class sizes. As the figures that I have just given show, we have made record progress—in fact, substantially more progress than was possible under the previous Administration.
As I have said, that kind of achievement does not come easily. It has been made possible by record levels of local authority funding; in 2008 to 2010, for example, £23 billion has been made available. I am the first to acknowledge—and have said on previous occasions—that we would like to have seen more progress. However, we are working constructively with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and local authorities to identify the further progress that can be made over the coming months and years. Indeed, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning and Adam Ingram have been meeting councils to that end.
Will the minister give way?
I am sorry—I do not have that much time.
Despite the financial pressures that formed the backdrop to last week's budget announcement, the total package of funding for local government in 2008 to 2011 comes to £35 billion, which is £4 billion more than in the period 2005 to 2008. The 2010-11 element of that investment is £12 billion, which represents an increase of £127 million on the figure for 2009-10.
Will the minister give way?
No. It is also worth noting that COSLA has given a continuing commitment to pursue the commitments in the concordat. An important point that members will be aware of is that teacher employment is a matter for local authorities, which is as it should be. Despite the examples given by Rhona Brankin—
Will the minister give way?
No. Despite the examples highlighted by Rhona Brankin—[Interruption.]
Order.
There are numerous examples throughout the country of the very significant progress that has been made. Indeed, 18 of our 32 local authorities have made progress on class size reduction. I should point out that those councils include not only West Lothian, which is SNP led, but Midlothian, which is Labour led. I am sure that Rhona Brankin will welcome that.
Will the minister give way?
No.
However, the converse is also true. We need look no further than Glasgow City Council to find an authority that is haemorrhaging teachers and whose class sizes are increasing. Rhona Brankin did not mention this, but I think that it is worth noting that, out of the 226 probationers who became available in 2008-09, Glasgow has employed only 75 in temporary posts in the new school term and not a single one on a permanent contract.
As for the drop in teacher numbers to which Rhona Brankin referred, I point out that four councils—Glasgow City Council, Renfrewshire Council, North Lanarkshire Council and Aberdeen City Council—account for almost half the total figure. Renfrewshire and North Lanarkshire have made positive commitments to reducing class sizes in the coming years, and we all know about the situation in Aberdeen. The one council that stands out is Glasgow City Council, and it will be interesting to see whether the Labour Party acknowledges that point when it comes to the summing-up speeches.
Of course, the time lag between taking decisions on student teacher intake numbers and those teachers seeking employment after serving their probationary period is such that the vast majority of those decisions were planned for by the previous Administration. The 2008 teacher census, which we published in March, showed that there were 1,000 fewer teachers. However, we took immediate action to address the situation by reducing by 500 the student teacher intake targets for autumn 2009.
On the overall picture, I am not entirely clear why progress towards reducing class sizes is compatible with a reduction in the number of teachers in Scotland. No matter who is responsible, is that not a difficulty for the Government?
Obviously, there is a relationship between class sizes and the number of teachers. I have detailed already our progress on class sizes, and I am happy to come back to the issue when I sum up.
That is why, as the cabinet secretary announced yesterday, we are proposing to make regulations to limit primary 1 class sizes to 25 from the beginning of the 2010-11 school session. The previous Administration issued a circular with the intention of limiting P1 class sizes to 25—
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Did I hear the minister say that he would be summing up? Does that mean that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning will not be participating in this important debate?
You certainly did hear the minister say that he would be summing up, which he is perfectly entitled to do.
As I said, the previous Administration issued a circular—[Interruption.]
Order.
The circular set out the intention of limiting P1 class sizes to 25. However, local authorities have subsequently found that it is scarcely worth the paper that it is printed on. [Interruption.]
Order. There is too much noise.
That is why we are making regulations to limit P1 class sizes, which the previous Administration did not do. We will consult on those regulations later this year and, in parallel with that, we will review the current unsatisfactory mixture of arrangements governing class sizes at all stages.
This Government is committed both to class size reduction and to our target of class sizes of no more than 18 in P1 to P3, and we are taking steps to ensure that progress continues to be made in that direction by legislating to clear up the ambiguity that was left by the previous Administration. We are also very concerned about the plight of the significant numbers of unemployed teachers and, again, we have plans to address that.
This time last year, the Labour Party brought a similarly half-baked motion to the chamber and it is a pity that, in the meantime, Labour members have been unable to develop their thinking. Their motion offers nothing positive. It offers no solution to the challenges that the education system and unemployed teachers face. It complains, but it does not contribute. The Government is offering solutions. We are serious about Scottish education and, for that reason, I urge members to support the amendment in my name.
I move amendment S3M-4910.3, to leave out from "the most recent" to end and insert:
"that Scotland benefits from a record low in average class size in primary schools, that the number of P1 to P3 pupils in classes of 18 or under is increasing and that the Scottish average primary class size is considerably smaller than those for England and Wales; welcomes the record levels of funding provided by the current administration to local government and the commitment set out in the concordat to reduce class sizes but notes that the employment of teachers is a matter for local authorities; welcomes the continuing commitment of the Scottish Government and local government to work together to make further progress on class size reduction; highlights with concern that the previous administration took no legislative action to support its class size reduction policy and notes the recently announced intention of the Scottish Government to introduce regulations for a maximum class size of 25 in P1 from the beginning of the 2010 school year and to review more generally how class sizes are governed, and also recognises the action of the Scottish Government to ensure a better balance between supply and demand of teachers."
The Labour Party is quite right to highlight the crisis of the lack of employment for newly qualified teachers. I am sure that all of us in the chamber have been approached at our surgeries by, or have received correspondence from, newly qualified teachers who are in despair at being unable to find suitable permanent employment. They have often given up careers elsewhere to go into teaching believing that they could make a contribution and enticed by the message that was sent out to them by this Administration—and, to be fair, the previous one—that they would be welcome. Having spent a year at university, often at their own expense, they now find themselves struggling to find employment. The tragedy is that many are going back to their previous jobs, which represents a dreadful loss of talent to the teaching profession.
I sometimes think that Opposition education debates on Thursday mornings have become the parliamentary equivalent of small boys pulling the wings off flies. The trend is for the Opposition parties to gang up on the hapless Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning and her team, highlighting the latest failures in education. I am not without sympathy for the cabinet secretary in some of the things that she is trying to do but with yesterday's announcement of the ditching of the flagship class size policy and today's debate on teacher numbers, in which the Labour motion makes clear the awful situation that we are now in, it has not been a good week for her.
