Hansard

I am pleased to speak on the Education (Scotland) Bill.

I put it on record that we have serious concerns about the bill, although we all want to do our best to ensure that no child is left behind in our education system and that every child, regardless of their background, is given an equal chance to fulfil their potential. That is one issue on which we can all agree—it is good to start on a positive note.

I thank the convener of the Education and Culture Committee, Stewart Maxwell, who did his best to gain consensus on the bill and, when that was not possible, ensured that the views of all members of the committee were stated in the stage 1 report.

We believe that significant amendments and further consultation—sometimes just initial consultation—are essential if we are to pass a meaningful and effective piece of legislation. I appreciate that the committee has already started that process. Paragraph 6 of the committee’s stage 1 report states:

“If consultation is not undertaken”

in advance of a bill’s publication,

“the Scottish Government should explain why this is the case.”

However, the Government’s response to the stage 1 report does not give reasons why consultation did not take place.

After so many years of this Parliament, it is unacceptable for the Government to introduce without consultation provisions in a bill stating that every local authority must have a director of education and that all teachers must register with the General Teaching Council for Scotland. There might be merit or there might be significant disadvantage in both those provisions—we really do not know, although we have heard some oral evidence on the issues.

Another issue, which Iain Gray referred to, is that the committee will have to take evidence on the national improvement framework—which is absolutely critical to the attainment debate—and on the standard of headship, after the committee has produced its report and the Government has responded to it.

The Government has to be absolutely clear about whether it is aiming to narrow or close the attainment gap. That is fundamental for clarity and in relation to what the Government expects local authorities to report on. The Government’s response did not talk about closing the gap, so I thought that that was fine and that we were getting clear. However, when Liz Smith asked a question on that earlier, the cabinet secretary responded by twice mentioning “closing” the gap. We all need to know whether the aim is to narrow the gap or to close it.

The inspection process in Scotland is far from perfect, with headteachers often having to second-guess what the inspectors are looking for. The bill is an opportunity to get clarity at the outset, which would benefit us all.

Under the bill, in terms of what they have to report on, local authorities are to have

“due regard to the desirability”

of reducing inequalities of outcome. We should not wonder why Keir Bloomer described the bill as

“pious thinking masquerading as law making.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 9 June 2015; c 20.]

I acknowledge the Government’s response, which states:

“The term ‘attainment’ denotes educational performance and the acquisition of the valuable skills, knowledge and attributes needed to succeed in life.”

An inspector coming into a school must try to get a measurement against that, but it is a little nebulous as a concept against which to measure success or failure.

As the committee rightly points out, the Government must ensure that there is a clear understanding of exactly what is required for local authorities and for teachers and headteachers, who, I have no doubt, all want to deliver the improvement that we are looking for.

The committee report also states:

“It would be in no one’s interests for reports simply to list policies and programmes that have been adopted.”

Even on the £100 million attainment funding, we are still looking for an outcome measure. In the Highlands and Islands, there are very few, if any, designated areas of multiple deprivation. That is why the figures say that 4 per cent of people who go to the University of the Highlands and Islands are from deprived backgrounds, but that is not the case. In a rural area, we have poverty next door to those with plenty.

If attainment money depends on measuring deprivation through the Scottish index of multiple deprivation, that does not work in remote and rural areas, so something more appropriate to rural areas needs to be found to identify children who need support, whatever background they are from, and to help with attainment.

We constantly hear that the early years are the most critical part of a child’s development. I read the Government’s response and I heard the point that the convener made about changes in early years provision at the moment, but let us not allow that to fall off the agenda. We know how critical it is.

Then we get to Gaelic. Despite 11 out of 26 sections of the bill being devoted to Gaelic, what we have is a process steeped in legislation about assessing the need for Gaelic and how to respond to parental requests. I must tell Dr Allan that I do not think that people will be dancing in the streets of Stornoway when they hear about that.