“Educating for Excellence”
The next item of business is a statement by Cathy Jamieson on "Educating for Excellence: Choice and Opportunity". Questions will follow the statement and I would be grateful if members who wish to ask questions would indicate that during the statement.
The national debate on education, in which more than 20,000 people took part, has given us the best opportunity in years to look at the future of schools in Scotland. We worked in a unique partnership with the Education, Culture and Sport Committee to share views with its parallel inquiry. Today, I am publishing the Executive's response to the national debate, which consists of plans for excellence in education in Scotland—plans that have been designed to deliver a world-class education for all Scotland's children.
Our vision is for every school to be a centre of excellence. I want young people to leave school with the skills, the attitudes and the expectations that they need to succeed in Scotland and in the world. Comprehensive education is no longer about one size that is supposed to fit all.
I want a comprehensive system that has excellent schools at the heart of local communities, and excellent teaching that prepares young people to go out into the world literate and numerate, confident, creative, responsible, ambitious, enterprising, considerate and motivated to learn throughout their lives. We can achieve that vision if we work in partnership to deliver three things: choice, opportunity and the highest standards in every school.
During the national debate, we heard repeatedly that the system must fit the child; the child must not be forced to fit the system. There must be choice for pupils if we are to meet their individual needs and ensure that every child reaches their full potential. We need choice in what children learn and in how they learn.
I have listened to the genuine concerns of parents, pupils and teachers about overload in the curriculum, especially at five-to-14 level. We will review and reform the school curriculum to make it more relevant, exciting and inspiring for pupils. We will decide which subjects and skills are needed to create a focused core of learning. Pupils need more choice in what they study around that core of learning. Pupils must have greater access to a wide range of choices, which should include vocational training, opportunities for music and arts, science, sports and languages.
The national debate also revealed concern about the amount of time that is spent on tests and exams. Assessment must be relevant to pupils, teachers and parents; it must inform learning, check progress and be credible. Although work on simplifying and reducing the amount of assessment at school is already well under way, I want to move on and look at more radical options. I am not convinced that all our young people need to sit exams every year from secondary 4 to secondary 6. We must have a simpler system, which does not have age and stage restrictions. We will reduce the number of tests and exams at primary and secondary schools and the amount of time that is spent on them.
Choice for pupils also means giving more control and flexibility to schools. We will give head teachers more control over budgets, so that they can decide how to use their resources to benefit their pupils.
In the classroom, schools need to be able to give their pupils the right attention from the right people. We will introduce new proposals to reduce class sizes and to improve pupil-teacher ratios. We will concentrate on critical stages, such as primary 7, secondary 1 and secondary 2, particularly in maths and English. We will increase the amount of small-group learning and will ensure that teachers work across primary and secondary schools to make the transition from primary to secondary school easier for pupils. Smaller classes at crucial stages and more flexible working will raise the standard of Scottish education.
Our plan is also about creating opportunity. To raise standards in Scottish education, we must also close the unacceptable opportunity gap for our children. The overwhelming response from the national debate was that we should keep our comprehensive schools. However, we must ensure that comprehensive education gives the best life chance to every single child and that it meets the needs of the 21st century rather than those of the 1970s.
Our starting point is to improve literacy and numeracy. Those skills are the basis of all learning and are essential throughout life. I know that progress has been made, but I am concerned that we must do more, especially for our most vulnerable and disadvantaged young people.
The current situation is simply not good enough. It is our most pressing problem, which we must tackle on all fronts. We will reduce class sizes at crucial stages, so that literacy and numeracy can get the attention that they deserve. We will review initial teacher education, so that new teachers have the training that they need to raise standards of literacy and numeracy. Let me be clear that literacy and numeracy will be at the heart of the revised curriculum. Above all, we will not tolerate underperformance in literacy and numeracy. Schools that do not deliver in those key areas will not be allowed to continue to fail their pupils year on year.
I believe that opportunity must be for all children. Many parents of pupils with special educational needs are critical of our current arrangements. The additional support for learning bill, which is now out for consultation, will address those concerns. We will put children first. We will cut bureaucracy and bring together all services to support every pupil's learning needs.
