The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-17669, in the name of Willie Rennie, on a new plan for Scotland’s teaching workforce. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible. I advise members that there is very little time in hand.
14:50
Presiding Officer,
“I find myself ill with worry of how I will pay my bills. My car is broken but I cannot afford to fix it. My rent is £1000 but I cannot get a mortgage due to uncertainty of work. I lost my mum in the first term of becoming a teacher so have no other way of supporting myself. I cannot even gain money from universal credit as casually working supply … means I cannot claim anything.”
Those are the words of just one of the many teachers who are crying out for this Government to listen to their battle to do the job that they love—to educate young minds. I hear stark reports of 170 applications for one temporary position; of lives being on hold; of teachers being unable to start their family, get a house and settle down; of older teachers having sacrificed careers in industry for nothing; of teachers leaving the country for work; and of thousands leaving the profession. The problem is most acute in primary education.
In her amendment, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills blames local authorities. She says that they are the employers and they are responsible for local workforce planning, but councils are not responsible for the supply of new teachers. That is the job, through universities, of central Government.
Let me take members back to the previous election, when the Scottish National Party promised to cut teacher contact time by 90 minutes per week. It then promised to create 3,500 extra teachers to make that possible, so universities got busy educating them. When the councils could not afford to recruit those extra teachers, there were few jobs for them. The Government failed to reach an agreement to cut teacher contact time, but the newly qualified teachers kept on coming. The Government then worked out that, with falling school rolls, it did not need 3,500 extra teachers to cut the 90 minutes, but it kept the new teachers coming.
Just one in four newly qualified teachers now finds a permanent teaching post. The Government’s working group admits that there are now 950 more primary teachers than jobs available. The result is that 950 teachers—plus many more with short-term jobs, zero-hours jobs or no job at all—are struggling to pay the bills and battling to stay in teaching, with the Government pretending that it has nothing to do with it.
The Government is failing to cut teacher contact time by 90 minutes and failing to deliver jobs for 3,500 extra teachers. It is failing teachers and pupils. Even today, the cabinet secretary points to others rather than accepting that this mess is of the Government’s making. When she stands up in a moment, the first words that she should utter are: “I am sorry”. She should apologise to all those unemployed and underemployed teachers.
The next tasks are to solve the 90-minute teacher contact time promise and the shambles of the 3,500 extra teachers, and to give clear guidance to the teacher workforce planning advisory group.
Although there are too many teachers in one part of the system, there are not enough in another. An example is secondary schools in Aberdeenshire. The cabinet secretary knows, because she visited Aberdeenshire not so long ago, that it is short of science teachers, maths teachers, technical teachers and home economics teachers. Claire Rennie—no relation—from Fraserburgh academy parent council says:
“While this has been an issue for many years, it is now very much at crisis point.”
In the 2022-23 session, Aberdeenshire Council requested 48 newly qualified secondary teachers, but it was allocated only 25. It got worse, as only 16 arrived—a third of what the council asked for. In the following year, 66 were requested, only 18 were allocated and just 12 started—a fifth of what was needed. Almost none arrived where the council has the biggest shortages. The effects of that are subjects being cut out in schools, primary teachers being brought into secondary schools, falling staff morale and declining pupil behaviour.
The problem is nationwide. Compared with when the Scottish National Party came to power, there are 363 fewer maths teachers, 91 fewer physics teachers, 216 fewer computer science teachers and 180 fewer technical education teachers. The number of modern languages teachers has fallen by more than a fifth.
What are the solutions? The cash incentives are clearly not working. The teaching bursary of £20,000 for science, technology, engineering and mathematics and for Gaelic has a poor take-up rate. The preference waiver payment for teachers to move to areas in which it is hard to recruit is not working, either. Those payments must be revamped. We need to look at where new teachers are trained, because they often remain in those areas to teach.
You need to conclude.
I appreciate that teacher workforce planning is not simple, but the Government has made the situation a whole lot worse.
I move,
That the Parliament acknowledges the work carried out by Scotland’s teachers in schools across the country and commends them for all they do; recognises that the subjects that they teach provide important foundations for knowledge and skills in sectors that can be vital for Scotland’s economy; notes with concern, however, that there has been a sharp decline in the number of teachers in key subjects, such as maths, physics and modern languages, and that targets to train teachers in STEM subjects have been continuously missed; believes that, should these targets continue to be missed, and the decline in the number of teachers continues, it will add to the strain on the teaching workforce, Scottish education will suffer and Scotland’s ability to compete globally in important sectors will be impacted; further believes that a lack of permanent contracts for teachers will further compound issues with recruitment and training; notes that there are also high levels of unemployment and underemployment of primary teachers and teachers for some secondary school subjects; further notes the failure of the Scottish Government to make sufficient progress on its 2021 commitment to recruit 3,500 more teachers, which is set to be missed by the end of the current parliamentary session in 2026, and calls, therefore, on the Scottish Government to develop a new, urgent plan for the teaching workforce, working with stakeholders.
14:56
I thank Mr Rennie for lodging the motion for debate during Liberal Democrat time. I thought that the story that he set out at the start of his speech was deeply emotional, and I ask him to share details of that case with my office. I would be keen to look into the specifics and see what assistance, if any, my officials and I might be able to provide.
I start by recognising and acknowledging the challenges that the motion sets out around teacher recruitment and employment. In concluding, Mr Rennie said that there is not a simple answer, noting the shared responsibilities. It is important that we do not apportion blame but talk about the shared responsibilities that exist in law in relation to how our education system is structured. However, I want to listen today to the challenge from the Opposition and to engage where, collectively, working with local government, we can seek to drive the improvements that are needed in Scotland’s schools.
We all know that teacher recruitment is an enabler in driving that improvement, and we know that it is a challenge that is not unique to Scotland. Last week, I was at the Education World Forum in London, where I met fellow education ministers from all over the world. We talked about the issue in their countries, which exists in a range of different subject areas. We know that, in England, in all but one of the past 10 years, the Department for Education has missed its target for those starting secondary school teacher training. In Wales, the chief inspector has raised similar concerns about the impact that recruitment is having on the curriculum.
We also know that the United Nations has suggested that the Covid pandemic affected public perceptions of teaching. Last year, in its global report on teachers, the UN found that the pandemic had in some ways improved public perceptions of the status of teaching, but, according to the UN, that perceived change was temporary. That global context is important because, in Scotland, our teachers remain the best paid in these islands, with the lowest pupil teacher ratio.
