Official Report 837KB pdf
Our final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S7M-00947, in the name of Thomas Kerr, on results of the independent Inquiry into White Working Class Educational Outcomes. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I ask members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament recognises what it considers to be the crucial issues raised by the independent Inquiry into White Working Class Educational Outcomes; notes the belief that the statistics it highlighted are valid within Scotland, including in the Glasgow parliamentary region, as *analysis of UCAS annual reports, Scottish Government school leaver destination data and Scottish Funding Council Widening Access reports,* reportedly indicates that for more than a decade, in both the UK and Scotland, white working class boys are the group least likely to go to university; recognises what it sees as the importance of ensuring that all children and young people have the opportunity to succeed, regardless of their background, and notes the calls for the Scottish Government to urgently undertake an assessment of the extent to which white working-class boys and young men experience educational or socio-economic disadvantage and to explore targeted measures to address this where such disadvantage is identified.
17:14
I welcome the opportunity to speak about the educational outcomes of white working-class children and the implications of the inquiry that was co-chaired by Sir Hamid Patel and Baroness Estelle Morris. I thank Stephen Kerr for signing the motion and ensuring that we had enough cross-party support for this important debate to be heard in Scotland’s national Parliament.
Why do we need this debate? We need it because the report raises an important question: are we genuinely providing every child with the opportunity to succeed, regardless of their background or family circumstances? For too many working-class families, the answer remains no. Education should be one of the greatest instruments of social mobility. It should allow a child from a disadvantaged background to pursue their ambitions, develop their talents and build a better future. That is what it did for me, as someone from a working-class background, the son of two drug addicts, who grew up in the east end of Glasgow. If my story had been written on paper, it should not have ended with me being in this building. Instead, I should have been just another statistic. If I am honest, I almost became just that, but, thankfully, through education and by being pointed in the right direction by my grandparents, I was saved.
However, my story is still an exception, not the norm. Poverty and disadvantage continue to shape educational outcomes. The inquiry highlights the significant challenges that are faced by white working-class pupils in England, including in relation to attainment, literacy and access to opportunity. Although the findings relate to England, the issues that they raise are directly relevant here in Scotland. We must be prepared to examine those issues, but when I wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Education, Culture and Gaelic over the summer to ask whether she would instruct a similar inquiry in Scotland, she refused. That was disappointing. In fact, she did not even mention white working-class boys in her response, which I think was disrespectful.
Scotland has a proud educational tradition. We have long believed that education should provide a route to a better life. We once had the best education system in the world, but, under the Scottish National Party Government, that is no more. Across Glasgow and the west of Scotland, families work hard, make sacrifices and do everything that they can to give their children a better future. We must ensure that their children are not held back by circumstances beyond their control.
A child who arrives at school struggling with literacy, living in overcrowded housing or facing financial hardship does not necessarily begin from the same position as a child who has enjoyed every advantage. That is a reflection not of their ability, but of the barriers that they face. It is our responsibility to address those barriers.
One of the most important issues that the inquiry raised is that of literacy. Reading is the foundation of education. A child who struggles to read confidently will find it increasingly difficult to access other subjects, participate in lessons and develop confidence in their abilities. That is why early intervention matters. We need to identify difficulties in literacy and numeracy as early as possible, to provide teachers with the resources that they need and to support families in helping their children to learn. We should strengthen links between schools, parents and local libraries and ensure that children have access to books and learning resources regardless of their household income. We must not wait until a child has fallen significantly behind before offering meaningful help, and we must ensure that support that makes a measurable difference is provided.
Another important issue is how we value vocational education. For too long, there has been a tendency to treat university as the ultimate measure of educational success. That does a disservice to many young people whose ambitions lie elsewhere. Scotland needs skilled tradespeople, engineers, electricians, joiners, mechanics and technicians just as much as it needs graduates. A young person who chooses an apprenticeship should never feel that they have been failed. We need stronger links between schools, colleges and employers, as well as better careers advice and accessible routes into skilled employment.
Apprenticeships must be respected, properly supported and available to young people in communities across Scotland, because they can provide a route to financial independence, meaningful work and a better future. That is particularly important in communities where traditional industries have declined and where young people need to be able to see a clear path into employment. We must ensure that where someone is born does not determine the opportunities that are available to them.
What should Scotland do? First, we need to have a clearer understanding of the educational outcomes that are experienced by disadvantaged white working-class pupils in Scotland, including on attainment, attendance, literacy and progression into further education and employment. It is vital that we have an inquiry here in Scotland to look at those issues to ensure that we get that right. Secondly, we must strengthen early intervention, particularly on literacy and numeracy, so that difficulties are addressed before they become entrenched. Thirdly, we must properly support schools that serve disadvantaged communities and recognise the pressures that teachers face and the wider needs of their pupils.
Fourthly, we should strengthen vocational education and apprenticeships, ensuring that young people have access to meaningful careers and a range of respected pathways.
