Plenary, 28 Nov 2002

Meeting date: Thursday, November 28, 2002

Official Report 794KB pdf

---

Education

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3650, in the name of Brian Monteith, on education, and two amendments to that motion.

I am pleased to open today's debate on education. In the year in which we have had our so-called great debate on education and in the week in which the latest exam results have been published, it is particularly apt—[Interruption.]

The microphone has failed, but the technicians are trying to bring the sound back.

The powers of censorship in this Parliament!

There is a God.

No one is trying to shut you up, Mr Monteith. Please continue.

We all share the same God, Mike.

As I was saying, it is particularly apt that we should debate today the future direction of school education in Scotland. After five years of Labour Government, the official figures tell us that more pupils are leaving school without a qualification than was the case last year. They also show that the gulf between the best and the worst schools is widening compared with last year.

In our monolithic system, the differences between school curriculums is only at the margin and the ability to select schools is still predicated mainly on where parents stay rather than on what pupils might want to study. In such a system, the people who suffer most are the children from the poorest backgrounds. Not only are such children's parents unlikely to be able to afford a house in the catchment area of a school with a strong academic reputation, but the children's family circumstances may mean that they do not receive enough parental support or have access to the additional learning at home that can make the difference.

Despite that, all pupils are measured against the same academic yardsticks, as are their schools. Accordingly, some schools are seen to fail. However, simply turning those schools into community schools will not make the difference, for that will not remove them from the glare of inspection, which compares them with the best-performing schools. I know that the Minister for Education and Young People will try to paint a different picture, but one need only visit Scotland's schools to see that they have more in common with one another than they have to differentiate them.

If we are to achieve the goal of parity between academic and vocational studies—as many contributors to yesterday's debate on lifelong learning mentioned—we must first recognise that many of our schools are delivering the wrong type of education to suit the children who study in them. The solution is not simply to deliver a more flexible curriculum, but to accentuate the differences and to allow schools to play to their strengths, which can be marketed to parents and employers.

What would a policy of specialist schools mean in Scotland? It would mean that the curriculum that schools delivered was decided by schools themselves, according to the demands of the pupils and parents and taking into account the strengths and weaknesses of the teachers and departments. In our larger cities, that would mean greater choice. That is how things should be, as our larger cities have not only more schools that would be able to diversify, but more schools that have to deal with the problems of relative poverty and family breakdown. If we look at the bottom decile of schools as measured by academic performance, we find that the majority of them are in Edinburgh and Glasgow.

In Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dundee, schools could decide to specialise in, say, modern languages. That need not be just French, German and Spanish; it could be Russian, Arabic and Chinese. The schools could cater for the needs of our Muslim community or of our export-led businesses.

Can Brian Monteith explain how that would be different from the present system? What is there in the present system to prevent a school from offering Arabic, Chinese or a range of modern languages? What regulation does the minister enforce that would prevent that from happening?

Mike Russell should really get his finger on the pulse of what is happening in Scottish education.

Answer the question.

Mike Russell need only look at what is happening in Fife, where it is likely that there will be no language provision other than for French. I suggest that schools should be able to decide to concentrate on particular languages, so that they can offer a speciality in their area and provide a stronger educational basis for pupils.

Will the member give way?

No. I must carry on. No doubt we will hear what the member has to say later. I may even allow him another intervention, but I must make progress.

We could see schools specialising in subjects such as baking and catering so that they can meet the needs of our tourism industry. Why cannot we have a music school that specialises in piping? Why cannot a school be linked to light industry and to the information technology industries? Why should we not have a media school in Glasgow to provide technicians and journalists? The possibilities are limitless and such schools need not be restricted to urban areas.

Does Brian Monteith care to comment on the fact that, when I praised an Aberdeen school for offering Scottish vocational qualifications in hairdressing, some commentators who support his party took that to be a dumbing down of education?

I do not share that view. I was asked a similar question by journalists. They asked whether I would attack the provision of national qualifications in hairdressing and tourism. I may not have much hair, but I believe that hairdressers are necessary.

As I said, the possibilities are boundless. The existence of the music school in Plockton shows that a rural location need not be a poor location.

Providing a wider choice would be beneficial not only because it would empower pupils and parents and allow education to be shaped to meet the needs of the individual student, but because, as the available evidence shows, attainment would be improved. Why is that so? More research needs to be done, but I contend that, by offering a curriculum that engages and excites the pupil, the street culture that school is boring is negated and replaced by a learning culture, in which people have a thirst for knowledge. Discipline improves and better outcomes for the disadvantaged offer better hopes for their future.

I refer back to Mike Russell's question: what currently prevents schools from doing what Brian Monteith suggests? If Brian Monteith visited as many schools as I do, he would discover that that is happening in a significant number of Scottish schools.

This may surprise the minister, but I have visited as many schools as she has. I have been our education spokesman since I came to the Parliament. Now that she is Minister for Education and Young People, Cathy Jamieson may visit more schools than I do each week, but she is the fifth education minister and, according to The Scotsman today, she may not be education minister for long.

What we can do just now is give schools more support. They need to have greater powers to recruit teachers in a particular specialisation, to control their budgets and to reject what the local authorities say that schools should do—such as in Fife, where the authority has said that schools should drop German. We could then have true specialisation and schools could choose to go down the route that they demanded.

At this point, let me turn to Mike Russell's amendment, which sinks to the politics of the gutter in trying to portray as reactionary and right-wing any idea that has not come from the Educational Institute of Scotland's manual. The idea that all things Tory must be bad is straight out of "Animal Farm".

"Four legs good, two legs bad",

says Mike Russell, and some Labour members join in. This is the Mike Russell who likes to portray himself as the cultured one amid the nationalist sea of mediocrity.

However, I must ask whether Mike Russell would get rid of classroom assistants, which were first piloted by the Tories before they were introduced nationally across Scotland. Would he get rid of national provision of nursery schools, which was first introduced when the Tories were in government? Would he get rid of school boards, which were first introduced by Tories and now exist in 80 per cent of Scottish schools? He and his colleagues voted to get rid of self-governing schools, but would he get rid of grant-aided schools, which were enshrined in the Tory education acts? What is his message to Jordanhill School, which is Scotland's best state school? What is his message to the six special-needs schools or to St Mary's Music School, all of which are grant aided?

Another important question for Mike Russell is whether he would abolish placing requests. He might say that he would not do so, but the direct consequence of his plans for small class sizes in primaries 1, 2 and 3 is that he would need to override parents' requests and force their children to go to schools with excess capacity.

Brian Monteith raises an interesting point about placing requests. Had he considered the issue more closely—indeed, had he considered the issue of education more closely—he would have realised that one of the consistent themes of my arguments about education in rural Scotland and about the need for diversity in education is that placing requests are central. I have worked with members of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee to go against the view taken by some Tories that a high level of placing requests should call into question whether a school should stay open. I am in favour of placing requests; Mr Monteith's party appears to penalise them.

I am glad to hear Mike Russell speaking against his amendment, because placing requests were enshrined in the Education (Scotland) Act 1996.

I will allow you one more minute, Mr Monteith.