However, teaching also needs to be an attractive vocation and people need to feel valued. I had a modern studies teacher who used to talk about the light-bulb moment when, in teaching a concept, they could almost see a child understand and develop their knowledge. Our teachers make a difference every day. Post-pandemic, we need to make a concerted effort to celebrate the positive importance of teachers in our schools. That is why, later this year, the Government will introduce a new teacher recruitment marketing campaign to encourage more students to take up a career in teaching. I hope that colleagues across the chamber will be able to support that campaign.
We know that, if we are to deliver on reducing class contact time, we need to have more teachers in Scotland’s schools.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that there is also a role for other partners in workforce planning—universities, for example—to ensure that we have the right allocation of teachers across the board?
I agree with the sentiments that the member has expressed. Our universities are directly involved in national workforce planning at the current time.
I will briefly touch on the teacher induction scheme—
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
I say to Ms Duncan-Glancy that I am conscious of time; I have one minute left.
The teacher induction scheme has served us well for many years, and I have discussed it with colleagues from across the chamber in recent weeks. I confirm today that the Government will review the teacher induction scheme and the probationer allocation for new teachers to identify strengths and areas for improvement, so that we can support new teachers into the profession.
That speaks to the point that Mr Rennie made in relation to Aberdeenshire Council’s probationer allocations. We need to review how the scheme is working. At the current time, probation is fully funded by the Government at an average cost of £40 million a year. It is imperative that the Government, in investing in that scheme and in free tuition, sees buy-back in relation to the permanent post challenge that Mr Rennie alluded to.
Mr Rennie also talked about the role of local government. The Government’s deal with local government saw an extra £186.5 million go to our local authorities to help to support extra teachers in Scotland’s schools.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
I am happy to give way on that point, although I am conscious of time.
When will the cabinet secretary mention unemployed primary school teachers?
I have five minutes for my speech and less than a minute left. I will come on to talk about that, because part of the issue is specifically about our primary teachers. It is less of an issue in our secondary schools, although the member’s motion talks about some issues regarding subject specialisms.
I am keen to work with the General Teaching Council for Scotland on how we can support some of the primary teachers who are unable to gain employment, perhaps by transitioning them into additional support needs posts or into secondary teaching. We need to support the GTCS to that end. I am more than happy to engage with Willie Rennie and members from across the chamber on that point. The budget made available an extra £29 million to be ring fenced for local authorities to employ ASN specialists. There are opportunities for some primary teachers who may not be able to obtain posts to divert into other career options, but I appreciate that that might not be for everyone.
It is important to recognise that, although there are challenges, there are also opportunities for us to work differently, and we have to do that with local government. I do not think that a single amendment to the motion suggests otherwise. My legal responsibilities as Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills mean that I have to work with local government on improving the availability of permanent posts, which is exactly the point that Mr Rennie made.
That is why, in the budget, I protected and uplifted the value of the funding that goes to our local authorities. I sincerely hope that every local authority in the country—including Fife Council, where the Liberal Democrats supported the Labour administration’s budget—will be able to go back to the 2023 teacher numbers, which is what the budget settlement was predicated on.
I am conscious of time. I am keen to listen to the debate and to respond to members more fully in my closing remarks.
I move amendment S6M-17669.3, to leave out from "further notes" to end and insert:
“recognises that local workforce planning is led by local government and must be undertaken in partnership with it; supports local authorities, as the employers of teachers, to use the significant additional funding made available, including £186.5 million in the 2025-26 Budget, to increase teacher numbers and create more permanent posts, and calls for the Scottish Government to commit to working in partnership with COSLA, through the joint education and assurance board, to develop a joint evidence-led education workforce strategy with stakeholders.”
15:02
I thank Willie Rennie and the Liberal Democrats for using their party business time to hold the debate. It is important that we highlight the pressures that the teaching workforce faces. I am sure that everyone will remember a positive role that a teacher has played in their lives, from giving them a love for, or aspiration to study, a subject to providing the focus that is often needed to achieve their dreams.
We need to accept that the workforce challenge that Willie Rennie has highlighted in the motion is stark. That puts pressure on teachers and the school community, and it leads to an inability to deliver on and meet pledges that ministers have made on non-contact time.
When SNP ministers pledged to recruit 3,500 teachers, they did not make that pledge with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities; SNP ministers said that they would deliver that recruitment in this parliamentary session. With less than a year to go, it is clear that they have failed. That pledge was made after 14 years of the same party being in office, and it is now likely to be missed by the end of this parliamentary session.
I agree with the call on the Scottish Government to
“develop a new, urgent plan for the teaching workforce, working with stakeholders”.
That should have been done at the very start of the SNP’s time in office. The Scottish Conservatives support a national co-ordinated education workforce plan, to include the ASN workforce, that would deliver additional support workers and classroom assistants across our local authorities.
This morning, the Education, Children and Young People Committee heard about the skills gap that must be closed if we are to align the needs of our economy with subject availability and choice in our schools. That was a key part of Willie Rennie’s motion.
We have concerns about the sharp decline in the number of teachers in key subjects such as maths, physics and modern languages and about the targets that the Government has set to train and recruit teachers in those subjects. Yesterday, I met the Royal Society of Chemistry to discuss its report “Future Workforce and Educational Pathways”. I do not know whether the cabinet secretary has had a chance to meet the RSC, which has made a lot of positive suggestions for growing the number of teaching professionals in such subjects. That is where growth in our economy will come from and where subject choice is critical.
I hope that ministers will take on board from the debate the need to update Parliament on what will happen with STEM. I hope that we will get a commitment from the cabinet secretary or the minister to use Government debating time for that important issue, which should include the recommendations on how STEM targets will be met, as there seems to be very little focus on that—there certainly is not any focus on it in the Government’s amendment.
I have spoken with teachers, and the message is clear that they feel overworked and undervalued. They are facing pressures in the classroom that they never expected in their professional lives. Instead of receiving the support and resources that they need, they face rising workloads, growing pupil violence and pressures to plug gaps that are caused by ministers’ failure to plan.
With fewer people entering the profession and more feeling that they have to leave, the SNP has made teaching in Scotland increasingly unsustainable. I hope that the debate genuinely presents an opportunity to highlight the pressures that the teaching workforce faces across Scotland. The problems with our education system are piling high on the desks of the cabinet secretary and SNP ministers, but resolving the workforce challenges must be the first step in developing solutions to the issues.
