Teacher Employment
The next item of business is a statement by Fiona Hyslop on the teacher employment working group report. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions during it.
On 5 June, I announced that I had set up a teacher employment working group, chaired by Joe Di Paola of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, to assess whether the current teacher workforce planning process, which we inherited from the previous Administration, was fit for purpose.
The working group was asked to review the teacher workforce planning process, taking into account relevant policy developments; to examine whether improvements could be made to maximise the compatibility of student numbers and employment opportunities for teachers; to consider the impact of the teacher induction scheme; and to make recommendations for improvements in the process. It included all those with an interest in the agenda: the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, the Educational Institute of Scotland, the Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association, the Association of headteachers and Deputes in Scotland, School Leaders Scotland, the teacher education universities, the General Teaching Council for Scotland, the Scottish Government and COSLA as the representative of local authorities, who are the responsible employers.
I am pleased to say that the group has submitted its report. Copies of it have been placed in the Scottish Parliament information centre and are available in the chamber for members. I have also arranged for the report to be published on the Scottish Government website. I am grateful for the efforts of all involved in drawing together this important piece of work. The fact that the report's recommendations have been agreed unanimously by such a wide range of interests is instructive and provides assurance about the way forward.
I will make it clear how seriously the Government takes this issue. At this time of year, any system would result in a proportion of teachers who had completed their probationary year not yet being able to find permanent employment. If that were not the case, come the winter—when more teachers retire and others get sick—we would have children being sent home because of a lack of teachers. That is not a new problem: the proportion of post-probationary teachers unable to find permanent employment has been increasing year on year since 2005. When the GTCS survey is published later this year, we will know whether the trend that started under the previous Administration has continued.
It is important that we understand the difficulties that are inherent in teacher workforce planning. The number of teachers who completed their probationary year this summer and who sought jobs as fully qualified teachers in the autumn is the product of decisions on teacher workforce planning taken by ministers of the previous Administration in December 2005. That applies only to the one-year postgraduate course. For teachers who undertook the four-year BEd course, workforce planning decisions were taken in December 2002. It is important that we do not underestimate the complexities involved.
Soon after taking office last year, we demonstrated our intent on this agenda by investing an additional £9 million to provide 300 extra teaching jobs—300 more jobs than would have been available had Scotland not elected a Scottish National Party Government in May 2007. In the local government settlement for 2008 to 2011, £34.9 billion was allocated to Scotland's councils—a 13.1 per cent increase across the period. Regardless of efficiency savings in other areas, we provided a package that ensured that local government could maintain teacher numbers at August 2007 levels.
In Fife, an additional £41 million is being spent over the next three years, creating 27 additional teaching posts to implement the reduction of class sizes. In South Lanarkshire, the council has taken on additional teachers in 11 primary schools and has already set a maximum class size of 18 for primary 1 classes in schools with the highest levels of deprivation. North Lanarkshire Council is reducing class sizes in its primary 1 intake from 25 to 23. Progress is being made. West Lothian Council and Orkney Islands Council are both reducing class sizes year on year.
The teacher employment working group report concludes that, fundamentally, the teacher workforce planning system in Scotland remains broadly fit for purpose. I welcome that. However, I want to ensure that no stone is left unturned in improving the system. The report makes 12 recommendations on how it might be improved, and I am pleased to accept them all. I will highlight a few recommendations on which I want to be even more ambitious.
When I took office, I was surprised to learn that the system that I inherited did not fully factor council plans into national workforce planning. It is essential that that happens. Today, I am asking that COSLA and local authorities work more closely with the Government's annual teacher workforce planning exercise to ensure that supply and demand do not get out of sync.
National workforce planning decisions are taken at the end of the year and local staffing needs are established by authorities in spring. There is also the difficult time lag that I explained earlier. We need to be creative in looking for ways to bridge that gap. We must use the local data more effectively to inform national decisions on teacher training provision.
I am pleased that the report recommends a review of the winding-down arrangements for teachers, which were originally proposed and agreed as part of the McCrone agreement. I want to find out how we can help those teachers who would like to scale down their working week as they approach the end of their careers, thereby making space for newly qualified teachers.