Presiding Officer, I recognise that I must move on. Placing requests must be retained, but they are contrary to the Scottish National Party's policy on smaller class sizes.

So we have Michael Russell's brave new world, but no information, power or place for parents. I say, let him go into the election with those policies and let him reap the whirlwind.

Is allowing schools to specialise counter to the comprehensive ethos of equal opportunities for all? If it is, we must reject that view of comprehensive education, because a one-size-fits-all uniformity produces a postcode lottery.

Will the member give way?

No, I am in my final minute.

That approach works to an academic agenda that abandons many in its wake, especially those from the poorest backgrounds. Where is the much-vaunted social justice in that educational lottery?

Specialist schools need not be a left-wing or right-wing issue, as Tony Blair has shown. It will be regrettable if our old Labour comrades and the ignoramuses in the SNP wish to make it one, because that will be a missed opportunity for a new consensus on education. However, I will happily see specialist schools a policy of the Conservative party alone.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that the Scottish education system should move to the post-comprehensive era, where schools keep the comprehensive principle of equality of opportunity but are opened up to new and different ways of education built round the needs of the individual child and where there is a greater range of specialist schools for parents to choose from, offering excellent routes into university and skilled employment.

I am happy to take the opportunity once again to make clear the Executive's commitment to education and to ensuring that every young person gets the best possible start in life.

On the face of it, Brian Monteith's motion seems straightforward and he will no doubt continue to present it as entirely in keeping with some of the more radical Labour and coalition policies. However, I cannot recall any point during the 18 years of Tory rule when education received the level of investment that we are now providing—investment to transform our school buildings, investment in our teachers and support staff and investment in the new community schools that Brian Monteith does not want to be rolled out across Scotland.

Every child should get the best possible start in life and in education. That is why the Executive has delivered a nursery place for every three and four-year-old. That is real, practical and tangible delivery, unlike the Tories' failed voucher scheme, which no one wanted, so forgive me if I am cynical about what lies behind the Conservatives' motion.

The minister referred to the amount of investment that the Executive is putting into education. Does she believe that that level will be sustained, given the problems that Mr Brown had to face up to yesterday?

I will give Phil Gallie a one-word answer, as I usually do: yes.

I return to my point about opportunity for all in education. I am talking not about opportunities for education for a privileged few, but about real opportunities for every young person to meet their full potential. I am talking about the child with special needs, the gifted child, the talented child, the child who needs their confidence boosted, the child who has little in the way of family support, the child from the poorer area as well as the child from the better-off area—every one of those children is an individual and deserves the best that education can offer. That is why the Labour party and I—and indeed the SNP, as Mike Russell outlined—believe in the comprehensive principle.

However, as I have said repeatedly, we must not be complacent. We must raise our game. We must open up schools to new ideas and to different ways of teaching and learning that are built round the needs of the individual child and that close the opportunity gap.

It is important that we do not lose the distinctive features of Scottish education, because diversity and choice are important. Every school must offer choices to pupils and parents. Every school should be a centre of excellence. Although there is a role for schools to specialise and for authorities to encourage them to do so, I am not talking about schools competing with one another. As Jack McConnell said in his speech to head teachers:

"I won't settle for ambition for the few – and I will not settle for standardisation for the many. I am not interested in having a few schools with centres of excellence. My goal is for every school in Scotland to be excellent."

Our education system must and does offer flexibility for local authorities and head teachers. It will allow them to innovate and to implement local solutions to meet local priorities. We heard nothing from Brian Monteith about the barriers that supposedly prevent that from happening.

The circular on flexibility in the curriculum that was issued to directors of education last year made it clear that a one-size-fits-all approach to the curriculum would not meet the individual needs of pupils.

Does the minister think that it is a wee bit strange that Brian Monteith did not mention his further education option, about which we heard so much two weeks ago? The possibility of children leaving school at the age of 14 seems to have been discarded to the dustbin.

Brian Monteith did not talk about much to do with young people's education, but I want to spend some time talking about some of the positive things that are happening.

As I mentioned, the circular to directors of education opens up the way for schools and authorities to innovate to meet their pupils' needs. As we heard in the recent debate, we are supporting and evaluating innovative projects through the future learning and teaching programme. Let me mention a few points about some of those projects.

Mindscreen's entrepreneurial spirit project works with some very disaffected young people in six schools in Edinburgh, East Ayrshire and Moray through a two-year programme encouraging entrepreneurship. In partnership with Young Enterprise Scotland and other stakeholders, Mindscreen and the schools involved are building young people's confidence and their capacity to make a success of their school careers and, more important, their future lives.

Two students who took part in some pre-pilot work on enterprise education two years ago at Wester Hailes Education Centre in Edinburgh are now in secondary 5 studying enterprise and making their own music CDs, which I am reliably informed should be in the shops in time for Christmas.

Trinity Academy is piloting the Edinburgh transition programme, which offers an intensive pre-vocational training programme, concentrating on life skills and attitudes, to young people who find it difficult to make the transition from school to the world of work. Those young people get the opportunity to take up a one-day-a-week work placement throughout the whole of their S4 year in a job of their choice. That is the kind of real, practical, tangible solution that Sylvia Jackson and colleagues in the Labour party want to see, not the empty rhetoric from the Tories.

The education for work and enterprise review group, chaired by Nicol Stephen, will shortly produce its final report. We will, of course, do more to ensure that we get high-quality vocational education and improve the range of vocational qualifications on offer in schools.

On the exam figures that were published yesterday, of course exam results are very important to young people and their parents—they provide the main currency for young people as they make their way through life. I have been encouraged to see the improvements that many schools have made over the past few years. I am not satisfied that we have done all that we can to improve literacy and numeracy or to offer the curriculum choices that young people want and need.

Our reforms must be carefully considered and targeted so that real change is made. They must build on the new community school approach and involve parents and other professionals as well as teachers and support staff. I am clear that improvement is not just about exam results. There are five national priorities in education, which were endorsed by the Parliament. Schools must do the very best for their pupils against each and every one of those priorities, not just on attainment and exam results.

Some schools in Scotland have risen to that challenge and improved outcomes for their pupils, often against a background of social disadvantage. All Saints Secondary School in Glasgow, Holy Rood High School in Edinburgh and St Modan's High School in Stirling are three schools that have made good progress. There is still more to be done. Schools and education authorities must consider how they can learn from best practice and ensure real improvement.

The Presiding Officer is looking at me, so I should wind up.

Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education is now moving towards a new style of inspection that will give most attention to the schools that need the most support. The inspectorate is bringing its expertise to schools with a programme that will be customised to the schools' needs. That is how we will proceed.

The foundations are in place for every school to be excellent. We should build on those foundations by developing the comprehensive principle, by giving greater control to head teachers and by supporting and challenging authorities and schools to deliver the very best for every pupil. We should not settle for second best; we should continually aim for excellence.

