Hansard

First, I thank the cabinet secretary for bringing forward the debate. I realise that criticisms have been expressed and political divisions displayed this morning—and I admit that I will return to them in a moment—but it is worth highlighting the underlying unity and political consensus that, as every front-bench spokesperson made clear in their opening remarks, still seem to hold in terms of the principles and proposals at the heart of the curriculum for excellence. That is an important message to send out to teachers, parents and pupils throughout Scotland as we wrestle with spending cuts and the political uncertainty of next year’s elections. Difficult decisions might well lie ahead and—to be honest again—I hope that a new Administration will be in place in the not-too-distant future, but schools should plan on the basis that the curriculum for excellence still has overwhelming political support from all parties and will remain at the heart of Scotland’s education system.

It has also been helpful to have a further exposition of why the curriculum for excellence is so important for our schools and why we hope that it will prove advantageous for so many pupils. I sometimes worry that the four capacities sound like managementspeak. I do not know whether other members noticed—I think that Elizabeth Smith might have—but even with the mighty intellect that he has at his disposal the cabinet secretary was tested on that very issue and I saw him fumbling for his aide-mémoire to remind him of what exactly the four capacities are. As we have reminded ourselves this morning—in plain English, I might add—the curriculum for excellence is about moving away from too many exams and exam-focused learning, particularly in primary and lower secondary education; giving teachers more room and freedom to teach; rebalancing vocational and academic learning; trying to re-engage with the disengaged; and, most of all, putting greater focus on pupils as learners and their development as individuals instead of concentrating overly on what they have learned or can regurgitate.

It was interesting to note the number of members who highlighted the relative inaccessibility of the language around the curriculum for excellence. Although we, as politicians, and most of those in the teaching profession, have at least begun to come to terms with the terminology, parents have certainly not yet reached that point. In fact, there is a huge gulf between our understanding of the new reforms and the lack of any shared understanding among parents. The more we talk in slogans or jargon—the vacuous and obscure guidance that, as Des McNulty pointed out, seems to plague this topic—and the less precise we are about where the curriculum for excellence is leading, the less confidence parents, pupils and teachers will have in the reforms.

We might be trying to move away from an exam-dominated curriculum, but the fact is that exams, qualifications and assessment are still essential and, for many parents and pupils, lie at the heart of their expectations of school life. Our failure—and, I am sorry to say, the failure of this Government in particular—to spell out the exact exam structure in secondary schools remains the single most important decision that is holding back the curriculum for excellence. As Claire Baker, Marlyn Glen and others pointed out, the interface at the end of S3 between the broad process of learning that is the curriculum for excellence and the subsequent road to examinable qualifications that are a passport to further and higher education or success in the job market is still far from clear. In fact, as Des McNulty made clear, the comments that the cabinet secretary made last week to the Times Educational Supplement Scotland on allowing early presentation to exams in S3 have only made matters worse. They strike me as a green light to two-tier learning before the curriculum for excellence is even in place, with the academic high-flyers separated off from the rest at S2, if not earlier.

I worry that that lack of clarity about the qualifications framework and the timetable for examinations in our secondary schools reflects a wider set of problems about which the Scottish Government cannot or will not reach a conclusion. The curriculum for excellence puts greater emphasis on learning rather than content but, as many in the profession have made clear before now, content and knowledge are still essential. Indeed, in its much-quoted briefing paper, the Royal Society of Edinburgh says:

“It is not clear to the RSE that there is consensus among those developing the reforms on the importance of knowledge and intellect”.

Most of our current secondary school exams and qualifications are based on summative, not formative, assessment. Teachers and parents want to know whether that will remain the case and, if it will, which elements of teaching in S1, S2 and S3 might be included in the new assessments. Rather than feel that they are being given more room and freedom to teach, many teachers worry that they are being left rudderless and drifting. The cabinet secretary’s response to those teachers is to kick the most outspoken—the SSTA representation—off the CFE steering group.