The group recommends that, whenever possible, local authorities should use new post-probation teachers to fill supply vacancies. I am happy to endorse that approach, because it will help probationers to secure employment, improve their teaching skills and improve outcomes for our children.
The group recognised the changing financial environment in which we find ourselves. More than 6,000 teachers are expected to leave the profession this year alone, but some authorities that I visited over the summer told me that they had seen early signs that some teachers were delaying retirement because of financial uncertainty.
We should bear it in mind that no profession guarantees graduates a permanent job immediately. Teachers in Scotland are in a privileged position in that after they leave university they are guaranteed one year of employment, which propels them to full teacher qualification. That system is without parallel in other professions and is envied around the world. We invest in it because we acknowledge the vital contribution that teachers make to our country's future. However, I agree with the report's recommendation that probationers' expectations must be better handled. We must be clear that the guarantee is for one year's employment, after which teachers are in the same position as members of every other profession.
The preference waiver scheme is an important incentive to encourage teachers to live and teach in parts of Scotland that they would otherwise be less inclined to live and work in. Despite the existence of the scheme, it can still be difficult to fill vacancies in certain secondary subjects in certain parts of the country, including Dumfries and Galloway, Aberdeenshire, Highland, Argyll and Bute and the island authorities, so I intend to increase the preference waiver payment for secondary teachers from £6,000 to £8,000 to help meet that difficulty. In addition, I welcome the recommendation to examine the housing, employment, family and relocation issues that are involved in attracting teachers to rural areas.
Let me make one final observation. The report notes with concern the potential impact of public debate about teacher unemployment. Over 93 per cent of newly qualified teachers who entered the profession last school year were in employment by the time that the follow-up GTCS survey was carried out in April. We should not lose sight of that fact. No one wants to create an environment in which the bright and committed people whom we need to enter teaching are put off doing so because of unfounded fears about a wholesale lack of opportunities. Not only would that present a completely false picture of the opportunities that exist in teaching, but it would have a significant impact on the quality of teachers who will be available to work with our young people in the future. That means that all politicians must be responsible in what they say on the issue.
I believe that the report's package of recommendations will ensure that the teacher workforce planning system is improved to deliver even closer alignment between national and local decisions, so I accept all its recommendations. In particular, I accept that there needs to be greater reconciliation between local and national workforce decision making; that the preference waiver payment scheme to attract teachers to areas that have vacancies should be raised to £8,000 for secondary-sector probationers; that there should be a review of the winding-down arrangements for teachers who are approaching retirement; that authorities and teacher education universities should explore whether more teachers can be educated by distance learning or in remote campuses; and that, whenever possible, post-probation teachers should fill supply vacancies and local authorities should consider making more use of permanent supply pools.
The Government will work with employers and unions to improve teacher workforce planning in Scotland. We owe it to Scotland's pupils to do so. I hope that I will have the support of all parties in the Parliament in that endeavour.
The cabinet secretary will take questions on the issues that have been raised in her statement. We have around 20 minutes for such questions.
I thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of the statement, but the Labour Party thinks that it is a slap in the face for the hundreds of post-probationers in Scotland who are still looking for work. The statement offers virtually no new hope for those unemployed teachers. The cabinet secretary tried to blame the situation on the previous Government. That will not wash. The key difference is that when the Labour-led coalition was in office, we did something about the situation. We ring fenced extra funding, creating an additional 450 jobs. The cabinet secretary claims that she created 300 jobs last year, but we know the truth. Teacher numbers are falling throughout Scotland.
Will the cabinet secretary go back to the First Minister and the Cabinet and, for the first time ever, argue the case for additional funding for education? Will she ring fence that additional funding to ensure that jobs are created for those unemployed teachers? In the longer term, will she consider looking at national staffing standards to ensure that we can have clarity on workforce planning?
I had been going to thank the member for the sensible and mature way in which she is treating the subject. We are talking about people's lives and livelihoods. We have to identify the workforce planning for this country. Some decisions on requirements have to be taken years in advance. It would have been helpful if the member had welcomed the report and the fact that we can bring together directors of education, the unions and the universities to ensure that we have a system that is fit for purpose.
