Hansard

Aspiring to a world-class education system is absolutely where our sights should be set. That is not to denigrate the work of those who work in our schools, colleges, universities and other parts of the education system. Many are pioneers who are delivering exceptionally high-quality education to those who are in their care, so I pay tribute to them for their efforts. However, the issue is about how we build from that base, while recognising the challenges that are set out in the OECD report, as Iain Gray said, and those which are presented by an ever more globalised world in which change is remorseless and rapid.

Our young people need the skills to equip them not just to cope, but to thrive. That, in part, was why curriculum for excellence was developed to provide the depth, breadth and richness of learning that allow successful learners, confident individuals, responsible citizens and effective contributors to emerge. However, the evidence suggests that, all too often, people from disadvantaged backgrounds are still not able to fulfil their potential. By the time they arrive in formal education, the gap has opened up for many and is never successfully narrowed—far less closed.

Ministers are right to identify closure of the attainment gap as a priority—albeit that they are eight years into their time in office. The question is whether its approach is likely to be effective. Indeed, as Iain Gray said, academics at the University of Dundee have warned that we are going in the wrong direction in certain respects.

Clearly, closing the attainment gap and achieving greater equity of outcomes is not something that can or should rest with our education system—crucial though it undoubtedly is. That said, ministers have presented the national improvement framework as the centrepiece of their strategy, and improving school leadership, teacher professionalism, parental involvement and performance information are all sensible and necessary components of any such strategy.

Where I have a problem—the minister will not be surprised by this—is in the determination to reintroduce national testing in our primary schools. That move, whose sole advocates were the Scottish Conservatives, goes against the very ethos of curriculum for excellence. Assessment of pupils is, of course, at the heart of good teaching. Teachers do it daily—they observe what happens in the classroom, mark pupils’ work, glean information from the standardised tests and have, crucially, an in-depth knowledge of the young person as an individual. The Scottish education system has no shortage of such data—particularly at classroom and school levels. The focus should be on making better use of that wealth of information.

National literacy and numeracy tests simply will not provide a rounded evaluation of student learning. The risk of error is high, but the information will inform Government policy and decisions. Whether or not ministers believe that they are sanctioning teaching to the test or league tables, those are the likely—perhaps inevitable—consequences of introducing national testing in primary schools.

Teaching unions, individual teachers, parent-teacher councils and parents are all expressing concern. A one-size-fits-all approach that one education expert recently denounced as “hopelessly blunt” has also been described by teaching unions as “a backwards step”. However, it is not all that far backwards because, not so long ago, the former education secretary, Mr Russell, described the previous national testing regime and its league tables as “Thatcherite”. I recall the Scottish National Party hailed the scrapping of those Tory tests by the Labour-Lib Dem Executive; it even sought to claim credit for it.

Of course, the cabinet secretary prayed in aid the recent OECD report, but even there there are warnings about the dangers of crude testing systems. Historically, with education reform,

“outcomes-based learning is succeeded by high stakes testing ... and a broad but inconsistently interpreted curriculum gives way to a prescriptive and more basic one.”

For all the First Minister and the education secretary’s assurances, the Scottish Liberal Democrats remain unconvinced by the case for national tests either to help to close the attainment gap or to achieve a world-leading education system. That scepticism may partly be informed by what has happened with ministerial reassurances on early learning and childcare. Under pressure from my party, last summer the Government promised to deliver free provision for 27 per cent of two-year-olds from the poorest backgrounds. However, new figures show that only 7 per cent of such children currently benefit.

On the twin aim of raising attainment and closing the gap, it is interesting that the Royal Society of Edinburgh appears to question whether the two are compatible. The RSE said that

“universal approaches ... aimed at raising attainment may do so but in a way that does not lead to greater equity”,

and went on to say that increased parental involvement, for example, “could increase the gap”. I presume that the society made the point to underscore what it describes as a need for

“re-prioritisation and re-deployment of existing education expenditure”.

Ministers will point to the attainment fund and its recent extension to additional local authority areas, but to do so will still rather miss the point: eleven councils remain ineligible for funding, despite the fact that children in need are to be found in communities the length and breadth of Scotland. To have ministers pick and choose postcodes flies in the face of the reality of poverty and need. That is why Scottish Liberal Democrats think, as Save the Children does, that the right approach is a pupil premium that links funding to individual children in need, as happens south of the border, thanks to the previous coalition Government.

In addition, the attainment fund must be seen in the context of Mr Swinney’s brutal cut of £500 million from local authority budgets for next year. Orkney Islands Council had been preparing for a cut of 1.6 per cent; the reality is an eye-watering 4.3 per cent cut and a settlement that the convener described as “wholly unacceptable”.

Given that education accounts for about half of what councils do in budgetary terms, the cuts are likely to fall most heavily on the education budget. That torpedoes the Scottish National Party’s claims about prioritising education and leaves councils to carry the can for the Government’s failure to put its money where its mouth is.

The ambition of creating a world-class education system is one that I whole-heartedly support, just as I support the objective of enabling every child and young person to fulfil their potential. However, I question whether the SNP’s obsession with a return to national standardised testing, its underachievement on early learning and its cuts to council funding are a recipe for achieving those aims.

I move amendment S4M-15282.1, to leave out from “acknowledges” to end and insert:

“notes the OECD’s warnings about the risks associated with crude testing systems; believes that the Scottish Government’s plans to reintroduce national testing has the potential to lead to teaching to the test, high stakes testing, league tables and a system akin to that rightly abolished by the Scottish Government in 2003, which the SNP described as ‘Thatcherite crass and cursory’; considers that national testing risks undermining the work of teachers and is incompatible with the spirit of the curriculum for excellence and, therefore, joins unions, individual teachers, parent teacher councils and parents in opposing this proposal; recognises that improving early learning for those from the most deprived backgrounds is key to closing the attainment gap; is deeply disappointed, therefore, that the school census published in December 2015 showed that only 7.3% of two-year-olds were registered for early learning and childcare; notes that this is well short of the 27% promised for this year by the Scottish Government, highlighting the need to focus on implementation of this flagship policy and raising questions about its ability to deliver its further promises in this area; welcomes the Scottish Government’s decision to dedicate more resources to tackling the attainment gap; however, considers that the Attainment Scotland Fund will still make a difference only in selected areas, ignoring the needs of children facing poverty in 11 local authorities, and continues to urge the Scottish Government to introduce a pupil premium that targets funding at individual school-age children in need, wherever they may live, as a means of helping close the attainment gap, enabling each child to achieve its potential and delivering an excellent education system.”