Meeting of the Parliament 29 March 2017
I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate—albeit briefly—and I thank the Liberal Democrats for bringing the issue to the chamber.
I hope that the Scottish Government will commit to focusing more rigorously on education in the coming period, given the significant mandate that it has in relation to the issue. My greatest regret, following the two-day debate that we had about the referendum, is the opportunity costs that there will be over the next period as a result of the focus that the Government has chosen. There is a danger that all of Scotland’s talent in Government, local government and the civil service, as well as the talent in civic Scotland, will be focused on an imagined future, not the real and fundamental challenges that we face in creating an education system that matches our ambitions for the people of Scotland. Instead of making the tough choices that I believe need to be made, the Government will settle for what keeps everyone happy because of a putative vote in a couple of years’ time.
The Scottish Government needs to fully acknowledge the challenges presented to it by the Education and Skills Committee’s evidence on education bodies, much of which has already been rehearsed. Central to the issue is hearing what teachers and other education professionals—people working in schools—say, rather than seeking to explain away what they say. The Deputy First Minister quite rightly talks about the importance of valuing staff and recognising the job that they do every day. However, the first principle of that involves listening to what they say about the barriers that they face in trying to do their jobs. That would be real respect. Rather than trying to explain away what staff are saying, it would be better for the Government to try to understand properly why so many people across education are so exercised.
There is an issue about the profound lack of clarity about the responsibility of individual education bodies and who is accountable. The evidence demonstrates that there is a lot of buck passing. In a world in which all are responsible, ultimately none is responsible. Indeed, Education Scotland says that, with regard to the extent to which it has authority over policy, there are a lot of action points for discussion by the management board of the curriculum for excellence. We need better than action points for discussion; we need someone to get a grip of some of these issues.
The dual role of Education Scotland has been highlighted already. I recommend that people read the Official Report of the exchange on that matter between me and the head of Education Scotland. There is a dilemma. Education Scotland gives the Government private advice that is not known to the rest of us; it has a responsibility to implement policy, regardless of whether it thinks that the policy is wise; and, ultimately, it has the responsibility to inspect the impact of the policy, a role that many education academics have said is a major weakness. That really needs to be addressed.
We are in a position in which the body that is implementing Government policy is not then looking at and testing the merits of the policy, but is looking at its implementation. It is impossible to conceive of a way in which that body could then say to Government that the Government is wrong. The evidence is that it says instead that the teachers do not understand and that there is a problem in communication. Maybe, sometimes, there is a problem with the policy, but it is not clear how that message would get back to the Government. Indeed, it is not clear how confident education professionals would be to say that the policy was the problem rather than the degree of guidance. The Government needs to address that fundamental issue.
There is institutional protection going on. The instinct is to say, “They have a problem. They did not agree with us. There is a conservative lack of desire for change.”