Hansard

This is arguably one of the most important motions that I have lodged in my time in the Parliament. It is on education. In the middle of a global pandemic, which is fresh in all our minds this week, the Parliament and the Government have much on our plates, but we should focus what time and attention we can give on education and not on passing bills on referendums. [Interruption.]

Let me start by offering well-deserved thanks to our beleaguered teachers and school staff—if the hecklers on the Government benches will let me continue—for the many shifts that they have had to make, from providing blended learning, making our schools safe to attend full time and dealing with the exam grades fiasco to working from home during lockdown and reaching out to pupils in every way they could.

We should also thank Scotland’s young people who, through no fault of their own, have had their educational normality denied this year and are being asked to limit social interactions at an age when social interaction creates friendships that last a lifetime.

The motion for debate today is intentionally binary, because it speaks for itself. We contest that education should be the Scottish Government’s priority and that closing the attainment gap in our schools is more important than independence. I cannot understand why Mr Swinney, who I respect has long-standing views on the constitution, as others do, does not agree with that sentiment. If Mr Swinney disagrees, he has to explain why and say which of those is more important to him.

The Government’s proposed amendment to the motion speaks for itself too. When the Scottish National Party shoves “Brexit”, “power grab” and “Boris” into an amendment to a motion for a debate on something over which it has presided for over a decade, we know that it has truly run out of arguments. We face a simple choice because, in the middle of a pandemic, an economic crisis and an ever-changing legislative landscape, it is being made ever more difficult for the Scottish Parliament to close the attainment gap.

Surely that would be a legacy that the Parliament could be proud of. Why would we make that task any more difficult for ourselves? Why would the SNP Government think it reasonable even to contemplate introducing legislation in this session of Parliament on constitutional matters such as referendums? Why would we, as a Parliament with less than six full sitting months left, think it wise to spend our committee, civil service, legislative and chamber time on a referendum bill? I thought that education was the Government’s number 1 priority—the First Minister said that it was hers—but, sadly, as is often the case with the First Minister and her Government, the rhetoric and the reality are two different things.

If the Parliament is serious about truly getting it right for every child in Scotland, it must do the right thing and put education at the heart of its deliberations. Last week, the Scottish Conservatives launched a paper that sought to add to that debate. I appreciate that those on the Government side of the chamber will go out of their way today to pick as many holes as they can in the paper, which is fine and is normal political discourse. They can pick as many holes in our ideas as they like, but at least we have some. Restoring every school to the best that it can be will require every one of us to get our heads out of the sand and admit where we can do better—that is especially true of the Government.

Last week, we heard from Mike Robinson, chief executive of the Royal Scottish Geographical Society, who warned that Scotland’s schools are at risk from a system that is

“incoherent, under-supported and poorly funded”.

That is a stark warning.

If things were well, the Government would not have accepted the need for a full-scale Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development review into curriculum for excellence five years after its previous full-scale review—all 175 pages of it—nor would the latest review have had its remit expanded. If things were well, the Government would not have been repeatedly defeated in parliamentary votes on expanding that review, on missed childcare targets and on primary 1 testing.

During this debate my colleagues will talk in detail about some of our ideas and why we see value in them. They will talk about increasing teaching numbers in our schools and why that is important; increasing the choice and breadth of subjects on offer to young people; how we support, mentor and tutor those who need it most; why school inspections cannot be shelved and why they must be independent of the body that is also tasked with delivering education; why we think that no child should attend a school that is graded as being in poor or bad condition in terms of suitability for learning; and commitments to free school meals.

We have debated education in the chamber many times, and I accept that there is no simple panacea for tackling long-term issues in education. However, as we have seen time after time in the chamber, Government ministers refuse to acknowledge disagreement and to accept any failings. No amount of constitutional wrangling is going to overcome the basic arithmetic on teacher numbers, which are at lower levels than when the SNP came to power in 2007. The warning on that has come from many quarters for many years. If we increased teacher numbers, many other issues would be addressed too.

However, it is not just a case of hiring teachers; it is a case of supporting them. It should be a huge concern to the Parliament that more than 4,000 newly qualified teachers have quit the profession since 2012. The teaching unions and focus groups of teachers have warned us repeatedly of the stress and workload that they are under, not least the effect that that is having on their physical and mental health. Additional resource in schools would clearly alleviate workload and offer that much-needed resilience, which is something that we need right now.

