The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-12385, in the name of Liz Smith, on science, technology, engineering and mathematics education in Scottish schools. We are very short of time, and I give warning that I may not be able to call every member who wishes to speak in the debate.
15:54
The Parliament has just debated energy policy, on which there were robust differences of opinion. However, there was agreement on all sides of the chamber about the crucial importance of the sector in Scotland because of the rich natural resources with which this nation is blessed, the resulting investment potential and the opportunity for future employment. That sector is not alone in relying heavily on scientific and technological skills, and we know that, by 2030, 7 million jobs in the United Kingdom will be wholly dependent on science-based skills. Indeed, in the eyes of many economic commentators, Scotland’s importance in the sector could grow more strongly than that of the rest of the UK.
In the Scottish Government’s 2012 science and engineering education advisory group report, energy and life sciences were rightly identified as the two key sectors when it came to skills training. It is, therefore, plainly obvious that we must do everything that we can to ensure that we are able to provide a highly trained workforce that has those scientific skills. At present, however, our ability to achieve that is being hampered.
That is not to say there are no encouraging signs—there are. According to the latest Higher Education Statistics Agency figures, a growing number of Scottish students are opting to study courses in computing, with the figure rising by 21 per cent in the past two years. I note the reference to computing in the Labour Party’s amendment, which we would have been happy to support were it not for the reference to the 50p top tax rate. The figure for mathematical sciences grew by 26 per cent in the same period, and both engineering and technology numbers have risen by 10 per cent.
There are also encouraging signs in the uptake of Scottish Qualifications Authority highers in science, given that there have been 4,689 more presentations in science subjects in the past five school sessions. Nonetheless, I question whether the SQA made the right decision in abandoning the geology higher this year when it could easily have been argued that its science base was perhaps the most relevant to many of the offshore technology industries in Scotland that look certain to flourish in the years ahead, irrespective of what happens to the oil industry. That decision is even more extraordinary because of the trends elsewhere towards the need for an interdisciplinary approach. That, after all, is the key philosophy that underpins the curriculum for excellence and it is why, in science exams, there has been a move towards more open questions and away from a focus on the traditional, knowledge-based approach.
That change came at the suggestion of representatives on the curriculum for excellence design teams who came from industry, and I think that it is a good thing. There is a complementary move to make science much more meaningful to the everyday lives of pupils—for example, in showing how organic carbon chemistry affects our lives in terms of fuel, cosmetics and plastics rather than in just giving the scientific facts that describe its processes.
That interdisciplinary approach is important and it was what the Scottish Government thought would be achieved with the introduction of the Scottish baccalaureate in science. Unfortunately, the Government set the bar far too low and gave the baccalaureate virtually no distinctive characteristics from the separate higher and advanced highers—hence only 110 pupils across the whole of Scotland are taking it and universities do not really rate it as an added-value qualification. The interdisciplinary approach is also at the core of the Wood commission. The needs of Scotland and our young people are changing fast in a fiercely global economy, and they are changing because employers want a much more finely tuned labour force that is both more flexible and more skilled when it comes to the diverse needs of the economy.
So, although there ought to be plenty incentives, there remains considerable concern among many of Scotland’s foremost industries that we do not have anything like the numbers required to ensure that we match our economic potential in the decades to come. With greater diversity being required in the energy industry, with the debates about climate change, transport and communication, and with the significant challenges in the health industry, there is no end to the need for well-trained scientists and engineers. Seventy per cent of Scotland’s exports come from the science, engineering and technology-related sectors, yet the oil and gas industries continue to express their concern.
All that brings us to teacher numbers in science. Let us set aside the political rammy that is going on between the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities about whose fault it is that teacher numbers have dropped and let us look at the Scottish Government’s statistics on teacher numbers in science and maths. In biology, there were precisely three more teachers in Scotland in 2014 than there were in 2008, but the number of teachers in maths, chemistry, physics, general science and technology have all declined—in some cases, such as in maths and physics, quite significantly. For example, there are 383 fewer maths teachers in Scotland now than when the SNP came to power.
How ironic it is that at the very time that we are seeing an increase in the number of pupils wanting to take up science courses, teacher numbers are going in the opposite direction. I am not persuaded by the argument that there is a direct correlation between teacher numbers and the ability to improve educational outcomes. Nonetheless, it is hard to argue that a 9 per cent rise in the number of pupils taking mathematics, biology, chemistry, physics and technology and a corresponding drop of just under 10 per cent in teacher numbers is not bound to have a serious impact.
I will make positive suggestions about what we could do. There is an important issue about primary school science. In autumn last year, the Royal Society of Chemistry made the call to have specialist science teachers in primary schools. The Scottish Conservatives backed that call then; we back it again now. There is no more important time to inspire youngsters than in primary school. We urge the Scottish Government to tell us this afternoon what it will do about the issue.
We also need to bring in some of our top science graduates to school education. Two things can do that. First, we can learn from elsewhere in the UK. For example, the national science learning centre in York provides very generous bursaries for science teachers who want to enhance their continuing professional development. Secondly, we can do that via programmes akin to the Teach First programme. I agree whole-heartedly with the need for 100 per cent teacher registration and it is absolutely right that the independent and state sectors are making the move to do just that. That move is long overdue. However, that is not to say that we cannot also have a fully accredited Teach First programme running alongside to assist those who can bring added experience into our classrooms.
Many in the English system have not been able to get a job in Scotland because they are banned from doing so. That is simply unacceptable.
Professor Lindsay Paterson argued two years ago at a Royal Society of Edinburgh event that we could do much more to help our very gifted pupils from whatever part of the educational system they may come or whatever their background. We need to do far more in that direction. His argument fell on deaf ears at the time but, particularly in the context of science education, it has considerable merit.
I will talk a little bit about teacher workforce planning. Workforce planning is not an easy task in any sphere, because it is difficult to get the demand and supply fully aligned, particularly in a fast-changing world. Recently, after the Scottish Government’s initial troubles on teacher numbers, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning’s predecessor moved, with some success, to make the process a bit more flexible.