Opportunity for children also means that there must be excellent discipline in schools. That is a major concern for parents, pupils and teachers, but it is also a major concern for me. We are implementing the recommendations of the discipline action plan and we will monitor progress rigorously to ensure that a real difference is made in the classroom. If further action is needed, I will not hesitate to take it.
Children must also be taught in school buildings that support excellent standards of teaching and learning. We will bring forward a new school estate strategy to provide school buildings with the right facilities, which must be well designed, well built, and flexible to meet future needs. Excellent school buildings, with the most modern equipment, are the most visible sign of the high standards of education that we want for Scotland.
We also want opportunity for parents. We will improve the information that parents receive. We will issue new national guidelines to ensure that parents get the really important and relevant information that they want about their children's progress at school, so that they can be fully involved in their children's education. We will review and reform the role of school boards and parent-teacher associations. We want every parent to be involved and to be able to help guide their children to make the most of the choices that we are creating.
Delivering real choice and opportunity means giving schools flexibility, but ensuring that they meet the highest possible standards. We will examine the outcomes that schools and education authorities deliver for their pupils in each of our national priorities in education. That will include looking at attainment, but it will not only be about creating league tables of exam results. It will be about looking at all of the work that schools do so as to ensure that they are working to all the national priorities. We need to make certain that pupils are getting the highest standard of education.
We will strengthen the role of inspection to give clearer and more frequent reports to parents. We will direct Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education to work with those schools that most need to improve.
We will consider what other powers might be needed to tackle consistent underperformance. We will offer local agreements for excellence by giving the most flexibility in funding to authorities and schools that deliver excellent outcomes for their pupils. I will not allow, and Scotland cannot afford, to have some schools lag behind, failing their pupils and failing Scotland.
In conclusion, I believe that Scottish schools can and must deliver a world-class education. I believe that every school can be a centre of excellence. I believe that every school must be a centre of excellence at the heart of its local community.
Today, I am publishing our plan for excellence in education in Scotland. We have had the debate and we have reported back the independent analysis of the views. Now is the time for action. The document is the Scottish Executive's work plan for schools and education authorities. Ultimately, the debate is about the people who contributed to the debate—parents, pupils, teachers and members of local communities across Scotland. Let me be clear. I will come back to the Parliament to seek wider powers if necessary. I believe that we can and will work together to deliver a world-class education for all Scotland's children.
A large number of members want to ask questions. I do not think that we will get them all in; the number depends on brevity in both questions and answers.
I thank the minister for providing a copy of the statement and document. I know that the minister is one of the best known vegans in Scotland, but I am tempted to open the questioning by asking, "Where's the beef?"
The document is vague and insubstantial. The minister's statement was vaguer and more insubstantial. It mixed the rhetoric of the past with opaque generalisations about the future. More cruelly, it is riddled with inconsistencies. In her statement, the minister said of literacy:
"The current situation is simply not good enough."
That is a statement with which everyone would agree. However, the document, which is meant to be the guidelines for education in Scotland, simply says that the Executive will
"Continue to implement current strategies for literacy and numeracy".
The current strategies have failed. The minister admits that, but the document does nothing about it. Such inconsistencies run throughout the document, on inspection and on other issues.
The most damaging thing in the Executive's response to the national debate is the complete refusal to accept the evidence from parents, all academics and all experiments world-wide that a reduction in class sizes in primary 1, 2 and 3 is the most significant investment. The refusal to acknowledge that, no matter how ideological the reason, is entirely wrong.
The minister said that she "will not tolerate underperformance". In the past four years her Administration has consistently underperformed on education. She goes on to state:
"schools which do not deliver … will not be allowed to continue to fail their pupils".
Is it not about time that the minister and the Administration who have failed Scotland's pupils are not allowed to continue? Fortunately, the opportunity to stop them comes on 1 May.
I am disappointed that Mike Russell has attempted to make this a party-political issue.
