Hansard

Debate time is short today, but there are several important points that I want to raise with members.

I thank members from all the political parties who have engaged constructively on the substance of my motion. To that end, we will support the Labour amendment. Had it been selected, I would have supported the Liberal Democrat amendment, too. They both contain valid points, which I hope to elaborate on.

It is fair to say that this year has been nothing short of an annus horribilis, to rehash that often cited term. However, it has been an additionally stressful one for our teachers. Teachers are our key workers, too. Every day, they are potentially exposed to Covid-19, just as others are. They allow that because they love teaching and they feel the weight of that responsibility on their shoulders.

On 18 November, the Parliament debated a Green Party motion about the realities of teaching on the ground during a health emergency. We heard numerous anecdotes of teachers being encouraged not to self-isolate because of staffing pressures in their school and of many clinically vulnerable teachers being refused their request to work from home. We collectively condemned that in the chamber.

The Parliament voted on the motion, and we were clear and specific in our asks of the Government. I supported the motion then, and today I reconfirm that support. However, I hope that my doing so this time will elicit a response from the Government, because, although these motions are non-binding, they are important nevertheless. The Scottish National Party Government is often the first to talk about the will of the Parliament, but it is oddly silent when it loses such votes.

I will turn to my motion. First, we reaffirm the calls to recruit at least 2,000 additional teachers. That is more important than ever, given the newly expanded and comprehensive roles that teachers will play in replacing the job of examinations. One teacher called me this morning and said:

“I am a teacher. My job is to teach. Our workload is big enough without this added responsibility, why are we doing the job of the SQA for them?”

That is a fair question. Teacher workload is important because the wellbeing and mental health of our teachers, and of all our school staff, have often been forgotten in the debate. In fact, it is often taboo to talk about them.

Increasing teacher numbers will deliver three clear benefits: it can help to reduce class sizes; it increases school resilience to deal with absences; and it helps to increase subject choice. We know this week, following a freedom of information request, that, since 2014, the average number of Scottish Qualifications Authority course entries per pupil is down in 31 out of 32 local authorities. We have already agreed in the Parliament the importance of teacher numbers. However, to date, no definitive plan has emerged on how the Government will honour that agreement.

My motion goes on to address the issue of free school meals. In my view, that is an issue of substance, and it is also one that I am passionate about. I accept that there has not always been consensus on it, either between parties or even within them—it is often a heated and political topic. However, I want to be clear on it in the debate. When the First Minister announced the SNP’s policy in her recent speech to her party’s conference, I welcomed it—just as I did when, back in September, it was contained in a policy paper produced by Scottish Conservatives, which we debated in this very chamber, and just as I have when other parties have done the same, such as when a similar proposal appeared in Labour’s manifesto in 2019.

To be honest, I could not care less whose idea it was first. As someone who grew up on free school meals, from primary school right the way through secondary school, I know about the stigma that was attached to them, which I felt. I believe that the Parliament now has an opportunity to end such stigma. If we could put aside our differences on such a serious and important issue and coalesce around the Government’s policy, it would send a powerful message. I have made clear my views on the policy because, sometimes, our lived experience affects our politics. It is not often that politicians have the privilege of introducing policy that has been so affected by their own lives. I ask members to reflect on that in their contributions if and when they broach the subject.

The rest of my motion represents a timely follow-up to yesterday’s announcement by the cabinet secretary on the 2021 exams. However, I believe that that is only the start of the conversation and not the end. Anyone who heard Dorothy McGinty speaking on the radio this morning will know about the disquiet and discomfort that exist among the teaching community over the way in which this year’s events have been handled. Whatever one’s views on the decision to cancel all exams—mine are publicly known—it seems to have raised more questions than it has answered.

The cabinet secretary has said that assessments will be based on teacher judgment. I applaud that, but questions remain. For example, if prelims are held, will they count? What about schools that do not hold them? Are prelims or mock exams required? Is the new model a fair and level playing field? Will it be fairer than exams? If so, why and in what way? Those are questions that people are asking us, and I pose them to the cabinet secretary.

Now that responsibility for assessment has been abdicated by the SQA and left to teachers, they are rightly concerned about their workloads. The one-off payment that the cabinet secretary has announced might compensate them financially, but it will not buy them more time. Further, students who start university next year will have little or no experience of sitting exams, which is of concern to many in the academic sector. Following the announcement of the decision yesterday, one chemistry teacher told me:

“Students heading into university laboratories run the risk of serious danger where they have not yet gained the required knowledge and skills.”

He also said:

“It would be an abdication of responsibility to send students to university in the knowledge that they may not be ready.”

There are other questions. On moderation, teachers are being asked to use their judgment, but we know that, this year, their judgment was moderated, ignored, overturned and then reinstated. The situation was a complete farce. The big question is, therefore: if we value teachers’ judgment at all, will we value it properly? Will their estimates be overruled again as they were this year? What moderation will take place? How will the Government ensure consistency and fairness in what is delivered? More importantly, what role will the SQA play in all that?

Further, how will appeals work in the new model? That is equally unclear. The Priestley review was specific in calling for enhancements to the appeals system, but we have yet to see the detail of those. How will they be fair, and how will we put young people at the heart of them?

Our motion calls for clarity on all those aspects. I take no pleasure in saying that all the warning signs about next year are there. These are crucially important grades that allow our young people to move on in education and in life. The education secretary must not let history repeat itself. It is not too late. I urge members to support my motion, because we cannot let young people down again.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the outcome of the debate on motion S5M-23385 (Safe Schools) on 18 November 2020 and reasserts its support for this; expresses disappointment that the Scottish Government has not presented proposals in response to the motion; calls on it to deliver at least 2,000 additional full-time teachers to fill the vacancy shortfall and to bring forward proposals to provide free school lunches and breakfasts for all primary pupils, to take effect from the start of the next financial year, and further calls on it to make a decisive and final decision regarding the 2021 Higher exam diet and to provide further support, before the Christmas holidays, to teachers, headteachers and local authorities by providing comprehensive guidance on the processes of assessment, moderation and appeals of all Higher level and National 5 awards.