Two things matter in all this. First, there must be absolute trust between central Government and local government, although that is obviously on a sticky wicket at the moment. Secondly, there must be greater flexibility when it comes to freeing up the supply of teachers.
I should at this point declare an interest as a fully paid-up member of the General Teaching Council for Scotland.
It is absolutely right to say that much more must be done to ensure that we can encourage greater diversity of teachers. There have been serious issues about fully qualified teachers from south of the border who have been prevented from teaching in Scotland simply because they do not have a Scottish qualification. By all means, we should carefully check that they meet the correct professional standards, but we should not bar them. If we do that, we are preventing top-class people from coming into the teaching profession. I hope that the Scottish Government will address that, because it has a direct influence on the number of science teachers in our schools.
We have debated science issues many times in this chamber. I pay tribute to Iain Gray as a member who has a distinct interest in the subject. Although I have no doubt whatsoever that some very good things are happening out there, the central issue remains that the number of teachers in STEM subjects is declining at the very time when the number of pupils wanting to opt for science courses is increasing. There is an urgent need to address the situation for the benefit of economic development, as well to address the weakness of not having sufficient numbers of qualified science teachers in our primary schools.
The evidence that comes from our academic bodies, almost all of which is extremely well researched over a long period, is absolutely compelling.
I move,
That the Parliament demands urgent action from the Scottish Government to reverse the decline in the number of secondary school teachers in science, maths, engineering and technology (STEM) subjects, which occurred between the academic sessions 2007-08 and 2013-14, and which, many employers believe, is leading to insufficient numbers of pupils seeking tertiary education courses in these subjects; is concerned that, if the situation is allowed to continue, there will be a detrimental effect on the Scottish economy which, in the future, will be increasingly dependent on science, engineering and technology skills; urges the Scottish Government to heed the calls from the Royal Society of Chemistry in Scotland that there should be specialist science teachers in every primary school and the calls from the Institute of Physics in Scotland that more should be done to encourage female science graduates, and calls on the Scottish Government to work with local government and the General Teaching Council for Scotland to remove the red tape that is preventing full flexibility in the recruitment of teachers.
16:04
As Liz Smith knows, the debate in some ways follows a members’ business debate five weeks ago in which a not dissimilar motion that Iain Gray lodged was discussed. That debate raised issues on science and schools that I am sure we will speak about today.
As Liz Smith mentioned, we can agree across the parties on many areas. However, I am sure that she will not be entirely surprised to hear that I disagree with some of the premises in her motion, which is why we will seek to amend it.
As our amendment makes clear, the Government agrees that all young people need a solid grounding in STEM education. That grounding starts in primary 1 and builds progressively through primary school. The science, technologies and maths experiences and outcomes of curriculum for excellence are making learning more exciting, relevant and fun for all pupils.
In secondary school, learning and teaching continue through the broad general education to the end of secondary 3. We know that, particularly at the secondary stages, STEM subject specialists are knowledgeable and enthusiastic about their subject areas.
All that grounding is ensuring not only that record numbers of young people are taking science, technologies and maths subjects, as has been mentioned, but that the education system is contributing to ensuring that we have a more scientifically literate population.
I absolutely agree with the minister, but does the fact that more pupils want to access STEM subjects—that trend is being manifested in higher and further education, too—not make it even more crucial that we increase the number of teachers in those areas?
I am glad that the member acknowledges that there are links between teacher numbers and the experience of young people in learning. I certainly acknowledge that there is an issue in some subjects, not least computing science, which has been mentioned. I accept that the number of teachers of computing science has reduced, but efforts are under way to deal with that. For instance, I am pleased to note that the Government-chaired teacher workforce planning working group met this morning to discuss, among other things, that very subject. I am also pleased that the targets that we are setting for a number of the subjects in question, not least computing science, will move upwards every year; I certainly plan for them to do that.
The qualifications front is very important and, as has been mentioned, maths, physics, chemistry and biology are among the six most popular national 5 and higher qualifications for which pupils sat exams in 2014. In comparison with 2006, the number of pupils who took higher biology in 2014 increased by 14.2 per cent, and the number of pupils who took highers in maths, physics and chemistry increased by 17 per cent, 18 per cent and 24 per cent respectively.
I suggest that the on-going enthusiasm for and positive interest in science and maths in schools have been influenced by the considerable investment—in what I am sure that Ms Smith will acknowledge has been a very challenging fiscal period—that local authorities and the Government have worked together to make to allow the STEM subjects to flourish in schools. There has been such co-operation on investment not only in learning and curriculum support but in the quality of our teachers and of our school buildings and infrastructure. It is worth saying that the £1.8 billion schools for the future programme demonstrates our commitment and will ensure that we have science facilities in our new schools that are fit environments in which to learn in the 21st century.
Arguably, the most important thing is the quality of our teachers. We are committed to having the right number and quality of teachers in our schools. That is why we have just secured the commitment of each of Scotland’s local authorities to maintaining teacher numbers over the coming year. We have added £10 million to the £41 million that is already included in the local government settlement explicitly for maintaining teacher numbers.
Ms Smith mentioned the General Teaching Council for Scotland, and I appreciate her knowledge of that body. It is worth making it clear that, as an independent body, it makes its own rules, but I understand that it is alive to the need to make sure that we deal with hotspots around the country, where there is a need to ensure that teachers come into the system. However, on the basis of what the GTCS has said until now, I would be very surprised—I am not in any way prejudging what it decides—if it were to be flexible to the point that it was enthusiastic about anyone who was not a qualified teacher becoming a teacher in a Scottish school. I appreciate that the member was not suggesting that, but some voices elsewhere in the country have taken that line.
Last year, we founded the Scottish College for Educational Leadership and, earlier this week, we announced that from 2018-19 the new masters qualification for headship will become a mandatory requirement for new headteachers.
I accept that there are challenges. We recognise that STEM subject teacher numbers have faced challenges in recent years and, as I mentioned, we are taking steps to address that through the targets that we have set.
You are in your final minute, minister.