I accept that local authorities find themselves in a difficult position. In that respect, I have to say that, in claiming that councils have more money than ever, the Minister for Schools and Skills mounted a quite extraordinary defence of the Government's position. It seems, therefore, that the entire blame for this scenario rests with local authorities, which, having been granted this largesse, are stealing money from education budgets to spend on invisible projects that we do not know about. If that is really the SNP's defence, it should say so clearly and tell us where the money is being spent in such an extravagant fashion.
If the minister wishes to elaborate, I will give way to him
The figures for Glasgow City Council show that it intends to spend 1.4 per cent less on education this year than it did last year. Moreover, on the point about loss of talent, members might be interested to learn that this year's probationer of the year was employed by Glasgow City Council on a temporary contract only after it was exposed that the council was not going to use any probationers.
I am grateful to the minister for that intervention. However, what he has not done is clarify where he believes all the extra money that councils are receiving is supposedly being spent. What is it that Glasgow City Council is spending all this money on that he thinks is extravagant and a waste?
Everyone in education understands that money is tight; indeed, headteachers are being asked to make efficiency savings. The fact is that whoever was in government would be facing this situation.
However, I start to lose my sympathy for the SNP when I recall that, when in opposition, it promised in its manifesto to deliver class size reductions. As we know, those reductions are taking place, but at a glacial rate; according to the latest figures, the SNP will deliver on its class sizes promise in 2095. In opposition, Fiona Hyslop was keen to criticise the previous Executive over the difficulties that newly qualified teachers found in finding permanent employment. Now that the situation has worsened, she has nowhere to turn.
That said, I want to be constructive, and our amendment suggests two positive steps to help the situation. First, we reject the notion that scarce resources should be spent on free school meals for the children of well-off parents. Even if such a policy were justifiable in times of plenty, there can be no justification for it when we are facing spending cuts. That is simply a waste of resources that could be spent on employing more teachers.
Secondly, we believe that headteachers should have much more power over teacher employment. At the moment, a headteacher can fill a vacancy in one of three ways. It can be advertised in the local newspapers, a surplus teacher can be transferred from another school, or a commitment can be made to take on a probationer once they are fully qualified. However, the decision remains under the control of the local authority, not with the headteacher. Headteachers' freedom of operation is limited and often they end up having to take teachers whom they might not have wished to take because the local authority has required it. We believe that giving headteachers more power would improve the teacher employment situation.
We are seeing a huge waste of talent as those who have, at a great expense to the taxpayer, been trained in teaching find themselves unable to find an outlet for their skills. Indeed, many are being lost to the profession, possibly permanently. The SNP made a rod for its own back on this issue with all the promises that it made in opposition. This week, the policy to cut class sizes has been ditched, and we can only hope that the commitment to maintain teacher numbers will not go the same way. The cabinet secretary has a duty to start delivering on education; if she does not do so, we will have many more Thursday mornings like this one.
I have pleasure in moving amendment S3M-4910.1, to insert at end:
"; considers that the universal provision of free school meals in P1 to P3 will impact on the ability of councils to recruit and retain teachers, and believes that head teachers should have much greater say in the recruitment of teachers and other staff in their schools."
I thank the Labour Party for raising this issue. Others have referred to the colossal waste of talent in having trained teachers, whose training has been paid for out of the public purse, sitting at home instead of being in our classrooms.
Back in 2007, the Scottish Government spoke of the historic concordat with local government as though it were a milestone in the governance of Scotland and a breakthrough in relations between local and national Administrations. It is now clear that it is more like a millstone shackled to our local authorities as they are burdened with the delivery of undeliverable Government promises with insufficient support and resources, and carrying all the blame for Government failures.
Among the Government's failures and broken promises—and there are many—is its failure to maintain teacher numbers and reduce class sizes in primary 1 to 3. The minister, Keith Brown, was more than happy to direct the blame for that towards Scotland's local authorities. He did that earlier this year in an education debate and again today when he told us that teacher employment is a matter for local authorities. If responsibility for teacher employment and class sizes is so clearly not the responsibility of the Government, why did the SNP make such bold pledges on both of those issues in its election manifesto? Why were there no caveats then about the limitations of its power to deliver? In truth, the SNP has centralised the policy but localised the blame.
The Minister for Schools and Skills said that he is
"disappointed with the results of the 2008 teacher census and the implications for teachers after their probation year."—[Official Report, 7 May 2009; c 17203.]
I imagine that that is little comfort to those newly qualified teachers, who I expect would use a stronger word than "disappointed" to describe how they feel about their prospects and this Government. It is little comfort to Scotland's missing teachers—a generation of missing teachers.
Just this week, the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee received more information from the cabinet secretary on the curriculum for excellence, which she said is
"a strategic vision for a better, fairer and more robust system that promotes quality of achievement through education".
In the past, the cabinet secretary has quoted the scholar Joel Barker, who said:
"Vision without action is merely a dream."
Question marks remain about the delivery of the curriculum for excellence. Without action from the Government to back its vision with the resources that are needed to make it a reality, it might become a nightmare, not a dream. There can be no more important resource than the required numbers of properly trained teachers to implement the curriculum for excellence properly. Keith Brown acknowledged as much today. Is it not a pity that the SNP has cut 1,000 teachers in its two years in government—1,000 teachers who would have made the curriculum for excellence happen?
It can be nothing short of a nightmare for many newly qualified teachers who are unable to find work and many teaching students who are working hard for their qualifications but are deeply concerned about their future. Last month's Times Educational Supplement Scotland showed that just 15 per cent of last year's probationer teachers had found full-time permanent jobs at the beginning of this academic year. In Glasgow, out of 226 enthusiastic new teachers who completed their probationary year last year, not one had found permanent employment.
If this was a phenomenon particular to Glasgow, perhaps we could see some sense in the Government's pathological passing of the blame to local authorities, given that Glasgow City Council is a Labour administration. However, when we consider that, in each of Scotland's 32 councils, fewer than half—and in most cases significantly fewer than half—of last year's probationers have found permanent employment, it is clear that this is a national problem. Where then is the national solution from the national nationalist Government?
Where is your solution?
