Hansard

I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate attainment and the achievements of our young people. This is the first chance in the current session of Parliament to discuss what is happening in our schools and the direction of the Government’s education policy. At any time, policies will be under development, but I am slightly alarmed that we seem to be moving from one policy to another without acknowledging the change or having achieved any of the goals. Specifically, we are moving from an emphasis on lower class sizes to one on teacher quality. I seek clarity from the ministerial team and a sense of the direction that is being taken to achieve the attainment levels that we all want.

We all agree that attainment levels are not high enough. I have no wish to play the blame game, and it is only fair to recognise the attempts of both Administrations. The aim of raising attainment was the key driver behind the reforms that Labour put in place during our time in office. It was behind the investment in the teaching workforce and school refurbishment and rebuilding, and it was behind the schools of ambition programme and our expansion of further and higher education. The motivation behind virtually everything that we did was to try to get more young people, particularly those from deprived and non-traditional backgrounds, to make the most of their abilities. In recent years, the work of Glasgow City Council in establishing nurture groups has been recognised as making a terrific contribution to tackling the lack of opportunity and underachievement.

We talk about the tradition of the democratic intellect in Scotland—the idea that the laird’s son has always sat down with the ploughboy—and we pride ourselves that we Scots have an altruistic streak that is slightly more prominent than in some other countries. However, let us not hide the fact that, even in Scotland, education has long been of greater benefit to those with greater economic means.

Whatever the attempts and difficulties that we faced in the past, I am more concerned about what we are doing now. In every year in which we were in office, slowly but surely, we reduced class sizes across the estate. The Scottish National Party was elected on a specific commitment to reduce to 18 the class sizes in primaries 1 to 3. I am afraid to say that there is no point in pretending that the Government came close. That flagship policy of the previous SNP Administration was based on the argument that the way to improve results and attainment is to invest in the early years. The argument is still used—the minister used it this morning when she talked about the importance of early intervention and preventative spend. We agree on that agenda, but the new policy on class sizes that was announced in this year’s budget is simply to keep teacher numbers in line with pupil numbers. In other words, no progress can be made in reducing class sizes or, if it is, it can be made only at the expense of rising class sizes in the upper years.

I understand the financial pressures that the Government faces, but education policies should not be based on funding decisions alone. The Government is either committed to reducing class sizes because it is the right thing to do, or it is not. Smaller class sizes in P1 to P3 either make a difference, or they do not. Most people who are listening to the ministers would believe that the Government has abandoned its policy on class sizes in favour of an emphasis on teacher quality. I do not necessarily disagree with that, but we should have formal recognition that that is the case. Education authorities, teachers and parents deserve to know what is happening in our schools and what the education minister expects.

Unfortunately, the rather half-hearted commitment to reducing class sizes has left a chaotic legacy. We have a legal class-size maximum of 25 in P1. We have guidance, which I believe is still in place, that class sizes should be reduced to 18 in P1 to P3. Most recently, an agreement was forced through—I repeat that it was forced through, otherwise local authorities would have had a less generous funding settlement—under which only 20 per cent of classes in P1 to P3 should be of 18. What a mess. In many schools, that has meant that, as a pupil progresses up the school, he or she is likely to go from a small class to a large one, to a composite class and then back again. It cannot be a good experience for any child to lose their peer group and to go up and down in that way.

The education policy reflects decisions that have been taken to cover political embarrassment. The only reason why we have the 20 per cent target was to try to give the SNP cover as it went into the recent election, but there is no logic to the policy whatever. The figure of 18 was pretty arbitrary in the first place and the 20 per cent target is similarly arbitrary. The whole adds up to a picture of confusion.

On top of those issues we have the success of the curriculum for excellence in primary schools, but there are huge question marks over its implementation in secondary schools. In particular, there are outstanding concerns over the transition from the curriculum for excellence to the examinable curriculum. How many times do we have to raise that issue in Parliament before we get some answers? I remind the minister and the chamber that one of the reasons for our introducing the curriculum for excellence was that, although those at the top do well—and for them exams can be quite a motivating factor—a huge group of young people are silently disengaged and a similarly huge group at the bottom of the system has very little prospect of getting any exam results at all. Those young people are at the centre of our discussion this morning and as they progress through secondary school, they can become increasingly disenchanted and quite difficult for schools to manage. In fact, I am slightly surprised that the debate centres so much on the term “attainment”, because I thought that we were moving away from solely assessing attainment to talk of broader achievement and fulfilment. Those are the terms of the curriculum for excellence.

Teaching and learning have to be about progression, but there is very little progression among that group of young people. If we are to improve attainment or achievement and make the most of curriculum for excellence, it is essential that we get its implementation right.

I have argued previously that, in my estimation, the McCrone agreement was one of the most important achievements of the last Labour Government. There are others who believe that we did not get as much return for our investment as we should have done, but we raised morale in the teaching profession, we reaffirmed our faith in teaching as a profession, we put an end to industrial discontent, and we reversed the withdrawal of good will for supporting out-of-hours working by teachers and far more. The net effect transformed our schools. The atmosphere in the staffroom and the classroom changed because we made it clear that we valued teachers.

If we are now making the argument that the quality of teachers is essential to improving attainment, the cabinet secretary and ministers have a duty to be a bit clearer about what the post-McCrone or post-McCormac settlement will look like. During the previous parliamentary session, all too often we heard the cabinet secretary saying that decisions are for local authorities and that local government is the employer. I absolutely accept that we have to work in partnership with the local authorities and that it is not for us to dictate to them, but the Government should not use that as an excuse to abdicate responsibility; it should set clear guidance about what is expected.

There is simmering discontent in our staffrooms, primarily because of pension changes but also because of anxiety over McCormac and the demands for teachers to become a more flexible workforce. Does the minister agree that supply teachers should be paid the cheapest rate possible rather than one befitting their experience? Will she oversee the end of the chartered teacher programme? That was a huge investment and a similarly huge commitment for many teaching staff. Would it not be more sensible to make the chartered system work rather than get rid of it altogether?

Perhaps most important, we are talking about raising attainment but time and again we are reminded that the background from which a pupil comes is the key determinant of how well they will do at school. We have this fantastically equitable school system that is recognised in all sorts of reports, from the OECD to this week’s Sunday Herald. Too often, however, our system fails to overcome the disadvantage of a home that has no books, perhaps no working parent, and perhaps no ambition for further or higher education.

Even when children and young people are encouraged to make the most of themselves, children from deprived communities are most likely to go to college, not university, and yet we are now reducing colleges’ funding by a further 20 per cent. The cabinet secretary has accepted that that will not help to widen access so why is the SNP Government doing it? If we wish to raise attainment, why have the minister and his Government decided to prioritise the old universities—institutions that are dominated by the already high-achieving middle classes? The post-93 institutions are being starved of resources and colleges are actually being cut.