Chamber and committees

It is good to hear you say that. We hear quite a lot about what teachers are looking for—I do not want to diminish teachers’ experiences or their importance in this regard—but we should also consider what children and young people are looking for.

Good morning again, cabinet secretary. With regard to the curriculum, I would like to talk about the breadth of choice in secondary education. The committee heard last year about the research from Dr Marina Shapira and Professor Mark Priestley. Dr Shapira told the committee:

“We found some absolutely appalling practices such as channelling young people into higher-performing subjects, discouraging them from taking up subjects in which they were not predicted to perform well and abandoning whole subjects that were deemed to be low performing but that might have been very important for providing a holistic, well-rounded education. For us, the culture of performativity was one of the main issues standing in the way of the successful implementation of curriculum for excellence.”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 8 November 2023; c 3-4.]

When I was listening to some of your previous interactions, perhaps particularly with Willie Rennie, it struck me that the first part of that quote could have been plucked from any time in education, because it is not necessarily specific to curriculum for excellence. There is perhaps a bit of a challenge in that. You will be aware of that research, and I am interested in hearing your reflections on it.

The report on the research spoke about a reduction in the number of national qualifications entries at S4 compared with the period prior to the introduction of curriculum for excellence. It also spoke about

“significant curricular fragmentation in many schools”,

with pupils having a large number of teachers.

To go back to what was said about prescription versus an open-ended approach, could it be the case that, without having prescription, there is a temptation to steer pupils into subjects that perform well for the schools?

When I was at school, people studied one of the sciences and a language for a number of years, but that does not happen now. Yesterday’s members’ business debate was about modern languages at the University of Aberdeen. If young people are being funnelled towards subjects in which they are likely to perform well—it might be hard to study modern languages in schools if there is no demand for such subjects—could the breadth and the less prescriptive approach actually narrow things for young people?

Thank you.

A recent report by the Trades Union Congress has shown, among other things, that the UK is the only G7 economy in which real household income per head has not recovered to pre-pandemic levels. It describes that as

“a damning indictment on the Conservatives’ economic record”,

and it says:

“Their failure to deliver decent growth and living standards over the last 13 years has left millions exposed to skyrocketing bills—and is pushing many ... into debt.”

We have low growth, high inequality and a Westminster-inflicted cost crisis. Does the cabinet secretary agree that Scotland could do so much better for our citizens with full fiscal autonomy as an independent nation once again?

To ask the Scottish Government what measures in its proposed budget will support economic growth in North Ayrshire. (S6O-02964)

It is fair to lay out challenges in a system as important as the education system, and it is fair to challenge Governments. It is also fair to point out that the picture could not be more different between Scotland and the rest of the UK when it comes to investing in education. Scotland has introduced and funded groundbreaking policy to support and protect our young people from Westminster’s ruinous financial policies of austerity and public sector funding cuts. [Interruption.] I hear Mr Whittle shouting “outcomes” from a sedentary position. An outcome of austerity is a child who is hungry and unable to concentrate in school or who is uncomfortable walking to school in the rain because they do not have a coat to wear. That is an outcome of austerity. [Interruption.]

The Opposition motion focuses on the EIS’s stand up for quality education campaign. It is about three key areas—workload, ASN and pupil behaviour—which are all very important topics.

I will focus my remarks on behaviour, and specifically on gender inequality and violence against women and girls in Scottish schools. Recently, the Education, Children and Young People Committee undertook a very short but valuable piece of work on the equally safe strategy and the experiences of young women and girls in education. I am grateful to all who participated, and I thank them. The first-hand testimony and generous sharing of their experiences and ideas was very helpful. It is regrettable that the committee does not have the capacity at present to prioritise further work in that area.

However, the briefing from Zero Tolerance Scotland is a useful prompt in reminding us that caring about tackling such issues is not just for white ribbon day and the 16 days of action but for all year round. I thank Zero Tolerance Scotland and will share some of the facts from its briefing with the chamber. I hope that colleagues will recognise that, in looking to address poor behaviour in schools, we need to be cognisant of gender inequality. Addressing gender inequality in education will tackle issues with violence, bullying, attendance and attainment.

Zero Tolerance Scotland has pointed out that

“Almost 70% of pupils in Scotland experienced sexual harassment in the 3 months prior to being asked ... 34% experienced unwanted sexual touching ... Six times as many women have experienced serious sexual assault compared to men ... 55% of survivors experienced their first sexual assault between ages 16 and 20 ... Around 1 in 5 girls and young women don’t feel safe in school ... Girls of colour are less likely than white girls to feel safe at school.”

Teachers also experienced that violence, with one in four female secondary school teachers reporting that they were sexually harassed or abused during the previous 12 months.

The report also found that

“Boys’ violence makes girls feel unsafe and affects their school attendance and learning”

and

“Fear of violence impacts girls’ ability to participate fully in education. Fear of sexual harassment prevents a quarter of girls from speaking out in class.”

Horrifically, the report shares that

“Fear of being raped, followed home and/or kidnapped affects girls’ sleep, concentration and ability to participate fully in learning.”

and that

“Girls living in deprived areas are more likely to say that fear of sexual harassment holds them back.”

I see that I am running out of time, so I cannot share much more of the girls’ and young women’s testimony. However, I support Zero Tolerance Scotland in its ask that the Scottish Government should recognise and prioritise violence against women and girls in all discussions about behaviour and violence in schools.

Will Dr Gulhane take an intervention on that point?

I will stick with the social care budget. Forgive me—you mentioned some of this in your opening remarks, but I think that it is worth getting clarity for the record. What is the total level of planned spending on social care for 2024-25? How does that position compare with what the Scottish Government inherited in 2006-07? How does that increase compare with the received Barnett consequentials?