In that case, I will conclude by making it clear that we can agree to work together on many areas, and not least on an issue that is important to the Government: encouraging women to enter science professions and ensuring that the number of women in those professions increases.
We are not complacent about the challenges and recognise that issues need to be addressed. That is what we are doing. We are supporting primary and secondary teachers and are looking to find solutions to the many challenges of recruitment. That is what people would expect any competent and sensitive Government to do, and it is exactly what we are doing.
I move amendment S4M-12385.3, to leave out from “demands” to end and insert:
“agrees that a solid grounding in science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) education delivered by high-quality teachers is essential in equipping all young people with the knowledge and skills to successfully contribute to the economy and 21st century society; notes that high numbers of young people choose to take science and maths qualifications, in particular at school, and congratulates those young people, their teachers and their schools for their hard work and their achievement across the STEM subjects; agrees that both young women and young men should be encouraged to aspire to and work toward the full range of rewarding careers on offer in the STEM sectors; notes the considerable investment and commitment that local authorities and the Scottish Government have made to support STEM education in schools; recognises the government’s commitment to raising educational attainment and tackling educational inequity as evidenced through the announcement of the Scottish Attainment Challenge and that STEM subjects are at the heart of the government’s approach to developing Scotland’s young workforce; agrees that Scotland’s young people deserve the very best teachers and supports the work of the General Teaching Council for Scotland and others in enhancing the quality and professionalism of teachers in Scotland, and calls on all members to support the commitment to a masters level qualification for head teachers in Scotland announced this week.”
16:11
The teaching of science is a subject that is close to my heart, but more important, it is central to the country’s economic future, as Liz Smith was right to say. The Institute of Physics has calculated that Scotland has 100,000 jobs—or 4 per cent of the workforce—in physics-based industry, but those high-skilled, high-value jobs drive 10 per cent of the economy. That percentage can only increase. At a recent event in the Parliament, the Institution of Engineering and Technology told us that by 2022 we will need 147,000 more engineers than were needed in 2012.
However, science teaching in this country faces what I have previously called a perfect storm. The learned societies group has demonstrated that our schools do not have the resources to teach practical science properly, and it has warned us of a looming shortage in science teachers, most notably in the crucial area of computer science, where numbers fell by 14 per cent in only two years. The group knows that the targets for teacher training in computer science have been raised, but it reports that those places cannot be filled. As a result, we are not addressing a situation in which 43 of our high schools do not offer computer science at all.
The Institute of Physics recently told a meeting in the Parliament of a similar shortage of physics teachers and reported that the brightest teachers are heading for England. No wonder—the latest New Scientist contains a full-page advertisement telling people that they can receive £25,000 tax free to retrain as physics teachers. That is not the Teach First programme; it is the equivalent of a postgraduate certificate in education. It is a £25,000 bursary to train in physics, and would-be physics teachers who are mobile are, of course, voting with their feet.
Meanwhile, as the new curriculum rolls out, pupil numbers in STEM subjects are falling. I know that the minister has quoted numbers for highers that are holding up, but the problem is coming behind that. Presentations at levels 3, 4 and 5 are 5.6 per cent down in physics, 8.8 per cent down in chemistry, 8.9 per cent down in biology, 9.4 per cent down in maths and, not surprisingly, 22.5 per cent down in computer-related subjects. The Government’s survey of numeracy levels also reports a significant drop at all levels.
I am sure that the member appreciates the difficulty of comparing one exam system with another, given the changes that have been made at that level in education, and that he appreciates that many people who do not choose to take a science subject in fourth year will do so in fifth year.
The figures that the minister quoted do not take account of the new curriculum moving through into higher and advanced higher levels.
If we do not have enough equipment, enough teachers and perhaps enough pupils and enough basic numeracy skills, where on earth will we get the extra engineers? We know that, unless we do something, they will not be girls or young people from our poorest families. According to the National Union of Students Scotland’s excellent briefing for the debate, 86 per cent of entrants to university engineering courses are still men and only 9.3 per cent of entrants come from the poorest fifth of our communities. Girls and young people from our poorest families are going to miss out on those opportunities of the future, and we are going to waste their potential.
The Government’s attainment fund is welcome, and we have welcomed it, but it is not enough. It is temporary and its targeting is flawed. That is why we want to add £125 million to that fund over the next session, which would be paid for by raising taxes on the most prosperous of our citizens. The funding would be targeted ruthlessly where it could make the most impact. That would mean that pupils in the city of Edinburgh, for example, would benefit rather than be ignored by the Government’s attainment fund.
As for girls, the NUS has made the excellent suggestion that research excellence grant funding should depend on action to address the gender gap. However, as Ms Smith said, the truth is that we must also inspire girls to take an early interest in science before gender stereotyping takes hold.
You have 30 seconds.
The Royal Society of Chemistry is right to suggest access to a science teacher for every primary school. In my constituency, Dunbar primary school has its own science teacher, and it is no coincidence that next week will see that school’s fifth science festival, attracting more than 8,000 participants in an ever-expanding variety of events.
Draw to a close, please.
There is little to oppose in the Government’s amendment but, in truth, it reeks of complacency and abjures any self-criticism or even self-examination. It ignores the voices of teachers, scientists and industry.
You must close.
Science is always ill served by smug self-satisfaction, and we will pay a price for that in our future.
I move amendment S4M-12385.1, to leave out from “which occurred” to end and insert:
“particularly computing science teachers, which occurred between the academic sessions 2007-08 and 2013-14, and which, many employers believe, is leading to insufficient numbers of pupils seeking tertiary education courses in these subjects; is concerned that, if the situation is allowed to continue, there will be a detrimental effect on the Scottish economy, which, in the future, will be increasingly dependent on science, engineering and technology skills; urges the Scottish Government to heed the calls from the Royal Society of Chemistry in Scotland that there should be specialist science teachers in every primary school, from the Institute of Physics in Scotland that more should be done to encourage female science graduates and the recent survey, published by the Learned Societies Group on Scottish Science Education and supported by The Royal Society of Edinburgh, which suggested that 98% of primary and secondary schools depended on external funding for practical work; believes that the “attainment gap” excludes thousands of Scots from STEM opportunities and therefore welcomes the Scottish Attainment Fund, but calls on the Scottish Government to further increase the level of funding to reduce educational inequality by at least £25 million per year, funded from a 50p top rate of tax, targeted at those schools whose pupils face the greatest educational challenges to ensure that all pupils have the opportunity to achieve the qualifications needed for a career in science, maths, engineering and technology.”