I move amendment S6M-17669.2, to insert at end:
“; continues to be concerned at the levels of violence being reported in schools, including unacceptable physical and verbal attacks and threats being experienced by teachers and the wider school community; notes the significant concerns over high levels of work-related stress being reported by teachers and the health and wellbeing of the profession; calls on the Scottish Government to bring forward a national coordinated education workforce plan, including data on additional support needs (ASN) and projections on workforce capacity for additional support workers and classroom assistants across local authorities as part of the ASN review; recognises concerns that absence cover is not being consistently applied across schools and local authorities, and supports the better provision of access to resources and training, including the delivery of a new model of support alongside the NHS Education for Scotland trauma informed practice training on neurodivergence and autism.”
15:06
I thank Willie Rennie and the Scottish Liberal Democrats for bringing to Parliament this crucial motion, which we will support at decision time. Scottish Labour will also support the amendment in the name of Miles Briggs. However, we cannot support the Government amendment, which would delete crucial aspects of the motion.
We must recognise that the Government’s failure to recruit the staff who are needed is a critical part of the issues that we are seeing in schools today. Again, the cabinet secretary has not helped with the perception that the Government does not take responsibility for that by pointing to things being worse elsewhere and by saying that councils should act, that universities should be the workforce planners and that the GTCS should step in. There was nothing about what the Government will do. When will the Government provide the leadership that is so desperately needed?
The Government amendment seeks to delete the call for the Government to provide the leadership that is needed on a workforce plan and instead would replace the commitment with warm words on partnership working. We cannot support a Government amendment that passes the buck to local authorities—the very local authorities that have failed to provide support and resources to do the job. That is not leadership. It is the Scottish Government that sets national priorities. It made the promises, so it must now be held to account.
Will the member take an intervention?
If the cabinet secretary is prepared to explain how she will take responsibility, I will be happy to take the intervention.
I am here, as cabinet secretary, taking responsibility today. I gently say to the member that local authorities, not the Scottish Government, employ our teachers. We have to work in partnership with our councils. Will the member please accept that point, or is she proposing a separate and new approach to the employment of Scotland’s teachers, with them coming out of local government employment? I am keen to understand that.
The cabinet secretary cannot see that we have gaps and that we have teachers without jobs in some areas and in some subjects. Only the Government has the overview and can provide the necessary strategic approach to support local authorities in the shared responsibility for the teaching and schools workforce. The cabinet secretary cannot see that that is crucial, which is exactly why we are in the situation that we are in today and why schools face the problems that they face.
Not accepting the failure to deliver on teacher numbers, for example—a key SNP manifesto commitment—and on the workforce plan, which is overdue by more than a year, shows a disconnect from the reality in schools. The reality is that the teaching profession is in crisis. To avoid having teachers without jobs, subjects without teachers and pupils without stability, we need the Government-led workforce plan. The lack of a strategic overview on having the right staff in the right place drives the crisis that we see and compounds the lack of support for pupils with ASN. As the amendment in Miles Briggs’s name highlights, it creates an environment in schools where the mental health and mental wellbeing of staff and pupils is unsupported, which leads to distressed behaviour and, in some cases, violence. Ultimately, as the Educational Institute of Scotland campaign highlights, it undermines quality education in Scotland.
However, none of that is new. Last year, Scottish Labour warned of the growing precarity in the profession and of the damage that short-term contracts and underemployment were doing to teacher morale and retention. The Parliament supported our motion to address those issues then but, a year on, little has changed. That is why we will try again today, through our amendment, to get the Government to recognise the scale of the problem and to act accordingly.
Our amendment calls for a consistent national system of supply in order to reduce the uncertainty of work from week to week and to widen the pool from which schools can access teachers. It calls for pupil equity funding to be made permanent, so that schools can plan ahead. It calls for reform of the teacher census, so that we know where the gaps are and where resources need to go. It calls for alignment of teacher training places with workforce needs, to address the ridiculous situation where qualified and experienced primary teachers cannot access permanent jobs but, at the same time, are burning out. We also have some subjects without teachers. Lastly, in relation to subject-specific issues, we are calling for clear data on the number of senior phase lessons that are being taught by non-subject specialists. That is the action that is needed to save the teaching workforce in Scotland.
I move amendment S6M-17669.1, to insert at end:
", and further calls on the Scottish Government to develop a consistent national system of supply to support supply teachers across local authorities, make Pupil Equity Funding permanent to empower schools to properly plan, address concerns with the teacher census to ensure that it is known where staff are and where they are needed, ensure places on teacher training are aligned to workforce planning needs, including in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) subjects, and collect and publish data around the number of senior phase lessons being taught by non-subject specialist teachers."
15:11
The figure of £145 million—now £186.5 million—should be enough to move every teacher who is on a temporary contract into a permanent role and to recruit hundreds more into permanent teaching posts on top of that. That sum of money was one of the more significant budgetary requests that the Greens made as part of the Bute house agreement. Our intent was clear—it was to grow Scotland’s teaching workforce. However, for several years, teacher numbers have not increased as planned.
Several factors have contributed to that outcome, including inflation eroding the value of the budget, and the teacher pay deal, which, despite being absolutely necessary, further constrained spending flexibility. The same amount of cash from three or four years ago does not go as far as it used to, especially in education. The same amount of money will not recruit the same number of teachers as it once would have done.
Something clearly went wrong, given that the original £145 million to increase teacher numbers was there, yet we had fewer teachers at the end of the first financial year. Of course, that is not all down to the Scottish Government. Many councils did not even touch their funding allocation for that purpose. The reasons behind that situation are entirely understandable and boil down to three points: the Government wants teacher numbers to increase, councils want to avoid making cuts in departments other than education and the money to do both just is not there—or it is not there in the volume that is needed. That funding question needs to be resolved in the medium to long term, which is why this issue, as so many do, boils down to finance.
Of course, there are things that the Scottish Government can and should do now. The most obvious is a council tax revaluation. In principle, that appears to have the Parliament’s support, but in practice it does not. Councils having far more autonomy over their finances and the power to raise revenue would enable them to make longer-term decisions that should reduce the reliance on Government top-up to prop them up when it comes to workforce planning.
We come back regularly to workforce planning in the Parliament, as Pam Duncan-Glancy highlighted. In many ways, it is an easy issue to bash the Government over the head with, but that approach has not got us anywhere. Something in the tension between the Government and COSLA has to give. The conflict in education that we constantly battle with is the premise that education is a national issue on which the Government is judged, when local authorities are the ones that are tasked with delivering that education.