I move amendment S1M-3560.2, to leave out from "believes" to end and insert:

"acknowledges the distinctive nature of Scottish education; supports reforms designed to tackle underperformance in schools and ensure that every school is a centre of excellence; recognises the major investment being made by the Scottish Executive; supports local flexibility and innovation in schools; welcomes the increased emphasis on citizenship, enterprise and vocational education; acknowledges the importance of a strong partnership with education authorities, schools, teachers and parents in raising attainment and closing the opportunity gap, and supports the Executive in its determination to ensure every child has an education that meets his or her individual needs."

I welcome the opportunity to have this debate. Apparently, the motion represents—so journalists have been briefed—Mr Monteith's big ideas for Scottish education. I find it quite interesting that Mr Monteith's big ideas can be contained in seven lines, most of which are simply nonsense, but we will come to that in a moment.

Let me begin my speech with a quotation from Bryce and Humes's "Scottish Secondary Education: Philosophy and Practice", which is one of the core works in education philosophy:

"Scotland's national identity is defined partly in terms of communal solidarity, a belief in democratic processes and a commitment to social justice".

Using that quotation as the bedrock of the debate today, we can see the woeful inadequacy of the motion and of Tory philosophy in general. Tory philosophy, of course, is not defined in terms of communal solidarity; it is about the cult of the individual, as Margaret Thatcher indicated in this very hall. It is not a belief in democratic processes. The Conservative party opposed the democratic process in Scotland and would not take part in a debate that led to this Parliament.

Neither did the SNP.

I have always argued for a Parliament for Scotland. I remember standing on Calton hill on the night before the Scottish Parliament referendum, while Mr Monteith argued against me on television that this Parliament should not exist. I remember that; he should remember it, too.

As the Tory motion shows, the Conservatives have no commitment to social justice. The reality is that Tory philosophy on education, as with all Tory philosophy, remains anti-Scottish. I cannot take the motion seriously.

We do not take you seriously.

Oh, I think that Mr Fraser should.

If we want a debate on education in Scotland, let us have a real debate on education in Scotland. Let us have a debate about what Scotland's schools actually need and what Scottish education should be. Scottish education should be broad based, it should be inclusive and it should be diverse. It should be, in all the meanings of the word, comprehensive.

My objection to what is happening in education in Scotland at the moment is not based on a desire on my part to move to what Mr Monteith calls a post-comprehensive era. I wonder what the pre-comprehensive era was. I think that it involved putting children up chimneys, which is probably what the Tories would like to continue to do.

For the benefit of Mike Russell, I quote from the chapter "The History of Scottish Education, Pre-1980" in "Scottish Secondary Education: Philosophy and Practice":

"Even for the political left, selection seemed acceptable after the war as an expression of equality of opportunity, and the more idealistic vision expressed in the 1947 report of the Scottish Advisory Council on Education was rejected by the SED."

Is it not the case that education policy in the pre-comprehensive era had cross-party support from people in the Conservative and Labour parties—across all political ideologies—and that the comprehensive era was introduced later by socialists?

Mr Russell made a speech to Mr Monteith as well. I will give Mr Russell extra time to compensate.

There is not much point in arguing about what Mr Monteith said. I am quite happy to debate the history of Scottish education with him, but I am more interested in the future of Scottish education and what we are going to achieve in Scotland.

I object strongly to some of the things that are happening at the moment. I do not doubt the Minister for Education and Young People's personal commitment—I have to say this in every debate; she talks a good game on these matters—but there are huge gaps in what is being delivered. Moreover, the analysis of education in Scotland is deeply flawed. There are strong clues about the difficulties in Scottish education. Those clues come from two diverging sets of statistics, which the chamber knows well. One set tells us that more young people are passing examinations towards the end of their school careers, but the other set tells us that basic levels of numeracy and literacy are falling and that young people have difficulties with communication.

We have to square that circle. I argue that we will do so by making sure that there is a strong emphasis on the core skills in the early years. That requires radical reform of the five-to-14 curriculum and much smaller classes in the early years of primary, which will enable us to build on established core skills to build higher-order skills—thinking skills—to continue to improve exam performance. I am critical of the Executive's failure to invest in that type of change. I look forward, when we replace the Executive next year, to being able to implement those key ideas.

In closing, I say that Mr Monteith has nothing if not a sense of timing. Today, he introduces this debate in the chamber and lauds the idea of specialist schools, but I note that, yesterday, David Taylor, the director of inspection at the Office for Standards in Education—which, according to Brian Monteith, has all the ideas—gave evidence to the House of Commons, saying:

"I don't think we would have the evidence to say going for diversity"—

that is, diversity in specialist schools—

"in itself necessarily drives up standards more than a single system."

In one phrase, Ofsted's director of inspection has indicated the bankruptcy of the Tory motion. Let us have a debate about education in the chamber, but let us have a real debate. What Mr Monteith is proposing is not a real debate, but yet another display of Tory prejudice.

I move amendment S1M-3650.1, to leave out from "should" to end and insert:

"must be one which delivers the best for each child, is founded upon the broad and inclusive traditional strengths of Scottish education, is resourced and organised to help young people gain a secure grounding in the basic skills at an early age, gives various routes for entry into further education or skilled employment and which welcomes diversity and a variety of local delivery within a strong state sector, and therefore rejects any attempt to bring back from the political grave the divisive Tory educational philosophies of the past which proved so damaging to Scotland's young people during 18 years of undemocratic and unwanted Conservative Government in this country."

We have had a couple of ponderous interventions this morning. I would appreciate it if members would keep their interventions sharp.

Being a consensual politician, I was almost tempted to support the motion when I first saw it, but I remembered a quotation that I have used before from Shakespeare, when Lady Macbeth says to her husband:

"To beguile the time,
Look like the time; bear welcome in your eye,
Your hand, your tongue: look like the innocent flower,
But be the serpent under't."

I look at what appears to be an innocent motion and I fear the serpent under it, which has become exposed as we have gone through the morning.

We must always beware of cuddly, kindly Conservatives. I see Murdo Fraser in "Kindergarten Cop", doing his Arnie Schwarzenegger stuff in amongst the kiddies. He and Brian Monteith would be in the Tory "Twins", with Brian as the Danny DeVito to Murdo's Arnold Schwarzenegger. It might be possible that they are cuddly, but politically I do not see it. I would love to see the Tories embracing the idea of comprehensive education, but forgive me if I am cynical after seeing them in action and listening to them today and for so long.

I wish to say something about the comprehensive ideal, the importance of flexibility and, if time allows, a bit about specialist schools.

A comprehensive system is open to all our children and embraces them all. It seeks to treat them with respect and affection, regardless of their ability or disability, their colour, their class, their creed, their social background, their financial background or their family circumstances. It is essentially not selective. It tries to cater for the needs of all with care and attention. It seeks to give all our children the opportunity to grow and develop not just academically—with regard to exam results and anything like that—and intellectually, but physically, emotionally, socially, aesthetically, morally and even spiritually.

A comprehensive system allows children time to grow up through their stages as toddlers, primary children, adolescents and young adults. It does not put pressure on them to jump stages. It seeks to give them opportunities to develop self-respect and respect for others and to feel good about themselves because they are valued as individuals. At every stage, we should seek to equip children with the knowledge, skills, values and personal resources that will enable them to face a world that has a lot of complexities, difficulties and dangers. A comprehensive system does not reject people by selection, but recognises a responsibility to the community as a whole.