I am not the Government. You are the Government, unfortunately.
Where is the master plan that will deliver what the Government promised on education, smaller classes and maintaining teacher numbers? What progress is being made on the implementation of the recommendations of the teacher employment working group, which include greater reconciliation between local workforce decision making driven by financial necessity and the national workforce planning process? How will that work be helped by the Government's pass-the-buck attitude to the problem of falling teacher numbers? What progress is being made on the policies that the working group called for in relation to retirement patterns and winding-down arrangements, the use of post-probation teachers to fill supply posts and the utilisation of permanent supply pools?
After more than two years of the SNP Government, only 13.2 per cent of P1 to P3 children are in class sizes of 18 or fewer, but the First Minister had the audacity last week to say that the Government is making "significant progress". Yesterday's announcement cannot be characterised as significant progress. It was a complete and utter abdication of the policy.
Back in April 2003, John Swinney said:
"Scotland's children can't wait any longer for smaller class sizes."
Well, I have news for them: they are still waiting under the SNP. The SNP has delivered 1,000 fewer teachers than it inherited two years ago. As our amendment says, Government figures that were published yesterday show that pre-school teacher numbers are continuing to drop at an increasing rate, too.
We were clear in our manifesto that we wanted 1,000 more teachers in our classrooms to reduce class sizes and boost children's education.
You should be closing now.
In June 2007, Fiona Hyslop declared that the Government was
"already working to meet other parties' demands for 1,000 new teachers."—[Official Report, 20 June 2007; c 882.]
Today, she stands accused of failing to meet those demands and, more important, failing to meet the expectations of the people of Scotland and the promises of the SNP's election manifesto, yet again.
I move amendment S3M-4910.2, to insert after "class sizes":
"; raises concern about the implementation of the Curriculum for Excellence in the face of falling teacher numbers; acknowledges that the previous administration increased the number of teachers by 4,600 between 1999 and 2007; notes the continued reduction in the number of full-time equivalent nursery teachers as shown in the Scottish Government's Pre-school and Childcare Statistics 2009".
We come to the open debate. Members will have picked up that we have a little bit of flexibility in hand, but speeches should be around four minutes.
This is not an academic debate about facts and figures; it gets to the very heart of the SNP Government's failure to deliver for Scotland's children and young people and says loud and clear that a manifesto pledge to deliver class sizes of 18 for primary 1 to 3 was no more than a cruel con trick on parents, teachers and pupils throughout Scotland. The SNP Government was elected on a false prospectus, on a pledge that it knew it could not fulfil, on a commitment that it knew it was never going to deliver. This is a debate that impacts on the lives of individual children the length and breadth of Scotland. It is not about abstract concepts but about real people.
In South Lanarkshire in 2007, when the cabinet secretary was appointed, there were 1,801 teachers in primary schools and 1,812 teachers in secondary schools. By 2008, there were only 1,674 teachers in primary schools and 1,763 teachers in secondary schools. South Lanarkshire Council is a Labour council. I make no apologies for saying that the teacher numbers have fallen, but why have they fallen? They have fallen because that cabinet secretary failed to get the necessary resources into education.
The cabinet secretary says, "Teacher numbers have fallen, but average class sizes are down slightly." That is not what she promised; she said that she would maintain numbers. She says, "Don't blame me; it's those big bad councils that did it and ran away." Those are the excuses that she peddled last night on "Newsnight", but she is too scared to come to the chamber and peddle them herself today. Cabinet secretary, you would have been as well in your bed if you were not prepared to come and defend yourself in the chamber instead of sending somebody else. That is your job. Stand up in here and be accountable for your decisions.
Cabinet secretary, you like to refer to the historic concordat, but I would call it the historic con trick. Councils can work only with the resources that you give them and the legislation before them. Why not act now and find money for local authorities to do what you said they were going to do? Why legislate for class sizes of 25 when you should be legislating for class sizes of 18? That is what you promised.
Will the member give way?
You will have your time next, Ms Campbell. I am sure that you will debate for Clydesdale to great effect.
Cabinet secretary, the truth is that you promised to deliver smaller class sizes with no resources. Under the historic con trick, that promise was uncosted and undeliverable. You simply abdicate responsibility for all bad decisions and take the credit for the good.
The real reduction in teacher numbers in South Lanarkshire is 176. At the same time, there are 99 probationer teachers seeking employment—teachers who could be doing a good job. Last year, my son had a probationer teacher. She came into teaching from another job—a mature individual with lots of skills and experience. All the parents would agree that she was one of the best teachers that they had seen in the school. However, up until the weekend before the classes resumed on 18 August, she had no job. Even now, she has only a part-time supply job. She is a great teacher, who does not have the security of a full-time contract, because the Government is not delivering the resources that it promised the people of Scotland it would.
What about the three young people at Lanark grammar school who embarked on an advanced higher history course, because they thought that it was the best course to allow them to get into the universities of their choice, only to be told six weeks later that the course had been withdrawn? The families have been told that there is a resource issue. The history teacher remains in post, but the four hours a week that had been allocated to the three pupils to study advanced higher history has been reallocated to cover possible short-term sick absences among teaching staff as a whole because of scarce resources. The young people have therefore been left high and dry by the Government. I am talking about real people, not abstract concepts.
One of the tenets of Scottish life is that education can provide opportunities for all of us, regardless of our status, to move on and better ourselves. However, in the two years of SNP government, teacher numbers have fallen by 1,000, probationary teachers are failing to find full-time employment, classes have been cancelled for students who want to learn, and primary school pupils have been let down as promises about class sizes are dropped. Yesterday, the cabinet secretary at last came clean and admitted that she would not legislate for classes of 18 in primary 1 to 3. That is the cost to our nation of the SNP Government. Breaking up Britain is more important to it than building up Scotland. The real con trick is on the families of Scotland who trusted the SNP at the previous election. Its false promises have finally come home to roost.
I remind members that they should always speak through the chair, please, rather than directly to each other.
Every child in Scotland deserves the best possible start in life and the best possible education. We owe it to teachers and support staff—the dedicated professionals who deliver education—to debate teacher numbers in a fair and rational manner. We must be clear about the goals that we want to achieve and the challenges that exist in achieving them.
