Hansard

I express my gratitude to the members of the literacy commission, some of whom are in the gallery, for their efforts in producing the substantial report that Labour has chosen as the subject of today's debate. I also praise my predecessor as Labour's education spokesperson, Rhona Brankin, and our former leader, Wendy Alexander, for their foresight in setting up the commission.

The report was warmly welcomed in educational circles following its publication last month. It brings together findings and evidence from a variety of sources, presents a powerful case for literacy becoming our top education priority and contains a set of recommendations that I hope that members of all parties will support.

In some respects, the report is a wake-up call. It highlights the importance of literacy to economic competitiveness, to social inclusion and to individuals. Despite advances in information technology and the advent of new forms of communication, literacy skills are more vital than ever in the modern world. The inability to read and write renders the internet impossible to use. It is arguable that the more communicative possibilities we create, the more disabling illiteracy becomes.

The report uses international indicators to provide evidence that other countries might be progressing faster than Scotland. That is a disturbing finding, given the lead that Scotland once enjoyed. Historians such as Tom Devine and Arthur Herman have chronicled Scots' contribution to the development of thought across a series of disciplines, including philosophy, economics and mathematics, and Scots' contribution to literature and to the advancement of scientific knowledge and its application in industry, medicine and the social sphere. Since the age of enlightenment, Scots have been noted for breakthrough after breakthrough in a wide variety of fields. Several explanations have been offered for the influence that Scots and Scotland have had on the modern world, such as economic circumstances, the restless character of the people and religious beliefs, but in my view our education system was the cornerstone of Scottish achievement.

For a long time, the most distinctive features of our education system were its universality and accessibility. Our people were taught to read, write and count. A higher proportion of the population were given opportunities to acquire higher-order literacy and numeracy skills through our schools and universities than was the case elsewhere. Literacy and numeracy were central not just to the school curriculum, but to our definition of the foundation of a good society. That is not to say that the system was always successful; the report rejects the idea that there was a golden age. Many older people lack literacy and numeracy skills, because they were failed by the system. However, the idea that society has obligations to ensure basic literacy for all and to promote higher-order literacy skills widely is one that we can and should embrace, by making a long-term commitment to zero tolerance of poor literacy.

The literacy commission report places literacy at centre stage again. The commission argued that it is unacceptable that thousands of our young people leave school every year with correctable problems that render them functionally illiterate and lacking the basic literacy skills that are needed if they are to function in a modern society. We can no longer tolerate low achievement among youngsters at school for whom there is no physiological or severe learning difficulty barrier that would prevent them from acquiring adequate literacy skills. We must ensure that there is total commitment to a zero tolerance policy on illiteracy and we must put in place measures to ensure that that is achieved.

The commission estimated the scale of the problem and suggested that about 13,000 school leavers each year are functionally illiterate. It provided overwhelming research evidence that the most important cause of correctable poor literacy is socioeconomic disadvantage. There is no doubt that our failure to equip some of our young people to read and write adversely affects their life chances. In the most disadvantaged communities in particular, a significant minority of young people who cannot read or write end up having no job, suffering health problems or getting into trouble through offending behaviour—frequently all three. That is expensive for us, but it is even more costly for them. The proportion of people in our prisons and young offenders institutions who have literacy problems demonstrates the importance of early intervention, not just for the individual concerned but for society. Anything that we can do to ease the frustration and exclusion that results from illiteracy will pay considerable dividends and must be a key priority.

The literacy commission identified teaching and learning methods that are proven to be effective in acquiring basic literacy skills, even among people who face barriers in doing so. The commission argued that we need to take specific action to remove barriers to the acquisition of literacy skills, especially in areas of socioeconomic disadvantage. We know what works; the methods are listed in the commission's report. Surely we can engineer a successful programme.

Our motion suggests that pilot schemes be implemented in areas in which there are the greatest concentrations of socioeconomic disadvantage, to address some of the prerequisites of learning that are identified in the report. Earlier this week, lain Gray and I visited Lochview nursery school, where two-year-olds from Easterhouse are given the opportunity to learn and play in a warm and welcoming setting, with trained staff. The approach provides a foundation for nursery and primary education that goes a considerable way towards ensuring a level playing field with children from more advantaged backgrounds. It should be a precept that no child should fall behind before they even get into the education system. We need to focus attention on children in the birth-to-three category, because that is the most crucial period in a child's physical and mental development. If we do not concentrate attention on that age group and sort out problems at that point, we will lose those kids.

