Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 9, 2017

Official Report 877KB pdf

---

Literacy

The next item of business is a statement by John Swinney on improving literacy in Scottish education. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

14:53  

The results of the latest Scottish survey of literacy and numeracy were published earlier today. The publication contains data on literacy performance in primary 4, P7 and secondary 2 in 2016, and it includes comparisons with 2012 and 2014 results. It also includes results from questionnaires for pupils and teachers. Although the results show a generally stable position in performance between 2014 and 2016, the statistics show a drop in writing performance for S2 pupils, which is of particular concern.

The Scottish Government is committed to improving performance in education in Scotland. I therefore welcome the opportunity to make a statement to Parliament, to reflect on the results of the SSLN and to set out what I intend to do about the issues that they raise.

In order to understand the factors behind the results, I have looked at independent analysis of Scotland’s education system that has been provided by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s 2015 review of Scottish education and Education Scotland’s “Quality and improvement in Scottish education 2012-2016” report, which was published in March and summarises findings from inspections and other evaluation activities. I have also considered the information that is provided by the national improvement framework, which was developed in response to the latest SSLN literacy results.

Those sources highlight four key areas in which our education system needs to improve. First, we need to get better at tracking the progress of each individual pupil over the course of their school career, as we have not been as effective as we need to be in identifying where young people may need additional support.

Secondly, we need to be clearer about the standards that are expected in our classrooms, because teachers have not always been certain about what is required to meet each curriculum for excellence level in literacy and numeracy and across the curriculum areas.

Thirdly, too much well-meaning but overbearing guidance has been produced nationally and locally, and sometimes in schools themselves. That has created too much clutter in the curriculum, and it can divert teachers’ time from learning and teaching.

Fourthly, we need to ensure that literacy skills are fully embedded across the curriculum. Inspection evidence has shown that the potential impact of establishing literacy, numeracy and health and wellbeing as cross-cutting priorities for all teachers has not been fully realised.

When we published the SSLN literacy data in 2015, it became clear that we needed a broader and much deeper level of data to secure improvement for Scotland’s children. To address that, we developed the national improvement framework, and we now have data that reflects the progress of all children at key points in curriculum for excellence.

We now have more data than ever on children’s progress under curriculum for excellence, including the attainment levels in literacy and numeracy of every child in P1, P4, P7 and S3. Although the SSLN statistics are disappointing, data that we published in December 2016 that was based on teacher judgment demonstrated that 84 per cent of young people in Scotland achieve the appropriate curriculum for excellence level for writing by the end of S3.

The SSLN survey helps to identify emerging issues, but the national improvement framework provides us with the data that allows us to target improvement in specific parts of Scotland. National standardised assessments on literacy and numeracy will further support teacher judgment on where a pupil is doing well and where further support may be required.

In addition, we are already taking action in response to the specific areas for improvement that I have identified. In order to improve the tracking of each child’s progress, through the national improvement framework we now have a clear line of sight between national, local authority and school-level data, thereby ensuring that we can all focus on where improvement needs to happen.

In order to clarify the standards that are expected, we published benchmarks for literacy and numeracy in August 2016. Benchmarks for other curricular areas were published earlier this year. To declutter the curriculum, we have significantly streamlined the volume of advice and guidance, and 85 per cent of the content that had been on the Education Scotland online service for the curriculum and for assessment has now been removed. The national improvement hub will be the key source of material for teachers as we move forward.

In September 2016, inspectors evaluated the workload demands that were placed on teachers in each of the 32 local authorities, and they continue to monitor progress, especially in areas where too much bureaucracy was identified.

To improve literacy across the curriculum, the literacy benchmarks make clear the standards that are expected across the curriculum, which apply to all teachers. A focus on raising attainment in literacy has been included in the new school inspection model that was introduced in September 2016.

Through the Scottish attainment challenge, we are funding and supporting the development of a range of new strategies in literacy to improve children’s attainment and close the attainment gap. The most effective strategies from Scottish schools are being published in the interventions for equity framework on the national improvement hub. We have entered a new partnership with the Education Endowment Foundation, which will give Scottish teachers access to strategies that are proven to work and are based on global evidence.