That is the comprehensive ideal, and for the Tory motion to suggest that we enter a post-comprehensive era implies a rejection and a lack of understanding of what comprehensive education is about.

I understand the comprehensive ideal as Ian Jenkins portrays it, but it is not a description that I recognise in Scotland, where there is setting, where there is streaming and where there is, in some schools, selection. That is why I talk about a post-comprehensive era. If we want to take our system back to a comprehensive ideal such as the one that Ian Jenkins describes, further reform will be required.

If Brian Monteith is saying that we have not always achieved that ideal, I agree with him, and if he is saying that we can do better, I agree with him. However, we do not just drop the ideal and move to some nebulous post-comprehensive era in which each school goes its own sweet way without an overarching comprehensive view of the needs of the community or society, and without consideration of the needs of individual children—all the children—as part of that society.

Of course I do not subscribe to the idea that there should be a monolithic system of education in this country. I endorse the ideas of flexibility that are referred to in the Executive's amendment. Such flexibility should exist throughout the system. Local authorities should have the flexibility to introduce innovative projects with the co-operation and partnership of teachers, pupils and parents. Similarly, school management and head teachers must have the flexibility to address their own local needs and the best interests of their pupils, as is being done. Teachers need flexibility in their departments and in their classrooms. Too often, teachers are the victims of an overcrowded curriculum, classes that are too large and an overload of bureaucracy, assessment and reporting. We must give teachers more elbow-room to teach and to respond in professional terms to the pupils in front of them in the classroom, while still meeting the needs of the curriculum.

Flexibility is essential and should be promoted; it is being promoted and it is happening. Pupils should have flexibility in the courses that they choose to take and the kind of study that they seek to pursue. I welcome the new publicised willingness to explore alternatives for pupils who are not bookish or studious in traditional academic terms.

Will Mr Jenkins take an intervention?

No. Mr Jenkins's time is almost up.

As Cathy Jamieson said, tremendous work is going on in schools in that regard. I am pleased that the Executive and the education department are putting their weight behind those developments.

I do not approve of wholesale moves towards the widespread introduction of specialist schools. I recognise that there are arguments for schools that cater for an elite in subjects such as drama and music, in which ensemble work and individual tuition can be of a very high standard. However, that scratches the surface; even if such provision exists, it does not improve the generality of Scottish education. I am happy that a local authority can decide that a certain school should have extra provision in drama or music. I am happy that they can go in that direction.

I was at a concert in a school in Midlothian the other night. Midlothian Council is not one that I always wish to praise, but I praise it on this occasion as the concert included pupils from all the secondary schools in the area, because music tuition is free. If we want to improve such provision, that is the comprehensive way to do it; that is the way of which I approve.

We had an excellent debate yesterday on the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee report on lifelong learning. Many points from that report spill into this debate.

My first point is that there should be a level playing field in order to provide equality of opportunity. However, that is difficult to establish when the McCrone report is based on pupil numbers rather than teacher numbers. This morning, I spoke to the director of education in Highland Council. Highland Council, which still faces a £6.6 million shortfall over the next three years, has to use the money to pay the 21 per cent salary increase. The council can have no new support staff, there is no winding-down allowance and there will be limited participation in the probationer teachers scheme. The council will not be able to implement the McCrone report in full.

If we want there to be a level playing field, we should consider schools where there is not enough money coming in on the back of pupils to fund the teachers' settlement. I ask the minister to talk again to Argyll and Bute Council, the rural schools and Highland Council in particular, because if we want equality of opportunity there should be equality of funding based on pupil numbers rather than teacher numbers.

Two weeks ago Highland Council was bleating that it did not get enough money for community care. Is it crying wolf again?

No. The bleating was about the eligibility criteria; that is a matter for another debate. It is wrong of Highland Council to suggest that there should be postcode prescribing and that people should have to be more ill in the Highlands to get free personal care.

My second point is about specialist schools. I am pleased that Ian Jenkins raised the subject of music tuition. How can talent be discovered and nurtured when councils such as Highland Council implement a humiliating means test? The city of culture bid included a promise of free tuition in schools. Surely free tuition could be provided in schools throughout Scotland.

My third point, which Brian Monteith perhaps did not have time to mention, is that the Scottish Conservatives favour third and fourth-year pupils being given the chance to move from school to further education. As a further education lecturer for 20 years, I taught 15-year-olds on what I seem to remember was called the link scheme. The schools often wanted rid of those pupils because they were rather undisciplined, but putting them in a class of mature students soon sorted them out. It gave them social skills, better skills and the type of training that suited their individual needs.

Will Mary Scanlon take an intervention?

The member is in her last minute.

Further education's reputation for fulfilling individual needs in education and training is without comparison in Scotland. Members have only to sit on the Health and Community Care Committee—like my colleague, Margaret Jamieson—to see the enormous needs for the caring profession that have arisen through care in the community and the Mental Health (Scotland) Bill. Many school pupils could benefit from entering further education, not only in third and fourth year, but in fifth and sixth year; they might go through a full academic secondary school education of six years and leave with nothing.

The further education sector is more than capable of widening choice, fulfilling training needs and giving younger people a wider range of options. I hope that we take further education into account in every education debate.

I declare an historic interest, as I am a former secondary teacher. I was a product of pre-comprehensive education. I was educated in the local authority high school—taught to the test and invited to sit highers, no doubt to obtain a 100 per cent pass rate, which impressed many. I was selected at age 11. I left my community and saw my friends disperse throughout Edinburgh.

In contrast, the first school in which I taught after qualification as a secondary teacher was one of that new breed, the comprehensive. I went in determined to be unimpressed, but that did not last long. I saw the enormous advantages of comprehensive education, which helped my teaching. In developing programmes to engage the less-able pupil, there was cross-fertilisation to the more-able child who just as often has to be entertained as educated. For example, I portrayed Macbeth to a less-able class as a latter-day business tycoon with a ruthless but ultimately vulnerable wife who pushed him to the top of the commercial pyramid. That approach was for the less able, but taking it over to the more-able pupils engaged their interest in the nature of ambition and the ultimate price that is paid in the moral tales of Shakespeare.

I saw the fluidity of movement. The child who was good at mathematics could be set to deal with mathematics at that level, while still being with his or her friends when studying other subjects.

Education was, and still is, about the whole person, as Ian Jenkins said. The children of doctors and MSPs go to school with the children of plumbers and company directors. That is as it should be; that is inclusivity. That is what puts children in Scotland and Scottish schools in a special category. Scottish schools are not educating just to the test so that children can pass exams. That is why lists are an anathema and are completely misleading. Scottish schools are educating the citizens of Scotland, whose individuality is to be nurtured within the context of their own community and the larger Scottish community and the European and world community beyond.