Thank you. I am afraid that we are very tight for time. Speeches should be four minutes, but if members take less than that, I might be able to call everyone.
16:16
I am very well aware of the concerns that are raised in Liz Smith’s motion. The Education and Culture Committee has taken evidence on the matter. On the back of the work by the learned societies group, we asked it to come in and give us evidence on the particular issue, so we are very well aware of it and, of course, of the debate that Iain Gray sponsored a few weeks ago. Therefore, we are well aware of the situation—and some of the comments do not reflect the reality of it.
I do not accept at all what Iain Gray has just said and what others have said about some sort of cataclysm going on in Scottish schools with regard to science. The Scottish Government is investing in science education. For example, it is providing some £900,000 per annum to the Scottish schools education research centre to support the professional learning of teachers. That is important because that funding stream includes a programme that is focused on primary teachers to raise their confidence and skills in science, so it directly addresses some of the issues that others have raised.
The Government’s programme for government for 2014-15 states that the Government will
“Continue to support improvement in the learning and teaching of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics in schools, with a particular focus on primary schools”.
Does the member acknowledge that there are different trends in the STEM subjects in teacher numbers compared with some of the other secondary subjects? That is part of the issue, too.
I will try to come on to teacher numbers in a moment, if the member will excuse me.
One of the recommendations in the final report from the commission for developing Scotland’s young workforce is on STEM education. The report says that
“A focus on STEM should sit at the heart of the development of Scotland’s Young Workforce”,
and it calls for long-term partnerships to be established among schools, colleges and employers to bring about significant change. The Scottish Government is committed to implementing the recommendations of that commission, so it has already agreed to take forward the very recommendation on STEM education that many people have called for.
We all understand that the underrepresentation of women in STEM subjects is a serious problem that has to be addressed, but the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning has said:
“There is no such thing as ‘a girl’s job’ or ‘a boy’s job’ and any perception that such unhealthy boundaries still exist need to be changed, whether they’re held by employers or young people exploring their career options.”
In fact, the letter of guidance that was issued to the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council on 31 July 2014 by the former education secretary, Mike Russell, said:
“I want a renewed focus on reducing gender segregation in participation: too many college and university courses are dominated by either men or women”.
Action is being taken. Of course it is not quick enough and it does not have an immediate impact in bringing about some of the changes that we want to see, but the issue has been recognised by the Scottish Government and efforts are being made to reverse some of the trends.
On students who take science, last year there was an increase in higher entries in all three of the main science subjects—biology, chemistry and physics—and pass rates are holding up very strongly. As I said earlier, there is not the cataclysm that some have suggested.
On the issue of teacher numbers, the Deputy First Minister has of course already announced that £51 million is on offer for councils for 2015-16 to protect teacher numbers. I will not quote the head of the Educational Institute of Scotland, but at a meeting of the Education and Culture Committee earlier this year and in news reports he made very clear his view about the actions of individual councils and their responsibility for keeping up teacher numbers.
A deal was struck on teacher numbers, but it takes two to tango. The Government made sure that it held up its side of the bargain, and it is about time that some of our local authorities held up their side of the bargain on teacher numbers. If they did, maybe we would not have some of the problems that we are facing with teacher numbers declining.
16:20
Unlike my three Labour colleagues in front of me, each of whom is a distinguished scientist or engineer, I gave up science at 15 and have spent the past 50 years of my life regretting it. I have tried to remedy that in various ways, but I am certainly passionate about science and ensuring that more people continue to study and enjoy science. The economic arguments have been well articulated by all the front-bench speakers, but if we get science right in school it surely must be intrinsically interesting and endlessly fascinating for pupils. I refer to pupils because of course science teaching should start from a very early age.
Certain worrying features about science teaching have already been highlighted in the debate. First, the issue of the number of science teachers, particularly in computer science and physics, has been well rehearsed. Secondly, there is a problem in relation to the practice of science. Clearly, that is an area that is potentially very attractive to young people because it allows them to be more hands-on with science. However, one of the main features of the learned societies group’s report was its reference to schools’ reliance on external funding for practical work in science, which is also referred to in the Labour amendment. For example, 82 per cent of secondary schools said that they did not have sufficient resources for “equipment and consumables” for practical work, which is a very serious problem. I noticed that Professor Sally Brown highlighted that point at a meeting three weeks or so ago of the Education and Culture Committee.
There has been a bit of disagreement about the number of students taking science subjects, but Iain Gray made an important point about that earlier. Again, I noticed that the point was referred to at the meeting of the Education and Culture Committee that I have mentioned. I will not read out the whole quote, but Dr Beveridge said at the meeting:
“The figures that give us concern are those for the new curriculum for excellence courses, which have only reached S4 level in schools. Having looked at those figures ... we are concerned that we are seeing decreases in all the sciences.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee; 27 January 2015; c 12.]
Clearly, a watching eye must be kept on that, because it would be an issue of enormous concern if an unintended consequence of the curriculum for excellence was that fewer people studied STEM subjects.
What do we do about the current situation? Having more partnerships with colleges has not come up in the debate, but it is an important area that could be explored. Central to the motion, and something we support in our amendment, is the idea of having a science subject leader in primary schools, which is vitally important. Perhaps another approach would be to have science requirements on primary teachers, although that is not going to happen for existing teachers in primary schools. The Royal Society of Chemistry’s suggestion of science subject leaders in primary schools, which I think the Royal Society of Edinburgh also made, is therefore very important.
I have to say that I am very impressed, now that my granddaughter has been in primary school for one and a half years, by the science that she knows, but I imagine that as children go up through primary school it is more important that the teacher should really have a grasp of science, which many of them clearly do not have. We have to do something about science in primary schools.