Those actions are all part of a wider programme of comprehensive reforms that has been prompted by previous SSLN results and is based firmly on the independent findings of the 2015 OECD review of Scottish education. A number of significant developments in that area are worth highlighting. We are increasing investment and support in the early years through the significant expansion of early learning and childcare. That will help to address the gap in vocabulary at P1 between children from more deprived areas and those from less deprived circumstances. We are building the capacity of the teaching workforce by investing in the professional learning and recruitment of teachers and by introducing new programmes to train and develop headteachers.

In addition, we are developing targeted interventions for schools through the £750 million Scottish attainment challenge programme. The challenge will tackle the poverty-related attainment gap by targeting resources at those children, schools and communities that are most in need, focusing specifically on literacy along with numeracy and health and wellbeing. All schools now have access to attainment advisers and, from April this year, £120 million is being provided directly to headteachers for them to use for activities and interventions that will lead to improvements in literacy, numeracy and health and wellbeing in their schools.

The pupil equity fund demonstrates our clear commitment to putting schools and communities at the heart of the education system. Next month, we will publish the next steps in the review of governance. They will support the national improvement framework and ensure that the education system puts children, parents, teachers and schools at the centre.

The reforms will provide teachers and schools with the necessary tools to improve literacy through the literacy benchmarks and the standardised assessments as well as the resources to do so through the Scottish attainment challenge and the pupil equity fund. They will ensure a relentless focus on developing the skills that are essential to literacy development from a child’s birth right through to when they leave school.

In acknowledging the challenges that are presented by the SSLN results, I am determined that we will not lose sight of the many strengths of Scotland’s education system. The data from the SSLN tells us that pupils in Scottish schools are highly engaged with their learning and are motivated to do well. Consistently over the six-year life of the survey, more than 94 per cent of pupils said that they wanted to do well and felt that they usually did so in school. The majority of pupils also see the clear value of what they learn for life outside school and for future employability.

Teachers report the use of varied teaching and learning techniques—exactly as curriculum for excellence requires them to do—and generally high levels of confidence in delivering the literacy aspects of the curriculum. They also report high levels of confidence in the use of information and communications technology to enhance learning and, particularly in our primary schools, that it is used regularly to deliver learning and support to pupils.

At a time when many young people are sitting examinations, we should also acknowledge the progress that we have seen in results in the national qualifications. In 2016, the number of advanced higher passes reached a record high, while the number of higher passes was second only to the 2015 record. A record proportion of young people from Scotland’s most deprived communities are continuing their education, entering training or getting a job after they leave school—88.7 per cent of school leavers from those communities went into a positive initial destination in 2015-16, which is the highest-ever proportion and up from 83.9 per cent in 2011-12.

In fully accepting the case for reform that is confirmed by today’s statistics, we must not fall into the trap of ignoring the tangible strength in our education system, which is delivering well for a great many young people in Scotland.

The latest phase of reform is only now starting to come into force, with £120 million having been given to headteachers just last month to spend on improving attainment, with the outcome of the governance review expected next month and with the introduction of standardised assessments later this year. Those actions will not deliver an overnight solution; it will take time before we see their full effect. Nevertheless, it is clear that we must stay the course and continue to make the changes that are necessary to strengthen Scottish education. That requires that we keep an unwavering focus on improving Scotland’s education system for every child, and we are doing exactly that.

The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I will allow around 20 minutes for that. It would be helpful if members who wish to ask a question could press their request-to-speak buttons. I suspect that there will be quite a lot of questions, so short questions and answers would be much appreciated.

I am grateful for prior sight of the statement.

Many parents across Scotland will see some of the statistics as nothing short of shameful, especially those that reflect the persistence of the attainment gap, the decline in some basic literacy skills between primary 4 and S2, and the increase in the number of pupils in S2 who are not meeting the required standards in writing at all. Does the cabinet secretary agree with some of the teachers who responded to the Education and Skills Committee’s call for evidence by citing falling teacher numbers and additional classroom bureaucracy as the pressures that prevent them from getting on with the job that they are trained to do, including better teaching of literacy and numeracy?