The SNP Government knows the value of education in Scotland. In the face of the global recession, supporting our education system at every level is an investment in skills and knowledge that will allow Scotland to grow in the future. That is why we reintroduced free education in universities and why we are committed to getting things right in the earliest years of primary education, especially through free school meals and lower class sizes.
While the Scottish Government continues to look with confidence at what Scotland can achieve and how best to achieve that in the face of the tightest budgets that any devolved Administration has had to deal with, the Labour Party continues its relentlessly negative carping and criticism. It has no new ideas and no positive outlook for the future. We are all scunnered with hearing the cry of broken promises. [Interruption.]
Order.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I want to make progress, please.
The cries that we hear are simply a broken record that Labour members play over and over again, irrespective of the content of any Scottish Government announcement or any policy that it brings forward. Only in the Labour Party's eyes could figures that show year-on-year progress towards lower class sizes be seen as evidence that class sizes are not falling, or a commitment to reduce the legal maximum number of pupils in primary 1 classes from 30 to 25 be seen as an announcement that we are not serious about cutting class sizes.
Karen Gillon may be interested to know that, in South Lanarkshire in 2006, when her Government was still in charge, fewer than 7 per cent of children in P1 to P3 were in class sizes of fewer than 18 pupils. In February this year, under the SNP, that figure had almost doubled to 13.7 per cent.
Of course, Labour is still trying to deflect attention from the record low class sizes. There is an average of 23.2 pupils per primary class.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. You did not take an intervention from me. You might have been interested to know that—
You should speak through the chair, please, Ms Campbell.
Okay. I will make some progress.
Labour is trying to deflect attention from the record low class sizes by focusing on teacher numbers. However, once again, the broken record spins around to reveal that, in fact, the SNP is dealing with a mess that was bequeathed to it by a Labour Administration that got its sums wrong.
It takes time to train teachers. It takes four years to complete a bachelor of education course and one year to complete a postgraduate diploma in education course. Either way, teachers who finished their probationary year in June 2009 would have studied on a course as part of a cohort of trainees whose numbers were set in either 2003-04 or 2006-07 by the previous Administration. We accept that planning to provide teachers is not an exact science. That is why the cabinet secretary established a workforce planning task force. It was established so that future plans can be made with confidence, irrespective of which party is in charge.
Even with such challenges, the SNP has achieved an historic low in the pupil teacher ratio. There is now one teacher for every 13 pupils in Scotland, compared with one teacher for every 17 pupils in England and Northern Ireland, and one teacher for every 18 pupils in Wales.
The situation is open to sudden and not easily predictable change. There are almost 10,000 primary and secondary teachers in Scotland who are over 55 and could retire at any time. If that happened, I have no doubt that the Labour Party would be the first to howl that we had failed to provide enough trainee teachers to fill the gap. That is not enough to stop the Labour Party simply trying to apportion blame to the current Administration for the number of newly qualified teachers who are looking for work. Of course, it is not the Scottish Government's job to recruit or employ teachers directly—that is, rightly, the role of local authorities. Perhaps it is just coincidence that most of the local authorities that have seen fit to cut the number of teachers that they employ are run by the Labour Party. SNP-majority councils have, on average, increased spending on education by 3.5 per cent this year; for Labour-majority councils, the figure has been only 2.5 per cent. In national and local government, the SNP puts the interests of Scotland's children first.
People in Scotland may hear the noise that is being made by Labour's broken record about broken promises, but they will pay attention to experience on the ground. Many children throughout the country are benefiting from our investment in education, and many more will continue to do so in years to come. I am confident that the Scottish Government will do all that it can to get the right number of teachers in the right place at the right time. That is the difference between getting on with government and the simple complaining from hapless Opposition members.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the motion in the name of my colleague Rhona Brankin.
Like other members, including Murdo Fraser, I receive e-mails and letters from young probationary teachers who feel badly let down by Fiona Hyslop and the SNP. It is little wonder that she is sneaking away now and that she will not listen to the rest of my speech. Those teachers trained for a career in teaching and are finding that there are no jobs for them despite all the great promises that were made by the now-departing cabinet secretary. We know from her shameless performances yesterday and today how Fiona Hyslop deals with promises. She can appear on television, but she refuses to take part in this debate.
I wonder what the cabinet secretary would say to Jenny Boyle from Lennoxtown, who is a constituent of mine. Jenny is a fully qualified primary teacher who is currently on jobseekers allowance. Her mum qualified as a teacher after having her family, and Jenny wanted to follow a teaching career from a young age. After qualification in 2007, she did her probationary year at St Margaret of Scotland primary school in Cumbernauld; she finished her year in June 2008. Since then, there has been a dwindling amount of supply work. She always had excellent reports from the headteachers of the schools in which she was employed, and she received many thank-you letters from parents. So far, she has applied for more than 30 jobs and has had five interviews for jobs, all of which went to internal candidates. She sits at home every day waiting for the phone to ring to find out whether she will work. That is the sort of thing that used to happen with dock labourers. Who would have thought that, in an SNP-led Scotland, teachers would be put in the position of labour for hire on a daily basis?
Jenny is particularly concerned about the number of schools that still use retired members of staff to fill gaps rather than post-probation teachers. One school at which she taught had two retired teachers for learning support or absence cover; at another school, retired teachers were used to cover the non-contact time of other members of staff. Jenny's mother-in-law, who retired from teaching in the summer, was asked to go back to her old school for two days a week. To her great credit, she said no.
Like other graduates, Jenny has a student debt and an overdraft, but she cannot begin to pay them off until she has a full-time job. She signs on for the jobseekers allowance, but every time she does supply work, even if it is for only one day, she has to sign off, because what she earns cancels out her jobseekers allowance. Like many other young Scottish teachers on the dole, she has considered working abroad. She and her partner want to buy a house, but they cannot do so because of her uncertain situation.
Another constituent of mine, Donald McDonald from Bishopbriggs, decided on a career change after 20 years in industry. He qualified as a primary school teacher and has just completed his probationary year. We all know that there is a great shortage of men in primary teaching. His pupils enjoyed his computer-based lessons, but that has not helped him. He has volunteered to work in local schools to gain experience while he, too, waits for the phone to ring and a job to be offered. He cannot keep that up for ever, because he has a wife and family to support. He describes the chance of even an interview for one of the few jobs on offer as akin to a lottery win and shares Jenny's concerns about the use of retired teachers to plug gaps.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am always grateful for an intervention from Mr Doris.