Finally, we must measure whether our policies are actually improving outcomes. It is not good enough to publish strategies or announce initiatives; we need to know whether our children are reading more confidently, whether attainment gaps are narrowing and whether young people are progressing into education, training and secure employment. That is how we should judge whether our education system is delivering on its promise.
I will finish by speaking about the young people at the heart of this debate. A working-class background should never be a barrier to ambition. A family’s income should never determine a child’s potential, and a young person’s postcode should never decide how far they can go in life. Those are principles that we should all be able to agree on, but principles mean very little unless they are backed by action. The inquiry that was chaired by Sir Hamid Patel provides an opportunity for Scotland to reflect on the challenges facing working-class pupils and to consider what more can be done.
We should learn from the evidence, examine our own education system honestly and develop practical solutions that meet the needs of Scottish communities. When a child is denied the opportunity to fulfil their potential, Scotland loses out, too. We lose future skills, future talent and future contributions to our communities. When we give that child the support and opportunity that they need, the benefits extend far beyond the individual. That benefits their family, their community and their country. That is why this issue matters, and it is why Scotland must be prepared to act.
17:21
I will start by saying something quite simple: I have no difficulty recognising that some white working-class boys and young men are struggling in our education system. If young people in our communities are being left behind, we should want to know why and we should want to do something about it. However, I have a problem with the way in which Thomas Kerr and Reform UK try to explain those disadvantages. There is a difference between identifying a section of our society as struggling and proving why they are struggling.
I grew up in deepest, darkest Lanarkshire, and those are the communities that I represent in the chamber today. My constituency is full of people who work hard and raise families, and who want their children to have opportunities that they might not have had themselves. There is no shortage of ambition. The challenge is to ensure that that ambition has somewhere to go.
I left Cardinal Newman high school in Bellshill with no more than a few standard grades. My prospects were really not great—just as Mr Kerr tried to outline. My ambition was there but, to match that ambition, I felt that I had to do something—something that would get right under Mr Kerr’s skin. Colleagues, I left this country at 17 years of age, and I went to another country looking for work. I was an economic migrant. I mention that because white working-class men and boys have faced challenges in education for many years, none of them for the reasons that Reform UK likes to portray in its rhetoric.
Quite a few of us in the chamber have something in common: that we come from a working-class background. I recognise what Steven Bonnar is saying, but I am going to do something impossible here: I will try to build a bridge between the SNP member and Reform. Did Thomas Kerr’s speech not say exactly what Steven Bonnar is saying? I think that it did. I do not think that anyone is categorising the problem that we are discussing as one of ethnicity; it is a problem of opportunity. Surely, on that, all of us in the chamber can agree that having more equality of opportunity is something that we should all aspire to in this country.
I absolutely agree with the points that Mr Kerr has raised, but the title of the debate is about “White Working Class” men, as if they are somehow at a disadvantage—not “working-class people”. I will extol the virtues of working-class people and—
Will the member give way?
Of course I will, Mr Kerr.
I genuinely thank Steven Bonnar for taking this intervention.
The reason the debate is titled that is because it is titled after a report on white working-class boys. It is not titled like that to try and stir up anything, other than to acknowledge the fact that a report was done in England looking at working-class attainment, particularly among white people. That is the fact of what we are looking at. All that we are asking is for the Scottish Government to do a similar inquiry to the one that has been done in England. What part of my speech could Steven Bonnar disagree with?
Mr Kerr has made that speech today. He has been in the chamber since May, and I have listened to his rhetoric time and again. Today, on Twitter, he was talking about “strangers invading our country.” He should not come here and be sanctimonious and try to blur the lines about what his message actually is.
The report before us is substantial and I do not dismiss the research, but it is research into the English education system, commissioned and funded by the Christopher and Henry Oldfield Trust, and its purpose was not simply to identify a problem but to recommend reforms. Let us be clear about what it states: it identifies serious disadvantage among white working class children in England, and nobody is disputing that. What I do dispute is Reform taking that evidence and making the political leap that white working-class children in Scotland have somehow been overlooked simply due to their ethnicity. Where is the evidence for that? The report points to poverty, economic decline, loss of local industries, poor transport, disengagement, additional needs, weak careers advice and limited access to vocational opportunities.
Will the member give way?
I will make some progress.
Those are all serious problems, but they do not evidence a conspiracy against white working-class children. Thomas Kerr will not improve the lives of white working-class people by telling them that another disadvantaged child somewhere else has somehow come in and taken their place.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am afraid that we will need to move on with the debate and with Mr Bonnar’s speech.
Thomas Kerr’s motion calls on the Scottish Government to assess disadvantage and consider targeted action. That is fine, but he has already asked the Government that question and he got an answer. Work is already happening through the Scottish attainment challenge, and £200 million has been invested to support children and young people who are affected by poverty—like him and me.
Reform is not uncovering a new problem that everybody else has simply ignored. The issue is whether we are targeting our support effectively enough, and that brings me back to the young people I represent. If a young person in Uddingston or Bellshill is struggling because they are growing up in poverty, then we want to tackle that poverty. If they have additional needs, I will fight tooth and nail to get them the right support, and if they have disengaged from school, we need to understand why. If they cannot see a route into an apprenticeship, a college or a decent job or university, it is incumbent on us to create those routes. If there is a particular barrier affecting white working-class boys in Scotland, then yes, let us identify it and act on it. Let us do that on the basis of sound Scottish evidence, not Reform rhetoric or soundbite slogans.