Secondly, does the cabinet secretary agree with literacy expert Sue Ellis when she says that there is a lack of focus on ensuring that teachers have a depth of knowledge in maths and literacy and that teacher training is falling short in this area? Thirdly, does he now accept that a wide range of data is essential if we are to effectively measure curriculum for excellence and that it was a mistake to move Scotland from trends in international mathematics and science study—TIMSS—and progress in international reading literacy study—PIRLS—measurements, given their ability to provide additional and better-quality evidence?

My first point is that I have come to Parliament acknowledging that the statistics need to improve. That is an acknowledgment that those issues have to be addressed—the agenda for Government is about addressing exactly that.

Liz Smith raises the issue of the performance of pupils at S2. One of the quirks of the SSLN is that it assesses the performance of pupils at a level before they are supposed to reach that level. Young people are supposed to reach the third level at the end of S3. In my statement, I made the point that in the data that we published in December, 84 per cent of young people who reached the conclusion of S3 had acquired the level of skills in writing that they were required to achieve by that stage in their education. The SSLN essentially assesses young people’s performance at a level higher than that which they should have achieved by that particular time.

My second point relates to Liz Smith’s comments about the input of teachers into the Education and Skills Committee’s review. I remind Liz Smith that one of my first priorities as education secretary was to tackle bureaucracy within our schools. I sent the inspectors into local authorities to reduce bureaucracy and I sent out guidance to teachers to encourage them to concentrate on learning and teaching and—if my memory serves me right—not to undertake tasks that were irrelevant to the learning and teaching of young people, because I accept that we have to declutter the guidance and the classroom environment to enable teachers to concentrate on literacy and numeracy.

Thirdly, on Sue Ellis’s comments on teacher training, obviously it is essential that the quality of teacher training is of the highest possible standard and I maintain a regular dialogue with the teacher training colleges to ensure that that is the case. Of course, there is the opportunity for Education Scotland to inspect that provision to determine whether it is fulfilling all our expectations in that respect.

Lastly, on data, the Government has of course embarked on a process of significantly expanding the data that we collect on young people’s performance. The problem with the SSLN is that it does not enable us, when we see declining performance, to identify from the survey where that is happening. However, the data that we have requested to be put in place, which will be substantially reinforced by standardised assessments, will give us the ability to do that and to support young people to fulfil their potential as a result.

The Government, in embarking on its approach to education, has been very open to external critique of the approach that we have taken in Scotland. That is why we invited the OECD to assess the implementation of curriculum for excellence and why we have acted on the recommendations that the OECD asked us to act on as a consequence of its review.

I thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of his statement. The cabinet secretary says that today’s statistics confirm the case for reform. What they confirm is the case against his Government’s 10-year stewardship of education. The cabinet secretary says that he cannot turn things around overnight. His Government has had 10 years—a generation of children has passed through school while his Government was getting up to speed. How many years does he need? In those 10 years, we have lost more than 4,000 teachers from our schools; we have lost more than 1,000 support staff; spend per pupil has fallen; and class sizes have grown to be some of the biggest in the developed world.

The cabinet secretary promises clear lines of sight, new benchmarks and a new framework on the improvement hub. When will he promise us more teachers with more support and more resources to let them do the job that they love and want to do? Is that not the fundamental reform that we need now?

When the SSLN information first pointed to a decline in performance in Scottish education, the Government acted immediately on the issues that it raised. When a decline in performance was identified in the survey in 2014, the Government acted immediately to take forward the national improvement framework, which is regarded across the board in the education system as the set of measures that are required to be undertaken to support and concentrate on the agenda of improvement in every aspect of our education system. We should take great encouragement from the way in which the system has responded to that call for action.

Mr Gray raises the issue of more teachers and more resources. Of course, there is a rising number of teachers in our education system—there are more teachers this year than there were last year. On resources, the Government has put £120 million directly into the hands of schools so that they can determine how they close the attainment gap in their circumstances. Of course, in relation to the wider financial settlement for local authorities, the Accounts Commission, in its most recent analysis of the subject, showed that Scotland’s local authorities have been well treated by the Government in the context of the reduction in resources that we have available to us.