The national debate involved people from right across Scotland. It involved young people, parents and teachers and we shared all the information that was collected in the debate with the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. We did that in a spirit of partnership and of trying to reach consensus about a way forward for Scottish education.
I do not agree with Mike Russell that there is nothing in the Executive's response that will advance the issue. It lays out a clear work plan and the priorities. It also allows us to continue the work that we have started with the education community, the young people in our schools, teachers, teachers' unions and associations and with parents and others.
I say to Mike Russell that if I had stood here today and had not addressed the problems of primary 7, secondary 1 and secondary 2—which people have known about for years—that would have been a disappointment. I have addressed those issues and I will continue to address them.
I also thank the minister for providing an advance copy of her statement and the document "Educating for Excellence".
I too found the minister's statement profoundly disappointing. It tells us very little that we have not heard before and confirms that the debate was all about masking the coalition Government's lack of ideas about how to help our schools, teachers and pupils. The document is not a plan; it is a wish list with few ideas that could not be found in the Educational Institute of Scotland's guidebook for Labour politicians.
I have worries about one area. The minister's statement says:
"We will reduce the number of tests and exams at primary and secondary schools".
I have some information from answers to parliamentary questions. Let us consider the number of children who, by their second year in secondary school, are two years behind in attainment level. We find huge disparities between local authorities. In Clackmannanshire we find that in maths, 29 per cent of pupils in S2 are two years behind the necessary attainment levels, whereas in Perth and Kinross the level is 12 per cent. What will the minister do to remove that disparity? Do not the figures suggest to the minister, as they do to me, that some authorities are the problem, not the solution? How can the reduction in exams and tests help to improve pupils' performance, if it is those exams that expose the poor performance and allow teachers to take the necessary action?
I would be disappointed if Brian Monteith felt that it is not important to work with the EIS and all the other organisations that made a significant contribution to the national debate. I would also be disappointed if Brian Monteith thought that we should not involve teachers in the process of taking forward the actions that will follow on from the debate.
I wish to say something about attainment levels. Yes, Brian Monteith selectively quoted from a couple of local authorities, but the reality is that attainment levels have moved in the right direction. I have made it clear on numerous occasions that we still have a long way to go before I will be satisfied. On assessment, testing and exams, if Brian Monteith had listened to what parents, pupils, teachers and other educationists said during the national debate, he would know that it was agreed that it is important to streamline the assessment process and to make it fit for purpose, so that it genuinely informs pupils' learning and does not become an end in itself.
We have laid out a clear plan in "Educating for Excellence". We will continue to work with all the stakeholders who contributed to the debate to take excellence forward for every one of Scotland's children.
I welcome the minister's statement as a first step in taking forward the issues that were raised in the education debate. I am glad that the debate endorsed a comprehensive system that is not monolithic, but flexible and responsive to pupils' needs within an inclusive framework. I welcome the first steps for action. I am pleased by the promise to simplify the assessment process and exam system and to reduce the amount of time that is spent on tests and exams. I welcome the commitment to devolve more financial control to head teachers and I am especially pleased that the curriculum will be reviewed.
Will the minister assure me that, although literacy and numeracy are rightly emphasised, the wider purposes of education will not be forgotten in the review? Will she indicate how and by whom the review will be carried out and how and when it will be implemented?
I am glad that Ian Jenkins feels that the responses that we have made today fit with the comments that were made during the national debate. The review of the curriculum is important. I hope that I have made it clear in my statement that we want to provide an opportunity to create a focused curriculum that will allow young people to get the best possible education in their early years and that will increasingly give young people choices to build on, perhaps in different ways. If people take the time to read "Educating for Excellence", they will see that we mention arts, culture and sport, as well as a whole range of other issues that we want to build in. They will also see the importance that is placed on the whole range of national priorities—education for life, vocational education and all the other issues that we want to continue to work on.
I envisage a clear role for Learning and Teaching Scotland and educationists, including many of the teachers who spoke to me. Those teachers clearly conveyed the need to review the five-to-14 curriculum; they were concerned that the curriculum is overloaded and is getting in the way of giving children the best possible educational experience. I do not want that situation to continue, which is why I have made a clear commitment on the matter today.