Will the member take an intervention?
You must come to a conclusion, Mr Bonnar.
With your indulgence, Presiding Officer, I am just finishing up.
Thomas Kerr is the self-appointed voice of the working classes, but he offers nothing of substance on these real issues and he does not own the voice of the working-class communities. He may have grown up in the east end of Glasgow, but being born in a stable does not make someone a horse. He certainly does not get to tell those communities that the answer to their problem is to blame somebody else or disadvantaged children from other communities. The young people I represent do not need to be told which box they belong in—they need us to remove the barriers that are standing in their way. That is what serious politics should be about, and that is what every working-class child in Scotland deserves, regardless of their ethnicity.
I remind members that open debate speeches should be no longer than four minutes. I will give some leeway for interventions but, if we continue with overruns, we will have to extend the debate.
17:27
Each of us in the chamber understands the importance of a good education for getting the best start in life. Mr Bonnar, Mr Kerr and I are the same in having grown up in working-class homes, and I am a proud product of a Scottish state education. We should all be very proud of the fact that three of us are able to stand up in the chamber and say that.
Ms Sangster said that she was the third person that can say that; I also come from a working-class background, and I am very proud of that. Earlier, Mr Bonnar said that Reform members do not understand going and working abroad, but I have also worked abroad. I believe that we need to bring the debate back to general education. My understanding is that my colleague had asked for information, which brought us to this debate. Would Ms Sangster agree that we are all here because some information has been requested? We are interested in the education of all children, but this was a particular request. Would she agree that it is a reasonable request to make?
Obviously, I am not a Government spokesperson, so perhaps the member can ask Alyn Smith, who is sitting on the Government bench. Steven Bonnar rightly pointed out that that report is to do with England, not Scotland. Julie MacDougall will probably have heard my previous questions in the chamber and should know that I believe that we absolutely need to get more data and information on what is happening with our working-class children.
Something that white working-class children and working-class children of colour have in common is that they are likely to be living in poverty or in households that are blighted by insecure work or low pay. That is where the attainment gap is the largest. There are around 156,000 white children in relative poverty in Scotland, so they make up the majority of children in poverty. Therefore, if we tackle child poverty, we will be able to close the attainment gap for all children, regardless of their ethnic background.
I hosted the Save the Children and Joseph Rowntree Foundation breakfast briefing—I think that it was just yesterday, but one can lose a sense of time in this place. I was pleased to see colleagues from the Greens, the SNP, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats attending. I apologise if I missed any Reform members who attended, but I do not think that any did. That briefing discussed the way in which we talk about poverty. We must talk about poverty in a way that chimes with the people who are living in it, but also speaks to people in the broader population, so that we can start making positive changes.
That is why I am proud to support the rollout of breakfast clubs. I am also pleased that the Labour UK Government scrapped the two-child cap, and I note that Reform did not support that move. There are real, positive ways that we can make change for people and put more money in the pockets of struggling families.
It is vital that every child and young person in Scotland has the opportunity to succeed, regardless of their background. That is the foundation of the Labour Party. Nobody should have circumstances that limit their educational attainment or block opportunities. Our education system must be equipped to address the impacts of poverty and disadvantage and to ensure that every child can achieve the outcomes that they deserve.
The attainment gap remains one of the greatest challenges that Scottish education faces. Around one in four children is living in poverty, and schools cannot be expected to tackle the challenge alone. Teachers and schools work tirelessly to support young people, but they are not always able to have the resources that are needed to address the issues that children bring into the classroom. If we are serious about closing the attainment gap and about improving outcomes for white working-class boys, that is what we need to look at: we must tackle poverty at its source.
Scotland’s poorest pupils are more than three years behind their wealthy counterparts, according to the programme for international student assessment, or PISA, study that came out a couple of weeks ago. That should concern us all. Improving educational outcomes starts with having robust data and evidence—I absolutely agree with that point. We have to understand what progress is being made and what further action is needed. Just as importantly, we must ensure that a child’s postcode, family income or background does not determine their future.
Can the member conclude?
Sorry. I will speak to one more point and then conclude.
I am glad that Thomas Kerr supports a UK Labour policy, because we have just launched vocational GCSEs. I have run out of time, but I will mention Alan Milburn’s report on young people who are out of work and not in positive destinations. We can discuss that and work together on that issue.
17:33
At the heart of the report is something uncomfortable—I think that we have felt that tone. It is something urgent that we can no longer ignore. We need to understand whether the findings in the report are the same here, or not. That is an important point.
The report tells us that, in England, white working-class children are consistently among the lowest-attaining groups and they face the sharpest literacy gaps. They are the least likely to progress to positive destinations, and their outcomes are more closely tied to social class than any other factor. It tells us that disadvantage does not look one way, speak one way or neatly fit into the categories that we have become used to discussing—and I will join the club: I am from a working-class background.
