Scotland’s Children
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-09140, in the name of Neil Bibby, on Scotland’s children. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now.
15:50
Like all parties in the chamber, the Scottish Labour Party continues to support curriculum for excellence. We want it to work, and that is why Scottish Labour have brought the debate to the chamber today, so that members can raise concerns and reflect on the evidence that was given to the Education and Culture Committee yesterday, and ask the Scottish Government to spell out what it intends to do to allay the concerns of teachers, parents, and pupils.
We have a responsibility and a duty to listen to the concerns about preparations for new national 4 and 5 exams in May and the proposed implementation of new national 6 higher courses in June. I say at the outset that Scottish Labour welcomes the announcement about extra resources that was made on Friday ahead of yesterday’s Education and Culture Committee meeting. I hope that the announcement will settle some of the nerves of teachers and parents. However, we have to recognise that the resources have come very late in the day. Such belated actions are welcome, but the minister should have made the resources available long before now.
The Scottish Government has been warned by teachers, parents, pupils, and local authorities for more than two years. Indeed, the Labour Party led a debate in March 2012 to raise those concerns. What we have seen since is months of complacency and the Scottish Government grossly underestimating and ignoring teacher workload issues and concerns. As Larry Flanagan, the Educational Institute for Scotland general secretary said yesterday, the resources are very welcome,
“but it will not have a major impact on national 4 and national 5, because we are only six school weeks away from the deadline for those qualifications.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 25 February 2014; c 3620.]
We have to take very seriously what our teachers have said and the concerns that they continue to raise. The EIS also told the Education and Culture Committee:
“It would not be an exaggeration to say that we have not encountered as widespread anger and disappointment and frustration with the exams authority as we are currently witnessing. Our members feel that SQA communication has not been effective, support has not been sustained or sufficient, and that too much bureaucracy has crept into the process.”
The Scottish Secondary Teachers Association has listed 31 complaints in six different areas. It complains about the impenetrability of the Scottish Qualifications Authority website; the lack of time to prepare for new highers; the materials from the SQA that contain mistakes, grammatical errors and poor-quality graphics; the extreme shortage of clear exemplars; the lack of detail and direction in marking schemes; the inconsistency of standards by different verifiers; and the workload issue, with many teachers working in excess of 50—some are working 60—hours per week.
The SSTA also raises concerns about Education Scotland, which it accuses of seriously failing to deliver real support, and it has concerns about there being virtually no course texts available. Although Alan McKenzie, the general secretary of the SSTA, also welcomed the Government’s announcement last week, he acknowledged that it is not the complete answer that the SSTA members have identified. The current situation is completely unacceptable and it needs further urgent action from the Government to address the outstanding issues and concerns that teachers have. We have seen a couple of press releases from the Government and the SQA during the past week, and they are welcome, but we should have a full report and full details of what the Government is going to do to address all those concerns.
What is the Government going to do about the lack of practice papers? What is it going to do to ensure that teachers have sufficient higher textbooks, that we do not see industrial action taken by teachers, and that those who have additional support needs and those pupils who are studying for qualifications at colleges get the support that they need? What is it going to do to address all the other concerns that we heard at yesterday’s committee?
On the issue of practice papers, we heard yesterday that teachers urgently want three practice papers in each subject, but they are to receive only one. The minister has said that that is adequate, but teachers do not think that it is adequate, and I believe that parents and pupils will agree. It is not good enough for the minister to say that he is listening; he needs to act, and with only six teaching weeks left before the new exams, he needs to act urgently.
If the Scottish Government disagrees with Scotland’s teachers and feels that nothing more is required, I hope that the minister, who is ultimately responsible, will tell the chamber that all the necessary support and resources are in place to allow teachers to deliver these important changes. In the interests of transparency and to reassure parents, the Scottish Government must also compile and publish, as soon as possible, a report on how many pupils are studying the new highers and the existing highers and in what subjects. We need to hear reassurances from the minister, because teachers clearly have many concerns about workload and assessment issues.
An EIS survey from December showed that, in Renfrewshire, 92 per cent of teachers spend more time on curriculum development than is allocated in their working time agreement, and they do not feel confident in delivering the new higher exam. I will read some of the comments from the teachers who responded.
“Never before have I disliked coming to work, I am by nature an organised person and I am finding the stress of not knowing unbearable. Late information from the SQA has been a major factor.”
“The SQA have made a real mess of the implementation of the N5 and I have no confidence that they will be any better in the new higher.”
“The lack of planning, organisation and support given to teachers is a disgrace.”
“We are starting 2014 with SQA still making changes to units which people are presenting from in May—a disgrace.”
“The SQA implementation of the Senior Phase has been a disaster.”
Will the member give way?
I am happy to give way to the minister, who I hope will respond to the concerns of those teachers.
I am grateful to the member for raising these issues. As I have indicated throughout the process, the Government is keen to hear from teachers. It is important to note that the reason for the SQA making changes to some of the materials is that those changes were specifically requested by teachers. Does the member accept that, if the SQA is to respond to teachers, it must act and we cannot complain about the fact that it has done so?
Teachers can complain about the situation because it is completely unacceptable. We need a review for the very reasons that the minister has just outlined. It has taken an outcry in the teaching community to get some of those changes made.
The teachers whom I have just mentioned are not alone; I have received emails from teachers throughout the country. To put it simply, this is a completely unacceptable situation. We need to understand what has gone wrong and what can be improved. We also need to understand why it has taken so long for support to arrive, and we need to know why warnings were ignored.
In March 2012, in a debate in the chamber, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, Mike Russell, said:
“I do not believe that any teacher in Scotland who has the right support, the right help and the right leadership—which will come from the Government, from Education Scotland, from their local authority and from within their school—cannot rise to the challenge and deliver the conclusion of a programme that has been eight years in the making.”—[Official Report, 8 March 2012; c 7003.]
Given that so many schools will not be teaching and so many pupils will not be studying the new highers next year, one must deduce from the words of the cabinet secretary that our teachers have not had
“the right support, the right help and the right leadership”.
The member has just asserted that
“so many pupils will not be studying the new highers next year”.
Can he benefit the chamber by telling me how many? What precise number of pupils will not be studying the new highers next year?
