Hansard

Punxsutawney Phil is paraded every February to curious spectators. If he sees his own shadow, he retreats, and they are destined to more wintry gloom; if he does not, spring arrives and brings about a change in the air—and would that not be nice?

Groundhog day, however, is where it all goes very wrong: history repeats itself and there is nothing that anyone can do about it—it sounds like the plot of a movie. Mr Swinney is our very own Phil Connors, trapped in the endless gloom of this endless loop, and that sums up today’s debate.

I might be new to the education brief, but my goodness, have we not been talking about curriculum reform and systemic problems in education for quite some time in this Parliament? Iain Gray, Tavish Scott and Liz Smith, in debate after debate after debate, have been warning for years of concerns from the teaching profession—chiefly, that Education Scotland and the SQA are not just the by-product of politically misguided judgments but, on occasion, the cause of them. If people do not believe me, they should ask the hundreds of people who protested outside this very Parliament last summer when the exams fiasco saw their grades marked down and a system that was designed to do right by them did anything but that.

The OECD’s most recent review of the curriculum for excellence, which was in 2015, raised serious concerns about the complexity of the system’s layers and dimensions and asked existential questions about the CFE’s comprehensibility.

In 2017, the Parliament called for Education Scotland’s inspection and policy functions to be separated. What came of that? Nothing. In 2019, the Education and Skills Committee raised more serious concerns about Education Scotland’s role and highlighted gaps in its knowledge about the challenges that our schools face and about the curriculum’s implementation. The system was designed to offer schools choice, flexibility and freedom, but it was often misunderstood and resulted in delivery that was so variable that equity and fairness were far from being its defining principles.

As for last year, where do we start? We cannot hide the shared frustration of MSPs across the spectrum at the SQA’s sheer arrogance and its approach to last year’s exams fiasco. The SQA said, “We did only what we were asked to do.” I asked the SQA for an outright apology to Scotland’s young people, but no such apology was offered.

It takes guts to admit that the system might have faults, and I give Mr Swinney credit for commissioning a second review in 2019. Its remit was expanded to cover a full review of the broad general education. What happened when the issue was voted on in Parliament? The Government resisted—of course it did—but it was defeated, thankfully, as has been the case on many education issues in this parliamentary session. That is because education is one of the unusual things that unite Opposition parties, especially when there is a minority Government.

The current OECD report is vital because it will do two things. First, it will shine a light on faultlines in our education system. We all know that reform is not possible if we do not know what we are reforming or why. Secondly, it should allow the public to decide for themselves whether the Government’s track record in education means that the Government is worthy of another five years.

Here is the problem, folks. The first of those objectives must scare the daylights out of the Government. As for the second issue, we will not know about the report until days after the public have cast their ballots. The cabinet secretary can call me a cynic, but I think that that reeks. That is why my amendment is crucial. I ask colleagues again to send the strong message to the Government that we will not be having it.

If the cabinet secretary wants to be judged on his record, he is being handed on a big silver platter a report that I have no doubt will extol the virtues of his track record. However, given the First Minister’s woeful response at First Minister’s question time today that fudged the reasons why she wants to bury the report until after the election, how can the Parliament have confidence in her sincerity?

Was Keir Bloomer wrong to assert that the Government has stage managed the situation to prevent the OECD from finding out the education community’s opinion? Why would he make that stuff up? The cabinet secretary referred to that on the radio this morning. What would Keir Bloomer gain from doing that? [Interruption.] I am happy to give way if I can get another minute for my speech—but I see that I cannot.

Let us not beat about the bush. Parents, teachers and pupils will see right through the Government’s lamentable attempts to cover up its scorecard. The Government is doing that because it knows one thing only—that the report will shine a light on 14 years of failure to listen and to act.

I move amendment S5M-24137.1, to insert at end:

“, and, given the urgency of the matter and limited opportunity for scrutiny, and in the spirit of full transparency, calls on the Scottish Government to immediately release any findings already reportedly delivered to the Scottish Ministers by the OECD.”