Even in our primary schools, where the curriculum has been most successfully implemented to date, there is still a great deal of uncertainty about how to benchmark attainment and progress. Teachers in primary schools remain unsure about the process for the moderation of assessment, and parents have lost the familiarity of the five-to-14 framework, with its various levels of achievement. At least in primary schools, the relationship between parents and the classroom is such that families can rely on and trust the judgment of their child’s teacher on whether little Michael or Christina is doing well or struggling; at secondary level, they want the certificate to prove things. We are relying on our teachers to make the new curriculum work and to reassure parents and imbue them with confidence, but we are not doing enough to support the teachers.

My underlying concern is that there is a lack of clear leadership from the cabinet secretary and his colleagues, not because the cabinet secretary is unable to make up his mind, but because he is unwilling to do so. We are repeatedly told that the reforms are the most important and radical reforms of the curriculum in a generation, but several members have referred to the minister’s seeming reluctance to provide even the most modest funding to implement the changes. That is hardly the behaviour of someone who is fully committed to the curriculum for excellence and, as Claire Baker reminded us earlier, it is not very reassuring as we enter a period of cuts and public spending retrenchment.

I further worry that the cabinet secretary may be unwilling to provide clarity because the decisions will not be pain free or uncontroversial. The secondary school curriculum is still subject led, and any move to loosen or broaden it may or will leave some departments feeling that they have lost out. Last week, I heard from a headteacher who, in introducing the curriculum for excellence, proposed modest reforms in S1 and S2 that would lead to the loss of one period of art each week. She said that the reaction was such that she felt that she had to quell a mutiny, or at least appease huge dismay, among her staff. Many members will remember the outcry over Peter Peacock’s supposed comments a few years back that allegedly undermined the importance of history in the curriculum. Of course, Mr Russell led that attack in his previous role as Opposition spokesperson. Is it any wonder that, now that the roles are reversed, he balks at the thought of taking any decision that might be interpreted as downgrading a secondary school subject?

I am sorry to say that, on recent evidence, there is every reason to suspect that the cabinet secretary and his colleagues are ducking each and every difficult decision coming their way. On university funding, they talk of the process that they are introducing to build a consensus, but the cabinet secretary admitted to the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee just this week that that issue is likely to divide us at election time. He seems to be similarly reluctant to provide any kind of leadership on the McCrone agreement with teachers and local authorities. Rather than defend the agreement or even properly discuss it with all participants, he is happy for COSLA to do the running while he secretly negotiates away 1,500 more teaching jobs and professional terms and conditions into the bargain. Des McNulty and Margaret Smith emphasised that, on the cabinet secretary’s watch, jobs are being lost among the very teachers whom we need to implement the curricular reforms.

I return to the issue of language and clarity. There is a fundamental disconnect between the cabinet secretary’s words on all the issues that we are discussing and his actions. He promised smaller class sizes. Without a hint of irony, he still boasts of the progress that the SNP is making while presiding over the loss of thousands of teaching posts. He talks about supposedly free university funding, but simply defers the difficult decisions and in the meantime reduces the number of places for Scottish students. He talks about his commitment to the curriculum for excellence, but stalls on crucial decisions, refuses to properly resource the reforms, and simply gets rid of those whom he does not want to listen to.

At an informal meeting of the Parliament’s Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee yesterday, in which Mr O’Donnell’s highly welcome Autism (Scotland) Bill was considered, we took powerful evidence from a group of adults on the autistic spectrum. The comments of one of the witnesses, Kath Baker, who was referring to the difficulties that those with autistic spectrum disorder can have with anything other than literal statements of fact, struck a chord with me. She talked about telling it to them straight and said that, if we are going to cut services because there is no money, we should just say so. She said that we should not tell them that the decision is based on eligibility or use language or other policies to hide the truth. I ask the cabinet secretary to give it to us straight, and to give us clarity, leadership and the decisions that we need to hear on the curriculum for excellence rather than the eight minutes of highly articulate but probably rather pointless and condescending verbiage that we expect.

11:30