Forgive me, Presiding Officer, but I did not know that I had assumed the position of Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning. If I was the cabinet secretary, I would want to know how many children were in that situation. It shows that the cabinet secretary has not got a handle on the situation that he is asking me how many pupils will not be studying the new highers next year.
He does not know.
Mr Russell does not know, and that is concerning. Instead of leadership, we have seen complete complacency—[Interruption.]
Can we have a bit of order, please? [Interruption.] Order!
It has fallen to local authorities such as Fife Council to give the leadership that has been lacking from the cabinet secretary’s actions. Such is its commitment to ensuring that no pupils are disadvantaged, Fife Council put in additional funds of more than £400,000. In contrast, we have had mixed messages from the Scottish Government and Education Scotland. For example, on 8 November 2013, the chair of the curriculum for excellence board stated in a letter that there was an expectation that all schools would implement the new highers only for that advice to be amended just 12 days later.
Like the Educational Institute of Scotland, I hope that, in spite of the lack of support that the Government has received, the commitment of teachers will ensure that the initiative is successful. However, it is also absolutely right to call for a review of the process because lessons must be learned. We are calling for urgent action and an independent review of the actions of the SQA, Education Scotland and the Government with regard to the preparations for the new exams and courses.
I ask the member to move his motion as he draws to a close.
It is vital that lessons are learned, so that we can prevent such a situation from happening again.
The situation is unacceptable and the Government has been complacent. We have heard serious concerns from the front line and teachers on the ground. The Government has failed to listen; it needs to listen fully and act on what has been said. Curriculum for excellence represents a great opportunity for our young people and we want it to succeed.
I move,
That the Parliament reaffirms its support for the curriculum for excellence, which it believes can make a significant contribution to Scottish education; however notes the serious and continuing concerns expressed by teachers and the worries of parents across Scotland about the readiness of preparation for the new National 4 and 5 examinations and the introduction of new highers, including over 30 complaints by the Scottish Secondary Teachers’ Association and also the EIS, which has “not encountered as widespread anger and disappointment and frustration with the exams authority as we are currently witnessing”; welcomes the somewhat belated announcement of extra resources and materials by the Scottish Government, which hopefully will allay many of these concerns, and now calls on the Scottish Government to publish a full action plan; agrees with the EIS that “lessons must be learned”, and further believes that an independent review should be carried out in summer 2014 on the actions taken by the SQA, Education Scotland and the Scottish Government when implementing the current phase of the curriculum for excellence.
16:00
I am grateful for the opportunity to pause to remember why we are doing what we are doing in CFE and to reflect on the positive progress that has been made for our learners, parents and teachers. As I have said, vital as it is for us to listen to teachers during the process—we will listen to them—it is important to reflect on why we are doing the work, which is for the benefit of young people.
I have visited schools regularly in my job for almost three years and can testify to the excellent work that is going on. It is particularly inspiring to hear young people enthusing about their learning. At yesterday’s Education and Culture Committee, I said that we all share the vision of Scotland’s being the best place in the world to go to school. Nothing has changed my view on that, and nothing has changed the recognition that we have a broad consensus in the chamber on the principles of curriculum for excellence—a policy that was begun under the previous Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition and which has been continued by this Government. Putting in place the last pieces of the CFE jigsaw is a prize that all parties have played a part in—or, as the EIS put it more trenchantly yesterday, it is a prize in which all parties are “complicit”.
I cannot emphasise enough that this Government recognises and appreciates teachers’ hard work, commitment and dedication. Much of the basis of curriculum for excellence is the intention to free teachers to use their professional judgment, so everything that we do nationally and locally must support that.
We hear reports that some teachers are anxious as we move to the new qualifications. That is a reflection of our teachers’ deep commitment to doing their absolute best for young people. However, we take very seriously the points that are raised around support and workload issues. I have never tried to shy away from the reality that this level of change in any education system implies a great deal of hard work. To that end, the Scottish Government, Education Scotland and the SQA have worked closely with local authorities, teachers, and parents in order to ensure that effective support is available; indeed, unprecedented levels of support have been provided. Much of that has been long planned and agreed, and all national support has been provided on or before schedule.
We have also always been willing to listen to calls for further support and to put that in place. Last Friday, I announced a package of £5 million further assistance, which the unions and others have welcomed. I take issue with Mr Bibby’s assertion that that is somehow the Government’s first meaningful response to what teachers have told us. Since 2012, we have in total provided more than £10 million of additional funding, three extra in-service days, including a further day for higher in 2014-15, full course materials for each of the 95 national 4 and 5 courses, and we will provide higher materials by April, and subject-specific and other events for thousands of teachers.
Pupils, parents and teachers all need to feel confident before exams take place. Will the minister help to alleviate concerns by ensuring as a matter of urgency that adequate practice papers are made available?
I am glad that Neil Bibby has asked that, because it was one of the interesting issues that was raised at yesterday’s meeting of the Education and Culture Committee. With his permission, I will come on to that subject in a moment.
Before I do, it is important to say that the £4.75 million that I announced last week is specifically designed to enable local authorities to bring teachers together to work through the assessment process.
Another crucial component was announced by the SQA last week. Because it now has clear evidence that people have a good understanding of the standards that are required, the SQA has been able to make important changes to its approach to quality assurance, which will begin in April.
To pick up on Neil Bibby’s point about requests for practice papers—which came up at yesterday’s committee meeting—I note that a specimen paper for every national 5 course has been available since February 2013. By the end of March, the SQA will also have produced guidance that will capture still-relevant questions from past papers from the previous three years. I will be happy to ensure that that additional work is made available, because it will provide a rich pool of questions for learners to draw on as they prepare for their new national 5s. By the end of this week, the SQA will also release specimen papers for all new higher courses.
In addition, the SQA is writing to all young people who will take exams in 2014 to explain the new results services. From this summer, all candidates who suffer a bereavement, serious illness or other exceptional circumstances will find that they are much better served than they would have been under the previous appeals system, and candidates who wish to have their exam scripts rechecked will have the opportunity to request that service. For that reason, although the motivation of the Conservative amendment is reasonable enough, I believe that the concerns that it raises have been addressed.
Will the minister clarify how many specimen higher papers will be published? He will be aware that concerns have been raised about the lack of resources for highers textbooks. Will he set the record straight and address those concerns. How much will be made available for highers course textbooks?
