Hansard

The Parliament has just debated energy policy, on which there were robust differences of opinion. However, there was agreement on all sides of the chamber about the crucial importance of the sector in Scotland because of the rich natural resources with which this nation is blessed, the resulting investment potential and the opportunity for future employment. That sector is not alone in relying heavily on scientific and technological skills, and we know that, by 2030, 7 million jobs in the United Kingdom will be wholly dependent on science-based skills. Indeed, in the eyes of many economic commentators, Scotland’s importance in the sector could grow more strongly than that of the rest of the UK.

In the Scottish Government’s 2012 science and engineering education advisory group report, energy and life sciences were rightly identified as the two key sectors when it came to skills training. It is, therefore, plainly obvious that we must do everything that we can to ensure that we are able to provide a highly trained workforce that has those scientific skills. At present, however, our ability to achieve that is being hampered.

That is not to say there are no encouraging signs—there are. According to the latest Higher Education Statistics Agency figures, a growing number of Scottish students are opting to study courses in computing, with the figure rising by 21 per cent in the past two years. I note the reference to computing in the Labour Party’s amendment, which we would have been happy to support were it not for the reference to the 50p top tax rate. The figure for mathematical sciences grew by 26 per cent in the same period, and both engineering and technology numbers have risen by 10 per cent.

There are also encouraging signs in the uptake of Scottish Qualifications Authority highers in science, given that there have been 4,689 more presentations in science subjects in the past five school sessions. Nonetheless, I question whether the SQA made the right decision in abandoning the geology higher this year when it could easily have been argued that its science base was perhaps the most relevant to many of the offshore technology industries in Scotland that look certain to flourish in the years ahead, irrespective of what happens to the oil industry. That decision is even more extraordinary because of the trends elsewhere towards the need for an interdisciplinary approach. That, after all, is the key philosophy that underpins the curriculum for excellence and it is why, in science exams, there has been a move towards more open questions and away from a focus on the traditional, knowledge-based approach.

That change came at the suggestion of representatives on the curriculum for excellence design teams who came from industry, and I think that it is a good thing. There is a complementary move to make science much more meaningful to the everyday lives of pupils—for example, in showing how organic carbon chemistry affects our lives in terms of fuel, cosmetics and plastics rather than in just giving the scientific facts that describe its processes.

That interdisciplinary approach is important and it was what the Scottish Government thought would be achieved with the introduction of the Scottish baccalaureate in science. Unfortunately, the Government set the bar far too low and gave the baccalaureate virtually no distinctive characteristics from the separate higher and advanced highers—hence only 110 pupils across the whole of Scotland are taking it and universities do not really rate it as an added-value qualification. The interdisciplinary approach is also at the core of the Wood commission. The needs of Scotland and our young people are changing fast in a fiercely global economy, and they are changing because employers want a much more finely tuned labour force that is both more flexible and more skilled when it comes to the diverse needs of the economy.

So, although there ought to be plenty incentives, there remains considerable concern among many of Scotland’s foremost industries that we do not have anything like the numbers required to ensure that we match our economic potential in the decades to come. With greater diversity being required in the energy industry, with the debates about climate change, transport and communication, and with the significant challenges in the health industry, there is no end to the need for well-trained scientists and engineers. Seventy per cent of Scotland’s exports come from the science, engineering and technology-related sectors, yet the oil and gas industries continue to express their concern.

All that brings us to teacher numbers in science. Let us set aside the political rammy that is going on between the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities about whose fault it is that teacher numbers have dropped and let us look at the Scottish Government’s statistics on teacher numbers in science and maths. In biology, there were precisely three more teachers in Scotland in 2014 than there were in 2008, but the number of teachers in maths, chemistry, physics, general science and technology have all declined—in some cases, such as in maths and physics, quite significantly. For example, there are 383 fewer maths teachers in Scotland now than when the SNP came to power.