The commission cited health research that suggests that disadvantage has a physiological impact on the body and affects not only health but brain development. If the circumstances of disadvantage include a chaotic lifestyle, parental drug or alcohol abuse or domestic violence, the likelihood of educational success is severely compromised. We cannot allow such circumstances to blight the prospects of so many children in Scotland. We must intervene to give children who suffer such disadvantage a greater chance.

There is evidence from West Dunbartonshire and Clackmannanshire that the use of techniques such as systematic phonics, coupled with one-to-one support, is effective in developing basic literacy skills among many youngsters who have experienced barriers to the acquisition of such skills. Glasgow City Council and North Lanarkshire Council set up nurture classes, which provide support to youngsters and parents and directly address the fact that many children in the most disadvantaged areas lack the tools to discuss and express their emotions. In Glasgow every school has a literacy champion, who has responsibility for leading literacy development in their establishment. A programme is being rolled out in early years establishments so that staff are better able to support children who have poor language skills and to assist such children with language acquisition.

Ultimately, we need to decide what we want our schools and early education establishments to prioritise. There are a variety of ways in which educationists measure success or failure. We have league tables of attainment, systems of inspection and other mechanisms that provide information about the performance of schools, nurseries and education authorities. If our priority is that every child who could be taught to read and write should be supported in acquiring those skills, and if the development of such skills is regarded as a core indicator of success or failure in our school system, not just in the most deprived areas but throughout the country, we will galvanise an education system that is faced with competing objectives to pay particular attention to literacy.

It is clear from the report that literacy cannot be addressed only by educationists in schools and nurseries. We must mobilise resources across the board and co-ordinate them effectively, so that the most vulnerable children, who are most at risk of disadvantage, get the support that they need if they are to make the most of their lives. That is the core message of the literacy commission's report.

Delivering basic literacy skills should never be the only objective or criterion against which schools or educational establishments are judged. As the report makes clear, we need to move children beyond basic literacy to help them to engage fully with modern society and the workplace. The ability to apply knowledge, understanding and skills in areas other than the one in which they were acquired is vital. We need critical thinkers—people who can gather, analyse and use information in new ways for a vast variety of purposes. Literacy-related skills can be a passport to success for the individual and a vital resource for employers.

The report calls for a national strategy to set priorities for assisting children to move beyond basic literacy by improving standards of comprehension. I hope that the Government will adopt that recommendation and the others in the report. I have had early indications from the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning that he is receptive to many of the recommendations in the report and I understand that he met members of the commission this morning. My message for him is that it is not only about the curriculum for excellence and the way in which things are ordered and organised in the school; he must work with his colleagues across the portfolios and make literacy a national priority. Literacy must become a key priority: the top educational priority for Scotland and a top priority for the Government.

Given the importance of workplace learning in tackling illiteracy among adults, I hope that the literacy action plan that is called for in the motion will incorporate a strategy for supporting and encouraging workplace learning and that trade union organisations will be among the stakeholders who are involved in discussions on it. In the past, people who left school unable to read and write rarely got an opportunity to acquire those skills later. In recent years, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and its affiliates through Scottish union learning have stepped in to assist with workplace learning through partnership with employers in training for employees and as providers of everyday skills activities. Much of that work has been supported through the Scottish union learning fund and I hope that the fund remains in place beyond the current round, which ends in March 2011.

The Scottish National Party amendment, which highlights the importance that is placed on developing literacy in the curriculum for excellence, is a constructive addition, provided that we are not saying that literacy can be taken forward only in the context of the curriculum for excellence. It is one route and one aspect of the report's message, but we need to go well beyond that.

The Liberal Democrat amendment, which reminds us that illiteracy is not an exclusively urban phenomenon, is also worth while, although I point out that the report suggests that there is no instance in Scotland of a school serving a poor neighbourhood that achieves results comparable with those of schools in the more affluent areas. It is regrettable that areas in which socioeconomic disadvantage is concentrated are typically the same areas—overwhelmingly, although not exclusively, in urban settings—in which we find the highest levels of functional illiteracy.

The commission envisages as a central purpose of testing the provision of diagnostic information about students who are struggling to assist in working out what steps should be taken to help them progress. I am not sure that that is consistent with the Conservative amendment, which seems more concerned with summative assessment and the segregation of children at primary 7 into academic and vocational streams. The commission's version of back to basics—placing emphasis on the acquisition of basic and higher-level literacy skills—is far preferable to the reintroduction of the 11-plus, so Labour will not support the Conservative amendment this evening.