There are important aspects to remember, such as the additional funding for universities. The arrangements within the local government settlement to maintain teacher numbers at 53,000 are also important. We have heard that recruitment has improved, with 38 new teachers being recruited in Fife and another 59 in Aberdeen. Teachers are being employed. However, if we are serious about achieving a system that is more streamlined, we should consider closely the conclusions of those who have studied the workforce planning exercise.
The member raised staffing issues that I know are being raised by some of the unions. The unified response to all the recommendations is something that we can take forward. The fact that the Government took the time to take stock of the inherited workforce planning system should be welcomed. There is much to do. I give Rhona Brankin a guarantee that the Government is absolutely committed to ensuring that our youngsters have the time and attention that they need from teachers. That is why I am delighted that, throughout Scotland, local authorities are recruiting teachers precisely to reduce class sizes.
I, too, thank the cabinet secretary for prior sight of the statement. Does she accept, though, that the fundamental problem here is the so-called historic concordat between central and local Government? The cabinet secretary came into office on flagship policies such as reducing class sizes, increasing nursery places and introducing free school meals—all centrally directed targets—but at the same time she told the local authorities that they would have far more freedom to set their own priorities. Local authorities are now thinking that, because they do not have the right resources, they cannot deliver on those targets.
I agree with the cabinet secretary that we are talking about people's jobs and livelihoods, but the fundamental flaw is that we cannot have central Government targets and, at the same time, expect local authorities to set their own targets. Is it time to admit that the historic concordat will not work and that we should allow headteachers to have far more control over the employment of their workforce?
Although two organisations representing headteachers were represented on the working group, the member's proposal that headteachers should have responsibility for aspects of teacher employment was not one of the group's recommendations.
The problems in the system of workforce planning have not manifested themselves just this year. The GTCS survey shows that the downward trend for permanent positions started in 2005. The problem is related to the geography of the issue. It is about changing populations between east and west, and it is vital that the changes that we are introducing allow a far more responsive provision, reflecting the difficulties in different local authorities. Rural authorities are finding it difficult to fill vacancies, but teachers in other parts of the country cannot find jobs. We have to address such challenges.
People do not take family relocation lightly, but rural authorities across the country have told me that, if we want to maintain the quality of teaching in rural areas, we will have to have better dispersal. The issue is serious, and the recommendations in the report will take us some way forward. Much remains to be done, and I am committed to ensuring that this Government works with local authorities on the issue.
I welcome the report. We have not had much time to scrutinise it, but we will scrutinise it fully.
I agree that local and national decision making on workforces will have to be better reconciled. The EIS and others highlighted that point at a recent meeting of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee. The EIS also highlighted the impact of short-term council decisions, which are often financially driven. Elizabeth Smith touched on the policy on class sizes, on which councils require clarity. The policy has an impact on the number of teachers required. The Government would give councils greater clarity if the cabinet secretary were to introduce legislation or contractual measures to put the policy on class sizes on a firmer basis.
I welcome the recommendations on the use of permanent supply pools. The use of such pools is patchy across the country: some councils use supply pools, but others do not; and some councils are changing their policies because of financial stringencies.
What will the cabinet secretary do to tackle the growing problem caused by the lack of permanent contracts for primary school teachers? There is clearly a disparity between the primary and secondary sectors.
In the secondary sector, the opportunities for permanent positions are far greater than they are in the primary sector. I agree with the member that that is a challenge, and we will tackle it.
The member raises important issues about the supply pool. We want there to be a greater number of permanent positions for teachers, but we must acknowledge that there will always be a need for supply teachers.
We expect 6,000 teachers to retire each year for the next three years. We have provided an opportunity for local authorities to ensure that the teacher cohort that is coming through can gain some experience of employment as supply teachers at least, until they are given a permanent position. A large number of new teachers will do that.
I was pleased to see that more than 300 jobs were advertised in The Times Educational Supplement, which is not the only source of advertisements for teaching posts. So, even at this point in the academic year, an additional 300 posts have been advertised. Positions can arise during the year.
The trend that we want to change is the trend in permanent positions, and that can be done only through greater co-ordination. As I have said, I was somewhat surprised at the lack of co-ordination in the system that I inherited. I intend to change that. A more responsive approach will help with better workforce planning.