On the last question, the Government recently made an extra £1 million available to assist local authorities with textbooks, and we remain open to schools’ assessing needs. Education Scotland staff are visiting many schools to discuss those very issues.
What was the first question about?
It was about the number of specimen papers that will be published.
In the next few days, a specimen paper will be made available for all the new higher courses.
On the subject of highers, it is also worth saying—
You should draw to a close.
The Government is listening—not only to parents and schools, but to teachers. We want to do what we can to ensure that confidence is not undermined at this crucial point, and we hope that all parties understand that. The knowledge that we have in place appropriate mechanisms for evaluation is crucial to instilling confidence in people.
I hope that I have reassured members of the emphasis that we are placing on supporting and listening to teachers.
I move amendment S4M-09140.2, to leave out from “however notes” to end and insert:
“commends the hard work of teachers and pupils across Scotland in preparing for the new national qualifications; recognises the concerns of some teachers regarding workload and the need for continued support from local authorities, national agencies and the Scottish Government; welcomes the wide range of support already provided including the recent announcement of a further £5 million in support; further welcomes the commitment to drawing on feedback and experience as the curriculum is implemented and the new national qualifications are rolled out; believes that it is important to maintain a broad political consensus and partnership approach to the curriculum for excellence involving all key interested parties committed to the successful implementation of the curriculum, and agrees with the National Parent Forum of Scotland that the best thing for the young people taking the new qualifications is to focus on successful delivery of the exams.”
16:08
I thank the Labour Party for selecting the topic for debate at what is clearly an extremely important time for the curriculum for excellence and the new qualifications.
With less than nine weeks to go until the 2014 exam diet gets under way, it is surely a time for teachers, parents and pupils to be given some positive reassurance that everything is on schedule. It is certainly a time to thank teaching staff for the Herculean effort that they have made to cope with the disproportionate workload. In addition, I take the opportunity to thank the Scottish Government for the funding package that was announced on Friday.
Notwithstanding that help, yesterday’s meeting of the Education and Culture Committee proved that some key problems remain, several of which cannot necessarily be addressed by provision of funding, as was brought out in the surveys by the EIS and the SSTA. Those problems fall into four distinct areas, which I think it would be helpful to flag up.
The first area is the continuing confusion and mixed messages on some of the support materials, which Larry Flanagan highlighted at yesterday’s Education and Culture Committee meeting. There was a bit of confusion between the SQA and the teaching unions on the support materials and specimen papers that are verified, so it would be helpful if the minister could offer clarification on that, because Dr Brown’s answer was not quite the same as answers that we have had from elsewhere.
On the question of verification for the national 5 exam, there is a concern that not enough is being done to explain to parents why in some subjects only interim evidence for a pupil’s work can be provided. In some subjects, units 1 to 3 are taught sequentially; in biology and maths, for example, pupils will finish one topic before they go on to the next, which means that the evidence for, say, unit 1 is clear. However, in subjects such as English and drama, the units are taught at the same time, which means that it is not possible to come to a pass or fail judgment. That has led to a little bit of confusion.
Moreover, in other subjects including business management, it is essential to get a 50 per cent pass rate in all the learning outcomes, whereas in others pupils need only get an average of 50 per cent. There might be very good reasons for that difference, but if we are to address the issue of academic robustness we need to be very clear what those reasons are, particularly in relation to how this approach relates to the verification process.
We also have to be very mindful of the tensions that have arisen. As the minister has rightly pointed out, the substantial culture change involved in curriculum for excellence meant that some teething problems were inevitable. I do not think that anyone would take away from that, but what came through loud and clear at yesterday’s Education and Culture Committee meeting was the need to plan now for the articulation between the national exams and the new highers—and, more important, the advanced highers, which will not run alongside any of this for an extra year. On top of everything else, there are issues about the workload that people are being asked to take on, and those real concerns will obviously have an impact on future development work on the new highers and advanced highers.
On the post-results service, I firmly believe that the previous appeals system needed to be reformed. It did not work well; there were too many appeals and I do not think that what was happening with the mechanism that most teachers called the automatic appeal was right. I am therefore very much in favour of the changes to the system and welcome the scope for altering marks in both directions, which I think will give the system more integrity.
That said, a couple of weeks ago The Courier raised an important issue when it asked Perth and Kinross Council, Fife Council and Stirling Council whether the bill for an unsuccessful appeal falls on the individual school or is captured in the budget of the education department of the relevant authority. Parents would like that to be clarified; when I asked the minister about that at last week’s education question time, he was not able to clarify the matter fully, and we did not get full clarification yesterday. It is important that we get that clarification, because there must be no disincentive for any school—
Will Liz Smith give way?
The member is concluding, cabinet secretary. You must be very brief.
The SQA has made it clear that local authorities take the ultimate responsibility, but I thank Liz Smith for raising the issue in the way that she has raised it. Her amendment is helpful and I wish that we could have accepted it. We will look at the issue and come back to her very soon.
You must conclude now, Ms Smith.
I very much appreciate the cabinet secretary’s comments because the issue is certainly worrying parents.
I agree with Labour that, whether we are talking about the post-results service or the whole set-up, it would be very helpful to have a firm review at the end of the process.
I am afraid that you really must finish, Ms Smith.
If the Government could commit to that, we would support it.
I move amendment S4M-09140.1, to insert at end:
“, and calls on the Scottish Government, in accordance with the SQA, to ensure that the new Post Results Service fee system does not create any disincentives to request a marking review where there are clear academic grounds for doing so.”
As we are now very tight for time, I must ask for four-minute speeches.
16:13
I agree with Alasdair Allan, the minister, that the most important people in this process are the young people who are going through it in schools throughout Scotland. With only six weeks to go, they believe that things are moving in the right direction.
When we set out on this road in 2002, everyone in Parliament believed that this new and radical way of delivering education for eight to 18-year-olds was the way forward. Since that time, we have continued to agree that it should be the way forward and that we would face difficulties and challenges along the way. For its part, the Scottish Government has been open and has listened to all the professionals, teachers and unions who have been involved in the process; the minister has provided examples of that.