Finally, if there is a resources crisis such as Mr Gray highlights, why did a number of Labour local authorities not take the opportunity to supplement the resources that could have been available to them for this financial year by increasing the council tax? Until Mr Gray gives us a decent answer to that question, we will not take seriously his protestations on that point.

I remind members that I am the parliamentary liaison officer to the cabinet secretary.

I agree with the cabinet secretary that today’s results underline the fact that the status quo can no longer be an option. However, we have heard a lot of noise from some quarters opposing the Scottish Government’s plans to reform our education system or suggesting that they should be slowed down or stopped entirely. Does the cabinet secretary agree that there is now more reason for stakeholders and members of the Scottish Parliament to come together to support reform in order to achieve the best possible education system for our young people?

The Government is concluding its review of governance, and I will report to Parliament on that, as I promised to do. The entire education system has to focus on the arguments and the case for improvement. Improvement requires us to reform the way in which we deliver education. I have gone through the arguments with Parliament before. We are in a position today in which I am not at all confident of saying that every local authority in Scotland can provide the necessary enhancement to the quality of education that schools require. It is no longer possible to say that, and if I cannot give that assurance to Parliament, I have to do something about it.

Mr Johnson frequently asks me to cite the evidence. I get the evidence from inspections and from the assessment of the capability of and quality of added value by local authorities. Those are the issues that we have to confront in the governance review. The Government will do that openly and transparently and in consultation with Parliament, and I invite Parliament to discuss that with us.

It is disappointing that the cabinet secretary refuses to face head on the issues in our education system. Rather than tackle the core of the problem, such as why the curriculum guidance is cluttered and why standards are not clear, we see time and time again mere sticking-plaster solutions rather than the real or radical reform that is needed. Does the cabinet secretary agree that we need a root-and-branch review of the curriculum so that teachers can focus on fundamental issues such as literacy and numeracy?

I am not sure how much attention Mr Thomson has been paying in the past few months, but if he had read the letter of guidance from the chief inspector of education that was issued to every schoolteacher in August last year, he would have seen the chief inspector say to every teacher in the country that, out of the eight curricular areas, all teachers, no matter their discipline, have to be focused on ensuring that they make their contribution to the delivery of the primary elements of the curricular areas of literacy, numeracy and health and wellbeing.

When Mr Thomson comes here and says that I have not confronted the issues, I do not know what he is talking about, because I have done that. He talks about curriculum guidance. The curriculum guidance has been sharpened in the fashion that I have said. He talks about standards. The benchmarks have been issued. The literacy and numeracy benchmarks were issued to the members of the teaching profession in August last year—to some welcome endorsement by the teaching profession, I have to say—and the other benchmarks were issued in March.

I invite Mr Thomson, when he is going to come here and scrutinise the Government, to at least catch up with the work that we have undertaken to ensure that we strengthen the delivery of Scottish education and that we respond to the challenges that are faced the length and breadth of the country.

I welcome what the cabinet secretary has said on the wider programme of reforms. Will he expand on what impact he expects investment and support in the early years to have on improving vocabulary when children move on to primary school?

That is a critical part of the work that we take forward, because all the evidence says to us that the earlier we intervene to overcome the challenges that young people face, the greater the impact of the interventions and the more progress that is made on enhancing the capacity and capability of individual children.

Within the early learning setting, there are partnerships with primary schools and there is work with speech and language therapists. I saw last week, at Letham primary school in the city of Perth, a fabulous example of speech and language therapists working very closely with the youngest pupils to overcome their speech challenges. I saw a similar model this morning at Craigroyston primary school in Edinburgh.

I am very focused on ensuring that the work that the Minister for Childcare and Early Years does with me on designing the expansion of early learning and childcare takes that forward in a fashion that uses every opportunity to overcome challenges for children at the earliest stages, and ensures that they can start their formal education with the strongest possible foundations for overcoming those difficulties.