We come now to open questions, which should follow the guidance that I gave earlier, as should the answers.
I will ask about the level of retirals this year—and in doing so I will not blame the Government or the historic concordat for the ageing process or for the fact that people are allowed to retire.
What will be the level of retirals this year, and what challenges—and opportunities—will that present to the teaching profession?
When the cohort of teachers is 53,000, to have 18,000 retiring over the next three years is a great challenge. The current arrangements for notice of retirement vary from area to area. Three months is required for some of the paperwork, but in some areas only four to eight weeks' notice of retirement has to be given. Because of the flexibility in retirement dates that are offered to teachers in some areas, local authorities cannot plan in the way that other organisations might be able to. The report refers to notice of retirement, and we will be considering the issue so that we can have more effective planning. That will allow permanent positions to be filled sooner than they might otherwise be filled.
I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of her statement—a statement that, disappointingly, offers no help for councils and, bizarrely, offers no help for probationers either, other than the advice not to expect a job. Is the minister aware that the longer it takes for probationers to secure a post, the more likely it is that they will be lost to the teaching profession altogether? What measures is she putting in place to ensure that probationers are kept in touch with the classroom and have access to continuing professional development?
The proposal for permanent supply pools, which I mentioned in my reply to Margaret Smith, will help. Over the period of the post-probation year, when post-probationers will be seeking permanent employment, they will have access to a permanent supply pool. The report also recommends that local authorities should recruit post-probationers for supply positions, as opposed to newly retired teachers, and that will make a difference as well.
We have put £9 million of additional funding into the system and have created 300 new jobs, which has made a difference and has dealt with the problem that we faced when we came into Government. We found that the planning process that we inherited had had problems with it from day one. Despite the number of years for which the previous Administration was in power, it did not conduct an inquiry such as the one that has now reported. The previous Administration introduced a system that had flaws in it, which is why we established the teacher employment working group. Labour members should therefore not complain that there is a problem with the system that they owned and should not criticise those of us who are seeking a constructive solution.
The fact that 18,000 teachers are due to retire over the next three years gives us an opportunity, and we all have a responsibility to ensure that the quality of teachers is maintained. Frankly, some of the approaches that are being taken in the debate are not helping the teaching profession. The curriculum for excellence is an exciting opportunity and we need the brightest and best teachers to be involved. We are working constructively to support them in that, and I would welcome the support of Labour members. I hope that, in future, they will be able to provide that support.
The cabinet secretary recognises that a healthy distribution of supply teachers is essential to ensure that our schools can cope with almost any staffing issue, including illness, training needs, maternity leave and retirement. What is being done to ensure that there is a sufficient number of supply teachers in primary schools and across all subject areas in secondary schools throughout Scotland?
The responsibility for supply teachers clearly lies with councils, and having some permanence in the supply pools will assist in some of that planning. Nevertheless, it is important that we reflect the view that has been expressed to us by our constituents and by the professionals, that the permanent positions are what we must address in tackling workforce planning. That is not an easy task, as our system is sophisticated. I asked the teacher employment working group to consider whether the system was fit for purpose, and it has said that it is. That is a major reassurance, but it does not mean that the system is operating on a supply-and-demand basis that guarantees the achievement of some of the projections that it is vital that we achieve.
Kenny Gibson raises the important point that, although we are looking for permanent employment for teachers, we will always need supply cover for a range of eventualities. With a cohort of 53,000 and the different life opportunities—including pregnancy—that arise during the year, especially with a feminised workforce and particularly in the primary school sector, we must ensure that we plan and make provision not just for permanent positions, but for supply teaching.
I welcome the report's honesty in confirming the significant waste of talent that occurs and in recognising that teacher unemployment will continue for some considerable time. In my constituency, 120 newly qualified teachers recently applied for just seven jobs—that is the situation in one of the smallest authorities in Scotland. Such shocking figures—
Can you get to the question, please?