It also tells us something else. If inclusion is meant to mean anything at all, it must mean everyone. A level playing field is not a slogan; it is a commitment. That commitment only matters if it is applied to every child in every community.
As we heard from Thomas Kerr, the highlights in the report include, first, that literacy must remain the single biggest predictor of life chances and that too many children—particularly white working-class children—are leaving school without the reading skills that they need to thrive; secondly, that aspiration is shaped early and that children disengage long before the exam season when they do not feel that pathways are open to them; thirdly, that our system has become siloed and that while some routes are celebrated, others are quietly neglected and too many young children and pupils fall between the cracks.
We cannot call ours an inclusive education system while those gaps persist; we cannot talk about equity while ignoring a group that the evidence from England tells us is falling further behind. We need to appreciate what is happening in Scotland and whether it is of equal concern. We cannot keep repeating the same approaches and expecting different outcomes.
We could do many things to move forward. We could learn the lessons in the report and look at the situation in Scotland; as we do in life, we could recognise that disadvantage is complex, layered and often invisible; we could accept that social class matters if the findings of reports are showing that; and we could commit to building a system that does not leave any child behind because of their postcode, background or family circumstances.
We need to ensure that we invest early in literacy by using approaches that work—structured phonics, targeted support, and evidence-based practice. We could build coherent pathways through education whereby vocational routes, apprenticeships, and technical learning are not second-class options but respected, resourced and understood. We could bring industry, community and opportunity into the classroom so that all young people can see the world that they are preparing to enter.
We need to be mindful of an evidence-led approach. It is important that, if those findings in England are reflected here, we do something to ensure that inclusion is for all.
17:37
It is well known that I quite like having clear lines of debate, but sometimes we must be careful that we are not violently agreeing with each other. That was the point of my intervention earlier. The fact is that I think that we are in the same place on this issue, because I do not think that any member of the Parliament would not like to see greater equality of opportunity in our country.
As I said earlier, my background is that my dad worked as a butcher for the co-op, my mum worked in a shop as a shop assistant and I grew up on a council estate. Those parents of mine gave me that aspiration—something that Thomas Kerr said that he did not get from his parents but from his grandparents. We need such figures to help us to transform our lives, to give us some degree of ambition for ourselves and for what our lives will consist of. Again, the debate is about opportunity.
I welcome the minister to his place—this is the first time that I have had the opportunity to speak in a debate where Alyn Smith is on the front bench. I congratulate him, my long-time political opponent in Stirling, on his ministerial appointment, and I hope that he will use his skills to bring the debate together and not create more artificial lines between us on this important issue, which should be a central purpose of public policy.
As a Conservative, I do not think that we should promise equal outcomes or lower expectations but that we should ensure that talent, effort and ambition are not defeated by the circumstances that are beyond a child’s control. The inquiry was an independent inquiry in England—I do not think that anyone is pretending that its data is based in Scotland. That is, in a sense, the whole point of the debate. The inquiry does not prove anything about white working-class boys being Scotland’s single most disadvantaged group—I will not pretend that it does. However, a question deserves to be answered. As long ago as 2016, the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service said that poor white boys were the most disadvantaged group in entry to higher education.
I accept that there is not one single track out of school or education that is for everyone. We ought to be trying to dismantle the disparity of esteem between these different tracks from school into the next stage of a person’s life. Surely there is enough discussion in this space, not just in relation to the study from England but on a broader basis, for the Scottish Government to ask the question. That is what I am asking the Government to do today. Ten years later, we still do not have a proper answer to this issue as it pertains to our country.
My point is similar to what Steven Bonnar said earlier. The tone of the debate has more to do with the fact that there is a social-class element. The Scottish Government is addressing that through the £200 million Scottish attainment challenge funding. There is a social-class and a working-class element to the debate, but that is what the Government is doing in this area.
The dog-whistle politics part of all this is when we start referring to white working-class people. We have all agreed that there is an issue for those who come from poorer backgrounds, and I say that as someone who comes from Ferguslie Park in Paisley. I would not be here in the Parliament, like others who have made a similar point today, if it were not for some of the role models I had in the past.
Is it not the case that the issue is more about social class and working-class people? The Government is addressing that with the Scottish attainment challenge funding.
We can have a debate another time about the Scottish attainment challenge, because although £200 million a year is being put into that area, there are huge questions about how effectively that money has been used and what it has been used for. I am not casting a slight on any of the people involved in the administration of that fund; that is the reality.
I hope that George Adam knows me well enough to know that, if I heard dog-whistle politics in relation to ethnicity, I would call it out. Frankly, I did not hear Thomas Kerr do that once in his speech tonight. I know that we are taking other contributions and trying to mash them together, but I just do not accept that on this occasion. It is absolutely fine for us to discuss the demographics of the parts of our population that we recognise are not succeeding, for a variety of reasons, and discuss what we should do to address that. That is the whole point of my contribution tonight.