The other issue that is highlighted in the motion and which we support is of course having more female science graduates. Again, Iain Gray gave the figures for engineering graduates, which are particularly stark in that 86 per cent of entrants to engineering are men. I was very privileged to have been at the engineering event in the Parliament recently, not least because Naomi Mitchison—young woman engineer of the year—works as an engineer in my constituency. I was very pleased to have a conversation with her in which she emphasised the importance of changing the perception of gender in engineering. However, that must start much earlier in the school system. I was going to say that it must be done before gender stereotypes build up in school, but we all know that they begin at a very early stage. It is clearly very important that they are challenged.
Lastly, but by no means least, there should be positive action on the attainment gap so that more opportunities for STEM subjects and careers in those subjects can arise for those from the most disadvantaged areas.
That is exactly four minutes for my speech, Presiding Officer.
16:24
I welcome this Conservative debate on education.
I note that the Institute of Physics in Scotland has said that we should do more to encourage female science graduates, and I think that we are doing just that. Not only the Scottish Government but all of us in this Parliament, across the political parties, have done a lot to address gender and science, technology, engineering and mathematics participation.
However, it is not the be-all and end-all. I like the wording in the briefing from NUS Scotland, which states:
“STEM education is a crucial part of our education system in Scotland, however we must ensure that our focus in this area is not to the exclusion of other subject provision.”
Liz Smith talked about that, but I wanted to point it out and maybe to remind Murdo Fraser, who is sitting behind Liz Smith, that languages are important as well. The teaching of French in schools is important. We must ensure that we also promote that.
I entirely agree with the member: of course STEM cannot be taught to the exclusion of other subjects. However, among the main drivers are the needs of the economy, and that is one reason why there has to be much more focus on the STEM subjects.
Indeed—the needs of the economy. Tonight, in Edinburgh, the French ambassador to the UK will be meeting a lot of French companies that operate in Scotland. I suggest that Liz Smith suggests to Murdo Fraser that he changes his comments this morning. The economy is what it is all about, and our children need a well-rounded education to ensure that they can participate in the economy in Scotland. It is not only about STEM. This debate is about STEM and it is important, but we need a rounded approach, and French is part of that.
The last thing that this Government would do is to make it difficult for local authorities to fill the present vacant posts in classrooms across Scotland. Of course there is a problem of teacher numbers, which we have talked about. We have heard the call for a specialist science teacher in every primary school. To my mind, that is more wishful thinking than an answer. It ignores the reality at a time when many local authorities are struggling to recruit primary teachers. When I met members of the Peterhead parent council, who are concerned about attracting teachers to the blue toon, I said to them that we are looking to widen the recruitment pool, not to reduce it.
Another message that Liz Smith could take to the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition at Westminster is that we should act regarding the foreign students who are studying here in Scotland and consider how we can ensure that we retain them to work and—why not?—to teach here. It is important that we widen our net as much as possible. A few years ago, for example, Aberdeenshire Council recruited in Ireland and Canada. We do not want to prevent foreign students from working here. I would not want to have to go back to my country, but you never know: with the proposed referendum to take this country out of the EU, I might be in that position in a few years’ time.
The reality today is that, despite the backdrop of cuts from Westminster, the Scottish Government is investing in science education, providing £900,000 per annum to the Scottish schools education research centre to support the professional learning of teachers.
Will you come to a close, please?
We are investing a lot, and in the north-east of Scotland the Scottish Government is moving forward. Local authorities are also playing their part, and we as a Parliament must support the great work of our teachers in classrooms here in Scotland.
16:28
I, too, welcome this debate. As Stewart Maxwell rightly pointed out, the issue has occupied the time of the Education and Culture Committee recently, and I acknowledge Liz Smith’s track record on it—and indeed Iain Gray’s. In fact, I was reminded of a comment that Iain Gray made in the attainment debate last week when he accused us of “violently agreeing”. I think that we are at risk of doing something similar this afternoon.
I am certainly not going to accuse the Government of doing nothing, but I will focus on areas where we probably need to do more and to do better, in the light of the figures that Liz Smith cited and the evidence that various academic bodies have produced in recent times.
I start with the learned societies group report, which was published around the time of the science in the Parliament event last year. It raised serious concerns about spending on science in primary and secondary schools, an insufficiency of teaching expertise and an absence of data. It was not just a whinge. It made some reasonable and fairly achievable recommendations alongside those points.
The Government’s response to the report was in some senses rather disappointing. Rather than engaging with the issues, it sought to discredit the evidence by talking about small sample sizes when it could have undertaken to amplify the survey and get the data, provide the evidence and collect it on a regional basis in a whole host of areas, not least the qualifications of teachers. It could have committed to ensuring that, by 2020, every teacher has access to a science subject leader, and it could have looked again at training and CPD opportunities to improve skill levels. All the learned societies group’s recommendations were reasonable asks.
On vocational education—the focus of an amendment that I tabled and something that is picked up on in Iain Gray’s amendment—the Wood commission made a series of sensible recommendations. The delivery of industry-recognised qualifications alongside academic qualifications during the senior phase was seen as critically important, and that is a point that Malcolm Chisholm made in referring to the college sector. Sir Ian Wood emphasised the need not just to widen availability but to improve the quality of what is provided, and he concluded that STEM must be at the heart of the development of our young workforce.
I turn finally to the area of women in STEM, which is referred to in the Tory motion and which plays a prominent part in the NUS briefing for this afternoon’s debate. The “Tapping all our Talents” report, produced in June 2012, set out a stark reminder of the challenge that we face. The Royal Society of Edinburgh has pointed out that the number of female STEM graduates and postgraduates has increased, but that the numbers who proceed to take up senior positions in universities, research, business and industry remain proportionately much smaller than in the case of their male counterparts. The minister acknowledged that in his opening remarks, and I welcome that.
The RSE talks about wasted investment and the representation of a serious loss of potential for Scotland. It is calculated that around £2 billion could be wasted in the UK economy as a whole. That is not a new challenge, but it demands a response from the public, private and third sectors.