In the member's conversations with Jenny Boyle and Donald McDonald, did he inform them that there are 10,000 teachers in Scotland who are over 55 and could retire at any point and that they should hang on in there, or did he just tell them his side of the story and make cheap party-political points instead of putting their careers first?
If Mr Doris was a constituency member, he would know that it is my job to put forward the concerns of my constituents in the chamber. Perhaps he can tell the people to whom he speaks why 1,000 teaching jobs have been lost since his Government came to power.
Other constituents have written about family members who have emigrated to places such as Australia and New Zealand or who have given up teaching and sought work in another profession. The cabinet secretary cannot duck responsibility for that. The examples that I have given happened on her watch—they happened since the SNP came to power in 2007.
Budget figures for next year show a cut in the school allocation of over 3 per cent. Promises were made, but those promises have been broken. Worst of all, enthusiastic young people who see teaching as more than a job and who want to help to educate the next generation have been let down badly by the SNP. As the Labour motion says, that is
"an appalling loss of talent … and a gross betrayal".
Fiona Hyslop has presided over this teaching crisis and, ultimately, she will pay the price.
I agree with the concerns that have been raised on teacher employment for 2009-10. Teachers who are now looking for work, having completed their probationary year in 2008-09, and who are part of the training intake that was decided on early in 2007 for one-year postgraduates—or, indeed, in early 2004, for those doing a four-year course—are unemployed partly as a result of the badly managed recruitment decisions of the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition in 2004 and 2007.
Will the member give way?
In a minute.
In every year since 2005, an ever-increasing number of trained teachers have failed to secure permanent employment, in part as a result of the previous Administration's decisions. I will take an intervention from Ms Brankin on those decisions.
The previous Administration got teacher numbers up to over 53,000. In this Government's first year, 1,000 teaching jobs were lost. That is the truth. Does the member recognise those figures? Does he accept that teacher numbers were at a record high of more than 53,000 under the Labour-Liberal Democrat Administration?
That intervention allows me to draw attention to the 200 teachers whom Glasgow Labour has failed to employ.
In two short years, with the SNP Government's prioritisation of education spending, our primary schools now enjoy record low average class sizes. Labour members may not think that that goes far enough, but that is a bit rich coming from a party that does not even believe in lowering class sizes. That is hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hypocrisy, not education, education, education.
In our concordat commitments, we made our policy for lower class sizes clear. Let us not forget that national Government sets the agenda, but local government employs the teachers. Where the policy of the elected Government in the concordat agreement, to which all local authorities signed up, is respected and adhered to, class sizes are coming down. Local authorities, not Government, employ teachers. That is clear. Does any member want education departments across Scotland to be centralised? I do not think so.
In Glasgow, the Labour-run council has chosen not to implement smaller class sizes. It prefers to make cheap political points against the SNP than to support teachers, children and families. Labour in Glasgow is letting down our children badly. The closing of 20 primary schools and nurseries against the backdrop of a sham consultation amounted to no more than the wanton destruction of local communities. Class sizes are rising, while teacher numbers are down, as is spending on education, which is now the lowest in the country.
Steven Purcell's priorities are all over the place. Last week, Purcell spoke of
"a dagger in the heart of Glasgow."
When Glasgow Labour closed the primary schools and nurseries, that was a dagger in the heart of every community. That was the real dagger in the heart of Glasgow and it was wielded by the Glasgow Labour Party.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will take no more carping from Ms Brankin.
Labour members carp away, filling the chamber with an unwanted air of cynicism. Does that sound like Rhona Brankin? I think so. Labour entirely misses the point: the SNP has a new ambition for Scottish education. Labour prefers attack, attack, attack; it has nothing positive or constructive to say. The SNP Government will legislate to reduce primary 1 class sizes to a legal maximum of 25. When the Labour-Liberal Democrat Executive failed in its class size targets, did it legislate to reduce the legal maximum? It did not. For Labour, it is not education, education, education, but hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hypocrisy.
The SNP will take no lessons from Labour; we will act. We are reducing class sizes and standing up for teachers. Labour should come to the chamber with something constructive to say. That is what this country needs; it is what our teachers, pupils and communities need. People want constructive policies, not Labour negativity. I ask members to reject the Labour motion.
Nothing is more important to the future of Scotland than the education of our children. For that reason, maintaining teacher numbers in the face of falling school rolls seemed to be one of the better policies of the Scottish Government. However, infuriatingly, the minister gave no explanation of why the Government has failed by a figure of 1,000 to achieve that objective. Instead, he trumpeted the so-called record resources to local government. In effect, he blamed local government for the failure. As Rhona Brankin reminded him, 12 of the 13 SNP councils have failed, including the City of Edinburgh Council. The case of Edinburgh is particularly worrying, because the city does not have a falling school roll. In fact, over the next 10 years, primary school rolls in Edinburgh will increase by 20 per cent.
As it happens, the cabinet secretary has been talking quite a bit about Edinburgh recently. Last night she gave a television interview, but perhaps it would best be left in obscurity. In answer to a question that I put to her last week, she said:
"the City of Edinburgh Council … should be making efforts to reduce class sizes … it wants to concentrate on areas of deprivation where, as we know, having smaller class sizes gives schools the space and time to raise standards of literacy and numeracy in those who will benefit most."—[Official Report, 17 September 2009; c 19743.]
A couple of weeks ago, George Foulkes and I had a meeting with the City of Edinburgh Council education convener on the council's school closure proposals. We asked her whether the council had built class sizes of 18 into its proposal. We expected a long and detailed answer, but she just said, "No."
The school closure proposals in Edinburgh will result in larger class sizes, including in areas of deprivation. Fort primary school in my constituency has the largest percentage of pupils who take free school meals of any school in Edinburgh. In spite of that, the school is 10 per cent above similar schools in terms of attainment. The proposal to close Fort primary school will result in £145,000 of savings in teacher costs. In other words, if the school is closed, the result will be a higher pupil teacher ratio in the larger school that the Fort pupils will go to.
Of course, I understand the arguments about saving money spent on maintaining school buildings; sometimes there is an argument for closing schools for that reason. However, I have never come across a school closure document that seeks to make two thirds of revenue savings from cutting staff. In Edinburgh, school closures are being used as a mechanism for cutting teacher posts. In my constituency, the result will be larger classes and overfilled schools. I made that point last night at a public meeting about Royston primary school, which is also up for closure.