I believe that the curriculum for excellence is the way forward for our children and young people and that it gives them the rounded education that they all need to be everything that they possibly can be in life, and I have faith that the professionals in the process will work with all the education authorities to ensure that we deliver everything successfully. That is not just blind faith; it has been said in information that we have received in the Education and Culture Committee. Even the EIS said in its paper to the committee:
“Our raison d’etre as teachers is to ensure that pupils achieve their full potential”.
Let us not forget that that is what people go into teaching for; they want pupils to achieve their full potential. Anyone who says anything different doubts the professionalism of the people who are involved in education in Scotland.
Larry Flanagan went even further yesterday when he said:
“Our key priority at this stage is to ensure that the first diet is a successful one for the young people who are currently in secondary 4. Teachers across Scotland are working extremely hard to ensure that ... the new national 4 and national 5 diet delivers for young people and their families.—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 25 February 2014; c 3608.]
That is the most important thing for me and for all the parents out there. We must stay focused on the prize, because we have worked on the matter on a cross-party basis since 2002.
Will George Adam take an intervention?
Unfortunately, I am not able to do so because I do not have enough time. If Labour had wanted to have a proper debate and not a quick-fire round, we could have that debate in full. I would like to make some further points. [Interruption.]
Order, please.
The debate is extremely important, and I will talk to anyone about the issue.
On the information that was brought up yesterday, Dr Janet Brown gave an example of the SQA working with the educationists. She said:
“One of the things that we have been doing over the past several months is very much focusing on the engagement that we have with teachers and with the professions to really understand the challenge associated with the introduction of the new qualifications. The teachers are absolutely focused on ensuring that they take the best advantage of curriculum for excellence, and the qualifications play an important part in that.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 25 February 2014; c 3611.]
We can see from what we were told in evidence yesterday that they are working together to try to ensure that our young people get the opportunities that the curriculum for excellence offers them. As I have said, we have all worked on that together since 2002. That has shown the Parliament at its best.
The curriculum for excellence is a new approach to learning and teaching. It is a transformation in education in Scotland to offer a more flexible and enriched curriculum for three to 18-year-olds. As I have already said, the most important thing is that we do not lose sight of the prize when we are so close to the finish line. Let us support and have faith in the professionals and take the approach over the finish line.
16:17
I support Scottish Labour’s motion, which voices significant concerns from teachers, unions and parents about the readiness of the curriculum for excellence and the changes that it is bringing in Scotland’s classrooms.
I put on record my support for Neil Bibby’s call for the Scottish Government to conduct an independent review of what it and its agencies have done to prepare teachers for the new national 4 and national 5 exams and for a plan of action to address the on-going concerns of the SSTA and others.
It is clear from the speeches so far in the debate that those concerns are being felt in classrooms throughout Scotland, not least in my home city of Dundee. This morning, the local Dundee Courier reported that Dundee City Council is one of nine councils in which the consultation process has failed to happen. I hope that the minister will address that issue in his concluding remarks.
I would like to address a couple of issues in Dundee and Angus that deeply concern me. I am concerned that, in 10 to 12 years’ time, pupils will not be ready to sit their exams, because there have been some significant developments. Over the past few days, The Times Educational Supplement has reported that
“By the end of the summer, Angus Council hopes to have transferred all its nursery teachers to primary classrooms ... to save”
£120,000. The ministers know as well as I do that the curriculum for excellence is a learner’s journey and that it starts at three years old. I hope that they share my concern that taking nursery teachers out of schools is absolutely the wrong way to go. Early years expert Professor Aline-Wendy Dunlop warned this week that there is a danger that nursery teachers will disappear from pre-school education altogether across Scotland unless the Scottish Government changes the law to protect them. She has recommended legislation to address that.
The figures are quite shocking: only 6 per cent of pupils in the whole county of Angus have regular access to a nursery teacher, which is not even a regular nursery teacher every day. That is the lowest proportion in Scotland. However, nursery teachers are coming out of nurseries across the country. The EIS has called for the Scottish Government to protect nursery teachers.
I ask the ministers and the cabinet secretary this: is the Scottish Government concerned that they are entrusting the curriculum for excellence in the early years to staff with lesser qualifications? I would really like to hear the cabinet secretary’s opinion on that. It was only a day after I raised concerns about early years practitioners being removed from 22 schools in Dundee and the lesser qualifications of the staff who will assume some of their duties that the Scottish Government announced a review of the pre-school workforce and their qualifications. Perhaps the cabinet secretary will commit today to bringing the findings of that review to the chamber for debate when they are published, and to consider legislating in order to protect nursery teachers with the force of the law. I am sure that the cabinet secretary and the ministers hear my plea that the teachers for the early years must be properly qualified if the journey on the curriculum for excellence is to be successful. I hope that they will consider that suggestion.
16:21
I start by extending my thanks to official report staff for producing the Official Report of yesterday’s Education and Culture Committee meeting so promptly. It has been very useful.
I know that there is a high level of consensus that the curriculum for excellence will provide substantial benefits to Scotland’s educational system and will prepare our young people for a life very different from the one that we had when we were their age. We are now at the cusp of a decade’s worth of planning, and those 10 years have seen the involvement of many different stakeholders to ensure that consensus has been gained around the fundamentals of change. More than 1,000 teachers were involved in the creation of new qualifications that reflect revised content, a new approach to learning and a focus on knowledge and skills. The Government sought feedback from many more teachers beyond that. In total, more than 5,000 teachers, academics and lecturers were involved in helping to construct, design and implement the new curriculum. Simply put, the curriculum has not been designed in isolation. The Government has certainly sought the input of those who understand exactly what is required.
Beyond that, the Scottish Government has provided £5 million of additional funding in the past two years, not to mention an additional two in-service days, one of which is intended to allow teachers time to reflect on the new highers for next year, as the Minister for Learning, Science and Scotland’s Languages informed the Education and Culture Committee just yesterday.
We have also seen the creation of all full-course materials for each of the 95 national 4 and 5 courses, not to mention the subject-specific events that have been held to provide support for thousands of teachers. Another of the assets that will be delivered as part of the package that was announced on 21 February is £250,000 of funding that is designed to allow local authorities to hold school-level events to improve parents’ understanding of the new qualifications. I believe that that step will enable students to get help from all sources around them and to go to both teachers and parents for support. Those measures should not be underplayed at what is a stressful time in the life of young people. Indeed, Iain Ellis, the chair of the national parent forum of Scotland, welcomed the additional support and said that the package showed
“the continued commitment of Scottish Government to listen to parents and teachers and to ensuring that everything possible is put in place to help our young people taking the new qualifications do as well as they possibly can.”