The cabinet secretary quoted the figure of 88.7 per cent of school leavers from the most deprived communities entering positive destinations. Can he confirm that that figure includes people going on to jobs on zero-hours contracts?

Mr Johnson knows full well that the approved national statistics assessment of positive destinations includes that category; it is a measure of young people moving into employment. Such employment may not be of the ideal quality for our society, which is a general and widespread challenge that we must face, and one that this Government is addressing as part of its fair work agenda to strengthen the commitment to the living wage, to ensure that we move more and more employers towards stronger employment practices and foundations, and to ensure that our education system generates the necessary skills for young people to prosper. That is a strong and robust approach to take.

The final point that I make to Mr Johnson is that this Government has in no way changed the definition of positive destinations. That definition has been around for a long time.

There appears to be a stubborn and persistent gender gap in literacy. What action is the Scottish Government taking to address it?

The Government is focused on ensuring—this is one of the benefits of the flexibility that is offered through pupil equity funding—that in the classroom setting and the individual school setting, members of the teaching profession are able to make judgments about what support every child requires to ensure that they can fulfil their potential. The more flexibility that teachers have to draw on specialist resources such as speech and language therapists, and to create a greater appreciation of and participation in literacy, the better. That has to be targeted at each individual child who is not performing at the level that we expect. The issue of tackling the gender split in the statistics is taken forward in that fashion—by addressing the needs of every individual pupil so that they can fulfil their potential.

As has been mentioned already, the core issue here is that there are simply far fewer staff in our schools than there were a decade ago. It will be cold comfort to teachers to hear from the cabinet secretary that there are slightly more of them than there were a year ago, when there are 4,000 fewer than there were a decade ago. No governance review will change that core issue. The people who deliver education in Scotland—teachers and support staff—did not ask for that review. Rather, they want their cut colleagues back. I mention specifically the loss of a third of school librarians. What impact does the cabinet secretary think that the loss of 100 librarians has had on the reading and writing abilities of pupils?

Mr Greer may know that at my appearance at the Public Petitions Committee just a week or so ago I made very clear my view that school librarians play a very significant part in the life of a school and in the literacy capability of young people. I not only encourage local authorities to maintain school library services, but intend to take forward the delivery of a national strategy on school libraries.

Obviously, such decisions are taken operationally by local authorities around the country. We wrestle with the question continually: MSPs ask me about concerns about their locality to do with issues and decisions over which I have absolutely no control. For example, I do not control Argyll and Bute Council’s decision that it can do without school libraries. I go to schools elsewhere in the country that have vibrant library services that are well and truly supported because the local authority values them. That is a choice that individual local authorities have made. If Mr Greer is asking for my opinion about the decision by Argyll and Bute Council, I can say that I think that it is a shockingly poor decision to remove library services from schools. However, I cannot do anything about that unless I direct the authority to do something else, which would take us into completely different territory.

I will do my level best to try to ensure that we raise appreciation and understanding of the value of library services in our schools through the national library strategy that I will take forward. I will work with local authorities to try to gain their participation in that approach.

I thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of his statement.

The results on literacy and numeracy confirm that pupils and teachers are paying a heavy price after 10 years of this Scottish National Party Government. Teachers have condemned inconsistencies and the barrage of changes that have issued forth from the previous four education secretaries. The fact that more than 1,000 pages of evidence is to be considered by the Education and Skills Committee tomorrow illustrates that perfectly. What confidence can teachers, pupils and parents have that this education secretary has got it right this time?

I think that that should be obvious to Mr McArthur.

The point that I make seriously to him is this: it is not the case that the guidance that has been formulated for the education system for implementation of curriculum for excellence has, at every stage, not been designed in the relevant cabinet secretary’s office in consultation with nobody. Rather, it has all been designed in consultation with professional associations, local authorities and our education bodies. [Interruption.] I hear Liz Smith muttering, but professional associations represent teachers. The guidance has been arrived at by consensus and has been applied.