There is a clear need for dialogue on funding in schools. There is a need for the Government and COSLA to show good will to each other and to act in good faith. Yes, it is valid for the Government to be frustrated at local authorities for spending hundreds of millions of pounds with no clear outcome. As much as I have sympathy for the Government on this, COSLA is also right to argue that teacher numbers, the national care service and the council tax freeze—to name just a few examples—are things that should be discussed outside the budget process, because they do not involve just budgetary decisions. As has been mentioned, we need the overall strategy and partnership working. Without reforming how councils are funded and how education is planned nationally, we will keep repeating the cycle of failed delivery over and over again.
Teachers and young people are suffering, as Willie Rennie highlighted so clearly in his opening speech. Compromise is possible, however, and we can all see a way forward, but everyone has to be willing to work together in good faith to get to that place, where we have the right teachers in the right place, supporting all our young people as we know they can.
15:15
It is hard to believe, after 17 years of the present Government, that we are having this debate. We really should not be, but here we are. Let us not beat about the bush, cabinet secretary: there is a crisis in teaching in Scotland. On one hand, we are short of teachers in key subject areas, such as STEM and modern languages; on the other hand, we have an oversupply of teachers in primary schools. How can we reconcile that? I have not heard a single word of admission of the problem from members on the front benches. That is not a staffing issue, and it is not a council issue; it is a planning failure, it is a whole-system failure and it is absolutely a Government failure.
Let us look at the facts. In 2024, there were 631 fewer teachers than just one year prior to that. Since 2008, the number of maths teachers has gone down by 12 per cent in Scotland, the number of physics teachers is down by 8 per cent and the number of computing science teachers is down by—wait for it—25 per cent. Every year, STEM recruitment targets are missed, while hundreds and hundreds of fully trained, good primary school teachers are unemployed.
Let us take Glasgow as an example. In 2017, 73 per cent of primary school teachers went straight from probation into a permanent job. By 2023, guess what the number was? It was 10 per cent: just 10 per cent went into a permanent job. Jenny Gilruth says that our teachers in Scotland are the best paid in the United Kingdom. That is all very well and good, but you need a job to be well paid. That is the problem that we are trying to raise this afternoon. The cabinet secretary says that she has sympathy for those primary school teachers. I have sympathy for them, too. However, they do not want sympathy; they just want a permanent job. It is as simple as that.
What effect does all that have on pupils, more importantly? Multilevel teaching has increased dramatically. According to one study in Dundee, 40 per cent of classes had multilevel teaching at one point. That is an absolute disgrace. According to the University of Stirling, there has been a clear
“reduction in the number of subjects”
offered under the present Government.
Enlighten has told us that
“one in eight of all secondary pupils ... attend a secondary school with no qualified computing science teacher. This rises to around 50% in rural areas”.
Every child in Scotland should have access to subjects such as maths, sciences, computing and modern languages.
We have heard of other teachers who have come to Scotland to make it their home but cannot teach due to issues with General Teaching Council qualifications. We have been talking about that for a decade in the Parliament, but we have never been able to resolve the issue.
That is not just bad for schools and for teachers; it is bad for the economy. We need those skills to be taught at the earliest possible age, so that the industries of the future—renewables, fintech, artificial intelligence and life sciences—all start in the classroom. If we have no computing science teachers today, we will have no coders tomorrow. If we have no physics teachers today, we will have no engineers tomorrow. There is a massive skills gap in Scotland, costing us hundreds of millions of pounds a year.
Here is the answer. We need smaller class sizes, we need more teachers in secondary and we need proper workforce planning in primary education, where supply equals demand and vice versa.
The context of the debate is simple. No teachers means no skills, and no skills means no economic growth. That all starts with the Government accepting some responsibility.
15:19
I want every child in Scotland to get the best possible start in life, and education is an affa big part of that best start. We have great schools and we have excellent teachers. We have a very good education system and we are committed to making it even better.
However, our education system faces challenges. The first of those is mentioned in the motion. We cannot commend our teachers enough for the work that they do day in, day out, but, as we have heard, we have shortages of teachers in key subjects, especially in the STEM subjects of science, technology, engineering and maths. I know from my constituency, in which the energy sector is a major employer, that you can never have too many folk going into those areas and that STEM graduates are highly sought after.
It is from that same pool of graduates that we need to encourage folk to move into teaching. There is a big risk that that becomes a spiral: if fewer STEM teachers means fewer people studying those subjects at school, fewer folk will study them at university and there will be fewer graduates to recruit teachers from.
The biggest risk to education is the immigration policies that are campaigned for by Nigel Farage and delivered by Keir Starmer. However, I am keen to focus my speech on solutions, investment and positivity. In this financial year, our SNP Government is investing more than £4.3 billion in Scotland’s education system. I give Willie Rennie and his Lib Dem colleagues their due: unlike some members, they voted for the budget that delivered that funding.
Councils are getting £186.5 million this year to support the recruitment and retention of teachers. There is £29 million of investment from the Scottish Government for additional support needs, which will include support for the recruitment and retention of the ASN workforce. There is more than £100 million to support modern and foundation apprenticeships.
The Scottish Government’s teaching bursary scheme provides bursaries of £20,000 for career changers who wish to undertake a one-year professional graduate diploma in education in hard-to-fill STEM subjects, and the preference waiver scheme lets probationer teachers receive up to £8,000 on top of their probationary salary. That could see teachers receiving a salary of more than £40,000 for their first year in teaching. That is on top of support through pupil equity funding and tuition being kept free in Scotland, with no up-front tuition fees and no backdoor tuition fees.
What does that funding, and the funding from years gone by, mean in practice? It means that the number of schoolteachers in post in Scotland has increased by 6 per cent since 2014. The poverty-related gap for young folk leaving school and going on to a positive destination has reduced by 60 per cent since 2009. The number of Scots from the most deprived backgrounds entering university on full-time first degree courses is now up by 37 per cent. Around 400,000 apprenticeship opportunities have been provided to young folk across Scotland since 2008. Scotland’s teachers continue to be the best paid in the UK and Scotland has the lowest pupil-to-teacher ratio in these islands. Scotland has the highest school spending per pupil across these islands.
The SNP has invested in Scotland’s future. We are ensuring that young folk in Scotland receive a top-quality education and that they can get the best possible start in life. Long may that continue.