I have much more to say, so I wonder whether I can have a bit longer, because I took a long intervention.
You have had extra time, but if you are quick, Mr Kerr.
Yes, 50 seconds, which I am grateful for.
We need action, so I will ask the minister some very specific questions. Will the minister commission a Scottish assessment of outcomes experienced by working-class boys and young men? There is enough evidence to suggest that we should look more closely at that. Will he look at publishing joined-up evidence? We need more data. Will the minister return to the Parliament with a programme of action and a timetable for delivering that vital evidence? We should be led by evidence—that is what we are asking for. We think that we have enough to suggest that the issue deserves proper scrutiny.
Opportunity cannot simply be promised; it must be visible in whether children attend school, learn the basics, gain meaningful qualifications and leave education with a credible route into skilled, well-paid work. No child’s future should be limited by the circumstances in which they were born.
Mr Kerr, you must conclude.
That is the test, and I am afraid that the Government is failing it.
17:43
It seems that the one thing that we all agree on is that we want equal opportunity for everyone in our society and that we want every child to achieve their best outcome.
I will start with a comment from the report, which states:
“The white working class disadvantage gap is … not a new or temporary issue”.
Why is that the case? The reality is that that is partly to do with the historical class system and the fact that those with privilege always were able to control things and get on. The fact that everybody so far has stood up and said that they come from the working class illustrates that historical class system.
The gap between the richest and the poorest is bigger now than ever before. That is where I come to the wider context. It seems ironic to me that Thomas Kerr, while defending the working class and talking about opportunities for working-class educational attainment, does so under the banner of Reform UK, which is an organisation run by the elite, or the wannabe elite, for the sole purpose of enriching themselves and their cronies.
Does Thomas Kerr believe that Farage received his undeclared £5 million donation so that he would go into politics to improve outcomes for the working class? Why have two crypto billionaires donated a further £72 million to get Reform UK into power? It is certainly not for the benefit of the working class.
You have a bit of a cheek, have you no? It is not us that march about with movie stars fae around the world, waving our flags in our kilts. Take a look at yourselves before you start criticising somebody else. They are not in this chamber. We are here to talk about white working-class boys.
Members should speak through the chair at all times. I note that we have a motion in front of us that everybody should be speaking to.
I do not know whether Senga Beresford is condemning the entire tartan army being in Boston in their kilts. I really do not understand that point.
Does Farage, with his private education and privileged upbringing, understand real-life struggles?
I know that Alan Brown is a combative politician, and I think that I am in the same category. However, this is an important issue, so I am hoping that we will not just stand up and slag other parties. A members’ business debate should probably rise above that, especially when we are discussing an issue such as this. I hope that he will move on with his speech and address the substantive issue in the motion, because it deserves serious contemplation and consideration.
Yes, these are serious points. Actually, I agree with much of what Thomas Kerr has said, but there is still a context. It has been set in isolation, which is why I am showing the bigger context: if Reform UK gets into power, there will be a cut in taxes for the rich, there will be less money in the system and there will be poorer outcomes for the working class. That is the reality. I do not think that, through a single speech, we can disassociate ourselves from the bigger, overarching umbrella. That is where I am coming from.
As my colleague Steven Bonnar said, too often, much of what is wrong in society is being blamed on immigrants, but it is not them who are the root cause of the historical inequalities that I have talked about. We know that Farage favours private healthcare, but that type of system leads to poorer health outcomes for the working class.
I come to the inquiry report. The recommendations are based on the education system in England, but some of them allow us to consider what the Scottish Government is doing, right now, that is in line with the report. One recommendation is free access to public transport for under-21s, which is a policy that the Scottish Government is already delivering on. Ironically, Thomas Kerr spoke out against that policy, saying that people should have
“more money in their pocket”,
rather than subsidising public transport for others, yet here we have this report recommending free public transport for under-21s to increase social mobility.
The report recommends
“Reducing the financial risks associated with further and higher study.”
Free tuition is a flagship policy for the Scottish Government, and we have just seen record numbers of students, including record numbers of those from a deprived background, being accepted into university. Meanwhile, in England—this is a problem—students graduate with more than £50,000-worth of debt, never to be paid off in their working lifetime. Thomas Kerr acknowledged that free tuition allowed him to get to university.
I want to clarify that it did not, because I never went to university—I went to college. I was never interested in going to university. That is the point of the speech that I just gave.
On Alan Brown’s point, does he accept that, because of free university tuition, universities are now capping the number of Scottish students who can attend university because of their underfunding? That is having a significant impact on working-class kids from backgrounds such as mine and that of other members who have spoken, and it is preventing them from going to university.
Given that I have just pointed out that a record number of Scotland-based students are going to university, with record numbers from deprived backgrounds, the stats belie what Thomas Kerr has said. I appreciate what he said about going to college, but that is another thing: for long enough, the Scottish Government has allowed colleges to make decisions and work with employers to create the vocational pathways that he keeps talking about, which is another recommendation in the report.
Will you please conclude, Mr Brown?