I accept—this has been a core part of my approach as education secretary—that there is too much of that guidance. There is too much for teachers to work through and there is too much that needs to be woven together to create a sufficiently clear picture. I have therefore taken action to strip back that guidance, which is why I answered Mr Thomson as I did on the guidance that has been issued by the chief inspector of education on the primacy of health and wellbeing, and of literacy and numeracy. We have also set clear benchmarks on the levels that have to be achieved by young people at different stages. We have done that precisely in order to address the issues that Mr McArthur fairly raises with me today.

The survey predates all that because it was undertaken in the spring of 2016, and none of the measures that I have taken have had an effect on the survey detail that we have before us today. We will continue on the relentless agenda, which I have set out to Parliament, to simplify the education agenda so that we can liberate teachers to concentrate on what we need them to concentrate on—learning and teaching.

We have used up our time, but I can get the last four questions in if we have quick questions and answers, please.

Could the cabinet secretary outline examples of best practice, where local authorities and teachers are using attainment funding to improve literacy and numeracy in our schools?

I suspect that I will not be able to give a brief answer to that, but I saw one example this morning in Craigroyston primary school. Pupil equity funding is being used there to help young people who have challenges with their speech and their communication by having them directly assisted in their classrooms by speech and language therapists. That gets the assistance right to children immediately and in a sustained way, with very positive results.

The Scottish Government and First Minister have insisted that education is their main priority. However, the figures that were released today show that—

You must come to a question, please, Mr Stewart.

The percentage of pupils in secondary 2 who are not meeting the required level in writing has more than doubled in the past four years, from 7 per cent in 2012 to 16 per cent—

Mr Stewart, please.

Can I ask the cabinet secretary—

Yes, you can.

The cabinet secretary reflects that that is partially due to a lack of understanding of what standards are expected. Why is there a lack of understanding?

Curriculum for excellence has required teachers to consider a variety of different elements of the material that is to be covered by young people, and to assess the performance of young people against that information. That has been too broad a task for teachers to undertake with confidence. The benchmarks that have now been put in place—for literacy and numeracy back in August and for the other curricular areas in March this year—are designed to give absolute clarity. I judge that to be appropriate because my conversations with many teachers over the course of the past 12 months have convinced me that that element had to be sharpened in order to give teachers the clarity that they require.

Just last week during education portfolio questions, I raised the issue of literacy rates as, I am sure, the cabinet secretary will recall. Ross Greer has just mentioned cuts to professional library staff again today.

The cabinet secretary has said that in some areas, there are no libraries. They are closing in areas including Argyll and Bute—

Miss Lennon, would you please ask a question?

Does the cabinet secretary for one minute believe that local government enjoys closing libraries or letting those staff go? The Government maintains that the settlement is fair, but does the cabinet secretary recognise that the cuts to local government are resulting in those closures and loss of staff?

There are choices to be made in all this. Some local authorities attach the greatest significance to school libraries, while others shut them all. If one local authority judges a school library to be an asset, that begs the question what the rationale and justification are for other local authorities taking a different decision.

It is about ensuring that local authorities—[Interruption.]

Could you please stop the conversation across the chamber? I am sorry, Mr Swinney. Carry on.

Local authorities are required, in all circumstances, to look at the wider impacts of decisions that they make.

I come back to the point that I made in response, I believe, to Mr Gray, about the Accounts Commission’s assessment of the Government’s financial approach and support to local authorities, which has been consistent with the degree of reductions in funding that the Government has suffered at the hands of the UK Government. However, we have also put resources in to local authorities; we have put the pupil equity funding in to local authorities.

Could you come to a close, please, Mr Swinney?

We agreed with the Green Party a budget that allowed £160 million of extra funding to go to our local authorities, and that has been of benefit in education settlements.

We will have a quick question from John Mason—and a quick answer. This will be the last question.

Youngsters like information technology. Is that damaging literacy?

There is no proven evidence on that point, but a number of international educationists are now asking questions about the potentially significant impact on young people’s writing capability of the volume of digital activity in which they are involved, and of the fact that that digital activity tends to be shorter than other communication. I have not seen substantive evidence, but a number of educationists, including one member of our international council of education advisers—Pasi Sahlberg from Finland—are actively exploring that question.