I understand the concerns of my Labour colleagues on the committee regarding the readiness and the preparation of the new national 4 and 5 examinations, and the introduction of the new highers.
The Scottish Government’s 21 February announcement of its £5 million package of support may well allay some of those fears. The vast bulk of that will allow local authorities to fund more time for the involvement of teachers and schools in the delivery of the new qualifications. As a matter of fact, the surveys that are quoted in the motion were conducted before the package was announced, and I would hope that the responses would be much more positive if the same surveys were carried out today.
I take issue with the description of the £5 million package as “somewhat belated”. As I mentioned, curriculum for excellence was created over the past 10 years and it took input from a vast range of professionals and stakeholders. The timescales and plans that we are working to have been in place for the past four years, and the package is a response to feedback from young people, the teaching profession and the wider educational community. It is important to remember that the whole process is intended to be on-going, and thoughts and opinions will continue to be taken on board as we progress. Last Friday’s announcement reflects that mindset.
Further to that, Education Scotland has already produced all professional focus papers and web-based course materials for the national 4 and 5 courses, and learning and teaching advice is available for all units in national 1 and 2 courses.
I am sure that all my colleagues in the chamber would agree that Scotland has, to quote the minister for learning,
“an exceptional teaching profession ... that cares deeply about the best outcomes for its young people”.
You must conclude, please.
Overall, curriculum for excellence provides the vehicle to ensure that our teaching profession has the opportunity to fully develop the potential of our young people.
16:26
I agree with other members that this is an important issue. It is obviously critical to the future for Scotland’s young people.
I am not a member of the Education and Culture Committee, so I was not privy to the discussion yesterday. I put on record my gratitude to the clerks to that committee and the official report for hurrying out the Official Report so quickly in order to allow those of us who were not at the committee and not privy to the discussions to get at least a flavour of them by looking at the Official Report.
Like all members, I have a number of secondary schools in my constituency and I am in regular dialogue and discussion with them, be it with the teachers, the pupils or the parents. To date, I have not had any concerns raised with me regarding the readiness for the qualifications of the schools in Aberdeen Donside. I had some concerns raised with me in 2011-12, when I was a regional MSP, but they were a product of the approach being taken by one or two individual secondary schools rather than a wider issue affecting the approach that is being taken with the curriculum for excellence across the country.
I understand that, whenever a member stands up and says that they have not heard concerns or not had concerns expressed to them, they can be accused of being complacent. However, this is not complacency. I sometimes feel that, unless a member is wearing a sandwich board with “the end is nigh” written across it, they can be targeted for complacency. I am not complacent in any way, shape or form, and I do not think that the Scottish Government is being complacent, either. Obviously, the Government wants every young person to achieve the best they can and its approach is to work with and listen to teachers, unions and parents. That dialogue has been on-going for a considerable time.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I have only four minutes.
The dialogue started back in 2002 when the previous Labour and Liberal Executive was involved in the beginnings of curriculum for excellence, and it has continued all the way through. As with any change in qualifications that takes place, there have been concerns. I know from speaking to people who were around in the education system at the time of the change from O grades to standard grades that there were concerns and there were predictions that things would not work, yet the transition took place and worked effectively.
That is not to say that we can simply assume that that will happen, but if we look at the interventions that the Scottish Government has been making, we can see clearly that it has acted on concerns. There has been reference to the belatedness of the funding that the Government has provided, but that funding had to be provided on the back of feedback that was received from the professionals—from teachers—following the undertaking of live assessments. The funding followed that experience. However, as the minister said, funding has been provided throughout the process in order to assist.
Liz Smith was correct to make the constructive point that the issue is not always the amount of money that is allocated; the cultural and mindset aspect also needs to be addressed. The money from the Scottish Government is critical and welcome, but I recognise Liz Smith’s point and I am sure that the Government will take on board the constructive suggestions that she made.
We must remember that there is an important role for local authorities to play, which I noted in reading yesterday’s committee discussions. As well as the Scottish Government fulfilling its end of the bargain, we must ensure that work takes place across the board, which includes working with local authorities to ensure that they fulfil their end of the bargain and that the process works effectively, which I am confident that it will.
16:30
I thank Neil Bibby for lodging the motion. It is important that teachers, parents and pupils across Scotland know that the Parliament is concerned about and takes seriously the issues that they are raising. I welcome the debate that is taking place today.
Colin Beattie said that curriculum for excellence has been 10 years in the planning. I agree that a lot of planning has been done, which is why it is even more important that, when we reach the stage of implementing curriculum for excellence and major concerns are being flagged up to us, we take those issues seriously.
I welcomed the announcement by the Minister for Learning, Science and Scotland’s Languages of an additional £5 million for curriculum for excellence. That shows that the Government acknowledges that there are issues out there that need to be tackled.
Earlier this month, Fife Council announced investment of £400,000 after receiving representations from teaching unions, teachers, parents and pupils on concerns about the new highers.
I will repeat what I have said to Alex Rowley privately. I put it on record that I very much welcome that contribution from Fife Council. The partnership work between that council’s officials, Education Scotland and the SQA is important and will very much help delivery. That is a great thing.
I thank the cabinet secretary for that.
The moneys that have been put in are welcome. I note that £4.75 million of the moneys that have been provided will be distributed through the normal means, which will mean that Fife gets about £330,000. That will be very welcome in how it is spent. However, no moneys have been provided for materials or books.
When Fife Council surveyed schools, one issue was the allocation of books. A proposal was made to the administration that £225,000 should be allocated to resources for the new curriculum in each of the 17 secondary schools in Fife. That would allow at least three departments in each secondary school to purchase textbooks for their children. If £1 million had been put in earlier this year, we can see how far it could have gone. I understand from the evidence that the teaching unions gave yesterday that there is a desperate need to get more resources into local authorities and directly into schools for books. I appeal for those resources.
The cabinet secretary asked how many pupils will not take the new highers. Nobody can answer that question at this stage. Fife Council has been advised that there have been and continue to be many challenges with the quality and quantity of the information that comes from the SQA and that, as a result, it is unclear at this stage how many teachers and departments will be able to proceed with the highers in the coming year.