One of the recommendations in the “Tapping all our Talents” report relates to the Athena SWAN charter, supported by the scientific women’s academic network. The report recommends:
“The Scottish Government, through the Scottish Funding Council, should: expect its universities to develop a strategy within a two-year period to bring all their STEM departments up to the Athena SWAN Silver award, or equivalent, level; monitor their progress in achieving this ... and ensure that there is adequate funding for the programme to be developed.”
The then Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, welcomed the recommendations at the time. Almost three years on, it would be interesting to know from the minister what progress has been made in that regard.
Sir John Arbuthnott says:
“To be a smart economy, we need strength in STEM areas.”
That is why the issue matters and why we are violently agreed on our shared ambition, but it is also why the shortcomings identified by various academic and learned bodies must be addressed as a matter of urgency.
16:33
I welcome the fact that we all recognise the importance of science education and how it can equip our young people with knowledge and skills to contribute to our society and, as Liz Smith has said, to our economy. However, improving science, technology, engineering and mathematics education is a key priority of the curriculum for excellence, enabling new and exciting opportunities to make school science education stimulating and exciting for all pupils.
That brings me to a discussion that I had towards the end of last year with the head of the engineering and technology school at the University of the West of Scotland. As many members will know, the UWS campus in Paisley was a technical college, and engineering is the very heart and soul of the university, or it should be. He mentioned during that discussion that the problem that university staff had was encouraging people but that, once they had explained the career path and how young people could move on in life with the potential that a technology degree would give them, it was not so difficult to recruit. They had to find different ways to recruit and interest young people, particularly into engineering and technology.
That is something that also came up during the evidence that we heard recently from the learned societies group. The witnesses mentioned computer science at one point, but the problem is that there are not many young people who want to teach computer science, although they do want to get in a car, bus or train to Dundee to make the next computer game and become involved in that industry. That is part of the issue that we are dealing with: how can we make those same young people want to teach as a future career?
In terms of the evidence that we took from the learned societies group, we had the situation that the report that it did last year involved only 2 per cent of Scottish primary schools and 13 per cent of secondary schools. It is important to bring that up: as the witnesses were from the learned societies group and had a scientific background, they knew that the report was not evidence-based to the extent that they could say confidently that everything in it was right. The Government is therefore quite right to bring up—
Will the member give way on that point?
Unfortunately I do not have much time. I would love to, but I cannot at this stage.
In giving evidence, Stuart Farmer of the learned societies group said:
“basic knowledge in science subjects is being taught well ... lots of pupils are seeing positive benefits from studying science”.—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 27 January 2015; c 8.]
One of the things that we agreed on is the question about how we get to where we want to be. We need to ensure that young people are aware of the future that they could have. As has been said already, the cabinet secretary has said that there is no such thing as a girl’s job or a boy’s job, and we have to make sure that we move away from those terms when we are talking about STEM subjects because it is important to include everyone from all backgrounds.
We received a briefing for the debate from NUS Scotland, which said that
“We have seen a strong focus, and welcome action, on widening access over the last few years, and the current drive to improve participation and attainment across Scottish education is also welcome. However, we must build on this not only for STEM, but also more generally for post-16 education as a whole.”
Last week’s debate on attainment was the real life-changing debate. The Scottish Government has committed to the Scottish attainment challenge and the attainment fund, and it is going to invest in people from difficult backgrounds to ensure that they get their opportunities. When we are having this debate, we should make sure that we do as NUS Scotland says and talk about the STEM subjects, but we should not forget about everything else that is happening in education. We need to ensure that we encourage everyone to be all that they can and to pursue whatever careers they want in future.
Before I call Elaine Murray, I apologise to Richard Lyle. I am afraid that we have run out of time, so I cannot call him.
16:37
I am grateful to the Conservative Party for bringing this important subject back to the chamber. We talk a lot about Scotland competing globally through developing a highly skilled and high-wage workforce. However, unless we invest adequately in developing that highly skilled workforce, it will not happen.
Iain Gray spoke about the review that was conducted by the Institute of Physics. He often has a dig at me for being a physical chemist, so I say to him that a report in October last year by chemical sciences Scotland on the skills investment plan stated that almost 80,000 people were employed as a result of the chemical sciences sector. The estimated turnover is £8.6 billion, with a gross value added of £1.1 billion. That report identified the need to increase the flow of new entrants into chemical science, including through the development of careers information and by addressing the gender imbalance.
Our global competitors understand the importance of investing in science and innovation. China intends to spend 2.5 per cent of its gross domestic product on research by 2020. Brazil intends to do the same by 2022, and South Korea intends to spend 5 per cent by 2022. We can be certain that those countries will invest in producing the people who can undertake that research.
From the 2012 programme for international student assessment—PISA—of school students aged 15, we know that the UK performs slightly better than the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average in science, and England actually performs slightly better than Scotland. We are behind China, Japan, South Korea, Finland, Poland, Germany and other competitors, so there is nothing to be complacent about. We need to do better in Scotland; we need to improve educational attainment in schools in order to attract more college and university students into science courses, and we need to retain workers with science qualifications.
We also need to close the attainment gap because far too many children from poorer families are not getting the opportunities to fulfil their potential. That cannot be done without enthusiastic suitably qualified teachers in primary and secondary schools. Primary school teachers are expected to teach across the curriculum and should have access to a science specialist to increase their confidence in how they approach teaching science. It is not necessary for every school to have a science specialist attached only to that school. Small schools could have access to science specialists through cluster arrangements, for example.
In April, it will be three years since Professor Dame Jocelyn Bell Burnell’s report from the working group on women and STEM, to which Liam McArthur referred, was published by the Royal Society of Edinburgh. That report contained a number of recommendations including some from the Scottish Government, such as the recommendation to produce an action plan for Scotland that is aimed at retaining and promoting women in STEM, which the group said should be led by a cabinet secretary. I would be grateful if, when he sums up the debate, the minister would advise whether that work is under way and when the action plan will be produced.