15:23
I am grateful to the Liberal Democrats for bringing this topic to the chamber, to allow us to have another education debate. I was thinking about the last education debate. There was no motion or amendment from the Government because the SNP agreed with everything that the Conservatives and other parties were saying. This time, there is a Government amendment, so it clearly wants to change something—and I have to wonder which party it has done a deal with to get it through at decision time tonight. I noticed that one party is not represented in the chamber; it will be interesting to see how its members vote this evening.
I had a look to see what the cabinet secretary’s amendment will change in the motion. Will she add to it, as the other parties’ amendments would do? No—she is cutting bits out of it. What does the cabinet secretary seek to remove? She will remove
“further notes the failure of the Scottish Government to make sufficient progress on its 2021 commitment to recruit 3,500 more teachers”.
Does the cabinet secretary not believe that there has been a failure? Does she actually think that we will recruit 3,500 more teachers over the course of the remainder of this parliamentary session, to meet that target? I do not know—does Jenny Gilruth believe that? I do not think so. She has explained that it is all to do with local authorities and suchlike, but that was not the issue when her immediate-but-one predecessor made that commitment.
The education secretary at that time who made the pledge and had it inserted into the SNP manifesto was one John Swinney. What has he gone on to do? Oh yeah—lead the Government! He cannot even fulfil a commitment that he made as education secretary, in a Government that he now leads.
I do not remember an asterisk in the SNP manifesto saying, “Subject to the agreement of the local authority”. Nor do I remember the SNP saying, when asking people to vote for that commitment—a very appealing commitment to make—and for their local SNP candidate, “Please check with your local councillor whether they endorse this.”
What we are getting now are excuses. At the time, it was a bold commitment. However, once again, it is one that this SNP Government has failed to deliver on. I was reminded that it was just a year ago, when I used to sit on the Conservative front bench and put a number of questions to the First Minister, that I asked him four times whether he would commit to those 3,500 additional teachers over the course of this parliamentary session, and he refused to do so on each of those four occasions. John Swinney, who has more faces than a town clock, now seems to be saying to his Government, “We accept that we will not meet that commitment, but it is not our fault; it is someone else’s issue—and let us blame local government.” That is, sadly, the pattern that we see from this SNP Government.
Earlier in the debate, the cabinet secretary said that she would listen. However, I hope that she does more than just that; I hope that we get some answers. We need a new strategy and the delivery of additional teacher numbers across Scotland, because our current teachers, who do outstanding work, are struggling under the pressure.
I will finish with some comments from a local teacher from the Highlands who has contacted me. I hope that the cabinet secretary will take this away, or reference it in her closing remarks, because it is less partisan. This teacher tells me that she qualified as a primary teacher five years ago, having
“pursued this career with the dream of bringing my skills back to the Highlands where I grew up and hope to raise my own family.”
She chose to be placed anywhere in Scotland in her probationary year, hoping that that would increase her chances of securing a permanent role. She was not placed in Highland, so she did her probationary experience elsewhere. Now, for the past five years, she has been actively seeking permanent teaching roles in Highland, but none has been available to external applicants.
Although I accept that that is a local authority issue, I would be interested in the cabinet secretary’s response to it. Is it right that Highland Council—and, I know, others—are excluding people who want to move to a part of Scotland where we need people to come and live and make their lives, because jobs are for internal applicants only? This is someone who has deep connections to the Highlands and who wants to raise her own family there, yet she is currently being excluded from pursuing her career in teaching in an area that she loves. I hope that the cabinet secretary will take that on board and respond.
15:27
We will not be able to tackle the workforce challenges in education until we tackle the massive issues in our schools, which this Government has failed to do. Jackie Dunbar said that STEM graduates are highly sought after, which is right. However, given the challenges that teachers are facing, including burnout and behavioural problems in our schools, people weighing up their career after graduation are highly likely to go somewhere other than teaching. It is not always about money; there is also the stress and everything else that goes with being a teacher these days.
The record of this SNP Government is one of broken promises. It was first elected on a promise of cutting class sizes. The cabinet secretary talked about the teacher pupil ratio being lower in Scotland than elsewhere, which, as a generalisation, it might be. However, in 2022, I made a freedom of information request asking what class sizes were in Fife. The response showed that, in local primary schools, there were 412 classes with more than 25 pupils, and 136 classes with more than 30 pupils. I know that, in many of those classes, there is one teacher to 30 pupils, or one teacher to 25 pupils. Teachers have told me that they simply do not have the time to spend with children in order to bring them on.
We have the atrocious situation in which far too many children are going from primary school to secondary school not equipped to take in the lessons there. As a former teacher, the cabinet secretary will know that teachers expect primary school pupils to come through at a certain level and that, if they do not come through at that level, teachers have to spend a lot of time trying to support them. We doom too many children to failure.
Earlier, the Green MSP Maggie Chapman spoke about budgets. She was right to do so. Around 50 per cent of local authorities’ budgets go on education. Local authorities have had to deal with pressures for a good number of years, and education budgets have taken a hit. Councillors who have to put a budget together cannot make cuts without looking at the education service.
We need to address the issue of resources and finances, and we need to look at class sizes so that, as children come through, they have the best opportunity to achieve their full potential. Right now, they are being denied that. The cabinet secretary must take some responsibility for that.
A few weeks ago, I was contacted by a young woman in Fife who told me that, after graduating as a teacher, she got a temporary contract for a year in a primary school, which she loved. She was enjoying that job, but it came to an end, and she is now running around trying to get another job in teaching. As she cannot find a job in teaching, she is having to look elsewhere.
We need more teachers and smaller class sizes, we need to ensure that there are more teaching assistants in our classrooms and we need to look at additional support needs. Those are the issues that come through time and time again, but the Government does not seem to be addressing any of them. That is the problem. I have outlined what needs to happen. The Government needs to accept its responsibility for education—otherwise, what is the point of having an education secretary?
George Adam will be the final speaker in the open debate. You have up to four minutes, Mr Adam.
15:31
As I have listened to the debate, what I was planning to say has changed about three or four times, so I apologise if my speech ends up being a bit of a mishmash of everything that has been said so far.
I will start with an obvious point, which I think we all agree on: Scotland’s teachers are among the best and most hard working in the world. In places from Paisley to Peterhead, they show up every day for our young people and shape their lives. Those mentors, role models and pillars of our community deserve our heartfelt thanks.
I listened to the points that Willie Rennie made about the motion that he lodged on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, who have been newly promoted to the premier league. He made some valid observations—it was not all nonsense. The fact that I am saying that what he said was not complete and utter nonsense is an admission that my relationship with him is heading in a positive direction. He made some valid points. None of this is easy: let us not kid ourselves that there is a silver bullet or an easy way to solve the problem.