Yes. I would like to have said more, as there is a serious debate to be had, and it needs to be led by serious people. We cannot discount all the recommendations of the report.
17:49
This has been an interesting debate, although it has the capacity to be hijacked to grab headlines to suit a variety of narratives. It is nonetheless a debate that this Parliament should have, because it will be critical to inform our decisions across a number of areas.
As the co-chairs of the inquiry state,
“Education has long been one of this country’s greatest sources of hope and opportunity. At its best, it changes lives, strengthens communities and opens doors that might otherwise remain closed.”
We could all agree with that, but my contribution today is to look not just at the difference between one group and the rest of the population but at the range of attainment and outcomes between different groups of the population who we are here to represent, regardless of their social background or ethnicity. I also want to focus on the issues that affect attainment more generally, particularly in rural Scotland and in areas such as my Dumfriesshire constituency, where there is a multiplicity of other issues that impact the achievements of our young people.
Let us take those young people with additional support needs, which is topical in Dumfriesshire. A recent inspection report found that Dumfries and Galloway Council’s secondary inclusion support service for young people with additional support needs is “weak” in all categories. What does that mean? On a positive note, the report found that relationships have been built by staff and that
“Senior leaders are beginning to understand better the strengths and areas for improvement”
that are required. However, one critical area of concern was a lack of planned and co-ordinated support between the mainstream schools that send pupils and the SIS service. The report said that that was
“limiting almost all young people’s capacity to build skills and gain knowledge across the curriculum”
at a particularly important point in their lives. The report went on:
“Too often the majority of young people supported by Secondary Inclusion Support have no or very little other quality education provision available to them. These young people face inequality as a result of their ASN.”
That is a cause for concern locally, which I will raise with the council’s chief executive next week.
Nationally and locally, the data should also be a cause for concern about achievement. We know that across Scotland, in 2024-25, boys were less likely than girls to achieve the expected curriculum for excellence levels, and boys were slightly less likely than girls to enter positive destinations after leaving school. Boys achieved lower higher exam grades than girls in 2025 and lower national 5 exam grades than girls, so it is clear that there is a gender issue that we need to look at.
There is also an issue in relation to rurality in different parts of the country. In Dumfries and Galloway, more school leavers are leaving with fewer than the national average of five qualifications. That is a cause for concern for me personally.
Dumfries and Galloway has also fallen further behind on the number of pupils attaining five qualifications at higher level or above, and fewer school leavers in Dumfries and Galloway are entering higher education than the Scottish average.
All that matters because it impacts young people living in a region where there are issues in relation to access to skilled employment and housing, poor public transport and a lack of college and higher education options.
Before I close, and on a positive note, I recently had the pleasure of attending Dumfries and Galloway College, where I saw first hand how young men and women were preparing and gathering the skills for their future careers. I met school leavers, and some who were still at school, taking part in pre-apprenticeship bricklaying, giving them the skills, knowledge and attitudes that are needed to progress towards becoming an apprentice bricklayer—a skill that is needed across Scotland.
Its practical focus was refreshing; its focus on giving young people a meaningful trade was encouraging, and the enthusiasm that I saw from those young people was clear to see. However, we need more of that if we are to give young people the pathways that they require and the best possible start in life.
I will close with the words of the report on which the debate centres:
“Every child in this country deserves to feel that education is for them, that their future matters, and that success is achievable regardless of where they come from.”
Sadly, at present, that is not the case, but from the efforts that I saw in Dumfries and Galloway College, it is clear that it can be achieved, but only if the commitment is matched with the financial resources and the political will to deliver it.
I hope that the minister will be attuned to that when he wraps up the debate.
Given the number of members who still wish to speak, I am minded to accept a motion without notice, under rule 8.14.3, to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. I invite Thomas Kerr to move such a motion.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Thomas Kerr]
Motion agreed to.
17:54
Like many members in this place, I have spent a lifetime fighting inequality, and it drives me in the work that I do here. I am always mindful, whenever I speak about inequalities, whether in health, housing or communities, that we must strive to have a fair society. My colleague put it well: what we are talking about here is people growing up in poverty.
I turn to the motion for debate. The inquiry that it mentions focuses on England, but it is important that we talk about working-class communities in this place, too. We know that our education and skills system in Scotland currently does not allow every young person the chance to succeed, and there is no doubt that our more deprived working-class communities suffer in that regard.
I ask the minister to reflect on the results that we got from PISA, because in order to get change to happen, we have to acknowledge what is currently happening. The results reveal that the poorest pupils in Scotland are three and a half years behind their more affluent peers in maths and science; the most deprived pupils are also two and a half years behind the richest when it comes to reading. I hope to hear from the minister just what his Government is doing in those areas, and perhaps whether there is anything useful in the report that he could be using to see if we can get some changes there.
We also need to think, and talk, about working across parties and across briefs—I mention that a lot in the chamber—to look at the evidence around early years in particular, as we know that that is such an important time in which to change the trajectory for young people.