The Tory motion represents an English version of education, which thankfully has been rejected by Scotland for generations. I no longer teach, but because I have siblings who are teachers I can tell Brian Monteith that they are sick of political interference. They want less paperwork, fewer assessments, better funding, smaller classes, and more help with disruptive pupils. We have reached the stage at which one of my sisters cannot separate warring primary 1 pupils for fear that she would be charged with assault. These are ridiculous days for primary teachers.

As a secondary teacher, I once taught a class of 40. Those days have gone, but class sizes are the key. How can an English teacher who has about 150 pupils passing through the classroom door each day give adequate attention to each individual child? Reduced class sizes would, at a stroke, improve dramatically the quality of Scottish education for individual children and across the board.

I have finished.

As ever, the Conservative motion before us is carefully crafted. Unsuspecting members of the public, never mind parliamentarians, might find much that is of merit in the motion. Phrases such as "equality of opportunity" and

"new and different ways of education built round the needs of the individual child"

are laudable, but we should not be fooled. If we listen carefully to what the Tories say, a picture will emerge of an elitist system that is designed to benefit a narrow section of society. In the name of reform, the Tories propose not diversity and flexibility in our schools, but a widening of the opportunity gap.

We must be honest. There is no commitment from the Tory members to match Labour's spending on education. Given our experience of the Tories, the motion signals a return to schools being starved of resources. In contrast, Labour's approach is to ensure that all schools are centres of excellence that work to close the opportunity gap and to focus on the individual child's educational needs so that each and every child in Scotland fulfils their potential. We promote greater flexibility and diversity in the curriculum and we have invested in classrooms, the schools estate and in 7,000 more teachers and classroom assistants. Taken together, those measures provide a better environment for learning, but we cannot stop there.

Will the member stop there?

No. We have had to listen to Brian Monteith for too long. It is his turn to sit quietly.

The Labour party is rightly proud of our comprehensive system, as are the people of Scotland, but we cannot afford to be complacent. At the start of the 21st century, we have a duty to equip our children for the challenges of the future. The education system must not stand still; it should lead the agenda for change. That change should not be the one that the Tories want, which would mean that only a few would succeed. Rather, our ambition is for all children. Our aspiration is not for only one or two schools to be centres of excellence, but for all schools to be excellent.

We will encourage more flexibility and innovation in schools through measures such as having teachers who work across primary and secondary schools, allowing for the first two years of secondary school to meet more clearly the needs of individual children, encouraging real parental involvement and increasing opportunities for vocational education. That will ensure that every young person leaves school with the core skills and confidence that they need to progress.

Sorry, no.

We will also encourage more decentralised management so that head teachers are empowered to make decisions on using the flexibility in the system and applying resources.

Positive reform is firmly on the agenda. I regret the fact that Brian Monteith keeps looking over his shoulder to compare what is going on in Scotland with the educational reforms that are proposed in England. Scotland has always had a distinctive approach to education, even pre-devolution, and it is right that we should have a distinctive approach to reform. However, the objective is the same. We want to raise standards for all children. As Brian Monteith is obsessed with what is going on down south, why does he not join his colleague Ben Wallace and take a closer look?

I want to describe the Tories' education policy as outlined by Brian Monteith, but because words fail me, I have borrowed some from a once-famous Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, which I assume will meet with the Tories' approval. He stated:

"The honourable member's speech reminds me of Columbus. When he set out, he didn't know where he was going. When he got there, he didn't know where he was. And when he returned home, he didn't know where he'd been."

That describes the Tory education policy. Members should reject the motion.

The debate has been entertaining; we have watched the Labour members duck out of making any comment about the future and our friends in the SNP seem desperate to go back to a past that some of them can barely remember—apart from Mr Russell, of course. As for the Liberal Democrats, when I tried to intervene during Mr Jenkins's speech, he was beginning to talk about choice. The word almost tripped over his lips, but did not quite get there.

One issue that has not been discussed is parental responsibility in education. The state's role should be to give parents the means and opportunity to exercise their responsibility. We should bring parents into the decision-making process, along with headmasters. Jackie Baillie, bless her, stated what was basically the Conservative philosophy of giving more power to headmasters. Her comments will be in the Official Report.

We must consider communities, because one set of parents cannot produce enough children to have a school and cannot get together to run a school. There must be a choice of schools in communities and a choice of the subjects that are taught. We need more than the blanket take-it-or-leave-it quick fix that Labour and the Liberal Democrats operate. There must be a reason behind the method of supporting those who need specialist help, which does not mean only those with learning difficulties, but those who have special talents. Labour members never mention an individualist approach such as that, unless the minister is about to tell me something different.

I am not sure whether David Davidson listened to my speech. I gave clear examples of cases in which we are trying to ensure that young people's talents, whatever they might be, are nurtured in schools.

I recall that the minister mentioned Trinity Academy, which is my former school. When I was at that school, streaming that was based on ability and talent took place for every subject. There was choice within the school, although it was not a comprehensive. Through the state system, the school offered an all-enveloping range of opportunities for pupils of different talents and it had well-resourced staff. Pupils were not forced to take subjects that they did not want to take, but they were encouraged. The system at Trinity Academy that the minister described sounds like a wee bit of sticking plaster on a failed Labour system.

In Aberdeenshire, parents and communities have won a tremendous victory. They fought to save primary schools—I supported them in that fight—and they now have a choice. Some parents fought to merge two schools. That is the kind of choice that the Conservatives support. What I managed to get from the director of education of Aberdeenshire Council—which is a Liberal Democrat-independent coalition—was a promise, given in public at a large meeting, that schools would not be closed through the back door and by attrition. I hope that the director of education is now prepared to take the next step and examine the schools that parents saved to find out why parents tried to save them and to discover what is required to have broad-based education that gives children an opportunity to develop. We will find out at the election.

Support for headmasters has been discussed before in the chamber. In 2000, I said to the Scottish colleges conference that there was an opportunity for senior schools to link with colleges, particularly for children who are not academically inclined but who might be technically minded. That policy is not a new one; it is common sense applied in Scotland. The opportunities that are available in colleges could be used successfully for some children. Headmasters must be allowed to make decisions on such issues.

A broadly based education must be balanced with the acquisition and development of transferable skills for future economic opportunity and the release from dependence on the nanny state. That is education's function. The minister should not dumb down the education system and fail our children, who need diversity, choice and opportunity. That is a better way for our children, and it is the Conservative way.

We are all pleased to have the opportunity to debate education, although I am rather confused by the motion, which is bland and misleading. It is not clear to me whether Brian Monteith is calling for a return to selection in what he calls "the post-comprehensive era". There is a worry that he is calling for a return to the kind of system in which young people were consigned to what was described as a vocational stream. Those of us who are old enough to remember that will remember what happened when there was a system of selection at age 11 in secondary modern schools in Scotland.

It is not that.

Brian Monteith says that he is not calling for that. However, the justification that was cited for creating that system was that it would provide what was called an appropriate education for non-academic pupils. That is how it was described. We must be aware of that and think about what history has taught us. I do not know whether Brian Monteith has spoken to people who were labelled at that age—often for life—by that kind of selection. In talking about an appropriate education system, we must beware of what has not worked in the past.