As someone who has been on the education committee in its many guises throughout his time in Parliament, I know that we need to sit down together and come up with solutions. Initially, I thought that that was what this debate was about. Mr Rennie was perhaps a bit aggressive in his delivery, but who am I to talk about that?
We talk about the geographical challenges that exist for young people who are training to be teachers. I used the phrase “from Paisley to Peterhead”. Someone who lives in Paisley is unlikely to want to go for a job in Peterhead. The cabinet secretary mentioned the possibility of future schemes to tackle that issue. We need to find a way round it. I understand why people will not move to another part of the country, away from where their family and all their support are. If they are starting a new career, they will want to have that support.
Nobody is pretending that the teaching profession does not face challenges—we all know that it does. However, I find it surprising that the Liberal Democrat motion has been framed in such a doom-and-gloom manner, to the extent that it undermines much of the good work that our teachers are doing in our communities.
In making his reasonable contribution, does the member recognise that the Government has contributed to the surplus, and therefore the unemployment, of primary teachers?
Our job is to work together on solutions. The cabinet secretary has been open about how she is willing to work with members and others to see how we can go forward.
Much of what has been said ignores lots of good work that the Scottish Government has done, which has involved real investment. As the cabinet secretary mentioned, the number of teachers in permanent posts has remained stable at more than 80 per cent for the past 10 years, and the number of school teachers in post in Scotland has increased by 6 per cent since 2014. Those are good things.
I have seen how the attainment challenge and pupil equity funding have delivered for schools in Renfrewshire. That has involved hiring additional staff and has delivered real improvement in outcomes for kids in our most deprived areas. That is a step in the right direction.
Let us be honest. There is work to do, but we have to acknowledge that there has been much that is good. As I have said, more than 80 per cent of teachers are in permanent posts, and we have the lowest pupil teacher ratio in the UK.
The Scottish Government’s amendment is about partnership, evidence and ambition. It is about building a future in which every child in Scotland, whether they are in Paisley, Perth or Portree, has access to brilliant teaching and the opportunity to thrive and be all that they can be in life.
We move to the winding-up speeches.
15:36
There has been some discussion of the need for collaboration between national and local government to achieve a sustainable teaching workforce. The Liberal Democrat motion, which the Scottish Greens support, rightly highlights the failure to meet the target of 3,500 new teachers. The Parliament must come to terms with that shortfall.
However, one key omission, which was highlighted by the cabinet secretary and others, is the role of local authorities. It is therefore good that the Government’s amendment adds reference to the need for any new plan for the teaching workforce to include local authorities. Such partnership working with our councils is crucial. As I mentioned earlier, I want £186 million to be used to recruit and retain teachers in our schools, but I also respect the fact that local authority elected representatives have as much democratic legitimacy as we have, and they are the employers of those who work in our schools. There is an obvious tension between those two positions.
The Conservative amendment touches on a number of issues that were raised during that party’s most recent business debate. Again, it refers specifically to pupil support staff. That goes hand in hand with long-term workforce development. One issue relating to support staff is that, starting in around 2019, Government statisticians could no longer distinguish between ASN staff and classroom or general pupil support assistants; from that point onward, they began to group those two categories together in the school staff census. That is why the Scottish Greens worked with the cabinet secretary to develop policy proposals for a system of accreditation and registration of ASN staff.
However, it is not only about support staff. There has been a significant reduction in ASN teacher numbers relative to the number of pupils. In fact, there has been no increase in the number of ASN teachers in our schools even in absolute terms. We must give teachers the opportunity to move into ASN specialist teaching as a point of career progression—and the only way that we can encourage more teachers into ASN teaching is by making it a promoted post. That requires additional resourcing, but so does a long-term strategy for teacher workforce recovery.
That is why at the root of the debate is something deeper: how we fund education at its core. Scotland’s failure to reform local government finance in 25 years is being felt in our schools. We must give local authorities far more powers to raise revenue, and we should give them the option of using those powers if, and however, they wish.
It is not normal to have a tier of government that raises only about 20 per cent of its funding. The Greens have put forward proposals for a carbon emission land tax, a demolition levy and a stadium levy. We believe that, ultimately, councils should have a power of general competence to raise that money for themselves. However, we accept that that will not happen immediately to resolve the issue that we have discussed today. That important issue cannot be a stand-off between the Parliament and local authorities—between central planning and local delivery. Neither should we reduce it to a waiting game to see who blinks first.
I am glad to see an indication of forward movement from the Government, but we cannot support pupils without supporting teachers. We should not settle for reactive measures, nor can we support teachers without supporting councils, or support councils without reforming how we fund them. That is where the long-term discussions must start.
15:40
I make reference to my declaration of interests because I was launched into the current session of Parliament having been a primary school teacher and paid by a local authority.
It has been an interesting debate. I thank the Liberal Democrats for taking the opportunity to bring education into the chamber. There has been agreement across the chamber that the education environment is—I will choose the word that is the lowest bar that we have—challenged because of the situation of teachers and their workload.
A lot of members have pointed out that we need to address the quality of teaching as well as the salary to ensure that we can stimulate people to come into teaching, stay in teaching and see teaching as a positive and important career that will bring incredibly rewarding moments throughout their life. The cabinet secretary, among others, acknowledged that.
Another aspect of the debate, which is also reflected in other debates about education, is the Government’s demand that everyone recognises that it does not employ teachers. Everyone in the chamber acknowledges that the Government does not employ teachers; that is the responsibility, in the main, of our local authorities. However, it is the Scottish Government’s responsibility to create, define and manage the pool from which qualified teachers can be employed. The General Teaching Council for Scotland has responsibility for ensuring that teachers are adequately trained and properly up to the job, and that they are monitored throughout their career to ensure not only that they meet the baseline but, for those who carry additional responsibilities, that that is reflected in their registration.
However, on the actual numbers, the cabinet secretary talked about the responsibility that she suggested universities have. Universities take that responsibility from the audit and, in essence, from instructions from the Scottish Government about forthcoming needs, because it funds university places.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am going to tempt my learning once again and accept a short intervention.
I just wanted to share with the member that I have asked the cabinet secretary for numbers on newly qualified teachers, teachers in post and so on, but the Government has no statistics. This Government runs blind—it has no statistics.