The inquiry that the motion highlights finds that white working-class educational underachievement is a persistent structural problem rather than a consequence of low aspiration. Educational outcomes are highly influenced by wider economic conditions, including deindustrialisation and loss of secure local employment; reduced youth services and community infrastructure; and limited local opportunities and poor transport connectivity.
I grew up in a coalfield community, and in my view, austerity has been a key driver. Our communities have suffered for 40 years since the rapid closure of the mining industries, and we need to be honest about where that comes into play. In my region of South Scotland, declining public services and rural inequalities limit access. I hope that the Government can take a view of the whole picture and see that educational outcomes are about other things that are happening in our communities, too. In East Ayrshire, where I grew up, there are limited jobs and limited ways to get to jobs, so I can only imagine that that can be very difficult for young people who are thinking about what their opportunities might be.
In thinking about working-class communities, we must seek to close the poverty gap, the health inequality gap and the attainment gap—all those things must come together.
In closing, I think that the report gives us good things to look at. The Scottish Government has strategies in place around children and young people in particular, and there are the specific payments that we have in Scotland. We need to be honest with each other about how we build on that work, and work together to ensure that we get the best results for everybody, including our working-class communities.
17:58
I am a mother of four children, two of them being white boys. We need to look at boundaries and consequences in school. I have two children still in school, and I speak to a lot of teachers—I have spoken to even more since I got involved in politics. Just a couple of weeks ago, a teacher told me that a child was sitting on their phone, on Snapchat, so she confiscated it. She went into the other classroom and confiscated the phone from the other boy; they were messaging. Within 10 minutes, she was called into the office and made to give those phones back. To me, that has already taken the authority away from the teacher.
In one of my daughters’ classrooms, every day, six boys were creating hell in the classroom, so she hardly got any work done. I would go to speak to the teacher, and they would say, “I cannot do anything. We are not allowed to.” That is where we need to start: with education. There must be boundaries and consequences, and we need children to sit and listen and learn.
I listened to what Craig Hoy said about his visit to Dumfries and Galloway College. I visited the same college and left thinking, “This is wonderful.” However, somebody who works there contacted me to tell me something completely different. He told me that most of the kids he gets straight from school can barely read or write—the level is that poor. He asked me whether I had asked how many kids actually complete their courses. On the visit, I saw the numbers that showed how many were doing this or that, and I thought, “This is great. Rather than university, which is not for everyone, they are learning a trade.” So, it was really disappointing to hear what I heard outside the visit to college.
Last night, we attended a police event in Parliament. It was about white working-class boys. That really angers me. I have two boys—they are fantastic boys and they have fantastic friends. The event was not just about boys, or just working-class boys; it was white working-class boys. Why pick on them? Even if we had a study in that regard, if we keep putting kids down, that will not take them anywhere in life. We have to build them up, fill them with confidence, find out what they are good at and really push that.
I know about the free bus pass scheme, but that is not a great thing in my area. I live in the countryside. I feel that kids need to get into sport. It is the best thing that I did with each of my kids. However, it is expensive to get involved in sport. Therefore, why do we not invest in sport instead, and get kids involved as young as possible? We have a curling rink in Dumfries, and we have produced Olympic medallists. However, the schools use it for one week in the whole of a child’s primary education. We should be using such facilities more. It would keep kids off devices if they were busy with sport. I never allowed my kids mobile phones at primary school.
Does the member therefore welcome the Scottish Government’s £12 million investment in the summer of sport that was announced a few months ago?
I do, and I hope that it reaches every area. My kids are really sporty, and I know that getting involved in sport is really expensive. I put on the record that I am one of seven children who grew up in a deprived area. Everything I have got, I have worked really hard for.
Nobody gave us anything, and I am quite proud of that. However, I got my kids into sport as soon as they could walk. Whatever they wanted to try, they did. I think that we should do that with all our kids. It would be far more beneficial than anything else.
18:02
There is an issue with the attainment gap in Scotland. I am glad to hear agreement across the chamber that poverty—ingrained, generational poverty and poverty of aspiration—is the root cause of the attainment gap.
If I accept that the attainment gap is an issue, I hope that we will all accept that—as we have heard from some members in this debate—this report tells us nothing about the situation in Scotland. To refresh the chamber’s memory, the report was published in June 2026. It was commissioned by Star Academies, a multi-academy trust that operates 36 free schools and academies in England and is funded by the Christopher and Henry Oldfield Trust. The report focuses on outcomes for English school pupils and young people. There is no Scottish data in the report.
I will take good ideas from anywhere. I accept that there is an issue with the attainment gap in Scotland, but it is not as if we are not aware of it. To answer directly Stephen Kerr’s point about whether we need a similar report here, I say that we have considered that and decided that we have ample data on the issue, which is precisely why we are focused on closing that attainment gap.
We have lots of things to do, but we are doing lots of things in this space. I invite colleagues to unite around the efforts that we are making. We have invested £1.75 billion in the Scottish attainment challenge over the past decade—that includes £1 billion of pupil equity funding to empower headteachers to improve outcomes for children impacted by poverty. We are investing a further £200 million this year as well. We also have the tackling child poverty delivery plan, which is keeping 100,000 or so children out of relative poverty this year. We have the provision of free school meals, the school clothing grant and the Scottish child payment.