I am certainly not suggesting that we return to something from the past; I am suggesting that we look to something in the future. Rhona Brankin says that the motion is rather bland—Jackie Baillie also criticised the wording of the motion—but I wonder whether she is aware that the wording of the motion is lifted directly from a speech that Tony Blair made earlier this year?

I have absolutely no problem in describing what any politician says as bland if I think that it is bland. I had no idea what the context was.

The fundamental difference is that a truly comprehensive school is able to provide pathways for all pupils, whether they enter supported employment when they leave school or college or whether they go on to become astrophysicists. However, we face major challenges in the comprehensive system. The comprehensive system has failed young people in the past, and a recent report from the Executive recognises the extent to which we have failed many young people who have not benefited from combined working across the interagency spectrum.

The young people whom we have failed are those who have not had the opportunity to go on to higher education. We tend to be a bit smug and say that we are one of the best-performing countries in Europe because more than 50 per cent of our young people go straight from school into higher education. However, only 14 per cent of those young people come from working-class homes where there is no tradition of university or college education. We therefore face big challenges.

One of the main challenges facing the comprehensive system is to ensure that, whatever someone's background, they have the opportunity to enter higher education. Many of us here may be the first people in our families to have had the benefit of higher education. I am of the second generation in my family to have had that opportunity. My father came from a mining background and was the first person in his family to have that opportunity. We had a debate yesterday about lifelong education, and one of the main challenges for us is to raise our game in the comprehensive system. Too many youngsters are still falling through the net.

Central to remedying the situation is higher still, which provides flexibility. Vitally, higher still provides flexibility for progression within an inclusive curriculum framework. It does not pigeon hole people, as we have done in the past, into so-called vocational routes that effectively close down opportunities for pupils. That is not to say that university or higher education will be the appropriate destination for all pupils—it would be silly to say that. We must have a range of opportunities for people, so that we can fulfil the needs of our economy and pupils' individual needs. Higher still and the Scottish credit and qualifications framework are a huge step forward in reducing the number of young people who are effectively out of the system when they leave school. They provide the basis for developing a system for lifelong learning in which everyone has the same opportunity.

I welcome diversity in schools and I ask the minister to consider the school works project, in which the whole school community is involved in the designing of a new school.

I welcome the Tory motion on education. We were in danger of forgetting why the Tories exist, but the motion illustrates that perfectly. The Tories exist for one purpose: to maintain the privileged position of the wealthy. They have no other objective. The last two words of the motion are "skilled employment", and David Davidson said that he sees the education system delivering people who are prepared for "future economic opportunity". What the Tory members have at the forefront of their education policy is the delivery of worker drones for the bosses to exploit.

Will the member give way?

No, I will not. I do not have time.

It is revealing that Brian Monteith had to pick up the history of Scottish education to get some insight. Let us consider the schools to which the Tory MSPs went. We have three Etonians, two from George Watson's College and one from Millfield. I do not think that a single Tory MSP went to a school other than a selective one.

Inverness Royal Academy is a selective school. My wife went there and she shared that school with Murdo Fraser.

I went to Portobello High School.

I invite Brian Monteith to tell me about Portobello High School.

Portobello High School was a comprehensive school when I was there. The past two generations of my family went there and my sons go there. I have no problem with the school that I attended and which my sons attend. May I just add—

Order. You were invited to give a response, Mr Monteith, and you have given it.

We have got the Tories riled. I am perfectly happy to make common cause with colleagues from other parties against the entrenchment of the privilege that the Tories have always represented.

I went to one of the largest schools in Scotland, which had some 2,000 pupils. The objective of education at that time was to realise not the economic potential of pupils but their personal potential. That is what education is about. It is important to learn skills, but they will decay over time and be overtaken by events. It is far more important that we equip our young people, when they leave schools and further education, with the ability to adapt and learn.

Not all Tories get it wrong all the time.

Pardon?

I know that that is news to Mike Russell, but let us be fair to the Tories. Even Michael Forsyth, the Secretary of State for Scotland in 1996, got it right in "Achievement for All", the objectives for Her Majesty's inspectors. He said that streaming is

"inherently inflexible and does not promote teaching which builds on prior learning"

and that

"pupils are discouraged by being placed in the lowest streams and can lack motivation to make progress".

The comprehensive system delivers for Scotland and can be developed to deliver for Scotland in the future.

In her opening speech, the minister said that we are aiming for excellence. That is absolutely right. We all know that school is about far more than academic excellence, but let us not forget that we need to promote academic excellence too. I am proud of the fact that two schools in my constituency—Banchory Academy, where my two sons study, and Westhill Academy—have achieved excellent academic results. Academically, they are among the top 10 state schools in the country. We all know that there are far more measures than academic performance, but it is important to highlight that achievement. I take this opportunity to congratulate the teachers, pupils, parents and carers for all their hard work and achievements. It is important that we publicly recognise academic achievement.

I fully support the Executive's amendment. We need to ensure that we have an increased emphasis on citizenship, enterprise and vocational education. We need to raise attainment and close the opportunity gap throughout Scotland. However, my worry—and the reason why I changed my mind and decided to speak after listening to the speeches this morning—is that we tend to shy away from mentioning the word "academic" when we talk about attainment. It is certainly not mentioned in the amendment. I urge the minister and all members not to be reticent about acknowledging success when they see it.

In congratulating the schools in his constituency, will Mr Rumbles recognise that Cumnock Academy, in my constituency, is one of the top 10 schools in terms of improving academic performance against a background of social deprivation? As the head teacher said publicly, that is a direct result of the new community school approach.

I am delighted to acknowledge the achievement of Cumnock Academy, whose pupils have a different background from most of the pupils in my constituency. I am glad that the minister recognises the importance of academic performance, but I would have liked to have seen some recognition of it in the text of the amendment.

I have enjoyed this debate. Stewart Stevenson is right to point out that it has been a debate in which some have united in common cause while others have experienced some confusion.

The Conservatives' post-comprehensive vision—if vision is not too strong a word—acknowledges the success and validity of comprehensive education. They dare not be too overtly critical of the comprehensive system, so they have opted to attack by stealth. While praising the principle of comprehensive education, they seek to push education in directions that would undermine that principle. Brian Monteith's call for a greater range of specialist schools is an attempt to open doors for decidedly non-comprehensive schooling. They argue that developments such as city technology colleges are the way forward even though evidence that such schools add significantly to student achievement is dubious. There is also doubt that such developments are appropriate in a Scottish context.

At its UK conference, the Tory party backed measures to grant schools independence over their budget and curriculum, although school management has already been substantially devolved, and to allow parents and teachers to set up their own schools, of which we have heard much this morning. That proposal is radical but is not recognisable as a comprehensive system. How much further would the Conservatives like to go? If we are committed to comprehensive principles, we should be committed to ensuring that the needs of children are met within the comprehensive system, with diversity and flexibility. We must work to close the equality gap.