I say to the cabinet secretary and the minister that it is disappointing that their amendment shows that they are unwilling to proceed with a review, because we need to learn the lessons. We—and parents and pupils—need to know where schools are at. A review would allow us to know that. I welcome the additional resource, but I ask the Government to consider again having a review, so that we can find out where schools are at, get the information out to parents and provide support.
16:35
I associate myself with Liz Smith’s comments about the teaching profession and its Herculean effort in its work on the implementation of the curriculum for excellence. I absolutely agree that we are proud of the teaching profession in Scotland and we appreciate its efforts at what is a difficult time. It is always a difficult time and there will always be obstacles overcome in that process.
There has been a lot of talk about the oral evidence that was given to the Education and Culture Committee yesterday, but I want to remind members that the committee received written evidence from the national parent forum of Scotland, which said:
“Much work has been done, particularly in the last couple of years to prepare secondary teachers for delivering the new courses and qualifications.”
I therefore take issue with Neil Bibby’s statement that things have been ignored for two years. It is just not tenable to say that.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, sorry. I do not have time.
The national parent forum of Scotland goes on to say:
“There have been a range of resources and materials, and events that have been made available by ourselves, Education Scotland and SQA ... However, we are at a crucial stage for our children and young people. The National Parent Forum of Scotland has played its part in working in partnership with Scottish Government to help parents and Parent Councils understand the reality of the changes, against a backdrop of some particularly negative media at times, and also some scare-mongering by those who can only have their own interests to serve, and not those of our children ... We believe that if we really want to demonstrate that we want the best for the young people taking these new qualifications in only a few months’ time, we need to get on and finish what was started nearly 10 years ago—and provide that better learning and teaching experience for our children. We would hope that there is no further talk of delay, of crisis and of sticking with old style qualifications.”
It is absolutely clear that parents want us to get on with this process and deliver what has been a transformational change in education in Scotland, and that is to be welcomed.
Mr Bibby made a statement about ignoring things for two years. I have in front of me an Education Scotland publication from May 2012 entitled “Progress in preparing for the implementation of Curriculum for Excellence in secondary schools.” It has seven key findings and if I have time I will read some of them out. The first key finding is:
“Overall, almost all secondary schools are making good progress in preparing for delivery and implementation of Curriculum for Excellence.”
Finding 2 is:
“There is a clear understanding that the next two years are a period in which schools’ curriculum planning and structures will evolve progressively.”
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I do not have time.
Number 3 is:
“Schools are engaging well with a range of key stakeholders in developing curriculum plans and structures.”
Finding number 4 is:
“Overall, secondary schools are making good progress in their preparation for the new NQs”—
national qualifications—
“and are on track to implement them within the national timescale without invoking exceptional circumstances.”
Point number 5 is:
“While progress is generally good, it is clear that some departments will need more support to help them prepare effectively for the new NQs.”
The publication lists key areas in which that support was going.
There are seven key findings in the report, which paints a picture of an Education Scotland that is working dynamically with our secondary sector to ensure the delivery of the curriculum for excellence on time. I appreciate that, because it is a dynamic process, some of the changes will have increased teachers’ workload, but there is no doubt that the additional funding that the Government announced last week will give the EIS what it wanted, which is the time and space to deliver the national 4 and 5 exams effectively. Larry Flanagan said:
“The EIS believes that this new support package is a positive development that will be very welcome in our secondary schools”.
Let there be no doubt that we are on track to deliver this transformational change in Scottish secondaries and parents and pupils should take confidence from this debate that it will be on track.
16:39
If Neil Bibby continues with performances such as today’s, his day as education secretary will come. [Interruption.]
Order.
His day will come. [Interruption.] Come on, I only have a few minutes.
Order, please, Mr McDonald.
We would be content to support the Government amendment to the Labour motion on the basis that the Government will bring forward the independent review. It would be helpful if the minister could confirm in his summing-up speech whether that will happen, so that we all know how to vote.
As Liz Smith did, I thank the Labour Party for choosing to debate this subject in its own business time. What could be more important than the education and opportunities of young people across Scotland?
The motion that is set out in the name of Neil Bibby today is thoroughly reasonable, noting the serious concerns that have been expressed by teachers, and the worries of parents and pupils about the readiness of preparation and, indeed, the level of support for the new exams. The SSTA and the EIS have also expressed the levels of anger, disappointment and frustration that are felt by their members. Like Clare Adamson, Liz Smith and others, I put on record my appreciation of the first-class work that is being done in our schools. I have no doubt that that will continue and that any issues that arise will be to do with maintaining that excellent standard.
Some weeks ago, Kezia Dugdale and I were invited to a meeting with the minister, Alasdair Allan. Being new to the portfolio, I was delighted to accept the invitation. I knew that the meeting would concern either an important Government announcement or further information on national 4 and 5 exams. However, I knew that it could not be an important Government announcement, because there was nothing on the radio or in the papers that day, so I was pleased to go to the meeting to get an update on the exams. The update was informative, upbeat and positive, and I left the meeting in no doubt that everything was on track. I was so impressed at how well things were going that I was amazed that another £5 million had to be spent to sort things out, only weeks after that meeting.
However, with nine weeks until the exams, Scottish Conservatives want to work with the Government in an open, transparent and constructive manner. Education is too important for anything less.
All parties have a stake in the successful implementation of the national exams, and I hope that the Government will reflect on several of the thoughtful speeches that I have heard today. In particular, Neil Bibby and Liz Smith struck the right note between expressing the concerns of the teaching profession and recognising that this year’s exam diet is less than nine weeks away.
When 93 per cent of teachers respond to an SSTA survey saying that they think that Education Scotland and the SQA have not offered enough support, it is clear that there are significant issues with the roll-out of the new exams. Some of the issues around course materials are worrying and, as others have pointed out, should have been addressed in advance. I was comforted, to an extent, by what the minister said earlier. However, today, I received an email from a parent in Inverness who was at a parents evening last night. She wrote:
“As a parent of a child with some literacy difficulties and Autism I would like to ask how we are supposed to sufficiently prepare our child for the new format of the exam without more than one sample.”