I am very grateful for that short intervention from Mr Kerr, because it actually allows me to move on to the next part of my speech, which gets to the heart of not only this discussion but other discussions that we have had throughout the session. What is involved in considering the number of teachers that we need in the future?
We have a challenge because of the census running late, and a challenge in knowing the number of children, and their ages, who actually need education. However, that data exists. What has not happened at the Scottish Government level is proper and full consideration not of what the needs were last week, last year and five years ago, but what the needs are going forward.
We have heard that a number of teachers with a primary education qualification cannot get a permanent job. They move from supply contract to supply contract or temporary contract to temporary contract. The cabinet secretary talked about how we can make teachers feel that they are valued. One way is to give them a contract.
Someone who is qualified as a primary school teacher in Scotland and registered with the GTCS can teach the entire broad general education. That means that they can teach at a high school, not as an ASN specialist or as a teacher overseeing certain groups—they can teach secondary 1 or S2. That addresses the comments that we have heard about pupils who go into high school sometimes being challenged by the levels that exist.
Let us remember when the Scottish Government unilaterally lifted expectations around what pupils leave primary school with. That caused chaos in high schools, because they could not make it.
15:44
First, Presiding Officer, I apologise to you, Mr Rennie and the chamber for the fact that I arrived late to the debate this afternoon.
I am pleased to be the closing speaker for the Conservatives in this debate, and I thank our Liberal Democrat colleagues for bringing the issue to the chamber. We last debated teacher numbers last October, in Conservative Party business time. Disappointingly, seven months on, the figures, percentages and problems that we discussed then are still current.
Despite the Scottish Government’s protestations, nothing that it has done has worked. Everything that we discussed and highlighted as an issue in October is still an issue. We ended up with £186.5 million in ring-fenced funding for local authorities, which has not adequately stopped the decline in teacher numbers, and targets for new teachers have not been met. That is an unacceptable situation.
Teacher numbers, including for early learning and childcare staff, have decreased by 1,688, and the numbers of teachers in maths, computing science, technical education and physics are all down. What about those teachers who have graduated and are looking for permanent positions? In 2016-17, more than half the post-probation teachers found full-time employment, but by 2023-24 less than a quarter did. Last year, the numbers of graduates who are enrolled in PGDE secondary teaching courses involving English and biology were about half the numbers required, and the numbers in chemistry, physics, maths and computing are all sitting at about a third of the targets that were set.
What about primary education? A recent Institute for Fiscal Studies report states:
“There are also some worrying signs of the impact of this government and council misalignment on newly-qualified teachers in Scotland.”
The share of newly qualified primary school teachers who had permanent contracts in state schools has fallen from 57.6 per cent to 12.8 per cent. That is not a position that we want Scotland to be in.
Maggie Chapman spoke about inflation issues and council tax concerns. Those involve external issues and highlight a financial problem, but it is not just the financial side that we need to consider; the working environment is also important, and, as Mr Whitfield said, there are challenges in that regard.
Jackie Dunbar highlighted the need for more graduates in STEM subjects to become teachers. However, as Alex Rowley stated perfectly well, that decision is not just based on salary but involves a consideration of stress, behaviour in our classrooms and contact hours.
Pam Duncan-Glancy and Miles Briggs highlighted the workforce planning challenges that we face in our classrooms, especially with regard to ASN staffing, and George Adam said that the solution involves working to find solutions—I think that that is the word that he used. I agree that it is about doing that; it is not about stating what the blockages are, where the problems are and the ways in which we are not moving forward. We are better than that.
As I said in my speech in October, teachers go to work hoping to impart the love of their subject to children, but in Scotland most teachers and school staff are witnessing and being subjected to considerable instances of negative behaviour. Our teachers are exposed to increasing levels of violence, and the plans that have been put in place are simply not working fast enough. We need details of the consequences that the perpetrators of that abuse will experience, as that is important with regard to providing our teaching staff with the tools that they need to address those issues. Until that situation is fixed, why would anyone want to work in that environment?
It is a fundamental Conservative belief that education is the key to the ability of every person to go on to achieve their full potential. Education is not only a powerful thing; it is power—power in oneself, power that comes from understanding and belief, and power that comes through the ability to work through problems and to know that one will provide oneself with a secure future.
Quite simply, we have reached a teaching crisis in Scotland. The Scottish Government is so focused on promoting the same old solutions that do not work that it has failed our teachers, our children and Scotland’s future.
15:48
I welcome this debate and I share some of the sentiments that have been expressed. I have been listening very keenly to members’ contributions and, although I am conscious that I have only four minutes, I will try to respond to as many points as I am able to in that time.
George Adam talked about solutions, and some members made suggestions in that respect, which I want to address. However, more broadly, when we talk about teacher recruitment shortages, we should be mindful that that is not just an issue in relation to STEM-based subjects, although I accept that that is the focus of today’s motion. There are challenges in a number of subject areas, including mine, so we need to reflect on the position of teaching in the post-pandemic period and its attractiveness as a profession, which was the point that I was making in my initial speech.
As we all know, teachers are the most valuable resource in our schools. Maggie Chapman was right to point to the extra funding that has been provided in the Government’s budget in relation to teacher numbers—that funding has been uprated—and the funding for additional support needs. That is a political choice that the Government has made in protecting funding nationally, and it follows that local councils should do likewise. I was therefore very pleased that, through the budget negotiations, we managed to arrive at a budget agreement with COSLA on that point.
I come to some of the points that Ms Duncan-Glancy made. The Labour amendment speaks to a national supply system, and I very much agree with her on that point. We currently have 32 councils with 32 different approaches to recruitment. Douglas Ross raised that issue in relation to his constituent in Moray when he talked about recruitment practices involving the appointment of internal applicants only preventing others from being able to apply. I know that that approach was used in Fife Council when I was last employed as a teacher back in 2014, before I became a politician. There was a very locked-down approach to teacher recruitment in Fife Council, which was detrimental to enabling talent to flow into that part of Scotland.
With regard to broadening recruitment practices, I would therefore be very supportive of Ms Duncan-Glancy’s proposals in that space. We have previously tried to do exactly that through the Scottish Negotiating Committee for Teachers. We have to get agreement from the teaching unions and COSLA to move forward on that, but I am absolutely up for pushing it forward if Parliament supports that position today, because I think that there are opportunities in that respect.