As Michael Russell said, the comprehensive system must be broad based, flexible and inclusive. We are committed to improving education for all, not just for an elitist minority. We want to create flexibility for teachers to work across primary and secondary schools and to ensure that setting is available for the first two years of secondary schooling so that education is tailored more closely to the needs of every child. We must ensure that more effort is put into delivering parental involvement in children's education. David Davidson, who is not here now, talked about the Tories' big vision being parental involvement in schools. I was one of the parents who got involved in my school under Michael Forsyth's initiatives. I can say that he did a lot to involve parents in schools because a lot of parents up and down the country joined school boards to ensure that their local school did not opt out of the system. Fortunately, the parents won in that attempt—good on them.

We want to increase opportunities for vocational education and ensure that every young person leaves school with the core skills and confidence that they need to go forward. We have to encourage more decentralised management to ensure that the head teacher can make more decisions about how the flexibility of the system can be used and how the resources can be applied.

Our achievements are clear. Labour has already provided significant investment for our education system and has implemented more important reforms. In summary, with the Standards in Scotland's Schools Act 2000, we have enshrined in legislation Labour's commitment to improving schools. We are investing more than £1 billion to rebuild and refurbish schools. More than 300 schools will benefit over the next three years.

Why, if more investment has been put into Scottish schools, do the figures show that, this year, more school leavers left school with no certificates than did so the year before?

I do not agree that the figures show that. We have heard from the minister this morning about the need to ensure that we work with children across the board. If we use only figures as indicators, it will be a sad day for education.

We have secured the McCrone agreement, which is a teaching agreement for the 21st century that delivers fundamental changes and improvements to teachers' conditions, reducing the gap between teachers and other professionals and ensuring stability over the three-year pay rounds. As Jackie Baillie said, there will be 3,000 more teachers by 2006 and more than 4,000 classroom assistants are already employed in primary schools. We have implemented the new community schools programme, which is a good example of a way in which we can bring all professionals together to create an education system that will meet the needs of all children. Another £78 million is committed to rolling out the programme to schools by 2007.

I do not think that the Tories' education policy has moved on. I only wish that the Tories would be a bit more Scottish and would recognise the value of Scottish education. They have failed to do that.

We are committed to an education system that meets the needs of the many, not the few, which is why we oppose the Tory motion.

In this debate, we have had a taste of the philosophy that underpins the various educational policies that each party supports. We have all said what we think education is for and suggested ways in which we would go about delivering that outcome.

The SNP's education philosophy is simple. We believe that education is about creating the context for inquiry and discovery and delivering basic levels of thinking and learning skills that can be applied in all disciplines. As Northern Ireland and Wales have done, we would abandon the artificial tyranny of league tables and put in their place access for parents to genuine information about such aspects as funding, school management and the ethos of the school. Nor would we forget those who find learning hard or who have special needs.

I understand what Irene McGugan is saying about league tables being only one measure of performance, but is she saying that academic performance is not important and should not be recognised?

No, we are not saying that at all.

We would support parents in everything that they need to do to provide education for those with special needs. We would do the things that I have outlined because we want to create a higher achieving and more creatively thinking Scotland. Yes, that is aspirational, but our aspirations would also protect the principles of the Scottish comprehensive education system and value core skills and local delivery within a strong state sector.

Of course we want to encourage diversity in education and of course education should be focused on the individual needs of each child but, unlike the Tories, who believe in privilege, specialism and inequality, we would hold firm to the traditional values of socially inclusive shared experience in schools owned and operated under democratic principles. Diversity or choice—whatever we want to call it—could embrace ideas such as bringing Steiner-Waldorf schools into the state system, providing a supportive network for those who want to home educate their children and establishing 21st century e-schools, more community schools and Gaelic-medium education. It could mean many, none or all of those things, but everything would be predicated on a unified but devolved state system, which has nothing to do with what we have heard from the Tory party today.

This year, we had a great opportunity to hear what the rest of Scotland thinks about these matters because of the great debate on education and the Education, Culture and Sport Committee's inquiry into the purposes of education, both of which allowed parents, teachers, pupils and stakeholders—for want of a better word—to make their views known. One of the key messages to come from both initiatives was that people in Scotland want to keep the system of comprehensive schools that are freely available to all and provide a good standard of education. They said that it could be improved, of course, but there was no mention of—far less support for—anything that came close to a post-comprehensive era.

Will Irene McGugan give way?

Not at the moment. I will finish my point.

Specialist and independent schools are more common in other parts of the UK, but there is little demand in Scotland for a move towards specialised schooling. The fact that the Tory party ignores that either points to unbelievable arrogance—a notion that it knows best and will impose its views on the country regardless of what other people think or what their express wishes are—or serves to illustrate just how out of touch it is with the feelings of Scotland's people on one of the most important issues of the day.

I must disappoint the member. We are neither arrogant nor out of touch. Even in the chamber, we find three or four different definitions of comprehensive education. Is Irene McGugan able to tell me that all the respondents who supported comprehensive education supported the same type of comprehensive education?

I was making two points: that there was no mention of post-comprehensive education in the responses and that, however people defined comprehensive education when they responded, they supported it. The Conservatives reject that notion.

The consultation's other overwhelming finding was of support for smaller class sizes. Particularly in the early years, education that is centred on the individual—as Mr Monteith seems to want—requires smaller classes, not further specialism or competition that is driven by league tables and crude setting and streaming.

We need an education system that embraces the notion of social inclusion. The Tory party can never deliver that.

Today I agree with a great deal of Mike Russell's analysis—that is not to talk up his prospects for this evening's award ceremony—which is a marked contrast with our most recent education debate. I have no difficulty with the amendment in Mike Russell's name. I hope that he will be able to support the Executive's amendment at decision time this evening.

In particular, I agree that the key challenge is to move beyond analysis to delivery. However, the crucial point is that delivery in Scotland's schools should be for all our young people—not for a minority, an elite or the few. We want "opportunity" to mean opportunity for every child in every family in every community in every part of Scotland.

Much is still to be done. We have seen that in some of the statistics over the past few days. Too many young people fail to achieve the appropriate five-to-14 levels. Too many leave school without qualifications; the proportion who did so this year was 5.7 per cent. In the last year of the Conservative Government, it was 6.4 per cent—the poorest performance in any of the past five years.

Let us remember some of the Conservative performance—or the Conservative way, as David Davidson called it. Did the Conservatives invest in 3,000 extra teachers? No. Did they invest in 3,500 extra support staff for our schools? No. Did they invest more than £1 billion in new schools? We are on track to deliver 400 new or refurbished schools by 2009. Those schools will have been provided in a single decade. What did the Tories do in their 18 years in government? They provided fewer than 100 new or improved schools. That is their track record. Everywhere we look, the Conservative record is poor. In the Tories' final term in office from 1992 to 1997, the share of UK gross domestic product that went into education fell from 5.2 per cent to 4.7 per cent. That was the priority that Mr Monteith gave to education. Worse than that, in Scotland, the Conservatives destroyed teacher morale and sapped the strength of Scotland's schools.