Our First Minister, John Swinney, has made eradicating child poverty a pivotal mission of this Government, and I am very proud to be part of those efforts.
Will the member give way?
I need to make progress.
We have had some success: 95.7 per cent of Scottish children who were school leavers in 2024-25 were in a positive destination three months after leaving school.
Will the minister give way on that point?
Forgive me—I need to make progress.
If I accept that there is an issue with the attainment gap, I hope that we can all unite on efforts to get past that gap. There are many things that we need to do but a number of measures are under way to achieve it.
I would push back—and I am glad that there is some degree of unity on doing so—on the idea that there is only one measure of success, which is that you get a bucket of highers and go to university. There are lots of other measures of success. I am the skills minister and I want to see all Scotland’s children and young people—all its people—living their best lives, being their best selves and making the best contribution to our society that they can.
Colleagues have mentioned apprenticeships. They will get used to hearing a lot from me about apprenticeships, because I think that they are fundamental to the world of work in the future; and to the upskilling, reskilling and augmenting of skills that we need to see. This morning, I announced a 10 per cent uplift in the funding for apprenticeships—that is £8.8 million of new money. I have been tasked with delivering 150,000 apprenticeships by the end of this parliamentary session and I want that to happen.
There is no one route to success. To hell with the idea that someone must choose a vocational route or an academic route—that is not how the economy works.
Will the minister give way?
I need to move on.
That is not how the economy works now and it is not how it will work in the future. I want to see everyone do well, live their best lives and be the best version of themselves so, although I will take ideas from anywhere—by which I mean any country with any best practice—the solutions to Scotland’s problems lie in Scotland’s experience. We will take examples from elsewhere.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I have more time than I had budgeted for so I will take Craig Hoy’s intervention.
I beg the minister’s indulgence and bring to his attention an issue that relates to my constituency, which could impede the access of young men and women to skills. The minister will be aware that, in the past, there has been industrial unrest at the Scottish Rural College’s Barony campus in my constituency due to pay. That has affected access to education. Presently, there is a live issue. If I were to write to the minister, will he undertake to look closely at the issue and to make representations to the Scottish Funding Council, so that it does not develop into an industrial dispute that could affect the young people in my constituency who attend the college in Barony?
I would be happy to hear representations from any member about any constituency issue. There is a wider systemic issue about college funding, which was raised in the previous debate and which I am alive to. Institutions such as SRUC, which I know well, are fundamental to upskilling and to making sure that young people—and others who are reskilling for future changes to their careers—have those opportunities.
I am keen to make progress on those matters.
Will the minister give way?
I see that Stephen Kerr wants in.
Will the minister please elaborate on the ideas that he brings to his portfolio about how we tackle the disparity in esteem between those different routes from school? That is the real issue. There is a disparity in the allocation of resources and public funds, which lends credence to the idea that there is a gold path, a silver path and a bronze path. I do not think that the minister believes that that is the case. However, the way that funding is currently allocated leads people to that conclusion. What ideas does he bring to the portfolio that will change that?
That is a helpful invitation. Colleagues will be familiar with the Withers review, which I commend to members and which makes reference to the idea—actually, I am quoting him—that a bucket of highers and a university route is not the only way to success. I acknowledge that the Scottish Funding Council and Skills Development Scotland have incentives, and I am actively looking at those. I firmly believe that we need to change several of the incentives in the system because there is not only one route. However, Stephen Kerr and I agree that there might be an impression that there is a "best” route.
For young people in particular, we need to make that point. The other day, I was at Fife College, speaking to apprentices and college students. Fife College has done a lot of good work to reach out to local schools—primary as well as secondary—to make sure that the transition to college life is not scary. That work of Fife College is a really good example for the rest of the sector. However, I take the point about the incentives in the funding mechanisms for those institutions.
This is another phrase that members will hear a lot from me. I am less hung up on the institutional structure of the colleges and universities sector, or even of schools. I want to get back to the purpose and the incentives. I believe that the structures will follow that. There is a job to be done, and I would be grateful for support from the chamber with those efforts.
Back to the attainment gap, I acknowledge that there are issues in England.
On the attainment gap, we are not seeing an increase in the numbers for those from the most deprived areas. Does the minister agree that we need to understand the problem fully in order to address it fully?
Yes, of course, which is why there has been a great deal of research and analysis into that area. SDS has huge amounts of data on 16 to 19-year-olds. We know there is an issue, particularly with the hardest-to-reach people, and that is why I want to see a change in the discussion around this, because I want to see all Scotland’s people, from all backgrounds, live their best lives.
On the attainment gap, we have invested considerable amounts of taxpayers’ money on precisely that. There is more to be done, but we have had much success—95.7 per cent of school students go on to positive destinations. That is success. We need to be going further, but forgive me, I am out of time. Thank you.
That concludes our business today.
Meeting closed at 18:11.
Previous
Decision Time