I turn to some broader points that were made in the debate. I am conscious that I have two minutes left, Deputy Presiding Officer. Mr Greene made a number of points in relation to STEM subjects. As I mentioned, there are issues in a range of subject areas, but the point that he made speaks to the language of entitlements. The entitlement to the totality of our curriculum is something that Louise Hayward flagged up in her review report back in 2023. We should have democratic availability of entitlements in all subject areas, and I want that to be the case in every school. However, I recognise that that is not currently the case, so we need to be creative in finding solutions to address that challenge.
Mr Greene also touched on the General Teaching Council for Scotland’s relationship with, and responsibilities towards, the teaching profession. There is an opportunity for us, with the GTCS, to look at that issue in more detail. Colleagues write to me regularly on the GTCS’s role in that respect.
With regard to the ask on joint workforce planning, it is important to put on the record that that process is being led by the newly established education and childcare assurance board. On the responsibilities, I note that the Government has responsibility for national workforce planning, but local workforce planning is the responsibility of local authorities. I do not think that I heard any challenge to that this afternoon.
It is important to reflect on the points that Mr Adam made about the number of teachers who are in permanent posts these days. I accept that the situation in our primary schools is currently challenging but, since 2014, across the board, approximately 80 per cent of our teachers have been in permanent posts. We also know that about 3,000 extra staff, including nearly 1,000 teachers, are currently being employed through the Scottish attainment challenge. That extra funding is coming from the Scottish Government to help to support teacher recruitment.
I was interested to see the point in the Labour amendment on making the SAC and PEF allocations permanent—
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
I am conscious of time, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I see that you are shaking your head.
I am interested in the proposals that the Labour amendment sets out on funding. The Government has committed to the continuation of that funding to 2026-27. I have to acknowledge that there will be an election next year, so how we fund our schools beyond next year is in the gift of the Scottish people. Nevertheless, we have given that commitment, and I know that the Labour Party also supports the continuation of that funding.
It is important to recall that there is still a lot to be positive about in Scottish education. We in the Parliament have a responsibility to be mindful of that as we want to encourage people into teaching as a profession. Members have contributed much in terms of solutions, and I commit again to working with and supporting them to drive the improvement that we need in our schools.
I call Beatrice Wishart to wind up the debate.
15:53
I thank all the members who contributed to the debate. I pay tribute to teachers across Scotland, who are working under increasing pressures. As George Adam highlighted, teachers show up and shape young people’s lives.
At the beginning of the debate, Willie Rennie touched on the £20,000 bursary for teachers of STEM subjects and the fact that it does not seem to have improved recruitment of teachers in those subjects. Scottish Liberal Democrats have previously pointed to falling numbers of teachers in those subjects since the SNP took power. The numbers in technical education and computing studies have fallen to their lowest levels since records began, with the numbers of maths and physics teachers decreasing by 12 per cent and 8 per cent respectively.
At this morning’s meeting of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, we scrutinised the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill and we heard about the importance of resources to implement various aspects of the Scottish Government’s proposed legislation. I found myself wondering where the scientists, innovators, marine planners and data analysts are that we need for the future. Where are they going to come from if STEM subjects are not comprehensively taught in our schools and the possibilities for future careers in STEM are not opened up to learners?
Locally, I have heard from EIS Shetland association representatives about pressures on teachers, which include unresolved contact time issues. Teachers have reported increases in verbal abuse and violence in schools, which is putting them at risk of harm and increased stress and anxiety. At the same time, learning in classrooms is being seriously disrupted by such incidents. Teachers leave the profession because of such incidents and the stress and anxiety that they are placed under. The effect of that cannot be measured simply by figures that show that there is one less teacher; we also need to consider the loss of institutional memory and experience, which is a loss to learners, colleagues and newly qualified teachers joining the profession, who rely on experienced teachers to be mentors.
As Willie Rennie stated when he opened the debate, things are not simple for newly qualified teachers either, as they face difficulties such as gaining employment, underemployment and unreliable zero-hours jobs, despite some teaching roles having been advertised repeatedly. Data from a freedom of information request by the Scottish Liberal Democrats to all local authorities covering the past five years showed that a post in Aberdeenshire had been readvertised 11 times in one of those years. In the same year, 636 teaching posts were readvertised. The same data unveiled a post that had gone unfilled for 205 days, and in Shetland, a craft, design and technology post was readvertised seven times.
I turn to some of the comments that were made in the debate. The education secretary has said repeatedly that local workforce planning is the responsibility of local authorities, but the Government is responsible for the supply.
I need to go back to school, because I cannot read my own writing. [Laughter.]
Beatrice Wishart makes a powerful point about the obligation that rests on the Scottish Government to create the pool that our qualified teachers can be taken from in order to be employed in schools.
That is exactly the point that I was trying to get across. I thank Mr Whitfield.
Miles Briggs spoke about the pressure on teachers and the sharp decline in key subjects, which is impacting on subject choices and, ultimately, the Scottish economy.
Jackie Dunbar spoke about the energy sector and the STEM graduates that are sought by that sector, but she acknowledged that key subjects have shortages.
Douglas Ross highlighted that the Government’s amendment seeks to remove from the motion the words about the failure to recruit 3,500 more teachers. He also raised the issue of Highland teachers being excluded from interviews due to internal-only applications, which is diminishing the number of opportunities for more teachers to come to the area. Housing is another issue that can impact on recruitment and retention.
Alex Rowley referred to the impact of large class sizes and ratios of one teacher to 25 or 30 pupils. If primary pupils are ill-equipped to transition to secondary school, they are, in effect, being doomed to failure. Recruitment and retention is a problem in rural and island areas, which is further impacted by the lack of housing. It can make things difficult for those who are interested in moving to the Highlands and Islands to take up teaching posts there.
To stray a little into the next debate’s topic, I note that an EIS survey of teachers in Shetland found that only 11 per cent of respondents usually receive the support that they need to teach learners with ASN. In a decade, we have seen a 20 per cent increase in the number of secondary learners with ASN. Improvements in diagnoses and the reduction of stigma around mental health may have contributed to such increases, but it begs the question of why teachers do not feel supported where we are able to identify learners with ASN.
The lessons on teaching have not been learned. As the motion says, the Scottish Government needs to work with stakeholders and those in the workforce to develop a new plan. The longer we wait, the more damage we will do to our young people’s education. Young people are our future—they are our future doctors, architects, fishermen and teachers. What benefits them will benefit us all and benefit Scotland’s economic growth.
That concludes the debate on a new plan for Scotland’s teaching workforce. Before we move on to the next item of business, there will be a brief pause to allow front-bench members to change positions.
Previous
Portfolio Question Time