Hansard

I will refocus attention on the subject of the debate. I do not think that there is a more important subject for debate than how we should raise attainment for pupils in Scotland.

I do not doubt that good things are happening, as the minister said. Scotland is a leading light when it comes to teacher training, we are leading the way when it comes to the process of pupil self-evaluation and there are imaginative developments in the early years, as well as signs of some improvements in attainment levels, so I am not prepared to share the view of some who write on educational matters that our schools are always seen to be struggling; neither am I prepared to accept, however, some of the Government’s extraordinary rhetoric when it comes to the reality of certain trends in Scottish education.

How extraordinary it is that, on a subject as important as attainment, we have such a benign Government motion that does not flag up the key policy directions. A wealth of excellent work has been done in the recent Donaldson, McCormac and Cameron reviews that has been given only passing mention this morning. We should be focusing all our attention on two important recommendations from those reports. First, we must ensure that we have the best teachers and headteachers in all our schools. Secondly, we must ensure that we can raise the motivation and aspiration of all our pupils from the youngest age.

As McCormac said in his report, we need to do far more to tackle some of the disturbing evidence from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education and from other countries, which makes for such sober reading. The fact that just over half of Scottish school leavers finish school without receiving a higher is nothing to be proud of, nor are the statistics on the extent of the attainment gaps that exist between geographical areas and socioeconomic groups, which were so brutally exposed in the Sunday Herald at the weekend.

I am very clear indeed that the evidence before us from those reports suggests that raising attainment is not all about money. If that were the case, we would be well ahead, because since 1999 we have doubled the amount of spending on schools, yet we have not seen comparable changes in attainment and, sadly, there has been little improvement in our performance according to international measurements. Although I believe that comparisons with other countries can be useful—and, in some cases, extremely useful—the most important measurement is often how much better we are doing against ourselves, and that is why we must be prepared to look at much more than just the efficiency of public spending on our schools.

I suggest that a combination of five things, if delivered together, will raise attainment levels among pupils—especially those in our most deprived communities who, for me, must be our priority. It is simply not acceptable to say that weaker local economies, or more disadvantaged communities, are necessarily an excuse for poor performance. Of course the challenge is greater—no one would deny that—but so, too, is the prize of being able to deliver better educational outcomes for those pupils.

Let us not be shy about telling the truth and being up front about what needs to be done. First, let us consider carefully not only the broad principles of the combined reports of Donaldson, Cameron and McCormac, but some of the small print too—because that is where some of the most important comments lie. They make it clear that, as well as increasing professional support for teachers, leadership in schools is crucial. I am talking not simply about the usual traditional concept of leadership, which most people think lies with the headteacher, but about leadership in our classrooms and among our pupils. The issue is competence—and confidence in that competence.

Let us not dismiss the concerns raised by Graham Donaldson when he said that too many young teachers have issues with literacy and numeracy, which has a major impact on their teaching abilities—even if many of them have many of the other talents that can help to make them outstanding teachers. The problem cannot be ignored, nor can the issue of literacy and numeracy at large, because it is nothing short of a disgrace that one in six pupils leaves school without being functionally literate. Although I think that there is genuine intent to tackle the problem, I still do not believe that we are doing enough to ensure that the best practice of teaching traditional methods, and testing accordingly, is more widespread—methods that in local authorities such as West Dunbartonshire and Clackmannanshire have produced better results, for weaker pupils just as much as for more able pupils.

Secondly, it is becoming patently clear that comprehensive education beyond S2 has failed. The one-size-fits-all approach is not working. It does not provide the flexibility and diversity that we need. Our system is too centralised and too overregulated. We need greater flexibility so that we can do much more to expand the vocational and technical training that this country so desperately needs.

There are more lessons to be learned from David Cameron’s review of devolved school management, particularly as he binds together the underlying philosophy of curriculum for excellence with the need to allow heads to have greater control over the provision that they make for their pupils. He points out that the curriculum for excellence is not compatible with the existing structure of school management. How much I agree with him on that point.