How ironic it is that at the very time that we are seeing an increase in the number of pupils wanting to take up science courses, teacher numbers are going in the opposite direction. I am not persuaded by the argument that there is a direct correlation between teacher numbers and the ability to improve educational outcomes. Nonetheless, it is hard to argue that a 9 per cent rise in the number of pupils taking mathematics, biology, chemistry, physics and technology and a corresponding drop of just under 10 per cent in teacher numbers is not bound to have a serious impact.

I will make positive suggestions about what we could do. There is an important issue about primary school science. In autumn last year, the Royal Society of Chemistry made the call to have specialist science teachers in primary schools. The Scottish Conservatives backed that call then; we back it again now. There is no more important time to inspire youngsters than in primary school. We urge the Scottish Government to tell us this afternoon what it will do about the issue.

We also need to bring in some of our top science graduates to school education. Two things can do that. First, we can learn from elsewhere in the UK. For example, the national science learning centre in York provides very generous bursaries for science teachers who want to enhance their continuing professional development. Secondly, we can do that via programmes akin to the Teach First programme. I agree whole-heartedly with the need for 100 per cent teacher registration and it is absolutely right that the independent and state sectors are making the move to do just that. That move is long overdue. However, that is not to say that we cannot also have a fully accredited Teach First programme running alongside to assist those who can bring added experience into our classrooms.

Many in the English system have not been able to get a job in Scotland because they are banned from doing so. That is simply unacceptable.

Professor Lindsay Paterson argued two years ago at a Royal Society of Edinburgh event that we could do much more to help our very gifted pupils from whatever part of the educational system they may come or whatever their background. We need to do far more in that direction. His argument fell on deaf ears at the time but, particularly in the context of science education, it has considerable merit.

I will talk a little bit about teacher workforce planning. Workforce planning is not an easy task in any sphere, because it is difficult to get the demand and supply fully aligned, particularly in a fast-changing world. Recently, after the Scottish Government’s initial troubles on teacher numbers, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning’s predecessor moved, with some success, to make the process a bit more flexible.

Two things matter in all this. First, there must be absolute trust between central Government and local government, although that is obviously on a sticky wicket at the moment. Secondly, there must be greater flexibility when it comes to freeing up the supply of teachers.

I should at this point declare an interest as a fully paid-up member of the General Teaching Council for Scotland.

It is absolutely right to say that much more must be done to ensure that we can encourage greater diversity of teachers. There have been serious issues about fully qualified teachers from south of the border who have been prevented from teaching in Scotland simply because they do not have a Scottish qualification. By all means, we should carefully check that they meet the correct professional standards, but we should not bar them. If we do that, we are preventing top-class people from coming into the teaching profession. I hope that the Scottish Government will address that, because it has a direct influence on the number of science teachers in our schools.

We have debated science issues many times in this chamber. I pay tribute to Iain Gray as a member who has a distinct interest in the subject. Although I have no doubt whatsoever that some very good things are happening out there, the central issue remains that the number of teachers in STEM subjects is declining at the very time when the number of pupils wanting to opt for science courses is increasing. There is an urgent need to address the situation for the benefit of economic development, as well to address the weakness of not having sufficient numbers of qualified science teachers in our primary schools.

The evidence that comes from our academic bodies, almost all of which is extremely well researched over a long period, is absolutely compelling.

I move,

That the Parliament demands urgent action from the Scottish Government to reverse the decline in the number of secondary school teachers in science, maths, engineering and technology (STEM) subjects, which occurred between the academic sessions 2007-08 and 2013-14, and which, many employers believe, is leading to insufficient numbers of pupils seeking tertiary education courses in these subjects; is concerned that, if the situation is allowed to continue, there will be a detrimental effect on the Scottish economy which, in the future, will be increasingly dependent on science, engineering and technology skills; urges the Scottish Government to heed the calls from the Royal Society of Chemistry in Scotland that there should be specialist science teachers in every primary school and the calls from the Institute of Physics in Scotland that more should be done to encourage female science graduates, and calls on the Scottish Government to work with local government and the General Teaching Council for Scotland to remove the red tape that is preventing full flexibility in the recruitment of teachers.