As we have seen in the debate today, and not for the first time, there is an enormous gap between the SNP Government's policies and the reality on the ground. The policy, which we keep hearing about, including on television last night, is for year-on-year reductions in class sizes and maintaining teacher numbers. However, every day across Scotland, the reality contradicts the policy. It is time for the Scottish Government to remember that nothing is more important for the future of Scotland than the education of our children.
Three years ago, Fiona Hyslop said:
"Scottish education has been lacking in strong political leadership. It's time for new energy, actual delivery, dynamic vision and passionate leadership of education in Scotland."
Is it not a pity that, instead of that, we got the cabinet secretary and an SNP Government that has failed to deliver on its election bribes in education more than in any other policy area?
I see that my comments have brought the cabinet secretary back into the chamber—I am pleased to see her. As Karen Gillon pointed out, the cabinet secretary could have had an extra hour in her bed this morning. When she finally got up, she should have had a bit of what Karen Gillon and Bob Doris had for breakfast—we have had some passionate speeches this morning. That is perfectly understandable, as the debate provides a timely reminder of the terrific waste of teaching talent over which the Government presides. That waste of talent should, and does, genuinely concern every member of the Parliament. Dougie Mackie of the EIS summed up the situation well when he said:
"the current difficulties in teacher employment are little short of a national scandal … the fact that young teachers cannot find work is a loss of public money dedicated to training and a potential waste of human capital at a time when young teachers are often at the forefront of new initiatives in schools."
The Government is failing in our schools. It committed itself to maintaining teacher numbers, so that with falling school rolls—I take the point that Malcolm Chisholm makes about Edinburgh—it could deliver its discredited class size policy. We now know that it has failed to deliver that policy. Just when we were all about to give up completely on the Scottish Government on class sizes, it announces that it has already given up on itself by bringing forward legislation to cap primary 1 classes only at 25—a proposal noticeably absent from the Scottish Government programme that was proudly reeled off by the First Minister earlier this month. Yesterday the cabinet secretary could not even bring herself to face Parliament with the news that the policy was about to hit the scrap heap, and made her announcement in Glasgow instead. That is unsurprising—not only is the measure a humiliating climbdown from the election promises of class sizes of 18 in P1, P2 and P3, but it will achieve very little, given that about 95 per cent of P1s are already in classes of 25 or under. The real action is needed in P2 and P3.
It is shocking to hear any member, especially an SNP member, give the advice that Bob Doris gave to the teachers who are languishing at home—to hang on in there until a few teachers decide to retire. We know that the number of teachers who are choosing to retire is an issue, given the economic situation in which we find ourselves. However, Bob Doris's advice seemed to be the 2009 equivalent of Norman Tebbit's "Get on your bike"—but probably not as good.
Rhona Brankin, Murdo Fraser, David Whitton and others made the point that there is a terrific waste of human capital. Some will question whether the teacher induction scheme raises too many expectations, but Liberal Democrat members firmly believe that the guaranteed probationary year remains an improvement on the previous system. What is required is proper management of the systems of supply and demand. Yet again, the SNP has spent today's debate passing the buck to local government—trying to sidestep the fact that its promises to maintain teacher numbers at the record level of 53,000 achieved by the previous Administration and to reduce class sizes have helped to fuel probationers' expectations of jobs for all. The Government has failed to give local government the financial and legislative tools that it needs to reduce class sizes to 18 and to employ the number of teachers that we need.
Rightly, members have highlighted the low number of people who are getting full-time permanent posts. The Times Educational Supplement Scotland showed that only 15 per cent of probationers had secured permanent teaching posts—a significant fall from the 32 per cent who secured such positions in 2007. The GTC follow-up survey showed that, halfway through the school year, only a third had secured permanent employment. As some members have pointed out, that has a real impact on people's ability to live their lives as they wish.
I have a real fear that the uncertainty surrounding teaching posts will act as a deterrent to some Scots who would otherwise have entered the profession. These are tough times for Scotland's councils, and all the signs are that they will get tougher. The Government keeps saying that sufficient money is in the local authority settlement, but member after member—including the minister—has acknowledged that teacher numbers are falling across the country.
The Tory amendment makes a reasonable point about priorities—we certainly agree on the issue of free school meals. This is an important debate that has highlighted yet again the Government's broken promises. It has also highlighted the importance of a well-trained, well-motivated teaching profession to Scotland's future wellbeing. Teachers deserve better than they are getting from the SNP.
Malcolm Chisholm made the point that few jobs are more important in defining the future of this country than being a teacher. That is why this morning various speakers—with considerable passion—have been right to identify the current disgrace of a large number of teachers, both new and experienced, being unable to find a job. If headteachers were free to comment on the matter, I doubt that one of them would be prepared to accept that situation. Like every parent and pupil, they know that a good school depends on the headteacher's ability to recruit the best staff. They also know that, at present, they cannot do that job properly because of local authorities' ability to restrict the labour market. That makes it exceedingly difficult for headteachers to ensure that there is stability in teacher appointments, with the result that far too many classes have to put up with a change of teacher during the school year.
Of course, difficult economic circumstances mean that more of the older generation of teachers are postponing their retirement, but there are also far too many constraints in the teaching marketplace, not least those that are imposed by the Scottish Government's disastrous class size policy, which becomes more chaotic by the day.
Workforce planning has been dealt a severe blow by the fact that local authorities, many of which are geographically large and diverse, operate a centrally controlled recruitment policy that pays little heed to the needs of individual schools. We all know headteachers who are told from which employment pools they must appoint staff. The Herald newspaper has reported that newly qualified teachers across the country are finding it difficult to find permanent jobs because of a worrying trend—the fact that some local authorities are deliberately preventing new teachers from getting jobs because they have stronger employment rights than probationary teachers, who are a cheaper option. What became of the 12 key recommendations of the teacher employment working group report, which the cabinet secretary told us in June 2008 would remove some of the rigidities?