The report also proposed that all STEM departments in Scottish universities should achieve the Athena SWAN—scientific women’s academic network—silver award or equivalent as a minimum standard within two years, and that the majority of departments should do so within three to five years. Is the Government monitoring progress on that recommendation? Also, after nearly three years, has the minimum standard for all STEM departments in all Scottish universities now been achieved?
I have stated in the chamber before that I left academic scientific research shortly before my second child was born. She is now 27 years of age and I am shocked that, a generation later, women are still leaving STEM subjects for the same reasons that I left, and that we are still debating attracting and retaining women in STEM subjects. Unless we act in Scotland—and across the UK—we will lag behind our competitors in science. Historically, we have had a huge advantage in that area, but we risk losing that advantage unless we take action.
16:41
This afternoon, we have heard a lot about the provision of STEM education in schools. However, for me, the key point was made by Liz Smith in her opening speech, when she spoke of the expectation that by 2030 more than 7 million jobs in the UK will depend on science skills. Those science jobs are exactly what we need—high quality, highly skilled and highly paid employment. By 2030, the four and five-year-olds who are starting primary school this summer will already be in work or possibly in the final years of university. If current spending levels continue, the same cohort of pupils with the same academic aptitude for science in England will have enjoyed more than 10 years of state education with 80 per cent more in primary school and 27 per cent more in secondary school having been spent on science equipment, according to the recently published report by the learned societies group. Issues about the sample size of that study have been raised, but if the Government criticises the findings of the study, it has an obligation to expand on the work and do some investigation of its own.
The issue of science equipment has already been raised in Parliament, but we must also address the issue of science technicians and support staff. I have recently submitted a freedom of information request to all 32 local authorities on science technician numbers and have received responses from 25 so far. There has been an overall drop in the numbers of science technicians, with one authority having cut technician staff by more than 50 per cent. Those are the staff who maintain or repair what little practical science equipment our schools have. They are the people who set up the science labs and the complex experiments, which teaching staff just do not have time to do. It is hard to see that those numbers will do anything but go down as budget cuts to local authorities continue to bite.
Issues in schools and local authorities concerning computer science were recently flagged up to the Education and Culture Committee. Many high schools do not have a computing science teacher who can start developing the coders, programmers and software developers of the future, and some local authorities seem to confuse the teaching of computer literacy skills with computer science skills. That mixes up the facts when it comes to exactly how many computer science teachers we have in our schools.
Finally, there is the issue of educational inequality. By 2030, 7 million jobs in the UK will depend on science skills. However, unless the attainment gap is tackled, thousands of young people in deprived communities will never achieve their full potential to access those jobs. We have welcomed the Scottish attainment fund but would like to see more being done in that regard. Using the additional revenues from our new 50p top rate of tax, which would redistribute resources from those who can afford it to those who need it most, we would invest an additional £25 million a year, over and above the Government’s proposals, to tackle educational disadvantage and ensure that the pupils who face the greatest educational challenges have the opportunity to achieve the qualifications that they need for careers in science, maths, engineering or technology. I challenge the Government to back our ambition and to support us through an increased fund to tackle issues around educational attainment.
16:45
It is traditional to say at this point that the debate has been positive. To a large extent, that comment is justified; it has been a useful debate.
I suspect that Mr Gray wrote his comments about there being a tone of “smug self-satisfaction” before he had listened to the tone of what I and many others had to say. We agree about many of the areas in which work needs to take place and improvements need to be made. For instance, we have all agreed on the need to encourage more people into teaching computer science, and we agree about the importance of the work agenda, and of developing it further and giving primary teachers confidence to deal with science.
A theme that recurred again and again—perhaps rightly—was the need to ensure that young women are attracted into science both as an area of study and as a career. Another theme, which Elaine Murray and Mark Griffin mentioned, has been the need for us to close the attainment gap in science, as for other areas. That is something to which the First Minister has indicated her strong commitment.
It is also worth mentioning—I will do it only briefly—the good practice that exists and which I see in schools when I visit science activities throughout the country. East Ayrshire Council, for instance, has opted into Primary Engineer’s programme, which is supported by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers; Aberdeen City Council has made science a priority area in its primary schools; and pathfinder activity to deliver foundation apprenticeships in Fife began in August 2014 with support from Skills Development Scotland. Many things are happening.
On the areas that need attention, a great number of speakers referred to the welcome contribution from the Royal Society of Chemistry and other learned societies—in particular, their focus on how we can support primary schools. We know that STEM in the primary school sector can be further developed and that teachers need support to help them to build their confidence. I have been corresponding with Clare Viney, who is the executive director of the Royal Society of Chemistry, on those issues and on engaging with the society’s campaign. My officials are working to agree a suitable meeting date with the RSC.
Although we have no plans to require a move away from the generalist tradition in our primary education sector, I am alive to the points that have been made about giving primary teachers the confidence and capacity to teach science.
I am grateful to the minister for taking a constructive approach in relation to the learned societies. However, one of the key points is the lack of data. Although there are concerns about the survey that the learned societies undertook, does the Government acknowledge that there is a need to develop the data so that we have a better understanding of exactly what the need is and where it is?
As I mentioned, correspondence on those issues is already under way with the learned societies.
I turn briefly to a point that Christian Allard and others raised. I do not want to set up any kind of competition between the case for languages and the case for science or, indeed, other areas of our curriculum. However, the fact that members raised those issues points to the fact that we have to be careful about prescribing the highers that people who are interested in becoming primary teachers take, to the point at which they have no choice about what highers they do. There are competing claims that we have to handle carefully.
Liz Smith made a number of reasonable points about many of the issues on which I have touched. The Government is open to learning from good practice where we see it, whether it is in London or Ontario. Ms Smith also mentioned Teach First, which has been in contact with the Scottish Government. We have indicated to it that we are willing to hear any proposal that it has for Scotland, subject to the fact that, as I said earlier, Scotland has a tradition—strongly emphasised by the GTCS—such that somebody who wants to be a teacher here has to be a qualified teacher. We await any response from Teach First to see whether it has a proposal that it wishes to make for Scotland.