Scottish education has major strengths—its breadth, diversity, drive for excellence and focus on the individual—but I also want it to be international in its outlook and ambitions. I reject the notion that we should always benchmark by, follow or seek to imitate what happens in Northern Ireland, Wales or England. We should be proud that nearly 50 per cent of Scotland's young people go into higher education. We should be proud that we deliver international excellence. The statistics from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's programme for international student assessment put Scotland ninth out of 32 developed nations for science, sixth for reading and fifth for mathematics. Those are good statistics. To refer back to our most recent education debate again for Tommy Sheridan's benefit, Cuba is not ahead of Scotland on any of the lists that I have analysed.

We can certainly do better. That is the challenge for us all. We will do better not through political dogma, but through partnership with our local authorities, schools, head teachers, teachers, parents and pupils. We are determined to deliver. A big challenge lies ahead to develop and improve Scotland's schools. The Conservative way is one of division, dogma and decay and it deserves to be rejected.

The debate has been lively. It is the first time that I have ever heard myself compared to Arnold Schwarzenegger. I will need to make a few more trips to the gym.

Our motion refers to post-comprehensive education. That choice of words was deliberate. A debate about how education needs to change is going on in Scotland, and there is growing recognition that our comprehensive system fails too many in our society. We have heard that today from Brian Monteith and we have heard it in the Parliament often enough before. We usually hear it from Conservative members, but I was pleased to hear Rhona Brankin acknowledge it in her speech.

The comprehensive system is fine for a child from a middle-class background who is fortunate enough to have parental support and parents who can buy a house in a leafy suburb in the catchment area of a good school. Such a child can go to one of the good schools. However, as we saw from the results tables that were published yesterday, there is a yawning gulf between the performance of our best schools and that of our poorest schools.

I accept that the tables tell only part of the story and that we must take into account pupil development, discipline in the classroom, truancy levels and all sorts of other factors. However, we must not deny the stark truth. Some schools perform far better than others do. The schools that do not do so well are generally those in areas of social deprivation. No matter how talented or diligent a child born in those areas is or how supportive the parents are, such a child starts with a handicap on day one.

That is what our comprehensive system delivers and that is exactly why the Conservatives want to change it, even if all the other parties in the Parliament defend the status quo. We want to change it because it works against those who already come from disadvantaged backgrounds.

The analysis is interesting. However, I simply point out that, if we correlate the league tables that were published two days ago—which have not yet been distributed to members—with the percentage of school children who are recorded as entitled to free meals, we see that the correlation at the top and bottom of the table is almost exact. The answer is surely therefore to do something about poverty in Scotland. In what regard will the Tories help with poverty in Scotland, as they normally make it worse?

We can have a debate about poverty on another day. One of the things that was interesting about Mr Russell's intervention was that he accepts—

On that point—

No. I thank the minister, but I ask her to let me deal with the point.

Mr Russell accepts that there is a correlation between pupils going to schools in less well-off areas and results. That is exactly the point that I was making. Pupils are trapped in those areas by our current system of geographical catchment areas. That is why we want to change the system.

Will Murdo Fraser give way?

No. I will not give way at the moment.

In the Parliament, the Conservatives may be the only ones who see the need for change. However, out in the real world, other voices challenge the complacent attitudes that we have heard today. Speaking on Friday, Graham Donaldson, who is the new senior chief inspector of education in Scotland, talked about a huge waste of talent in Scottish education. He said that education reforms were failing to impact on all children. In particular, he meant those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

At the same event, Fraser Sanderson, president of the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, said that there was a large section of the student community whose needs were not being met, and he spoke of schools in poorer areas that had unacceptably low expectations.

Once again the Tories have chosen to quote selectively. If they had chosen to quote what I said at that same event—on the Thursday evening—they would have heard a clear message, in which I pointed out that many schools have simply not taken enough action to close the opportunity gap. Would the member welcome Graham Donaldson's comments about the changes that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education will make to ensure that most focus will be given to the schools that have, so far, not performed best in dealing with young people from such disadvantaged backgrounds?

I assure the minister that I have read in detail the speeches that were delivered on Friday, so I do not need to be informed by the minister about that.

I am pleased to hear the minister accepting that there are problems and that they need to be addressed, because we have heard so many complacent attitudes being voiced in some of the speeches made by members of other parties that one might think that there is nothing wrong with the current system.

We need to change the system. We should not get hung up about what the word "comprehensive" means. In England there is a whole spectrum of specialist schools, faith schools and city technology colleges operating in a system that the Prime Minister, and indeed other Labour MPs, still call "comprehensive". We are not saying that we should imitate the systems in England, Northern Ireland or anywhere else; we are saying that there are lessons to be learned from what is happening elsewhere in the UK and in Europe. Let us look at the systems there and learn from them. That does not mean that we have to copy everything that is being done there. However, although we recognise that lessons may be learned from elsewhere, that is not the impression that I get from the Executive, judging by what we have heard this morning.

By establishing more specialist schools and by allowing diversity, we will provide opportunity for able children who, at the moment, are trapped by the catchment-area system and have to go to schools that are simply not delivering. We already have specialist schools in music and sport, which are accepted, indeed praised, by all parties. If that is good enough for music and sport, why is it not good enough for engineering, science, mathematics or languages?

Of course children have to come out of education equipped for life, with life skills. I would say to Stewart Stevenson, however, that the idea that they should not leave education with basic vocational training is nonsense. We currently have the problem of children coming out of education without proper standards of literacy and numeracy, so they are not equipped for the work force.

I would also say to Stewart Stevenson that he should do more efficient research before he contributes to a debate on education. If he had done so, he would have found out that, when I attended Inverness Royal Academy, it was a comprehensive school. Looking at my colleagues sitting next to me on the front bench, Brian Monteith and Alex Johnstone, I note that all three of us went to comprehensive schools. Stewart Stevenson should in future do his homework before speaking in such a debate. [Interruption.] The deputy minister is waving bits of paper at me, but I assure him that I was at that school, and I know what the case was.

There are four members on the Conservative front bench. What about Bill Aitken?

Perhaps I should clarify my position. I went to Allan Glen's School in Glasgow on the basis of a bursary. My parents were too poor to afford to pay the fees. It was selective, and I was successful.

I am obliged to Mr Aitken for that intervention.

We offer real hope to those who are being failed. The Executive may talk about an end to the one-size-fits-all system, but it has no real solutions, and opposes even the modest reforms being pursued by Tony Blair in England. The SNP offers only more of the same and refuses to countenance the idea that there is anything fundamentally wrong with the system that would not be solved by more money and smaller class sizes. Indeed, there is an inherent contradiction within the SNP approach. On the one hand, it talks about having a system of education controlled from the centre; on the other, it talks about having more diversity. That simply does not add up.

Meanwhile, those children who come from disadvantaged backgrounds continue to have their life opportunities damaged by an inflexible system that clings to an outdated comprehensive model. Specialist schools offer a window of hope for such children. They offer them a chance to have their abilities recognised, to gain qualifications, to follow a route to further education and to equip themselves for employment.

Outside the chamber, the education debate goes on. People recognise the need for change. Inside the chamber, however, it is the Scottish Conservatives who are prepared to speak up for the many who are being failed. I have pleasure in supporting the motion in Brian Monteith's motion.

That concludes the debate on education. We are about five minutes ahead of time.