I am sure that the minister agrees that parental involvement in education is extremely important, particularly today. How does she propose to enhance and encourage parental involvement in the education system?
Parents made it clear to us that there are a number of areas in which they want accurate information. They want the opportunity not necessarily to take over the running of schools—they want education authorities to do that well and they want educationists to their job—but to have correct information. They want to be able to help their children and young people to achieve as much as they can and to be involved in guiding them through choices in education.
The document outlines several measures. For example, we intend to introduce new national guidelines to ensure that parents know of the information from and involvement in schools that they should expect. We will provide further information through a website and we will continue to ensure that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education provides information in a way that is of use to parents.
Whatever happened to the Labour party's commitment to replace or supplement league tables of raw examination results with additional information about schools' performance that would include a measure of added educational value, so that parents, teachers and the public would have a more informed and fairer assessment of the relative merits of schools?
I hope that I made it clear in my statement that, if we are to measure how good schools are, we must do so across the range of national priorities. People should know how schools and young people perform in examinations, but that is not the only measure of success. Schools should set their own improvement plans and we should take account of disadvantage and social circumstances in some areas. However, what is important is that schools should work to improve year on year and should be measured against similar schools.
I need more time to examine the details, as I have only just seen the document, but will the minister assure me that the review of the five-to-14 curriculum and the movement of specialist teachers will allow some of the key targets of the physical activity task force to be met? Those initiatives could bring problems to rural areas, where moving teachers between schools is not as easy as it is in urban areas. Will consideration be given to how that can be done?
I am happy to assure Karen Gillon that the framework that has been set out today acknowledges that several pieces of work are under way. If people take the time to read through the document, they will see that. The opportunity will exist to continue those pieces of work and to incorporate appropriate recommendations.
I am clear that we need to be more flexible in how we use specialist resources in teaching. Physical education is a good example of a relevant subject. We can provide the opportunity for PE or sports specialists to work across the primary and secondary sectors innovatively. I hope that people will consider that positive progress.
I draw the minister's attention to the evidence from the University of Strathclyde's department of modern languages for the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's recent lifelong learning inquiry that the levels of literacy among some students who went to the university were so poor that the university had to run remedial courses. Will the minister work with her colleague the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning to deal with that problem and the general problems of transition from school to post-school situations?
Alex Neil makes a good point about the need to ensure that literacy and numeracy strategies are in place. That is important for the transition not only into the world of further and higher education, but into the world of work. All transitions are important, including the move from nursery education to the primary sector, from the primary sector to the secondary sector and from the secondary sector to higher and further education. I have co-operated with my colleague Iain Gray on several of those areas and will continue to do so. I hope that we will see a much better fit between what goes on in school and what goes on in colleges and universities.
I thank the minister for her statement. Unlike some members, I welcome the statement's positive tone. Will she outline how schools will assist children who would prefer to take the vocational education route?
Janis Hughes will be aware of the group that undertook the review of enterprise education, which my colleague Nicol Stephen chaired. That review group has reported and made several recommendations. We will consider how to develop them.
Young people, teachers and others who participated in the national debate on education made it clear that we need to increase the range of opportunities for young people to experience the world of work not only through a couple of days' work experience, but through a genuine crossover between colleges, workplaces and schools. I want to develop that as part of the review of the curriculum.
I hope that the minister shares my concerns about a recent HMIE report, which showed that, in one Scottish secondary school in 2001 alone, one in five of the pupils were excluded at one point in the academic year. Does not that sort of failure point to the need for much more fundamental change in the system than the proposals that the minister announced in her statement? For example, should not the management of the school be taken away from a local authority that is manifestly failing pupils, parents and teachers?
Murdo Fraser raises a question about the number of young people who are excluded from school. It is important to state that I do not believe that there is any place for violence or aggression in the classroom or school setting. Any discipline problems must be addressed quickly and effectively. However, we also have a duty and a responsibility to ensure that we educate all children and young people. That is why the discipline task group made recommendations about pupil support bases, which we continue to fund. I have to say that the Tory party did not welcome that funding, which it did not think appropriate.