On George Adam’s speech, I have to confess that we were having a sweepstake on the front benches: it took 34 seconds for him to mention his constituency—commendably—on this particular occasion. He rightly mentioned the achievements of the university sector; it is worth commenting that the number of entrants into university first degrees in STEM subjects is up 13 per cent this year.
Malcolm Chisholm rightly mentioned colleges. Again, the statistics are encouraging and significant: compared with 2006-07, there are currently 801 more full-time equivalent science and maths students in our college sector.
I want to say, by way of conclusion—or do you wish me to continue for a time, Presiding Officer?
No, thank you.
In that case, I am happy to say by way of conclusion that science is at the very heart of Scotland’s economy, and it is at the heart of our education system. Yes, there are challenges—as I think we have all agreed—but there are sound and verifiable reasons for saying that schools around Scotland share the view that science is growing in importance, it is flourishing in our schools and it is something for us to celebrate.
16:51
I am pleased to close the debate and I thank all the speakers for their positive contributions. There was plenty of heat in the previous debate, but it is fair to say that perhaps we had a little bit more light in this one.
There is much in the SNP amendment that we agree with, but more still needs to be done to address the central issues that have been raised today. In Dr Allan’s summing up, there were much more encouraging signs of that than there were in his opening speech, and we are delighted about that.
Like others, I have listened seriously to the concerns that the STEM industries have expressed about the state of science education in Scottish schools. As Liz Smith said, it is expected that by 2030 7.1 million jobs in the UK will be science related, and current projections from the Science Council indicate that about 650,000 of those jobs will be in Scotland. We can all agree that we want children in Scotland to be able to take full advantage of all those opportunities.
Dr Allan talked about setting targets for teachers. It is not just about setting targets. We hear about the setting of targets in the health service and everywhere else. That is welcome, but it is the achievement of the targets—the supply of teachers—that we are looking for. It is very easy to say, “I set a target.” That is good and it is welcome, but the achievement of the targets and an adequate supply of teachers would be even more welcome.
In the 2012 SEAG report, the Scottish Government recognised that life sciences and the energy sectors are industries that are key to economic growth in Scotland. Projections for growth in STEM have also been confirmed by those industries, which is why it is imperative to capitalise on the opportunities that that growth presents for all our young people, particularly women, to take advantage of that potential for economic growth.
Iain Gray and Liz Smith in particular made excellent speeches, especially on the STEM education gender equality issue and on highlighting potential career options for the future. Whether or not Iain Gray had a members business’ debate on the topic recently, I think that if something is worth saying, it is worth saying quite a few times. This issue is so important that we felt that it was worth bringing back to the chamber for wider debate, and we make no apology for that.
I remind members that female scientists have excelled in politics. The UK’s first female Prime Minister was a scientist, and I think that very few in the European Community would pick an argument with Mrs Merkel, who was a research scientist in a previous life and has brought first-class scientific analytical skills to politics with considerable success.
Christian Allard reminded us in his contribution that languages are important. Yes, the debate was about science, but it was well done nonetheless. The learned societies have raised some excellent issues, and Larry Flanagan from the Educational Institute of Scotland raised concerns in evidence to the Education and Culture Committee about teachers who train in Scotland and then fast-foot down to England—I do not know why.
I thank Iain Gray for showing us this week’s New Scientist. We need to understand the issues better, and we need to understand what is happening and why in the area that he discussed.
Ruth Davidson highlighted the issue of college places in STEM courses, which are down by 30,000 on the SNP’s watch—but never mind, because the Government has set a target to redress that.
Dr Allan rose—
Let me just finish, please—it is quite an important point, and I will have to repeat it.
There has been a reduction of 30,000 STEM places in colleges on the SNP’s watch, but never mind—the Government has set a target to change that, and within one year it has brought back 82 places. That is what a target means: pretty well nothing, aside from a few thousand.
I am not quite sure whether Mary Scanlon heard me, but I mentioned the figures for full-time equivalents. Before she interrupts me, I note that full-time equivalents are generally regarded in the industrial sector as the most important measure, and there have been increases in the numbers of full-time equivalent students doing science subjects on our watch.
Well, I do not think that the minister can argue too much about a reduction of 30,000, given the minuscule increase of 82.
I remind George Adam that what is a problem for Paisley can occasionally be a problem for the rest of Scotland too, so I thank him for his contribution.
One important point concerns maths being the language of science, and the fact that fluency in numeracy is critical for success in all STEM fields. It is surely unacceptable, therefore, that we have lost 383 maths teachers as part of the 10 per cent decline in numbers since 2007.
With regard to numeracy, every member in the chamber should be concerned about the findings in Audit Scotland’s report. The finding that 2 per cent of primary 7 pupils are not working at their expected level of numeracy is perhaps within what is acceptable, but what I find shocking and unacceptable is the finding that, two years later in S2, the percentage of pupils who are not achieving their expected levels of numeracy is not 2 per cent but 35 per cent. What is happening between primary 7, in which 2 per cent of pupils do not achieve the numeracy standards, and the point two years later at which 35 per cent do not?
I would have more respect for the Government if it had come to the chamber and said that those are the issues that it is addressing. Those issues have been highlighted not by political parties but by Audit Scotland.
Liz Smith made the point about teachers, which is particularly relevant where there are shortages. There are hot spots, as the minister said, and there are unique areas. One such area is Moray, where the council has done everything possible to advertise for teachers. It has had to close schools and send children home, as I know, given that my granddaughter is being educated at Mosstodloch primary school. There are 11 teachers in the area who are spouses of personnel who are based at RAF Lossiemouth. Those 11 teachers were qualified in the English system. Surely to goodness in that unique situation, something could be done by the GTC and the Government working together to ensure that every child in Moray gets the opportunities that they deserve.
You need to close, Ms Scanlon.
Finally, despite all the issues that we have raised, I put on record our appreciation of the excellent work that is done by teachers across Scotland, including in Paisley, and in every subject, from science to languages. We value each and every one of them, in Paisley and the rest of Scotland.
Previous
Energy StrategyNext
Business Motions