The policy of increasing teacher numbers is also designed to ensure that there are enough resources at hand for all of us to deal with whatever the health crisis throws at us. More teachers means smaller class sizes, which is something that we would have clearly benefited from in the current climate. That was another missed opportunity and another broken promise.

The policy of increasing teacher numbers means a reduction in multilevel teaching, which is a practice that is condemned by the teaching profession. Importantly, it also means that no teacher feels worry over how much time that they can give to any individual pupil. However, as we heard earlier today, the cabinet secretary does not even know how many newly qualified teachers have secured jobs this year.

Teacher recruitment is one thing, but retention is another. That issue is more pronounced in our rural communities, as many of us know. Liz Smith will talk more about teachers.

Our proposals aim to empower pupils with maximum choice, and that requires more than just teacher numbers. It means fairness in the breadth and depth of the subjects that are available to them. Subject choice has reduced in recent years. Professor Jim Scott, who is honorary professor of education at the University of Dundee, outlined to the Education and Skills Committee that certain subjects, including modern languages and technology, have experienced sustained declines since the appearance of curriculum for excellence.

Iain Aitken, the principal teacher of geography at Belmont academy in Ayr, described the system that is leading to a reduction in subject choice as “fundamentally broken”. He said:

“Pupils are now effectively picking their Higher options in S3, which is far too early and the number of subjects they can do is far too restrictive.”

His words, not mine.

Those are all live issues. Therefore, it is critical that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s review must report as soon as feasibly possible and most certainly before the next Holyrood election.

If we want to truly empower our young people, we need to equip them with skills that translate into careers and jobs, not least because our economy is shifting in new and uncertain ways.

We are proud to focus on science, technology, engineering and mathematics in our policy announcements. Our policy aims to ensure that every primary school has access to a STEM teacher, so that a young person’s interests or ambitions are not curtailed because of their postcode.

I make no apologies for being ambitious on STEM. We need to prepare the children of today for the jobs of tomorrow. Between 2017 and 2018, the United Kingdom’s tech sector grew at the rate of almost 8 per cent, six times faster than the rest of the economy. There are hundreds of technology jobs in Scotland and demand on recruitment search sites for coders, software developers, app developers and data analysts increases day by day.

Although tech is excelling in the outside world, the same cannot be said of STEM attainment in our schools. We know from the programme for international student assessment scores that Scotland is underperforming in maths. Scores in that subject are now lower than they were in 2003 and we know that one in four pupils is failing to achieve OECD level 2 ability. We also know that one in five pupils is failing to achieve that level in science, with both girls’ and boys’ attainment far lower now than it was in 2006 and well below the UK average.

I want young people not just to be excited by science and tech but to be able to study those subjects and achieve in them. That has to start with primary education. Attainment matters from a young age not just in STEM but across all subjects. The most recent Scottish household survey shows us that almost three in 10 adults in our most deprived communities have no qualifications.

Earlier this year, we saw that the attainment gap in Scotland has narrowed, as I am sure we will hear from Mr Swinney. Normally, I would say that that is something to be proud of and to take credit for, but it narrowed only because the proportion of young people in a positive destination fell faster in our least disadvantaged communities than in the most disadvantaged. Yes, it narrowed, but both groups are worse off, year on year. Mr Swinney celebrated that as an achievement. We have to close the attainment gap, but we must close it in the right way—that is, in a way that is fair to all peoples of all backgrounds.

I close my remarks with the same point that I made when I started them. My belief is that the Scottish Parliament already has not only the power but the opportunity to get things right for every child. We do not need a referendum to put Scottish education at the heart of our work.

The amendment that has been lodged by the SNP in Mr Swinney’s name is beneath him—and I think that he knows that. Quite simply, it is like someone having a last, desperate punch in the ring when they know that their time is up and the bell is about to ring. Whatever ridiculous, empty rhetoric we might hear in the debate from the SNP in defence of its position, one thing remains true. The education secretary, his party, and each and every one of us can make it abundantly clear at decision time where our priorities lie. Let us put education ahead of separation. Is that really too much to ask for?

I move,

That the Parliament believes that the Scottish Government should drop its plans for a further Referendum Bill and focus on closing the attainment gap.