It is ludicrous for any Government to assert that it can find every qualified teacher and probationer a permanent job. That is simply not in its power—we would not expect it to be. However, it is in its power to carry out a complete reappraisal of the recruitment process to allow much greater flexibility within the demand structure so that it better reflects supply and to prevent the situation of 564 unfilled posts, which was the case in the previous two sessions. Rigid central control has failed, and it is time to let headteachers make more of the running. They should be free to choose the best staff, instead of being hide-bound by the bureaucracy of local authorities, many of which do not even keep a good record of data on teacher numbers, and the disastrous central diktats of a failed class size policy.
Thanks to the excellent progress that the GTC has made in recent years, the standard of teacher training is improving all the time. That also has the effect of raising standards among older, more experienced teachers. What a waste it is that so much talent is currently consigned to the sidelines. It does not take a genius to see what effects that will have on those who are currently at college and university and may be considering teaching as a career.
Worse still—if that were not enough—teachers look at the SNP's flagship schools manifesto pledges and its subsequent school report. On class sizes, the SNP said:
"We will reduce class sizes in Primary 1, 2 and 3 to eighteen pupils or less"—
I would still rather that it had said "or fewer". That is now a chaotic policy, which finally bit the dust yesterday. On physical education, the SNP said:
"we will ensure that every pupil has 2 hours of quality PE each week delivered by specialist PE teachers."
That is an important policy, but only two councils say that they can achieve it. On outdoor education, the SNP said:
"We will work towards a guarantee of 5 days outdoor education for every school pupil."
That is another important pledge, but no councils are delivering it. On teacher numbers, the SNP said:
"We will maintain teacher numbers in the face of falling school rolls",
yet we have 1,000 fewer teachers. On raising standards, the SNP said:
"We will pay particular attention to raising the achievement of the poorest performing 20 per cent of school pupils",
but we find that many standards are declining.
What a catalogue of failure, and what a massive turn-off to anyone who is either in or considering the teaching profession. I hope that the Parliament will support the amendment in Murdo Fraser's name.
I call Keith Brown.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Do you have the power to call instead the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, so that she can accept her responsibility and reply to the debate?
I suspect that the member knows the answer to that question. I have the power to call anyone who wishes to speak. In this case, I call Keith Brown.
Further to that point of order—
Mr Foulkes, would you sit down, please? I have dealt with your point of order, which was not a point of order.
This is a point of order.
It had better be a point of order.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
No. I will take Mr Foulkes.
Will Mr Foulkes give way to me first?
There is no giving way on points of order, Mr McConnell. Mr Foulkes.
You might pronounce my name properly from time to time, but that is another matter.
Is it not appropriate for you, as Presiding Officer, to exercise your power to call the cabinet secretary to accept her responsibility and reply to the debate? She was on "Newsnight" last night but she is failing to come along and answer the debate—
Sit down. I choose from among the members who have indicated that they wish to speak in the debate.
Mr McConnell, do you still wish to make a point of order?
Yes. Perhaps the Presiding Officers collectively could reflect on the absolute need for the chair to recognise when a member wishes to make a point of order, regardless of what they personally think of that point of order. I wish you to reflect on that in the course of the day.
We allow members to make points of order but once it becomes obvious during the making of that point of order that it is not in fact a point of order, we reserve the right to stop the member.
I am grateful for the opportunity to sum up on behalf of the Government, even if Mr Foulkes does not want me to. The Government is committed to improving Scottish education, which is absolutely crucial to our purpose of increasing sustainable economic growth. We will improve Scottish education through the curriculum for excellence, and our teachers are the agents for change that will bring about those improvements.
Despite what has been said, we have achieved record low class sizes and pupil teacher ratios. There are increasing numbers of children in classes of 18 or fewer, and fewer children in classes of 25 or more. Further, record levels of funding are being directed to local government—whether or not the Opposition likes that fact.
We have a legacy from the previous Administration that we need to address. We have an oversupply of teachers and confusion about maximum class sizes. This Government is taking action to sort those out.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No. I am just starting.
We have cut student teacher intake targets for the session that has just started, and we will do the same for the intake in autumn 2010. We need to restore a reasonable balance between teacher supply and demand. We will take the tough decisions that are necessary to achieve that. We will make regulations to limit P1 class sizes to 25 from 2010 and review the current unsatisfactory mixture of class size control mechanisms.
Will the minister explain the point about the oversupply of teachers? If he still thinks that he has an oversupply of teachers, how many more teachers will he cut out of teaching numbers in Scotland?
It is clear that the demand for teachers has to match the supply. We have taken action to reduce numbers by 500 because of the oversupply. The member knows full well that some decisions were taken three and four years ago—we are trying to correct some of those false assumptions.
Will the minister take an intervention?
Will the minister take an intervention?
Order.
On the point that was made earlier about morale within the teaching profession, along with the cabinet secretary I had the chance yesterday to speak at the Scottish learning festival. Not one single teacher, not one person looking for a job in teaching and not one headteacher made comments that fit with the Opposition's assertions. However, I was repeatedly told the extent to which teachers are fed up with the apocalyptic nature of statements made by Opposition parties, and the effect that that is having on morale in the education community.
In relation to retaining teachers and local government, I refer members to the statement from COSLA's education convener, who said:
"We also acknowledge that money was retained with the local government settlement at a level equivalent to maintaining teacher numbers at 2007/08 levels."
I would have thought that the Opposition would acknowledge that. I would also have thought that Karen Gillon would acknowledge the fact that in South Lanarkshire there has been an increase of nearly 50 per cent in the number of classes with fewer than 18 pupils in P1 to P3—that was not recognised in her speech.
Will the minister acknowledge the situation in a number of urban schools in South Lanarkshire, such as Crawforddyke primary school in Carluke, where class sizes in P2 and P3 were previously 25 and are now 28 and 31?
I still hear no acknowledgement from Karen Gillon of the 50 per cent increase in the number of P1 to P3 classes going below 18.
The minister is missing the point.
No, the member is missing the point.
It is clear that the Opposition has nothing positive to say. Do Opposition members wish to make any suggestions? There have been one or two suggestions from the Conservatives, including the idea of abolishing free school meals, which I will not accept. Do Opposition members want to reintroduce ring fencing in local government? Their councils and their councillors do not want that. Will they introduce amendments to the budget that will result in even more resources going into teaching? I do not think so.
It is important to realise that the teachers who finished their probation year in 2008-09 undertook training in numbers that were decided in early 2007 or early 2004. It is also important to realise that nine out of 10 teachers whose probation year was 2007-08 were employed in some form by the end of the following school year.
