Meeting of the Parliament 25 February 2015
I, too, welcome this debate. As Stewart Maxwell rightly pointed out, the issue has occupied the time of the Education and Culture Committee recently, and I acknowledge Liz Smith’s track record on it—and indeed Iain Gray’s. In fact, I was reminded of a comment that Iain Gray made in the attainment debate last week when he accused us of “violently agreeing”. I think that we are at risk of doing something similar this afternoon.
I am certainly not going to accuse the Government of doing nothing, but I will focus on areas where we probably need to do more and to do better, in the light of the figures that Liz Smith cited and the evidence that various academic bodies have produced in recent times.
I start with the learned societies group report, which was published around the time of the science in the Parliament event last year. It raised serious concerns about spending on science in primary and secondary schools, an insufficiency of teaching expertise and an absence of data. It was not just a whinge. It made some reasonable and fairly achievable recommendations alongside those points.
The Government’s response to the report was in some senses rather disappointing. Rather than engaging with the issues, it sought to discredit the evidence by talking about small sample sizes when it could have undertaken to amplify the survey and get the data, provide the evidence and collect it on a regional basis in a whole host of areas, not least the qualifications of teachers. It could have committed to ensuring that, by 2020, every teacher has access to a science subject leader, and it could have looked again at training and CPD opportunities to improve skill levels. All the learned societies group’s recommendations were reasonable asks.
On vocational education—the focus of an amendment that I tabled and something that is picked up on in Iain Gray’s amendment—the Wood commission made a series of sensible recommendations. The delivery of industry-recognised qualifications alongside academic qualifications during the senior phase was seen as critically important, and that is a point that Malcolm Chisholm made in referring to the college sector. Sir Ian Wood emphasised the need not just to widen availability but to improve the quality of what is provided, and he concluded that STEM must be at the heart of the development of our young workforce.
I turn finally to the area of women in STEM, which is referred to in the Tory motion and which plays a prominent part in the NUS briefing for this afternoon’s debate. The “Tapping all our Talents” report, produced in June 2012, set out a stark reminder of the challenge that we face. The Royal Society of Edinburgh has pointed out that the number of female STEM graduates and postgraduates has increased, but that the numbers who proceed to take up senior positions in universities, research, business and industry remain proportionately much smaller than in the case of their male counterparts. The minister acknowledged that in his opening remarks, and I welcome that.
The RSE talks about wasted investment and the representation of a serious loss of potential for Scotland. It is calculated that around £2 billion could be wasted in the UK economy as a whole. That is not a new challenge, but it demands a response from the public, private and third sectors.
One of the recommendations in the “Tapping all our Talents” report relates to the Athena SWAN charter, supported by the scientific women’s academic network. The report recommends:
“The Scottish Government, through the Scottish Funding Council, should: expect its universities to develop a strategy within a two-year period to bring all their STEM departments up to the Athena SWAN Silver award, or equivalent, level; monitor their progress in achieving this ... and ensure that there is adequate funding for the programme to be developed.”
The then Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, welcomed the recommendations at the time. Almost three years on, it would be interesting to know from the minister what progress has been made in that regard.
Sir John Arbuthnott says:
“To be a smart economy, we need strength in STEM areas.”
That is why the issue matters and why we are violently agreed on our shared ambition, but it is also why the shortcomings identified by various academic and learned bodies must be addressed as a matter of urgency.
16:33