Hansard

I declare an interest as a member of the EIS. I was a teacher for 20 years, and I probably still am at heart. I always welcome the opportunity to be involved in a debate on education and I recognise its role in creating a stronger, fairer economy and in tackling inequality, releasing potential and offering an important means out of poverty.

I am sad to say that debates on education too often become a theoretical argument—an exchange of figures that can prove almost anything—and there has been an element of that today. We are at our best when our debates on education are rooted in the real world and the real-life experience of people across Scotland, and I urge the Scottish Government to reflect on Jim Scott’s report rather than try to find a way of explaining it away, because it has highlighted important issues.

As a young teacher, I taught non-certificate classes before standard grade came in. If a young person was in a non-certificate class, it basically meant that there was no course, there were no resources and there was no recognition of the effort that they made. With standard grades there came a recognition that every child is entitled to have a course and resources put behind them so that they can show what they have achieved. I would be concerned if we were moving away from that, and I urge the Scottish Government to look at that again.

There is an argument to be had about the benefits and merits of testing, but my concern is that the proposal will simply describe the situation without action then being taken to address what that situation tells us. We know that poverty and disadvantage are key issues in relation to attainment. If all that we are doing through testing is reflecting that, we are—to be frank—wasting our time.

The Scottish Government has announced its attainment grant fund, but I contend that any drive to close the attainment gap must be mainstreamed into our education policy. It is not an add-on or an extra; it should inform all our policy and budget choices. Again, I urge the Scottish Government to have the confidence to look at the choices that it has made in that context and, against the test of closing the attainment gap, to examine whether the things that it is spending money on in education will make the situation better or worse.

I will give an example. I would argue strongly that, if addressing the attainment gap had been at the heart of education policy, the further education sector would not have suffered the ruthless cuts and attacks that it has experienced from the Scottish Government. Early intervention is even more effective when parents are supported, and what is better than a parent taking a second chance at education or securing skills to get into work? The college sector has offered such opportunities in the past, but they are less likely to be there now.

Education in Scotland is relatively good at supporting and developing young people who are settled with supportive families and families who can step in and fill the gaps that cuts in school funds have left, but I also congratulate all those in schools who support young people who have greater challenges—perhaps because of barriers created by additional needs—not least the parents and young people in school communities where families face problems in their lives. We know that schools cannot just be buildings, teachers and jotters; they need to understand the needs of and pressures on young people and how current spending decisions have an impact on them.

We should be clear about the fact that there are pressures on young people from all kinds of families, not just those living in poverty. Bereavement, bullying, neglect and abuse are no respecters of person or class. They can happen to any child, and it is essential that schools are alive to the danger that young people who face those pressures will simply fall out of the system. We know, however, that poverty and disadvantage are key determinants in attainment and require a rigorous approach, not short-term initiatives that are not sustained.

If it is serious about its commitment on attainment, the Scottish Government must review its approach to the funding of local government—not just its approach to cuts in general but the lack of rigour in ensuring that education spending follows need. If a young person is vulnerable to falling out of the school system and is attending less, achieving less and becoming less engaged, action needs to be speedy and proactive, or it becomes too late and we live with the consequences of that for a generation. That is why I urge the cabinet secretary to enable schools to fund properly the attendance officers, support staff, learning support, behaviour support, classroom assistants, personal assistants, educational psychologists, home link staff and admin staff who allow a school to reach out to children who are vulnerable and not supported.

Those resources are not a bonus or an added extra; they are critical to supporting young people to come to school so that they can benefit from the learning that is on offer. In spotting problems, addressing challenges for families and addressing additional needs, there is an opportunity to give those young people the chance to learn. If those elements are stripped out, the consequences will be massive, but all the evidence suggests that that is exactly what is happening.

Through the years, Scottish education prided itself on developing inquiring minds that were open to new ideas and willing to scrutinise and test ideas and established views. That is the challenge for the Scottish Government now. It should not close down the debate on education or simply defend the choices that have been made. If it opens the debate up, we will be with it. We need to resource communities and local government properly so that we can genuinely address the attainment gap and secure the potential for our young people that education offers.