Mr Monteith indicated disagreement.
Brian Monteith may shake his head, but his colleague said on the record that we were throwing money at the problem.
We have put in the money to ensure that there are additional support staff for pupil support bases. I have made it clear today that I expect local authorities to challenge schools that are not delivering. If those schools continue to be a problem, I will challenge the local authorities.
I was pleased to hear the minister's announcement about the first and second years of secondary school. Mathematics and English teachers in particular will be pleased about her announcement on smaller class sizes, which they have wanted for a long time.
The minister knows of my interest in Gaelic-medium education. As she did not mention the issue in her statement, will she say what plans she has for the future of Gaelic-medium education and how she sees it sitting in the strategy?
Obviously, it was not possible to mention everything in my statement, but I reassure Maureen Macmillan that she will find a reference to Gaelic in the document, where we make a commitment to
"Continue to support the training of Gaelic speaking student teachers."
We also make a commitment to continue to work on providing
"New national assessments in Gaelic",
including for Gaelic-medium education.
I want to return to a point that was made by Ian Jenkins. Will the Executive be making a commitment in the near future to outdoor education and education in the outdoors?
I am very aware of Robin Harper's interest in that area and in the wider area of environmental education. Those are exactly the kind of opportunities that we want to give young people. We will look at that as part of our review of the curriculum. As I said in the statement, it is important that we give young people choices. We can give young people greater choices for outdoor education as part of the general work that schools are able to undertake.
I am grateful to the minister for her comments about reducing the amount of assessments—that issue comes up time and again. Will she give the chamber more detail on how she intends to reduce the amount of assessments, which bog down teaching and school learning?
I suppose that I ought to declare an interest: I am the parent of a young person who is currently studying for highers. Although we have done a considerable amount of work to reduce the amount of assessment within the higher still exam system, I believe that we need to do further work. We will work closely with the teaching profession and the Scottish Qualifications Authority to ensure that we reduce the burden for young people and teachers.
The emphasis in the statement was on choice and opportunity. Surely the flexibility that the minister seeks will not become a reality unless the system is relieved of the burden of certain initiatives, guidelines and targets. I am not clear about how that is to be achieved. Indeed, if I am not mistaken, the document creates additional initiatives. Will the minister expand on how the system will be simplified and freed up to allow for greater choice?
I do not agree that the document creates additional initiatives. It brings together a whole range of work that is already under way to ensure that we have a consistent plan for the next three to five to 10 years. As people will see when they look at the document, we have laid out how we propose to take things forward. We have given a commitment to cut bureaucracy. I went to schools to see teachers teaching in the classroom—that is what they should be doing. We will continue to provide support staff, as they have made a difference, particularly in the early years of primary school. There is nothing in the document that is inconsistent with the notion of cutting bureaucracy.
Given the minister's recognition that smaller classes provide better support for students, does she have any proposals to reduce class sizes?
I made it clear in my statement that I believe that we can reduce class sizes in the areas in which we have found that young people need additional support. I also made it clear that a priority area on which I shall be making proposals is the transition between primary and secondary schools. We must ensure that that transition is made as smooth as possible for pupils and that it includes the process of teachers working across both primary and secondary sectors.
Given the changes to the comprehensive ethos elsewhere in the UK, does the minister believe that comprehensive education is the best way forward in Scotland? Will she give more details about the vocational training, as opposed to academic learning, that she mentioned?
Again, I made a commitment during my statement—it is also in the "Educating for Excellence" document—that I want to see excellent, comprehensive education that provides a wide range of opportunities to children and young people. Many schools and colleges already work to offer vocational choices for young people and I expect that to continue.
I make it clear that we are not talking about dividing up young people at an early stage by deciding who is fit to go into a particular area, such as vocational education. We are talking about providing choices for young people. Many young people who want to follow an academic career will also benefit from vocational opportunities during their school careers.
I apologise to the eight members whom I have not been able to call, but I must protect the heavy business ahead, which includes the extra ministerial statement.