If the SNP Government's target for teacher numbers is not to maintain them at 53,000—which it manifestly is not—what is it?
The Government's overriding priority is to ensure that there are enough teachers to deliver the education system that we want in this country. That is not a definite science. It has been difficult for previous Administrations. It is interesting to note that the number of teachers going straight from training to permanent employment has been in decline since 2005, and that—as Bob Doris said—around 10,000 primary and secondary school teachers are over 55 and could retire at any time. When that happens, it is important that we meet the resulting demand.
To listen to the overwrought rhetoric of some members, we would not think that teacher unemployment is lower now than it was in the early years of the Labour-Lib Dem Administration. Most important, it is necessary for any mature debate on the issue to recognise that the employment of teachers is undeniably—despite what has been said—a matter for local authorities.
Rhona Brankin forgot to mention some other facts, for example that £2 billion of cuts in education have been proposed south of the border. There have been proposals from the Lib Dems to abolish tuition fees—
Will the minister take an intervention?
Order.
We have heard nothing more from the Liberal Democrats about the proposed £800 million cut in the Scottish budget. Members have a choice to make: either they choose the past way of doing things, with central Government pulling the strings, or they come with us into the future and work in true partnership with local government.
I am pleased that the cabinet secretary has been able to join us for the conclusion of the debate, although I am staggered that we should need to hold such a debate to force the Scottish Government to take action on teacher numbers. The accumulation of evidence that ministers are failing to honour their commitments to teachers is now so overwhelming that we can only conclude that it is being deliberately ignored.
I believe that most of us were genuinely shocked in March when the teacher census was published. The surprise was not that the number of posts was down—as Murdo Fraser and many other members have highlighted, we all received e-mails and approaches from constituents who let us know that trouble was afoot. The surprise was the scale of the job losses—nearly 1,000 teaching posts lost in just a year. Last week, the public sector employment figures confirmed precisely the same trend. To add insult to injury, this week we discovered that the number of nursery teachers is also down for the second year running, despite the First Minister's specific assurances on that point.
Across the board, in every sector, the teaching jobs problem is becoming a teaching jobs crisis. Yet, despite a crystal clear manifesto commitment from the SNP, the Scottish ministers are doing nothing to turn the situation around. The SNP manifesto and the concor—I beg your pardon, the concordat; I hope that I will never have to say that again—both spelled out:
"We will maintain teacher numbers in the face of falling school rolls to cut class sizes".
That simple promise offered security to the profession, encouragement to new recruits and trainees and, of course, improved discipline and a better learning environment to parents and pupils. Instead, we have had a series of cuts.
The fact that school rolls are falling has probably served to disguise the gravity of the situation. The First Minister and his education team have tried to hide behind the fact that we have a static pupil teacher ratio, as if to say, "Well, matters aren't getting any worse." However, matters are getting worse, and hundreds of teachers up and down the country are chasing jobs. As Rhona Brankin said, there were 543 applicants for one job in Perth and Kinross. In addition, hundreds of teachers are being employed on temporary rather than permanent contracts. The result, if we are not careful, could soon be a return to a disillusioned and dispirited profession.
Just last year, studies told us that the lack of job opportunities is damaging the career prospects and professional development of young teachers. In fact, the teaching crisis is having a particularly deleterious effect on new entrants to the profession. Newly qualified teachers are being forced abroad, elsewhere or out of the profession entirely. That is despite the fact that the average age of most new entrants is more than 30. People who have had jobs and careers and who are married and have homes are being let down.
If people are lucky enough to find work, the casualisation of the workforce—the dramatic shift away from permanent posts—leaves them vulnerable and anxious. I was struck by the parallels that David Whitton drew between teachers and dock workers in the past. As we debate the situation, teachers are at home, waiting anxiously by the phone.
The effect on other areas is dramatic. There are reports that some teachers' contracts are not being renewed as they approach the end of the year, so that they do not accumulate employment rights.
What has been the Scottish Government's reaction? It has attempted to deny that problems are arising. Members will recall that, last year, the First Minister's strategy was to describe the fall in the number of nursery teachers as a substantial increase. I thought that such an approach could not be taken again this year, but there have been unfortunate echoes of it from several members, including the minister Keith Brown.
I was encouraged that the minister started his speech with an expression of regret—well, he should apologise—but he then had the gall to claim that the SNP has made substantial progress on its class size target, and he did that the day after the SNP officially replaced a class size target of 18 with one of 25. The minister refused to answer me when I asked him when, if the SNP still has its illusory target, the target will be reached. That is because, on the Government's figures, it will take more than 80 years to reach the target. Is that substantial progress?
The SNP's first strategy is to deny that things are happening; its second strategy is to blame someone else. The strategy is familiar to us all and was mentioned by Murdo Fraser, Margaret Smith and other members. I liked Margaret Smith's phrase:
"the SNP has centralised the policy but localised the blame."
It is always someone else's fault. In this case the SNP is not blaming Westminster, as it usually does—although I bet some SNP members think that Westminster is ultimately behind the issue—and instead is blaming local councils. As Karen Gillon said, the SNP is blaming those pesky local authorities.
The SNP's amendment asks that the Parliament
"notes that the employment of teachers is a matter for local authorities".
Whatever the role and responsibility of councils, has it escaped the minister's notice that SNP-controlled Renfrewshire Council and SNP-controlled Aberdeen City Council started this? As Rhona Brankin pointed out, 12 out of 13 SNP-controlled local authorities have cut teacher numbers.
When the SNP is forced to take action, what does it do? The cabinet secretary's reaction was to cut teacher recruitment. How can doing that maintain teacher numbers, improve discipline in classrooms and help to reduce class sizes? Such an approach does nothing for the teachers who are currently employed. Keith Brown suggested in his closing speech that there is a problem of oversupply. The issue is not oversupply; it is about ensuring that there are enough jobs for teachers to go to. It is not even about creating jobs; it is about maintaining jobs, just as the SNP said in its manifesto.
The previous Executive did much to restore the professional standing of teachers by improving pay and conditions, introducing the induction scheme, reducing class sizes and employing record numbers of teachers. All that work has been put at risk by the negligence of the SNP Government. I urge members to support Labour's motion.