She said that she feels that her son is being discriminated against, and that
“his outcome in this years exam will be less favourable because he has not had the opportunity to practise how to answer the kinds of questions being asked when his Autism makes it difficult”.
I hope that the minister will take that on board.
You must come to a close now.
I would like to pay tribute to the teaching profession and the excellent work that teachers have done. Again, I put on record that we would like the Government to support the independent review, and that we are committed to working with the Government to make the curriculum for excellence a success.
16:43
At the outset, I confirm this Government’s continuing, on-going and long-lasting support for the curriculum for excellence in not only words, but actions. Again and again, we have ensured that all the resources that are required are in place and that the work is being done to support teachers, schools, local authorities and, above all, pupils.
We have kept faith with the curriculum for excellence because that is the right thing to do, because it is a dynamic and modern education system that will serve Scotland and Scotland’s young people well. We will go on doing that through the first diet of exams because, as Liz Smith knows, the curriculum for excellence is not an event, it is a process. It is the way in which we do education in Scotland, and we will carry on with it for years to come.
Other members have taken the same position. I am grateful to Liz Smith, whose speech was tremendous. We will miss her in her portfolio, because she asked exactly the right questions.
I am not going.
I am glad that she is not going completely, because she asks the right questions. I will answer some of them in a moment.
The party that has wobbled on curriculum for excellence is the Labour Party, regrettably. That was summed up today by two things—one in the chamber and one outside.
At the start of the debate, Mr Bibby made an assertion—I am glad that Alex Rowley drew attention to it—about the numbers. He talked about so many young people not taking the highers. Mr Bibby could not know—it is impossible to know, as Mr Rowley confirmed—how many young people may not take the new highers.
To offer openness about moving forward was exactly the right thing to do, because there was always going to be dual running of the highers, given the situation in S5 and S6. It was warmly welcomed. It was what needed to happen, but the offer has been traduced by Mr Bibby into a political excuse to attack the Government. Mr Bibby cannot know the numbers—nobody can know—but he asserted that he did. That is not the action of somebody who supports curriculum for excellence.
Regrettably, Kezia Dugdale did the same in The Times Educational Supplement two weeks ago. I look forward to her speech, because I hope that she has moved away from this position:
“The spectre of the infamous millennium exams debacle is hanging over the introduction of the new National qualifications, shadow education secretary Kezia Dugdale has suggested.”
She went on to say that
“The first students to sit the exams were being treated like ‘a generation of guinea pigs’”.
That was a most unfortunate thing to say. It could not have come from somebody who supports Scotland’s young people and their progress through exciting, positive and really important sets of exams. Yet again, it was making use of Scotland’s young people for political purposes. I deplore that. Attacking staff and attacking curriculum for excellence—
Will Mike Russell give way?
No, I will not take an intervention from Mr Macintosh.
Will Mike Russell give way?
I will take one from Mr Bibby.
I listed more than 30 complaints raised by the SSTA and the EIS this week. The cabinet secretary has spent three minutes attacking the Labour Party; when will he start responding to the issues that have been raised?
Well, Mr Bibby, I started responding to those on the day that I came into office—four years and three months ago—and I have gone on responding to them by meeting the unions and spending time in schools. [Interruption.]
Order, please.
Mr Bibby, I was responding to them when you had not even heard of curriculum for excellence.
Cabinet secretary, speak through the chair, please.
I will now come on to the issue of a review. I am grateful for Alex Rowley’s remarks. Incidentally, he is right about the allocation of resources. We should all do as much as we can.
I also respond to Jenny Marra’s point by saying that the Government has already announced a review of the teaching and nursery workforce. The mix of qualifications works well—we know that. We will have union input to the review so that we can take it forward. Ms Marra looks sceptical. That is because I am trying to do something positive. Labour hates the Scottish National Party doing things that are positive.
I will come to the review.
Will Mike Russell give way?
No. The review process already exists. I want to make that point.
Ms Marra, the cabinet secretary is not taking an intervention.
I beg your pardon, Presiding Officer.
I am sorry, I was just telling Ms Marra that you were not taking an intervention so that she could resume her seat.
Thank you very much for confirming that.
The review process already exists. I point to it because I hope that it will help.
Liz Smith rose—
I will take an intervention from Liz Smith if she wishes to make one.
I thank the cabinet secretary for taking an intervention.
One of the purposes of the review is to deal with some of the issues. I will quote what Dr Janet Brown said yesterday about specimen papers:
“We are looking at the significant number of previous practice papers that are available and identifying what aspects of those papers are relevant to and valid for the current qualifications.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 25 February 2014; c 3630.]
That implies that there is a lot of work to be done, which is why the reviews are necessary.
I understand the point. I will make two points about the review—there are two parts to the matter—that I hope will reassure the fair-minded in this chamber.
First, the management board for curriculum for excellence is independent of all practitioners. It brings in all the experiences. It has a job to review and plan constantly. I am happy to ask it whether, at the conclusion of the first set of diets, it will take a special look at what took place in that set of diets.
However, another review has already been announced. The Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development has been invited to review curriculum for excellence. With our encouragement, it has engaged the support of the Royal Society of Edinburgh—those two bodies are absolutely unimpeachable in such matters—and will consider it at the right time. It would be utterly wrong to undertake a full review of curriculum for excellence and its effect while the programme is not complete and when the highers have still to take place. It would be disruptive.
I make an appeal to members. Labour was wrong to approach the debate in the way that it has done. I hope that, at the end of the debate, we might have from Kezia Dugdale something more consensual. Then, let us move forward united to support Scotland’s young people as they go forward. We will support the teachers every inch of the way. We will do even more if we have to do it. We will listen to teachers, as we always do. We will listen to pupils. We will work with schools. That is what we should all be doing. We should not be trying to make political use of Scotland’s young people in order to attack the Government. That is disgraceful. [Interruption.]
Order, Mr Bibby.
I do hope that Mr Bibby’s speech was an aberration and that Kezia Dugdale will rise—[Interruption.]
Order, Mr Bibby. Cabinet secretary, please conclude.
—into the position to which Mary Scanlon wanted to welcome Mr Bibby: into the position of somebody who might one day hold this office.
16:50
Until the cabinet secretary stood up, we had quite a constructive debate about the detail of curriculum for excellence and where we are at with the current exam diet.