Such shocking figures would dissuade anybody from having an unrealistic expectation of employment, as outlined in recommendation 11. Given that the supply lists, not permanent employment, will be the future for many, will the cabinet secretary go further than the working group's recommendation that newly qualified teachers rather than retired teachers should be used if possible, and issue clear guidance that retired teachers be used only in very exceptional circumstances? Moreover, will she use the opportunity provided by the report to introduce the right of newly qualified teachers on supply lists to gain access to the teacher training that they require to maintain and enhance their skills?
The member raises two points. If he listened to my statement, he will realise that his point about ensuring that newly qualified post-probationary teachers have access to the supply lists is covered in detail in the report and, indeed, forms one of its recommendations. However, any attempt to establish such access as a right in guidance or in any other form will, as he will be aware, raise certain age discrimination issues.
In fact, that is why the member's second point is vital. We must ensure that the teachers who will come into the profession to replace the 18,000 who will leave over the next three years have professional experience of regular and continued employment, because that is what we need in order to give our children the education that they deserve. However, this is a very delicate area. As the member will appreciate, given his own background, we have to be aware of certain undercurrents in employment legislation. That said, as I made clear in my statement, we must ensure that the rationale behind and reasons for any move to give newly qualified post-probationers access to the supply pool firmly reflect the need for continuing professional development and have benefits and opportunities for the children in our schools.
I must declare an interest in that I am married to a newly qualified teacher who, unlike many of her contemporaries, has been fortunate enough to find employment, even if only on a temporary basis.
How might the expectations that entrants to teacher training colleges have of their future employment prospects be handled better, in order to avoid the current distressing situation in which many talented people—encouraged by promises made to them—made sacrifices and gave up careers elsewhere to enter teaching and now find themselves out of work and with substantial debts?
We should reflect on the finding in the GTCS survey that 93 per cent of post-probationers who entered the profession last year have found employment as teachers. However, that does not mean that we underestimate the difficulties that people face in getting into those positions and the problems that they will face over the year as they wait for the 6,000 teachers to leave the profession.
Although expectations about job prospects need to be handled, there is a mismatch that needs to be dealt with. We know, for example, that there is a focus on the central belt and are aware of particular problems in Edinburgh and certain other areas. Although the education authority in Glasgow, for example, has an increased education budget, it is not necessarily recruiting teachers to replace those who are retiring. That presents problems to those teachers who trained at Jordanhill, had probationary experience in Glasgow and might be seeking—and might expect to find—employment in that city.
Similar problems have arisen in East Renfrewshire. Although, for understandable reasons, a large number of students will want to train or spend their probationary year in the area, they will not necessarily have the opportunity of finding employment there. There is a geographical aspect to this issue. It is not just a simple question of the areas where post-probationers are seeking jobs; the fact is that most training opportunities are to be found in the central belt. As a result, we increased teacher training provision in Aberdeen to deal with problems in Aberdeenshire and at the Crichton campus to deal with teacher recruitment problems in Dumfries and Galloway.
Teachers will be more likely to seek employment in the places where they have trained and, in that respect, we are aware of the consequences of people training at Moray House and Jordanhill. Although both institutions provide excellent training that can be supported, we simply need to find better ways of managing people's expectations that they will be able to find employment in those locations. Perhaps information about local authorities that have job opportunities should be made available to students as they undertake their teacher training to ensure that they understand that, although they might have probationary experience in a particular local authority, that does not guarantee them a permanent position in that authority after their probationary year is up.
Notwithstanding the cabinet secretary's comments on retired teachers and issues of discrimination, I understand that mechanisms are already in place in relation to the re-employment of recently retired teachers, the timescale for which they are allowed to be employed and the amount of income that they are allowed to earn. Given that the report's remit did not include any financial consideration, will the cabinet secretary ensure that the current rules are monitored and enforced accurately and timeously by those who are responsible for that?
If the minister could respond quickly, that would help.
Local authorities have the resources in the funding settlement for provision for the cohort of 53,000 teachers. Hugh O'Donnell makes an important point. Local authorities have the ability to improve and change things now. The teacher workforce planning group included representatives of directors of education and unions. Some of the recommendations can be taken up swiftly, as opposed to managing better what is already in place.
I apologise to those members whom I could not call. We must move on to the next item of business.