Labour used its business time today to give voice to thousands of parents, pupils and teachers across Scotland who are going through an anxious and stressful time. Neil Bibby has already made the point that Labour has brought the issue to the chamber on several occasions and has been making these points for two years now. We do that because we want it to work. We want it to work.
I said “give voice” to the concerns of parents, pupils and teachers, because many of the speeches from Labour members have included the words of others: the words of third parties—parents, teachers and pupils—who are anxious about the future and anxious about the weeks ahead. I will quote directly from more such people in my summing up because it is important that we give voice to those concerns.
Before I do that, I commend teachers across the country for the job that they are doing under incredible pressure. They are doing the job and putting in all the extra hours because they care so deeply about their profession and about their responsibility to the children and young people whom they look after. They have devoted their lives to that. That is why, when I got an email yesterday from a principal teacher of social subjects, I was really quite distressed. The email reads:
“the situation re these new exams is frightening ... I have taught for 31 years and I have never known a situation like this. Indeed I am thinking of leaving the profession because of the stress and pressure that delivering these new courses will bring ... We are at our wits end ... I think if parents really knew what was going on there would be a mass revolt.”
Those are the words of a principal teacher of a social subject in a high school. SNP back benchers can say that it is all fixed, that we have had reviews and that the EIS survey is out of date, but a principal teacher yesterday expressed serious concerns about their ability to deliver for pupils in their classroom, quite possibly right now studying for exams that are just six weeks away. It was very telling that not a single SNP back bencher took an intervention during the course of the debate.
We had a very quiet, tempered tone from the education minister at the start of the debate, only for Mike Russell to bluster in at the end. I say to Mark McDonald that, had he let me intervene, I would have encouraged him to look again at the five or six different quotations that Neil Bibby gave in his opening speech from teachers who are concerned about what is happening now. Perhaps Mark McDonald can look at the Official Report of the debate and then assess for himself whether he thinks that there is anything to worry about.
Mark McDonald also made a comparison between the standard grades and higher stills and what we have now. The standard grades and higher stills were introduced over ten years. We have sets of exams just now that are being introduced over two years. That is the difference. That is the problem that we are facing. That is why Larry Flanagan is left saying that
“we have not encountered as widespread anger and disappointment and frustration with the exams ... as we are currently witnessing”.
Those are Larry Flanagan’s words.
George Adam is another member who did not take any interventions. We have a comment from a teacher in his constituency who says:
“The lack of planning, organisation and support given to teachers is a disgrace.”
That is a teacher in Mr Adam’s constituency, who has nothing to say except that everything is fine. [Interruption.]
Mr Adam. Please do not interrupt.
Who runs the council?
Mr FitzPatrick has just asked who runs the council. Of course, it has nothing to do with Alasdair Allan or Mike Russell: it is the fault of the council. There we go again. Mr FitzPatrick, where were you two hours ago? Now we know the blame game.
I say to Clare Adamson, another SNP member who failed to take any interventions, that Larry Flanagan used the words
“anger and disappointment and frustration”.
Those are not words that teachers use on a whim. Larry Flanagan has pointed out very clearly that teachers have serious concerns. Why are those serious concerns from committed professionals not being respected and rewarded with a review?
We welcome the £4.75 million funding package, but EIS has said that it is of course too late to make any impact on the national 4 and 5 curriculum and the exams that are six weeks away. I would welcome an acknowledgement from the Government that the additional money will in fact do nothing to help those who are facing national 4 and 5 exams.
I see that the cabinet secretary is sitting there shaking his head. If he would like to correct Labour members, and tell us that the £5 million will be helpful in the next six weeks, I would be willing to hear that.
I see that there is no response from the cabinet secretary.
Michael Russell rose—
Mr Russell.
The money will be helpful to all teachers and all pupils.
Perhaps the cabinet secretary can phone Larry Flanagan after the debate and put that point to him, because Larry Flanagan recognises that the funding will do nothing to help with national 4 and 5 exams.
I ask the cabinet secretary again, since he was so interested in putting statistical questions to Mr Bibby, how many people are studying national 5 qualifications in our colleges.
It appears that he does not know the answer to that. I phoned the SQA and Colleges Scotland this afternoon to try to get hold of those figures. Of course, until the end of March, we will not know the full numbers of people who are sitting national 4 and 5 exams. However, we get a different story when we phone the colleges.
The colleges know how many people are studying for national 5 qualifications because they are teaching them. At Edinburgh College, for example, 107 students are studying for national 5 qualifications. Can the cabinet secretary tell me how the additional £5 million will help those students in our colleges? Everything that the Government has to say is about supporting local authorities to support pupils in schools who are studying for national 4 and 5 qualifications. Yet again, colleges are left in the back seat and the cabinet secretary has nothing to say to them.
We are told that there is £1 million for textbooks, but yet again the EIS tells us that the money, when it is broken down on a per capita basis by school, is not enough to buy a single classroom a single set of textbooks for a subject.
The cabinet secretary is shaking his head again. Those are not my words, but the words of the head of the teaching union, who is telling him that there are not enough textbooks in our classrooms.
If members look at the SQA website today, they will see that the front page says, “Official SQA Past Papers”, under which bullet point 2 says:
“Practise on the real thing”.
That message is going to pupils just now. However, when they click on it, they get past papers for all the standard grades and highers. There is no link to a single national 4 or 5 past paper on the front page of the SQA website. [Interruption.] Yes, if members dig around the website they will eventually get to a past paper, but they need a national 5 in computing to find it. [Interruption.] For the benefit of the Official Report, I hear the cabinet secretary saying that that is absolutely pathetic. I quite agree: it is pathetic that a pupil in this country cannot go on the SQA website and see what type of exams they will be facing in six weeks’ time.
The Labour motion asks for two clear things. First, it calls for an action plan, which we believe could address the issues around practice papers and textbooks, and potentially avoid future industrial action, given that teachers are now saying, “If we are not prepared for highers, we will have to strike.”
Secondly, our motion calls for an independent review in 2014, because it is critical that we understand the relationship between the SQA, Education Scotland and the Scottish Government.
We cannot support what the Government is setting out today, and it is complacent in its approach to the new exams. We fully support curriculum for excellence and wish the students who are facing those exams in the next six weeks the very best of luck.